Tag Archives: glory

JOHN 13

JOHN 13

We could think of the gospel of John as consisting of a prologue, a series of monologues and dialogues, and an epilogue, twice over, as follows:

(i) The first prologue

John 1:1-18
The way in which the Son has declared the Father.

(ii) The first series of monologues and dialogues

John 1:19-12:43

The ways in which men reacted to the Son.

(iii) The first epilogue

John 12:44-50
The Son surveys and summarises the truths He has set forth in the world regarding His Sonship.

(iv) The second prologue

John 13:1
The context in which the Son met with His own in the Upper Room.

(v) The second series of monologues and dialogues Part 1

John 13:2-17:26
Preparing His disciples for His departure and the Spirit’s arrival.

(vi) The second series of monologues and dialogues Part 2

John 18:1-20:31
The way in which He departed out of this world.

(vii) Second epilogue

John 21:1-25
Having told us that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, 20:31, John now tells us He is Lord.

Setting of the chapter
Chapters 13 to 17 of John’s Gospel are often called “Upper Room Ministry”, but it should be remembered that only the events of chapters 13 and 14 took place in the upper room. In 14:31 the Lord said, “Arise, let us go hence”, so He and His disciples presumably left the upper room at this point, (although some think that this was just a signal to the disciples to be ready to depart, and they did not do so until the end of chapter 16).

In chapters 15 and 16 further ministry is given, but we are not told whether it was while they were still in the upper room, or elsewhere. It may have been as they made their way down the outside stairway from the upper room, with a vine trained over the walls of the house, prompting that part of the discourse about Christ being the true vine. One can visualise the Lord standing at the foot of the stairs, with the eleven remaining apostles ranged up them as the Lord points out various features of the vine, and relates them to Himself and His people.

Chapter 17 records the prayer of the Lord Jesus, and again we are not told where it was uttered, but we do know that it was not in Gethsemane, because John 18:1 says, “When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples”. The next verse tells us that this garden, that John does not name, was often resorted to by Christ with His disciples, which is why Judas knew where to find Him. Luke does not name the garden either, but he does call it “the place”, as if it was well-known to the disciples, which indeed it was, “for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples”, John 18:2.

In Chapter 12 we find principles relating to both Israel and the Gentiles during the time of Christ’s absence.

In Chapters 13 and 14 we find principles to guide believers in their assembly life.

In Chapters 15 and 16 there are principles that guide believers as they live in the world.

In Chapter 17 we gain insight into the present heavenly ministry of Christ for His own as He “ever liveth to make intercession for them”, Hebrews 7:25.

In John 1:11 we read that the Lord Jesus “came unto His own, and His own received Him not”. His own in the second mention are His own people, the nation of Israel. Sadly, however, as the verse says, they did not welcome Him nationally as their Messiah. So it is that the next verse speaks of those individuals who did receive Him, for they believed on His name, and were born of God. They were therefore in a fit state to say with John, “and we beheld his glory”, verse 14. It was God’s purpose to show the glories of His Son to those to whom He gave the capacity to appreciate it. Once John has described to us those who have eternal life through the new birth, and who can therefore see the glories of the Son of God, he can begin to describe the ways in which that glory was displayed.

In John 13:1 John describes this company of believers as “His own”, so they have replaced the nation. In chapter 12:36 a very solemn thing had happened, for we read, “These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them”. This no doubt refers to the day before the beginning of the passover, of which we are told nothing by the gospel writers. The nation is given a foretaste, by this temporary hiding, of the long period of two thousand years when He will be hidden from the nation, until the unveiling when He comes to earth to reign. He is not hidden from His new company of His own, however, for He graciously makes His presence known amongst them.

It is very probable that the Lord’s Supper was instituted in between 13:30 and 31. If this is the case, then we could think of chapter 13:1-30 as giving us help as we prepare to eat the Supper. John first of all gives us details about the Lord Jesus in a prologue, such as His departure out of the world by way of Calvary; His love for His own; the betrayal by Judas; the competence of Christ as one the Father entrusts with His affairs; His pre-existence, (“from God”), and His return to the Father, (“to God”), with everything accomplished; all these matters are brought before our minds by the apostle so that we may intelligently remember the Lord.

Then secondly, the desire of the Lord to be with His own is evident as He meets with them in the Upper Room. Our coming together should be out of love to Him, and not because of habit, or for the sake of appearances. It is noticeable that John speaks of Christ’s love “unto the end”, and then Judas’ heart, full of bitterness and hatred until he achieved his, (and the Devil’s) end.

Thirdly, John deals with the matter of defilement, and shows that as we come to eat the Lord’s Supper we should do so with undefiled feet. We should beware of eating and drinking unworthily, 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. The inadvertent defilement that we contract day by day simply by passing through this world must be dealt with by the application of the word of God.

Fourthly, we are warned about disloyalty as the Lord Jesus foretells the betrayal by Judas. The apostle Paul reminded the Corinthians that is was “the night he was betrayed” that the Lord instituted the Supper. They, and we, should beware of being disloyal to the one who has done so much for us.

Fifthly, we are told of the desire for discernment, as Peter asks John to enquire who the betrayer was. It is good to have a desire to not betray the Lord, but rather, to do those things that are true to His cause.

It is to those who seek discernment, that disclosure is given, but only to those who, like John, are close to the Lord, and who love Him deeply.

Finally, and seventhly, the Lord speaks of being glorified, and we are beyond the Supper, rejoicing in those glories that have come to Him following His departure, and expecting His return, for it is then that we shall follow Him to heaven. So it is that we show the Lord’s death “till he come”, 1 Corinthians 11:26.

Structure of the chapter

(a)	Verses 1-3	John’s Prologue
(b)	Verses 4-5	Christ’s Procedure
(c)	Verses 6-9	Peter’s Protest
(d)	Verses 10-17	Believer’s Prototype
(e)	Verses 18-19	Christ’s Prophecy
(f)	Verses 20-30	Judas’ Perfidy
(g)	Verses 31-35	Disciple’s Practice
(h)	Verses 36-38	Peter’s Pathway

(a) Verses 1-3
John’s Prologue

John begins three of his writings, (this gospel, his first epistle and the book of Revelation), with a prologue which prepares us for the following content. Here, however, he gives another prologue to make the distinction between the first twelve chapters and what follows. In chapters 1 to 12 Christ presents Himself to the world as the Son of God come out from the Father. In chapters 13 to 17 He presents Himself as the one who is going back to the Father. This change merits an extra prologue to draw attention to it.

Verse one and verses two to four have the same structure. There is a reference to time, then a reference to the Lord’s knowledge, then a reference to Christ’s care. These references are firstly general, then more specific. We could set it out as follows:

Verse 1: General

Period	Before the Feast of the Passover
Perception	When Jesus knew that His hour was come
Provision	Having loved His own…loved them to the end

Verses 2-4: Specific

Period	Supper being ended…now put into the heart
Perception	Knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands
Provision	He riseth from supper…wash the disciples’ feet

13:1
Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

Special note on the different meanings of the word passover
It is used of the passover event: “I will pass over you”, Exodus 12:13.

It is used of the passover animal: “Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover”, Exodus 12:21. “And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover”, Mark 14:12.

It is used of the fourteenth day: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord”, Numbers 28:16.

It is used of the feast of unleavened bread which followed the fourteenth day: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”, Luke 22:1.

It is used of the peace offerings that were eaten during the feast of unleavened bread: “they themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover”, John 18:28. The priests refused to enter Pilate’s residence because they did not wish to enter a house where there would be leaven, and this would defile them so that they could not eat the other sacrifices associated with the passover, (known as the “chagigah” or peace offering), during the days of unleavened bread. This was in two parts, the first at the passover supper, and the second on the next day. They had eaten the passover supper and the first chagigah the night before, and they would eat the rest of the chagigah the day of the crucifixion, hence their concern lest they be defiled.

It is used of Christ personally: “For even Christ our passover was sacrificed for us”, 1 Corinthians 5:7.

Special note on the timing of the passover
Certain things should be borne in mind in connection with the passover:
1. The Passover lamb was to be killed on the fourteenth day of the first month of the religious year, Exodus 12:2,6.

2. The expression “in the evening” relates to a period of about three hours in late afternoon. The evening began when the sun started to decline, at about 3pm, and it finished when three stars were visible in the sky, at about 6pm in April. That three-hour period was the evening of the current day.

2. It was to be killed “in the evening”. This could read literally, “between the two evenings”. This does not mean “between the evening of one day and the evening of the next day”, as if there were twenty four hours in which to kill the passover lamb. (Mr Newberry’s reference to Leviticus 23:32 is misleading. The subject there is the Day of Atonement, which was to be kept as a twenty-four hour period of rest, from 6pm in the evening prior to the ceremony, until 6pm on the actual Day. So the two evenings in that passage relate to different days).

So the passover lamb was to be killed between 3 and 6 pm on the fourteenth day of the first month, and eaten that night. In other words, eaten after 6pm. The Jews said that it should be eaten before midnight, no doubt in reference to the fact that the firstborn in Egypt were slain at that time, the signal for Israel to move out. Added to this is the fact that they were not to leave anything of the lamb until the morning, and were to eat it in haste.

3. There are those who think that it was necessary for Christ to die at the time when the passover lambs were being killed in the temple, since He is “Christ our passover”, 1 Corinthians 5:7. But He is also the propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2:2, and therefore, on that reasoning, He ought to have died on the Day of Atonement.

To bring about His death on the fourteenth day of the month, these men want to say that the Lord ate the passover meal a day early. But the problem is that there was no provision by God for the slaying of the lamb early, and the Lord definitely ate the passover, Luke 22:15. The disciples, when they asked where the Lord wished to eat the passover, give no hint that it was being done a day early. In any case, how would their passover lamb be scrutinised by the priest if it was the day before the passover rituals started in the temple, and how would that lamb have been laid up for four days if it was killed a day early?

The four gospel writers all record events in the upper room, but the only two matters which John has in common with them, (apart from the fact that the disciples were present), are the prophecy of the betrayal by Judas, and the prophecy that Peter would deny his Lord. It is impossible that these two prophecies could be given on two different nights, (or else the disciples would not ask who the betrayer was on the second night, for they would know), so we must conclude that the supper of John 13 is the same supper as in the upper-room accounts in the other gospels.

4. We should remember that the fourteenth day of the first month could be on any day of the week, depending on what year it was. We should also remember that the Lord rose again on the third day, meaning what we call Sunday. According to His own prophecy, He would be in the heart of the earth, (that is, His soul would be in sheol), for three days and three nights.

Nowadays we would immediately think that three days of 12 hours each and three nights of 12 hours each is in view, making 72 hours. But the Jews reckoned part of a day to be a whole of a day. So if Christ died on Thursday afternoon at just after 3pm, (for He died just after the ninth hour, the Jewish day being reckoned from 6am, Matthew 27:46), then the remaining period until 6pm when the day ended would be reckoned as one day. The nights and days of Friday and Saturday would be two more nights and days, (remembering that the night comes first in Jewish reckoning), making a total up to that point of three days and two nights. That makes the night of the first day of the week, (which we would call the night of Saturday), the third night.

Now before the feast of the passover- we should distinguish between the feast of the passover, meaning the whole festival as ordained by God in Leviticus 23:4-8, and the passover supper, (which was not called a feast), which was to be eaten on the 14^th day of Nisan in the evening. There are two words used for feast in the Old Testament in connection with the passover. One word means a festival, Exodus 12:14; 34:25. The other means an appointed meeting. So neither of these words denotes a feast in the sense of a banquet.

John links his gospel with the Old Testament by means of references and comparisons with the history of Israel. He structures the gospel around the first and the last festivals of their religious year. He mentions three of the four passovers during the Lord’s ministry, in chapters two, six, and here. The feast of chapter 5 was not said to be the passover, for John emphasises there the fact that it was the sabbath day, the weekly festival for Israel, and mentioned first in Leviticus 23. It was most likely a passover, however, for the ministry of the Lord Jesus cannot be fitted into just two and a half years.

There were four things associated with the passover. First, the idea of a new beginning as a people, for in Exodus we find the first mention of the expression “congregation of Israel”, for the passover and the giving of the law would form them into a nation. This corresponds to the first passover in John, when the Lord spoke to Nicodemus about the need to be born again, for being of the nation by natural birth did not put anyone in the Kingdom of God. He, and they, needed a new beginning.

The second passover was the occasion of the Lord enabling a man to walk, reminding us that after the original passover the people of Israel became pilgrims. There is a new pilgrimage, this time to heaven.

The third passover is in John 6, the chapter that speaks of the flesh of Christ as “flesh indeed”, John 6:55. The people ate the flesh of the lamb on passover night, and were thus strengthened for the journey through the wilderness. The Lord announces a new provision, to strengthen believers on the pilgrimage to heaven.

The fourth mention is in our verse, and in the subsequent chapters a new prospect opens out to the disciples, as the Lord speaks of going away to His Father, and of them being on that way too. They find they have new prospects as pilgrims on their way to the heavenly Canaan. Of course this passover is going to be different to the others, for it is when the true passover Lamb will be sacrificed. He will then have His personal exodus from this world, (spoken of on the Mount of Transfiguration, Luke 9:31), to introduce His people to heavenly things.

When Jesus knew that his hour was come- we are given here a general statement about the Lord’s insight into the future. John is telling us that before the events of the feast of the passover unfolded, the Lord knew that this was His critical time. The apostle is not saying that this insight was given to Him at some particular moment just before the passover, but that it was His knowledge all along, and the events of the passover period were not needed to tell Him it was so. So the sense is that “even before the passover events began, and He was arrested, tried and executed, He knew that His hour was come”. So “when Jesus knew” is a description of the whole period leading up to the passover.

So “before the feast of the passover” tells us nothing about when the events of chapters 13 and 14 took place, for we know that from the other gospels. It does not pinpoint a particular moment. The word for “know” here is not the one that means to get to know, but the one which indicates spiritual insight. It is a participle perfect, which indicates that He did know and continued to know. So it is not that the Lord suddenly discovers that the critical moment has come. Nor is it Barabbas betraying Him that tells Him His hour is come. Rather, it is His constant awareness of the will of the Father that enables it to be said that He knows. He would have wakened that morning to converse with His Father, and would listen as the learned one, not as an ignorant one, Isaiah 50:4. He heard as a learned one, and therefore could speak as a learned one. They would speak together as equals, for He was privy to the ongoing Divine conversation, of which we gain a little insight from Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:6,7. He could say, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father”, John 8:37, which means that He had perfect insight into the mind of His Father, and spoke to men accordingly. He did not modify the insights in any way, for He could also say, “And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak”, John 12:50. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Lord Jesus was fully aware of the situation, and knew full well that the time of His departure from this world by way of death and resurrection was approaching. All believers depart from this world by death, but they do not have an immediate resurrection to enable them to be with Christ in heaven, for their spirits depart, and their body is buried, awaiting His coming. With Christ it is different, for He will die, will rise, and then ascend to His Father.

There are seven references to “the hour” throughout John’s gospel, as follows:

1. In 2:4, we have the Lord’s words to Mary His mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee, mine hour is not yet come”. In other words, spiritual relationships are more important than natural ones, and those spiritual relationships can only come after His death, so that they can be firmly rooted in His resurrection, and sealed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2. In 7:30 the hostility of the Jews is in evidence, and John assures us that “no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come”. He would die at the appointed time and in the appointed way, and by killing Him His enemies would show they rejected that He came from the Father.

3. In 8:20 the point is that the authorities will show they know not the Father.

4. In 12:23 we read the Lord said, in response to information that Greeks wished to see Him, “The hour is come, that the Son of Man should be glorified”. The thought of Gentiles being blessed causes Christ to think of what must lie between, even His death and resurrection, the means by which those Gentiles will be saved. It was when He spoke of sheep that were not of the Jewish fold, that He spoke not just of laying down His life, but taking it again, John 10:16,17. Because He is Son of man He is relevant to Greeks as well as Jews, for that title associates Him with all men, just as the title “Son of God” tells of His eternal link with the Father as His equal.

5. In verse 27 of that same chapter, the Lord is troubled by the thought of “the hour”, showing us that it is not a period He will pass through casually, but it will involve deep suffering for Him. He will not turn aside from the hour, because that is what He came from heaven to pass through.

6. The emphasis in the verse we are considering, however, is that it includes His return to the Father, thus being similar to Luke’s expression “when the time was come that he should be received up”, Luke 9:51.

7. In 17:1, when He refers to it in His prayer to His Father, He links it with a request for glory. So what happens during the hour will be His claim to glory, as well as being the enduring of suffering. Being eternal in His nature, the Son of God is able to compress so much into an “hour”; not, indeed, of sixty minutes, but a critical period of time.

That he should depart out of this world unto the Father- just as the nation of Israel had been delivered from Egypt, and called by God to journey to Canaan, so Christ, the true Israel, is about to make His journey to heaven. Unlike the nation, however, which took forty years because of their unbelief, for Him it will be “straitway” that He is glorified, as He will say in 13:32. So His passover was at Calvary, and His exodus was His resurrection and subsequent ascension. Just after He was born, the child Jesus was taken into Egypt, and then returned to Israel. Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. The son in question there being the nation of Israel, but Matthew refers it to Christ. So He showed solidarity with the nation in His experience even as a babe. As He departed out of this world via resurrection and ascension, He had another exodus, and now the people are invited to show solidarity with Him. Peter emphasised Christ’s resurrection and ascension in his first address to the nation after they had crucified their Messiah, thus giving them opportunity to side with Him.

Note the dignified way in which He will go. He will depart of His own will. Men would indeed cast Him out, but He only went at His pace, and at His time. He taught in the temple treasury area after the feast of tabernacles was over. But that was where the council room of the Sanhedrin was situated, where they plotted and schemed to rid themselves of Him. But it was there where He said, “I go my way”, John 8:21.

He would depart to the Father, and in so doing would ascend to our God and Father too, 20:17. He will take His people to be where He is, eventually, but meanwhile they must learn to tread the heavenly pathway down here, as He did. He used the word for ascend which is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used of the burnt offering as the ascending offering, with the sweet savour of the burning arising to heaven. So Christ will ascend to heaven with all the sweet savour of His sacrifice at Calvary upon Him, and will also rise in virtue of that sweet savour.

He would later on describe His mission with the words, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father”, John 16:28. In fact, that verse summarises John’s gospel, with the first twelve chapters telling of His coming into the world from the Father, and then from chapter 13 onwards His return to the Father via the cross. The one who sent Him was pleased to receive Him back, not as the prodigal’s father did, after a time of anxiety and shame, but in the fulness of His love and approval.

Having loved his own which were in the world- those He has gathered around Him from the nation are now designated His own, for He had to leave the nation in its unbelief. His disciples are so separated to Himself that they can be described as being in the world, not of Israel. This is a phrase the apostle Paul uses in Ephesians 2:12 to describe the far-off Gentiles, who had no claim on the covenants God made with Israel. Here John uses it of Jews who have become Christ’s own, and they have saved themselves from the perverse generation that will crucify Christ, see Acts 2:40. As such they are physically in the world, but had been given to Christ by the Father “out of the world”, 17:6. He had been sent into the world, and soon they would be also, John 17:18, 20:21.

He loved them unto the end- He declares in 15:9 that He had loved them as His Father loved Him, such was the intensity and character of His love. The word translated “end” is derived from a Greek verb meaning “to set out for a definite goal”. It is “the point aimed at as a limit, or the conclusion of an act or state, or the result or purpose”, (Strong’s Concordance). Note that it is “unto” the end, not “until” the end, as if the reference is to a period of time. The thought is of the intensity and purpose of His love. So the love wherewith He loved them before the cross is strong enough to take Him through the experience of Calvary, and therefore strong enough to bring His own to the goal God has in mind for them in the future; He loved them unto that end. The “many waters” could not quench His love, Song of Solomon 8:7.

He went to the cross to die so as to sever them from their sins; He ascended to heaven to join them to Himself and His Father. All the while He was accomplishing these things He was loving them with Divine love. He “loved the church and gave himself for it”, Ephesians 5:25, and He loves it still, for He “nourisheth and cherisheth it”, as a loving husband does .

How sad it is that soon those disciples will test His love, as they have tested it before. Their every mistake and misunderstanding had come to light during His ministry, yet He loved them to the end. Their slowness of heart to believe would cause Him grief, but still He loved them. Peter would soon deny Him, but He still loved him; all the disciples would forsake Him and flee, but still He loved them. We know this is true because He subsequently went to the cross for them.

13:2
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;

And supper being ended- there were two suppers in the upper room that night. The first, at which Judas was present, and the second, the Lord’s Supper at its institution, after Judas had gone out. (That Judas was not present at the Lord’s Supper is seen in the fact that the Lord said of the cup “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”, Matthew 26:29. Judas will not be in the kingdom, so is not included in the “with you” of that statement).

The apostle Paul referred to two suppers when he wrote that “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped”, 1 Corinthians 11:25. This does not mean “after He had drunk of the cup”, or else we could expect to be told that He handed them the bread “after He had eaten”. The correct sense is learned from Luke’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, when he writes, “Likewise the cup after supper…”, Luke 22:20. So He supped at the passover meal, and then instituted the Lord’s Supper. “To sup” means “to have a meal”, not “to have a drink”.

So to return to our verse, “supper being ended” means that the passover supper was finished, not just in terms of the eating of it that night, but also as far as the disciples were concerned for the whole of the ensuing age. They would no longer need to keep the memorial of the slain lamb in Egypt, because they would be in the good of what “Christ our passover” did, when He was “sacrificed for us”, 1 Corinthians 5:7.

There are some who wish to read this verse “and supper being come”, but this is a mistake. The Received Text uses “genomenou”, meaning “having taken place”, and this is how the majority of manuscripts read the words. The alternative rendering “ginomenou” meaning “taking place”, is from those manuscripts such as the Siniaticus and Vaticanus that display corruption and depravity, and are not to be trusted. They cannot even agree amongst themselves. Sadly, they are the manuscripts that modern translators favour.

The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him- he is given his full name here, as if to formally and officially identify him as the traitor. For four thousand years the Devil had sought to prevent the birth of Christ by attacking the line of the Messiah. After He had been born he sought to destroy Him by various means. So it seems strange at first to realise that the Devil now seems to be furthering His death, especially as that death will result in his own overthrow, Hebrews 2:14; John 12:31. But we understand that all is under God’s control, and He is allowing the Devil to display his hatred so that his character might be fully shown. It is true that the betrayal by Judas was that which started the process which culminated in Christ’s crucifixion, but He was in fact delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Acts 2:23. All is under Divine control. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Christ chose Judas to be an apostle after a night of prayer to God, Luke 6:12-16. We may be sure, then, then Judas’ presence amongst the apostles was not a mistake. The Lord was well aware of his character, saying, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil”, John 6:70. And John explains, “He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve”, verse 71.

There are several things that could have combined to turn Judas from an apostle to a betrayer. We know that he was a thief, John 12:6, and had charge of the finances of the apostolic band, (“the bag”), so there was an element of covetousness. We know that after Mary had poured her costly ointment on Christ, Judas went immediately out to the chief priests and said, “What will ye give me”, Matthew 26:14. So love of money contributed to his downfall, as it has to many others.

Perhaps he thought that just as the Lord had evaded the hostility of the crowds on other occasions, He would do so again, and escape crucifixion, and then Judas could disappear with the money; not only what was in “the bag”, but the thirty pieces of silver also. It was only when Judas saw that the authorities had condemned the Lord, and had sent Him, bound, to Pontius Pilate, that he went and hanged himself, Matthew 27:2,3.

Another element in his treachery may have been disillusionment with the Lord over His refusal to claim His rights. Was Judas of the tribe of Judah, the kingly tribe? The names are the same. Was he a royalist, eagerly expecting the Lion of the tribe of Judah to accept the sceptre? See Genesis 49:10. It is interesting to note that the Lord calls him a devil in the same chapter in which He had refused to be made king by the will of the people, John 6:70,15.

When the Lord calls Judas a devil He does not mean that he is not a man. (After all, the Lord called Peter “Satan”, since he was doing the Devil’s work for him, Matthew 16:23). Rather, it is that even at that point in time, twelve months before the crucifixion, he is being influenced by Satan just as the devils are.

There were several ways in which the apostle Paul could have described the time at which the Lord’s Supper was instituted, but he was inspired to write, “the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread”, 1 Corinthians 11:23. Thus there is a solemn reminder of the circumstances in which the Lord instituted the supper, and a caution for the Corinthians to not betray the Lord’s interests as they were in danger of doing. The Corinthians would do well to consider whether their behaviour was not, in fact, to some degree a betrayal of the Lord Jesus.

The betrayal was the basest act of disloyalty that has ever been committed, yet in such circumstances the Lord Jesus was not thinking of His own welfare, but the spiritual welfare of His own. All the disciples questioned the Lord as to whether they were the betrayer, Matthew 26:21,22. How solemn to remember that in the heart of each believer is the potential to be disloyal!

13:3
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands- this indicates that all that the Lord Jesus would do and say in the upper room was, as ever, in the exercise of His firstborn role. He is not only the Only begotten Son of God, equal with Him, unique and alone as to His person, but He is Firstborn Son too, charged with the task of acting for the Father’s interests and those of His own. The firstborn son in a family had a prophetic, priestly and kingly function. As prophet, he unfolded the mind of the father to the rest of the family. As priest, he introduced the family into the presence of the father, and as king, he exercised authority in the family on behalf of the father. It is easy to see how that the Lord Jesus fulfils these duties in relation to the family of God. In the consciousness of His insight into His Father’s will, He acts in the upper room for the sake of the interests of the Father, and the interests of the family.

We should remember that the ones who were especially at risk on the original passover night were the firstborn sons of all in Egypt, whether Egyptian or Israelite. At midnight those firstborn sons who were not sheltered by the blood of the passover lamb were slain. Those who were sheltered, were preserved, for God passed over their houses, protecting them from the destroying angel. In the case of Israel, the passover lamb and the firstborn were different. In our case, God’s Firstborn is also our passover lamb, for we read that we have been “translated into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”, Colossians 1:13,14,15.

On the other hand, God did call the nation His Firstborn, Exodus 4:22, so they had a responsibility to represent God to the other nations, but they miserably failed, and Christ, God’s firstborn, needs to step in. Perhaps this is one reason why He is called Israel in Isaiah 49:3.

And that he was come from God, and went to God- He was on earth to do the will of God, having come from God for that very purpose. His attitude of heart is expressed in His words, “Lo, I come to do thy will O God”, Hebrews 10:9. That He did accomplish the will of God is seen in the fact that He has sat down on the right hand of God, Hebrews 10:12. The God who sent Him has received Him back with honour. The psalmist spoke of the sun, “which rejoiceth as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a young man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof”, Psalm 19:5,6. So it was with the Son of God, coming out of the chamber of the Father’s house, rejoicing to engage in energetic movements on earth, and not only coming out, but going back to where He began, with the warmth of His love diffusing everywhere.

He is the only one who can be conscious of coming from heaven and from God. We did not come from heaven to earth at our conception, but He was aware of having done so, for He can speak of things that pertained in heaven. Moses was sent by God to the people of Israel as they slaved in Egypt, and he led them out to their rightful earthly land. Christ came from heaven, and leads His people into heavenly things.

Special note about conditions in eternity

It was in the sphere of Divine harmony: Philippians 2:3-5
There was no rivalry, pride, or selfishness between Divine persons in eternity. The exhortation of the apostle to the Philippians believers is that they should be like this, and they will be if they have the mind of Christ.

It was the sphere of Divine Love: John 17:24
The Lord Jesus could say, “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. God is love, but love must have an object to be meaningful. So the Son is eternal, since God is love eternally. If love may be defined as “the expression of an attraction”, then there must have been someone to attract God in eternity, and there was, even His Beloved Son.

It was the sphere of Divine glory: John 17:5
The Lord Jesus requested that He might be given the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. When He was in eternity with His Father before the world was created, He had the glory that is suited to the Son of God, who is equal with the Father. The world did not recognise that glory when He came to earth, and instead of showering Him with glory, they showered Him with stones because He claimed equality with God. It is not that He had lost the right to the glory or set it aside by coming into manhood, but rather, He is asking that the same glory that He had before He became man, (which was the glory of the recognition of His equal status with the Persons of the Godhead), He may have as a risen ascended man in heaven.

It was the sphere of Divine Purpose: Acts 2:23
The nation of Israel thought they had control at the crucifixion of Christ, arresting Him, trying Him, condemning Him, delivering Him to the Gentiles to execute, but the apostle declares that it was God who was in control, for He was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”. He was the Lamb “foreordained before the foundation of the world”, 1 Peter 1:20.

It was the sphere of Divine Choice: Ephesians 1:3
Believers have been blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and some of those blessings are listed in Ephesians 1. They are all in Christ, as a reading of the chapter will show. The first of the blessings listed is that of being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. So in eternity the person of the Son of God was before God as the one through whom all blessings would come. God’s choice of His people was conditioned by what His Son meant to Him in eternity, and what He would mean to Him on earth. In this way, the blessing is eternally secure, for it does not depend on us, but on Him, and has done so for all eternity.

It was the sphere of Divine power: Romans 1:19,20
When God willed to create all things at the beginning, He did so with eternal power. It had always been there, but He chose when to exercise it in this way. This assures that there has never been, and will never be, any lack of power with God, for He is eternally powerful. No force of evil can ever overthrow His plans.

It was the sphere of Divine communion: 1 John 1:1-4
The apostle John and his fellow apostles had the great privilege of companying with the Son of God when He was here. He was eternal life personified, and from being with the Father, He had come to display the outworking of that life amongst men, and also to bestow that same eternal life on those who believe in Him. Those who have eternal life are enabled to get to know the Father and the Son, John 17:3. Divine persons fully know one another, and the believer is able to progress in that knowledge. As far as the apostle is concerned, this is the secret of full joy. Nothing can surpass the joy that believers have when they share with one another that which the Father enjoys about His Son.

Special note on the feet-washing incident
There are several levels of meaning in this passage, as follows:

1. It is a wonderful display of humility on the part of Christ, which mirrors the great stoop He took from heaven to earth, for He who is in the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant, Philippians 2:6,7.

2. As a physical action, the washing of the feet was designed to impress upon the disciples that they must allow the Lord to have His way. He commended them for calling Him Lord and Master, verse 13. They must suit their actions to their words and allow Him to determine what will happen. This is why Judas’ feet would have been washed, (for we read, “after he had washed their feet”, verse 12), for he had been chosen to be an apostle, and this involved subjection to Christ’s will.

3. The foot-washing was one of the last ways in which the Lord sought to dissuade Judas from being the betrayer. The psalmist had spoken of him as Messiah’s “own familiar friend”, Psalm 41:9, and that they had “walked unto the house of God in company”, Psalm 55:14. He would soon leave the upper room, formally renouncing his apostleship, but before he does this, the Lord will make final efforts to rescue him from his mad career, even to the extent of washing the heel that would be lifted up against Him, verse 18. By washing Judas’ feet, the Lord was giving him a further opportunity to change his mind and draw back from being the betrayer.

4. The washing of only the feet of the disciples began a conversation in which the Lord explained the difference between being washed all over, and washing just part of the body, with its implications doctrinally.

5. There is the need for the individual believer to wash his own feet, verse 10, so that the unintended defilement of the world is not brought in to spoil the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

6. There is also need for believers to wash one another’s feet, so that the water of the word of God may do its cleansing work in our lives.

7. We are to do “as” He has done, not “what” He has done, so the act of humility performed by the Lord is an example to all believers, verse 15. We should be prepared to serve one another, but not necessarily by physically washing feet.

(b) Verses 4-5
Christ’s Procedure

13:4
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

He riseth from supper- having built up a picture for us of what was on the Lord’s mind, John now tells us how He acted. We have been told that the passover supper was ended. This was true not only in the literal sense, but also the figurative, for the Lord’s Supper, soon to be instituted, will occupy the disciples during the present age until the Lord comes. In preparation for that Supper, however, there must be cleansing. The apostle Paul warned about eating that Supper unworthily, and one of the ways we might do that is to do it with “unwashed feet”; in other words, with the defilement of the world upon us.

John does not tell us about the Lord’s Supper, no doubt to avoid any confusion with John 6:53-57, and the idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man. That is the Lord’s Table, and should not be confused with the Lord’s Supper. The nation of Israel asked “Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?”, Psalm 78:19. The answer was in the positive, for He gave them bread in the form of the manna, and flesh as the quails came. David also knew the Lord’s table, for he could sing, “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies”, Psalm 23:5. Just as a shepherd ensures that his sheep have “green pastures”, verse 2, so God, as David’s shepherd, made sure David’s soul was restored with spiritual food. We too may feed on who and what Christ is at all times, and in eternity as well.

And laid aside his garments- by this is meant His outer garments of course, so that He alters from being a joyous celebrant of the passover supper, to the lowly slave, ministering to the needs of the guests. He has not changed as to His person, (so has not “laid aside His glory” as some speak), but has changed as to His ministry. Far from dispensing with His glory when He became man, we read He manifested it forth, John 2:11, and His apostles saw it, John 1:14, and bear witness to it, 1 John 1:3. What He did do, however, was show that glory in a way that could be taken in by enlightened minds. To see God in the full blaze of His glory is not possible for man, so He graciously varied the way in which He displayed it.

We could illustrate it using the gold that was intertwined in Aaron’s high priestly garment. A solid lump of gold was beaten into a flat plate, and then cut into wires and threaded through the weave of the garment, Exodus 39:3. So the gold was the same, but it had taken another form, enabling it to be used in a different way. So Christ’s Divine glory remained the same, but the way it appeared altered.

But He laid aside more than one garment, for the word is in the plural. So He must have dispensed temporarily, (for He wore His own garments to the place of crucifixion, Matthew 27:31), with His girdle. Now on the night of the original passover the Israelites were to have their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staff in their hand, Exodus 12:11. They were to be ready to move with haste out of the land of Egypt. Here, however, it is not so much a question of pilgrimage, although that side of things will come out later when Christ speaks of the way to the Father, but of what to do after contact with the world has made us unfit to eat the Lord’s Supper because defilement has been contracted. The Lord is building up a picture of what will prevail after He has gone back to heaven, for He will continue to serve His people there. So the emphasis is shifted from the girdle of pilgrimage to the girdle of service.

The apostle Peter later on exhorted his readers to lay aside “all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings”, 1 Peter 2:1. No such exhortation was needed by the Lord Jesus, for He did and knew no sin.

What must Judas have thought as he watched the Lord take the place of the slave, for he had sold Him for the price of a wounded slave, Exodus 21:32, Matthew 26:15.

And took a towel- there were two parts of the passover supper where it was traditional to wash hands, but this is different, for the passover is over. This is not a modification of former things, but the institution of a new concept, that of the need to “wash feet” before the Lord’s Supper.

And girded himself- He who is in the form of God had, at conception, taken upon Himself the form of a servant, and this He demonstrates yet again, but now in a new way. The next verse makes clear that He girded Himself with the towel, or else we might wonder whether He did two things, take a towel, and gird Himself with something else. He has divested Himself of the robe that would most need girding up to keep it out of the way. He girds His inner garment, the one that was “without seam, woven from the top throughout”, John 19:23. He has become a servant for ever, so it is not just a question of having loins girded as the Israelites did on the night of their departure from Egypt. Rather, He is indicating that He is not only a pilgrim, with loins girded for the journey to heaven via Calvary, but also a servant, ready to minister to the needs of His people; in this case, their cleansing. He will gird Himself again in verse 12, resuming His pilgrim character.

13:5
After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

After that he poureth water into a bason- notice He does all that the servant is expected to do. Not one of the disciples was quick-thinking enough to realise what was happening, and spring up and assist by pouring the water into the bason. How often we are not only “slow of heart to believe”, Luke 24:25, but also slow to rise to the occasion. John lists seven things that Christ did at this point, namely “riseth from supper”, “laid aside his garments”, “took a towel”, “girded himself”, “poureth water into a bason”, “began to wash the disciples’ feet”, “wipe them with the towel”. But these seven things are divided after the fourth by the words “after that”, as if the Lord hesitated after the first four, (which were things the disciples could not do), to see whether any of them would be prepared to do the three things they could do if they were prepared to take the servant’s place.

He had commissioned Peter and John to prepare the Passover, meaning the supper. When they asked where He wanted them to prepare it He replied, “Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in”, Luke 22:10. No doubt the water was from this pitcher. The bason was a wash-bason, so it was designed for the task, like the water. All necessary resources were available then, as now. How significant that John does not mention bread and wine, but does mention the water.

So one of the features of this house was that the water was there. Not only was it the place where the Lord’s Supper would be instituted, but also the place where fitness to eat the Supper was ensured. Oftentimes in Scripture water is a figure of the word of God. For example, the psalmist asked, “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? Then he answered the question by saying, “By taking heed thereto unto thy word”, Psalm 119:9. This fits in with the situation in our passage. By “cleanse his way” the psalmist meant “cleanse himself after he has made his way through the world”. There is no hope of cleansing the ways of the world, but we can cleanse away the defilement that comes upon us from the world.

And began to wash the disciples’ feet- the Lord Himself will make a distinction in verse 10 between washing or bathing all over, and washing just a part of the body. Here He is concentrating on the feet, that part of us which has contact with the earth, representing contact with the world. By “begin to wash” is meant, “starting to wash the feet of the disciples, one by one”. As we shall note on verse 10, Peter and John had already washed their feet in the temple courts that afternoon, but that did not prepare them to eat the Lord’s Supper.

And to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded- not only would this dry their feet, but it would also ensure that every trace of defilement was wiped away. Just one speck of the world’s defilement is enough to spoil the Supper. It is “the little foxes” that “spoil the vines”, Song of Solomon 2:15. We need to “take us the foxes”. In other words, identify them and deal with them.

(c) Verses 6-9
Peter’s Protest

13:6
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

Then cometh he to Simon Peter- just as there were two men named Judas amongst the apostles, so also there were two Simons, Matthew 10:2,4, hence John’s addition of the other name of Peter. Simon was the name his father gave him, Matthew 16:17, whereas Peter was the name the Lord gave Him, John 1:42. Although he was called “first” in the list of apostles in Matthew just referred to, he was not washed first by the Lord. When believers come together to eat the Lord’s Supper, the question of gift and office is in the background. Christian priesthood knows no hierarchy. There is but one High Priest, and He is in heaven.
And Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? The Greek language has the facility to emphasise words, and here the words “thou” and “my” are emphatic. This is shown by the order of the words in the Greek original, which is this: “Lord, Thou of me dost wash the feet?” On a future occasion Peter would say, “Not so, Lord”, Acts 10:14, which is a contradiction in terms. If He is our Lord, we ought not to say “Not so” to Him. To his credit, Peter is here affirming his belief that Jesus is Lord, but he is doing it in such a way as undermines His authority. If He is Lord, we must allow Him to wash our feet, and not protest under the pretence of humility. If Peter was so concerned about the Lord doing the servant’s task, why did he not rise up to do it himself?

13:7
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now- here is the counterpart to the emphatic words of verse 6. Here it is, “What I (emphatic) do thou (emphatic) knowest not now”. Peter’s protest is used by the Lord as the introduction to teaching about the meaning of the feet-washing. The reason he was concerned was because he did not understand. Peter understood perfectly that the Lord was physically washing their feet, and that was all Peter saw in it until he was enlightened as to the significance.

But thou shalt know hereafter- this does not mean that Peter would have to wait until he got to heaven before he could understand. Men speak of “the hereafter” in this way, but the Lord means “after these things”, whether we think of this meaning after He had explained it in verses 12-14, or after the Spirit had come at Pentecost to guide them into all the truth. When Peter understood the significance, far from protesting about his feet being washed, he would welcome it.

13:8
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet- it is one of Peter’s characteristics that he tries to pursue a course even though he has really been stopped in his tracks. He has called Jesus Lord, he has received the answer to his question, he has been told that he will know soon, but he still persists with the protest. From saying “dost thou” he moves on to saying, “Thou shalt never”. He is issuing an ultimatum to his Lord, something that should never be done. He is not making a prediction that the Lord will never wash his feet, but is giving an order. This is why the answer is given in such forthright terms. This is the only statement by an individual disciple in the upper room, as far as John’s record goes, which does not begin with the word “Lord”.

Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not- so the feet-washing is not merely an option, let alone something that can be refused, but is vitally necessary. As any reliable lexicon will tell us, there are two Greek words for wash used in this passage. One, “nipto”, is used in verses 5,6,8 (twice), 10, (“wash his feet”), 12, 14, (twice). It is used when the blind man washed the clay away that the Lord had put on his eyes, John 9:7,11, 15. He washed part of his body.

The other word, “louo”, is used in verse 10, “he that is washed”. This word is used in Hebrews 10:22, where we read, “our bodies washed with pure water”. It is also found in Revelation 1:5, “washed us from our sins in his own blood”. Clearly the word has the idea of washing all over, or totally. We shall see the significance of these two words when we come to consider verse 10.

Thou hast no part with me- so Peter learns that if he does not allow the Lord to wash his feet, he has no part with Him. The Lord cannot associate at all with one who refuses to allow Him to do as He wills. And this is what the preposition used here, (“meta”), means. It means to be “in the midst of”, or “among”, or “between”. There is no vital union indicated in the word, simply association. It is the word used in verse 33 when the Lord says, “yet a little while while I am with you”. And again in 14:9, “Have I been so long time with you?” The idea is of being present alongside someone, reminding us of the question of the prophet, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3. The Lord is ” undefiled in the way”, Psalm 119:1, and if we wish to walk with Him on the way, then we must be undefiled too.

13:9
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only- with characteristic fervour, and in his strong and commendable desire to have part with the Lord, Peter errs again. It is easy to criticise Peter, but do we have his zeal? Before, he had tried to impose his will on the Lord by resisting the washing of his feet. Now he is resisting again by not being content with what the Lord was doing, and suggesting He should do more. We should always accept the Lord’s will for us, for His will is best. No good comes by trying to dictate to Him.

But also my hands and my head- if having one’s lower body washed means association with Christ, Peter reasons that to have one’s middle and upper parts also washed will mean even closer association with Him. This is equivalent to saying “wash me all over”, hence the response of the next verse.

(d) Verses 10-17
Believer’s Prototype

13:10
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

Jesus saith to him, He that is washed- we now come to the alternative word for washing, the one which involves the whole body. Peter learns that he does not need hands and head washed again, for that overall washing has been done once and does not need to be repeated.

Needeth not save to wash his feet- there is no necessity for a repeat of the all-over washing. All that needs to be repeated is the washing of that part which has contact with the earth. It is not that we cannot do worldly things with our hands, or think worldly things with our head, because we easily can. The Lord is making a distinction between an initial washing, and a continual washing, Since the feet suggest our walk, and our walk is the way we move through this world, the feet supply sufficient meaning for the Lord’s purpose.

As we move on the pilgrim pathway, we do so in the world. That world is full of defilement, and as we walk through it we become contaminated, and need to be washed. We cannot walk down the street without accidentally hearing and seeing things that are contrary to God. It is this sort of defilement that needs to be dealt with. The defilement a believer deliberately contracts if he sins knowingly is dealt with judicially by the blood of propitiation, and his standing before God is maintained, 1 John 2:1,2. It is not expected, however, that a believer will sin as a matter of habit.

Note that although it is the Lord who is washing the feet here, it is the individual believer who needs to attend to his own defilement, for the same person who is washed all over needs to wash his own feet. Peter and John had been to the temple that afternoon to present the lamb for sacrifice at the altar. They first would have bathed in the pool outside of the temple walls, thus washing all over. But the temple courts had dusty floors, (as we know from the fact that the Lord wrote in the dust in John 8:6), so that in between bathing and coming to the altar their feet had become defiled. There were stone foot-baths provided, however, and they would have washed their feet in these. So they knew the difference between bathing all over and washing the feet.

But is clean every whit- that is, wholly clean, with no part unclean. So the Lord is making a distinction here between initial cleansing and ongoing cleansing. So what are these two cleansings? Peter was to know the answer to that “hereafter”. It would come after Pentecost, after which the believers would be guided into all truth. The truth relevant to this matter is found in Titus 3:4-7, where we read, “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life”. Now the word regeneration has to do with a new state of things brought about at new birth and by new birth. (The word is only used elsewhere in reference to the time of Christ’s kingdom, “in the regeneration”, Matthew 19:28). So there is such a thing as a washing that fits us for a new state of things in which there is no defilement.

Now the apostle Paul spoke of Christ sanctifying and cleansing the church “with the washing of water by the word”, Ephesians 5:26. The word for washing being connected with the all-over sort of washing the Lord spoke of in the upper room. It corresponds to the next phrase, “ye are clean”. So we learn that one reason why Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it was so as to sanctify and cleanse it, (that is, make it holy positively and free from all defilement negatively), and this He did through the all-over washing of water by the word.

When the word of the truth of the gospel comes to seeking souls, they not only learn of the guilt of their sin, but the defilement of it too. Now it is the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, that cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1:7. This is judicial cleansing, and satisfies the demands of the holiness of God, and it happens when the truth of the word of God does its work in us when we first believe.

Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures”, which in the first instance means the Old Testament scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:3. One of those scriptures told of water of purification that was applied to a defiled man to make him fit for the presence of God. But the water derived its power from the ashes of an accepted sin offering that had been mixed with it, see Numbers 19.

So when the word of the gospel is believed, it has the effect of separating from the defilement of sin, just as when we have a bath, the water comes between us and our defilement. The basis on which this can be done is the sin-offering work of Christ at Calvary, which gives God the right to cleanse those who repent and believe. So it is that the water of the word has become the means whereby the benefit of the death of Christ for sin is made good to the one who believes. Because the word of the gospel always points us to Christ’s death as the answer to sin, it is not in itself the means of salvation, as if to by-pass what Christ did at Calvary, but is the agency whereby the salvation is made known.

We see from this the importance of preaching so as to explain the doctrines of the gospel. Men are not born again by knowing that they need to be born again! They are born again when the Spirit applies the truth of the word of God as it tells of Christ and His work at Calvary. There is a great need for solid, expository preaching, that explains the truth to seeking souls. If men only hear exhortations and appeals, they might be induced to make a profession, but the word of God has not reached their soul. At best they will be superficial believers, full of doubts and fears; at worst, they will not be genuine believers at all, lulled into a false sense of security by being able to recite a date on the calendar, which means nothing if they have never believed.

And ye are clean- whether they realised it or not, (and most probably they did not at that time), when the apostles had first believed on the Lord Jesus, they had come into the good of that which would be secured for them by His death on the cross. They were credited in anticipation, just as Old Testament men had been justified in virtue of what God’s Son would do at Calvary. See Romans 3:25, where “sins that are past” refers to sins committed in Old Testament times.

They were “born of water”, John 3:5. The provision for Israel as they travelled through the defiling wilderness was sprinkling with water that derived its value from the fact that the ashes of an accepted sin offering had been mixed with it, Numbers 19:9,17,18. Nicodemus was rebuked by the Lord for not making the link between that passage, and Ezekiel 36:25-27, when he heard of being born of water.

But not all- although he had been chosen as an apostle, had worked miracles, and had preached the word of the kingdom, Judas was not a true believer. Because of that he had never known the all-over cleansing that is needed for entry into the kingdom. His feet had been washed physically, but his soul was unclean morally.

13:11
For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

For he knew who should betray him- the Lord was not taken by surprise when Judas eventually betrayed Him. He had chosen him after a night of prayer, Luke 6:12-16, so it was done in full fellowship with His Father. It is not that He chose Judas so that he could be the betrayer, but chose him to give him the opportunity to change his mind about betraying Him, and thereby be an incentive to others to repent also. Alas, it was not to be, but Judas cannot say that he had no chance to be true to Christ.

Therefore said he, Ye are not all clean- so John gives us the explanation, so that we might be in no doubt what “ye are not all clean” means.

13:12
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

So after he had washed their feet- there was no difference made in Judas’ case, for his feet were washed too. Because he had not been washed all over, the washing of his feet simply signified the desire of Christ to have him as an associate, if he was prepared to believe. It was one of Christ’s final appeals to him.

And had taken his garments- He had removed His outer garments to signify His servant role. He had taken the form of a servant when He came into manhood, and He had displayed that by being dressed as a servant would. Now, He takes His garments again, including His girdle, firstly, to emphasize that His pilgrimage is not yet over; secondly, that He will continue to serve His people when He has sat down in heaven, and thirdly, that He is also their Lord and Master, girded with the usual girdle, and not the unusual girdle of the towel. He has taken the form of a servant, and “form” means “reality in manifestation”. It is not the mere adoption of the guise of a servant, whilst not being so really. He has integrated servant-hood into His being, so it is permanent.

And was set down again- this is the position of the teacher. In the synagogue, men stood up for to read, and sat down to teach, as we see from Luke 4:16,20,21. He will now give them far-ranging instruction that will fortify them for His absence, but the first thing that is needed is fitness to be associated with Him, to have part with Him.

He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Clearly, He is not asking if they realised He had washed their feet, for that was obvious. Not so obvious was the meaning of what He had done. The fact that there is no response to this question shows that they have not yet grasped the full meaning. Perhaps they did not like to admit this, and so remained silent, even Peter.

13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am- even though Jesus was His personal name, the disciples never called Him this. They had a sense of His greatness, and would never presume to be so familiar as to use this name. Of course, because the gospel records are historical in nature in the first instance, the writers constantly call Him Jesus. But when they record the conversations of the disciples with Him, it is evident that they never address Him as such.
There is a lesson here, for the Spirit of God would exalt Him in our thinking, so that we call Him Lord. No man can do this meaningfully except by the Spirit of God, as 1 Corinthians 12:3 makes clear. It is because the disciples had heard Him as the Master, or Teacher, they intelligently called Him Lord. And in this they are an example. The first name that Saul of Tarsus gave to Him was “Lord”, even though He announced Himself to him as Jesus of Nazareth, Acts 9:4,5.

13:14
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet- note the change of order. As Teacher they may learn from Him, both by word and example. This will result in them recognising Him as Lord, the one who owns them, and who has authority over them. If their Lord had washed their feet, then surely they could bring themselves to wash one another’s feet in humility. But He is still Master, so has further things to teach them, and this will further enhance His Lordship in their minds.

Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet- it is the responsibility of all believers to seek the welfare of their brothers and sisters in Christ by helping them to keep free from the defilement of the world, and if there is defilement, giving help to wash it away by the careful application of the Word of God. It was a common courtesy in the East to wash the feet of your guests as they arrived at your house after a journey on the dusty roads. Simon the Pharisee failed to do this when he invited the Lord into his house, Luke 7:44-46, and the Lord pointed this out to him. (Note that Simon had not even provided the water so that Christ could wash His own feet, let alone wash them for Him, Luke 7:44). It was not as if the Lord arrived uninvited, and Simon was caught unprepared. Simon was shamed by his omission, but also by the fact that a woman he derided as a sinner had done what he had failed to do.

But this is more than common courtesy, for believers should not need to be exhorted to act politely. But we remember how that Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside into their home, and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”, Acts 18:26. It is true that Apollos was not defiled by the world as such, but nonetheless the principle holds good, that they adjusted his pathway, and in that sense washed his feet as he came into their house. It is important that the houses of believers are places where holiness prevails, so that the cleansing effect of the word of God may come to those who visit.

13:15
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you- their washing of the feet of others should be the direct result of responding to His example. It would not be mere politeness. Notice it is “as I have done”, not necessarily “what I have done”. The washing of saints’ feet may take many different forms. The Lord is not establishing a ritual for believers to follow. The literal washing with water simply illustrated the true washing that was behind it. The example is not the mode of washing, but the fact that He, the Lord of all, had done it in true humility. It was an example of humility, not of technique.

13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord- here is the first of the seven-fold use of the expression “Verily, verily” during the upper room ministry. The expression always introduces truth that is different, and yet we might think that it is obvious that a servant is not greater than the lord he serves. Yet He had just acted as a servant, and they must not have the slightest idea in their minds that this means He is any the less their Lord. They are only servants, whereas He is servant and Lord. These particular servants are not greater than this particular Lord, even if that Lord is a servant.

Neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him- they might have wrong thoughts about their servant-hood because they were apostles. They might think they were above serving because of their office. But even “sent ones”, (which is what apostles are), are not, and cannot be, greater than the one who sent them, even the Lord Himself. And if that is true of apostles, it must also be true of all believers, for they are sent also in John 20:21. His example of humility is for us all.

13:17
If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them- if they have insight into the meaning of these things, and practice them, they will be truly blessed. Happiness depends on what happens, and here what happens is the practice of the Lord’s teaching. James tells us that “whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, that man shall be blessed in his deed”, James 1:25.

(e) Verses 18-19
Christ’s Prophecy

13:18
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

I speak not of you all- from speaking of those who are happy because they do their Lord’s will, the Lord now reverts back to speaking of the one who is the most miserable, because he was the betrayer, and did Satan’s will.

I know whom I have chosen- Judas had been chosen to be an apostle after a night of prayer. His election to office was not a mistake, and the eleven apostles need to be assured of that, so that their confidence in the Lord’s wisdom might not be impaired. The Lord knew Judas’ heart, and He knew their hearts too. There are different ways in which men are described as having been chosen. For example:

(a) “Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world”, Ephesians 1:4. This is God’s choice of His people since He foreknows that they will believe. As the apostle Peter writes, “elect according to the foreknowledge of God”, 1 Peter 1:2. This is God’s choice and our security.

(b) “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. This is God’s choice and our salvation.

But that the scripture may be fulfilled- the Lord did not choose Judas so as to fulfil Scripture. The Traitor Psalms, (Psalms 41, 55, 69, and 109), do not name him. The word “but” indicates a contrast between what the Lord desired for Judas, and what Judas decided to do for himself, to his own ruin. The choice of Judas could very well have been designed to bring him to a proper recognition of Himself, and to deliver from wrong thoughts about the Messiah. We might think of the words as follows: “I know whom I have chosen, but, lest you think that I destined him to be the betrayer and consequently go to perdition, let me tell you that I chose him so that he could eat bread with Me, and have the opportunity to change his mind about being the betrayer. In the event he, of his own will, lifted up his heel against Me”. We may be sure there were many amongst the hierarchy who would have been willing to betray Christ. In fact, Stephen accuses the whole Sanhedrim of being the betrayers of Christ, Acts 7:52; 6:12. But the chief priests were such hypocrites that they paid Judas to do the wicked deed for them.

He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me- Judas was brought into the inner circle, sharing fellowship at table with the Lord of glory, yet from that privileged position he fell into perdition. The preposition translated “with” is the same as in verse 8, showing that it is simply association that is in view, not union. A person is not necessarily united with the person he shares a meal with. This is an awful warning to all others who claim to associate with Christ yet have no life within, and at last side with the enemy. Like a horse that is angry, and turns its back only to lift its hoof to kick backwards, so Judas turned his back on Christ and dealt Him a painful blow.

13:19
Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Now I tell you before it come- the Lord subjects Himself to the test of a prophet. If a prophecy came true, then the prophet was genuine. If otherwise, he was to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 18:20. The Lord had promised to Moses in that chapter that He would send a prophet to speak to the people, verse 15. Peter assures the nation that that prophet was Christ, Acts 3:22-26.

That, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he- their appreciation of His person would be increased, and their faith strengthened when they realised, in the dark hours between His arrest and His resurrection, that He knew all things. Not only did He know all things, but demonstrated the fact by making them known beforehand. As God said about Abraham, “Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?” Genesis 18:17. Just as Abraham was “the friend of God”, James 2:23, so these eleven apostles were His friends, John 15:14.

God challenged the powers of evil to foretell the future, Isaiah 41:21-24. Only God knows the end from the beginning. The Lord here asserts His Deity with the expression “I am He”, thus linking Himself with the God who said to Moses “I am”. When He had declared to the Jews “Before Abraham was, I am”, they had taken up stones to stone Him. Now He asserts the same thing, and the apostles make no protest, for they continue to believe in His Divine pre-existence. Even the trauma of knowing that one of their number is a traitor, soon to be revealed to them, will not shake them. They need to have strong faith in His person, for in just a few moments their faith is going to be tested.

(f) Verses 20-30
Judas’ Perfidy

13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me- here is the second “verily, verily” of the evening. It prefaces a statement that is of the utmost importance for them to grasp. They are about to be shocked by the revelation that Judas, one of their number, is a traitor. They need the encouragement that the Lord has such confidence in them that to receive them as His apostles is to receive Him. Such is the dignity of their position, and such is the position that Judas forfeited by his treachery.

And he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me- because He and the Father are one in essence, and also because, flowing from that, their aims are identical, to receive the one is to receive the other, just as when the Spirit was given, it was the Father and Son who came, John 14:23. The apostles are heartened, surely, by being told that they have a part in the reception of Divine Persons.

Judas, on the other hand, was being party to the advancement of the agenda of Satanic forces. He was refusing to receive the Son, and as a consequence was not receiving the Father. He was not a true believer therefore, for John wrote later, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father”, 1 John 2:23, words which come soon after he writes that there were antichrists, who “went out from us”, verse 19.

13:21
When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit- having demonstrated His Deity, we now find the Lord’s real and sensitive manhood is manifest as He is troubled to the very core of His being, His spirit. This is no superficial emotion, but a feeling of sorrow and trouble that was deeply and keenly felt. To think that His “own familiar friend”, Psalm 41:9, should do such as thing as to betray Him! And not only this, but Judas’ act will set in motion a series of events which will result in Him being condemned and executed.

This shows us that betrayal and disloyalty are particularly distasteful to Christ, and we should be very careful to not manifest these features even in a mild form.

And testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me- the third “verily, verily” comes soon after the second, for events are moving quickly. We noticed in verse 2 how that John names Judas in full, as if he is being brought into a court of law and charged. Here it is the same, for Jesus testified. He bore witness to what He knew. The fact that it had not yet happened did not matter, for the future is known to Him infallibly. The “verily, verily” is needed this time because the other eleven disciples will be very reluctant to believe it is so.

13:22
Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake- despite the Lord’s words in John 6:70, (“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”), they had not realised the full import of His words. John can tell us when, many years later, he is writing his gospel that “He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon”, verse 71. Note again the full title, reflecting that when John wrote his gospel the guiltiness of the man had become evident to him. But it was evident to Christ all the time.

Clearly, Judas had given no indication of his nature, and what was being planned in his heart, so that the disciples were taken completely by surprise. In Matthew’s account, we read, after the Lord had told them one of them would betray Him, “And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, ‘Lord, is it I?'”, Matthew 26:22. Self-doubt overwhelmed them all. Perhaps they did not fully realise the wickedness of what Judas would do. He could surely only do it as Satan impelled him. The other disciples were not thus influenced.

It is noticeable that when Judas asks “is it I”, he calls the Lord “Master”, and not his Lord. This is characteristic of him. Those who fail to recognise the Lordship of Christ are more likely to betray him. Judas’ question had, in fact, been answered a thousand years before, in one of David’s traitor psalms. We read, “For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: but it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.” Psalm 55:12-14. These are David’s words about Ahithophel, the Old Testament traitor, who went from being David’s advisor to siding with Absalom, who sought to usurp David’s throne. The words “it was thou” are the answer to Judas’ question in Matthew 26:22.

13:23
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples- it was the custom to recline on cushions at the passover supper, (which would be set out on a low table either suspended from the ceiling, or standing on the floor), leaning on one’s left elbow, with the legs stretched out behind. They are still in that position even though the supper is ended. “Jesus’ bosom” would refer to the fold of the outer garment which would form a sort of pouch. Eastern shepherds would carry the lambs in their bosom, as the Messiah is said to do in relation to His people, Isaiah 40:11.

Whom Jesus loved- this is the expression John uses to describe himself. John does not mean to imply that He did not love the others, but rather, that John was conscious of that love, was sure of it, and responded to it. He himself declares that “Jesus…loved his own”, verse 1. He uses the phrase to describe himself here, where he is leaning on Christ; in 19:26 where he is found standing by Christ’s cross; in 21:7 as the one recognising the Lord, and in 21:20 as one following Him. Each of these instances would repay meditation. These are all the marks of one who loves the Lord, and is conscious of the Lord’s love for him. In 20:2 the other word for love is used, “phileo”, when Peter is included.

13:24
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him- perhaps Peter was reclining across the table from John, and attracted his attention so as to ask him a question.

That he should ask who it should be of whom he spake- note that is the one who has a deep appreciation of Christ who is able to ask Him questions. Peter’s experience at the feet-washing had showed him that he was not so intelligent about spiritual things as he thought. He is confident, however, that John is different. He is in such close touch with the Lord that he will be free to ask what Peter does not feel free to ask.

13:25
He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Normally, as the supper was eaten, there would be a space between each guest. Now, however, John leans back onto the actual bosom of Christ, close to His heart, so to speak, to easily ask the question. Perhaps Peter and John feel that the betrayer was not to be made known, as the Lord had said in general terms, “one of you”, and therefore John leans back to ask quietly.

Afterwards, John became known as the one who “also leant on his breast at supper”, John 21:20. Is this not the sort of reputation that we should all desire to have? Here, he has to ask a question, but in John 21:7 he knows who it is on the shore, for he has matured quickly

13:26
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it- it was customary at the passover supper to eat a morsel consisting of a piece of the lamb, some unleavened bread, wrapped together with bitter herbs. This would be eaten after being dipped in vinegar. It therefore contained the elements of the whole meal. The lamb to remind of the means of deliverance at the original passover time; the unleavened bread to remind of the need to purge out the leaven because the feast of unleavened bread followed straight after the passover night, and the bitter herbs to remind of the bitter experiences the Israelites had as they were oppressed by the Egyptian taskmasters.

But the supper of the passover is over, and the Lord’s Supper has not yet been instituted, so this is not part of a normal procedure. It is devised by Christ as a last attempt to arrest Judas on his downward path. At an ordinary meal, a host might give to a favoured guest a choice morsel, and this is what the Lord does here. He does not offer it to John, “whom Jesus loved”, however, but to Judas. It may be that Judas was reclining the other side of Christ to John, so it would not be so striking for him to receive the morsel first. This is perhaps the last appeal to Judas, unless we count the words in Gethsemane, “betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss” as the last. After that happened, Judas stood with the band that came for the arrest, whereas here, after the morsel, Judas leaves the apostles, and the Lord. How sad that the last views of Judas that we have are him standing with those who had come to arrest the Lord, 18:5, and then hanging himself in despair.

What a revelation of the heart of Christ, that He was prepared to give the morsel reserved for the favoured guest to the one who was His betrayer! He is the perfect example of what the apostle Paul would write later, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good”, Romans 12:20, 21.

And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon- again we have the full name, as if in a court of law. We cannot know what struggles were in the heart of Judas at this point, but he was goaded on by Satan, and even this act of appeal by Christ did not move him.

13:27
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

And after the sop Satan entered into him- this is the second time this phrase has been used. Luke tells us that Satan entered into Judas before he went to the high priests to discuss how the betrayal might take place, Luke 22:3. To take such a step was not possible for a man in his ordinary mind. Satan must so infiltrate that mind that Judas will do his will and not God’s. So it is here, for he is about to actually carry out the deed, and again he needs more than natural strength to carry it out.

It is hardly likely that the Lord would have allowed a Satan-possessed man, in the ordinary sense of the expression, to be in the upper room. Nor would He have touched him, as He must have done to wash his feet. With the possible exception of Luke 13:11-16, where the Lord touched the woman with the spirit of infirmity, (although it seems that the spirit was cast out before He touched her to relieve her infirmity), we never read of the Lord having physical contact with demon-possessed persons. John gives the time as “after the sop”, emphasising that the giving of the sop was a definite gesture on the part of the Lord, and a critical moment for Judas.

Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly- that He knew who the betrayer was is testimony that He is truly God, but this expression reveals yet again that He is truly man also, and does not wish to prolong the interval until the arrest. The fact that after this the Lord continued with His disciples in unhurried discourse with them, and then communed with His Father, shows that He knew when the arrest would take place. He did not hurry away from the upper room immediately after Judas had gone out.

He also commands Judas to go, because He wants the maximum time with His own before the arrest, and He wants as little time as possible in the company of one into whom Satan has entered. Even though Judas would go immediately to the priests, the Lord controlled the moment when they would come to arrest Him in the garden. No doubt the chief priests would want to eat the passover meal first, and then arrest Christ afterwards.

13:28
Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him- it seems that the disciples are somewhat in a state of shock, as the news that one of their number is a traitor sinks in to their minds. Events have overtaken them, and they are clearly having difficulty in realising the true import of the Lord’s words and actions. It was not that they were dull intellectually, (their writings show this not to be the case), but they no doubt could not bring themselves to think that Judas would betray their Lord; that out from the very closest circle of favour would come one with such a terrible idea in his mind. The last thing they thought was that Judas would sink so low as to actually deliver the Lord up to the authorities. They probably were thinking of betrayal in a mild sense. After all, they would all forsake Him and flee in an hour or two’s time; was that not betrayal, in one sense?
It may even be the case that they were prevented from knowing the awful truth, lest they be utterly downcast. The truth of the resurrection was withheld from them, Luke 18:31-34, so this may also have been.

13:29
For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag- at this point we might consider possible reasons why Judas became the betrayer:

1. He shares a name with the head of the kingly tribe of Israel, perhaps suggesting that he was brought up by parents with fervent kingdom-hopes. Did Judas join the disciples because of his nationalist aspirations, thinking that at last the kingdom of heaven was at hand, as John the Baptist and Christ Himself had announced? Did he become disillusioned when the Lord showed no sign of setting up His kingdom? And did he think that he could further the setting up of that kingdom by handing the Lord over so that He could escape from His enemies in a dramatic way, (as He had done several times), and thus gain popular support? In this way he would give Him opportunity to assert Himself. He did not understand that the kingdom would be given Him by the Father, not men, not even apostles.

2. As he was a thief, did he become obsessed with money, and think that he could gain the thirty pieces of silver, then escape into obscurity to enjoy the proceeds of his avarice, with the Lord able to extricate Himself so that He came to no harm? Some may think this is being too charitable to Judas, but did not the Lord, even to the end, given him opportunity to reverse his decision to betray?

That Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor- it was common at passover time to give to the poor so that they could buy the things necessary for the keeping of the feast. The lamb had already been purchased and slain, of course, but the feast of passover was followed immediately by the feast of unleavened bread, and there were other duties to perform. So whether the needs of the apostles, or the needs of the poor, this was what they thought Judas was charged to meet.

(g) Verses 31-35
Disciple’s Practice

13:30
He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

He then having received the sop went immediately out- this picks up the narrative from the giving of the sop in verse 26. Unwittingly, Judas by this action submits to the Lordship of Christ, for He does go out quickly and immediately. It was not the obedience of a believing heart, however. There comes a moment, at the very end of time, when every knee shall bow to Jesus in recognition that he is indeed Lord., Philippians 2:10,11. When Judas stood with the arrest party in the garden, he went backwards and fell to the ground in response to the words from Christ, “I am he”. This too is a foretaste of what shall happen at last. It is said of Cain after he had slain his brother Abel, that he “went out from the presence of the Lord”, Genesis 4:16, and now Judas follows in his footsteps.

And it was night- it has been observed many times how that John tells us of external, physical circumstances to bring out moral conditions. In 18:18 we read, “it was cold”, (like Peter’s heart); in 18:28, “it was early”, (for the authorities were eager to convict Him). Here the darkness of the night, (for the moon will not rise until midnight), is a reflection of the darkness in Judas’ heart. The eternal darkness also, of his eternal destiny, Jude 13. All this is in strong contrast to the light of the glory of Christ which is about to be the brighter displayed.

It could well be that it is at this point that the Lord institutes the Lord’s Supper. The betrayer has gone, together with Satan who had entered into him. It can now be truly called “the night in which he was betrayed”, 1 Corinthians 11:23.

13:31
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

Therefore, when he was gone out- as a result of the departure of Judas. the Lord is free to speak of glory. It is as if all that Judas represented in terms of the hostility of the nation and the enmity of Satan has gone away. Once the Lord’s Supper, with its remembrance of Himself and the proclamation of His death, has been instituted, and is over, the Lord can dwell on future glories.
The departure of Judas made a very deep impression on John, for his love to Christ was in marked contrast to Judas’ betrayal. He wrote later, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us”, 1 John 2:19. He is writing of antichrists, but Judas was the one amongst the apostles that showed himself to be antichrist. Indeed, he it is who shares one of Antichrist’s titles, “son of perdition”, 2 Thessalonians 2:3; John 17:12.

Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified- Judas has gone out into the dark night, but the glory shines in the upper room still. Note He calls Himself Son of Man. It is as a man that He is going to be reinstated to His place in heaven. The glory He had with the Father as His Son eternally, is going to be His in manhood. He is so confident of a ready reception to the Father’s house that He speaks of being glorified as if it has already happened. This is how He will speak in His prayer to His Father in chapter 17. For example, “I am no more in the world, but these are in the world”, verse 11. Yet He does not presume upon His Father, for He asks for the glory to be given Him. He is still subject to His Father, as well as confident of His approval.

And God is glorified in him- His work at the cross will bring every attribute of God into fullest display, so that there is a glorifying of God even in the cross. So He is not expecting glory for Himself alone, but to glorify His Father even more. He will pray like this in John 17:1 when He asks to be glorified so that He might further glorify the Father. There is no sense of seeking to disturb Divine order. Judas no doubt thought that Christ was heading for disgrace because He had failed to overturn the civil order and set up His kingdom. But He was privy to the Divine programme, and would wait God’s time to receive glory. He will come to reign “in his own glory, and in his Father’s”, Luke 9:26.

13:32
If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself- if what He has just spoken of in terms of God being glorified comes to pass, as it surely will, then He is confident that God will personally glorify Him. It is a move by God the Father in relation to the Son. It will not be glory bestowed through others, for example by angels glorifying Him with their worship. It will be a personal and direct bestowal by His Father.

And shall straightway glorify him- so the glorifying will not be delayed, for the Lord has given His Father ample reason to honour Him immediately He returns to heaven. As Peter wrote, “God raised him from the dead and gave him glory”, 1 Peter 1:21, as if there was no interval between the resurrection and the ascension. He will not have to wait until the time of the kingdom, (for He shall come in glory to set up that kingdom, and then sit on “the throne of his glory”, Matthew 25:31), so the glory spoken of here will already be His when He comes out of heaven to reign. So Judas’ dark deed will be the instigation of events which will glorify God for all eternity. As the psalmist said, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee”, Psalm 76:10.

13:33
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

Little children- now that the false apostle has left, and shown himself to be without eternal life, the Lord can address His own genuine apostles with a term of endearment and comfort. It reassures them that He believes them to be genuine children of God, and that He does not harbour suspicious thoughts about them. He has made it clear that He knew the heart of Judas and what evil thoughts lurked there. By the same token He must know theirs, and He here indicates that He believes them to be genuine. This will be a great encouragement for them in the short-term, when He is arrested and crucified, and long-term too, when He is absent from them after His ascension. That this expression made a deep impression of John is seen in the fact that he uses it seven times in his first epistle, in 2:1,12,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21, after he has applied the tests for genuineness in the early part of the epistle.

Yet a little while I am with you- this is the first of several mentions of this phrase in these chapters, and the Lord is gently introducing to them the idea of His departure. They must not expect Him to rise from the dead and then remain upon the earth.

Ye shall seek me- the Jews would seek Him to arrest Him, they would not seek Him for salvation. As He said in Gethsemane, when they came to arrest Him, “Whom seekest thou?”, John 18:4. The disciples however, whose hearts were true to Him and not hostile, would seek Him out in resurrection, first of all. Yet they sought Him in the wrong place initially, for when the women came to the empty sepulchre the angels said, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen”, Luke 24:5,6. Now that He is gone back to heaven it is the great privilege to seek Him there. As the apostle Paul wrote, (and his ministry was especially designed to direct us heavenwards), “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth”, Colossians 3:1,2. When He was born the angels pointed out where He was. When He had risen, they pointed out where He was not.

And as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you- this is a reference to John 8:21. The reason the Jews could not follow Him was because they would die in their sins, and therefore not get to be with Him in heaven. The reason the disciples would not be able to follow Him was because He was going to the cross to die for sins, and they could not follow Him there.

13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another- the law of Moses commanded men to love their neighbours, Leviticus 19:18, but it gave no power to put this into effect, for it was “weak through the flesh”, Romans 8:3. The apostles, however, have just been addressed as little children, so they are in the family of God and therefore have eternal life within. When they love one another they are expressing the life of the God who is love.

As I have loved you, that ye also love one another- this is why the commandment is new; the newness lays in the example that is given. According to the manner in which He had loved them, (such is the force of the word “as”), they are to love one another as fellow-members of the family of God. Later on He will say, “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love”, John 15:9. Clearly then this is no half-hearted sort of love, but is as intense as the love between the Father and the Son eternally, (for it is “the Father hath loved”, indicating that the Lord is looking into eternity).

13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another- since God is love, where there are those who love as He does, there must be Divine life. John wrote later, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him”, 1 John 5:1. He also put it negatively, with the words, “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now”, 1 John 2:9. To be in the light is to be a believer. The world must be given the opportunity to see love in exhibition, not now directly by the Lord, but through His people.

(h) Verses 36-38
Peter’s Pathway

13:36
Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? In the references to going away in John 7:34, and 8:21, the Jews surmised that He was going to the dispersed Jews amongst the nations. The Lord gave them a hint as to what He meant by saying that He came from above, but since they did not believe that He had come from heaven, the words were lost on them. And Peter, although he believed that Christ was the Son of God, does no know where the Lord is going, for he cannot understand how the Lord can go somewhere he cannot.

Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now- notice that Peter has been so taken up with the idea of the Lord going that he is ignoring the matter of love to his fellow-believers. Peter, and all of them, must learn that the Lord had a unique journey to make, even to Calvary, then to the grave, then to heaven. That Peter did learn this lesson is seen in the fact that he says of the Lord “who his own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”, 1 Peter 2:24, and by this Peter impresses upon us the truth that the Lord went on that journey alone.

But thou shalt follow me afterwards- they could not follow Him in that journey literally, but they would do so spiritually, for believers are crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, raised with Christ, and seated in heavenly places in Christ, Romans 6:6,4; Ephesians 2:5,6. But there was a particular way in which Peter would follow, because the Lord will tell him after His resurrection that “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee wither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God”, John 21:18,19. And so it came to pass, for Peter is said to have died by crucifixion. So he did follow afterwards, but in such a way as to preserve the uniqueness of the work of Christ.

When the Israelites were about to cross the Jordan, they were to keep a space of two thousand cubits between themselves and the ark. The ark must be clearly seen to lead the way. When the waters of Jordan are stayed, then they could follow, but not before. They could not walk through the waters, but they could walk through on dry ground, once the ark had led the way. They were to “go after it”, Joshua 3:3.

13:37
Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.

Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? Peter was not ready for the answer to that question, but he would understand later, after Pentecost.

I will lay down my life for thy sake- Peter has a sense that the Lord is going into danger, and he is willing to protect Him, as he showed by his use of the sword in Gethsemane. He uses the same wording as the Lord did when He spoke of laying down His life for the sheep, John 10:11. Peter, for all his zeal, cannot match that work, or that level of devotion.

13:38
Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? The question is turned back upon Peter so that he can think harder about what he has just said.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice- here is a further statement prefaced by the formula “verily, verily”, because Peter is in no mood to accept what will be said, so the Lord pre-empts his natural response by His word of certainty and authority.

We should distinguish between the cock crowing to signal the beginning of the last watch of the night, (which was called “cock-crowing”), and the crowing of the cock at any time of the night. The cock-crowing watch extended from 2am until 6am, at which point the day was reckoned to begin. The Lord Himself tells us the names of the four Jewish watches of the night with the words, “at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning”, Mark 13:35.

It has recently been found that not only do hens have a pecking-order, to establish their place in the hierarchy among them, but cocks have a crowing-order, by which they establish their place. Now Mark tells us that after Peter had denied his Lord the first time, he went out into the porch of the High Priest’s Palace court, and a cock crowed. This was a warning to Peter, for when the list of apostles is given to us by Matthew, the wording is, “The first, Simon, who is called Peter”, Matthew 10:2. Now we know that the Lord Jesus, the last Adam, has control of the birds of the air, Psalm 8:8; Hebrews 2:5-9; 1 Corinthians 15:45, so He it is who prompted the cock to crow at this precise moment as a warning to Peter, as if to say, “You are the first amongst the apostles, just as the cockerel you have just heard is first among the others, so remember the warning I gave you about three denials”. Sadly he went on to deny twice more, and again the Lord controlled the cock, this time not allowing it to crow until the moment of His choosing, for He had said to Peter, “Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice”, Mark 14:30. By “this day” is meant the fifteenth day of the month, that had begun at 6pm, and by “this night” is meant the hours of darkness, for the Jewish day began with the night.

After He had said these words to Peter, He took them into Gethsemane, and Peter was able to witness the three sessions of prayer the Lord Jesus had in the garden. He found them sleeping as He came back from prayer, and it was to Peter that He said, “Simon, sleepest thou? Couldest thou not watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation”, Mark 14:37,38. Is it not the case that if Peter had prayed, rather than slept, he would not have given way to the temptation to deny his Lord?

It is good for Peter that the Lord prayed for him, because Satan had desired to have him, otherwise who knows what he might have done? But in the ordering of God good came from it, for the Lord also said, “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”, Luke 22:32. And this he was able to do both by preaching and by writing, (he preached in the Acts of the Apostles, and wrote in his two epistles, a three-fold reversal of his denials), for his three denials, and his three sessions of sleeping, were dealt with by the Lord by the lake, John 21:15-17, and a three-fold assertion of love for the Lord was a sign that he was converted, and thereafter could strengthen his brethren so that they did not deny their Lord. As he wrote many years later,

But the God of all grace,

who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus,

after that ye have suffered a while,

make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen”. 1 Peter 5:10,11.

ROMANS 9

Leave a reply

We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

Romans chapter 9 God’s ways defended

Chapters 9-11 of the epistle to the Romans form a parenthetical section in the epistle, in which the apostle shows that the gospel which is the same for Jew and Gentile is perfectly in harmony with the purpose of God. The Old Testament had made a sharp distinction between Israel and the rest of mankind, (see, for example, Ephesians 2:11,12), but the apostle has shown in chapters 1-8 that as far as sinnership is concerned, “there is no difference”. So does this mean that Old Testament distinctions are invalid, and that there is no future for Israel as a separate entity? The apostle shows in chapters 9, 10 and 11 that this is not so. In chapter 9 the emphasis is upon incidents from Israel’s past which declare the principles behind the purpose of God. In chapter 10 the emphasis is on Israel’s present unbelief and its consequences. In chapter 11 the emphasis is on the future for Israel when “the Redeemer shall come from Zion”.

It is vital to a correct understanding of the section to see that the apostle is referring throughout to Israel as a nation. Twelve times he uses the word Israel, the name of the nation, and twice he refers to Israelites, as members of the nation. But he only uses the word Jew, the name for the individuals making up the nation, on two occasions, and that, not in connection with national affairs, but individual response to the gospel, in 9:24 and 10:12. A false view of chapters 9-11 will be formed in our minds if we do not take account of this fact.

Throughout chapters 1 to 8 the apostle has made reference to the Jews and the Gentiles as individuals. In chapter 1:16 he spoke of the gospel being “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”. Now it was a great blessing for the Jews that the first thing the apostles did when they went into a city to preach the gospel was to go into the synagogue. This was where seekers after God were to be found. But whilst this was a great blessing, it was also a strong rebuke, for it supposed that the works of the law had not enabled the Jew to come to a state of righteousness, for the gospel was needed by them as much as by the depraved Gentile. It also supposed that the Jews in the synagogue had not received Christ as their Messiah yet, or else they would be meeting with Christians.

Then in chapter 2:8,9 the Jew is first again, but this time in judgement. “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile”. The apostle is careful to repeat in verse 10 that glory, honour, and peace are offered to the Jew first, but the fact remains that judgement will be meted out the Jew first because of his failure to obey righteousness as expressed in the law formally given to the nation at Sinai.

Later in the same chapter the apostle exposes the hypocrisy of the Jew, for he prided himself on having the law, yet failed to keep it. As a result the name of God was blasphemed amongst the Gentiles. The conclusion the apostle draws is that being a Jew, committed by the rite of circumcision to keeping the law, is of no value if the law is transgressed. A true Jew is circumcised in heart; in other words, is a believer in Christ.

The question naturally arises, if a Jew is no better that a Gentile when it comes to sin and judgement, is there any advantage or benefit in being a Jew? The apostle answers that there are many advantages in being a Jew, the main one being that they had the oracles of God, for God spoke through Moses to them, and the words were recorded for their instruction and reproof, 3:2. The fact that many Jews were unfaithful to God in their attitude to His word does not mean that the word is invalid. This unfaithfulness is highlighted by fourteen statements Paul extracts from the Old Testament Scriptures, showing conclusively that the Jews were sunk in sin, and effectively no different to Gentiles, for “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, 3:23.

So this chapter is the beginning of that part of the epistle in which the apostle, having made known the ways of God in the gospel in chapters 1 to 8, now defends those ways against possible objections, especially from his Jewish readers. In particular, His ways in relation to the people of Israel as a nation.

Structure of the chapter

Section (a)	Verses 1-5	The privileges of Israel
Section (b)	Verses 6-13	The purpose of God
Section (c)	Verses 14-18	The pity of God
Section (d)	Verses 19-24	The power of God
Section (e)	Verses 25-33	The proof from the Scriptures

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER 9, VERSES 1 TO 5:

9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Section (a) Verses 1-5 The privileges of Israel

9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

I say the truth in Christ- Paul writes now as a believing Jew, and therefore as a man who is in Christ. His Jewish opponents no doubt accused him of treachery, for he had embraced Christianity, which to them was based on the claims of a blasphemous imposter. He puts himself on oath, so to speak, to tell the truth about his situation. It would be a very serious thing to associate with Christ, and then lie.
My conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit- first his oath, now two witnesses by which every word may be established. His conscience was one witness, and the Holy Spirit is the other. He is confident that the Holy Spirit and his conscience are in agreement on this matter. Even if the Jews were sceptical of Paul, this solemn statement would at least gain their attention.

9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart- far from having disowned his nation, Paul’s heart was burdened and sorrowful as he thought of their national unbelief. In the next verse he will tell us how far his intense concern for the nation of Israel could go.

9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ- the imperfect tense of the verb “wish” indicates that which is simply theoretical, and which could not be realized in actual fact. It is not possible for someone who is truly saved to be anathema to Christ. Moses in a similar situation asked for his name to be blotted out of God’s book, if it meant God would presence Himself with His people again, Exodus 32:30-35. The book he referred to being the record of those who live upon the earth, Psalm 139:16. (Note, in passing, that this book includes the unborn). In effect, Moses was offering to die for the nation.
For my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh- the word brethren speaks of natural affection, not a spiritual relationship in the family of God. Stephen addressed the Jews as brethren, emphasizing their common descent from their father Abraham, Acts 7:2, but their subsequent treatment of him showed they were not born of God.

There now follows an impressive list of national privileges, not one of which in itself brought individual salvation.

9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Who are Israelites- this national name has not been used in the epistle previously, but now occurs as ‘Israel’ or ‘Israelite’ 14 times in chapters 9-11, alerting us to the fact that Paul is speaking about the nation, not specifically about individual Jews.
To whom pertaineth the adoption- “adoption” is the act of recognising a person, or in this case, a nation, as one’s son. This means Israel were God’s son nationally, for God said to Pharoah, “Israel is My son, even My firstborn”, Exodus 4:22,23. Israel as a nation is the firstborn in God’s family of nations, see Hosea 11:1 and Amos 3:2.
And the glory- the glory of God appeared in connection with the Tabernacle, thus forming a link with the revelation of the God of glory who appeared to Abraham when he was in Ur, Acts 7:2.
And the covenants- whether it be to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Phinehas or David.
And the giving of the law- note the apostle separates the covenants of promise from the old covenant of the Law, see Galatians 3:16,17. The former were unconditional, the latter was conditional on their obedience, hence the distinction made between them in this list.
And the service of God- a reference to the priestly and Levitical activity in connection with the tabernacle and the temple. See Hebrews 9:6. It is not Scriptural to call Christian meetings services.
And the promises- the detail of the undertaking given in the covenants was expanded by the prophets, as they spoke of the blessings available to the nation.

9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Whose are the fathers- having spoken of things, the apostle now speaks of persons. The patriarchs were the common possession of all in Israel. This prepares the way for verses 6-13 where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are used as illustrations.
And of whom, as concerning the flesh- note the change of preposition. The nation possessed the fathers, but being unbelieving, did not possess Christ. “Of” means “out of”. Christ is really descended from the fathers insofar as the flesh is concerned. He has legal descent from Abraham through Joseph, Matthew 1:1,16, and natural descent from Abraham through
Mary, Luke 3:23,34.
Christ came- the Messiah had arrived, but they failed to recognise Him. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not”, John 1:11. He came of Israel according to the flesh, but He also came forth from the Father, and came into the world, John 16:28. It would be inconceivable for the apostle, who believed in Christ, to turn from the nation from which He came, and to whom He came.
Who is over all, God blessed for ever- there is more to Christ than manhood. He who is from the nation is over the nation, for He is equal with the God of Israel. Note how the manhood and Godhood are both necessary here, as they were necessary in Romans 1:3,4. Far from modifying his doctrine concerning Christ as he defends himself, Paul insists that Christ is blessed for ever, deserving equal honour with the Father. He is Son of the Blessed, Mark 14:61,62.

This shows the wickedness of rejecting Him, as the majority in Israel had done. He is over all, so they should have responded, “My Lord!” He is God, so they should have responded, “My God!”, but they failed to do so. The apostle Thomas doubted at first that Christ was risen, and only believed when he saw, after a whole week had gone by. He represents the nation of Israel in a future day, who, when the whole period of the current church age has elapsed, will “look upon Him whom they pierced”, John 19:37, for “every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him”, Revelation 1:7. Significantly, it was the sight of the pierce-wounds that convinced Thomas, John 20:24-29. No wonder he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God”.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER 9, VERSES 6 TO 13:

9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;)

9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The truths brought out in this chapter would be very startling to a Jew, shaking his beliefs to the very foundation. The apostle is going to methodically show, however, that these truths are based on the way God dealt with the patriarchs. It is not even that these truths have not been mentioned before in the New Testament, for they have, in various ways, as the following points show:

1. The words of the Lord Jesus to Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I say unto thee, “Ye must be born again”, John 3:7. Note the change of personal pronoun. The Authorised Version, because it retains the distinction between singular and plural pronouns, is indispensable if a correct grasp of God’s mind is to be known. The Lord speaks to Nicodemus as an individual, (“I say unto thee”), but then says, “Ye must be born again”. Every individual in the nation of which Nicodemus was a part, and of which he was a teacher, needed to be born again. It was not just a message for him. So the nation as a whole stood in need of the new birth. Just being the nation was not enough.

2. The lawyer who came to ask about the law was told the story of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37. The lesson he should have derived from the story was not that he was like a priest or Levite, or even like the Samaritan, but he was like the man left half-dead by the roadside. Such was the condition even of one who had influence and prestige in Israel.

3. In John 8:33 the claim is made by the Jews that they were Abraham’s seed. In response the Lord Jesus alluded to the incident in Genesis 21:8-11 where Ishmael mocked Isaac, and as a consequence was cast out of the father’s house. It is slaves that are cast out, as Ishmael was; it is sons that remain in the house, as Isaac did. But the Jews were slaves to sin, for the Lord said to them, “He that committeth sin is the servant of sin”, verse 34. They were servants like Ishmael then, and not like Isaac the free son. Their claim to be Abraham’s seed was correct, but Ishmael could claim this, and had God’s word to prove it, for God had said to Abraham, “And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed”, Genesis 21:13. Mere descent from Abraham was not enough however, if they are to be sons in the Father’s house.

These incidents will provide the framework for the apostle’s teaching in this important passage. As we go through, we shall have to be careful to distinguish the times when Paul is speaking of the literal event, and when he is deriving a spiritual principle from it which furthers the cause he has in mind in the passage. We shall also need to be careful to remember the apostle’s overall purpose, which is to show how God deals with the nation of Israel.

Section (b) Verses 6-13 The purpose of God

9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect- when laws are enacted it is usually specified when they are to take effect; that is, when they are to come into force. Now the word of God in the Old Testament said that it would be the Messiah who would bring to fruition the purpose of God for the nation. But it seems as if that word of God has not come into effect, for the nation rejected Jesus of Nazareth and saw to it that He was crucified. They were acting inconsistently in this, for the coming of Christ was the climax to the Old Testament blessings mentioned in verses 4 and 5, not an after-thought.

To deal with this problem, (if problem it is), the apostle shows that the reason things do not seem to have come into effect as the Jews expected, (for they were looking for a warrior Messiah to defeat their enemies, not a crucified Messiah who seemed himself to be defeated), is the unbelief of the majority in the nation. It is the apostle’s task to show, then, that the reason why God’s purpose has not yet been fully realised is because that purpose involves a nation that is composed of believers only. As long as that is not the case, the realisation of all God’s plans is deferred.

The apostle begins by drawing on truths which were implied in God’s dealings with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the founders, under God, of the nation, and revered by them all. If he can show that God was acting, even then, on certain fixed principles, and if he can show that those fixed principles explain the current situation of Israel, then his task is done and the problems are solved. It will also show that Paul’s sorrow over the current state of the nation is not due to any disappointment he has with God’s dealings. Rather, the cause of His sorrow is alone the unbelief of the privileged nation of Israel.

There are at least five incidents the apostle uses, and they are these:

1. When Jacob was renamed Israel, Genesis 32:24-28
When Jacob was born his hand was holding his brother Esau’s heel. Rebekah called him Jacob because the word means “take by the heel”. It also means “supplanter”, as we see from the words of his brother Esau when he said, “Is he not rightly called Jacob? For he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing”, Genesis 27:36. Having fled from his brother Esau, Jacob was returning, years later. God intervened in his experience, and sent an angel who wrestled with him. When he asked for a blessing from God, the angel said that his name would be changed from Jacob to Israel, “for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast prevailed”, Genesis 32:28. The name Israel is made up of two words, “isra” meaning prince, and “el” meaning God.

2. The birth both of Ishmael and Isaac, Genesis 16:1-16; 21:1-5 Abraham had no son and heir, so he adopted the fleshly custom of the day and produced a son, Ishmael, through Hagar, Genesis 16. God then promised to give Abraham a son through his proper wife Sarah, and even though by this time Abraham and Sarah were old, Isaac was born, Genesis 17:15-17; 21:1-5.

3. Jacob and Esau when unborn, Genesis 25:21-26

Isaac’s wife Rebekah was carrying twins, and they struggled within her. When she enquired of the Lord about this, she was told that there were two nations in her womb, and the twin who would be born first, Esau, would serve his younger brother Jacob, Genesis 21-26.

4. After Israel made the golden calf, Exodus 32:9-14;33:15-19

God threatened to destroy the nation of Israel for worshipping the golden calf. Moses intervened, however, and God agreed to spare the nation with the words, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show mercy on whom I will show mercy”, Exodus 33:19.

5. The raising up of Pharoah to be king in Egypt, Exodus 9:16.

He resisted God will, and became an example of the folly of so doing. God said to him, “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee My power; and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth”, Exodus 9:16.

Returning to verse 6

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel– Jacob is used as an illustration first by the apostle, even though he was after Abraham and Isaac in time, because his name was given to the nation, and the passage is about national status and blessing.

The rabbis taught that “No Israelite can go into Gehenna”, Pesikta 38(a), and, “All Israelites have their portion in the world to come”, Sanhedrin I. The apostle must deal with this error, and he does so by the use of the incident involving the name of Israel.

Jacob, whose name, as we have seen, means “supplanter”, was renamed Israel, meaning “a prince with God”, or “ruling with God”. So what Paul is emphasizing here is that they are not all princes with God who bear the name of “prince with God”. In other words, to be of the nation naturally, does not secure spiritual blessing; that must come through faith. Jacob had to learn that lesson, for he had survived by his scheming until Genesis 32, and then he found that true blessing comes from God alone, when men earnestly desire it. It was at this point he became a prince with God.

The apostle shows in the next verses that their status as a nation is through the purpose of God, and is not a result of them meriting the position. That purpose does not involve a nation composed of both believers and unbelievers, but believers only. This is why there is a future for Israel as a nation still, because their destiny as a nation is grounded in the sovereign choice of God. But is is a nation that believes. Like the fig tree that the Lord Jesus cursed, which withered away from the roots, Mark 11:12-14,20,21, the nation of Israel after the flesh has no future. We must not embrace the idea that the current State of Israel acts according to God. The nation is in unbelief, and has been since it crucified its true Messiah. In fact, the majority of the nation will receive and believe the Antichrist, see Daniel 9:27. Individual members of the nation must learn to depend on God and His grace for blessing, and come to Him individually in faith.

Jacob’s brother Esau had used this name in a similar way. When Jacob was born, he was given that name, which means “to take by the heel”, because he had grasped his twin brother’s heel after he had been brought forth. But the Hebrew word for Jacob also means “he will supplant”, so it was prophetic also. Later, when the twins were grown, Esau said, “Is not he rightly called Jacob? For he hath supplanted me these two times”, Genesis 27:36. So the name Jacob was used in a figurative as well as a literal sense. Such is the case also with the name Israel in this verse.

We see this illustrated in the case of Nathaniel, who was described by the Lord, (who knew his heart), as “an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile”, John 1:47. Jacob had been marked by guile, but then had dealings with God and was renamed Israel. Nathaniel, too, had been born as a man of guile, Jacob-like, as we all are, but a change had come about, and he was now Israel-like, a prince with God, and recognised as such by the Lord Jesus Himself. He was now fit to be part of Christ’s kingdom, not only because he recognised Jesus of Nazareth was king of Israel, but also because he owned Him as Son of God. Only those who do this will be in the kingdom.

Another example of the use of a name as a description is found in Romans 2:28,29, where we read, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God”. Now the word Jew is derived from the name Judah, which means “praise”, see Genesis 29:35. So the apostle is virtually saying to the Jews, “You are called by the name Judah, but because there is no reality in your hearts, and you are only Jews by birth, then you do not live up to that name by bringing praise to the Lord by your lives; nor can He, for His part, praise you for the way you live”.

So, going back to his statement, we see that the apostle is in line with Old Testament and New Testament practice to use the name Israel not only as a personal title, but also as a description. So what does the statement actually mean? The apostle is declaring that being part of the nation that derives its name from Israel their forefather, does not automatically mean that you can be described as “Israel”, a “prince with God”. That dignity only comes after personal dealings with God have wrought a great change of heart. So it is that the apostle can refer to the future nation of Israel, after it has come into the good of God’s grace nationally, after their Messiah has returned to them, as “the Israel of God”, the nation He can own and recognise because they are all believers, Galatians 6:16.

Taking all these things together, we see that the apostle is shattering the national complacency of those in Israel, and is showing them that their rejection of Christ is the result of their own unbelief, and not as a result of God’s word being ineffectual.

9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children- John the Baptist warned those of his day, “think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father:’ for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham”, Matthew 3:9. If being a child of Abraham is a natural thing only, then God can produce children for Abraham by breathing life into natural things like stones.

We should notice the different ways the word “seed” is used in connection with Abraham, as follows:

First, Ishmael was Abraham’s seed, in the sense that he was a child of Abraham, Genesis 21:13, (the very next verse to the one Paul is about to quote).

Second, Isaac was Abraham’s seed, for God said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called”, Genesis 21:12.

Third, Abraham’s descendants through Isaac are called Abraham’s seed, for God said, “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My voice”, Genesis 22:17,18.
Fourth, in the ultimate sense “The Seed” is Christ, as Galatians 3:16 makes clear with the words, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, ‘And to seeds’, as of many; but as of one, ‘And to thy seed’, which is Christ”. So if the seed is Christ, then He cannot be associated with any who are not believers. God’s definition of the seed of Abraham, in this use of the word, (as opposed to the use of it sometimes as meaning ‘physical descendants of Abraham’, like Ishmael, or the children of Keturah), was “those who can be associated with Christ, and who belong to Him”. Even if they lived in Old Testament times God could think of them in relation to His Son, just as He passed over the sins of Old Testament saints in view of His Son’s sacrifice at Calvary, Romans 3:25.

Fifth, the expression “Abraham’s seed” is applied to believers of this age in the words, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”, Galatians 3:29. So the seed of Abraham is said to be believers at this present time. It would be inconsistent to think that the seed could consist of unbelievers in former times, but only believers now.

But, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called”- this is a quotation from Genesis 21:12, spoken when Hagar and Ishmael were cast out of Abraham’s house. God sovereignly singled out Isaac to be the heir of Abraham, thus showing that the natural descent of Ishmael from Abraham was of no avail when it comes to relationship with God. This is not only true of those descended from Abraham through Hagar, but extends even to those who only have natural descent through Abraham, as we have seen from the Lord’s words to the men of His day, as we shall see when thinking of the next verse.

9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God- “That is” should be understood as “which means”. Paul now applies the principle illustrated by Ishmael, (child of the flesh), and Isaac, (child of promise). He had already used the story in a similar way in Galatians 4:21-31.

The Jews had claimed in John 8:33 to be Abraham’s seed. This gave the Lord Jesus the opportunity to point out to them the spiritual meaning that lay behind a significant event in the experience of Abraham and Isaac. On the day that Isaac was weaned, his father had made a great feast to celebrate the occasion. Ishmael, however, cruelly mocked Isaac, and consequently was cast out of Abraham’s house, Genesis 21:1-13.

Now Ishmael was the son of Hagar, the slave-girl from Egypt. Nonetheless he could claim to be Abraham’s seed, for Abraham was his father. The Jews, too, were naturally descended from Abraham. As slaves to sin, however, they were no different to Ishmael, the child of the slave. As such, they had no right to be in God’s house.

Isaac had the right to remain in the father’s house, and he illustrates the fact that the Lord Jesus, the Son of His Father, is worthy of a settled place in the Father’s presence. He has no sin within to enslave Him, and He is perfectly free to do the Father’s will.

The wonder of it all, however, is that others besides the Lord Jesus may share that place. Those made free by the application of the truth to their souls, are made free indeed. This particular word for “indeed”, is only used here in John’s gospel. It is based on the word “to be”, and indicates that those who are made free by the Lord Jesus are free to the very core of their being. They are not superficially free. They are as free, in fact, as the Son is free, and with the same result, namely favour with the Father, and ultimately a place in the Father’s house on high, John 14:2,3.

There was no doubt that the Jews who surrounded Christ as He spoke these words were descended from Abraham as to the flesh, but their attitude towards Him suggested there was something badly wrong. Just as Ishmael mocked Isaac when he was presented to the world as the son of his father, so the nation of Israel mocked Christ’s claim to be the Son of God. So it is possible to be descended from Isaac naturally, but be Ishmael-like spiritually, and reject Christ.

In a similar way the apostle begins to apply the principle; he is thinking on two levels. He is seeing Ishmael as the product of Abraham’s fleshly way of obtaining a son, and Isaac as the son God supernaturally gave to Abraham and Sarah. In that initial sense Ishmael was a child of the flesh as to his birth, and Isaac was a child of God as to his birth.

Paul is not saying anything about the personal spiritual status of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was certainly not born of God because he was miraculously conceived; he would have to have personal dealings with God to become His child. (In any case being a child of God in the new-birth sense does not happen at natural birth). Nor was Ishmael unable to believe because he was a child after the flesh. After all, every person born, including Isaac, is “born of the flesh”, John 3:6. If Ishmael came to God in repentance and faith he too could be born of God.

So much for the first level on which the apostle is thinking. But there is a higher level, and it illustrates the principle God works on to secure for Himself a nation of Israel that is composed entirely of converted souls. So Ishmael and Isaac now become illustrations of those who are simply naturally born, and those who are born of the Spirit according to God’s promise to give eternal life to those who believe.

But the children of the promise are counted for the seed- just as Isaac was born naturally through the promise of God, (and hence can be called a child of promise), so on a higher level, those who are born again as a result of God intervening, are the true children of God, and constitute the true seed of Abraham.

That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God- “That is” may be understood as “which means”. Paul now applies the principle illustrated by Ishmael, (child of the flesh, because he was produced by Abraham acting after the flesh), and Isaac, (child of God, because he was produced by God’s intervention). He had already used these two sons as an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31, seeing in Ishmael those who are the product of the law, and who are therefore in bondage to it, and Isaac those who are the product of grace, and are free.

Having stated the situation from a positive angle in verse 7, the apostle now begins to apply the principle from a negative angle as he speaks of those who do not qualify to be part of the true seed. He is not still speaking of Ishmael and Isaac, but rather of those whom they illustrate, namely, those of the nation of Israel who are born after the flesh, and those of the nation of Israel who are born of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is now using the expressions “children of the flesh” and “children of God” in application. This is confirmed by the fact that he is talking about children in the plural in each case, so he is not speaking specifically about Ishmael and Isaac here. He is showing that the true Israel is only composed of those born of the Spirit.

The expression “children of the flesh” as used in Paul’s application, means those who are descendants of Abraham but have never been born again through faith. They are not descended from Ishmael, but from Isaac, but they are not Isaac-like. As such, they are not part of the true Israel. The true Israelites are those who are not only children of Abraham by natural birth, but children of God by new birth.

But the children of the promise are counted for the seed- the promise mentioned here is the promise quoted in the next verse. The expression “children of the promise” applies the situation as regards Isaac physically, in a spiritual way. He was heir to everything because God promised him to Abraham and Sarah. He becomes an illustration of those who lay hold of the promises of God. It is those who are born as a result of God working, as Isaac was, rather than those born through human effort, like Ishmael, who are the children of the promise. Paul is bringing out here that it was never God’s intention to reckon a mixed company of believers and unbelievers to be the Seed of Abraham that would inherit the promises, and over whom Christ would reign.

After all, we must bear in mind two things in connection with the true seed. First, that in the ultimate sense it is Christ, as Galatians 3:16 makes clear with the words, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, ‘And to seeds’, as of many; but as of one, ‘And to thy seed’, which is Christ”. So if the seed is Christ, then He cannot be associated with any who are not believers. God’s definition of the seed of Abraham, in this use of the word, (as opposed to the use of it sometimes as meaning ‘physical descendants of Abraham’), was “those who can be associated with Christ, and who belong to Him”. Even if they lived in Old Testament times God could think of them in relation to His Son, just as He passed over the sins of Old Testament saints in view of His Son’s sacrifice at Calvary, Romans 3:25.

Second, the expression “Abraham’s seed” is applied to believers of this age in the words, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”, Galatians 3:29. So the seed of Abraham is said to be believers at this present time. It would be inconsistent to think that the seed could consist of unbelievers in former times, but only believers now.

9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

For this is the word of promise- the last point is of great importance, therefore the apostle quotes the actual promise that God made.
“At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son”- the emphasis is on the action of God, “will I come”, showing that position with God must come from His intervention, not that of the flesh. Note also that the timing of the birth of the child was completely in the control of God. The gender of the child was also under Divine control, for His purpose could not be worked out if Sarah had a daughter. The child must be a son so as to beget seed.

9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

And not only this- the third lesson Israel must learn.
But when Rebecca also had conceived- as well as Sarah’s conception illustrating a principle, Rebecca’s does also. Note how appropriate these illustrations are, for they both involve the matter of producing children.
By one, even by our father Isaac- the fact that there were two different mothers involved in the births of Ishmael and Isaac served to illustrate the contrast between, on the one hand, the devices of the flesh, (Abraham having a child by his bondslave), and, on the other hand, the promise of God, (Isaac is born of parents who are as good as dead). Now, however, the apostle draws attention to the purpose of God in His sovereign choice of one rather than the other. The situation with Rebecca suits his requirements admirably, for there is one father, one mother, and their twin sons are not born at the time God speaks about them.

9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;)

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil- as both are not born, they are in identical circumstances. As those not having done any act of moral significance, neither has earned the favour of God by good works, nor, for that matter, His anger because of evil works. So Jacob is not blessed because of good works, nor is Esau rejected because he has done evil works, at this point in time. When the promise quoted in verse 9 was given, Ishmael was already born. Here, things are different, and the difference illustrates the principle of God’s sovereign choice, as the apostle will now say.
That the purpose of God according to election might stand- “stand” means abide, last, not perish. There was nothing in the situation regarding Rebecca’s sons which would cause God’s purpose to be undermined. The election the apostle is speaking about is God’s choice of the descendants of Jacob to form the nation of Israel over which His Son would reign. We see this to be the case by reading Genesis 25:23, where God says to Rebecca in response to her enquiry as to why her babies were struggling in the womb, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger”. Words could not be plainer, “Two nations…two manner of people…one people…other people”. Coupled with this, God speaks through Malachi of Esau’s mountains. Clearly the reference is to the nations that will spring from Esau and Jacob respectively. Just as clearly the reference is not to God choosing one person for salvation and the other for damnation. The two sons give their names to two nations, and only one of the nations, Israel, is chosen of God to produce the Messiah. This has nothing to do with the personal destiny of either Jacob or Esau. That will be determined by their response to God, or lack of it, as the case may be. The election is of Jacob to be the father of the twelve sons who would form the twelve tribes of Israel.
The quotation which follows in verse 13 reinforces this truth, for Malachi is speaking of nations under their patriarchal head, Jacob and Esau, (Scripture says “Esau is Edom”, Genesis 36:8).
Not of works, but of Him that calleth)- Israel’s position as the favoured nation is solely the result of God choosing that it should be so, and not at all because by their works they have merited it, (for being not yet born they had done neither good or evil). Now this is a blessing and also a caution for the nation. It is a blessing, in that if the nation in the ideal sense, (and not in any merely traditional sense), is God’s because He chose it, then their position is unassailable and secure. It is a caution because if their position is not based on works, then they cannot earn it, but must know God’s grace in Christ. They cannot be blessed as a nation apart from Christ and Calvary. So the nation of Israel is God’s choice from among the nations, but it is not the nation consisting of believers and unbelievers, but the nation the apostle calls “the Israel of God”, Galatians 6:16.

9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

It was said unto her- first the apostle quotes what was said to Rebecca before the sons were born.
“The elder shall serve the younger”- that is, Esau, the first one to come from the womb, would serve his younger brother Jacob. In normal circumstances in Bible times, the reverse would be the case. That this is a national thing we have already noted from the words, “Two nations are in thy womb”, Genesis 25:23. But it is also seen in the fact that Esau did not personally serve Isaac in his lifetime. In fact the reverse is the case, for in Genesis 33 we find the following:

Verse 3	Jacob bows himself to the ground seven times before his brother Esau.
Verses 5 and 14	Jacob calls himself Esau’s servant.
Verses 13,14,15	Jacob calls Esau his lord.

Clearly this is not a fulfilment of the prophecy “the elder shall serve the younger”, if we understand the elder to be Esau personally and the younger to be Jacob personally. The prophecy is only fulfilled on a national level. It was partially fulfilled during David’s reign, for we read, “And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David’s servants”, 1 Chronicles 18:13. It will be fulfilled fully when Christ reigns, as the prophecy of Obadiah 18 makes clear, “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau, for the Lord hath spoken it”.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

As it is written- the previous verse relates to what was said by God just before the twins were born, whereas now it is the word of God through Malachi centuries later. Note the “it is written”, for the Word of God, written by Malachi many years before Paul was writing, still abides, and is currently relevant. This gives the apostle authority to use it in his argument, for the words have not lost their power.
‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’- God now speaks in the past tense, and summarises His attitude to the two nations which came from Esau and Jacob. It would be helpful to quote Malachi’s words, to see the context:

“The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, ‘Wherein hast Thou loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, ‘We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places;’ thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, ‘The border of wickedness’, and, ‘The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.’ And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel”, Malachi 1:1-5.

“Was not Eau Jacob’s brother?” serves to remind us of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Esau and Jacob. Yet Esau is called Jacob’s brother, not Jacob, Esau’s brother, even though by the time Jacob was born, his twin brother Esau had already arrived. There is an allusion in this to the fact that Jacob was going to be the dominant and preferred one, and Esau is reckoned only in terms of being his brother.

Esau and Jacob were twin brothers, and there was no difference between them as to parentage and environment, yet God gave Jacob the superior place because He chose him to be the father of the nation of Israel through his twelve sons.

This was an act of love, for as Moses reminded Israel in the Deuteronomy 7:7,8 that “The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He hath sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, from the hand of Pharoah king of Egypt”.

So Moses offers no direct explanation as to why God loved them, but simply says He loved because He loved, indirectly implying that God loved them because He is love, and His dealings are an expression of what He is in Himself. He does not need anything from man to make Him love, He loves because it is His nature to do so. So God’s choice of Israel was in love, and it involved Jacob being in the ascendancy. But if Israel was the object of love, Esau, (who later on, when formed into a nation, was called Edom), was the object of God’s hatred, not because He hates without cause, but because He hated what Edom did. Scripture says, “God is love”, 1 John 4:8, for that is the essence of His Being. It is not the case that God is hate. God loves without cause, (except the underlying cause of glorifying Himself in some way), but He does not hate without just cause.

So it was that in Malachi’s day, Edom had been judged. The cause of God’s judgement is set out by Obadiah in verses12-14. Edom had done the following things:

1. Rejoiced when Israel was taken into captivity. “But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; Neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction”.

2. Reacted in pride to the calamity of Israel. “Neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress”.

3. Entered into the gates of Jerusalem to loot and pillage. “Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of My people in the day of their calamity. Yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity”. The psalmist wrote as he sat by the rivers of Babylon during the captivity, “Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom, in the day of Jerusalem; Who said, ‘Raze it, Raze it, even to the foundation thereof'”, Psalm 137:7.

4. Cut off those trying to escape. “Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape”.

5. Betrayed those that remained in the city. “Neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress”.

These are examples of gratuitous and unjustified wickedness and spite. As a result Ezekiel, prophesying at about the same time as Obadiah, recorded God’s words, “I will stretch out My hand upon Edom, and will cut off man and beast from it; and I will make it desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword. And I will lay My vengeance upon Edom by the hand of My people Israel: and they shall do in Edom according to Mine anger and according to My fury; and they shall know My vengeance saith the Lord God”, Ezekiel 25:13,14.

And again, “Thus saith the Lord God; When the whole earth rejoiceth, I will make thee desolate. As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the Lord”, Ezekiel 35:14,15.

Malachi prophesied after the remnant of Israel had returned to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel and had rebuilt the city of Jerusalem and the temple. A comparison between the things Malachi prophesies about, and the conditions in Jerusalem at the end of the book of Nehemiah, will suggest that he ministered at the end of the first period into which Daniel’s 490 years’ vision was divided. His book is critically important, for it shows what God’s attitude to them was before they entered the dark period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, when the heavens would be silent. The faithful ones need to be assured of His love; the unfaithful ones need to be reminded of His judgements.

To assure them of His love, God reminds them through Malachi that He had restored the nation that bears Israel’s name to the land after the captivity. To remind them of His judgements, He cites the fact that He expressed His hatred towards Esau, (referred to as Edom by Malachi, for Genesis 36:8 says “Esau is Edom”, ), as is seen by the fact that his mountains and cities were laid waste, whereas Jerusalem was rebuilt.

The principle the apostle is deriving from all this is simple: the love God had shown in His choice of them to be His special nation is maintained, and those who do anything to try to frustrate the outworking of His purpose through them will know His hatred and His wrath. As was said in Zechariah 2:8, “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye”.

We may summarise the apostle’s teaching so far by saying that having startled us with the thought that not all who are descended from the patriarch Israel are really part of the nation to which he gave his name, nevertheless the future of Israel is assured because it is the object of God’s loving choice.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER 9, VERSES 14 TO 18:

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

9:15 For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.

9:18 Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.

Section (c) Verses 14-18 The pity of God towards the nation

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

What shall we say then- here the apostle asks a question of his believing readers, whereas in verse 19 he supposes an unbeliever objecting. The “then” tells us that the question is asked because of what has gone before.
Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid- are God’s dealings unjust when He loves one and hates another? This can only be true if He does so without good reason and contrary to His own righteousness. God cannot deny Himself, 2 Timothy 2:13. God and unrighteousness cannot co-exist. The reason the apostle can so forcibly deny that there is unrighteousness with God is found in the next verse, hence it begins with “for”, meaning “because”. The apostle is confident that God will continue to show that same love, righteousness and mercy mingled together in His dealings with Israel in the future, as He did when they made the golden calf.

9:15 For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

For He saith to Moses- after Israel had sinned in the matter of the golden calf. We might think this will be an example of God hating, but it is the reverse.

It would be helpful to set out the main features of the context of the words Paul is about to quote:

1. Some in Israel make a golden calf to worship, Exodus 32:1-8.

2. The Lord threatens to obliterate the nation of Israel and make a nation from Moses, Exodus 32:9,10.

3.Moses pleads for them firstly on the basis of the harm that would be caused to God’s name if He abandoned the nation He had just redeemed from Egypt. Then secondly, on the basis of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, (meaning Jacob), Exodus 32:1-13.

4. The Lord responds to this by reversing His decision, Exodus 32:14.

5. Moses and Joshua come down from the mount and Moses breaks the tables of the Law, Exodus 32:15-24.

6. Moses stands at the gate of the camp, and appeals for those who are on the Lord’s side in this matter to come to him. The tribe of Levi do so, and are charged with the slaughter of the guilty persons, presumably those of their tribe who followed Aaron as he led them into sin, Exodus 32:25-29. When Moses referred to this incident later, he said of Levi, “Who said unto his father and mother, ‘I have not seen him’; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor know his own children'”, Deuteronomy 33:9. God was doing what He will do again in the future, for “He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”, Malachi 3:3.

7. Moses goes to the Lord to make atonement by intercession, and also by offering to be blotted out of the book of the living; in other words, offers to die for the nation. The Lord does not accept this, saying the individual must die for his own sin. By refusing Moses’ offer God preserved the uniqueness of the death of His Son. He promises an angel to go before the people instead of Himself, and He plagues the people for their idolatry, Exodus 32:30-35.

8. Although the Lord refuses to go up with the people, He promises to ensure that they inherit the land, Exodus 33:1-3.

9. The people mourn at this, Exodus 33:4-6.

10. Moses pitches a tabernacle outside the camp, and makes coming out to him a test of their loyalty, Exodus 33:7-11.

11. Moses appeals to God to return to leading His people with the words, “Show me now Thy way, that I may know Thee…and consider that this nation is Thy people”, Exodus 33:12-13.

12. The Lord assures Moses that His presence will go with him, Exodus 33:14.

13. Moses twice over calls Israel “Thy people”, Exodus 33:15,16.

14. God undertakes to “do this thing also that thou hast spoken”. In other words, the people are to be reckoned God’s people again after their lapse, Exodus 33:17.

15. Moses requests to see God’s glory, the sign that His presence was with him. The Lord agrees, Exodus 33:18.

Then come the words that Paul now quotes-

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion- by saying “I will…I will” God is indicating His determined purpose, from which He will not be deflected. Israel had good reason to be grateful that this sovereign attitude of God was manifested towards them. They had forfeited all rights to His mercy, yet God chose to show mercy to them despite their sin. This is a righteous thing for God to do, because He declares His glory to Moses in the very next chapter as one who forgives sin, Exodus 34:7. The incident of the golden calf had been a test for Aaron, and he failed. (This highlights the fact that the law made men high priests that have infirmity, Hebrews 7:28.). It was also a test for Moses, and he triumphed, pleading for the people, offering to die for them, securing their reinstatement as the people of God with the presence of God with them.

Notice it is not God saying He will have mercy on some and judge others. It is unmixed mercy and compassion to the nation, despite their waywardness. God’s right to cast them off as a nation was maintained, for He is light, and therefore displays righteousness and holiness, but He is also love, and therefore displays mercy and compassion.

There is nothing here in the context, (and it is always the context that must govern our interpretation), to warrant the idea that God arbitrarily picks out some to have mercy on, and passes others by, for that would contradict other Scriptures. Peter wrote that “The Lord…is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”, 2 Peter 3:9. There are none upon the earth at any time who could not gain God’s salvation, if they would only come God’s way, namely, by repentance and faith. The idea that there are some who are predestined to the Lake of Fire, and therefore there is no provision for them is a God-dishonouring lie. The Scripture distinctly states that men are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

In Exodus 33:19, the words are given as, “and He said…’and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy'”. Grace is God’s free and unmerited favour to those who cannot merit it and cannot repay it. The word for mercy used here is His deep compassion for those He sees need help, His tender pity to those who feel the misery of sin. This is perfectly manifested by the Lord Jesus when He wept over Jerusalem, lamenting its refusal to come to Him, Luke 19:41; see also Matthew 23:37. How appropriate these words are to the situation. The people have sinned, but God is prepared to show grace towards them; He knows they have a tendency to fail, so He has, and will continue to have, compassion upon them in their frailty, in view of His covenant with Abraham. So there is provision in the attitude of God for the people in their current situation, and any that would arise in the future.

So we may summarise by saying that in Exodus 33, where the people have broken the Law, God pledges to show grace. The people deserve His judgement, but He assures Moses He will reach out to them in their weakness and have compassion on them. In Romans 9, however, the point is that God has pity on the nation, not so much because they are law-breakers, but because they have rejected His Son cruelly, and intends to have compassion over them, if they will turn from their unbelief. No doubt this is an answer to the prayer of the Lord Jesus when He pleaded, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, Luke 23:34. The princes of this world, including those listed in Acts 4:5,6, (whom Peter calls “ye builders” in verse 11, meaning the builders of the nation), crucified the Lord of glory in ignorance, 1 Corinthians 2:8.

The form of the phrase we are considering shows that God is determined in what He says He will do. He will do what He will do, and no power shall stop Him. He is indeed sovereign, but not in any unprincipled way, for He cannot deny Himself. This should give great comfort to those in Israel who were having second thoughts about their rejection of Christ. They may be confident that when they come to God in true repentance and faith they will find Him to be what He declared Himself to be through this word, spoken long ago to Moses, but repeated to them by the apostle Paul, whose heart longed to see them saved, as he expressly says in 10:1. They may also have confidence that all God’s covenant promises to Abraham will be fulfilled to the letter, always remembering the principle, set out in these verses, that it is believers alone who shall be in the good of that covenant.

9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy- the principle on which God acts, (“it”), is not in response to the will of man asserting itself, (“willeth”), to influence God’s actions, (for example Moses interceding and offering to give his life for the nation), nor is it in response to any energetic action, (“runneth”), on the part of man, (such as the tribe of Levi slaying the worshippers of the golden calf), as if God can be forced to act in a certain way. Rather, it is the sovereign choice of God to show mercy. In this way the blessing is thoroughly undeserved and secure. If one man could persuade God to act in a particular way, who is to say that another man might not be able to influence Him in the opposite way? By the same token, if a man could merit God’s favour by “running”, that is, by energetic activity for Him, then there would some glory for man in the matter; but no flesh may glory in God’s presence, 1 Corinthians 1:29. God’s actions are rooted solely in His will, and this gives great assurance to those who comply with that will.

9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.

For the scripture saith unto Pharoah- by using the word “saith”, and not “said”, the apostle emphasises the living voice of the Old Testament Scriptures, that they have the same authority as the original oral statement. We should remember that there were only a few weeks between the defeat of Pharoah and the worshipping of the golden calf. Pharoah becomes, because of his hardness of heart, one who knows God’s hatred. So there is a contrast between Moses pleading with God for the nation, and Pharoah determined to destroy them. Again we see the national aspect of the passage.
Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up- God brought Pharoah to the throne of Egypt to show His power when he abused his position and fought against God. It is not raised up by being born, as if God creates men to destroy them. The time had come for God to deliver His people, and those who oppose His will must be made an example.
That I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth- we see here the two-fold purpose of God, namely, to show what happens to those who rebel against Him, and to magnify His name when He defeats His foes. As the Israelites said in their song, “Sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina. Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold of them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. Fear and dread shall fall upon them”, Exodus 15:14-16. That His name was honoured is seen in that Rahab knew about Israel crossing the Red Sea, Joshua 2:8-11, and so did the Gibeonites, Joshua 9:9,10.

We should remember that Pharoah was virtually a god in Egypt, and so represented the powers of evil. He is not some insignificant individual, but
the one through whom the Prince of this world was attacking Israel. As such, he met God’s severe displeasure.

9:18 Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.

Therefore- on the basis of God’s dealings with Israel and Pharoah, the following conclusion may be drawn.
Hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth- note that whilst the mention of mercy to Israel is repeated, the thought regarding Pharoah is that he will be hardened. In order that God’s power over Egypt might be demonstrated by the plagues, He hardened Pharoah’s heart, by allowing Pharoah to harden his heart wilfully, and thus fulfilled His purpose. The hardening was determined by God. When Pharoah hardened his heart, he was doing exactly what God willed to happen, yet he was still fully responsible for his actions. This is a warning to all in positions of power who seek to harm the nation of Israel. God will not ignore their actions, but will bring them to account. As He said to Abraham, “and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee”, Genesis 12:3.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER 9, VERSES 19 TO 24:

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?

9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

9:22 What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

9:23 And that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,

9:24 Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Section (d) Verses 19-24 The power of God towards His enemies

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?

Thou wilt say then unto me- the apostle anticipates an objection to this truth.
Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?- if the will of God cannot be resisted successfully, as Pharoah’s experience demonstrates, then what just reason has God for finding fault with what men do, since they only carry out what He decrees? And again, what reason is there to object to Israel’s continued unbelief as a nation? For the same word “harden” that is used of Pharoah, is used by God in relation to Israel in John 12:40, where the apostle quotes Isaiah’s words, “He hath blinded their eyes, and hath hardened their heart”, as being applicable to the nation that was about to have God’s Son crucified.

This is intensely solemn, for both Pharoah and Israel display the same attitude to God, and are hardened by Him as a result. That this national hardening does not mean no Jew can be saved is evident, for Paul will say in 11:1, “for I also am an Israelite”. He was living proof that individual Jews could still be saved.

The apostle answers this objection in two ways. First, by rebuking any argument against God, and then by explaining further the way in which God’s purpose is worked out.

9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?- the “nay” is a denial of the suggestion, while the “but” is the apostle’s rebuttal. The words he uses are an allusion to Job 33:12,13, “I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. Why dost thou strive against Him? For He giveth not account of any of His matters”. It is outrageous for puny sinful man to seek to argue with God and answer Him back, or even to expect Him to gives reasons for His actions.
Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, “Why hast Thou made me thus?”- now we have an allusion to Isaiah 45:9, which reads, “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, “What makest thou?” Job describes men as those who “live in houses of clay”, Job 4:19, and his friend Elihu said to him, “I also am formed out of the clay”, Job 33:6. This reminds us forcibly of the frailty and fragility of man, and cautions against pitting ourselves against the mighty God of heaven.

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?- the apostle follows up his allusion to Isaiah 45:9 with its use of the potter metaphor for God. God has the right to do as He pleases, just as a potter has the right to make whatever he wants of his own clay. But that He does not act arbitrarily and capriciously is seen in the next verses. That God has the right to act sovereignly, is the answer to the unbelievers cavil. For the believer there is a further explanation, for God does not make vessels so He can destroy them.

9:22 What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

What if God- here the apostle sets out a complementary truth. God has the right to do as He pleases, as the previous verse has stated, but we must always be aware that He does not act in an unprincipled way. It is important to notice that in the Greek text the word “de” introduces a new topic. It is the equivalent of “on the other hand”, and is found near the beginning of verse 22. So having presented one valid explanation for the seemingly indifferent way in which God treats men, as if He makes them dishonourable, as a potter makes a vessel for a dishonourable use, he now gives to us the alternative explanation.

This alternative explanation of the dealings of God with men, is the one the apostle constantly favours in these verses. He is not a harsh and maverick God, acting in some unprincipled and arbitrary way, but works out His purpose in righteousness and love. We know this is God’s character, for He has been perfectly manifested by His Son, who said, “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father”, John 14:9. We find no trace of harshness or unreasonableness in His dealings with men. He was harsh against their sin, it is true, but He came, not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them, Luke 9:56. There is no hint that He was making vessels so He could destroy them. An illustration of this is His way with Judas. Right to the end He sought His recovery, but Judas, alas, hardened his heart and went into perdition.

This alternative explanation will still maintain God’s rights over men, but will show that, far from being a tyrant, God in fact waits patiently for vessels of wrath to repent. It is worthy of note that when Pharaoh showed signs of relaxing his attitude to God, then respite was given him. We see this in connection with the plague of frogs, Exodus 8:8-15, and the plague of flies, 8:30-32. After the plague of hail, he even went so far as to say, “I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Intreat the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer”, Exodus 9:27,28. Yet as soon as the hail is removed, Pharaoh hardened his heart. He was morally responsible for this hardening, but the Lord was behind it, to show His great power, but also to show His longsuffering, even to vessels of wrath.

Willing to show His wrath- that is, determined to do so. If God shows wrath, it is always for a just cause. At the time when the nation of Israel was about to be taken into captivity, Jeremiah also used the illustration of the potter and the clay. He tells us this:

“Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand so are ye in Mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in My sight, that it obey not My voice, that I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them'”, Jeremiah 18:3-10.

Having spoken these words from the Lord, Jeremiah went to the people of Israel and applied them to their situation. Their response was to reject his words. Jeremiah was told by the Lord to respond to this by getting a potter’s earthen vessel, take representatives of the people, go to the valley of the son of Hinnom, and break the vessel in the sight of the people. He then said, ‘Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again'”, Jeremiah 19:1,2,10,11. The Jews reading Paul’s epistle would be well aware of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the way in which they used the imagery of the potter. They could be made anew if they repented, or they could continue in their current sinful state, be hardened of God, and thus be like an earthenware vessel, that cannot be made anew.

And to make His power known- as He did in the case of Pharoah.
Endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction- note that the apostle does not speak of God making vessels to pour out His wrath upon. We must not confuse the use of potter imagery in verse 20 in response to an unbelieving objection, (which emphasises God’s sovereignty), and the use of potter imagery in this verse as the apostle explains the situation in more detail for the benefit of earnest and perplexed enquirers, (which emphasises God’s long-suffering).

He endured the behaviour even though it deserved His wrath. If He endured with much long-suffering it was because He was waiting for repentance, as 2 Peter 3:9 indicates. This was the situation with Israel nationally, for as Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost”, 1 Thessalonians 2:15,16. No-one could doubt they were, and are, a vessel of wrath. But Jeremiah, whilst he applied the image of the potter’s vessel to Israel, did say that it referred to any nation. So applying that here, we see that those of any nation which oppose God’s purpose for Israel are vessels of wrath, for the word is not “vessel”, but “vessels”. Those who persecute Israel must not expect to go unpunished, even though their actions work out God’s purpose in some way. This was a principle set out by the Old Testament. For instance, having told Abraham that his seed would be afflicted in Egypt, God then said that the nation that afflicted them He would judge, and so it came to pass, Genesis 15:14.

To be fitted is not the same as to be made, and also is in the middle voice, meaning men fit themselves. All men are deserving of God’s wrath as they come into the world, for they are “by nature the children of wrath”, Ephesians 2:4; there are none that are vessels unto honour when they are born. That birth is in view is seen in the expression “by nature”. Men are children of wrath by natural birth, not by some predestining act of God. Nor are they children of wrath by default, as if God predestined some to heaven and by that act predestined the rest to endure His wrath. Men, however, Israelites included, fit themselves for wrath by their sin. The wrath will be in exact proportion to their guilt.

9:23 And that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,

And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy- note it is vessels of mercy, not vessels unto honour. Only the mercy of God to undeserving sinners can introduce them to the glories detailed in 8:28-30, so that they become vessels of honour in association with His Son. This is true predestination, which has not to do, (strangely enough) with destinations, heaven or hell, but with being within the boundaries of God’s purpose to surround His Son with those who are like Him.
The vessel Jeremiah saw the potter make was marred in his hand, but he did not say, “This vessel is obviously predestined to be marred, I will therefore throw it away”. In fact, the potter made that same vessel anew. And this God does also, for as soon as He has dealings with men, and they realise they are marred by sin, He is able to make them anew by the new birth, and by this means fit them to know the riches of His glory. This is indicated in God’s word through Jeremiah, for He declared that if the nation of Israel, represented by the marred vessel, turned from their evil, then God would not inflict judgement upon them.
Which He had aforeprepared unto glory- the tenses the apostle uses in verses 22 and 23 show that he is looking back after the will of God has been worked out. Aforeprepared either involves being prepared beforehand in His eternal counsel, Ephesians 1:3-6; Romans 8:29,30, or prepared for eternity in their lifetime. Men fit themselves for destruction by being content to remain vessels of wrath, but God alone can fit men for honour and glory.

9:24 Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles- note that as he describes the vessels of mercy, he speaks of God’s call in the gospel, and also reverts to the term Jew, the individual, rather than Israel, the national name. After all, if there is to be a nation composed only of believing Israelites in the future, they must come individually by faith in response to God’s call in the gospel.

Paul, by the use of the word “us”, joins himself with any, of the Jews or of the Gentiles, who have become a vessel of mercy through response to the gospel. He had been “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious”, but he “obtained mercy”, 1 Timothy 1:13.

The mention of Gentiles prepares us for verses 30-33, but first the apostle must show how the truth he has been setting forth in regard to Israel is in line with Old Testament scripture. If he cannot do this, he will not convince Jewish doubters.

Summary of the passage

We have learnt in verses 6-24 the following things:

1. That not all who call themselves Israelites are reckoned by God to be part of the nation over which Christ shall reign. Something more than physical descent from Abraham through Jacob is needed.

2. Just as Isaac was born through the intervention of God, so those wishing to be counted part of the Israel of God must be born of God.

3. Just as Jacob was chosen and loved by God, so those who are truly Israelites may be assured that God loves them and preserves them.

4. Just as Edom was hated by God for what he did to the nation of Israel, so those who oppose God’s purpose shall be dealt with severely.

5. Just as God had mercy on Israel despite their lapse into idolatry, and responded to Moses’ pleading for them, so He will be merciful when they repent of their sin.

6. Just as Pharoah hardened his heart and resisted God, and thus incurred His wrath, so those who harden their hearts, (even if they are of the nation of Israel naturally), will know God’s wrath.

7. God in His sovereignty prepares those who believe for glory.

8. Equally, God in His sovereignty destroys those who by unbelief and rebellion fit themselves for destruction.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER 9, VERSES 25 TO 33:

9:25 As He saith also in Osee, I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

9:28 For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.

Section (e) Verses 25-33 The proof from the Scriptures.

9:25 As He saith also in Osee, I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

As He saith also in Osee- as well as speaking through Paul, God spoke through Osee, otherwise known as Hosea, who stood at the head of the minor prophets in the Jewish arrangement of books. If he can produce proof from the scriptures that what he has just said is in line with the Old Testament, then he is well on the way to convincing his Jewish objectors.
I will call them “My people”, which were “not My people”; and her “beloved”, which was “not beloved”- a reference to God’s promise that although He was going to renounce His people and send them into captivity because of their idolatry, (Hosea prophesied just before the Assyrians came and removed the Northern Kingdom), He would reverse His decision and accept them back. So, far from being cast off finally because of their sin in going into idolatry, and later on crucifying Christ, they may call upon the Lord to show mercy upon them as individuals now, just as they will do nationally in a future day. The principle is the same in either case. Thus the apostle has derived the principle he needs to prove his point; he has not transferred the interpretation of the passage to the church, but has made a legitimate application. If God will so act towards Israel as a nation in a day to come, that must be in line with His character, and since God does not change, that is His character now in regard to individual salvation. The reason why God can own Israel as his people in a day to come, is because they will have all turned to Christ at His second coming. At last they will be a nation consisting only of believers.

9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

And it shall to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, “Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God”- a quotation from Hosea 1:10. The prophet spoke words of judgement to Israel whilst they were still in the land, yet they will be brought back from dispersion amongst the Gentiles to be addressed by God in the land again, (hence the reference to “the place where is was said unto them”, meaning the land of Israel), this time with words of encouragement. Thus the meaning of the name of Hosea’s first son finds its double fulfilment. Jezreel means “sown of God”, or “seed of God”. They were to be scattered amongst the nations as seed is scattered, but in a day to come they will be sown in the land, and will be the seed, (children) of God, see Hosea 2:22,23. Peter uses this same Scripture to show that these things have been anticipated by believers at the present time, 1 Peter 2:10, but Paul is using the words literally, not figuratively, as Peter did.

9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, ‘Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel- Isaiah also, as well as Hosea, had things to say about Israel. Since Isaiah is “also” speaking about Israel, this shows that both Isaiah and Hosea are prophesying about Israel, not about the church. The words are found in Isaiah 10:22. “Concerning” means over, as if lamenting over Israel as Christ did over Jerusalem.
‘Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea- Hosea said this also, but he was referring to their prosperity in the land under the Messiah, Hosea 1:10, (hence the apostle does not quote his words, even though they are in the same sentence as the words quoted in verse 26).
Isaiah is the one the apostle quotes now, for he is highlighting the fact that despite the numerical greatness of Israel, God will only save a remnant. This of course is the main theme of the apostle in the chapter, that relationship with God is on the basis of His choice, and their faith, not on national status.
A remnant shall be saved’- that is, only a remnant, and not the whole nation. This is true in principle now, see 11:5, and in the future, see Zechariah 13:9.

9:28 For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness, because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth- this is Paul’s comment on the words of Isaiah, explaining how it is that although they are as numerous as the sand of the sea, yet only a remnant shall be saved. God will do, and finish, a work with Israel, in which He will cut them short, that is, will reduce them from a professing multitude to a believing remnant. This will be a righteous thing for Him to do, and He will do it “upon the earth”, that is, in the land of Israel, where they will all gravitate at the end times. Notice it is not a short work of the earth, but upon the earth.

9:29 And as Esaias said before, ‘Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha’.

And as Esaias said before- that is, before it came to pass, and before his words in chapter 10 just quoted.
‘Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrha’- this is from Isaiah 1:9, where the word “seed” is found instead of Paul’s word “remnant”. This is a link with Hosea, for his son Jezreel was the sign that there would be a seed or generation begotten of God to populate the millenial earth; see on verse 27. God was going to own a seed Note the implied encouragement in the use of the title Lord of Sabaoth, or Hosts. God is surrounded by myriads who serve Him, and He sends forth hosts to protect those who are His, see Hebrews 1:14. They may only be a remnant, but they are in the majority. But this was only because of Divine intervention; otherwise they would have been exterminated, just like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha after God had judged them with fire from heaven.

9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

What shall we say then?- what conclusion shall we draw from the foregoing? The expression really introduces a section which forms a link with the next one, where the apostle describes the refusal of the individual members of the nation of Israel to believe.
That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness- they had no law to guide them in matters relative to God and did not desire one.
Have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith- attained means laid hold of; it is not a word which suggest human attainment or merit, but rather a laying hold of God’s promises in faith.

9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness- professing to be interested in being righteous, and seeking to keep the law to achieve this.
Hath not attained to the law of righteousness- attain in this instance means to arrive at. The Gentiles have reached and grasped righteousness, but it is always just out of the reach of the Jew, no matter how hard he pursues it.

9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Wherefore?- why is this the case?
Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the deeds of the law- only faith grasps the blessing, those who seek to merit it fall short.
For they stumbled at that stumblingstone- “that stumblingstone” does not refer to the law as a stumblingstone, but the stumbling stone of Christ as Messiah, as the quotation following makes clear. It is not only the Jews of Christ’s day who stumbled at Him because He emphasized the need for faith, and the futility of human effort; in the Old Testament time there was a failure to see that if a Messiah was needed as their Saviour, then they had no power in themselves to please God.

9:33 As it is written, ‘Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed’.

As it is written, ‘Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed’- the apostle here combines together quotations from Isaiah 28:16, “Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: He that believeth shall not make haste”, and Isaiah 8:14, “And He shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel”. In both contexts the idea is of the danger of the sort of unbelief which trusts in men rather than God. Faith rests upon Christ the foundation stone and does not have to make a hasty retreat when the enemy comes, whereas unbelief trips up over Christ, and finds Him to be offensive as He insists on the need for faith not religious works.

TABERNACLE STUDIES: Introduction

Leave a reply

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE TABERNACLE

In His goodness God has given to us the interpretation of the meaning of the tabernacle, and it is recorded for us in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Having spoken in chapter 8 of the New Covenant which replaces the Old Covenant of the Law, the writer goes on to show in Hebrews 9 that just as the first covenant had a sanctuary and service, so does the New Covenant. The tabernacle was a worldly sanctuary, verse 1, not in the carnal sense of worldly, but in the sense that it was:
1. Constructed of materials from this world.
2. A structure fitted for travelling through this world.
3. An ordered and beautiful structure. Just as the cosmos or universe has order and structure, so this worldly (kosmikos) building is the same.

We should notice the words used of the tabernacle which give clues as to its meaning:
The example of heavenly things Hebrews 8:5 “The example…of heavenly things”. Hebrews 9:23 “The patterns of things in the heavens”. Example and pattern translate the same word. The priests served in an earthly sanctuary, but they did so in relation to the sanctuary in heaven. The earthly tabernacle was a sample of what was in heaven, but the heavenly things were the reality behind them, “the heavenly things themselves”, Hebrews 9:23.

The evidence of heavenly things Hebrews 8:5 “The shadow of heavenly things”. The heavenly things were the substance, something that can cast a shadow, whereas the tabernacle was the shadow. It provided evidence that there was a heavenly reality.

The expression of heavenly things Hebrews 8:5 “The pattern showed to thee in the mount”. The heavenly sanctuary was the pattern, (tupos), see 9:24 below. “Tupos” is a metal-worker’s word, coming from the word to strike, and means the original, archetypal pattern, which when impressed onto softer metal leaves its corresponding mark, the anti-type. Hebrews 9:24 “The holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true”. The word figure, (anti-tupos) is the reverse of the word used in Hebrews 8:5. The heavenly sanctuary is the type, whereas the tabernacle on earth is the anti-type.

The explanation of heavenly things Hebrews 9:8 “The Holy Spirit this signifying”. The tabernacle set-up was a sign that the Holy Spirit used in Old Testament times to point the way to spiritual truths. Hebrews 9:9 “Which was figure for the time then present”. Just as the Lord Jesus in His parables used objects to represent truths, and just as He performed miracles that were called signs, so it is with the figure, (parabole) and sign of the tabernacle. The Holy Spirit used the tabernacle and its arrangement to convey spiritual truth in Old Testament times.

It is interesting to note that the materials for the making of the tabernacle are called a heave offering in Exodus 25:2, for they represented a recognition of the God of heaven, the words heave and heaven being connected. The Lord Jesus said to Nicodemus, “If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how will ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” John 3:12. There were things beyond the earthly kingdom of Messiah that Nicodemus knew nothing about. Moreover, he was not yet in a condition to receive those heavenly truths. The woman of Samaria was different, however, for she had repented and believed, and the Lord was able to unfold somewhat of heavenly things to her, John 4:21-24. She learnt that true worship was in spirit and truth, and not confined to any earthly location. That it was as Father God’s people would worship Him, and they would do so in Spirit, and they would not need material things to help them. This was a dramatic change, for God had ordained both tabernacle and temple should be built, yet now Christ is saying that there is an hour coming when such things will be obsolete.

Solomon even hinted at this at the consecration of his temple, for he admitted, speaking of God, that “the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have builded.” And Stephen alluded to those words in his defence before the Sanhedrin, who had accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the temple, Acts 6:13. He said, “the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands”, Acts 7:48. He supported his statement with a quotation from Isaiah 66:1, “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? Saith the Lord”.

They were too enraged to listen, however, but there was a young man there who did take note, even Saul. Whilst he kicked against the pricks for a while, refusing to respond to the conviction of the Spirit, he relented at last, writing to the Philippians, “we are the circumcision which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh”, Philippians 3:3. The words “worship God in the Spirit” are an echo of the words of the Lord Himself in John 4.

At the present time, then, earthly temples are unnecessary. Indeed, those who build them show they have not grasped the nature of the present age, which emphasises spiritual concepts, and not physical “aids to worship”. Unbelieving men may be impressed with sacred architecture, with its soaring heights, supposedly pointing men to God, but the Christian is not deceived. The beautiful singing, the gorgeous robes and vestments, the fragrant incense, the stained-glass windows, the altars and fonts, all appeal to the natural senses, and all tell eloquently that men are in the dark as to true Christianity, and to cover their ignorance they adopt a mixture of Judaism and paganism in a futile attempt to worship God.

The Lord Jesus said, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”, Matthew 11:13. Now these were the two divisions of the Old Testament, and both are said to prophesy. So the books of Moses had relevance to the future, not just in those passages such as Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, but “all…the law” had something of that aspect. This is why the Lord Jesus was able, in resurrection, to expound from “all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself”, and also to say that “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me, Luke 24:27,44.

Now how do we know that “the things concerning Himself” extend to the tabernacle system? Three Scriptures help us to decide. First, in Hebrews 10:20 we are expressly told that the veil is Christ’s flesh. So the writer to the Hebrews is teaching us to see significance in a curtain hanging in the tabernacle of old; and moreover, to see it as a symbol of Christ’s flesh. We shall enquire later as to what that means, but it suffices for now to note the principle.
Second, we turn to John’s Gospel. A reading of that gospel will tell us that, as he writes, John is linking with the Old Testament by his references to Old Testament feasts and practices, and showing that Christ is the fulfilment of them. His whole gospel is structured around three celebrations of the Feast of Passover, and we find the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem, the centre of the religious life of Israel, more than in any other gospel. (In fact, despite the fact that Jerusalem is the city of the great king, and Matthew presents Christ as rightful king, he does not speak of Him as being in Jerusalem until He goes there to die). It is no surprise to find that early on his gospel, after his eighteen-verse prologue, John tells of John the Baptist, son of a priest and therefore a Levite, announcing the Lord Jesus as the Lamb of God, John 1:29. No surprise, either, to find Him purging the temple of the oxen and sheep and doves that had been brought for sacrifice. He is reinforcing what John the Baptist implied in his announcement, and presenting Himself as the true sacrifice. He is in fact saying, in the language of Psalm 40:6,7, “Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, to do Thy will O God”. Words applied to the Lord Jesus in Hebrews 10:5-9.
Third, having seen that both a curtain in the tabernacle, and animal sacrifices offered outside at the altar, “prophesied” of Christ, we are prepared for John’s statement, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”, John 1:14. Having been active behind the scenes in Old Testament times, He now manifests Himself. But notice the interesting word John uses for “dwelt”. It means, literally rendered, “pitched His tent”. But this is exactly what God did in Israel, for He said to Moses, “Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them”, Exodus 25:8. And the word for dwell used there is “shaken”, meaning “to tabernacle”. Not only does the Lord express His desire to dwell amongst Israel as He gives directions for the building of the tabernacle, but He repeats this in connection with the continual burnt offering to be offered on the altar, Exodus 29:42-46. It is in the atmosphere of the sweet savour of the burnt offering that God is pleased to dwell amongst His people.

How significant, then, that it should be John’s gospel that should present the Lord Jesus as the fulfillment of the tabernacle system, for his gospel is “the gospel of the burnt offering”, being full of reminders of what the Burnt Offering meant to God. The burnt offering was the “ascending offering”, and not only is the ascension of the Lord Jesus mentioned three times in John’s gospel, (3:13; 6:62; 20:17), but the whole emphasis in the gospel is of One who is in communion with heaven, and desires to be back there. In fact, John does not record the actual ascension of Christ, as if, for Him, it was a foregone conclusion. What he does do is record the Lord’s word to Peter about His coming again, the implication being that He would ascend to His Father. It was in the character as the true burnt offering that the Lord Jesus dwelt amongst men, and the sweet savour of His person gave His Father the utmost satisfaction.

Before we go any further, we need to notice the exact words that are used of the heavenly sanctuary in the Epistle to the Hebrews. We read in Hebrews 8:2 that it is “the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man”. Also, in 9:11, that it is “a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building”. Let us consider these statements. First, the true tabernacle. Now the word for “true” used here is that one which means “in every respect corresponding to the name”. It is not a question of true as opposed to false, but true and substantial as opposed to that which does not fully measure up to the thing described as true. The bread that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was real bread in that it sustained their bodies, but the true bread is the fulness of that reality the manna only hinted at, John 6:32. The Lord gave a long discourse explaining that meaning, and thus showed that the manna was real, but it was also a symbol of the higher reality that is only found in the Son of God.

Second, we will consider the words “not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building”. Notice that we are expected to draw conclusions from the fact that it is not made with hands, for “not made with hands” is as much as to say, “not of this building”; the one is implied in the other. The word for building has the sense of “what is made or created”. It is used in Hebrews 3:4, where we read, “He who built all things is God”. Now creation is made up of three components, time, space and matter. We see this in the very first verse of the Bible. “In the beginning”, (time-word, telling us that this is when time began), God created the heaven and the earth, (matter plus space between the two). So when we are told that the true tabernacle in heaven is not of this creation, we learn that it is not limited by time, and therefore is eternal; is not limited by space, and therefore is infinite; is not limited by the physical constraints of the material, and therefore is spiritual in character. We learn also about this tabernacle that the Lord pitched it, and not man.

Why are we assured it is not pitched by man. Is this not obvious if it is in heaven? The point is that the tabernacle on earth was pitched by man, and this tabernacle is in direct contrast. Because the tabernacle in the wilderness was made by man, it was tainted, and had to be sprinkled with blood before it could be operative, Hebrews 9:21. So we can be confident that this heavenly tabernacle, not having anything of man about it, is totally pure at the outset.

What of the word “pitched”? It is a word which emphasises the pegging down of a tent. This sanctuary is fixed, then, as opposed to the tabernacle in the wilderness which was moved many times until the land was reached. Whatever this tabernacle is shall never be developed into something else; it is permanent. Does the past tense in the verb “pitched” imply that it happened at some point in past time? That cannot be, for we have seen that the true tabernacle is not part of this creation governed by time. It is eternally pitched, then. There is no point when it was not there. We are told about Christ as the Lamb that He was “foreordained before the foundation of the world”, 1 Peter 1:20. Does this mean that at some point in eternity He was ordained the lamb, whereas before He was not? Surely not, for this foreordination is part of God’s eternal purpose, and therefore has ever been.

But we still have not decided what this sanctuary actually is. To help us find out, we can summarize what we have learnt about it:
1. It is built by God.
2. It is in heaven.
3. It is the true tabernacle; not in the sense that the tabernacle on earth was false, but it did not come up to the fulness of the original, and therefore was lacking in some respects.
4. It is not of this creation, and therefore is not limited by time, space, or physical constraints.
5. It is pitched, in the sense that it is immoveable and permanent.
6. It can be described as “heaven itself”, as opposed to heaven in sign-form, as the tabernacle on earth was.
Consider these Scriptures: First, 1 Timothy 6:16, which describes Christ as “dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto”. In other words, in the light of God’s presence. This is the environment in which He dwells. Now no created light could be meant here, so it must mean the light of His own glory. And with this 1 John 1:5 agrees, which says that God is “in the light”. Second, in Colossians 3:3 the apostle reminds the Colossian believers that they have died, and yet “their life is hid with Christ in God”. So to have one’s life hid with Christ, means to have a life which is hid in God, for Christ is, in some way, in God. To be with God is to be in God. Paul is virtually saying that heaven and God are indistinguishable. That His person excludes any other consideration. Such is the glory and immensity of God, there is not room for anything else there, so it may be summed up as “God”.
Third, in Ephesians 2:1,2 we learn that as sinners we walked in trespasses and sins; our conversation was in the lusts of the flesh. Yet now, as believers, we are “seated in heavenly places in Christ”, verse 6. Now to be in sins, or to behave as those in the lusts of the flesh, or to be in Christ, are not physical locations, they are moral positions. So also is being in heavenly places. It is to be placed in an environment which is entirely heavenly in character, and has nothing of earth or sin about it whatsoever.
Fourth, perhaps the most telling statements are those of Hebrews 10:20, where we are bidden to enter into this heavenly sphere, and we are said to do so “through the veil”. Does this mean that as we enter the presence of God we have to draw aside a curtain in order to get in? Surely not, for the veil is explained as being “His flesh”. Now of course we are not to take this literally, but metaphorically. The flesh of the Lord Jesus refers not to His body, as such, but His life in the body. The writer carefully distinguishes the two in the passage, referring to Christ’s body in verse 10, but His flesh in verse 20. It is through what He was, said, and did in His body when here in the flesh that we may enter the presence of God. And the major thing He did was to yield Himself up to death, at which point His life in the flesh came to an end, and spirit, soul and body were separated.

Significantly, at that precise moment the veil in the earthly temple was rent, telling us that the focus was now on the heavenly sanctuary. So it is that, when we come through the veil, it is not a physical passage through a curtain, but a spiritual journey into God’s presence in view of what Christ was to Him on earth. It is this that gives us entrance. To this He alluded when He said to His own in the upper room, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me”, John 14:6. These words may be applied in the gospel, but they really refer to the believer coming to the Father. The Lord is coming for His own to escort them to the Father’s house, but in the meantime they may have access to the Father through Him. What He has shown Himself to be as He manifested the Father down here, is the means of access to God. We “come to the Father” as we advance in the knowledge of Himself, which knowledge is found in Christ, for as He goes on to say, “If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also”.

This is why He also says, “I am the truth”, for having pointed out Himself as the means of accessing the Father, He then presents Himself as the personification of truth, for all that we need to know about the Father is found in Him. Further still, He is the Life, the one who energizes this progress to the Father, (and since eternal life is to know God and Jesus Christ), the one who makes the knowledge of God a reality.

Hopefully we are now in a position to notice the significance of John’s words when he wrote, “And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth”, John 1:14. The word for dwell means to tabernacle, or encamp. This is what God did in the wilderness, for He said, “let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them”, Exodus 25:8. The tabernacling of Christ marks a new beginning, for Herod’s temple was still standing, and the Lord even called it His Father’s house, John 2:16. Something new is beginning, and it is not earthly at all, but heavenly. But we might think that the Word tabernacling simply meant that He was here on earth in a body. For did not Peter refer to his death as putting off his tabernacle, 2 Peter 1:14? And does not Paul refer to our body as the earthly house of this tabernacle, 2 Corinthians 5:1? Whilst it is true that Christ was on earth in a real body, this is not all that is being said here. For John tells us it is the Word that was made flesh.

Even though the Word is the Son of God, (as this very verse tells us), the emphasis is not on a person becoming flesh, but on the Word doing so. Now both an individual word, and a plurality of words in a statement, are the expression of a mind. We know what a person is thinking if he expresses it in words. And the whole statement, whether long or short, is a word. We see this illustrated in John 5:24 where the Lord Jesus speaks of those who hear His word. He is not referring there to a single word, but to the whole theme or topic of His Deity upon which He had been discoursing. So when John writes about the word being made flesh he is saying to us that the mind of God is being expressed in a person who has come into flesh and blood conditions. Since John has already told us the Word was God, then the expression such an one gives to what is in the mind of God must be perfect.

Several things happened on the Day of Atonement, and one of them was that atonement was made for the tabernacle of the congregation, “that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness”, Leviticus 16:16. The word “remaineth” being the same word as rendered “dwell” in Exodus 25:8. So the tabernacle dwelt in the midst of Israel’s encampment. We easily see the counterpart that John is introducing us to, even the Word tabernacling among Israel. Now as we shall see there was a difference between the tabernacle proper, and the tabernacle or tent of the congregation, these referring to different curtains, and the second word is use in the passage in Leviticus just referred to. Nonetheless the principle remains, that the Word was found in the midst of Israel, in the same way as the tabernacle of old was found in the centre of the camp. So there are three tabernacles in Scripture, in this context. There is the tabernacle in the wilderness, there is the Word tabernacling amongst Israel, and there is the true tabernacle in heaven. We have seen that the latter is a spiritual concept, not being of this created order of things in any way. The tabernacle of Old Testament times was an anti-type of that heavenly sanctuary. But how shall we interpret it, so that we may know more about God through it? The answer is plain; it is through the second tabernacle, the Word made flesh. By learning of Him, as symbolically illustrated in the Old Testament building, and also noting what He said in His ministry as He unfolded the mind of God, we discern the glory of God. For John goes on to speak of glory.

In the tabernacle of old, the glory of God was separate from the building. Now, the glory of God is seen in a person, and that person the Son of God. John writes, “and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father, John 1:14. Because to be the Son of God means to be equal with God, John 10:30,33,37, then the Son is fully able to unfold the mind of God. He is in eternal relationship with God the Father as His Son, sharing His nature in every particular, and is therefore uniquely qualified. So when John and his fellow-apostles saw the glory of the Son, they saw the glory of God.

We should remember that the tabernacle in the wilderness, whilst meaningful and real, did not present the fulness of that which is found in the True Tabernacle in heaven. This is not the case with Christ, however, as we see from the following:
(a) In the wilderness, God and the tabernacle were separate, and He dwelt in it. The Word, (who is God, John 1:1) dwells amongst men as the realisation of tabernacle symbolism, and is Himself the tabernacle.
(b) The glory of God was separate from the tabernacle, but the glory of Christ is manifest in His Person, and His glory is the glory of God, 2 Corinthians 4:6.
(c) Moses was not able to see the glory, but John could say, “we beheld His glory”. Having seen that the tabernacle on earth was a copy of things pertaining in heaven, we are in a position to consider the way different parts of the whole tabernacle system relate to this. Consider the following general suggestions as to their significance: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” and “the veil , which is to say His flesh”, encourage us to see in the tabernacle and the veil symbols of the Word as He told out the mind of God.

Taking the foregoing into account, we may summarise the significance of the tabernacle as follows:

The tabernacle, tent, covering for the tent, and the covering overall: Features of the character of Christ as seen in varying measure according to the degree of a person’s interest in Him.
The boards for the tabernacle: the support the God-hood and manhood of Christ gave to the display of His character. His steadfastness in the face of the opposition in the world.
The court of the tabernacle: the righteous life of Christ, showing the standard of righteousness God requires of those who approach Him, but which is unattainable by the natural man.
The gate of the court: righteousness maintained, but the blue, purple and scarlet are added, representing those things which fit Christ to be the mediator, the way to God.
The altar of burnt offering and the laver: two aspects of the work of Christ at Calvary, His sacrificial work and His sanctifying work, Ephesians 5:1,2; Titus 2:14.
The unseen vessels in the Holy Place and Holy of Holies: the different ministries of Christ which He currently exercises in the presence of God, but of which He gave glimpses when He was here on earth. These ministries may be summed up in the words of Hebrews 9:24, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us”.
The transportation of the vessels through the wilderness: the ways in which Christ moved amongst men so that they could have opportunities to uncover His glory, and also give opportunity for His people to serve Him by shouldering responsibility.

HEBREWS 2

Leave a reply

HEBREWS 2

Survey of the chapter
The first five verses of this chapter are a warning based on the truth of chapter one, the first of five warnings scattered throughout the epistle. If the word spoken by angels was disobeyed, judgement followed. Why should it be any different if the word spoken by the Son is disobeyed? Everything in chapter one that impresses us with the glory of Christ also warns us about the danger of rejecting one so glorious as He. In the subsequent verses, there is first of all a quotation from Psalm 8 about man, which gives the theme of the section, and then the seven-fold work of Christ as man is detailed. This time the contrast is not with the prophets or angels, but with Adam.

Structure of the chapter

(a) Verses 1-4	First warning passage- the word through angels and the word through the Lord.
(b) Verses 5-8	Quotation from Psalm 8- man made lower than angels.
(c) Verses 9-10	Christ made lower than angels.
(d) Verse 11	The path of separation from the world of Adam.
(e) Verse 12	The path of (resurrection) life with Christ.
(f)Verse 13	The path of faith.
(g) Verses 14,15	The path of deliverance.
(h) Verses 16-18	The path of victory over temptation.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS CHAPTER 2, VERSES 1-4:

2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

(a) Verses 1-4
First warning passage: the word by angels or the word by the Lord

2:1
Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard- one of the failings of Israel in Old Testament times was they had not listened to the prophets. But now that the Son has spoken to them, dare they ignore Him, as they had ignored the prophets?
Lest at any time we should let them slip- the danger facing the Hebrews was of allowing the things they had heard to slip from their minds, as those who were not taking earnest heed to them. If persisted in, this would result in missing the salvation offered to them.
In chapter one the contrast was between the fragmentary revelations through the prophets, and the full revelation through the Son. In this chapter, however, the contrast is between the Lord speaking in grace, and angels mediating the law at Sinai.
Israel had sat at the feet of God, Deuteronomy 33:2,3, and heard the law; Judas had listened to Christ in the upper room, but went out to betray, so also the nation could do the same.

2:2
For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast- note the contrast between letting the word slip, and the steadfast word of God, in whatever age. “Was steadfast” means “became confirmed”. By the penalty inflicted when the law was broken, God confirmed that He meant what He said.
And every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward- the law was confirmed by judgement, but the gospel is confirmed by acts of grace. Not only actual transgressions were judged, but also the attitude of disobedience, the refusal to hear with the intention of obeying.

2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? The writer associates himself with the nation as a whole. The Lord Himself had been in their midst, for He was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers”, Romans 15:8. There was no escape from just recompense of reward if the law was broken and disobeyed, so we need not expect to escape when a greater word from God is uttered. Law works are not called for now, however, so it a question of simply ignoring the words of grace, and neglecting to believe them.
Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord- notice that John the baptist is not included here, for “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”, Matthew 11:13, but here the prophets and the law are superceded. The apostle John speaks of “that which ye have heard from the beginning”, 1 John 2:24, meaning from the beginning of Christ’s public ministry at His baptism. At that point John baptised his successor.
Note the great salvation is spoken, for it consists in doctrine. Israel were looking for salvation in war-terms, deliverance from their political enemies. Compare Matthew 13, where the mysteries of the kingdom begin with a parable about sowing the word of God, not judging enemies. The word is spoken by the Lord, the one with as much authority as the God of Sinai, as He indicated in Matthew 5:21,27,33,38. He is also the Lord of angels, as we learn from the way the angel of the Lord spoke when he said, “a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord”, Luke 2:11. So He was both the Lord of angels and shepherds.
And was confirmed unto us by them that heard him- this is surely decisive evidence that Paul is not the writer of the epistle, for he insists that he received the truth of the gospel from the Lord Himself, and “those who seemed to be somewhat” because they had been with the Lord on earth, added nothing to him, Galatians 2:6.
The word confirmed is connected with the word translated steadfast in verse 2. The law-threats were confirmed by acts of judgement, grace-promises are confirmed by acts of mercy.

2:4
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

God also bearing them witness- literally “God bearing witness with”. So when the gospel of the kingdom was being made known by those who heard the Lord themselves, and then bore witness of what they had heard, it could be said that God was associating with them in their witness. The next words tell us how it happened.
Both with signs and wonders and with diverse miracles- the Lord had promised that signs would follow those that believed and preached the gospel, Mark 16:17,18. Signs are the miracles considered as significant acts, illustrations of doctrine. Wonders are the miracles looked at as unusual and tremendous events, designed to arrest attention. The word miracles emphasises that what is done is completely out of the ordinary, and which, because they were accompanied by words of truth, could only be caused by Divine power. (The devil will instigate miracles to promote error, Revelation 16:14). These three words had been used by Peter to describe those things which Christ did, and which marked Him out as approved of God, Acts 2:22. So the witness to the apostles was the same as the witness to Christ. The miracles were also witness to the fact that Christ was the one qualified to bring in the millenial age, for His miracles were the “powers of the age to come”, 6:5, showing the sort of changes that the reign of Christ will bring in.
And gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will- in view of what the Lord had said about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Matthew 12:22-37, this is a reminder that the miracles and the Holy Spirit go together. The great and wicked mistake of saying Christ worked miracles by Satan must be avoided if they are to know salvation. Israel had seen God’s works for 40 years in the desert, yet failed to enter in to the “salvation” the land of Canaan represented, 3:9,17-19. Now God is giving them another 40 years of opportunity before the fall of Jerusalem, again with works of power from God.
The word “gifts” does not refer to the gifts given to believers to further the testimony, in the 1 Corinthians 12 sense. Rather, the word is literally “distributions”, referring to the strategic way in which the Holy Spirit moved the apostles and others to exercise the gift of the working of miracles. A reading of the Acts of the Apostles will show this. The Holy Spirit also retained the right to withdraw the miracles at the time of His choosing, and this He did. He thus acted according to His Divine will.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS CHAPTER 2, VERSES 5-10:

2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

2:10 For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

(b) Verses 5-8
Quotation from Psalm 8:
Man made lower than the angels

2:5
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection- the fact that the Lord has come, and men have been sent forth with power to work miracles of confirmation and grace, shows us that angels are no longer to the fore.
The world to come whereof we speak- the habitable earth in its future condition is what the writer speaks of in 1:5-2:4. There are three major words used in the New Testament for “world”. There is the word cosmos, which, ideally, is the world of order, beauty and harmony as it came from God, (used in Hebrews 9:1); the opposite of cosmos being chaos. Sadly, that world has been spoiled, and hence it is now the world, not of harmony, but of hostility. Another word for world is “aionas”; which has to do with the passing of time, and so is the world of history. The third word is “oikoumene”, the habitable earth, the world of humanity.
So the writer is here referring to the future state of the earth when man’s day has come to an end, and his rule over the earth is cancelled. This is the earth as the writer has spoken of it in chapter 1:5-14. The question is, if that world is not to be subject to angels, then to whom is it to be subject? And if the answer is man, then the question is, which man? Who is competent enough to manage the earth for God?
For the answer to this question the writer turns to David’s words in Psalm 8. Perhaps he penned the psalm after a night out on the hillside looking after the sheep near Bethlehem, his home town. Just as centuries later shepherds would be guarding their flock on those same hillsides, when the birth of Christ was announced to them. As David looked within, he saw a frail mortal man; as he looked above, he saw the moon and stars; as he looked around, he thought of men; as he looked back he thought of Adam; as he looked forward he thought of Christ.

2:6
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

But one in a certain place testified, saying- the writer does not distract us by telling us the name of the psalmist, nor the particular place where the psalm is found.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? The word used for man in Psalm 8:4 is “enosh”, frail, mortal, man. Seemingly so fragile, and subject to death, how can God’s purpose be centred there? He seems almost beneath being noticed by God.
Or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Not only does God notice him, but He also visits him, to make known His ways. From this we learn that God has great interest in man. He not only is mindful of man, but moves towards him. He not only has interest, but intervenes.
We should not think of this expression “son of man” as being a reference to Christ, for that is not how the psalmist uses it; he is simply describing men as sons of Adam, through their fathers, in a long line that stretches back to Adam. Implied in this is the fact that a sinful nature is passed on from father to son.

2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels- both man and the son of man are made by God, either through creation or procreation. Man will always be lower than angels, so the meaning “for a little while” lower, is not meant here.
Note that it is not “made a little higher than the animals”. Man was made on the same day as the land animals, as if to highlight the difference between them, Genesis 1:24-27. The apostle Paul wrote, “there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts,” 1 Corinthians 15:39. Prominent evolutionists may hoodwink the public that it is “proved” than man came from the lower animals, but it is they themselves who are deceived, for they have adopted a world-view which takes no account of God, and in many instances denies that He exists. But if God does not exist then there is no logical, rational thought. So by thinking, the atheist verifies that God exists!

Man is lower than angels because of the following:
Angels are stated to be greater in power and might than men, 2 Peter 2:11.
Angels do not die, being pure spirit.
Angels are fitted to live in heaven.
Angels can move from heaven to earth.
Angels are not limited by an earthly body.
Angels rest not day and night, worshipping God, Revelation 4:8.

So angels are higher because of their power, permanence, privilege and praise of God. But man is said to be only a little lower, so despite the foregoing, there are things which compensate, for man was made in the image and likeness of God, and the Son of God passed angels by, and became man.
God’s intention to make man is expressed in a unique way, for He said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”, Genesis 1:26. That this applies to the male and the female is clear from verse 27. As far as relationship with God is concerned, there is no bias with God towards the male or the female, all are equal in His sight, and both were created in God’s image and after His likeness.
The Lord Jesus in Matthew 22:15-22 referred to the head of Caesar on a coin as the image of Caesar. In other words, the image represented Caesar and His authority, and those who used the coin were recognising this. Part of God’s plan in making man, then, was that He might have someone to represent Him to the rest of the creation. One of the reasons why murder should be penalised by capital punishment is that man is made in the image of God, see Genesis 9:5,6.
Man is also said to be made after God’s likeness. It was not necessarily true that Caesar’s image on the coin was a very good likeness, but God made sure that man had the capacity to represent Him well, by giving him certain characteristics which He Himself possesses.

Man was made in the likeness of God in a three-fold way:-
God has personality, and each of the persons of the Godhead has his own particular distinctive features, by which He displays Himself. So man was given personality, to display God through it.

God has spirituality, which not only means that He is a Spirit, see John 4:24, but also means He can appreciate His own glories. Man was made so that he might appreciate those Divine glories too, and worship God in his spirit as a result.

God has rationality, which means that He reasons, plans, purposes, and decides. Man has these abilities too; not, of course, in the sense that He could advise God, see 1 Corinthians 2:16, but so that he could order his life in relation to God’s purpose in an intelligent way.

Sadly, as the subsequent chapters in Genesis show, this perfect state of things did not last long, for man sinned, and Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image”, Genesis 5:3. The original purpose for which man was created was now only partially realised, and his abilities were now diverted for his own ends.
The remedy for this situation is found in the Lord Jesus, who became man that He might be the head of a new order of things. He displayed to perfection those things that God looked for in man. As such He is the perfect example to those who believe. As Ephesians 4:21 says, “the truth is in Jesus”, which means that if we would see a life lived that is true to God’s will, then we may see it in the earthly life of the Lord Jesus. Only those who are in Christ, and as such are a new creation, are able to represent God adequately.
Some translations of Psalm 8 say that man was made a little lower than God, since the word the psalmist used was “elohim”, and this is a word used many times for God. But it is also used in a lesser sense, even of the judges in Israel, Exodus 22:28; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34. In any case when the inspired writer to the Hebrews came to quote the psalm in Greek, he had separate words for God and angel at his disposal, and chose the word for angel. Does it not go without saying that man is lower than God; how could he be anything else? And is he only a little lower?
Thou crownedst him with glory and honour- glory is official, honour is moral, and these two perhaps correspond to man made in the image of God, (official position), and after His likeness, (moral character). So although lower than angels in the ranks of creation, yet man has a potential beyond all the angelic hosts.
The word used for crown here is “stephanos”, a wreath or circlet that was merited, (in contrast to the diadem that was inherited). It is the crown of the one who won the race as an athlete; who won respect as a citizen; who won a battle as a soldier, and who won a bride as a suitor.
And didst set him over the works of thy hands- man was a steward, responsible for the safekeeping of the property of another, even God.

2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet- in the case of Adam this was limited to things on the earth, which the psalmist specifies as sheep, oxen, birds, fish, and other sea creatures. Being crowned with glory and honour should have ensured that the task was carried out faithfully. But Adam allowed his authority to be usurped.
For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him- this shows that there is nothing put under angels, and also that the “all” is not qualified, as if it was only all of a certain range of things, for there is nothing else to be under him. We must understand this in connection with Adam before we advance to the idea, under the guidance of the writer, that these things can only be fulfilled in Christ.

Summarising, we may think of what the psalmist says as follows:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?	The mystery
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels	The minority
Thou crownedst him with glory and honour	The majesty
Thou didst set him over the works of Thine hands	The ministry
Thou hast put all things under his feet	The mastery

But now we see not yet all things put under him- a change has come in, (hence the word “but”), showing that the potential of Psalm 8 has not been realised in Adam, and this situation continues, (hence the word “now”). There is also the word “yet”, telling us that there is something in prospect. The “now” refers to conditions under Adam, the “yet” to conditions under Christ.
The emphasis in this chapter is on the manhood of Christ, as in chapter one it was on His Deity, and the remainder of the chapter sets out seven things that Jesus has been able to do by coming into manhood:

Verses 5-8	Vindicate God’s trust in man
Verse 9	Consummate God’s purpose
Verses 10-13	Elevate God’s people
Verse 14	Eradicate the Devil
Verse 15	Emancipate the slaves
Verses 16-17	Propitiate sins
Verse 18	Relate to believers’ sufferings

2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

But we see Jesus- this is the first of seven uses in the epistle of the name which emphasises His manhood. The Son of God has been made in fashion as a man, to be all that God expected man to be from the beginning. We turn away from looking at Adam, and allow Jesus to fill our gaze. The writers of the New Testament are very sparing of their use of the name Jesus on its own, and only use it like that when there is a special need to do so. The disciples never addressed the Lord as Jesus. He Himself said, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am”, John 13:13.
Who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death- here we see why the writer quoted from Psalm 8, for the full potential of that psalm is not reached in Adam, but in Jesus, who is the second man, and the Last Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. By coming into manhood, He, the creator of angels, has become lower than they are, for “made a little lower than the angels” has now become in the writer’s mind the equivalent of saying “became a man”.
Adam was made a little lower than the angels for the enjoyment of life, but sadly, he fell, and this brought in suffering and death. Only Jesus could remedy this, and He did it by enduring the suffering connected with death. “For” means “with a view to”, so He became man expressly to die. Angels do not die, and Adam’s death had no merit, so only Christ’s death can deal with the situation brought in by the fall.
Crowned with glory and honour- not only must He correspond to Adam by being made lower than angels, but He must correspond too in being crowned with glory and honour before His great work is done at the Cross, just as Adam was crowned before his great sin in disobeying God. So there was seen in Christ the perfect representation and likeness of God that glory and honour involve, and it takes four gospel records to give us just a glimpse of it.
We see this in the brief insight Luke gives to us of the boyhood of the Lord Jesus. He is taken by Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem for the feast of passover. Instead of returning with them, He remained behind. When they at last found Him He was in the Temple “sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers”, Luke 2:46,47. See how his corresponds with what we have said about the image and likeness of God given to man at the beginning:
His personality.
“Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?”. He is aware of His distinct mission from the Father, even though He had not yet been anointed for public ministry.
This is a sign of His spirituality.
He is with the doctors or teachers in the temple as they discuss the Law.
This shows His rationality, for
He was hearing, asking, and answering questions in a manner which impressed the learned doctors, but without asserting Himself as superior to them, for He ever “made Himself of no reputation”.

That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man- this phrase refers to the whole of the previous part of the verse. Note the punctuation, with commas between phrases until the word honour, which is followed by a semi-colon. This would suggest that “crowned with glory and honour” refers to Him during His life, for the first two statements, “made a little lower”, and, “crowned with glory and honour”, become true in order that He might taste death for every man. He showed Himself fit to die by His life before God and men.
Adam was made in the image of God, to represent God to creation. This was a glory indeed. He was also made after the likeness of God, involving, as we have seen, personality, spirituality and rationality. These are honourable things, and they were expressed by Adam as far as man is able to manifest them. Adam fell, however, and lost the dominion to which his crown entitled him. There is another, however, in whom these features were seen to perfection, and with the eye of faith we discern in Christ when He was here those qualities and characteristics which make a man glorious and honourable.
The words “every man” could be translated “every thing”, and assure us of the far-reaching effects of the work of Christ, which has guaranteed the deliverance of a groaning creation, Romans 8:20,21; Colossians 1:20. He gave insights into this deliverance when He was here the first time, for He defeated death, disease, demon-possession, danger and distress, as Matthew 8 details. No wonder the writer speaks of the Hebrews tasting the powers of the age to come, 6:5. Adam tasted of the forbidden tree, and forfeited his rights over the earth, but Christ has tasted death, (on a tree, Acts 5:30), and purchased for Himself the right to have all creation subject to Himself. As the creator of all things, He is supreme over them, but since He has become man He must prove his claim.

2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For it became him- there is no disparity between God’s purpose to bring in glory for the earth through Christ, and the sufferings which He required His Son to pass through. It is a becoming thing for Him to require, because both sufferings and glories are part of His eternal plan. Suffering brings in perfection for Christ, and perfection is becoming to God, (“As for God, His way is perfect”, Psalm 18:30), even though it means sufferings for His Son and His people. The higher good of a restored and delivered creation comes through suffering.
For whom are all things- notice the mention of “things” in these verses. The expression signifies the sum total of all things in God’s creation which are relevant in each instance: Verse 8 Thou hast put all things under his feet.
For in that he put all in subjection under him.
He left nothing that is not put under him.
But now we see not yet all things put under Him.
Verse 10 For whom are all things.
Verse 10 By whom are all things.

The things put under Adam are restricted to such things as sheep and oxen, Psalm 8:7,8. Under Christ, however, are all things, whether the earth to come; angels, 1 Peter 3:22, Ephesians 1:21,22, (note the quotation from Psalm 8); all rule and authority and power, 1 Corinthians 15:24,25; and at the end of time, even death itself, 1 Corinthians 15:26,27. Creation in its entirety is for God; it exists for His sake, and for His glory. As is said by the heavenly hosts, “For thy pleasure they are, and were created”, Revelation 4:11. Christ will see to it that His creation is preserved for His glory.
And by whom are all things- God is not only the reason for all things existing, but they have been brought into existence by Him, too. Yet in chapter one the creation of all things is the work of the Son; so they must be co-equal, as a comparison between John 1:3 and Romans 11:34-36 also shows. Since God is the originator and the goal of all things, (Revelation 1:8), then He has the right to superintend all things through Christ.
In bringing many sons unto glory- as Firstborn Son of God, the Lord Jesus will have many brethren, Romans 8:29. Here we learn the pathway through which they are brought to the glory of association with Christ. Adam brought all descended from him to shame in a corrupted and vain world. God is ensuring that the last Adam has associates who reach a position of glory. Note there is no mention of honour here, for the glory is because of association with Christ, which guarantees it, whereas honour depends upon our conduct here.
To make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings- the idea of the word captain is chief leader or author. As one who has passed through this world without mishap already, Christ is perfectly qualified (the meaning of the word perfect) to lead His people through to their ultimate state of salvation, as well as to be the author or source of their salvation from the pitfalls along the pathway of faith.
Some in Israel wanted to appoint a captain to lead them back into Egypt when the way was hard, whereas the faithful ones were satisfied to be led into the land of Canaan under Joshua, whose name means “Salvation of Jehovah”, and is the equivalent to Jesus. It is interesting to notice that this was not Joshua’s original name. When he went with Caleb and the other ten spies into Canaan he was Oshea, but Moses renamed him at that time, Numbers 13:16. It was important that when he eventually led the people into the land that they should realise that the salvation was of the Lord, and not of a man and his military prowess.
Just as Joseph knew sufferings in Egypt before the rest of his family did; and just as Moses knew 40 years of difficulty in the wilderness before the nation did, so Joshua had been a faithful spy, and had risked going into Canaan when it was held by the enemy. But Joshua was met by the Captain of the host of the Lord as he entered Canaan, Joshua 5:13-15, so there is one superior to Joshua as captain.
So the Lord Jesus has blazed a trail for His people to follow. He not only died to save from sins judicially, but lives to save from sins practically, showing us the way to tread so that we are saved from sinning.
As a result of these things, we may say that:
The mystery is solved; the minority status is sanctified; the majesty is seen; the ministry is safe; the mastery is and will be successful. The writer now gives to us five features of this path to glory.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS CHAPTER 2, VERSES 11-15:

2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Verse 11
The path of separation from the world of Adam

2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified- to sanctify means to set apart. It is too early in the epistle to think in terms of being sanctified by the sacrifice of Christ, 10:10. In the context here, the captain of our salvation has separated us from the world of Adam of which we formed part. In His prayer in John 17 the Lord Jesus spoke of sanctifying Himself, that His people might be sanctified by the truth, verse 19. Sanctification, or holiness, has not to do in the first instance with separation from sin, (we must not confuse sanctification with purification), but rather involves separation from the ordinary, to be occupied with the sacred. Christ ever sanctified Himself in this sense during His life down here, and this qualifies Him to sanctify His people now. He had contrasted those who have eternal life with those who only have the life of flesh, John 17:2, and has described His own as given to Him by the Father out of the world, verse 6. This does not involve being physically removed, but morally distinct. Given that believers are in the world, He requested that they might be sanctified by the truth. The truth in question being that regarding the nature of the eternal life believers possess, the very life of God. It is as we have fellowship with God and His Son in the things of eternal life, (which things were expressed fully by the Son when He was here), that we shall be set apart from the world of Adam. The closer we get to God, the further we shall be from the world.
Adam associated his race with things that caused them to perish, whereas Christ associates with salvation the race of which He is head. By passing through this world, and suffering in it, the Lord Jesus has equipped Himself with the experience to lead His people through the same world, with all its sufferings.
Are all of one- the sanctifier, (Christ), and those sanctified, (His people), all emerge out of one common experience of suffering on the way to glory. He has already come out of the tomb never to suffer again. But association with Christ in His burial and resurrection begins a life of suffering for the believer, from which suffering he will emerge just a certainly as Christ has emerged. If we suffer with Him, we shall be glorified together, Romans 8:17, the one experience follows the other. Christ is out of the experience of suffering already, whereas we await that emergence, but because it is certain it can be spoken of as if already accomplished. It is noticeable that the apostles did not begin to suffer for Christ until He was risen from the dead.
For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren- scripture says that “A brother is born for adversity”, Proverbs 17:17, and the common experience of suffering bonds us with our captain. If He passed through suffering, and the people did not, then there might be room for embarrassment if He called us brethren.
Note the way Romans 8 moves from a consideration of sufferings because of a groaning creation, verses 16-27, to the thought that God’s people shall be brethren with His Son, in glory, verses 28-30. No amount of privation can destroy that, as Romans 8:38,39 declares: “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”.

(e) Verse 12
The path of resurrection life with Christ

2:12
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren- these are words found in Psalm 22:22 at the point where the scene changes from one of death and great suffering, to resurrection and great glory. They represent the point where Christ finishes His experience of suffering in this world, and begins to enter His glory. As Peter puts it, “God raised him from the dead and gave him glory”, 1 Peter 1:21.
The Lord described His disciples as those that had continued with Him in His temptations, and despite the way they had forsaken Him in Gethsemane, He still said to the women, “Go tell my brethren that I go before you into Galilee”, Matthew 28:10. He also spoke of ascending to His Father and theirs, thus showing He was not ashamed to associate with them, even if they had been ashamed, temporarily, to associate with Him. In this way He began to carry out what He promised in His prayer to His Father in John 17:26, and continued the declaration of the Father’s name or character.
In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee- if the first phrase involved teaching the Name, this one involves praising the Name. Praise is the expression of the works of God, and here the Lord Jesus can be thought of as praising God for His great work of delivering Him from death, in answer to His prayer, Hebrews 5:7. It is noticeable that after the passover meal a psalm was sung before they left, in accordance with the custom of Israel, whereas we do not read of this in the upper room in the post-resurrection appearances to the disciples there. Perhaps a psalm, (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19), now has the more spiritual idea of a personal expression of praise, rather than the repetition of the exercises of others. By singing praise in the church is meant the recounting by the Lord Jesus of His appreciation of the intervention of His Father on His behalf; He does this as His people speak of Him to the Father. Psalm 22 does not actually use the word sing in the expression that is quoted here, perhaps confirming that singing is not necessarily in view.
There is a possibility that the declaring of the Name is done while His people are still on earth, whereas the singing of praise in the midst of the church will take place in heaven when all the redeemed are safe home. So one refers to the local assembly, the other to “the church of the firstborn (ones) which are written (enrolled) in heaven”, 12:23.

(f) Verse 13
The path of faith in God

2:13
And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

And again, I will put my trust in him- this is a quotation from Psalm 18, which is mainly an account of David’s deliverance from the hand of his enemies, including Saul. Now Saul had persecuted David some 40 or more years before, and he seems to have used this psalm as an expression of his dependence on God at every stage of his life. The first three verses, from which this quote comes, give to us the attitude of David to adversity, and one feature is his trust in God. Then he records the way in which God vindicated his trust in him by delivering him from his foes. So we learn that during the time when His enemies had the upper hand, the Lord Jesus was marked by trust in God. Indeed, this was ever His attitude, for Psalm 22:9,10 says “I was cast upon thee from the womb; Thou art my God from my mother’s belly; thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breast”. As a result, He knew deliverance from Herod. Children, even unborn children, are remarkably sensitive to the circumstances in which their mother finds herself. See, for instance, Luke 1:41. By implication, His brethren will be marked by this trust too, as they follow the path the captain of their salvation has marked out for them.
And again, Behold, I and the children which God hath given me- this is a quotation from Isaiah 8:18. Isaiah had the task of warning the wicked king Ahaz of impending captivity at the hands of the Assyrians. As a sign to Israel, Isaiah was instructed by God to name his two sons in a particular way. One was to be Shear-jashub, a name which means “A remnant shall return”, and the other, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means “In making haste to the spoil he hasteneth the prey”. So when Isaiah said to the nation, “Behold, I and the children which God hath given me”, they were a “sign and a wonder” to Israel. Maher-shalal-hash-baz was testimony that the Assyrian would indeed hasten to invade the land, and take them as a prey. The other son, however, was God’s promise that even though that happened, a remnant would return from captivity.
So during the present age believers from the nation of Israel are likewise a testimony to coming judgement on the nation in the form of the Great Tribulation, (and to a lesser extent the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), and also to the fact that God will be favourable to His people and ensure that a remnant of them will know His salvation.
It is interesting that the Lord Jesus called His brethren “children”, in John 21:5, using the same word which is found here and in the next verse. So physical descendants are not necessarily in view in the application of the quotation, but a spiritual relationship. Just as Isaiah’s trust was in God despite the impending judgements, so the trust of the Hebrew believers should be in God despite what would happen to them as a nation in AD 70.

(g) Verses 14-15
The path of deliverance

2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood- the children in question being those addressed in the previous verse, the children of God, who are the same as Christ’s brethren, true believers. The present condition of the children is in view because they were not children before they became partakers. The verb “are partakers” is in the perfect tense, meaning continuation from the past to the present. Those who share flesh and blood are in a condition of relative weakness, which leaves them vulnerable to attack by evil as they make their way to glory, therefore their Captain steps in to help.
He also himself- it is necessary for Him to have the same nature as those He leads, so that He may pass through the same experiences, sin apart of course.
Likewise took part of the same- not only does He share flesh and blood with the children, but shares it likewise, or in the same manner. The word likewise is equivalent to “in all things” in verse 17, and hence means similarity which amounts to equality The manhood of Christ is real, even though He is without sin, for a sinful nature is not an integral part of humanity. Adam was a real man before he sinned. He did not have to possess a sinful nature before he was rightly called a man. 1 Corinthians 15:50 distinguishes between flesh and blood, and corruption, showing that our corrupt nature can be considered apart from our flesh and blood condition. The Lord Jesus took part of flesh and blood in like manner to the children, by birth of a mother, and He subsequently took part in this condition as He lived amongst men. Perhaps there is an allusion to the other son mentioned by Isaiah, even Immanuel, the child born of the virgin, Isaiah 9:14, see Matthew 1:23.
The notion that Mary was only the carrier of Christ in the womb contradicts the statement here that He “likewise took part of the same”. If Christ was contaminated by being nourished by Mary in the womb, as some suggest, then He must have been contaminated after He was born when He drank His mother’s milk.
The word used of believers is partakers, meaning they have a common, equal share in humanity, whereas Christ took part, which involves coming in from outside the condition, a testimony to His pre-existence before birth. He took part by virgin birth in that which we take part in by natural generation.
That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death- Psalm 18, which is quoted in verse 13, (also found in 2 Samuel 22), was written when the Lord had delivered David from his enemies, including Goliath and his sons. In fact 2 Samuel 21:22 links the defeat of Goliath when David was a youth, with the defeat of his four sons by David’s mighty men, when David was an old man. Goliath had put the fear of death into the hearts of the armies of Israel, but David had delivered them from that fear, and had beheaded Goliath with his own sword. So Christ has defeated the greatest enemy of all, the Devil, by using the very weapon that he used to terrify men.
By coming into flesh and blood conditions, and by allowing Himself to be condemned to death, the Lord Jesus placed Himself in a position of weakness, 2 Corinthians 13:4. Yet in this weakness He defeated the mightiest force for evil there ever could be. Since He is now raised from the dead by the power of God, there is no possibility of the Devil being effective against God’s sons.
To destroy means to make of no effect; it does not mean to annihilate. In the wisdom of God, the Devil is still allowed some measure of activity, but when his final doom is effected it will only take an “ordinary” angel to bind him and cast him into the lake of fire, Revelation 20:1-3.

2:15
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage- those under the law were under the ministration of condemnation and death, 2 Corinthians 3:7,9. This brought bondage, for they were not free from fear of death. Imagine a believer in Israel who is returning from sacrificing a sin offering. As he returns to his tent he sins again; yet it is too late to return to the altar. He goes to sleep that night fearing that he may die, and die, moreover, with sin upon him. Through Christ’s death, however, this fear is removed, and death may be faced calmly. This relates especially to believers who formerly were Jews, and therefore under the law.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS CHAPTER 2, VERSES 16-18:

2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

(h) Verses 16-18
The path of victory over temptation

2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels- the writer has been emphasising that the Lord took our nature, partaking in flesh and blood conditions. Now he assures us that the reason he did not take the nature of angels was because He set out to expressly help men.
The word “took” means to “take up a person to help him, to rescue from peril, and also to succour”. The point is that if He is going to help men in flesh and blood conditions, with the fear of death in their hearts, He needs to come into manhood.
But he took on him the seed of Abraham- that is, His coming is relevant to the first readers of the epistle, the Hebrews, descendants of “Abram the Hebrew”, Genesis 14:13. They should not think that because the link with Adam has been emphasised in the earlier verses, they have no special place with God. They are a favoured nation, for “of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came”, Romans 9:5, and “Salvation is of the Jews”, John 4:22. The special emphasis, however, is on those descended from Abraham naturally who were believers, and therefore were his seed spiritually, see John 8:33-45; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:29.
The word “took” is the same as is used in 8:9 of God taking hold of Israel to lead them out of Egypt. Here our captain takes hold of our hand to lead out of the world. “For verily” is only found here in the New Testament. It is used when something is affirmed in an ironical way, and has the idea of “it goes without saying,” or, “of course”.

2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Wherefore- this means “for which reason”.
In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren- for the purpose of taking hold of the seed of Abraham, He needed to be made like them in all things. Note He is made like His brethren, meaning believers. He is not made like unbelievers in all things, for they have a sinful nature, whereas believers are looked at ideally as being righteous, even whilst in a mortal body. This confirms that the seed of Abraham in verse 16 means believers. “Behoved” means “a necessity in view of the subject under discussion”. Having taken flesh and blood, and come to take hold of believers to help them, it is necessary that He become like them in all relevant things, so that He may minister to them effectively. The previous verses have shown believers to be delivered by His various ministries; but they are passing through temptations that may cause them to fall, so how can He help them in this?
That he might be- in order that He might take His place as, or be granted the position of.
A merciful and faithful high priest- the word for mercy here indicates the outward manifestation of pity, with need on the part of the one shown mercy, and resources on the part of the one showing it. It is not simply an attitude, but an act, as demonstrated by the Good Samaritan, who was not content to look from a distance, (as the priest was), but acted in compassion.
Faithfulness marks Him, not only in His relationship with God, 3:2, but also towards believers, the idea behind faithfulness being reliability and stability. The failures we manifest do not cause our helper to desert us.
In things pertaining to God- in matters that relate to the honour of God. Aaron was made priest to minister unto God, Exodus 28:1. The priesthood of Aaron had to do with constant sacrifices and yearly atonement. Christ dealt with these two aspects before He entered into his ministry, as Hebrews 7:28 makes clear. His sacrifice renders altar-sacrifices obsolete, chapter 10, and His work of propitiation is once for all, chapter 9. His priesthood has to do with helping us move through the world safely, and leading the way into the presence of God.
To make reconciliation for the sins of the people- reconciliation, the bringing into harmony of persons formerly at variance, is one result of the work of propitiation. “To” means “for to”, a similar expression to the “that He might be” of the beginning of the verse. The change of word indicates that, as the scholars say, “this is a separate telic clause”, (a clause which tells us what the goal is). So there are two goals in view in the verse, the one issuing from the other. He is made like His brethren with the general object of being a faithful high priest for them, and also to make propitiation. Compare 1 John 2:1,2, with the advocacy of Christ on the basis of His propitiatory work. He is the propitiation for our sins in the sense that the one in heaven interceding is the one who once was on the cross propitiating.
The Lord Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene about His brethren, and indicated that He was about to “ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God”, John 20:17. Thus He would still be the link between His people and God, maintaining them in His dual role of Advocate with the Father, and High Priest in things pertaining to God.
The basis of His advocacy is two-fold. His person, for He is Jesus Christ the righteous, and His work, for He is the propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2:1,2. The apostle John was concerned about believers sinning. The sins of believers are just as obnoxious to God, and just as deserving of wrath, as those of unbelievers. But we are “saved from wrath through Him”, Romans 5:9, as He pleads the merits of His work. He is, says John, the propitiatory offering for our sins. Not was, but is. In other words, the one who acts for us in heaven as our advocate, is the very same one who hung upon the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.
He is also our high priest. Hebrews 2:17,18 form a bridge between chapter two, with its emphasis on the reasons why the Lord Jesus took manhood, and the way in which Israel were tempted in the wilderness as noted in chapter three.
Note in particular the word “for” which begins verse 18. Too little attention has been paid to this word, and hence the connection between verses 17 and 18 is often lost. The reason why we have a high priest who is merciful and faithful is that He has been here in manhood and suffered being tempted. When His people pass through temptation, then He undertakes to deal with their cause. Because He has been here, and has been tempted in all points like as we are, He is able to help us when we cry to Him for help. The word for succour was used by the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15:25 when she cried out, “Lord, help me”. He is able to point us to the ways in which He overcame in the wilderness temptation, and thus we are strengthened to resist temptation.
But what if we fall, and sin? In that case He comes to our aid in another way. We see it typified negatively in Leviticus 10:16-20. The priests were commanded to eat the sin-offerings, as long as their blood had not been brought into the sanctuary. This was in order to “bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord”, Leviticus 10:17, where the word for bear is the same as is used for the scapegoat bearing iniquity. But at the end of the consecration of the priesthood, Moses was angry on God’s behalf, for the priests had failed in this.
One of the functions of priesthood, then, was to personally identify with the sin-offering by eating it, and by so doing bear the iniquity of the congregation, taking responsibility for their failure, but doing so safeguarded by the fact that a sin-offering had been accepted by God. As they did this the scripture explicitly says they made atonement for the people, Leviticus 10:17. We see then what the writer to the Hebrews means when he talks of Christ making reconciliation for the sins of the people. He is indicating that Christ personally identifies Himself with His sin-offering work at Calvary, and thus takes responsibility for the failures of His people under temptation. This is acceptable to God, and His people are preserved, despite their failure. So it is that sins that would otherwise distance believers from God are dealt with, and reconciliation is effected.

2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

For in that he hath suffered, being tempted- only those who resist temptation suffer when they are tempted. The fact that it is not said without qualification that He suffered when He was tempted shows that He always resisted resolutely. He therefore knows what His people pass through when they resist temptation.
He is able to succour them that are tempted- knowing from personal experience the pressure they are under, He is able to suit the help they need to their situation. When His people do not resist temptation, then His work at Calvary safeguards their position before God, hence the mention of reconciliation, (the result of propitiation), in the previous verse. To succour means to run to the aid of a person in danger, when they cry for help. The woman of Matthew 15:25 cried “Lord, help me”, and this is what we need to do. The same word is used also in Hebrews 4:16 in the expression “grace to help in time of need”. Because He has experienced the pressure of temptation, and has overcome, when we go to Him for help He is able to point us to the way in which He overcame, as detailed in the temptation accounts in the gospels.ause He has experienced the pressure of temptation, and has overcome, when we go to Him for help He is able to point us to the way in which He overcame, as detailed in the temptation accounts in the gospels.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:35-58

Leave a reply

We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

This brings us to the second major section of the chapter, in which the apostle deals with the resurrection of the saints. Those who have died in Christ have not perished, verses 18, for Christ is risen. Those who are still alive are not of all men most miserable, verses 19, for the same reason.

In verse 1-34 the emphasis has been on the resurrection of Christ Himself. In the remainder of the chapter the focus is on the consequence of that resurrection, even the resurrection of the saints of this present church age.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 15, VERSES 35-49:

15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.

15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

15:35-49 GRAPHICAL: DESCRIPTION OF THE RESURRECTION BODY

Structure of the section

(a)	Verses 34-41	The character of the resurrection body.
(b)	Verses 42-44	The change of the resurrection body.
(c)	Verses 44(b)-49	The correspondence of the resurrection body to Christ’s.

(a) Verses 35-41 THE CHARACTER OF THE RESURRECTION BODY.

(a)	Verse 36	A quickened body.
(b)	Verse 36	A clothed body.
(c)	Verse 38	A sovereignly-given body.
(d)	Verse 38	An identifiable body.
(e)	Verse 39	A body suited to the nature.
(f)	Verse 40	A body suited to the environment to be lived in.
(g)	Verse 41	A body capable of radiating glory.

Summary of the section
By the use of illustrations from various fields of study in the natural realm, whether biology, zoology or astronomy, the apostle illustrates truths regarding the resurrection body and its suitability for the glorious environment in which it will function.

15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

But some man will say- having dealt effectively with the question raised in verse 12 as to whether the resurrection of the dead is a possibility, the apostle now anticipates another query. The way the apostle answers suggests that the question is a cynical one on the part of an unbeliever, virtually suggesting that it cannot happen.
How are the dead raised up?- the word “how” means either, “by what means”, or “in what condition?”. That the latter is the meaning is clear from subsequent verses, for the apostle makes no attempt here to explain by what means God will raise the dead. The Sadducees denied resurrection, and the Lord Jesus rebuked them with the words, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God”, Matthew 22:29. The resurrection of Christ was through the working of God’s mighty power, Ephesians 1:19,20, and so shall the resurrection of the saints be.
And with what body do they come? What body can possibly rise from the grave, when it has crumbled to dust centuries before? The answer is found in the One who made man from the dust at the beginning, and who can bring a man out from the dust at the resurrection. The one who gave Adam a spirit at the beginning, can reunite the believer’s spirit, (which, at death, had gone back to God who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12:7).
We should remember that our body is not only an object, but is also an idea, for cells in our body die and are replaced all the time, so we are constantly changing. The body we had when we were saved, the body God bought with the price of His Son’s blood, 1 Corinthians 6:19,20, is composed of different cells now. The resurrection body is “eternal in the heavens”, and “from heaven”, 2 Corinthians 1,2, in other words it exists in the mind of God in the first instance.

(a) Verse 36 A quickened body

15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die- even a knowledge of natural matters should rid the fool of his doubts as to the possibility of resurrection. “Thou” is emphatic, for even the seeds fools sow are quickened after they have “died”, that is, after the outer part has given way to the development of the inner germ of life. So death is a necessity, in this context, not a calamity, for seeds left unsown will not grow. Death for the believer is not the end, but a means to the end.
Later on the apostle will show that some believers will not die, yet shall share in the resurrection. How that will happen is part of the mystery he will set out to explain in verses 51-54. In a later epistle he states that “the body is dead because of sin”, Romans 8:10, so because the believer’s body is judicially dead already, he can share in resurrection. Meanwhile, the “Spirit is life because of righteousness”, so we can live for God now.

(b) Verse 37 A clothed body

15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

And that which thou sowest- now a further thought, based on the act of sowing a seed.

Thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain- the small insignificant seed is placed in the earth, but when it is quickened into life, a luxuriant plant is produced, which seems to bear no resemblance to the plain seed sown. The Lord Jesus spoke of Solomon and his glorious array, yet the lilies of the field had more glory than he. Solomon needed to put on his apparel from without, but the beauty of the flowers is intrinsic, for they are arrayed by God. Yet for all that, they are sown as insignificant seeds, yet come out of the earth in glorious splendour. So the believer is sown in the earth as bare seed, (for as Job said, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither”, Job 1:21), but shall emerge in resurrection glory.

(c) Verse 38 A sovereignly-given body

15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him- note the change of tense, with the “giveth” (present), when the seed grows, but the “pleased Him” (past), referring to God’s original creation. He gives the seed a body in accordance with His original design in Genesis 1:11,12 as the Creator of all things. To wheat He gives a wheat body, to another grain a different and corresponding body. Perhaps there is a suggestion here that the believer will rise with the body that suits his personality.

(d) Verse 38 A body with continued identity

And to every seed his own body– whether wheat, or some other grain, the body or foliage is given suited to the kind of seed that has been sown. So there is a continuity maintained from sowing to growing, so we know what was sown by looking at what has come up.

(e) Verse 39 A body suited to the nature

15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

All flesh is not the same flesh- having established certain principles from the plant kingdom, the apostle now turns to the living creatures. This statement introduces the idea of differences of nature, whereas wheat and other sorts of grain were a question of variety of the same species, with the common idea that the plant produced corresponded to the seed sown. Now the further idea that God has given bodies to the creatures of earth that suit their environment. So with the resurrection body- it will be suited to life in heaven.
But there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds- this shows that men and apes are different flesh. Each class has a body which is suited to the nature, which the word flesh suggests. Eve was flesh of Adam’s flesh, but she was not made of the soft part of his body. She did, however, share his nature, as the animals did not. So Adam says “This is now…flesh of my flesh” whereas before, when he named the animals, it was not, Genesis 2:19, 23.
Each creature mentioned here has a body suited to its habitat and nature, with man being upright, able to work; animals walking on all fours, able to hunt; fishes with fins, able to swim in the water, and birds with feathers and wings, able to fly in the air. So with the resurrection body, it will be suited for life in heaven, its proper environment, as far as church saints are concerned.

(f) Verse 40 A body suited to the environment

15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial- our bodies are currently terrestrial, suited to earth, but after the resurrection they will be celestial, suitable for heaven. Just as the stars are suited for heaven, so shall we be. The celestial bodies he has in mind are the sun, moon, and stars of the next verse. Our body has a certain glory even now, for it may be presented to God as a living sacrifice, Romans 12:1, but the glory of the resurrection body will far exceed it. In 2 Corinthians 5:1,2 our resurrection body is described as “a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens…our house which is from heaven”.

(g) Verse 41 A body capable of radiating glory

15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon- even celestial bodies vary according to God’s ordination. The sun displays the glory of energy, the moon the glory of beauty. So we may think that the believer’s resurrection body will possess tremendous energy, and will display incredible beauty, for it will be like Christ’s glorious body, Philippians 3:21.
And another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory- it is obvious that the sun and moon vary but it is not so evident that stars are different to one another, hence the affirmation that it is so. Just as each star has its own peculiar glory, the glory of its individuality, (suggested by the fact that all the stars are named by God, Psalm 147:4), so each believer will have his or her different and glorious characteristics, but all to glorify Christ.

(ii) Verses 42-44(a) The change of the resurrection body

Structure of the section

(a)	Verse 42	From corruption to incorruption
(b)	Verse 43(a)	From dishonour to glory
(c)	Verse 43(b)	From weakness to power
(d)	Verse 44(a)	From being natural to being spiritual

(a) Verse 42 From corruption to incorruption

15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

So also is the resurrection of the dead- the apostle now enlarges on the subject of the character of the resurrection body as to its moral features. He refers only to the resurrection of believers in the remainder of the chapter.
It is sown in corruption- the dead body is buried in the earth as a corruptible and corrupt thing, being part of the creation which is in the bondage of corruption. The apostle wrote of this as follows, “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body”, Romans 8:20-23. No matter how holy a believer is, the body is corrupt.
It is raised in incorruption- able to display holiness perfectly. This is the redemption of the body, Romans 8:23, Ephesians 4:30 which introduces us to the full measure of sonship, (adoption) of which the Spirit of adoption is the earnest or pledge, Romans 8:15, Ephesians 1:13,14.
Note that the same body is raised, even though the body that shall be is not the body sown in the earth, verse 37. The latter statement has to do with the condition of the body, the bare grain contrasted to the luxuriant plant, not its identity. The plant is not buried, but the seed is, so in that sense the future body is not sown. On the other hand, the seed that is sown is the seed that comes up. The human body changes every second, so it is an idea as well as an object. The identity and personality of the believer are not lost by death.

(b) Verse 43(a) From dishonour to glory

15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory- there is nothing personal about the dishonour, for it is the common lot of humanity, including the believer. No matter how honourable that believer, his body lacks the honour it should have, because of the Fall. It is a body of humiliation, Philippians 3:21, and yet shall be fashioned like unto His body of glory. It will be fitted to radiate the glories of Christ, not simply outwardly, but morally too. We shall see Him as He is, 1 John 3:2.
At the moment, we but feebly appreciate His glories, but in the resurrection it will be different, and the sight of His glories will transform us into His glorious image. This is what the apostle referred to when he spoke of believers being conformed to the image of God’s Son, Romans 8:29.

(c) Verse 43(b) From weakness to power

It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power- no matter how physically strong the believer was before he died, his body was weakened by sin. At the resurrection weakness will give way to unfettered energy, enabling us to serve God as we should.

(d) Verse 44(a) From being natural to being spiritual

15:44(a) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body- no matter how spiritual the believer was before he died, his body was natural, or soulish, fitted for life on earth, and to sense things naturally. Note that the resurrection body is a spiritual body, not a spirit-body. This body will be perfectly fitted to express spiritual things, and to appreciate them too.

(iii) Verses 44(b)-49 The correspondence of the resurrection body to Christ’s

Structure:

(a)	Verses 44-45	Spiritual body.
(b)	Verse 46	Superior body.
(c)	Verses 47-48	Suitable body.
(d)	Verse 49	Serviceable body.

(a) Verses 44(b),45 A spiritual body

15:44(b) There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

There is a natural body- the one possessed by Adam and all in his image. The word natural means soulish, dominated by soul-considerations, appreciating things through the senses. Hence for instance the garden in Eden was full of trees pleasant to the sight, and good for food, and Adam with his soulish body was able to appreciate them. The apostle repeats the fact that there is both a natural body and a spiritual one, for the latter truth was being denied. It is also the truth he is about to develop. There are three repetitions in the passage, in verses 44, 46, and 54, and they are Paul’s way of drawing our attention to a matter he is about to emphasise and enlarge upon.
And there is a spiritual body- only possessed by one man as yet, Jesus Christ. Note that just as Adam had a soulish body, but this did not mean he was immaterial soul only, so Christ has a spiritual body, but this does not mean He is immaterial spirit only. In the next verse each of these two men will be designated by the part that is dominant, either the soul or the spirit, but for all that, they each have a body.

15:45 And so it is written, The first man “Adam was made a living soul”; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

And so it is written, the first man “Adam was made a living soul”- note the order in Genesis 2:5,7, where first it is said there was not a man to till the ground, then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and “man became a living soul”. So the man described here is the first man, for before him there was no-one to till the ground. The notion that there were men who lived and died before Adam, existing in a supposed era between the first two verses of Genesis 1, has no support in Scripture. Death came in through Adam, Romans 5:12, so there was no death before his sin. The fossil record is perfectly explained by the events at the Flood.
The man is specifically and personally named, so that we may be in no doubt that it is of Adam that the apostle is speaking. The Hebrew word “adamah”, from which Adam derives his name, is the word for red earth, for God formed man as a potter forms a clay vessel. Then man became a living soul by the in-breathing by God of the breath of life (plural), so that he might have the ability to live in every sense of the word, whether physically, morally, spiritually, intellectually or sensually.
So man has a soul, but is also said to be a living soul, that is, a living person. The Scripture Paul quotes relates to man in innocence, so having a natural body does not imply being a sinner. Note that the name Adam is also used to describe the whole of the human race. See for instance the use of word man (adamah) in each of first seven verses of Genesis 6. So by bearing the race-name as his personal name, Adam was marked out as the head of the race of men.
It is worth remembering that there is only one race; there is not a variety, such as the yellow race, the brown race, the black race, the white race. God has “made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”, Acts 17:26. So wherever we go on the earth, the people there are of the same blood as ourselves, even though not of the same nation.
The last Adam was made a quickening spirit- Christ is not called the last man Adam, for that would make Adam His personal name. He only takes the name of Adam as the head of the new creation. He takes the name Last Adam because He is the last one who will be head of a race of men. The rabbis spoke of the former Adam and the latter Adam, the Messiah.
He has become, in resurrection, a quickening spirit. Adam lay on the ground lifeless, and then by the in-breathing of God received life and stood upon his feet. Christ lay lifeless in the tomb, and then took His life again at the commandment of His Father, and stood in resurrection.
The fact that He is a quickening spirit does not mean that He is only spirit, any more than Adam being a living soul meant he was only soul. What it does mean is that His resurrection body, the pattern of the saints’ resurrection body, is governed by the highest part of man, the spirit.
But whereas Adam was simply the receiver of life, for he became a living soul at his formation, Christ is become, by virtue of His resurrection, the giver of spiritual life even as to the body. Adam received life, but Christ gives it. This means that He will give His people bodies that fit them to dwell in the realm of spirits, heaven itself. When He was on earth, Christ raised the dead, and gave them their natural body back, (as is seen in the fact that Lazarus had to be released from his grave-clothes). Now that He is risen, He will give His people a spiritual body at the resurrection.
This ability to quicken implies His Deity, for only God can quicken with resurrection life. See John 5:17-25. He also gives this life as one who is “spirit”, that is, has Himself the sort of body that is dominated by the spirit, and can be suitably described by that part of Him.
There is another reason why He is called a spirit, and that is because the resurrection of believers is guaranteed by the fact that they have the Spirit of the God of resurrection indwelling them. Paul writes, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you”, Romans 8:11. So there is the united action of the Persons of the Godhead in the raising of the saints, with the God who raised Jesus, the Spirit of God, and Christ Himself, all acting together. So by calling Him a spirit Paul is emphasising also that, like the other persons of the Godhead, He is spirit too, and can work in harmony with the Father and the Spirit to raise the dead.

We may set out the contrasts between Adam and Christ as follows:

ADAM	CHRIST
First man.	Second man, (none in between).
Adam (as head of race, with none before).	Last Adam, (none to follow).
Became (by creation) a living soul.	Became (by resurrection) a life-giving spirit.
Given life for earth.	Gives life for heaven.
Natural (soulish) body	Spiritual body
From the earth beneath him.	From heaven.
Lower than angels.	Lord of all.

(b) Verse 46 A superior body

15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual- the word “howbeit” introduces further thoughts on this matter, as the apostle now tells us three more features of the resurrection body. The idea of the second being better is a principle which runs throughout scripture. So it is Cain who is the first, Abel the second; Ishmael the first, Isaac the second; Esau the first, Jacob the second; Reuben the first, Judah and Joseph combined, the second. Saul the first, David the second. The law-sacrifices the first, the sacrifice of Christ the second. The first must show itself a failure, and be set aside, so that the way is clear for the introduction of the second. When God introduces a second thing, it implies the failure of the first. It is not that He needs to experiment until He reaches perfection. But He does need to allow the first to show us that it is a failure. Even though Christ existed before Adam, He did not have a spiritual body then. The natural body comes first, so that the spiritual body may be seen to be superior.

(c) Verse 47 A suitable body

15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The first man is of the earth, earthy- we now have a reference to the actual material of Adam’s body, whereas in verse 45 it was a question of the character of it. He was made of the dust from beneath his feet, which is appropriate, since he would walk on the earth.
The second man is the Lord from heaven- whilst it is true that when He came down from heaven at the incarnation He was the Lord from heaven, nonetheless the apostle is referring to a risen and exalted Christ coming to effect resurrection for His people at the rapture of the saints, for the apostle writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, “the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven”. He is the Lord both of the dead and the living, Romans 14:9, and this in virtue of the fact that He has died, rose and revived.
The things spoken of here with regard to believers receiving a spiritual body await His coming from heaven at the rapture. He did not come from heaven as a man at His first coming, but came into manhood. Adam came from the dust beneath our feet, but Christ shall come from the sky above our head. He has a body which is suitable for Him to live in heaven with, and He is coming to ensure that believers have a body suitable for that heavenly sphere as well. The apostle is not describing the Lord’s resurrection body, (as if it is “from heaven”), but is emphasising where He is coming from, heaven, in contrast to where Adam came from, earth.

15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy- Adam’s race shares his earthy body. This is not a stigma, for Adam had an earthy body in innocence. It is true that he was earthly in character, but the point here is that his body was made from the earth. Man dwells in a house of clay, Job 4:19, for God at the beginning formed Adam as a potter forms a vessel, such is the word used in Genesis 2:7. There is no element in our bodies that is not found in the soil.
And as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly- they who are linked with the Lord who is coming from heaven are looked on here as if the resurrection has taken place, and they can be said to be heavenly, sharing the same resurrection body as the Lord when He comes from heaven to make it a reality. As He is, with a glorified body in resurrection, so are the heavenly, (as far as the purpose of God is concerned), those destined for heaven by God’s grace, Ephesians 2:6. Our resurrection body is a house from heaven, 2 Corinthians 5:1,2, meaning it is God’s heavenly purpose for His people that they should have a changed body.

M (d) Verse 49 A serviceable body

15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

And as we have borne the image of the earthy- the “and” suggests a further thought; not only possessing a natural body like Adam, but representing and manifesting him through it.
We shall also bear the image of the heavenly- we shall have a body then which will enable us to truly and perfectly represent Christ, not only bodily but morally also, for we shall be like Him, 1 John 3:2. We all represent Adam now, (that is, as far as having a body is concerned. We should represent Christ as to our nature), but we are all different in looks, and have our own personality; so also when we represent and manifest Christ fully in resurrection conditions. We should always remember, however, that we should be growing daily in likeness to Christ. Paul’s desire for the Galatians was that Christ might be formed in them, Galatians 4:19, and Christ as the ascended Head of the church has given us gifted men, so that we might “grow up into Him in all things”, Ephesians 4:15.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 15,VERSES 50-53:

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Section 5 15:51-53 Revelational

The mystery of the change of the bodies of the living saints

Structure of the section:

(a)	Verses 50,51	Telling of the mystery.
(b)	Verse 52	Timing of the change.
(c)	Verse 53	Transformation of the believer’s body.

Summary
Up to this point the apostle has dealt mainly with the bodies of dead saints, but now he deals with the change effected to living saints at Christ’s coming. This is hitherto undisclosed truth, which is why it is called a mystery. After it has been disclosed, it will no longer be a mystery.

(a) Verse 50 The announcement of a mystery

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Now this I say, brethren- the apostle asserts his personal authority as the steward of Divine mysteries. He also encourages the Corinthians to take note, by calling them brethren.
That flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God- in other words, the bodies of believers, (brethren), cannot enter into full inheritance in heaven as they are. Flesh and blood conditions are suited to the earth, but not heaven. Note it is a question of inheriting. The children of God are heirs, Romans 8:17, (another reason why he calls them brethren here, for they are members of the family of God), and they are about to receive the fulness of their inheritance.
Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption– to be flesh and blood does not imply sin, but corruption does, for it reminds us that there has been a fall, with its consequent bondage of corruption for all of creation, including our bodies, Romans 8:18-23. “Flesh and blood cannot” indicates a physical impossibility, whilst “corruption doth not” indicates a moral impossibility. It is said of the holy city that “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth”, Revelation 21:27.

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Behold, I shew you a mystery- the word show as used here means to tell, or explain. A mystery in ancient times was a secret known only to the initiated, (called “the perfected”, see 1 Corinthians 2:6), and revealed by one specially authorised, see Ephesians 3:1-4. Paul acts in this capacity here as he unfolds the truth regarding the bodies of saints who are still alive when the Lord comes. How are they going to share in the resurrection if they have not died before Christ’s coming?
We shall not all sleep- that is, not all believers will pass into death, where the body sleeps, see John 11:11. The mystery is not about the fact that not all shall sleep, but about the fact that all shall be changed. We know that not all shall sleep because 1 Thessalonians 4:15, (written five years before 1 Corinthians), speaks of those who shall be alive at the coming of the Lord. In that passage Paul simply said that the living saints would be caught up with the saints who had died, but had now been raised from the dead. He did not mention the change of living saints in that passage.
But we shall all be changed- whether dead or alive at Christ’s coming. The word change means to make other than it is. Paul does not use the word that speaks of the manifestation of inner reality which he employs in Philippians 3:21, Romans 8:29, no doubt because he is thinking of bodily changes only at this particular point in his argument. The ground of this change is that the believer’s body is indwelt by the Spirit of God, so Romans 8:11 reads, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken (make alive) your mortal (tending to death) bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you”.
In the previous verse to the one just quoted, Paul writes, “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness”. The indwelling of the Spirit shows up the fact that the believer’s body, because it has the sin-principle within it still, is judicially dead; that is, dead as far as God’s thought is concerned. However, the Spirit within means the believer is also judicially alive, because God has justified him with “justification of life”, 5:18. In this way spiritual life can manifest itself now. But it will manifest itself fully when the mortal body of the believer is quickened from its judicially dead state, and in this way partakes of the quickening that saints who have died will know.
Taking this passage and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 together, we see that dead saints shall rise first with their resurrection body, the living will be changed, so that both classes stand momentarily upon the earth in bodies fit for heaven, and then they are caught up together in the clouds, and then rise higher to meet the Lord in the air or atmosphere above the clouds. Perhaps they will be caught up together in the clouds so that the first person they see clearly is the Lord Himself, and not one another. The word translated “caught up” is based on a root word meaning “to take to oneself”, and would remind us of the Lord’s words, “I will come again, and receive you unto Myself”, John 14:3. Is this my reader’s hope? If it is not, then please re-read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, looking to God to reveal His truth to you.

(b) Verse 52 The accompaniments of Christ’s coming

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

In a moment- the Greeks believed that they had discovered the smallest particle, so small that it could not be further divided; they called it “a-tomos”, meaning “not divisible”, and this is the word the apostle employs here. If we could imagine a period of time that could not be divided up, then we would have an idea of the rapidity with which the change will take place. It is not, therefore, a process, but speaks of indivisible time, preparing us for eternity. This has solemn moral implications for us, for there will be no time to make amends with others, nor to repent of sins before God. As the apostle John wrote, “He that hath this hope on Him, purifieth himself”, 1 John 3:3.
In the twinkling of an eye- not a blink, but the momentary change of the light in the eye. This tells of change that is so sudden that the eye cannot capture it, an imperceptible change therefore. This is preparation for the changeless state.
At the last trump- now we learn of an irresistible call. In 1 Corinthians 14:8 the apostle likens the ministry of Christ to His people as a trumpet sound preparing them for battle. He no doubt has in mind the uses to which the silver trumpets were put in Israel, in accordance with Numbers 10. They were for calling the assembly; for a signal to journey; to call the princes, and to sound an alarm for war. Clearly, at the coming of Christ it is a question of preparing to journey. Many have been the soundings of the trumpet down through the centuries, as Christ has led His people on, but now there has come the last trump, for the last journey, this time from earth to heaven, is to be made.
For the trumpet shall sound- in Revelation 4:1 the apostle John heard a voice like a trumpet saying “Come up hither”, and he went through the opened door of heaven. Such shall be the experience of the saints. The apostle John described the voice of the Lord as like a trumpet, Revelation 1:10,11, so no doubt Paul is alluding to the voice of the Son of God that shall wake the dead saints, for “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live”, John 5:25.
And the dead shall be raised incorruptible- not only shall the bodies of believers not be corrupt, but shall be unable to be affected by corruption, assuring us the saints will never fall into sin.
And we shall be changed- the apostle links himself with those alive at the Lord’s coming, such was the expectancy with which he anticipated it. Yet he was also realistic, and spoke of his time of departure, 2 Timothy 4:6.

(c) Verse 53 The alterations to the believer’s body

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption- the believer’s body is corruptible because it is the seat of the sin-principle, which means it is in the bondage of corruption. It is morally imperative that this body be altered, for nothing that defiles shall ever enter heaven, Revelation 21:27. Incorruption here has the thought of incorruptibility, which means the resurrection body is not only incorrupt, but cannot be corrupted.
And this mortal must put on immortality- likewise it is vital that the body that tends to death should be changed to one that is totally and eternally deathless. So sin which brings corruption, and death which brings mortality, shall both be dealt with.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 15,VERSES 54-57:

15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Section 6 15:54-57 Triumphal

Death is swallowed up in victory

Structure:

(a)	Verse 54	The victory of life over death.
(b)	Verses 55-56	The victory of Christ over death and hades.
(c)	Verse 57	The victory of the believer through Christ.

Summary of the section

When the changes detailed in verses 51-53 have taken place, then the full extent of the victory obtained by Christ at the cross will be realised, and the triumph which He knew over death, Hades and the grave, will be shared with His people on the resurrection day.

(a) Verse 54 The victory of life over death

15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory”.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption- “this corruptible” means this body which is capable of deteriorating because of the bondage into which the Fall of man brought it. “Put on” is the same figure used in 2 Corinthians 5:2, “clothed upon with our house which is from heaven”. The resurrection body is not able to decay.
And this mortal shall have put on immortality- now the body is viewed as being subject to and tending towards death. The resurrection body is not capable of dying, for it comes from the one who is life-giving, verse 45.
Then- there are three distinct ways used by the inspired writers to introduce the fulfillment of prophecy, and they are as follows:

1. With the word “ina”, meaning “in order that it might be fulfilled”, in cases where the object of the prophecy is completely realised.

2. With the word “opus”, meaning “so that it might be fulfilled”, in cases where not the full realisation of the thing prophesied, but an event within the scope and intention of the prophecy, is meant, in Matthew 8:17 for instance.

3. With the word “tole”, as here, meaning merely a case in point, when what happened was an illustration of what was said in the prophecy.

So the resurrection of the saints of this age is not a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah that Paul quotes here, nor of the prophecy from Hosea which he alludes to in the next verse. Rather, what will happen in relation to Israel in the future provides an illustration of what will happen at the resurrection of church saints. The principle is the same but the time and the people are different.

Shall be brought to pass the saying which is written- the saying of Isaiah 25:8 still stands written, hundreds of years later, for God’s word is inspired, not just was inspired- it retains its original character.
“Death is swallowed up in victory”- this is the Hebrew way of saying that permanent victory over death has been achieved. What God pledged to do He will have then done.

(b) Verses 55,56 The victory of Christ over death and the grave

15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

“O death, where is thy sting?- this will be the exclamation of the saints when the resurrection has taken place. The original wording was “O death, I will be thy plagues”, Hosea 13:14, and is a declaration that God will accomplish this in the future.
O grave where is thy victory?” The original wording in Hosea indicates God’s intention to destroy death, “O death, I will be thy destruction”, and this He did when Christ rose from the dead, no more to die. If death cannot hold one who had all sins laid upon Him, its power is broken; if the Devil cannot defeat Christ when He is crucified through weakness, 2 Corinthians 13:4, he will never defeat Him.
So it is that saints that have died will find that the grave has not had the ultimate victory over them, and saints who are still alive when the Lord comes will rejoice as they realize they have escaped it altogether.
The Hebrew word “sheol” is translated in the Old Testament as “the grave” 31 times, and as “hell” 31 times. It is never translated “a grave”, but “the grave”. It is also translated “pit” three times, twice in connection with Korah. (In the passage from Hosea that Paul is alluding to here, the definite article is replaced by the vocative “O”, as God addresses the grave as if it is a person). So the same word is used of the place where the body is put, and the place where the soul resides until the resurrection. Jacob said, “For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning”, Genesis 37:35. But Jacob believed that his son had been devoured by a wild beast, and therefore had no grave. So in this first mention of the word sheol the grave is looked on as the entrance to the world of the dead, so that Jacob would indeed go down to the grave where his son was, meaning sheol.
The Authorised Version translators very wisely translated the word hades, (which is the equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol), as grave, and not Hades, because they knew full well that church saints do not go there anyway. They had the precedent of the Old Testament, where there was a choice between translating as either hell or the grave, according to the context. Christ has the keys of death and of Hades. He unlocks the door of death to His saints so that they die. But He locks Hades so that they do not go there, but pass immediately into His presence.

15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The sting of death is sin- this is no doubt a reference to the word plague in Hosea 13:14. The bite of the serpent in Eden has resulted in the poison of sin being in us, which brings about death, for “the wages of sin is death”, Romans 6:23. On the resurrection morning all the saints shall be completely free from the sin-principle that currently dwells in their body. It will not be transferred to the resurrection body, for that body will be like Christ’s, and He has no sin.
And the strength of sin is the law- that which gave the sin-poison its potency, was the fact that it was the transgression of God’s law, for sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4. “The law worketh wrath”, Romans 4:15, and is the “ministration of death”, and “the ministration of condemnation”, 2 Corinthians 3:7,9. The apostle wrote, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful”, Romans 7:13. So the law combines with the sin-principle in man to make that sin principle all the more deadly. In this way the law becomes the strength of sin, (the word is dunamis, from which we get the word dynamite), giving it even more power than it has on its own. There will be nothing of this in resurrection, however, for sin will be gone, and there will be nothing for the law to work upon in this way. The believer will only be governed by the “law of the Spirit” in heaven. Currently it is possible to give way to sin, but not then.

(c) 15:57 The victory of the believer through Christ

15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

But thanks be to God- the word thanks is “charis”, meaning grace, so is in direct contrast to the law which enhanced the power of sin in us. The grace of God gives us the victory over the powerful forces of sin and death. The law could not do this, Romans 8:3.
Which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ- the victory which was achieved when God destroyed death, hell and the grave by raising Christ from the dead, is given by grace to us, because of Him. Isaiah 53:12 speaks of God dividing a portion to Christ among the great, and Himself dividing the spoil with the strong, the reason being that He has poured out His soul unto death. His surrender to death has gained the surrender of death.

Section 7 15:58 Practical

Labour is not in vain in the Lord

15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Therefore- as a result of the whole chapter, but especially the last sections.
My beloved brethren- as those whose spiritual welfare is on the apostle’s heart.
Be ye steadfast- be firmly established in the truths set out in this chapter.
Unmoveable- unaffected by the error that some would try to teach.
Always abounding in the work of the Lord- the only feast in Israel’s calendar where there was no prohibition about working, was the feast of the waving of the firstfruits, see Leviticus 23:9-14, 1 Corinthians 15:20,23. The waving of the sheaf of firstfruits was done on the morrow after the Sabbath of week when the Passover lamb was slain. In other words, the very day the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. The wave-sheaf was waved horizontally, so that it could be seen from every angle; so the Lord Jesus was seen from every angle by those who believed, as verses 5-8 have reminded us.
Forasmuch as ye know- because you believe the truth of this chapter.
Your labour is not in vain in the Lord- because the Lord is risen, all work done for Him is worthwhile. The resurrection of Christ is a great incentive to work for Him, for everything done in His name will be carried over into resurrection to be for His praise to all eternity. The resurrection of Christ is also a great challenge, for it means that all that we have done will be assessed at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and we shall not be able to escape the consequences of our actions, even if we should desire to do so.

“And when I saw Him,
I fell at His feet as dead.
And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me,
Fear not;
I am the first and the last:
I am He that liveth, and was dead;
and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen;
and have the keys of hell and of death”.

Revelation 1:17,18.

JOHN 2

Leave a reply

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

JOHN 2

Setting of the chapter
The chapter begins with an event which occurred at the end of the sequence of days mentioned in chapter 1. There is no record of what happened after the fourth day, and the narrative moves to the third day after that day, which would complete the cycle of seven days. The kingdom of Christ of which the marriage is a foretaste, will involve “the dispensation of the fulness of times”, Ephesians 1:10, although the present age is the most favoured of all. It is appropriate that the preview of the kingdom that the marriage suggests, should come at the end of a cycle of time. The apostle Peter spoke of these times as “the times of restitution of all things”, and the word restitution was used by the Egyptians for the end of the circle of time.

By “dispensation” is meant the action of Christ as He dispenses the blessings His sacrifice at Calvary has secured. The word does not denote a period of time, but rather the actions carried out during that period of time.

In the kingdom age which will follow the Tribulation Period, the land of Israel shall be “Beulah Land”, for God’s promise to Israel is, “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.” Isaiah 62:4,5. Hephzibah means “My delight is in her”, and Beulah means “Married”.

Nathanael is now a disciple, and the disciples were present at the wedding in Cana, verse 11. Nathanael was of Cana of Galilee, 21:2, and he forms a link between the happenings of the fourth day which prefigure the tribulation period and its end, and the wedding in Cana. Those who are saved during the Tribulation Period will be taken into the kingdom, which the Lord Jesus likened to a wedding feast that a king made for his son, Matthew 22:1-14.

Summary of the chapter
n John chapter 2 we find that the Lord Jesus manifested Himself in a twofold way to the nation of Israel, first in a domestic scene, verses 1-12, and then in a national scene, verses 13-25. We could set out the comparisons and contrasts in the following way:

Verses 1 to 12

The marriage

Cana of Galilee

Countryside

Rustic

Marriage

Domestic

Presence invited at wedding

New beginning in life

Emphasis on grace

The disciples had real faith

Christ supplied a lack

Love and humility

Christ in the background

Spoke of “His hour”, at Calvary

Verses 13 to 25

The passover

Jerusalem

City

Sophisticated

Festival

National

Presence required at Feast

New beginning in religious year

Emphasis on truth

The Jews had incomplete faith

Christ purged the excess

Zeal and holiness

Christ at the forefront

Spoke of His death and resurrection

As He presents Himself to Israel, the Lord Jesus confronts the three main sins that marked the nation generally. These were immorality, infidelity, and hypocrisy. So it is that Christ manifests His glory at a wedding in Cana of Galilee, the jurisdiction of the immoral Herod. Then He goes to the sphere of influence of the Sadducees, the temple, and asserts the truth of resurrection, which they denied. Then He speaks with Nicodemus the Pharisee, to show that religious orthodoxy in not enough, for “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

Structure of the chapter

(a)	Verses 1-12	In Cana of Galilee for a wedding
(b)	Verses 13-22	In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover
(c)	Verses 23-25	In Jerusalem at the passover

(a) 2:1-12
The marriage in Cana of Galilee

Structure of the section

Verses 1-2	The glory of His grace
Verses 3-5	The glory of His gentleness
Verses 6-8	The glory of His greatness
Verses 9-12	The glory of His genuineness

Verses 1-2
The glory of His grace

2:1
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee- we now come to the sequel of the incident with Nathanael. The last verses of John chapter 1 presented to us a preview of the way in which souls will be saved so as to enter into Christ’s millennial kingdom. As we have already noted at the end of chapter 1, Hosea makes it clear that during that kingdom earth and heaven will be linked together by a common interest in the Messiah, Hosea 2:14-23. So it is that the land of Israel shall be called Beulah Land, Beulah meaning “married”, Isaiah 62:4. As we have noted in chapter 1, Ephesians 1:9,10 tells us that all things, whether in heaven or earth, will be gathered together by Christ, and earth and heaven shall be married.

So John links the time of this wedding with the days he has mentioned in chapter one, and in particular the day when Nathanael confessed that Christ was the Son of God and the King of Israel. The miracle he is about to record would demonstrate that Christ is indeed the Son of God, and therefore the Creator, but also that He is the destined King of Israel, able to bring in the unbroken joy of kingdom conditions in a day to come. The “wine” shall never run out in that day.

By not telling us what happened during the fifth and sixth days of the week he is chronicling, John establishes a break, so the scene is set for a new departure for Christ, even His presentation of Himself to Israel at that time. He has revealed Himself to Nathanael, who represents the nation in the future, and now He introduces Himself to the nation at His first coming.

It is significant that He does it, first of all, at a marriage. It is interesting to notice that the vine was created on the third day of creation week, Genesis 1:11-13, and now we have another third day. Interesting also that the fruit of the land of Canaan that the spies brought back was, first of all, a magnificent bunch of grapes, Numbers 13:23,24. The Lord is showing at Cana that He can bring in the good things that God promised. His miracles are called “the powers of the world to come”, Hebrews 6:5, samples beforehand in a limited way as to what He will do in a widespread way during the kingdom.

The writer to the Hebrews warns his readers that they can either be like the earth, “which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed”, and thereby receives “blessing from God”, or they can be like the earth “which beareth thorns and briers”, and “is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned”, Hebrews 6:7,8. At the beginning of John chapter 2 the disciples were like the fruitful earth, for they believed in Christ when they saw His glory manifested at the marriage. Those at the end of the chapter were in danger of being cursed for their failure to properly believe, as we shall see.

The Lord had assured Nathanael that he would see greater things, 1:50, and this is the beginning. The Son of God is the creator of all things, as verses 1-3 of chapter 1 have told us, and this He is demonstrating by His first miracle. It is God who sends the rain, which falls on the soil around the vine, and then soaks down to the roots, nourishes the tree, and enables it to make grapes. A further process takes place by which the ripe grapes are made into wine. Thus the long process of turning water into wine is now compressed into a moment of time as the Son of God shows conclusively that He is the creator of all things, for He is in control of the processes which He Himself had put into operation at the beginning, as recorded in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1:1 the three things that go to make up the universe are introduced. There is the time-word “beginning”, then heaven and earth tell of matter, and then the notice of their separate positions, indicating space. Time, space, and matter are the three components of God’s creation, and the Lord Jesus in His first miracle at Cana showed Himself to be the master of time and matter. In His second miracle, again at Cana, He showed space and time was no difficulty to Him, for He healed the sick boy at a distance, and at the precise hour of His choosing. And matter was no problem either, for He dealt with the organism that caused the boy’s sickness.

And the mother of Jesus was there- the fact that the mother of Jesus was at the wedding and was not called as the Lord Jesus and his disciples were, would indicate that perhaps the wedding was of someone closely connected to the family, but not one of the family. Perhaps some relative of Mary, given that she has some sort of authority at the occasion. The tense of the word “was” is the imperfect, telling us that she was already at the wedding before the Lord Jesus arrived. It is not clear whether the brethren of the Lord were present or not.

2:2
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage- graciously the Lord Jesus accepts the invitation, and manifests Himself in a way totally unexpected by those who invited Him. John the Baptist had shunned the company of men, living for many years in the deserts, and as a Nazarite, he totally abstained from wine, as Luke 1:15 makes clear. By contrast, the Lord Jesus, come in grace not law, sought the company of men, and came to bring the joy of which wine is the symbol.

It is significant that the Lord Jesus should introduce himself to Israel at a wedding, thus supporting the concept of marriage. The Scripture says that marriage is honourable in all, Hebrews 13:4. The Lord underlined that by His presence. He would later refer to the beginning of the history of man, when marriage was instituted by God, Matthew 19:3-6, and now God manifest in flesh is reinforcing that primary truth at the beginning of His ministry.

The first plague of Egypt was to turn water into blood, Exodus 7:20, the symbol of death and sorrow, but here water is turned into the symbol of joy, Judges 9:13. Such is the great change that Christ brings about, not only in the lives of men, but also universally when He comes to reign.

Verses 3-5
The glory of His gentleness

2:3
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine- to want wine means to have a lack of wine; it was the wine that was wanting, not the guests. This may indicate that the newly-weds were relatively poor, and could not afford to provide an abundance of wine. How like the Lord Jesus to enrich the poor; and this He has done more generally as far as all of His people are concerned. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” 2 Corinthians 8:9. It was customary to give gifts of wine or oil to a couple when they were married, thus supplying their needs as they embarked upon life together. If the five disciples and the Lord were the extra guests at the wedding, then the Lord provided six waterpots of wine as a gift to the newly-weds from Himself and His disciples.

It was necessary to drink wine, since the water supply could not always be relied upon to be clean. This is why, if the gospel banned the drinking of wine, it would condemn many converts to dysentery or similar illnesses. The apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake, and his often infirmity, 1 Timothy 5:23. He does not exhort him to drink wine, but rather to use it as medicine. In fact the word “use” is connected with the word “necessary”, so the apostle is talking about necessities, not excesses.

There is no prohibition of wine in the New Testament, only a warning about excess. The believer must ask the question about everything he allows, “Will is cause others to be led astray if they do what I do?” Put that way, it is clear that Christians should not drink wine. The wine of those days would not have been very potent and dangerous, unlike that available to us today. “They have no wine” is a simple statement of fact by Mary, with the possible implication that she thought He should do something about it.

2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? The term woman is not rude, but respectful, but on the other hand is not especially a term of endearment. The Anglo Saxon word for woman was “quene”, and is the word from which the word “queen” is derived. John does not make her prominent in this scene, for she is nothing like the person that Catholics worship, to whom they give the same titles as to Christ. Such a person is more like the Semiramis of the Babylonian mythology, who was called “Queen of Heaven”, Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17,18,19,25.

His mother had spoken to Him without any address, so she was speaking just as a woman would to her son. His reply, “What have I to do with thee” indicates that at the outset He establishes that it is the spiritual relationship with Him that matters. It had been the same in the incident recorded by Luke. When His mother and Joseph found Him in the temple, she said, “behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing”. He immediately defended His relationship with His Father in heaven, making it clear who His Father was by saying, “I must be about my Father’s business”. Matthew records an incident in which His mother and His brethren wanted to speak with him, as follows, “He replied, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”, Matthew 12:46-50. Note that every true believer is brother, sister, mother, as is shown by the singular verb “is”. It is not that some believers are brothers, some are sisters, and some are mothers. Note the parallel passages in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21, which show that to hear the word of God and to do the will of God are vitally linked. To obey the word of God is to be His brother, and sister, and mother, but not His father, for even this omission defends His relationship with God.

The same title that He gives to His mother here, He gave to her when He was on the cross, thus indicating that He has no intention of rebuking her by the use of the word. The Lord Jesus honoured His earthly mother and legal father, and thus magnified the law and made it honourable, Isaiah 42:21, for the commandment to honour father and mother is the first with a promise attached to it, Ephesians 6:1-3. It was also the first commandment to do with conduct toward men, after the four commandments to do with conduct towards God. And yet for all that He was hung upon the cross as if He were a lawbreaking son who would not obey His mother and father. See Deuteronomy 21:18-23 and Galatians 3:13.

The last mention of Mary is in Acts 1:14, where she is found in the upper room waiting for the Spirit to come on the Day of Pentecost, when she would be united to the Lord Jesus in a far higher relationship. All believers of this age share the same relationship to Him as Mary does in this respect.

In John 20:17, He forbids Mary Magdalene to touch him, the reason being that He had not yet ascended to His Father. Believers “touch Him” as He is in heaven. The apostle warns the Colossians against “not holding the head”, Colossians 2:19. He goes on to speak in that verse of joints and bands ministering nourishment, for the apostles and prophets with their written ministry, and pastors and teachers with their spoken ministry, are the channels of supply to us directly from Christ the head of the church. The word for bands the apostle uses is derived from the verb “to touch”. This is the way believers touch Christ, even though He is far away in heaven. What was true for Mary Magdalene was also true for Mary the mother of Jesus; she must wait until Pentecost to have the closest link with Him.

Mine hour is not yet come- this indicates a time when this relationship would be initiated. It is when all the events surrounding His departure from this world back to the Father take place. At the cross earthly links are broken, Galatians 2:20, and at Pentecost spiritual links are established, 1 Corinthians 6:16;12:13.

It is interesting to note that the Lord Jesus goes to a marriage where a natural relationship and joining is enacted, and yet He implies by His word that natural relationships must give way to spiritual ones at the appropriate moment. We should ever hold natural relationships in their proper place, and not allow them to hinder love to Christ. He Himself said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me”, Matthew 10:37. Yet at the same time, through the apostle Paul, He condemns those who have no natural affection, 2 Timothy 3:3, so we should keep these things in their proper balance.

2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it- this shows that Mary has not been offended by being called “woman”. She is no doubt convinced He is the Messiah. The disciples will have told her of the descent of the Spirit and John’s comment about it. She may even have been there herself. She does not seem to think that by the words “mine hour is not yet come” He means that now is not the time to remedy the lack of wine. She clearly has confidence in His ability to cope with this situation, for she tells the servants to do whatever He instructs them.

This is a valuable insight into the way the Lord had conducted Himself during those years of obscurity in the home at Nazareth. He had always shown Himself capable, but His actions had never been designed to draw attention to Himself. He had been about His Father’s business then, but it had been a different sort of business during those years before He was manifest to Israel.

Let us rise to the challenge of these words, being careful to do whatsoever He commands, Matthew 28:20; 1 Corinthians 14:37. The fact that Mary spoke to a servant like this without going through the governor of the feast, tends to confirm that she was in some way responsible at the marriage.

Verses 6-8
The glory of His greatness

2:6
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews- the expression “set there” can mean “lying there”, that is, on their side because they were empty. Thus we are assured there is nothing in the pots to start with, which is why the Lord commands the servants to fill the waterpots with water, and not simply add water to what was already there. The word “containing” need not mean any more than that they could hold two or three firkins if filled. That was their volume as containers.

Two or three firkins apiece would be about fifty-four gallons or four hundred and thirty-two pints. This is the Lord’s generous wedding present to the happy pair, but they would begin their married life by sharing this gift with others. It should always be true that we share His gifts with others.

2:7
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water- they no doubt went to the village well to do this, so it was a perfectly natural action, which they had done many times before. It was also perfectly natural water.

And they filled them up to the brim- note the immediate and unquestioning response of the servants to the command of the Lord Jesus, and the fact that they filled the pots to the brim. There was no room left for any substance to be added, so there was no trickery.

2:8
And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast- this would no doubt involve pouring from the pots into a drinking vessel, and taking it straight to the governor in charge of the arrangements. Note the confidence of the Lord in His ability even though this is His first miracle, for He is acting, as ever, in line with His Father’s will, and simply doing what His Father is doing. He did His Father’s business before His manifestation to Israel, in the obscurity of the years at Nazareth, as Luke 2:49 shows, and now it is true as publicly manifested. The business has changed in character, however.

The servants have been given commands in stages and they obey each one in turn. They must have been puzzled at the idea of bearing water to the guests. It would add insult to injury to run out of wine and then offer the guests water. Despite this, the servants obey unquestioningly, as we should. Those things which the Lord commands us to do are not what the natural man would do, but they are what obedient servants would do.

Note that the Lord respects the role of the governor. He did not impose Himself upon the occasion, nor did He come to impose a new social order upon men, but to radically change the men themselves. The apostles continued in this way, and did not seek to initiate social reforms. Their only concern was that men would be saved, and thus be personally reformed and ready for heaven, while at the same time being useful for God on earth.

And they bare it- the singular pronoun indicates that the reference is to the cup of wine they have poured from the pots, and which they now carry to the governor. All the servants go, so that they may know what his verdict is, and respond accordingly.

Verses 9-12
The glory of His genuineness

Every stage of this miracle was transparent and open; there was no deceit. We see this in the following ways:

1. As we have suggested, the pots were laying on their side to start with, the water having been used up to wash the guests feet as they arrived. This means there was no water left in them.

2. The servants do not know a miracle is about to take place. All they think they are doing is filling pots with water. They are not complicit in some deception.

3. They fill the pots to the brim, so there is no room for some substance to be added to colour the water red.

4. The Lord has nothing to do with this filling process; He does not bless the pots or the water, but is completely apart from the action.

5. The water is borne straight to the governor so that he can give his unbiased verdict on the suitability or otherwise of the wine. He probably did this to all the wine before it was served. The Lord’s wine will be subjected to the same test as the other wine.

6. The servants can testify that it started as water; the governor testifies that it finished as wine.

7. The governor calls the bridegroom, not Christ, for he is not aware of what has happened.

2:9
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom.

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was- it would be normal for the governor to taste the wine to ensure that it was a suitable quality before it was served to the guests. He is an independent witness. He is convinced it is wine, yet he knows not what has happened.

(But the servants which drew the water knew)– this is John’s comment, found in parenthesis, and assures us that there was no collusion between the servants and the governor, any more than there was collusion between Christ and the servants. All is genuine and open. After all, John was present at the wedding, and he writes near the end of his gospel that the Lord did signs “in the presence of his disciples”, John 20:30, so there was no secrecy.

The servants can now testify that the pots were empty; that they filled them with water; that they filled them with water to the brim; that the Lord Jesus had not prayed over the pots. Most likely He had not even been present when they were filled. In between the time the servants filled the pots with water, and the time they drew it out of the pots to take to the governor, the water turned to wine.

The governor of the feast called the bridegroom- it is not Christ but the bridegroom who is called, but the latter was unaware of what had happened, so he is not advanced as a witness. In fact it is the governor who bears witness, and gives the bridegroom the credit for the quality of the wine.

2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse- after the governor had tasted the water that became wine his verdict is that the first wine is inferior. The governor thinks that the bridegroom has reversed the normal order, and set on the good wine at the end. In fact, the bridegroom had set on his good wine at the beginning, but it had been surpassed in quality by the Lord’s good wine. Both lots of wine had come from Christ, the first from Him by way of processes He as Creator had initiated, the second by His miraculous intervention in those processes.

The Lord is indicating by this miracle that He is about to introduce a new order of things. Later in His ministry He will liken the law to old wine skins, which cannot stand having new wine put into them, Matthew 9:17. The new wine of the gospel cannot be contained in the old “skins” of men under the law. The skins must be replaced. It is in Christ that a man is renewed, so that he may contain the new wine of the gospel. Later on the Lord will promise that his people shall do greater things than the miracles He performed, 14:12. They would be able to bring out the spiritual truth behind the miracles, and disclose that there is a joy that is beyond natural joy, and He is the one who brings it in. The apostle Peter calls it joy unspeakable, and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8.

But thou hast kept the good wine until now- note that the Lord does not make wine that is so good that it makes the first wine seem bad, and a reflection on the bridegroom. He carefully regulates the quality so that the difference is noted, but not in a way that will draw attention to Himself. As the governor says, the normal practice was to set on the lesser wine when men have had a good fill of the good wine, so that they do not realise the wine at the end is less good. Here the good wine has been served first, and still the last wine is thought to be better. Christ always surpasses our expectations. The wine of the law-covenant was good wine, having to do with the righteousness of God, but the wine of the gospel-covenant is better, for it is based on the work of the cross. As the Lord said to His disciples in the upper room, in reference to a cup of wine, “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”, Matthew 26:28. The law condemned sins, but grace brings forgiveness. The law brought sorrow, but grace brings joy.

2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee- the notion that the child Jesus worked miracles is mere tradition, and has no foundation in scripture. When He went to preach in the synagogue at Nazareth, “where he was brought up”, there were cynics present who, the Lord said, would surely say unto him in a proverb, “Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country”, Luke 4:23. They have heard of His miracle-working in Capernaum,, and now suggest He should do some miracles in Nazareth to prove His claims. But if He had done miracles during His childhood in Nazareth, they would have said something like “Do some more of the miracles you have always been doing in Nazareth”.

And manifested forth his glory- glory may be defined as “the expression of inherent worth”. The Lord Jesus does not look for public reputation. He made himself of no reputation, yet manifests Himself as the creator of all things in the world His hands had made. He retires quietly, because He does not want the guests to believe on Him only as a miracle-worker, as the events at the end of the chapter and also His interview with Nicodemus show, for He must be believed on as a Saviour who died on a cross for sins.

There are those who speak as if Christ veiled His glory when He came into manhood. This does not find support from this verse, or from verse 14 of chapter one, where John says “we beheld his glory”. The fact is that He retained His glory, for it is intrinsic to His Deity, which He never left. What He did do was manifest that glory in a way that could be appreciated by seekers after the truth. So it was moral glory that was seen.

It is also noticeable that in John’s gospel, which sets out to show us that Jesus is no less than the Son of God, the miracles all touch upon human experience. The first, the joy of marriage; the second, the sadness of parental grief; the third, the inability to work; the fourth, daily needs; the fifth, physical handicap; the sixth, bereavement; the seventh, the need to earn one’s living. How like the Lord to enter into the everyday affairs of men, and manifest His glory in them!

And his disciples believed on him- they already believed on Him, having listened to John the Baptist’s testimony and as a result transferred their allegiance to the Lord. In this incident their faith is confirmed, and they believe on Him in a deeper way, for He had not only taught them as the Prophet when they abode with Him, but He now is seen to work miracles as the Christ. They now believe in a double way.

2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and is brethren, and his disciples- John does not tell us how many disciples this involves. Perhaps it is the five mentioned in chapter one. Nor does he tell us how many brethren accompanied Him, although we know that He had four brethren and at least two sisters, Matthew 13:55,56. These would be the other children of Mary, with Him being the firstborn, Luke 2:7.

The more permanent move from Nazareth to Capernaum had not taken place yet, for this occurred after John the Baptist had been beheaded, Matthew 4:2,12,13. Perhaps His mother was more free to move about now that her children were grown up, and, as is most likely the case, her husband Joseph had died.

Note the distinction made between the disciples and His brethren, for sadly the latter have not yet believed on Him. These men lived with Him for thirty years and did not believe on Him. They saw His miracles, and still did not believe on Him. From the language they use in John 7:1-5, which has an Old Testament character about it, they were zealous for the coming Messianic Kingdom. When Christ did not live up to their expectations by defeating their enemies, they refused to believe on Him as the Son of God. When He was crucified, this would only confirm in their minds the impression that He was not the Messiah. Yet when He rose from the dead they believed, as we see from the fact that they were with the apostles waiting for the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Acts 1:14. We are also told that the Lord appeared to James the Lord’s brother after His resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:7. Such is the genuineness of the resurrection of Christ, that it convinced hardened unbelievers of the truth as to His person. If He had not really risen, they would not have changed their minds.
And they continued there not many days- it seems the plan was to wait in Capernaum until it was time to go up to Jerusalem together for the passover, which was “at hand”. This would explain why His mother and His brethren travelled with Him, even though His brethren did not believe in Him. They had most likely come from Nazareth to Cana for the wedding, and met up with the Lord’s party as they came from beyond Jordan. The brothers would be going to the feast as a matter of religious duty, John 7:10. It was not compulsory for women to go to the feasts, but it appears Mary did, Luke 2:41, which shows her devotion to God. That He continued where He was “not many days” shows that the Lord did not impose Himself upon His host.

See the end of the chapter for a special and extended note on marriage.

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

Special note on the passovers in John’s gospel
It would be appropriate at this point to notice the way in which John uses the feast of the passover as the basis for the new things that Christ brings in as He reveals the Father. After all, the passover was a new beginning for Israel, and even their calendar was altered to reflect that. God’s word to them was “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you”, Exodus 12:2. We learn from Exodus 34:22 that the feast of ingathering, which was to be held in the seventh month, was “at the year’s end”. It was the end of the agricultural year, when the cycle of seed time and harvest came to its climax, but when God made a new start with the children of Israel, He ordained that they should begin their religious calendar with the passover.

At the original passover, a new people came into being, for in Exodus 12:3 we have the first mention of “all the congregation of Israel”. Likewise, it is a new company that is being formed in the first part of John’s gospel, with the idea of the new birth in the prologue, 1:13, and then in the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus at passover time, 3:3-8.

At the second passover in His ministry, (assuming the feast of 5:1 was a passover), there is introduced the idea of a new pilgrimage, for the impotent man, unable to walk for thirty and eight years, (the same length of time as Israel wandered in the wilderness after they had reached its borders, instead of purposefully making their way into the Promised land), is able to rise, take up his bed and walk. He begins to be a pilgrim on the way to heaven.

At the next passover time the Lord provided the five thousand with food in the wilderness, just as after the original passover the people were given manna from heaven in the wilderness. A new people on a new pilgrimage need new provisions.

The fourth passover is the one at which “Christ our passover” was “sacrificed for us”, 1 Corinthians 5:7, and laid the basis for the formation of a new people, whose destiny is heaven, and who are sustained by bread which is His flesh, which He gave for the life of the world, John 6:51.

2:13
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

And the Jews’ passover was at hand- John is careful to tell us that what in Old Testament times was called the Feast of the Lord, has now become “the Jews’ passover”. Sadly, the festival had become man-orientated, and God’s interests were secondary. This can happen with believers today. The apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthians because the Lord’s Supper had become their supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20,21. Instead of being for the glory of God, the assembly gathering had become a social occasion. We should guard against this self-centredness creeping in amongst the assembly. It can do so in subtle ways, such as by hymns that constantly use the word “I”, when in the assembly gatherings it should be “we”, the collective thought. Also by occupation with our blessings and privileges, rather than upon the one who gained them for us at such a cost.

And Jesus went up to Jerusalem- the temple services had become man-centred, but this is about to change, as Christ intervenes as one who has His Father’s interests at heart at all times and in all ways, and He becomes central. John has already referred to Christ coming to His own things, 1:11, and here is a case in point. The temple is His Father’s House, and as the Son of the Father it is His house too, although He does not claim this now.

Malachi spoke of a day when the Lord would suddenly come to His temple, Malachi 3:1, and here is a preview of that day. The Devil had tempted Him to come suddenly by casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:5-7. He had refused to tempt God by doing this, but now comes to the temple as guided by His Father, and not provoked by the Devil. Jerusalem was ideally the “Place of the Name”, where God was honoured, but that name was tarnished. Christ goes to Jerusalem to remedy this.

It was required of Jewish males that they appear before the Lord at three seasons of the year, namely at passover time, the feast of weeks, which became known in the New Testament as Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles, for the seven feasts of the Lord were clustered around these seasons, Deuteronomy 16:16. The Lord Jesus magnified the law and made it honourable, and so was found faithfully appearing before God at these times. Whilst for the Christian set feasts and a religious calendar are not the order of the day, yet there should be the exercise of heart to gather with the Lord’s people in accordance with the New Testament. We should heed the exhortation, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25.

2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves- John in his gospel especially emphasises the burnt offering side of things, so it is significant that he mentions the three classes of animal that were offered as burnt offerings, the sacrifices of a man who was devoted to God. It is as if the Lord is placing Himself alongside the offerings of men, and giving them opportunity to see that He had come to institute a better order of things. He will then displace them, for His sacrifice would take away the old things. As the writer to the Hebrews states, (having listed the Old Testament sacrifices, including the burnt offering), “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:9. By “the first” is meant the will of God expressed in animal sacrifices, and by “the second” is meant the will of God expressed in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

And the changers of money sitting- clearly, the visitors to the temple have not come only to offer a passover lamb, but to offer other sacrifices as well, particularly if they lived in foreign lands. They would need the service of the money-changers in order to buy their animals, since the temple authorities would not accept Gentile currency, particularly if it was inscribed with pagan or idolatrous symbols. We might wonder why the Lord expelled them therefore, since they seemed to be preserving the integrity of the name of God, so the explanation is given for us in the next verses.

These money changers were sitting, for they did not have to move about trying to find trade. The pilgrims had no option but to use the licensed money changers, so all these latter had to do was sit and wait for their customers to come.

2:15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen- the word for cord means a rope made of bulrushes, so the scourge is symbolical only, an emblem of authority and judgment. The temple was in chaos morally, and this is shown graphically and visibly by the Lord’s action here. We must never think that the Lord did these things in a fit of temper. He was acting in righteous anger, outraged at what was happening in His Father’s house. He had been many times to these temple courts, and had seen what went on, and now, after long years of patiently waiting, He moves to expose the wrong in a righteous and controlled way.

The expulsion of the animals is the act of One who knows that His Father had no pleasure in them, since they were offered by the law, and offered in circumstances that were not glorifying to God. He Himself mentions His body in verse 21, but there as a temple, whereas in this section it is a potential sacrifice, for we read that believers are “sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”, Hebrews 10:10. He replaces the temple and the sacrifices by what He did in the body.

And poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables- these were the particular objects of Christ’s indignation, for they represented the principle that money may be made out of the service of the Lord. The apostle Paul could say, “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.” Acts 20:33.

2:16
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

And said unto them that sold doves- the dove sellers are especially singled out, because they would have dealings with the poor, (the dove-offering being the sacrifice the poor could make, Leviticus 5:7), and consequently would be more likely to take advantage of their vulnerability.

Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise- Zechariah assures us that in the millenial temple, there will no more be the Canaanite, (the word means “merchantman”), in the house of the Lord of hosts, Zechariah 14:21, for self- interest will be displaced by the desire to glorify God alone in His temple.

In this first cleansing, the charge is making merchandise out of Divine things, and thus getting gain for themselves. In the second cleansing, the charge is more severe, that of robbing God of His due. The situation is all the more sad because it was the priestly family of Annas and Caiaphas who leased out the stalls in the temple courts, and these should have certainly known better, for “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”, Malachi 2:7.

We should be very careful not to give the impression that the unsaved may contribute anything, including finance, to the Lord’s assembly, lest it should be thought of as a house of merchandise. “Taking nothing of the Gentiles” 3 John 7 should be our motto in this regard. See also Ezra 4:1-3.

2:17
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up- note that the disciples are learning to relate Old Testament scriptures to the Lord’s actions. Psalm 69, from which this quotation comes, is not especially Messianic, because it contains a confession of sin and foolishness, and this could never be on the lips of the Holy Son of God. It is significant that Psalm 69:30,31 says that to magnify the Lord’s name with thanksgiving pleases Him “better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs”, and the Lord Jesus was indeed defending the honour of His Father’s name by His actions at this time, as ever, and as His Father acknowledged in John 12:28. He magnified His Father’s name by expelling the oxen.

The duty of the head of the Israelite houses was to purge out the leaven found there in preparation for the feast of passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which followed immediately after. As the Son representing His Father, the Lord Jesus undertakes to purge the leaven from the House of God, the temple at Jerusalem.

Today the House of God is the local assembly, 1 Timothy 3:15. Can it be said of us that the zeal of that house consumes us? Are we totally committed to furthering the interests of the Lord’s assembly, or have we time only for our own interests, and rate the assembly as a secondary matter? And do we ensure that we do not introduce into it anything that can be classed as leaven? The Corinthians had introduced the leaven of immorality into the assembly, and the apostle commands them to purge it out, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. They did so, and he can describe their action in these terms, “For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.” 2 Corinthians 7:11.

The Galatians had allowed the introduction of the leaven of evil doctrine, and they are commanded to cut off from themselves those who had done this, Galatians 5:7-12. When they did this, then the zeal of God’s house would be eating them up, giving them a consuming passion for the honour of God. For as the apostle said to them, “But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.” Galatians 4:18.

John is careful to note that it is His disciples that remember it is written in the psalm about His zeal. It is significant that the statement in the psalm begins with “for”, indicating that it is an explanation. The previous statement is, “I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children”. Could it be that the children of His mother, (whom we know from John 7:10 were accustomed to going to the feasts), found this display of zeal for God’s house an embarrassment, and caused them to begin to think that He was not the Messiah, since He did not seem to be in sympathy with what went on in the temple? Happily, they would be convinced by His resurrection from the dead, which He foretells in this very passage.

2:18
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Note the difference in reaction of these Jews in authority, to the disciples’ reaction. The disciples see a fulfilment of prophecy, but the authorities only see it as an attack on their power base. His assertion of His authority had left them amazed and powerless.

The Jews require a sign, said the apostle Paul later, in 1 Corinthians 1:22. They wanted proof that He was acting for God in His radical actions. They asked a similar question at the second cleansing of the temple, but then the Lord refused to tell them His authority, for He had given ample proof during His ministry as to who He was and who had given Him His authority.

2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up- these are words which would be brought up at His trial, and twisted to try to gain His conviction, Matthew 26:61. They were also used to revile Him as He hung upon the cross, Matthew 27:39,40. By His actions and words here He showed that He knew they would slay Him at last. The Divine response to the Jewish demand for a sign is Messiah’s death and resurrection, Matthew 12:38-42.

The Lord is speaking on two levels here. He is speaking of His body as a temple, but also of the literal temple where they were standing. They would destroy His body so that His spirit and soul and body would be separated in death, but this would mean that the literal temple would be destroyed too. By crucifying Him, they would secure the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple, for the destiny of the temple at Jerusalem was bound up in the destiny of the temple of His body.

Hosea had spoken of a period of three days after which God would raise up His people Israel again from the grave of the nations, Hosea 6:1,2. Together with the Messiah’s dead body would they rise, Isaiah 26:19, or in other words, they would be associated with and believe in His resurrection at long last, and gain the benefits which His rising again brings to those who believe. It was the Sadducean party which controlled the temple, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They will recognise this statement by Christ as an attack upon their doctrine.

2:20
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Not realising He was uttering a prophecy which involved the destruction and fall of the nation and its subsequent rise, they thought only in terms of physically building the temple. They contrast Herod’s labours for 46 years, with the short period of three days. Herod commenced the restoration and embellishment of the temple in about 19 BC. If the exact date when Herod began to build the temple could be established with absolute certainty, it would also establish the date of this passover, and hence when the crucifixion occurred, three passovers later. Provisionally, we may say that if Herod began building in 20 BC, then forty and six years later is AD 26, which becomes the date of the first passover in the Lord’s ministry. Three passovers later brings us to AD 29, when it is said that the passover was on Wednesday March 23rd. This means that on this reckoning the Lord was crucified on a Thursday.

2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.

There is a connection therefore between the destiny of the temple, and that of His body. Both will be destroyed, but both will rise again. In the case of Christ’s body the destruction would mean the separation of His body, soul, and spirit in death, and significantly, when that happened the veil of the temple was rent, for the destruction or dissolution of the temple of His body had begun! And by rending the veil God was signalling the fall of Jerusalem in due time. But it is said of Messiah that “he shall build the temple of the Lord”, Zechariah 6:12-14, so there shall be a temple in Jerusalem again during the kingdom of Christ.

2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them- the disciples were slow to learn the truths that the Lord Jesus taught them, and they had to be rebuked for that slowness on more than one occasion. When He foretold His death and resurrection later in His ministry, Luke tells us “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Luke 18:34. So it was ordered of God that they should not believe He would rise quickly, so that when He did it could not be said that they imagined it. It was the actual sight of Him in resurrection that finally convinced them.

And they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said- after the Lord had risen, and especially after they received the Spirit of God at Pentecost, they were not only able to understand what He had said to them when with them, but were also able to relate the events of His life to the Old Testament, (“the scripture”), and to do so in such a way as to recognise that His word and the Old Testament are of equal authority. In both John 17:12 and 20:9 there is reference to “scripture” in the singular, where there has not been a quotation of a particular verse, but a reference to some well-known one. So we may understand the word scripture here as referring to the prime passage that speaks of the resurrection of Christ, namely Psalm 16:10,11. The apostle Peter appealed to this passage in Acts 2:24-28 when he was announcing the resurrection of Christ. The apostle Paul does the same in Acts 13:34-37.

2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover- this is the first passover of the Lord’s public ministry. Every male in Israel was expected to attend this feast, and as one who was “made under the law”, Galatians 4:4, the Lord was in attendance, no doubt having joined the pilgrim band from Capernaum.

In the feast day- it is clear from verses 13-22 that the Lord had been in the temple courts before the main feast day. Now it is the actual passover day itself, when the lamb was to be killed and eaten. Passover time was a commemoration of the deliverance God had effected for the nation in their downtrodden state. It was also a reminder that Moses and Aaron had been able to perform miracles to demonstrate that they were acting for Jehovah, the God of heaven.

Many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did- taking the foregoing facts together, we see that the time of passover was one when expectations were raised considerably. When one came who seemed to have authority, especially in the temple courts, and, moreover, was able to work miracles, the people began to wonder whether the Messiah was in their midst. Of course, the miracles the Lord Jesus did were indications that He was the prophesied Messiah, as a reading of Isaiah 35:5,6 will show. But it is not miracles alone that present this proof, but miracles accompanied by doctrine. And it is the doctrine that went alongside the miracles, and was demonstrated by the miracles, that the natural heart of man was not willing to accept.

2:24
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men- we might think that to believe in His name was a good thing, but the Lord indicates that in this context it is not so. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, even that aspect of it which will be known upon the earth in a day to come. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, Romans 14:17. Carnal expectations of a political deliverance had no place in the thinking of Christ. The Lord knew their hearts, that they believed on Him only in this carnal way; the same way in which any political figure may be believed in, as one able to produce results. They probably compared his miracles to those of Moses just before the Exodus from Egypt, especially as the prophets had used this ancient deliverance as a symbol of the future deliverance of the nation under the Messiah.

2:25
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

And needed not that any should testify of man- Jeremiah 17:9,10 reads- “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” It will become increasingly evident as the months go by that this is the case, for the Lord Jesus could read the thoughts of men. He had already shown that He knew about Nathanael from a distance. When he was thinking of the omnipresence of God, David wrote, “thou understandest my thought afar off”, Psalm 139:2.

For he knew what was in man- not only did He know thoughts from afar, He knew what those thoughts sprang from and what they could lead to. In this case they sprang from a desire for signs, and they would lead to Him being rejected because of the doctrines He taught in connection with the miracles.

Special note on faith
It important to realise that there are different sorts of faith. The ability to believe has been built into man by His Creator. This is seen from two things. First, the terrible consequences of not believing. If a man is not able to believe, how can God be just when He condemns him to eternal damnation for not believing? He can only do this justly if man is able to believe but refuses. Second, Paul traces the cause of man’s unbelief to the work of the god of this age, Satan himself, 2 Corinthians 4:4. If a man can only believe if God gives Him faith, as some would say, why does Satan need to blind his mind lest he believe?

So the reason there are different sorts of faith is because man is corrupted by sin, and prefers his own thoughts to God’s. When the word of God is made known, however, the Spirit of God applies that word so that true and saving faith is exercised. The Spirit does not produce the spurious forms of faith we shall look at now.

There is incorrect faith, when people believe in their own ability to earn salvation, whether by religious ritual, or by good works. They trust in themselves that they are righteous, Luke 18:9. Or when a person believes about the Lord Jesus, but does not consciously repent and believe on Him in the gospel sense.

Then there is insincere faith, when a person makes a profession of faith for the sake of some advantage which he believes he may gain from it, such as to please Christian parents or friends.

There is the impulsive faith that the Lord Jesus spoke of in the parable of the sower, where there was a plant which grew up in the shallow, rocky soil, and the same sun that caused it to quickly grow also caused it to wither, for it had no root in itself, the root being evidence of life within. Such “for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away”, Luke 8:13. The true believer thrives on tribulation, Romans 5:3. (We might think that those who responded to the gospel on the Day of Pentecost were like this, for they quickly responded to the gospel, but the genuineness and permanence of their faith is seen in them being “pricked to the heart”, for the word of God had produced true repentance and faith, Acts 2:37-40).

The apostle Paul warned the Corinthians about believing in vain, 1 Corinthians 15:2, by which he meant believing without due consideration, and with a flippant, unthinking attitude. Those who preach the gospel should preach a solid message, firmly grounded on the truth of Scripture, and one which appeals not to the emotions, (although the emotions cannot be totally excluded from conversion), but to the conscience, (2 Corinthians 4:2), heart or innermost being, (Romans 10:10), mind, (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will, (Romans 1:5), of those listening.

Then there is the faith in Christ as a miracle-worker, the sort of faith being exercised in these verses. This is imperfect faith, which the Lord does not despise, but rather seeks to turn into faith of the right sort. Nicodemus was at first one of these, as his words in the next chapter show, (“we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him”). He was led on to see that it is as one given by the Father to the cross that he must believe in Christ. Surely he reached that point, for he saw Christ hanging on the cross, and immediately came out from his secret discipleship to assist Joseph of Arimathea to publicly bury Him, John 19:39.

Such are the spurious forms of faith for which the Spirit of God is not responsible. There is however, that important and intelligent faith, the faith that saves, and on the principle of which a person is reckoned right before God, as detailed in the Epistle to the Romans.

Now this faith is presented to us in the New Testament in three aspects, for different prepositions are used in the Greek in regard to it. We need therefore to consult our concordance and see the actual prepositions that are used. We should remember as we do so, that Greek prepositions first of all tell of a physical position, and then of a non-physical meaning which can be derived from this.

Special note on the three prepositions used in relation to faith in Christ:

There is the preposition “eis”, which has to do with motion towards an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person has Christ before him when he believes, so Christ is his object. This preposition is used in regard to faith in Christ in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles. Christ is presented to men for their faith, and faith is directed towards Him as the object. In some cases in the Scriptures this faith in Christ is incorrect, insincere or imperfect faith, and sometimes important, saving faith. The context must decide.

There is the preposition “epi”, which has to do with resting on an object. In relation to faith in Christ, this indicates that Christ is the one on whom faith rests, so Christ is his foundation. This preposition is used in the Acts and the Epistles, but not in the Gospels. It is used after Christ died, rose again, and returned to heaven. Christ is rested on as one proved to be a stable foundation.

The following are the scriptures that use “epi”, meaning “upon”:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17.

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31.

“And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed”, Romans 9:33.

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 10:11.

“Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.” 1 Timothy 1:16;

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6.

Note that three of these verses, (Romans 9:33;10:11; and 1 Peter 2:6), quote from Isaiah 28:16.

There is the preposition “en”, which has to do with being in a place or position within an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person is fully surrounded by Christ, so Christ is his security. Such an one believes from within this secure place. This preposition is used seven times, but only in the Epistles, after the work and person of Christ has been fully manifested, and the secure position of the believer is set forth.

The following are the scriptures which use “en”, meaning “in”:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:26.

“Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints”, Ephesians 1:15.

“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,” Colossians 1:4.

“And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 1:14.

“For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 3:13.

“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 1:13.

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15.

Note that in six cases the faith is in Christ Jesus, the risen, glorified man in heaven, and once it is in the Lord Jesus, the one with all authority. Faith in Him is well-placed.

Special and extended note on marriage

The institution of marriage
When He was questioned by the Pharisees on the matter of divorce, the Lord Jesus responded by first speaking to them about marriage. They wanted to debate the divorce law, but He took them back to the institution of marriage in the book of Genesis with the words “but from the beginning it was not so”, Matthew 19:8. It must therefore be the best policy to note what God did and said in that first week of this world’s existence, and in particular, what happened on the sixth day when God made the man and the woman. We turn first, therefore, to Genesis chapter 2.

Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone- these are words spoken on the sixth day. No doubt God made all the other creatures with a mate, or else how could they multiply? It is true that the land animals are not expressly commanded to multiply, but they surely did, and Noah took male and female into the ark to replenish the earth after the flood.

After many times saying “good”, now God says “not good”. But the “should be” indicates that He is thinking of a potential situation in the future, not describing a feeling that was currently known by Adam, for there was no sadness in Eden before the fall. He was a lone man for a brief time but he was not a lonely man, for he had God to commune with. It is God’s intention that the Last Adam should not be alone either, so He will have His bride by His side for all eternity. Nor is this because He is lonely, for He has His Father to commune with.

I will make him an help meet for him- the woman is going to be Adam’s helper as he serves as God’s regent upon the earth, and she will be meet or suitable for him, corresponding to him in every way. She will be his counter-part. She is not a second-class or second-rate person. As the apostle Paul wrote, “the woman is the glory of the man”, 1 Corinthians 11:7. The believing woman makes a vital contribution to the glory that comes to God when the man exercises his headship role. He would not be complete in that respect without her help.

Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air- this is a reference to what happened on the sixth and fifth days respectively. This indicates that the birds of the air were in fact made out of the earth, showing that despite what we might think from 1:21 about the waters producing them, they were made of the earth; most probably of the earth of the sea-bed.

And brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them- God is impressing on Adam his distinctiveness, for there is no creature that can be described as “meet”. There are many animals and birds which are a help to man, but not one has that collection of qualities which makes it meet or suitable. Adam is discovering the truth that the apostle Paul will centuries later point out, that “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” 1 Corinthians 15:39.

And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof- Adam exercises his authority over creation, but at the same time finds none he can call woman. God was content to allow Adam to name these creatures, for he was the image of God on earth, and as such represented Him. He is being entrusted with tasks as a responsible being, and given opportunities to be faithful to God.

Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field- cattle are specially mentioned here, for they are of most help to man.

But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him- perhaps as he named these creatures he did not realise he was in fact ruling them out as helps meet for him. He does not know loneliness yet, so is not looking for a wife.

Genesis 2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept- the woman for Adam is going to be formed in a unique way, without parallel in the natural world. Adam was put to sleep, (“God caused a deep sleep to fall”), and was maintained in that state, (“and he slept”). At no time is he going to be half-awake. There is a comparison and a contrast in the spiritual realm, for Christ has obtained a bride. His Calvary-experience corresponds in one sense to Adam’s sleep. But there is a great contrast, for God saw to it that Adam was unaware of what was happening to him, but the Lord Jesus was fully aware of what was happening when He suffered on the cross. He was offered stupefying drink, but He refused it, because He would not allow man to alleviate the sufferings into which His God took Him. Just as at no time was Adam not asleep, so at no time was Christ’s suffering relieved.

And he took one of his ribs- so the woman is to be made of part of Adam. And the fact that only one rib is taken, shows that she is to be his only bride. But God does not take a bone from his foot, as if she could be trampled on, nor from his head to dominate her. She is taken from that part of Adam that protects his heart and his lungs. His life and his breath are temporarily exposed. While it is true that theoretically Adam’s heart was at risk during this operation, in reality it was not so, for the surgeon was God, and He would not allow any to take advantage of Adam when he was vulnerable.

How different was it with Christ at the cross, for His many and varied enemies gathered round Him, and did their utmost to deflect Him from His purpose. Is it not the case that the Lord Jesus was prepared to have His love put to the test at Calvary? And did He not yield up His spirit to God, and thus cease to breathe? He loved the church and gave Himself for it. He did not limit Himself to a rib, but gave His whole self, surrendering to the will of God so as to purchase His bride by His own precious blood. This was the price He was prepared to pay, and since it is in the past tense, we may say that it is the price He did pay.

And closed up the flesh instead thereof- it seems that this was done before the woman was formed, as recorded in the next verse. There are two ideas combined here. There is the closing up of the flesh which covered where the rib was taken from, and also the making of that flesh to replace the rib, (“instead thereof”), so that it would function as a rib. Thus Adam lost nothing by this process, whereas the Lord Jesus gave Himself in loving surrender, in order to have His bride. The fact that Adam’s flesh was closed up confirmed that the operation was final and complete. Does this not mean that that there was no visible evidence on Adam’s body that his rib had been removed? But Christ’s wounds will ever bear testimony to His Calvary-experience.

Genesis 2:22
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman- the rib is one of those bones in the body that contains bone marrow. This substance is of two types, red bone marrow, which produces red blood cells, and yellow bone marrow, which contains stem cells, which are immature cells able to turn into many different sorts of cell, and produce fat, cartilage and bone, the constituents of the material part of man. In other words, in normal circumstances bone marrow produces blood, flesh and bone. It can do this because of the process put in place by our Creator. Is it any surprise that He used this technique to form the woman in the first instance?

And brought her unto the man- Adam has obviously woken from his sleep, and now for the first time he looks upon his bride. God had brought the animals to Adam in verse 19, “to see what he would call them”. And now the same thing happens with the woman. What will he call her?

It is important to note that Adam’s bride comes with the very highest recommendation, for God Himself formed her for him. It is important in our day that those who contemplate marriage should ensure that their prospective wife has the commendation of spiritual and mature believers, who can vouch for her genuineness and suitability. The same goes, of course, for the prospective husband. If this is done prayerfully and carefully, much of the tragedy and heartache that, sadly, affects even believers today, could be avoided. Choice on both sides should not be made only on the basis of looks. As the Book of Proverbs says of the perfect wife, “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.” Proverbs 31:30.

It was often said that the best place to find a wife is in the assembly prayer meeting, and that still stands true. If she is not present there, is lax about attending the other assembly gatherings, has no convictions about having her hair long and her head covered in the gatherings, and shows little interest in the scriptures, finds being with believers embarrassing, has no exercise about giving to the Lord and serving Him, then it would be best not to marry her. All these characteristics, and others of like sort, are not the marks of “a woman that feareth the Lord”. The apostle Paul taught that marriage was to be “only in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 7:39. It is not even enough for a prospective wife to be a believer. She must be one who owns the Lordship of Christ in belief and practice.

Genesis 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh- this is the basis upon which Adam names the woman. When he named the animals and birds he no doubt did so in reference to their natural characteristics. But he names the woman in accordance with her origin. That this is a different way of classifying is seen in Adam’s statement, “This is now”, for before when he had named the animals it was different. None of them could be said to be meet for him, even though in a limited way some of them could be a help.

The woman’s whole physical body was made from his bone, so she, (as a person with a physical body), is bone of his bone. She is also made like him as to his flesh, for from his bone God has made her so as to have the same nature as him, for he is a man in the flesh, having a human nature.

She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man- so it is that Adam, as head of creation, states very clearly that there is a difference between male and female, thus establishing this truth for all time. Even though the woman is of the same flesh as Adam, she is of a different gender.

So it is that Adam establishes his headship over the woman by naming her. The word woman is simply the feminine version, “ishah”, of the word for man, “ish”. Adam does not need to invent a name, for she is part of him, and even her name reflects this. There are several words used for man in the Old Testament, and this particular one means “a man of high degree”. So Adam regards his wife as a woman of high degree, as indeed she was. From the outset he showed her respect, and this is a good example to husbands.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother- it is God’s will that mankind should be perpetuated by new spheres of headship being set up. When a man marries he leaves the headship of his father, and establishes his own headship situation. He leaves the care of his mother to enjoy the care of his suitable helper, his wife. This is not to say that father and mother can now be dispensed with, for the law of Moses required that a man’s father and mother be honoured, and there was even a promise attached to this, Exodus 20:12. Christian children are to requite their parents, and consider their welfare in recognition of all they have done for them and the sacrifices they have made whilst bringing them up, 1 Timothy 5:4.

And shall cleave unto his wife- it is only the leaving of the father’s headship in an official way, and the cleaving to a wife, that constitutes marriage before God. Simply living together is not marriage, but immorality, and will meet with God’s judgement if not repented of, for “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Hebrews 13:4.

This establishes who it is that may be married. It is not man and man, or woman and woman, but one man and one woman. Homosexuality is not normal, for God did not make a man for Adam. Nor is it in-built into some people’s genes, (as some would try to tell us), for conversion does not alter the genes, but it does radically alter behaviour, and the thinking behind behaviour. Some of the believers in the assembly in Corinth had been homosexuals before they were saved, but Paul can write, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:11. The pollution, unholiness and unrighteousness of their pre-conversion state had been dealt with, and they were new creatures in Christ.

And they shall be one flesh- the Lord Jesus used these words when He was asked about divorce, as we shall see when we consider 1 Corinthians 6.

Those who are merely, (and sinfully) only joined in one body, are not married. They can go their separate ways afterwards if they choose. Those who are married have not that option, however, for they have pledged themselves to be joined as one flesh, and their lives are inextricably entwined. So it is “what” God hath joined, not “who” God has joined. The lives are joined the moment the marriage ceremony has taken place, for it does not depend on physical union. Joseph and Mary were legally married before the birth of Christ, or else He would have been illegitimate. It was only after His birth that they knew one another in a physical sense, as Matthew 1:24,25 clearly indicates. So non-consummation of a marriage in the physical sense does not invalidate the marriage, whatever men’s law-courts say. It is worth stating that if there are physical or mental matters that would cause complications after the marriage ceremony, they should be made known to the other prospective partner before a relationship develops, to avoid heartache, misery and disappointment.

It is significant that when the idea of being one flesh is mentioned in connection with marriage, whether in Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek, the preposition is used which speaks of progress towards a goal. The idea is that “they two shall be set on a course towards being one flesh”. To be one flesh is much more than being one body, for marriage is a sharing of everything; goals, ambitions, desires, hopes, experiences, joys, griefs. It is an ongoing process of the lives of two persons merging ever more closely. It is a relationship that is on a vastly higher plane, (even in the case of unbelievers), than an immoral and passing affair. So the moment that this process begins is when the man and woman are pronounced man and wife at the marriage ceremony. They are as truly married then as they will ever be, but they are not as closely married then as they will be at the end of their life together, for marriage is a process. It is very sad when couples drift apart when they get older; they should be bonding even more closely.

The Indissolubility of Marriage
Because marriage is a one-flesh arrangement, the bond that is made at the wedding ceremony only death can loose, for only then does life in the flesh for one of the marriage-partners cease. A divorce court may make arrangements so that the two parties live apart, but no court of man can split up one flesh. The apostle Paul makes it clear in Romans 7 that only death breaks the bond of marriage. Of course he is using marriage as an illustration, so that he may show that the believer is not under the law of Moses, and should not seek to please God by putting himself under it.

Just because it is an illustration of something else does not necessarily mean there are exceptions to what he is saying. Indeed, the illustration is of no value if there are exceptions. We should remember that the apostle states in 1 Corinthians 7:39, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” This is almost word for word what he wrote in Romans 7, but is not in the context of an illustration. This statement comes at the end of a whole chapter full of teaching on the subject of marriage, but at no point does he speak of divorce.

It would be relevant at this point to consider Romans 7:1-3.

Romans 7:1
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Know ye not, brethren- the apostle appeals to their Christian intelligence. If they were consistent, they would act upon what they knew about the idea of law. He expresses slight surprise that some of them seemed not to be doing this.

(For I speak to them that know the law)- the believers at Rome would be familiar with the concept of law, for the Romans were great law-makers, and as believers they were familiar with the law of Moses too. Even though the Roman law provided for divorce, the point is that any law only applies to a living person. If a man dies, the law has lost its hold on him. The believers at Rome knew this.

How that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Laws only regulate living people. If a man steals, and dies before the matter is brought to court, there is no case to answer in man’s courts, although of course God will judge the sin in His court. The word “man” at this point is “anthropos” meaning man in general, an individual person, male or female. The law in particular in the next verse is the law of marriage, given by God, and it applies equally to a man and a woman.

Romans 7:2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth- the law of marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:6. The marriage covenant is life-long, or as is usually said at the ceremony “till death us do part”.

Those who refuse this verse as an argument against divorce say that the apostle is merely using an illustration, which is not in the context of instructions concerning marriage. But if there were exceptions to the “married for life” principle, it would undermine the apostle’s doctrine here regarding the law. In any case, as we have already seen, these words are used in 1 Corinthians 7:39 where they are not part of an illustration.

But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband- the law of the husband is not his command, but the principle involved in having a husband. The point is that death looses the connection, (that is, it breaks the connection), and makes the marriage bond entirely inactive. The only One with authority to loose the bond is the One who made it, and He does this now only by the death of one of the partners. Because the husband in this illustration has died, the “law of her husband” ceases to have force, and his wife is therefore not bound to it. The life or death of the husband is the determining factor.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress- so binding is this “law of the husband”, that it still operates even if she is unfaithful. She is “an adulteress by trade or calling” if the first husband is still alive. She is no different to those who make money out of harlotry. Note that her unfaithfulness has not ended the marriage, for if it had, she would not be an adulteress.

Of course it is true that the word “married” in verse 3 is in italics. This is because the Authorised Version translators were honest men, and wished to indicate that they had added a word to give the sense in English. They put the word in italics, and left it to the Holy Spirit to guide the readers to see that the addition was justified. They did not impose their will on the scriptures.

But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law- only in this way can she be free as far as God is concerned.

So that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man- she can be rightly married to a second man, but only if the first is dead. His death has freed her from obligation to him. The apostle makes applications from this in connection with the believer’s relationship with the law, but he does so on the basis of the law of marriage, which is our concern at the moment.

The Inescapability of Marriage
There are those who believe that there is a situation where a man can lawfully put away his wife, and they base their belief on the words of the Lord Jesus Himself to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, to which we now turn. We should remember as we do so, however, that no interpretation of the words of scripture may contradict another passage.

It was because John the Baptist had condemned Herod for taking Philip’s wife that he had lost his life. Perhaps the Pharisees are hoping that word would spread that Christ was of the same view as John, and in this way He would be put in danger. It is interesting in that connection to notice that John had said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her”, Matthew 14:4, and here the Pharisees begin with “Is it lawful”. We know from Luke 16:14-18 that on another occasion the Lord confronted the Pharisees on the matter of covetousness, and the fact that He condemned divorce immediately afterwards, showed that they were coveting other men’s wives, in transgression of the law. They are now seeking their revenge.

Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

The Pharisees also came unto him- as well as the people coming to Him to learn from Him, (as Mark records in his parallel passage, chapter 10:1-12), the Pharisees also come, but only to try to undermine His teaching. Near the start of His ministry the Lord had said, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20. He had already asserted His resolve to uphold the law and prophets, and had condemned those who teach men otherwise; now He is going to expose those who taught the law, but transgressed it in their hearts. Outward observance, (“the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”), will not be enough to gain an entrance even into the kingdom of heaven, (which is the realm of profession), let alone the kingdom of God, (the realm only of those who are genuine).

He then proceeded, in what some call the Sermon on the Mount, to examine certain statements that the scribes were making, and showed that they did not go far enough in their teaching. For instance, (and this is very relevant to our subject), the scribes taught, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and it was right that they should do so, for this was the seventh commandment. But they were content with the letter of the law. But as the Lord proceeds to show, to look upon a woman to lust after her is heart-adultery, even though at that point it is not body-adultery. He then speaks of the eye that lusts, and the hand which could be used to write a bill of divorcement, and teaches that if the eye and the hand are liable to sin in this way, drastic action must be taken to prevent that sin. In the language of the apostle Paul, there must be the mortifying of our members which are on the earth, Colossians 3:5.

If this teaching were followed, the next passage would not be needed, which reads, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:31,32. By the expression “But I say unto you”. the Lord is clearly contrasting the teaching of the scribes and His teaching. He says nothing of their teaching being “of old time”, (as was the case with other statements He deals with in the passage), so it must have been a fairly recent innovation on their part, perhaps influenced by the Gentiles, amongst whom they had been dispersed. Evil communications had corrupted good manners, 1 Corinthians 15:33 .

Christ in righteousness, however, stressed that their action of putting away caused the woman to sin, and was therefore in itself sinful. That sin was not mitigated by giving a bill of divorcement to the women. The Lord is highlighting the havoc that is caused if divorce is carried out for reasons other than the fornication He mentions, (which we will come to later). The woman is caused to commit adultery, for she is still the wife of the one who has divorced her, but in order to survive in a cruel world it is assumed that she will marry again, relying on the teaching of the scribes who said this was lawful. Moreover, the man who rescues her from destitution by marrying her, also sins, again because he listens to the scribes. Instead of being scrupulous about the apparently trivial matter of giving a bill of divorcement to her, the original husband should have been concerned about the moral implications of his action. The problem was that he was listening to the wrong teachers, the scribes, believing they had authority in the matter.

Tempting him- their sole object was to try to trip Him up, and make Him side with one or other of the schools of thought in Israel. They have not come with a genuine desire to find out the truth.

And saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Note the word lawful, for they are basing their question on what is legitimate as far as the law of Moses was concerned. They do this because they have a second question, which they think will undermine the answer they expect He will give to the first one. Note too, the word cause, for it also has a legal tone to it, having the idea of an accusation. What they are asking is whether a man may bring a cause before a law-court which will give him the right to put away his wife, whatever the circumstance.

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read- this is a phrase that appears six times in the gospel of Matthew, either in this form or in a similar one. The Lord is answering their question directly, but He is not going to quote the law of Moses at first, but the book of Genesis. He does not say, “Verily, I say unto you”, as elsewhere in the gospel, for He does not need to do so, for He had spoken already in the words of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.

That he which made them at the beginning made them male and female- so the Lord Jesus believed that the act of making Adam and his wife on the sixth day of the creation week happened at the beginning. The same beginning as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1. So there is no time-gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.

In Mark’s account the phrase is “from the beginning”, and these are the words of Christ Himself. So Matthew 19, where there is a quotation from Genesis 1:27, tells us of the actual historic event of the creation of male and female. Mark’s account tells us that the act of making male and female is ongoing, for it is from the beginning as well as being at the beginning. So God is not making people who are not male or female today, and has never done so.

Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother- the God who made male and female is also the one who spoke the words of Genesis 2:24 quoted here. But in Mark’s account the Lord does not quote, hence there is no “Have ye never read?” He says the same things there as were said in the beginning, thus testifying to His Deity and authority. The word of God in the beginning is the word of God still.

Because God made male and female, there is an attraction between the two, and this attraction is stronger than between a son and his father and mother. The son leaves the sphere of his father’s headship, and begins a new sphere of headship, thus maintaining social order on the earth, and in the case of a believer, establishes another centre for the maintenance of godly order. He also leaves the care of his mother to care for his wife, and to be cared for by her. His mother cannot help him in his new role of head of the house, but his wife can.

And shall cleave to his wife- this is no casual relationship, but a gluing together, (such is the idea behind the word), of two persons in a life-long relationship, whatever the future may bring.

And they twain shall be one flesh? They twain, (the word simply means “two”), are, on the one hand, the man who has left father and mother, and on the other hand the woman he is now going to cleave to in marriage. It is only these, who leave and cleave, that are one flesh. A man who consorts with a harlot does not leave and cleave in this way. He does not formally leave the family unit he was brought up in and establish another. Nor does he become one flesh; he only becomes joined in body.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh- the words of the quotation are given again to emphasise this main point of two people being one. How can the question of putting away come up in that situation?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder- notice it is “what” and not “who” that is put asunder. It is two lives that are joined together, and they are not to be ruptured. Notice that it is God that joins together, not the one who conducts the wedding ceremony, and He does this the moment the couple say their vows. This was seen in the case of Joseph and Mary, for they were married several weeks or months before that marriage was consummated, for the scripture tells us “Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.” Matthew 1:24,25. So there were four stages in their experience. First the betrothal, then the “taking”, meaning the legal claiming of Mary to be his lawful wife, then the birth of Christ, and then the “knowing” of Mary in the physical sense.

To put asunder is to insert a space between two persons that God has joined, thus acting directly in defiance of God. A fearful thing to do, indeed. Notice that the Lord does not say it cannot be attempted, for the law-courts of men are full of those who make a living out of divorce procedures. But no device of man can divide between one flesh, for that is what married persons are. Of course divorce does disrupt the life-long process of becoming one flesh, so in that sense the relationship is disturbed. In the final analysis, however, no act of men can overthrow the act of God.

That this is so is seen in the fact that a man who divorces his wife and then marries another, commits adultery against her, Mark 10:11. He sins against God by divorcing, for he is defiantly trying to divide what God has joined. He sins also by remarrying, for the Lord calls that adultery. But if the divorce cancels the marriage, why should this be so? Of course, some will respond that the exception clause, “except it be for fornication”, in some way allows divorce to happen. But if unfaithfulness destroys a marriage, and a divorce is obtained, it is as if the man is single. Why then is his subsequent marriage adulterous? And why, in particular, does he commit adultery against his first wife, if he no longer has any relationship with her?

The Intensiveness of Marriage
There are those who teach that “one body” is the same as “one flesh”, and draw wrong conclusions from that deduction, such as that if a marriage is not physically consummated it is not complete marriage. We need to consult the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 on this matter:

1 Corinthians 6:15
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? It might be thought that the spiritual link believers have with Christ has nothing to do with the physical body. This scripture assures us it is not so. This raises an interesting question, which is this. The believer’s body is still indwelt by the sin-principle, and is capable, therefore, of sinning. It is a soulish body and not the spiritual body it will be at the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:44,45. It is composed of atoms that are part of the creation that was cursed by God and made subject to vanity. In a word, our body is in the bondage of corruption, so how can it be linked to Christ?

The answer is found in the fact that dwelling within us is the Spirit of God, and one of His titles is “the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead”, Romans 8:11. His presence is the pledge that we shall share in the resurrection of the just, with its consequent changed and sin-free body, and God takes account of that in His dealings with us now. So we are linked to Christ even as to the body. Meanwhile the indwelling Spirit safeguards the honour of Christ, for He is the pledge that a spiritual body will certainly be ours, and God takes account of that, and not the fact that we have a physical body with its accompanying sin-principle.

Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid- this situation has serious consequences for us. If the members of our body are united to Christ, then we must be very careful what else we unite them to. Being a physical entity, our body can be united in sin with a prostitute. Is that acceptable behaviour for a believer? The apostle answers that question with a thunderous “God forbid”.

1 Corinthians 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? The apostle is outraged to think that they are not aware of the intimate physical relationship that is formed when a person is joined in an illicit union with a street-girl. As far as the physical act is concerned, they are joined as if they were formally married. This is as far as it goes, however, for they are simply joined in body. They are not joined in any other way. A man, even a believer, who consorts thus with a prostitute, has not entered into a life-long relationship until it is dissolved by death. It is an act no different to that which animals engage in, who have no moral sense.

For two, saith he, shall be one flesh- it might seem at first sight as if the apostle, by quoting this statement which has to do with marriage, is suggesting that to be joined to a harlot is to be in a marriage relationship. This cannot be the case, or else harlotry would not be condemned in Scripture. It is important to notice exactly what the apostle writes in this verse. The word “for” is not part of his quotation about marriage. No reference to marriage either in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, or Ephesians 5, uses the word “for”, so this is the apostle’s word, and indicates the answer to an unspoken query by his readers. The apostle often answered unspoken questions and objections in this way. It is as if he had been asked, “Why is it so sinful to be joined to a harlot?” The apostle answers by saying, in effect, “for (because) God has ordained that marriage should be a one-flesh arrangement, not a one-body one”.

The next word is “two”, which is the first word of the quotation. Then comes “saith he”, so some person is being referred to here. Then comes the remainder of the quotation, “shall be one flesh”. So the quotation is “two shall be one flesh”. The “for” is the apostle’s word. But who is the person who says “two shall be one flesh? Since the apostle is referring to the Divine institution of marriage, we could assume the reference is to God when He instituted marriage in Genesis 2:24. But the words there are, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”.

The only place where these exact words are found is Mark 10:6-9, where we hear the Lord Jesus Himself speaking, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined, let not man put asunder.” So it is He that the apostle refers to in the statement, “Two, saith he, shall be one flesh”. So not only does the Lord Jesus say God is still making men as male and female, (for He does it “from the beginning”, and not just “at the beginning”), but that the marriage-institution words of Genesis 2:24 were, and are, still valid.

This also tells us the interesting fact that Paul, writing about AD 59, had read Mark’s gospel, so it was in circulation within twenty-five years of the events it records, and well within the lifetime of many of those who were involved in what it details.

The Indiscretion before Marriage
We return now to Matthew 19, and the discussion about the giving of the bill of divorcement as recorded in Deuteronomy 24. We should bear in mind as we do so that there were detailed penalties under the law of Moses when immoral behaviour was discovered. Those penalties were severe, but for a just reason. It was vitally important in Old Testament times to preserve the line of the Messiah. If any child was conceived in circumstances where the name and the tribe of the father were not known, it would put at risk the genealogy of Christ. Hence the severity of the punishments. They also acted as a deterrent, to maintain a high moral standard in the nation, so that God could bless it. They were to be a holy nation, Exodus 19:6.

The list is as follows:

1. The unfaithful married woman was to be put to death, as was the man she had sinned with, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22.

2. The unfaithful betrothed free woman, whose sin was only discovered after the wedding, was to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:20,21,23,24.

3. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the city but did not cry for help, (showing she was to some extent complicit), was to be put to death, as well as the man, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. Notice that the betrothed maiden is called “his neighbour’s wife”, in verse 24, showing that betrothal was a legal enactment.

4. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the field, and cried for help, (showing she was not complicit), but no one heard, is allowed to live, but the man is to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27. No doubt note would be taken of the name of the man, so that if the attack resulted in a child being born, the genealogy would be known.

5. The virgin maiden who was assaulted anywhere, city or field, and they both “were found”, (indicating someone happened to come across them sinning, rather than responding to a cry for help from the girl), was not put to death, and was to marry the man involved, and never be put away, Deuteronomy 22:28,29. This was for her protection, for it prevented her from marrying another, and thereby risk coming under the penalty of verses 20,21, when it was discovered she was not a virgin.

Note the distinction that is made here between the betrothed maiden of Point 3 above, and this non-betrothed maiden. The former has violated the pledge she made when she was betrothed, showing it did alter the legal situation to a degree. The latter has not apparently cried out, so is to an extent complicit, hence the penalty, but tempered by mercy.

6. The daughter of a man of the tribe of Levi who committed fornication was to be burned with fire, Leviticus 21:9. The dramatic punishment was no doubt because she had not only profaned herself, but profaned her father, and the worship of God was affected.

7. A betrothed bond woman who acted immorally was to be scourged, but not put to death, and the man was to offer a trespass offering, Leviticus 19:20.

8. A married woman who was found to have some “matter of uncleanness”, and who had a hard-hearted husband, could be sent away with a bill of divorcement, and she could marry another, but not return to the first husband if the second man died or put her away.

It is this last case that is the subject of discussion with the Pharisees. The woman concerned was clearly not cases 3-7, because she was married. Nor was she cases 1 or 2, or else she would have been put to death. Nor has her husband suspicions about her faithfulness, for then there was the provision of the trial of jealousy, in Numbers 5. She was a special case, therefore, and is the only case of a married woman who was not put to death. No doubt this was because she posed no threat to the line of the Messiah, for she had not consorted with another man. All the other categories listed above had done so.

We now look at the Lord’s further words, this time in Matthew 19.

Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Instead of discussing divorce, the Lord had enforced the truth of marriage. This should always be the emphasis, for if we were more versed in the truth regarding the marriage relationship, we would be less taken up with divorce. There needs to be regular teaching concerning marriage so that it is constantly the norm in the minds of believers. Those whose marriage is experiencing difficulties need to start to remedy the situation before God, by acting on the premise that they are joined for life. This will focus the mind on the reality, and not the fantasy of release by divorce.

This second question is really the one the Pharisees wanted to ask from the beginning, but the Lord had frustrated their plan, for if they obeyed the word of God regarding being one flesh, the matter of divorce would not come up. The reference is to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where a man who had found some “matter of uncleanness” in his wife was allowed to put her away.

Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives- the Lord pinpoints the attitude of heart of some in Israel who were prepared to reject their wives because of something the wives could not help. It is not known precisely what is meant by “uncleanness”. The expression in the Hebrew is “dabar ervah”. “Ervah” is indeed used 51 times in the Old Testament in connection with illicit sexual behaviour, (“uncover the nakedness” is a phrase used for sexual relations), but not with the addition of “dabar”, which means “matter”, or “thing”. Some indication as to its meaning is given by the fact that it is only elsewhere used with dabar with regard to the toilet arrangements in the camp of Israel, Deuteronomy 23:14.

If it had been unfaithfulness on the part of the woman there was provision in other parts of the law for this. This is the only situation in which divorce was allowed in Israel, so was an exception rather than the rule. The Pharisees possibly wanted to make it the general rule. They wished to make what they thought of as the vagueness of the phrase an excuse for divorce “for every cause”, which is the expression they used in their question. Certainly they wanted the Lord to take sides, and thus be open to criticism. He sides only with God’s word.

Clearly the man in this situation is not prepared to accommodate the unfortunate plight of his wife, and is hard of heart towards her, no doubt angry that he has been deprived of conjugal rights by her condition. In that situation Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for her own protection, and marry another man if he would be prepared to marry her knowing her condition. If the second man put her away for the same reason, or if he died, she was not to return to her former husband again. She might be tempted to think that without her second husband maintaining her, (either because he had died or had put her away), it was better to return to the first man than to be destitute. Again, the law of God provided for her protection, for it overrides her faulty reasoning in her own interests, as there is no reason to think the first husband had changed. The woman is protected from her possible lack of realism in the matter.

This is an instance of God’s grace superseding the general rule for the sake of the welfare of His people. It is a mistake to think that there was no grace during the law-age. A reading of the passage where God described Himself to Moses will assure us there was, Exodus 34:6,7. The Pharisees wanted to talk of what was lawful, but the Lord highlighted the attitude of the man in the scenario, and Moses, representing God. The man was hard of heart, but Moses, acting for God, was merciful.

But from the beginning it was not so- again they are taken back to the beginning where the laws of marriage were instituted by God. Nothing that was instituted at the beginning was set aside by the law at Sinai. Those who wish to make this special case the general rule should be aware that the Lord does not sanction it, but points us back to the original institution of marriage. The reason He does not sanction it is not because He disagrees with what Moses did, but because in a few weeks time a new age of grace will have begun, and the law as a rule of life will be obsolete, (although its underlying principles will remain). After Pentecost there was not “Jew and Gentile”, and the special case lapsed, for it is not envisaged that a believer will be hard of heart.

In any case, the believer is not under law but under grace, and should not put himself or others under its bondage. Are the advocates of divorce willing to enforce the stipulation of Deuteronomy 22:20,21, where the law required that a damsel must be stoned to death after due process? Just as we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 22, so we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 24. So even if it was a general rule under the law, (and it was not, being a special case), the fact remains that we cannot appeal to it for help today.

The regulations in Deuteronomy 24 were so that Israelites did not “cause the land to sin”. The land in question being the land of promise, which they would soon occupy. But believers have no land in that sense, and so the stipulation does not apply. Our inheritance is in heaven, and is “incorruptible, and undefiled”, 1 Peter 1:4.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication- the last phrase is the well-known “exception clause”, as many call it, which some feel gives them grounds for advocating divorce. This clause is only found in Matthew’s gospel. Now the truth of God is the same for every believer, yet in the early days of the church some believers might only have Mark’s gospel, some only Luke’s, some only Matthew’s. It cannot be that only the latter are allowed to divorce, whilst believers who only have Mark or Luke are not, for there is no exception clause in these two gospels.

We are surely forced to the conclusion, therefore, that Matthew’s account has something distinctive about it. It must relate to a situation particular to Matthew’s gospel, or else those who had the other gospels would be governed by different principles. When He commissioned the disciples to go into the world, the Lord required them to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. They were to teach all things, not just some things. They were to teach Matthew 19 truth as well as Mark 10 truth, for they were not at variance.

Those who have read as far as chapter 19 of Matthew’s gospel will have already come across the situation described in the first chapter, where Joseph was faced with the prospect of putting Mary away. Such readers have already been prepared, therefore, for the teaching of the Lord Jesus regarding divorce, and will be aware of what “except for fornication” must mean, if it is not to conflict with the teaching that marriage is life-long. It relates to the Jewish practice of betrothal being classed as a legal relationship, with the parties concerned being called man and wife, as we see in the case of Joseph and Mary. But because Joseph and Mary were not formally married, Mary’s supposed sin is fornication, not adultery, for that latter sin is on the part of a person who is married to another formally.

Such a situation did not pertain for those for whom Mark and Luke wrote. They wrote especially with Gentiles in mind, as is seen by the fact that Mark mentions the Gentile practice of a woman divorcing her husband, 10:12, something that was not allowed in Israel, and Luke is writing to a Gentile to confirm his faith, 1:3. For this reason they do not mention the exception clause, thus showing it to be a matter distinctive for Jewish readers at that time.

And shall marry another, committeth adultery- notice the distinction the Lord is making here between fornication and adultery, as does the apostle Paul in Galatians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the two sins are found together in a list, showing they must be distinguished. Indeed, the Lord Himself distinguished them in this very gospel, when He listed some of those sins that proceed from the heart of man, 15:19. Fornication is immorality on the part of an unmarried person, whereas adultery is an act of immorality on the part of a married person. The origin of the words indicates this, for the word fornication is derived from the Latin word “fornix”, which denotes the vaulted room tenanted by harlots. Adultery, on the other hand, is formed from the Latin expression “ad alterum”, meaning to go or mix with another. Hence to adulterate a substance is to mix it with another so as to corrupt it. An adulterer mixes another woman with his lawful wife, thus corrupting his relationship with her.

The list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is sordid, but the Spirit of God would have us be aware of them. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Notice that the apostle is careful to distinguish between fornication and adultery, mentioning them separately, as the Lord Jesus had done, but he also carefully distinguishes between the effeminate and the abusers of themselves with mankind. These two persons were the passive and active participants in the sin of sodomy. If he was precise in his wording in connection with two men who are engaging in the same sin, does this not tell us that he was being precise when he mentions fornication and adultery separately, showing they are not interchangeable?
If we do not make the distinction between fornication and adultery, then it is legitimate for a man to divorce his lawfully wedded wife on the ground of her adultery. She is now free of her marriage bond, according to this view. But we have already seen from 1 Corinthians 6:16 that physical joining does not form a marriage. Nor does unlawful and immoral joining in unfaithfulness break a marriage, because of the teaching of Romans 7:1-3, which says that a man and a woman are joined in marriage until one of them dies. The apostle Paul claimed that the things he wrote to the Corinthians were “the commandments of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. So the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6 is as binding as the commandments of the Lord in Matthew 19. The apostles were sent forth to preach what Christ had commanded, Matthew 28:20. Are we really going to say that the commandments given to the apostle Paul are at variance with the commandments given to the twelve? So to say that fornication and adultery are synonymous in this verse is to say that the scriptures are in disarray and in conflict with one another.

But what if we say that fornication in this context does not mean adultery? Then, everything falls into place, and there is no conflict. The use of fornication rather that adultery highlights the fact that the “wife” in question here, if she sins, commits the sin that single persons commit. This can only be because she is in a state of betrothal. She is linked to the man enough to be called his wife, but she is not linked so closely that if she sins she commits adultery. Nor is she linked so closely, (“one flesh”), that she cannot be put away lawfully.

One not betrothed is not a wife in any sense, (so is not in view here), and one who is lawfully wedded commits adultery if she is unfaithful. A single person cannot commit adultery. Only a betrothed woman can be a wife and commit fornication at the same time. So the only ground for divorce at that time was unfaithfulness on the part of a betrothed wife to her betrothal commitment. We conclude that since Jewish customs such as betrothal are not binding on the church, there is no legitimate ground for divorce today, whether of believers or unbelievers.

And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery- this must mean that the woman in view has been put away without an appeal to the exception clause. For putting away on the basis of the exception clause, correctly understood, was, at that time, a lawful ground for putting away, and did not lead to adultery on the part of another when he married the woman concerned.

But if the putting away was on the basis of the exception clause, and if, as some teach, fornication means adultery, (with the implication that the woman is fully married at the time she sinned, and not simply betrothed), then unfaithfulness must have in some way invalidated the marriage. If then, the Lord sanctioned putting away on the basis that fornication equals adultery, then by implication He agreed that adultery invalidates a marriage. Can we not all see that this contradicts what He has just said about one flesh? And contradicts what He will later say through the apostle Paul? And contradicts His command to not put asunder what God hath joined? We have a simple choice, therefore. We either believe the Christ of God contradicted Himself, or we accept that fornication is not the same as adultery in this context.

Matthew 19:10
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry- when confronted with the teaching the Lord gave about marriage, the disciples felt that the standard was so high that it would be best not to marry. They realise that it is better to not get married rather than risk a life-time of heart-ache. But why should they think that the standard was too high, if there were easy exceptions to the marriage law, and it was not difficult to divorce? They had only to be unfaithful to their spouse, or arrange situations where she would be tempted to be unfaithful, and they could legitimately divorce. The truth is that they saw clearly that the standard was the same as it had ever been from the beginning, and man was not to put asunder what God had joined.

Marriage should be embarked upon with the thought by both parties that “This is for life, and we will strive to make our relationship work”, rather than thinking, “It may not work, but there are ways in which we can get out of it”

Matthew 19:11

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given- the “but” signals that the Lord does not agree that marriage is not a good thing. God had said at the beginning “It is not good that the man should be alone”, and now the disciples are saying the reverse. Clearly, if there are those who remain alone, it must be for good reason, allowed by God. He gives some the ability to not be lonely when they are alone, because they are taken up with the things of God.

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men- there are those who are not able to marry, for they have either been born unable, or have been mistreated by men and so are unable to fulfil all the functions involved in marriage. The point of telling us this is to show that it is possible to live in an unmarried state.

And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake- some believers are enabled to be so taken up with the things of God and the work of God, that the fact that they are not married is genuinely not a concern to them. Their unmarried state can be used of God to further the interests of His kingdom in some way not otherwise open to them if they were married.

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it- if a person is enabled by God to not be concerned that they are not married, (as long as it is because they are fully occupied with the things of God, and not because they are self-centred), then they should receive that situation and attitude as being from God. But those who have not been thus gifted should not force themselves to be celibate, for they have not really been enabled by God, but have imposed the situation upon themselves. The enabling to live a celibate life is from God, for the scripture says, in connection with being either married or unmarried, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” 1 Corinthians 7:7.

So those who are saved after they are divorced and remarried will be enabled, if they desire to act “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”, to live as single people. For we must not think that conversion alters relationships. If a man has unsaved parents, and then himself gets saved, they are still his parents. If he was born out of wedlock to those parents, nothing has changed as to his status. If a man is in a homosexual relationship, would we not expect that relationship to be discontinued forthwith? Why should we think then that if a divorced and remarried person gets saved the situation is any different? Nothing has altered as to the relationship. It is true that the sin of divorcing and remarrying is forgiven, but it is a condition of salvation that repentance is in evidence, not just at conversion, but afterwards as well. Sins are forgiven on repentance, and John the Baptist challenged men to “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance”, Matthew 3:8, so the believer should show these fruits.

The Influence of Christ on Marriage

Not only does the account of the institution of marriage in Genesis 2 have personal implications, but it is used in Ephesians 5 by the apostle Paul to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church.

Ephesians 5:29

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh- the flesh in this context is not the soft part of the body, but the man’s person. So the apostle is saying here that it is not part of man’s constitution to hate what he is. God’s requirement in the law was, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, Leviticus 19:18. So it is in order for a man to love himself, but he is not to love himself exclusively. He is to love his neighbour in the same way as he loves himself. It is normal to love self, but selfishness is abnormal, and contrary to God’s will.

But nourisheth and cherisheth it- the opposite of hating one’s flesh is here described. Not only does a man care for his body, but he does that which preserves himself as a person in the flesh. Just as nourishing and cherishing of a wife means more than providing food and shelter for her, so the man is not content with the bare essentials, but seeks to make himself comfortable as a person.

Even as the Lord the church- what a man does to his flesh, Christ does to the church. And He does it as Lord, for He has total control over all that would harm and distress His people. The reason for this is found in the next verse. We should remember that one of the words for husband in the Old Testament is “baal”, meaning lord. The husband is to take control of the situation for the good of his wife, as Christ does for the good of the church.

Ephesians 5:30

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For- here is the underlying reason for the foregoing exhortations. The apostle makes a statement of New Testament truth, and then alludes to the origin of the truth as found in the Old Testament.

We are members of his body- we should not read this verse as if it said, “For we are members, of His body, of His flesh and of His bones”. In other words, we are not members of three things, but one thing, His body, and the reference to flesh and bones is an allusion in the first instance, (for the words are not a quotation), to the physical parts of Adam’s body, but the apostle is establishing a principle from them in regard to the mystical body of Christ spoken of in verse 23, and not the Lord’s personal body. Believers are clearly not formed from the literal body of Christ, but they are part of His body the church, and the closeness of that membership justifies the use of the words spoken in the first place of Eve.

Since the body is a spiritual concept here, then the nourishing and cherishing, by the Lord, and therefore by the husband, is more than mere food and clothing. It is only Paul that uses the figure of the human body to help us to understand the relationship of Christ to His people. He is head of that body, and every believer is a member of that body, and as such, may count on the care and support of the head. Notice that the apostle does not liken our relationship to Christ as that of a wife to the husband, but to the head and the body. The actual marriage of the church to Christ has not yet taken place, but our link to Him as His body has.

Of his flesh- the expression “of his flesh and of his bones” is omitted in some manuscripts, but it is easy to see it should be there, for the next verse is virtually meaningless if there has been no prior reference to Genesis 2:23.

Note the order in which the words are given here, for they are the reverse of what Adam said. And the word bone in Genesis 2:23 becomes bones here. This alerts us to the fact that the phrase is being used here by the apostle in a figurative sense, as if to say, “Just as Eve came into being, and continued, as one who derived physical existence through Adam, so believers have received, and continue to receive, their spiritual being from Christ”.

When the Lord Jesus came into manhood, He took part, extraordinarily, of the same flesh and blood we partake of ordinarily. He came in by means of conception through the Holy Spirit and birth of the virgin Mary. Nonetheless, the manhood He took was our manhood, but sin apart. The true believer confesses that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, 1 John 4:2, so that establishes that He is a real man. But we also are real men, but sinners, and He was not a sinner. He came into flesh and blood conditions so that we could be joined to Him. So how can we still be men, and yet be of His flesh? Or, how can our bodies, which still have the sin-principle within them, be members of Christ, as 1 Corinthians 6:15 says they are. The answer lies in the expression, “he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”, 1 Corinthians 6:17. The fact that the Holy Spirit has joined us to Christ overrides all other considerations, for He is a Divine Person. And Christ looks on His people from that high viewpoint, and sees them as men in the flesh on one level, but as joined to the Lord on another level. In this way we can be said to be of His flesh, for we have been joined to Him, and share His nature. We should remember that even in resurrection the Lord Jesus has flesh and bones, as He demonstrated to His disciples the day He rose from the dead, Luke 24:39,40.

And of his bones- Adam spoke of bone of his bones, for Eve was literally made from one of his rib-bones. So close was their relationship that his bone had become her bones, for his bone-material had become her body. The church is not made literally from the bone of Christ, but the church can be said to derive existence from what He did when He gave His entire self for us as a man in the flesh, at Calvary. Just as Adam’s rib provided the raw material for the making of Eve, so, in a spiritual sense, what Christ gave is the ground of what we have been made as believers. It is interesting to notice that in resurrection the Lord Jesus described Himself as having “flesh and bones”, Luke 24:39, reminding us that our link to Him is on resurrection ground.

When God took a rib from Adam and formed a woman therefrom, Adam was asleep. Christ was fully alert when He suffered at Calvary and gave Himself for the church. Adam gave a rib, Christ gave Himself. If Adam gave a rib and gained a wife, then Christ gave His all and gained His people. It is because we are of His flesh and of His bones that the church can be married to Christ in a future day, for she is meet for Him. She will also help Him, for the church will reign with Christ.

Ephesians 5:31

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother- the apostle now quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 to explain that it is because the woman was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh that his marriage was lawful. The underlying concept to marriage is the fact that the woman was made from the man. Of course, in the case of Adam there was no father or mother to leave, but God established the principle at the beginning, and this justifies the use of these words.

Ephesians 5:32

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

This is a great mystery- we should notice that the apostle does not actually say that the church is the bride of the Lamb, but he certainly implies it. It is John who tells us about the Lamb’s wife in Revelation 19:7. He cannot be referring to Israel, for the nation is already married to the Lord. God says “I was an husband unto them”, Jeremiah 31:32. Now we know that Paul was entrusted with the task of fulfilling the word of God, Colossians 1:25. In other words, he revealed those mysteries that God had in reserve for the present age, so that all that God desires us to know is available to us. That which is perfect is come, 1 Corinthians 13:10. This being the case, it was not John’s remit to unfold new truth, but simply to elaborate on what had been known from the beginning. So the idea of the Lamb having a wife must be in Paul’s writings somewhere, and this is the place. The apostle hinted at this mystery in 2 Corinthians 11:2,3, when he wrote, “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The apostle sees the assembly at Corinth as a betrothed maiden, and does not want her to be drawn away to a rival. What is true of the local assembly is also true of the church as a whole. Functioning now as a body does in relation to its head, we shall function in a day to come as a wife does in relation to her husband. But just as betrothal was a legally binding contract, so we should be aware of our commitment to Christ, and not let our affections wander.

But I speak concerning Christ and the church- the apostle is still at pains to keep the Lord and the church distinct in our minds. The working principles that operate in the case of a married couple are to be worked out with us now, just as the working principles of marriage are worked out by Christ, as He deals with us as His mystical body.

Ephesians 5:33

Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she love her husband.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself- the apostle does not want a husband to be so taken up with the spiritual truths he is setting out that he forgets his responsibility to his wife.

And the wife see that she reverence her husband- the wife should not pretend to be so spiritual, absorbed with relationship to Christ, that she forgets her duty to reverence her husband, giving him his due; not necessarily because he is particularly spiritual, but because he has been given a position by God for her welfare.

There is a further reason why the apostle reverts back to speaking about husband and wife, and that is to emphasise the practical implications of their relationship. After all, that is the context of the passage, beginning, as it does, with the words, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands”, and “Husbands, love your wives”, verse 22 and 25. They relate to one another in the confidence that their union cannot be broken. But if their bond cannot be broken, then, since it is in principle the same bond as between Christ and the church, that bond cannot be broken either. Christ will never divorce His church, therefore Christian husbands should never contemplate divorcing their wives. Instead, they should strive to act as Christ does towards His prospective bride, and likewise, the wives should endeavour to act as the church, (ideally), acts towards Christ.

In the kingdom age which will follow the Tribulation Period, the land of Israel shall be “Beulah Land”, for God’s promise to Israel is, “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as a the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee”, Isaiah 62:4,5. Hephzibah means “My delight is in her”, and Beulah means “Married”.

Summary of the chapter
In John chapter 2 we find that the Lord Jesus manifested Himself in a twofold way to the nation of Israel, first in a domestic scene, verses 1-12, and then in a national scene, verses 13-25. We could set out the comparisons and contrasts in the following way:

Verses 1 to 12

The marriage

Cana of Galilee

Countryside

Rustic

Marriage

Domestic

Presence invited at wedding

New beginning in life

Emphasis on grace

The disciples had real faith

Christ supplied a lack

Love and humility

Christ in the background

Spoke of “His hour”, at Calvary

Verses 13 to 25

The Passover

Jerusalem

City

Sophisticated

Festival

National

Presence required at Feast

New beginning in religious year

Emphasis on truth

The Jews had incomplete faith

Christ purged the excess

Zeal and holiness

Christ at the forefront

Spoke of His death and resurrection

Structure of the chapter

(a) 2:1-12
In Cana of Galilee for a wedding

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

(a) 2:1-12
The marriage in Cana of Galilee

Structure of the section

Verses 1-2	The glory of His grace
Verses 3-5	The glory of His gentleness
Verses 6-8	The glory of His greatness
Verses 9-12	The glory of His genuineness

Verses 1-2
The glory of His grace

2:1
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

So John links the time of this wedding with the days he has mentioned in chapter one, and in particular the day when Nathanael confessed that Christ was the Son of God and the King of Israel. The miracle he is about to record would demonstrate that Christ is indeed the Son of God, and therefore the Creator, but also that He is the destined King of Israel, able to bring in the unbroken joy kingdom conditions in a day to come. The “wine” shall never run out in that day.

The Lord had assured Nathanael that he would see greater things, 1:50, and this is the beginning. The Son of God is the creator of all things, as verses 1-3 of chapter 1 have told us, and this He is demonstrating by His first miracle. It is God who sends the rain, which falls on the roots of the vine, and it is then transformed into grapes. A further process takes place by which the ripe grapes are made into wine. Thus the long process of turning water into wine is now compressed into a moment of time as the Son of God shows conclusively that He is the creator of all things, for He is in control of the processes which He Himself had put into operation at the beginning of creation.

Near the end of His ministry the Lord cursed a fig tree, which dried up from the roots to the astonishment of the disciples, Mark 11:20,21. The fig tree represents Israel after the flesh, and as such has no future. The nation’s Creator has ensured that it will not grow again by bringing in such severe drought conditions that it dries up. Israel in the future, however, will be a true testimony to God, (the olive tree provided oil for the light), and will bring forth fruit for God as a vine, “which cheereth God and man”, Judges 9:13. One of the curses God threatened the nation with in Deuteronomy 28:23,24 was drought, as happened in Elijah’s day. The cursing of the fig tree was a warning to Israel that they were in drought conditions in their hearts. So He that provided the water for the vine can also withhold the water for the fig. In Genesis 1:1 the three things that go to make up the universe are introduced. There is the time-word “beginning”, then heaven and earth tell of matter, and then the notice of their separate positions, indicating space. Time, space, and matter are the three components of God’s creation, and the Lord Jesus in His first miracle at Cana showed Himself to be the master of time and matter. In His second miracle, again at Cana, He showed space and time was no difficulty to Him, for He healed the sick boy at a distance, and at the precise hour of His choosing. And matter was no problem either, for He dealt with the organism that caused the boy’s sickness.

And the mother of Jesus was there- the fact that the mother of Jesus was at the wedding and was not called as the Lord Jesus and his disciples were would indicate that perhaps the wedding was of someone closely connected to the family, but not one of the family. Perhaps some relative of Mary, given that she has some sort of authority at the occasion. The tense of the word “was” is the imperfect, telling us that she was already at the wedding before the Lord Jesus arrived. It is not clear whether the brethren of the Lord were present or not.

2:2
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

The fact that He was called shows that those being married were sympathetic to Him and His teaching. When the Lord contrasted John the Baptist’s ministry with His own, He likened John’s ministry to a funeral, and His to a wedding, Matthew 11:17. John condemned man’s sin as the law of Moses did, and thus he showed why man’s stay on earth ends with a funeral. But Christ came to bring life, and it is fitting that He should perform His first miracle just when the happy couple are setting out on a new life together.
The first plague of Egypt was to turn water into blood, Exodus 7:20, the symbol of death and sorrow, but here water is turned into the symbol of joy, Judges 9:13. Such is the great change that Christ brings about, not only in the lives of men, but also universally when He comes to reign.

Verses 3-5
The glory of His gentleness

2:3
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine- to want wine means to have a lack of wine; it was the wine that was wanting, not the guests. This may indicate that the newly-weds were relatively poor, and could not afford to provide an abundance of wine. How like the Lord Jesus to enrich the poor; and this He has done more generally as far as all of His people are concerned. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich”, 2 Corinthians 8:9. It was customary to give gifts of wine or oil to a couple when they were married, thus supplying their needs as they embarked upon life together. If the five disciples and the Lord were the extra guests at the wedding, then the Lord provided six waterpots of wine as a gift to the newly-weds from Himself and His disciples.

2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Verses 6-8
The glory of His greatness

2:6
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

In Mark 7:1-9 we learn that the Jews were very particular about handwashing, and had made it into a legalistic ritual. The complaint of the Pharisees on that occasion was not that the disciples ate without washing their hands at all, but that they did not engage in the elaborate ritual the Pharisees had devised. The Lord used the incident to not only condemn mere religion, but also to point out that defilement is within a man already, and has nothing to do with dirty hands.
Two or three firkins apiece would be about fifty-four gallons or four hundred and thirty-two pints. This is the Lord’s generous wedding present to the happy pair, but they would begin their married life by sharing this gift with others. It should always be true that we share His gifts with others.

2:7
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

2:8
And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

Verses 9-12
The glory of His genuineness

Every stage of this miracle was transparent and open; there was no deceit. We see this in the following ways:

1. As we have suggested, the pots were laying on their side to start with, the water having been used up to wash the guests feet as they arrived. This means there was no water left in them.

2. The servants do not know a miracle is about to take place. All they think they are doing is filling pots with water.

3. They fill the pots to the brim, so there is no room for some substance to be added to colour the water red.

4. The Lord has nothing to do with this filling process; He does not bless the pots or the water, but is completely apart from the action.

6. The servants can testify that it started as water; the governor testifies that it finished as wine.

7. The governor calls the bridegroom, not Christ, for he is not aware of what has happened.

2:9
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom.

But the servants which drew the water knew- this is John’s comment, found in parenthesis, and assures us that there was no collusion between the servants and the governor, any more than there was collusion between Christ and the servants. All is genuine and open. After all, John was present at the wedding, and he writes near the end of his gospel that the Lord did signs “in the presence of his disciples”, John 20:30, so there was no secrecy.

So we have the governor and the servants as independent witnesses of the genuineness of the miracle. The servants can testify that it began as water, and the governor can testify that it finished up as wine. The servants do not know what is going to happen. So they are not complicit in any deception. The governor does not know what did happen. So he is not complicit in any trickery such as colouring the water.

The governor of the feast called the bridegroom- it is not Christ but the bridegroom who is called, but he was unaware of what had happened, so he is not advanced as a witness. In fact it is the governor bears witness to him, and gives him the credit for the quality of the wine.

2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The Lord is indicating by this miracle that He is about to introduce a new order of things. Later in His ministry He will liken the law to old wine skins, which cannot stand having new wine put into them, Matthew 9:17. The new wine of the gospel cannot be contained in the old “skins” of men under the law. The skins must be replaced. It is in Christ that a man is renewed, so that he may contain the new wine of the gospel. Later on the Lord will promise that his people shall do greater things than the miracles he performed 14:12. They would be able to bring out the spiritual truth behind the miracles, and disclose that there is a joy that is beyond natural joy, and He is the one who brings it in. The apostle Peter calls it joy unspeakable, and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8.

As the governor says, the normal practice was to set on the lesser wine when men have had a good fill of the good wine, so that they do not realise the wine at the end is less good. Here the good wine has been served first, and still the last wine is thought to be better. Christ always surpasses our expectations. The wine of the law-covenant was good wine, having to do with the righteousness of God, but the wine of the gospel-covenant is better, for it is based on the work of the cross. As the Lord said to His disciples in the upper room, in reference to a cup of wine, “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”, Matthew 26:28. The law condemned sins, but grace brings forgiveness. The law brought sorrow, but grace brings joy.

2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

And they continued there not many days- it seems the plan was to wait in Capernaum until it was time to go up to Jerusalem together for the passover, which was “at hand”. This would explain why His mother and His brethren travelled with Him, even though His brethren did not believe in Him. They had most likely come from Nazareth to Cana for the wedding, and met up with the Lord’s party as they came from beyond Jordan. The brothers would be going to the feast as a matter of religious duty, John 7:10. It was not compulsory for women to go to the feasts, but it appears Mary did, Luke 2:41, which shows her devotion to God. That He continued where He was “not many days” shows that the Lord did not impose Himself upon His host.

See the end of the chapter for a special and extended note on marriage.

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

Special note on the passover in John’s gospel
It would be appropriate at this point to notice the way in which John uses the feast of the passover as the basis for the new things that Christ brings in as He reveals the Father. After all, the passover was a new beginning for Israel, and even their calendar was altered to reflect that. God’s word to them was “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you”, Exodus 12:2. We learn from Exodus 34:22 that the feast of ingathering, which was to be held in the seventh month, was “at the year’s end”. It was the end of the agricultural year, when the cycle of seed time and harvest came to its end. This strongly suggests that the first week of this world’s history was in the seventh month, at the start of the Autumn equinox. But when God made a new start, he ordained that Israel begin their religious calendar with the passover.

2:13
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

2:15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

2:16
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

Note that whilst He drives out the sheep and oxen, the Lord does not scatter the doves, but only commands the dove-sellers to take them away. Sheep and oxen are used to being driven, but He will not disturb the gentle dove, even when He is taking drastic action.
In this first cleansing, the charge is making merchandise out of Divine things, and thus getting gain for themselves. In the second cleansing, the charge is more severe, that of robbing God of His due. The situation is all the more sad because it was the priestly family of Annas and Caiaphas who leased out the stalls in the temple courts, and these should have certainly known better, for “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”, Malachi 2:7.

2:17
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up- note that the disciples are learning to relate Old Testament scriptures to the Lord’s actions. Psalm 69, from which this quotation comes, is not especially Messianic, because it contains a confession of sin and foolishness, and this could never be on the lips of the Holy Son of God. It is significant that Psalm 69:30,31 says that to magnify the Lord’s name with thanksgiving pleases Him “better than an ox or a bullock that hath horns and hoofs”, and the Lord Jesus was indeed defending the honour of His Father’s name by His actions at this time, as ever, and as His Father acknowledged in John 12:28. He magnified His Father’s name by expelling the oxen.

The duty of the head of the Israelite houses was to purge out the leaven found there, in preparation for the feast of passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which followed immediately after. As the Son representing His Father, the Lord Jesus undertakes to purge the leaven from the House of God, the temple at Jerusalem.

2:18
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

The Lord is speaking on two levels here. He is speaking of His body as a temple, but also of the literal temple where they were standing. They would destroy His body so that His spirit and soul and body were separated in death, but this would mean that the literal temple would be destroyed too. By crucifying Him, they would secure the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple, for the destiny of the temple at Jerusalem was bound up in the destiny of the temple of His body.

But Hosea had spoken of a period of three days after which God would raise up His people Israel again from the grave of the nations, Hosea 6:1,2. Together with the Messiah’s dead body would they rise, Isaiah 26:19, or in other words, they would be associated with and believe in His resurrection at long last, and gain the benefits which His rising again brings to those who believe. It was the Sadducean party which controlled the temple, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They will recognise this statement by Christ as an attack upon their doctrine.

2:20
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Not realising He was uttering a prophecy which involved the destruction and fall of the nation and its subsequent rise, they thought only in terms of physically building the temple. They contrast Herod’s labours for 46 years, with the short period of three days. Herod commenced the restoration and embellishment of the temple in about 19 BC. If the exact date when Herod began to build the temple could be established with absolute certainty, it would also establish the date of this passover, and hence when the crucifixion occurred, three passovers later. Provisionally, we may say that if Herod began building in 19 BC, then forty and six years later is AD 27, which becomes the date of the first passover in the Lord’s ministry. Three passovers later brings us to AD 30, when it is said that the passover was on Thursday, April the 6^th.

2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.

But he spake of the temple of his body- so there is a vital link between the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. We see the link between Christ and the temple in other scriptures. For instance, Daniel 9:26 speaks of the Messiah being cut off, and then the city and sanctuary being destroyed. Jacob prophesied of the time when the sons of Levi, the priestly tribe, would, in their anger, slay a man, and in their self-will they would dig down a wall, Genesis 49:5-7. The man is Christ, the wall is the wall of Jerusalem. The parable of the marriage of the king’s son involves the city of those who killed the messengers being destroyed, Matthew 22:1-7. There is a connection therefore between the destiny of the temple, and that of His body. Both will be destroyed, but both will rise again. In the case of Christ’s body the destruction would mean the separation of His body, soul and spirit in death, and significantly, when that happened the veil of the temple was rent, for the destruction of the temple of His body had begun! And by rending the veil God was signalling the fall of Jerusalem in due time. But it is said of Messiah that “he shall build the temple of the Lord”, Zechariah 6:12-14, so there shall be a temple in Jerusalem again during the kingdom of Christ.

2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

And they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said- after the Lord had risen, and especially after they received the Spirit of God at Pentecost, they were not only able to understand what He had said to them when with them, but were also able to relate the events of His life to the Old Testament, (“the scripture”), and to do so in such a way as to recognise that His word and the Old Testament are of equal authority. In both John 17:12 and 20:9 there is reference to “scripture” in the singular, where there has not been a quotation of a particular verse, but a reference to a well-known one. So we may understand the word scripture here as referring to the prime passage that speaks of the resurrection of Christ, namely Psalm 16:10,11. The apostle Peter appealed to this passage in Acts 2:24-28 when he was announcing the resurrection of Christ. The apostle Paul does the same in Acts 13:34-37.

2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did- taking the foregoing facts together, we see that the time of passover was one when expectations were raised considerably. When one came who seemed to have authority, even in the temple courts, and, moreover, was able to work miracles, the people began to wonder whether the Messiah was in their midst. Of course, the miracles the Lord Jesus did were indications that He was the prophesied Messiah, as a reading of Isaiah 35:5,6 will show. But it is not miracles alone that present this proof, but miracles accompanied by doctrine. And it is the doctrine that went alongside the miracles, and was demonstrated by the miracles, that the natural heart of man was not willing to accept.

2:24
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

2:25
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Then there is insincere faith, when a person makes a profession of faith for the sake of some advantage which he believes he may gain from it, such as to please Christian parents or friends.

Special note on the three prepositions used in relation to faith in Christ:

There is the preposition “epi”, which has to do with resting on an object. In relation to faith in Christ, this indicates that Christ is the one on whom faith rests, so Christ is his foundation. This preposition is used in the Acts and the Epistles, but not in the Gospels. It is used after Christ died, rose again, and returned to heaven. Christ is rested on as one proved to be a stable foundation.

The following are the scriptures that use “epi”, meaning “upon”:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17.

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31.

“And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed”, Romans 9:33.

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 10:11.

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6.

Note that three of these verses quote from Isaiah 28:16.

There is the preposition “en”, which has to do with being in a place or position within an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person is fully surrounded by Christ, so Christ is his security. Such an one believes from within this secure place. This preposition is used seven times, but only in the Epistles, after the work and person of Christ has been fully manifested, and the secure position of the believer is set forth.