 
# DID YOU KNOW THIS?! Volume 2

28 words and phrases impacting our understanding of the Scriptures

by

Dr. O. William Cooper

Published by Logos Ministries Inc at Smashwords

Copyright, 1991 - 2011 Logos Ministries, Inc.

eBook Version 20110108

# LICENSE AND COPYRIGHTS

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Scriptures quoted, unless otherwise noted, are from "THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers."

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

License and Copyrights

Table of Contents

In Dedication

Introduction

STOLEN TERAPHIM

DAUGHTERS

FORGIVENESS

THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

THE OTHER SIDE

THE SECOND MILE

LIGHT UNDER A BUSHEL

THIS CUP

THE WINE

WASHING FEET

THE CITY OF DAVID

AS I WALKED ALONG

AN ISSUE OF BLOOD

THE VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS

WALK THROUGH THE LAND

PRUNING MEANS LIFTING

BALDNESS BETWEEN THE EYES

CAST THE FIRST STONE

LOWERING FOOD IN A SHEET

JOHN'S CLOTHING AND FOOD

GO IN AND OUT

THE LAMB

JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER

PETER ON THE HOUSETOP

THIEVES IN SCRIBE'S CLOTHING

THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER

A COVENANT OF SALT

WHERE ARE MY SHOES?

Conclusion

About the Author

Endnotes

# IN DEDICATION

To my wife, Ruth, who during the 38 years of our courtship and marriage gave me the freedom to minister, study and write; who saw herself as sharing in ministry with me; who never once during that time ever offered a word of complaint or regret:

To my children, Ruth and Kiel, who accepted the ministry as "ours" when at times it would have been much more fun doing other things:

With deep gratitude, I humbly dedicate this book.

O. William Cooper

# INTRODUCTION

Good writing reflects the culture and ideas of the time in which it was written. The Bible was written in such a way that the culture and the values of that day are reflected appropriately. By this means it is often possible to determine a document's date of authorship. For example, when the writer of Genesis spoke of the well on the road to Egypt, this was a reference to something that everyone in that area recognized. However, we, as modern readers unfamiliar with the terminology and idioms of the times, can only know about these things as we attempt to rediscover the history and customs of that day.

If the term "cold war" were used in an undated, English-language document, we would know that it was written after World War II because we were not aware of the term until then. If an article written in English contained the word "perestroika," we could be quite certain that it was written after 1988. Most had never heard of this Russian word before Mikhail Gorbachev used it to describe the changes he wanted to effect in the Soviet Union.

A sentence may also express some very strong emotional content which the words themselves are unable to convey. For example, the word "depression" spoken to a person born around 1930 would probably cause him to think of bread lines, bank foreclosures, moving in with relatives and being out of work. On the other hand, if born after 1960, that person's first thought might be of a dejected emotional state. Cultural references are a vital part of communication.

We believe that the Bible, according to II Timothy 3:16, is the inspired Word of God. Hebrews 1:1 affirms that God has spoken when it says,

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets... Hebrews 1:1a

The prophets were vessels through whom God revealed Himself to His people. Though it was a voice that we could not identify as tenor or bass, the words of the prophet were a message from God. It was through Isaiah that God spoke to His people Israel about forgiveness, speaking to them through both the words and the personality of the prophet.

"Come now, let us reason together, " says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." Isaiah 1:18

As the epistle to the Hebrews reminds us, God spoke most clearly through His son, Jesus Christ, telling us that He is Love. This idea was expressed by letting us see God's love in the person and life of Jesus Christ, and by a host of illustrations and cultural details which allude to the Father's loving nature. God's people are reminded that He is both loving and just. By allowing them to witness Jesus forgiving the woman taken in adultery, God illustrated His love. He spoke of His justice by letting the Jewish leaders watch Jesus drive the money-changers out of the temple. Therefore, the clearest revelation of the personality and character of God can be seen in the person and life of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Throughout the ages God has spoken through the personalities of men like Abraham, Moses and Joshua, some of His most dedicated servants. The faithfulness of God to His people Israel was illustrated through the experiences which Abraham had with Jehovah; it was through the personality and experience of Moses that God displayed His concern for purity and obedience. Through the leadership of Joshua and the ways in which God dealt with him, the greatness of His power was proclaimed.

God also revealed the inner depths of His own personality and character through the personality and writings of some of His chosen servants. It is no accident that the writings of the Apostle Peter were crisp and fast paced, because that was who Peter was. Yet through that kind of impulsive personality, God was able to reveal some of the most intricate and delicate truths about His own nature.

On the other hand, the Apostle Paul was sharp, concise, logical. You can see this trait of his personality on every page of the epistle to the Romans. Still God was able to take this very logical personality and through it express something of the deep emotion and compassion which is found in the Epistle to the Philippians.

The writings of Luke -- both the Gospel and the Book of Acts -- are filled with pieces of detailed human data characteristic of the physician he was. Nevertheless, God was able to use the meticulous personality of Luke to convey some of the most emotional, human portraits of Jesus to be found in any Gospel.

The nature and human temperament of the writer is distinctive and identifiable; God used them to provide us with delicate, incisive pictures of His own character and personality.

He even used human languages to give us further insight. The romantic, emotional nature of the Hebrew language was an excellent vehicle through which God could reveal something of the intense passion He held for Israel, as well as the burning justice with which He confronted His erring people. It was not accidental that He spoke of these glimpses of Himself through the Hebrew language.

On the other hand, when He wanted to speak in precise, less emotional, almost scientific terms, God chose to use the Greek and Aramaic. The crispness of their expression and incisive precision of their word choices reveal the delicate detail of the doctrine and mode of living that Christians must observe to be a follower of Jesus.

The Greek New Testament is an illustration of this. It uses thirty-seven different words to convey various shades of a word which, in the English versions, is simply translated as "bring." By choosing the Greek and Aramaic languages, God opened a whole palette of specific meanings which would have been extremely limited had He chosen to reveal Himself in the English language. The choice of languages and specific words enabled God to impart a clearer revelation of Himself to the people who love Him.

The people to whom Paul wrote knew him and the cultural background in which his thinking was formulated; thus they were able to grasp cultural references which now elude the casual reader who is not familiar with the Apostle and his culture.

In picking up a Bible, we often encounter words and ideas which do not become clear even with accurate translation. Because we do not know the language in which Paul wrote and are not familiar with the cultural details of that time and locale, we need help in understanding these portions of Scripture. Finding the most accurate translation possible still does not tell us what the text means when speaking about such things as "shaving the front of your head for the dead," as mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:1, 2.

On one occasion Jesus talked about His presence and said, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20). Why, you might wonder, did He choose the numbers "two" or "three?" To what was Jesus referring in this statement? An awareness of Hebrew religious customs and regulations would give insights into this question.

Modern Bible readers tend to gloss over any word or concept which is not a part of their understanding. This results in the fact that many passages are either misunderstood or simply ignored. It happens because the reader lacks an understanding of the cultural meaning and does not know how to find that meaning.

Over the years, people have repeatedly asked questions about some of these terms and ideas which seem to have no meaning for us today. Still others either do not read such passages or believe things that are not true about these Scriptural statements.

As a result of this confusion and the need for understanding, a collection of these words and ideas has been compiled. The intention is to develop an understanding of the words or statements involved. Our hope is that this information will enable the reader to understand portions of the Scriptures more completely and therefore discern God's will more fully.

We are always indebted to those who have taught us either in the classroom or through the things they taught or wrote. We can remember some of these, but never all of them. Many of the ideas in this book were discovered in classrooms, books and trips to the Holy Land. Though I do not remember the names of the works I read or the authors to whom I listened, I gladly acknowledge that I am the beneficiary of the skill and accumulated wisdom of hosts of scholars who preceded me.

Several people have helped with the preparation of this volume. Proof reading was painstakingly pursued by Ms. Marilyn Burns, Ms. Sharon Spicka, and Mr. David Arnes. I am deeply indebted to them. Mr. Tom Houston designed the cover and Dr. Peter Stone assisted with computer design and graphics. Without their help this task would have been much more difficult to complete.

Dr. James Fleming, of Biblical Resources in Jerusalem, has had a major impact on my understanding. I am deeply indebted to him for his great skills.

The bold print in quotations from Scripture was placed there by this author for purposes of emphasis. This is to enable persons to pronounce the words though they do not know the language.

# STOLEN TERAPHIM

Now you have gone off because you longed to return to your father's house. But why did you steal my gods? Genesis 31:30

There are several issues in the story of Jacob and Laban which have escaped the notice of many readers. One of these has to do with the teraphim stolen by Rachel from her father Laban.

A teraph was a household idol. These idols were small enough to be successfully hidden under a camel's saddle. (The exact use of these idols is an object of some controversy, but we know that in some way these idols were used in divination.)

There are at least two schools of thought involved here. One group of scholars holds that the teraphim were merely household gods and the reason for Laban's anxiety upon finding them missing was that he was afraid of the wrath of his household deity for allowing the images to be stolen.

Another group of scholars holds that Laban had no son, when Jacob came seeking a wife, he was therefore treated as an adopted son. These scholars believe that in later years, Laban did have a son and thus no longer needed or desired Jacob as his heir. In some segments of that culture, the possession of the family idols was a symbol of the designated heir. In such a situation, by taking the teraphim -- the symbol of the heir of the family \--Rachel would have been attempting to **preserve her husband's claim** on the inheritance, which she felt was rightfully his.

Whichever the case, the teraphim were of great significance to everyone in this story. Laban considered them so important that he chased Jacob for three days, risking a violent confrontation in order to regain his idols. Rachel was willing to steal from her own father in order to secure her husband's claim on the inheritance.

No one can say with absolute confidence which of these positions is correct. However, to me it appears that the possession of these images did in fact identify the family heir. Though Rachel may have been seizing these household gods to worship in her new homeland, apparently she was also attempting to secure proof that her husband was Laban's rightful heir; for without the idols they could inherit nothing.

We must acknowledge that the Scriptures do not tell us what happened to the estate of Laban. The information given does not support the idea that Jacob received anything; nor does it support the idea that Laban's inheritance was later given to a son. Only one thing is certain: because of Rachel's theft of the teraphim, the symbol of inheritance belonged to Jacob.

# DAUGHTERS

Sing, O Daughter of Zion; shout aloud, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! Zephaniah 3:14

Because the word "daughter" is used frequently in the Psalms and other poetic portions of Scripture, we tend to interpret it literally more often than was intended.

In Scripture the word "daughter" is used in at least two ways:

1. To identify a female child.

2. To identify the small, unprotected clusters of dwellings which surrounded walled cities.

Bethlehem, Bethphage and Bethany were "daughters of Jerusalem." It is as though the great city had several off-spring.

In the Old Testament there are several references to "daughters" of cities:

1. Daughter of Gallim (Isaiah 10:30)

2. Daughter of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:22)

3. Daughter of Egypt (Jeremiah 46:11)

4. Daughter of Edom (Lamentation 4:21)

In the book of Judges the author said,

But Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Iblean or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements. Judges 1:27

A more precise translation of the Hebrew text might be,

...of Bethshean, and its daughters, of Taanach and its daughters, the dwellers of Dor and its daughters,Iblean and its daughters, Megiddo and its daughters... Judges 1:27

The Sons of Korah referred to the "daughter of Tyre" in Psalms 45:12. Tyre, like many walled cities, was surrounded by small settlements -- clusters of dwellings -- that were outside the protection of the city wall. The people who lived in these unprotected settlements were the source of food and wares for those in the city. Often these items were provided at low cost or given as gifts in an attempt to curry the favor of those who, they hoped, would share their safety in time of need. These settlements were called "daughters."

What actually happened was quite different. The generosity of the poor people outside the walls was accepted; however, when trouble came, the city gates were locked and those who inhabited the "daughters" had to either flee or be plundered by the attacking army who would take them as captives to become slaves.

# FORGIVENESS

Jesus said to them, 'Come and have breakfast.' None of the disciples dared ask him 'Who are you?' They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. John 21:12-14

You will recognize these verses as an encounter between Jesus and His disciples, after the resurrection and after the disciples had been fishing all night. To some it may appear that Jesus was simply being cordial by providing His disciples something warm to eat after a cold night on the Sea of Galilee; but it is far more than that.

Remember that the disciples must have been more than a bit uncomfortable in Jesus' presence since the resurrection. They had denied knowing Jesus and had not been immediately present at the crucifixion, viewing the experience from a great distance. The Gospels tell us that though the disciples vowed not to forsake Jesus, that promise was broken.

But now the resurrected Jesus stood before them, and they had to deal with their unfaithfulness. To characterize their feelings as uncomfortable would be mild; deeply guilty is perhaps more realistic.

Jesus, the master teacher, was about to give His followers another lesson. The ways in which Jesus taught His disciples were numerous, emphasizing His verbal instructions by His actions and stressing His verbal teachings and actions through example. On top of all this, Jesus often used symbols. The Jewish symbols of forgiveness are a case in point.

Among the Jews there were at least three and perhaps four graphic ways to express forgiveness:

1. The kiss -- In the parable of the prodigal son, some say the father's kiss was his cultural symbol of forgiveness.

2. Giving a person salt to be eaten with you was symbolic of reconciliation.

3. Bringing the person into one's home was an extension of the hand of forgiveness.

4. Finally, eating with the guilty party vividly displayed a forgiving act.

Jesus and eleven uncomfortable, very guilty disciples sat in the sand around the fire preparing to eat a meal. Though it was time to eat, I suspect that the purpose of the meal was not to satisfy hunger, but to deal with their guilt.

There are several Scriptural examples of this act of forgiveness. Jacob with his family and flocks had stolen away from Laban, his father-in-law. Chasing Jacob for three days, Laban not only demanded that his idols be returned, but he insisted that he and Jacob have a meal together. The relationship between them had never been the best, and it certainly wasn't a "Thanksgiving sized" meal with his daughter and grand-children that Laban was desiring. Rather, he could not allow Jacob to go away angry. If he did, Laban would always be afraid that Jacob would return with armed men to fight against him and destroy all that he had. To prevent this, Laban insisted that they eat the meal of forgiveness together.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the father instructed his servants to prepare a feast. Certainly there was joy that his son had returned, but the driving force behind this command to prepare a feast was to let the wandering son and the whole community know, in very graphic terms, that he was forgiven. On the other hand, the older son's refusal to attend the banquet was an explicit display of his unforgiveness. It was his graphic way of saying to his father, "You may forgive your son, but that does not mean that I forgive him."

Passing through Jericho, Jesus called to Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector:

Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today. Luke 19:5

Jesus did something that normally would never have been done in that culture; He invited Himself to be a guest in the home of a tax collector. No one in the community would have entered a tax collector's home under any circumstances because they were considered traitors. To enter that home would make a person unclean in the community and bar him from being a witness in court for the rest of his life. But it was not Zacchaeus who had put Jesus in an awkward position by extending an invitation which Jesus could not politely turn down. By becoming this man's guest, Jesus was offering him two specific forms of forgiveness -- entering his house and eating a meal with him. Jesus initiated the situation by requesting the opportunity to be the guest of Zacchaeus. These symbols were not wasted on the people of Jericho. In seeing this, they immediately began to murmur about the fact that Jesus had become the guest of a sinner.

Showing forgiveness by eating with the guilty party was an ancient Jewish custom. If you again read the story in Genesis (chap. 45), you will note that it was neither in the court nor in the street that Joseph revealed himself to his brothers. He invited his brothers to eat in his house. It was when they were eating a festive meal with him in his home that he said:

...I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here. Genesis 45:5

If Joseph's brothers had not been so frightened, they would have remembered that he had just extended two forms of cultural forgiveness to them -- a meal at his table, in his house. These were two of the strongest expressions of forgiveness among their people.

Joseph spent some time reassuring them that he was, in fact, their lost brother and that he wanted them to bring their father to him. Notice what else took place.

Then he threw his arms around his brother Benjamin and wept, and Benjamin embraced him, weeping, and he kissed all his brothers and wept over them. Afterward his brothers talked with him. Genesis 45:14, 15

It was only after Joseph had given them the third expression of forgiveness - the kiss - that they were able to talk with him. His brothers were beginning to believe that they were really forgiven.

As a Jew, David was also aware of this symbol of forgiveness when he wrote,

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. Psalm 23:5

It was not that God would feed David on the battlefield, but that David experienced the forgiveness of God when everyone else around him was angry and unforgiving.

Do you remember, in the book of Revelation, the words Jesus spoke to the church at Laodicea, a church that was reprimanded for its lack of commitment?

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

Is it possible that what Jesus was referring to was the symbol of forgiveness--eating together in the home--which was universally understood by the Jews? That's my belief, and the people clearly understood it.

There are many more examples of this to be found in Scripture. In every instance forgiveness is the issue at hand. The Gospel message is brilliantly clear and oft repeated: no matter how guilty we are or what our station in life may be, the forgiveness of God is always available.

# THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

The Apostle John, in his Gospel record, includes a number of dramatic pictures of Jesus. One of these he described in this quotation from Jesus:

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. John 8:12

In reading this verse, many see "I am the light of the world" as something of a title for Jesus. It would be an appropriate title for Him, but that is not what Jesus had in mind when He said it.

Jesus made this statement at a specific time and place. If you look at the context, you will find a hint concerning this time and place in the preceding chapter:

But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, 'You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do...'. John 7:2, 3

In the text which follows, we find Jesus waiting until others had gone and then He went up to Jerusalem. He made the "light of the world" statement during the Feast of Tabernacles.

The Feast of Tabernacles is now called "Succoth," which means "hut." It is also called the Feast of Booths or the Festival of Ingathering. It is one of three festivals where the Jews were to participate in the temple at Jerusalem. It is to remind Israel that when they came out of Egypt, God took care of them as they lived in tents and provided for all their needs.

In Jesus' time, on the last day of the feast, a giant menorah or seven branched candlestick was erected on the roof of the temple which was the highest point in the city. Remember that in the time of Jesus there were no street lights in the city. That night the menorah was lighted, and it was so large and the light from it was so bright that it lit up every street and alleyway in the whole city of Jerusalem! Every Jew in the city knew about this display of light from the temple roof, and they looked forward to seeing this great spectacle each year. It was against this background, and on that very day, that Jesus made the very meaningful statement, "I am the light of the world." To the discerning ear, Jesus was talking about something more important and exciting than a bright light in the evening sky in Jerusalem. Jesus was talking about His deity.

Light, at night, had great meaning to the Jews. During the time of the Exodus, God led His people with a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. It was a symbol of God's presence and guidance to the people who had just been released from the drudgery of slavery. In the same vein, when the tabernacle was built, the presence of God was identified by the Shekinah Glory. This brilliant symbol was an indication of the Divine presence both in the tabernacle and on the road as they travelled. By the same token, Jesus was identifying Himself with that same presence of God. He was God, and would not only illuminate the streets of Jerusalem, or the Temple, but the whole world!

# THE OTHER SIDE

They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. Mark 5:1

In some translations the text reads, "And when they came to the other side of the sea..." There is good reason to believe that prior to their discipleship with Jesus, most of the disciples had never been in a Gentile village or city at all. Most of the Jews were frankly frightened of the Gentiles and would do almost anything to avoid their presence; they would certainly not enter their villages.

At the time of Jesus, when the Jews had to go from Judea in the south to Galilee in the north, they would have to go through Samaria. In order to avoid coming in contact with the Samaritans, they would go miles out of their way. They would cross over to the east side of the Jordan as soon after they passed Jericho as possible and travel north. Then, when they returned, they would again cross the Jordan River near its source at the south end of the Sea of Galilee and go east of the Jordan until they were near Judea again.

Whenever a Jew went to "the other side" he was entering a totally Gentile culture. On the east side of the Sea of Galilee was the Decapolis. The meaning of this compound Greek word is:

Deca - ten

Polis - cities

It was an area composed of ten Gentile cities. The names of these cities were:

1. Dion

2. Philadelphia

3. Damascus

4. Canatha

5. Gadara

6. Abila

7. Pella

8. Raphana

9. Gerasa

10. Scythopolis

Only Scythopolis was on the west side of the Jordan. The other nine were on "the other side." Gerasa is the totally excavated city, now called Jerash, which is not far from the city of Philadelphia, now known as Amman, Jordan.

These ten cities were built by the Romans and were almost totally inhabited by Gentiles. At an intersection of two streets in these cities would be an altar to at least two gods. There would be shrines to their many gods in the middle of a city block. Almost everything in the city had some idolatrous significance. The buildings would be dedicated to one deity or another. The entire city would be dedicated to Caesar, considered a deity in his own right. As one walked along the city streets there would be little alcoves carved into the stonework which lined the street. In each of these alcoves an idol would be placed for the worship of the people. Paul remarked upon these alcoves in Acts 17:23 when he told the men on Mars Hill that he considered them very religious, because as he passed along the street he encountered an altar to the unknown god in one of these alcoves. To be sure, this was said more than a little bit in jest.

This kind of pervasive idolatrous emphasis would have been a source of great discomfort to these Jews if not a source of outright fear and outrage.

Add to this the fact that the city would have a gymnasium. This place was forbidden to the Jew. Most of the athletic contests here were performed in the nude, as were the Olympic races. It is not surprising that these gymnasiums became centers of homosexual activity for the community.

There was also the problem of associating with non-Jews, for most of the merchants would be Gentiles, and there would be no place to get kosher food. The food and merchandise available in the Decapolis would be made or grown by Gentiles, for the most part. Being there, touching anything in these areas or eating their food would render the disciples unclean for a length of time.

The problem of becoming unclean by touching a Gentile or something that he has touched is a problem for some Jewish shopkeepers even today. I have gone into a Jewish store and when I went to pay for my purchases, the owner would reach out for the money only to let it drop on the counter before picking it up. The money was then placed in a different cash drawer than the money from the Jewish customer who was waited on just ahead of me.

A similar custom prevailed in Jesus' time. The Samaritan shopkeepers would not accept coins from the hand of a Jew. The money was first dropped into a bucket of water to wash it and then they would touch it. This is just the reverse of the Jewish practice. It was done for precisely the same reason.

The disciples were accustomed to bringing their own food when going to "the other side." In Mark you will find these words,

The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. Mark 8:14

Jewish and Gentile feelings of exclusiveness usually ran high. It was not uncommon, when a Jew did chance to walk through a Samaritan village, that someone would walk through town behind him and drop straw on his footprints. This straw would then be burned.

Apart from the fact that "the other side" held only distaste for the disciples, there was another problem, that of traveling on water. This was particularly true on the Sea of Galilee where a beautiful day on the Sea would turn into a violent storm in no time at all. These perilous weather changes only made them just that much more uncomfortable to go to "the other side."

The disciples would not go "to the other side" of their own choosing, I'm sure, and they must have wondered why Jesus would ever consider going there. But they went because He suggested it, and He was their Rabbi, their teacher, and they followed Him.

# THE SECOND MILE

If someone wants you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:41

Matthew is the only Gospel writer to include these unusual instructions of Jesus to His followers.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus described what the kingdom of God would be like. In this particular paragraph, He was describing how the child of God responds to the very human notions of retaliation and revenge. In that part of the world, the understanding was "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It was revenge in kind.

In Matthew, chapter five, Jesus is showing how He came to fulfill the Law. Notice that each paragraph begins, "You have heard that...but I say unto you." In Matthew 5:39-41, Jesus is giving the Christian alternative to the law of revenge, the "eye for an eye" rule. If they strike you, then turn the other cheek. If they sue you, then give them your cloak. This was an important inclusion because the law forbade taking both the tunic and the cloak. It would render the borrower defenseless against the intense cold they experienced at night. Jesus gave still another illustration, saying that if they demand that you go one mile, volunteer to go two.

When a Roman army conquered a nation, they used as much indigenous labor as they could. This was an economic necessity because of the extremely high cost of maintaining an army of occupation so far from the land of origin. In order to make this as fair as possible, the Roman authorities passed a law which permitted a Roman soldier to compel any man of a conquered people to carry his armor for the distance of one mile. At that point the conquered man was free to lay it down and go on his way. You may remember the story of Jesus' crucifixion. In Matthew 27:32, the writer tells how the Roman soldier coerced Simon of Cyrene into carrying the cross of Jesus because the Master was unable to carry it any longer.

Jewish men were incensed by this Roman law. They thought of it as degrading and as an affront to God because the Roman emperor was considered as a deity and to serve his people was understood to be a service to an idol - a blasphemy among the Jewish people. The Jews did everything possible to avoid such service. When outright refusal to obey this law was their only escape, these men were often punished and in some instances killed.

As Jesus teaches, it is clear that He is talking about a response to one's enemies. He taught that they should love their enemies. If someone were to take their tunic, they were to offer their cloak also. If someone were to strike them on one cheek, they were to offer the other also.

In this instance, Jesus had a specific suggestion about how to love an enemy. When they force you to carry their armor for one mile because the law requires you to do it, volunteer to carry their armor a second mile because your love for them demands it.

This change is part of Jesus' response to the law of revenge. He was simply saying that revenge would not work, and that if you want to bring about change, return kindness and assistance for abuse. Each of the three illustrations Jesus suggested carries this same message.

The idea of doing good for people who take advantage of you would have been a mockery to the Romans, and it would be no less ridiculous to the Jews. Nevertheless, it is what Jesus taught and lived day by day.

I can imagine that the multitudes who heard Him gasped at His words. It might not have been what patriotic Jews wanted to hear, but Jesus was clearly announcing the way a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven would treat an enemy.

# LIGHT UNDER A BUSHEL

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. Matthew 5:14, 15

This parable is recorded in each of the Synoptic Gospels -- Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is not recorded in John.

Every person who listened, as Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, understood exactly what Jesus said. Unfortunately, Jesus used illustrations which are not native to our culture and so we tend to assume that we understand the parable He taught, but we often do not really understand.

Jesus was teaching Scriptural truths by means of a parable. It is a teaching tool which is still the basic method used by many rabbis of the Conservative or Hassidic groups which represent an even stricter orientation today.

The basic truth Jesus was teaching was simple, yet profound. He said,

You are the light of the world. Matthew 5:14a

Each statement in the above parable is included specifically to add one or more facets of understanding to this basic truth. Jesus proceeds to give a series of illustrations whose purpose is twofold:

1. Jesus used three illustrations. He did not specifically say so, but it was the custom to use two or three pieces of evidence to prove a point. On one occasion, Jesus was teaching and said:

But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' Matthew 18:16

Jesus did not say this because He just thought it would be a good idea. He knew, as His Jewish hearers knew, that the Old Testament clearly speaks to the issue in these words:

One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of a crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. Deuteronomy 19:15

2. Each illustration adds specific information which was vital to what Jesus was teaching. In Matthew's account, Jesus said that He was using a ridiculous illustration. People would not place a lamp under a bowl in order to get light.

The first illustration is a simple statement of fact that anyone would know and understand. The main source of light in their homes was an oil lamp. They did not have matches, so they needed a way to preserve their flame. When the lamp was being used to provide light it was placed on a lamp stand or a shelf high on the wall. When they just wanted to preserve the flame, it was placed in a large inverted clay pot. This vessel had two small holes to allow air to enter and exit the container. This would give off almost no light, but it preserved the flame while using a minimum of oil.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was teaching about the nature of the Kingdom of God. He said that one characteristic of the people in that Kingdom was that they were the light of the world. Just as a person would not try to get light into their house by placing the lamp in a clay pot designed to preserve the flame, but give no light, so the member of the Kingdom of God would be preoccupied with giving away that light rather than focusing all their energies on preserving the flame.

The second illustration Jesus used is quite interesting. In Mark's account, Jesus said:

Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? Mark 4:21

The word translated "bed" is "klinaen." This word is used to describe both the regular sleeping mat, which most people used, as well as the bed, which only the rich and elite could afford. In this instance, it appears that Mark is referring to a bed of our understanding, because it is impossible to place a lamp beneath a bed roll and not have it catch fire.

This is especially intriguing because Jesus was talking to a large group of people who did not have a bed and had probably never slept in one.

The homes in much of the Near East, even today, do not have beds. In several Arab countries, you will find a beautiful home with every modern convenience. Right beside it, or in the front yard, will be a Bedouin tent. You can be sure that at least the elder parents of these families sleep in the tent, by choice, because the sleeping mat is more comfortable for them than the modern bed.

Although the people to whom Jesus was preaching had never slept in a bed, they knew about them. There were beds in Egypt at least 2000 years before Christ. A bed for these people would be like a Rolls Royce for us. I have seen a large number of Rolls Royce automobiles. I have not, however, ridden in one much less owned one. This does not prevent me from knowing about them.

If you put a lamp under a bed, the only benefit that could be realized from it would be that it would provide a little warmth for those in the bed. That however, is not the purpose of the lamp. Jesus talked about this as something no one would do. The people who heard Him may even have laughed when Jesus said it. Remember, Jesus was talking about the nature of the Kingdom of God. The purpose of the Kingdom of God was not to make the citizens more comfortable. Their purpose was to share the wonderful gift they had all received. The purpose of light is to shine on everyone. The purpose of the Kingdom of God is to share the blessings of its citizenship with all who will receive it.

In Matthew's account, Jesus also talks about a city set on a hill:

You are the light of the world. 'A city on a hill cannot be hidden.' Matthew 5:15

You may remember that the Sermon on the Mount took place on a hillside south of Capernaum along the Sea of Galilee. From the very spot where they were sitting, they could see a large city on top of a hill on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. They all knew that at night you could see this city very clearly from miles away. They also knew that they could look to the northwest, from their homes in Capernaum, and see the city of Nazareth sitting on a hill several miles away.

Again, Jesus is dealing with the purpose of light. Lamps were not intended to just bring comfort for a person, but to bring light to all in the house. In the same way, the members of the Kingdom of God were light, intended to be shared with every person who wanted to know about Jesus.

As previously indicated, there are three very well-known illustrations in this parable which support one basic truth -- the citizens of the Kingdom of God are the Light of the World. In supporting this truth, these illustrations add three distinct messages:

1. The light under a bushel - Light is not to be kept for yourself, but shared with others.

2. The light under a bed - Light is not to be kept for one's own comfort, but to be given away to help others.

3. City on a hill - As you bring light into your life, it will also be a light to others or it is wasted.

Jesus confirmed and repeated the Old Testament teaching that the Jews were the Light of the World in order to share the knowledge of God with the Gentiles, not to lord it over them. This was an important message in the time of Christ, because there were strong religious Jews who held this view and lorded it over the Gentiles and others who did not agree with them. The story of the Pharisee and the Publican is a case in point.

We should keep in mind that this parable is a part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel. Immediately following this parable there is a description of the ways in which Jesus came to fulfill the Law. This is part and parcel of what Jesus meant when he said that the citizens of the Kingdom of God are the Light of the World.

The message that Jesus taught is as appropriate today as it has ever been. Our standing in Christ can never appropriately be a source of pride or superiority. Light is given to the citizens of the Kingdom in order to share it with others. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Matthew 5:14

The fact that we are citizens of the Kingdom is a source of gratitude, not pride. We are called to be reflectors of that light. Were it not for the grace and mercy of God we would be the ones in need of the light, not the bearers of it. This great truth is graphically pressed home to us, as it was to the Pharisees, by the parable of the lamp in each of the three illustrations.

# THIS CUP

Going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 'Abba, Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.' Mark 14:35, 36

The story of Jesus' agonizing prayer in Gethsemane is so well known that we do not stop to ask questions about it. Questions like: Did Jesus have a cup in His hand when He prayed? If so, what kind of vessel was it? What did Jesus mean by this request? Sermons and studies, in our time, assume that we understand what He meant. That assumption may or may not be true.

We have no reason to believe that Jesus brought a cup or chalice with Him to Gethsemane. It seems clear that He was using symbolic language; a word picture which made His feelings quite vivid.

In the Kidron Valley, on the southeast side of Jerusalem, in the vicinity of the Garden of Gethsemane, is a church called the "Dominus Flevit Church." Translated into English, "Dominus Flevit" simply means "the Lord or ruler wept." This church is architecturally exciting.

In this picture you can see that the roof of the church is shaped like a teardrop. Notice also, on top of each of the four corners of the church is a gracefully designed vessel. This is an enlarged tearcup.

The picture which follows gives you a close-up view of such a tear cup.

Notice that the cup is three inches tall. A whole array of these tear cups can be seen in Jerusalem museums. Jewish people usually thought of their tears as having personality and character. They had a cup of tears for joy and one for tears of sorrow. They preserved these tears and in so doing preserved the memory of the joyful and sorrowful experiences the tears represented. You may remember an experience of Jesus in Luke 7:44. Jesus had been invited to the home of a Pharisee for dinner. The Pharisee did not even extend the minimal gesture of hospitality to Jesus, that of washing His feet. "A woman who had lived a sinful life" came and stood behind Jesus and wept. When Jesus was chided by the Pharisee because He allowed this sinful woman to touch Him, Jesus responded.

Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Luke 7:44

The context makes it clear that this sinful woman was behind Jesus as He reclined at the table. Her tears may have been dropping on Jesus' feet. It is also highly possible that she poured the contents of her cup of sorrow on His feet. This would fit the Jewish understanding very well.

The Greek word translated "cup" is "potaerion", and usually identifies a drinking vessel. It is the only word used for "cup" in the New Testament. In six places, however, it is used in a symbolic sense:

"Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" John. 18:11

In this instance, the word is used to describe the sorrowful task God the Father had given Jesus to perform. It is a direct reference to what Jesus was praying about in Luke 22.

Father if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. Luke 22:42

Paul also used the word in a symbolic sense:

You can not drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; You can not have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. I Corinthians 10:21

In this verse, Paul uses the word to describe the area of one's commitment. Paul states the principle in two ways, using two different pictures.

You can not drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too;...

To drink from another's cup was to celebrate oneness, affirmation and harmony with that person. This was part of the Pharisee's distress that Jesus would eat with the likes of Zacchaeus and Levi. This was a symbolic use of the word "cup."

You can not have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

The second statement of the principle presents a slightly different focus. Paul uses "the Lord's table" to identify the New Covenant, to what we refer as communion. Paul is saying that one cannot enter into the New Covenant with Jesus Christ and at the same time make a commitment to demons.

As you look at the Scriptural use of the word "cup," you get an idea of how the Jewish people thought about it. In Psalm 23, David described the bounty which God provided for him when he said,

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Psalm 23:5

Life that is blessed and abundant was spoken of as a cup that overflows. A "cup" is a way of describing the conditions of life. An overflowing cup is one that is bountiful.

On the other hand, there is another kind of cup. In the Old Testament, Isaiah speaks of this cup:

Arise, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger. Isaiah 51:17

It is another word picture. God pours out His wrath as a person would pour water from a goblet. Whenever there is judgment, the Jews described this as "the cup of God's wrath."

The apostle John used the same image in the book of the Revelation:

He, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. Revelation 14:10

Jesus calls the experience of judgment "the cup of his wrath." It, again, is a picturesque way of describing experiences of joy and bitterness, like the experience of drinking the full contents of a cup.

In Psalm 116, David is drawing a picture of what happens when the salvation of God is vividly experienced in the lives of His people. David said,

How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. Psalm 116:12, 13

Telling of how God delivered Israel and himself out of affliction and saved them from sorrow and the grave, David goes on to speak of their experiences as "the cup of salvation."

The mother of James and John asked Jesus for the privilege of having her two sons sit at Jesus' left and right hand in His kingdom. Jesus tried to explain to her that this was not just a matter of privilege, but involved the endurance of great hardship. He referred to the dire experiences that lay ahead of Him by asking her:

'You don't know what you are asking,' Jesus said to them, 'Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?' Matthew 20:22

Jesus was saying that they would have to endure the kinds of abuse, physical pain, misunderstanding, false accusation and rejection that He experienced.

Again the Apostle Paul spoke of the Lord's Supper in these terms:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? I Corinthians 10:16

Paul spoke of receiving and drinking the cup in the Lord's Supper as the "cup of thanksgiving." It is a reference to their Passover celebration. It is also a picture of a great blessing portrayed as a cup of blessing which one receives as one would receive a cup of cold water.

Jesus prayed in Mark 14 concerning the bitter experience of dying on the cross. He described this, in good Jewish terms, as a cup of sorrow which He must drain to the bottom. Mark gives us, here, a glimpse of the very human nature of Jesus. He was as apprehensive about physical pain as anyone else would be. Jesus was reluctant to face rejection and mockery as any other human being. In His prayer, Jesus dealt honestly with the Father. At the same time, Jesus was just as anxious to escape the ultimate pain of crucifixion. Out of the depths of His humanity Jesus cried, "Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

When Jesus left His disciples and went a little distance and fell upon His knees, He prayed,

Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me... Luke 22:42a

It is certain Jesus did not have a drinking vessel in His hand. It is reasonable to believe that Jesus was praying about the repulsive experience of shouldering the sin of all humanity in becoming the sacrificial lamb on the cross. It was a very human way of talking about the experience of tragedy that was to take place in a very short time.

Most of us have read this passage with a degree of understanding for many years. The discovery of the "tear cup" does not contradict that understanding. It gives us a deeper grasp of the emotional chaos through which Jesus was going as He prayed. Formerly, Jesus' prayer gave us a glimpse of His humanity. The awareness of the "tear cup" gives us a glance inside that humanity, enabling us to see something of just how human, how frail He was as He struggled with the ideas of dying and the horrendous separation from the Father that would come during that ordeal. This glimpse into the thinking of Jesus gives us one more trace of understanding of just how painful and loathsome it was for Jesus to take upon His sinlessness the enormity of our sin.

# THE WINE

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.' Luke 22:20

Have you ever wondered why Jesus chose to take wine for this remembrance rather than something else? Would it have made a difference if Jesus had given them the salt water rather than the wine? Is there something special about Jesus' choosing the wine? Did the use of wine convey any unique meaning?

Some people believe that there was no special significance at all to Jesus' choice. They believe that Jesus used wine because it was there, because it was what people of that culture drank. They also take this idea one step further and update it to what we drink in our culture. The result is either a soft drink and potato chips, tea and cookies or coffee and donuts instead of bread and wine.

The cup of wine was very symbolic to the Hebrew people. Every week, as part of their Sabbath observance, the father of the house pours wine into a chalice until it is completely filled and running over. The symbol of this is at least threefold:

1. It was a symbol of the overflowing providence of God which had been an important part of their lives every day of that week.

2. It was a rare occurrence when a slave was set free. When it came time for his freedom, he was given a bowl of wine. It was the symbol of his freedom from slavery.

3. It was an affirmation that this bounty was not the product of the worker or farmer, but of God who had caused the grapes to grow and the grain to produce.

Every year, the Jews each drank four glasses of wine during the Passover meal. These were symbols of joy, a celebration of thanksgiving for God's lavish providence which often occurred in the midst of devastation.

It had always seemed to me that Jesus had just paused in the Passover festivities in order to talk with His disciples about His impending death. It was, however, much more than that.

Any person who does not come from a highly ritualistic background might have difficulty in understanding that it was unthinkable for anyone to change the wording of the Passover observance. That was simply never done. However, that was precisely what Jesus did and it appears certain that the disciples were shocked by this change.

Jesus gave us some important information about this special celebration of the Passover:

In the same way after supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.' Luke 22:20

Whatever else it means, this is a covenant. A covenant is a formal, binding agreement made between two or more people. When they entered into a covenant, they used two symbols to seal it. First, they drank the wine. Secondly, they ate together.

Each person in turn would drink from the cup until all the contents were consumed. By this action, they were accepting each other as brothers. Thus they were bound to defend and be faithful to each other in covenant even to the point of death.

Jesus must have shocked His disciples by identifying this as a covenant in His blood. By identifying the cup of wine as His blood, Jesus placed the full risk upon Himself while opening up the benefits of the covenant to those who loved Him. The mention of blood indicated what each participant was prepared to invest in this agreement. Jesus made it clear that He was paying the full price, though the others were considered full participants.

The way Jesus introduced this celebration tells us a great deal about it. It was a covenant, a formal agreement visually accepted by all the participants, and it was binding upon all who participated. Because it was sealed in blood, it involved several understandings: This covenant could never be set aside. The participants must keep the covenant even if its performance brought death. It could not be changed nor could it be violated. The participants received the same faithful concern that any blood relative would receive, and finally, it could be counted on for the duration of the covenant.

Jesus entered into this covenant on their behalf. Every one of the disciples knew that people entered into covenants for mutual benefit and little else. Jesus identified this covenant in such a way that the benefits were clearly one-sided, for the good of the disciples and all mankind.

This is one case where Jesus' choice of wine was ultimately significant in terms of understanding all that Jesus was saying to His disciples in this observance.

In Paul's discussion concerning the "Lord's Supper," in I Corinthians 11:17-33, he speaks of several concerns. One of these concerns is:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. I Corinthians 11:27-30

Is it possible that Paul spoke in these forceful terms because he understood the implications of the covenant, of which Jesus spoke, so very well? What does that say to us?

# WASHING FEET

After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. John 13:5

Many people read John 13:1-10 and are puzzled. Still others, perhaps of a more distrusting nature, read the passage and wonder why Jesus was putting His disciples on the spot like this. Just what was He up to anyway? Is it possible that this is another ceremony that Jesus was instituting in the church? There are a number of people who believe that it was.

We need to remember that this was Passover, a very special and highly structured annual experience in every Jewish home.

Passover was a holy experience of joy and celebration in all Israel. It celebrated God's deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. It is against the background of this joyful, highly structured experience that this story is told. John is the only Gospel writer who records this emotionally charged experience.

It was the custom that the lowest servant in the house- hold would remove the shoes and wash the feet of each guest who entered. If there were no servants in the household, then the host would see that these necessities were observed.

Shoes were sandals in that part of the world. There were few if any paved streets or roads outside walled cities. Roads were dusty and the sandy composition of the soil made dust an even greater problem. For two reasons it was necessary to wash a person's feet before eating:

1. The dirt and dust accumulated on the road.

2. The ceremonial need for cleansing before eating food.

Did you ever wonder who was supposed to wash the feet of the disciples? Should it have been Jesus? He was the host. Should it have been Philip? He was the youngest person present. Might it have been Peter and John? They made the provisions for this feast to be shared by the group. Whoever else it should have been, the response of Peter made it clear that no one thought that it should be Jesus.

Some have asked, why was it done after supper rather than before? We cannot be certain. It could be that Jesus was giving the responsible person/s and all the rest of the disciples an opportunity to see the need and meet it. Think of what must have gone through their minds as one by one Jesus washed their feet. The Bible does not tell us the order of the disciples around the "triclinium" (or "U" shaped table," about 18 inches high, at which people lie down to eat, resting on their left elbow rather than sitting). The text does not say so, but it appears that Peter was located at the place opposite Jesus at the end of the table. The seating arrangement may have been something like this:

If Peter reclined in this position, then he had been in the place of a servant. This was required so that the servant could replenish the bowls of food and care for the needs that might arise. This is the only time during the year when everyone, including the servants, must recline to eat. On other occasions, owners and/or the wealthy ate in a reclining position while servants and women stood.

Jesus wrapped a towel around His waist and washed the disciples' feet. He would have to begin with the two places of honor - Judas and John - and move toward the servant's position, where Peter was lying down. Peter had a lot of time to think about this before Jesus came to Him. Notice what John said,

"He came to Simon Peter..." John 13:6

It is a picture of Jesus washing eleven pair of dirty feet before he reached the place where Peter was reclining.

Did you ever wonder how a person got to be the disciple of a Rabbi? No Rabbi would ever ask anyone to be his disciple. That, however, is precisely what Jesus did!

There was a ceremony to indicate whether or not a person was accepted as a disciple. The ceremony would have been well known to everyone in Jerusalem. If a person wanted to be the disciple of a certain Rabbi, he would go to the Rabbi and request permission to wash the Rabbi's feet. If the Rabbi allowed his feet to be washed, it was a way of saying that the person's request to be a disciple had been granted. If, however, the Rabbi refused to have his feet washed, it was a way to inform the potential disciple that his request had been denied.

Jesus took the lowly position of washing the feet of each disciple. He used two symbols as He washed the disciples' feet. Jesus took the place of the lowliest slave in the household by washing their feet. This was a symbol of humility. Jesus also chose the symbol of a person who wanted to be the disciple of a Rabbi. It was like saying, if you will not be my disciples, then I will take the position of being your disciple. This would have been unheard of in Israel. It does not appear that Jesus was establishing another sacrament for the church. It does seem that Jesus was encouraging the disciples to really be His disciples and to be humble toward each other; to be sensitive to individual problems and meet these needs with grace.

Consider church situations about which you know. How many people, in these congregations, would seek out the place of the servant, the one who would wash the feet? How many lay persons work hard to get the opportunity to clean the church kitchen or some other unheralded task? How many ministers seek out struggling congregations rather than those that are booming?

# THE CITY OF DAVID

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

Did you ever wonder if "the city of David" was a real place on the map? I had questions about whether or not it was so. I wondered just where it might be. One time I would think that it meant Jerusalem because David was king there and he loved the city. Another time I would read Luke two and assumed that it meant Bethlehem because it was the birthplace of David and the passage described the birthplace of Jesus. It was not until I visited Israel that I learned the truth of the matter.

The phrase, "city of David", appears 46 times in the Scriptures and identifies three different places in Scripture:

1. Bethlehem - 2 references - both of these references are in the Gospel of Luke and describe the birthplace of Jesus, which was Bethlehem. We do not know why the angel called Bethlehem "The city of David," but it is possible that it is because the city was where David was born and there was an attempt to link Jesus with the lineage of David.

2. Jerusalem - 1 reference

3. "The city of David" - 43 references

I was amazed to discover that there was a place adjoining the city of Jerusalem which is called "the city of David." The "City of David," so special to David, was originally a Jebusite city. It was founded about 3000 B.C. Whenever a city was built, they tried to build it on the highest point in the area so that it could be easily defended. The second major consideration was the availability of water. The "city of David" is located on a hill called "Ophel." Surprisingly, it is not the highest point in the area. On two sides of this triangular hill, however, there are deep natural valleys. This makes it easier to defend. The following map should prove helpful in identifying the location of the city:

A more important point is that the Gihon Spring, where Solomon was anointed king, I Kings 1:38-40, is the only defensible water source in the area and it is located on this hill . There is little doubt but what the location of this spring was a major factor in dictating where the city would be built.

It was during the reign of Hezekiah that a marvelous fete of engineering enabled them to bring the spring, which was located outside the walls, within the confines of the city. Under the pressure of an advancing enemy army, Hezekiah's men began to carve a tunnel out of the soft rock of the area. One group started at the spring while the other group started at the site to which they wanted the spring to flow. They did not follow a straight line, but rather followed an "s" curve. When the two groups finally met there was only a few inches difference in the levels of the channel they were carving.

The location of the city had great commercial importance. All traffic following the North-South ridge must pass through the city of Jerusalem. There were a number of times, in history, when the main highway, "the Way of the Sea," along the Mediterranean, was controlled by an enemy army. At such times the route through Jerusalem was the only available road to travel from Egypt to the North.

The Scriptures teach us that at least 13 kings of Judah and 17 kings in all were buried in the city of David . The kings are as follows:

David, (I Ki. 2:10); Solomon, (I Ki. 11:43); Abijah, (I Ki. 15:8); Joram, (Jehoram - king of Israel), (II Ki. 8:24); Ahaziah, (II Ki. 9:28); Joash, (II Ki. 12:21); Amaziah, (king of Israel) (II Ki. 14:20); Azariah, (II Ki. 15:7); Jotham, (II Ki. 15:38); Ahaz, (II Ki. 16:20); Rehoboam, (II Ch. 12:16); Asa, (II Ch. 16:148); Jehoshaphat, (II Ch.21:1); Jehoiada, (II Ch. 24:16); Hezekiah, (II Chronicles 32:5.) Interestingly, II Chronicles 24:25 indicates that Jehoiada, a priest, was also buried among the kings in the City of David.

In I Kings there is a verse that lends clarity to this whole issue.

Then King Solomon summoned into his presence at Jerusalem the elders of Israel, all the heads of the tribes and the chiefs of the Israelite families, to bring up the ark of the Lord's covenant from Zion, the city of David." I Ki. 8:1

"The City of David," that place on the hill on the South East side of Jerusalem, not only located a place on the map of Palestine, but also identifies the place where David was most at home. It is the place where he lived and finally died. Jerusalem has been extended several times. It now includes "the City of David", that site which had special significance for David and many other kings of Israel and Judah.

# AS I WALKED ALONG

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: 'Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.' Acts 17:22, 23

As you know, Paul made this statement while addressing the Areopagus. The "Areopagus" was a designation for two things:

1. A 377 foot high rocky place just northwest of the Acropolis in Athens.

2. A court group who met regularly at this auspicious site.

One cannot be certain, but it is this writer's considered opinion that Paul is speaking to the court of civic leaders who regularly met on the site called "Areopagus."

This court was originally designed to deal with criminal concerns; but it had also become a kind of forum for religious and educational concerns. This is significant because the city was sensitive to Western culture and religious practice.

Cities under Roman control and influence were carefully designed to reflect that dominance. Roman society was carefully organized, a fact clearly revealed in their architecture. The Romans tended to be a people of many gods, but Rome felt no need to rid the conquered peoples of their former religious practices and allegiance.

Because the Romans practiced emperor worship, they felt the need to at least pressure captive peoples to add emperor worship to their previous practices, if they were unable to undercut the conquered nations' worship altogether. Throughout much of southeastern Europe this inclusion of emperor worship eventually took place. However, it was never even close to being universally accepted in Israel.

Because most of these cultures were polytheistic (having many gods), the architecture of their cities needed to reflect this worship and religious commitment. I never really understood this situation. When I read the words of Paul about seeing an altar as he walked along, I wondered just what that would be like. Did they just place an altar along the road? Didn't that seem cold and distant?

On a trip to Israel, I stopped over in Amman, Jordan. I visited the nearby city of Jerash or Gerasa as it was called in earlier times. This totally excavated city was a marvel to visit. As I walked down the main street of the city, I noticed that it was lined with a low colonnaded wall. Behind the waist-high wall were shops and homes. As I walked along, I noticed that at measured intervals there were niches or alcoves in the colonnaded wall. In earlier times, each niche held one of the idols revered by at least some of the people of Gerasa. I also noticed that at street intersections there were four-sided places of worship where the passers-by were expected to give some sign of respect or worship. Just passing along in front of these alcoves and shrines was considered, to some degree, an act of worship.

One can readily understand that this would be very repulsive to any serious Hebrew. Add to this the fact that just entering a Gentile settlement made a Jew ceremonially unclean.

When Israel was ready to cross over the Jordan into Canaan, Moses issued very strong warnings against becoming involved in heathen worship and practices. This was precisely the issue in I Kings 18:18-40 when Elijah and the prophets of Baal were locked in challenge to decide who was God in Israel.

Paul, in the passage from Acts, was saying to the Aeropagus Court, that as he walked along the road, with its carefully designed altars to the many gods whom the Athenians worshipped, he saw one that caught his eye. The designers intended it to be a way of not overlooking any deity. Paul pointed out that this was in fact the God of the universe, the God above all gods.

# AN ISSUE OF BLOOD

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' Mark 5:25-28

Each one of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, tell this story. Mark, however, gives the most complete account.

The text is not clear concerning the exact nature of her ailment. Some authorities suggest that it was a uterine abnormality of some sort. It could well have been a malfunction of the menstrual cycle. We cannot be specific.

Modern Americans have some difficulty understanding this kind of situation. There is so much expertise available to us that many feel that every physical ailment can be cured. Obviously, this is not true. It does, however, give one an impression of the modern mindset.

Unfortunately for the people of that day, their medical professionals knew far less than our physicians today. There were two levels of care available at that time. They had a number of carefully trained doctors, such as Dr. Luke. The care this woman had received had been, for the most part, from some of the most skillful physicians available in that day.

There were also practitioners of magic and home remedies, much like the witch doctors of Africa. William Barclay relates information from the Talmud, a Jewish commentary on the Mishnah, which was a philosophical code by which the Jews lived:

_The Talmud itself gives no fewer than eleven cures for such trouble. Some of them are tonics and astringents; but some of them are sheer superstitions like carrying the ashes of an ostrich-egg in a linen rag in summer and a cotton rag in winter; or carrying a barley corn which had been found in the dung of a white she-ass. 5_

It would be most surprising if this woman had not gone to many of both kinds of practitioners. There is no way to be certain.

We do not know when it first started, but ancient medical research believed that with the diseased, at least part of the problem lay in the blood. They reasoned that if you cut the patient and let some of the blood drain away, this would let out some of the infection and disease, the patient should be on the road to recovery. This theory was practiced even in the early days of the eighteenth century. Our first President, George Washington, received this kind of treatment.

In the case of the woman who came to Jesus, she already had a problem with blood loss, but as happens so often, people try to use a procedure to cure most everything. Such was the case with this woman who came to Jesus. The predictable result was that the perpetual tiredness and weakness which accompanies blood loss was seriously intensified when the doctors tried to get rid of whatever it was they thought was in the blood. Dr. Luke was understandably more reticent than Mark in his description of the woman's care and the resulting conditions.

Mark says it this way:

She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. Mark 5:26

That should not surprise us at all. Take an anemic person, increase their blood loss and the anemic condition will be seriously intensified.

You gain some impression of the frustration that she and her family must have experienced by the fact that she did not just go to one doctor. She went to several doctors, over many years. She used up all the money they had and the net result was that she was worse than she had been in the first place. Obviously, the husband was a caring person. He could have just let her gradually decline and die. He did not. He apparently risked everything he had in order to try to get help for her. I must add that some scholars believe that her husband had divorced her and left her on her own. This grows out of the way Mark speaks of the finances:

...and had spent all that she had... Mark 5:26b

Of course, this can neither be verified nor denied.

There are several implications to such a disorder. This was particularly true among the Jews. The Scriptures speak to conditions of this general nature in Leviticus 15:

When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge just as in the days of her period. Leviticus 15:25

Anything that this woman touched or that touched her was unclean. She was barred from entering the place of worship during the entirety of that time. This means that the woman had been a spiritual outcast for twelve years. Imagine being in that situation!

The text does not say so, but we might assume that she was married. If that were the case, her husband would be presented a most difficult situation. He would have to decide whether to have the opportunity of worship or to have some dealings with his wife. If he touched her or anything she had touched, he would be unclean and unable to go to the temple. It would mean that she could not bring water from the well for him; she could not buy food for him nor fix any meal for him. He probably could not stay in the same house with her and still be able to go to the temple for worship.

If she had a son, it would mean that he could not touch anything she had touched or be touched by her and still be able to prepare for his bar-mitzvah. If he had gone through the years of training for this event, he would not be able to go to touch the scroll of the Law or read from it at his own bar-mitzvah.

The woman would be held in suspicion by the entire community because her illness would be considered a judgment from God. This would be a large part of the reason for the avoidance by all of them.

There were many serious, social implications as well. Her husband would be avoided by the entire community. If she had an issue of blood for twelve years, that meant that there could be no intimate relationships during that time and no children born. This would automatically cause suspicion among the people in the community. They seriously believed that any couple which did not have children regularly experienced the judgment of God. The community would avoid the husband lest they too be judged. The husband could have no standing in the community and it would seriously hamper his ability to make a living for his family. The husband and children would have to draw the water because the wife would not be welcomed at the village well. The husband and children would have to do the buying, because the merchants would not do business with a woman who was unclean.

The fact that she had been in this condition for twelve years was a very important piece of information about the situation. If you look at Genesis 16:6, 16:16 and 17:1, it is clear that Abraham and Sarah were more than thirteen years in the land without bearing a child. They believed that a man had grounds for divorce if his wife was barren for a period of ten years. The people of Israel, in the time of Jesus, would have been familiar with this information. The fact that this woman had this bleeding condition for twelve years meant that her husband had solid legal grounds for a divorce without anyone in the community thinking less of him for it.

Think for a moment what this meant to the woman herself. Because she was unclean, she could not go to the marketplace to buy food and talk with the other women. She could not visit at the well with the other women because they avoided her due to her situation. In her home, in the temple, in the community \- at every turn this woman was ostracized completely. She had to be more lonely than the lepers. At least the lepers had each other; she had no one.

The text does not so indicate, but if she had children, it would be almost as difficult for them. They could not play with other children. The same motive that would cause other women to ostracize the woman would cause these same women to prohibit their children from playing with the children of the woman with the issue of blood.

The children of this woman would not be able to go to the synagogue to learn or to worship because just living in the same house with the sick woman would render them unclean as well.

If the woman had a son, he could not prepare for or attend his own bar-mitzvah and was approaching the age of marriage, families would be loath to arrange for a wedding between their child and the child of a woman they considered to be under the curse of God.

It is interesting that Jesus called the woman "daughter." This is used in a spiritual sense. Jesus was offering her acceptance and belonging when wherever else she looked, she found only rejection and ostracism.

There was an understanding in that day about the Tsitsit, or fringe, on the garment which the men wore. This could only be touched by a member of a man's family. Either the woman was a member of Jesus' family or else by calling her "daughter" he was providing a gracious way for her not to experience even greater grief from the people of the community. I prefer the latter understanding.

Jesus exhorted the woman to "go in peace." The word "peace," in this instance, does not mean just an absence of war. It suggests the idea of wholeness. For the life that was broken in every way one could possibly imagine, Jesus offers a sense of wholeness she had not experienced in more than a decade. Only God could imagine the joy and sense of acceptance that she experienced in the healing and affirmation of Jesus.

# THE VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way" -"a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" Mark 1:1-3

We will not ask for a show of hands, but it would be interesting to see just how many have read these verses many times and thought of them as just a poetic, graphic way to speak of the coming of Jesus. I must confess that I had those very thoughts. I did not take the verses seriously, but thought of them as a picturesque way of saying that the coming of Jesus was very important.

Only Matthew and Mark include this rich insight into the life and ministry of Jesus. It appears that Mark gives us a more comprehensive report on this issue.

Notice, at the beginning of verse two, Mark said, "it is written in Isaiah the prophet." He begins immediately, however, to quote from Malachi. It is only in verse three that Mark quotes from Isaiah. It appears that he may have done this in order to capture the attention of Jewish people who held Isaiah in great respect. It may also be a way of pointing out that though he quoted from Malachi, the quotation from Isaiah was really the point of the whole presentation. As we indicate elsewhere, authors in Scripture often gave two or three Biblical quotations in order to present an open and shut case to those who heard them.

Both Mark and Matthew describe a royal procession that the people of that time and place had seen many times before. Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 identify their prophetic message with the Messiah. Matthew and Mark further indicate the name of the person identified as the herald, in the quotations from Malachi and Isaiah, to be John the Baptist.

Look with me at these two quotations from the Old Testament.

'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come' says the Lord Almighty. Malachi 3:1

The word "messenger", "malak" in Hebrew, had a number of meanings. It could be a message bearer, a courtier, or a retainer sent for other purposes, such as the encouragement of trade or the arrangement of mutual defense. In I Samuel 6:21, messengers, malakim, were sent to announce to the people of Kiriath Jearim that the Philistines had returned the Ark. Many other duties were gathered under this heading.

In this passage, the "messenger" was a herald. Whenever the king travelled, a "messenger" was sent ahead of him on foot. He announced to all the approach of the king. He made sure that everyone knew that the king was coming so that they could make the necessary preparation; so that there would be no interruptions or untoward events to mar the king's passage.

In this country, when the president is going to be in a certain place, a contingent of FBI agents goes into the area beforehand to make the necessary security arrangements and prepare everything so that the president's trip would be without interruptions or unpleasant situations.

In most of that part of the world, few roads were built, except in a city. The Roman Empire championed the idea of building roads on a grand scale. In most places, roads developed as people, animals and vehicles travelled in a common direction. These roads were not smooth and even. The rainy season also brought severe ruts and depressions all along the way.

It was important that a king travel in comfort. In order to accomplish this, servants were sent ahead of the king and his entourage to smooth out the bumps and ruts in the road and make it as comfortable for him as possible.

This is what Malachi was talking about when he prophesied,

'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.' Malachi 3:1a

Every Jew who read Mark's opening quotation would immediately understand this word picture of servants smoothing out the road for a king to travel.

Malachi accomplished two things in this prophetic message:

1. He made a clear statement about the Messiah's coming.

2. He provided a vivid picture of the fact that the Messiah was a royal personage.

Mark used this presentation in such a way as to take full advantage of both expressions.

We need to remember the circumstances in which Malachi wrote. The priests of Israel were becoming slack about their service before the altar. They offered sacrifices that were lame and not fit for the sacrifice. They took their responsibilities casually, forgetting what they were expected to do before the Lord. Malachi was saying that God would send a messenger to clean up the worship of His people before the Messiah came. It was more a threat to Israel than a promise.

The prophetic message, as quoted by Mark, identifies Jesus as a most unique, unusual person. No average citizen of Israel had servants "going before him" as he travelled the rut filled roads of Israel. No average citizen had a procession in order to go to the corner store.

When I take a trip, no one "goes before me" except the people in the car ahead of me. When I decide to go to the store, no one, including the store clerks, knows that I am coming. It makes no difference to anyone else if I go to the store, the bank, the church or lumber yard. It makes no impression on anyone if you or I go to town, but it was different with royalty.

On what we call "Palm Sunday", centuries ago, this scenario was carried out. Jesus rode into the city on a donkey, as a king would ride when he comes in peace.

As Jesus rode toward Jerusalem, people placed palm branches and items of clothing on the road ahead of Him to smooth out the way. It was clear to them that they were acknowledging Jesus as their king. They wanted their king to ride in comfort and majesty.

As Mark quoted the prophet,

'I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way..' Mark 1:2

The second quotation Mark included is from Isaiah 40:3. The prophet said,

A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, and every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain...' Isaiah 40:3, 4

This quotation describes the smoothing of the road more graphically than does Malachi. Isaiah also describes the work of the servant who "calls out".

When the king travelled, servants went ahead of the entourage and smoothed out the road. When they came to a hill, these servants would level it out. When they encountered a depression in the road, it would be filled up.

When they came to a populated area, another servant went ahead of the king and his escorts and heralded their coming. He cried out so that everyone could hear, to inform the people that the king was coming.

Mark is affirming that John the Baptist is the one who filled that capacity completely. If you read his sermons carefully, you will note that he was paving the way for Jesus to begin His preaching ministry. John the Baptist was not looking for a way to make himself known. He looked for a way to make Jesus known.

The identification of John the Baptist as the servant who smoothed out the road for the king or the servant who heralded the coming of the king was a deliberate way to impress on anyone who listened that Jesus was in fact the king, the Messiah.

# WALK THROUGH THE LAND

Go walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you. Genesis 13:17

I must admit that this whole process escaped me for quite some time. It seemed to me that this was just something God told Abraham to do, but it apparently had no other significance behind it. It seemed like it was just one more quaint saying that we often found in the King James Version. Only later did I discover that was not the case.

There are specific steps through which a person in our culture must go in order to secure a piece of property. They are usually as follows:

1. Find the owner and agree on a price.

2. Draw up and sign a sales agreement.

3. Do a survey of the land.

4. Do a title search and secure insurance.

5. Sign the contract.

6. The closing - an exchange of signatures, money and documents. It is possible to purchase land without all these steps, but people usually do so at great risk.

In ancient times, the process was somewhat similar, but there were some differences.

1. Inquire concerning the ownership, if not known.

2. Meet at the city gate with the Elders, to negotiate the terms of sale.

3. Agree on terms in the presence of the Elders.

4. Give an earnest - a small amount of dirt was taken from the land, placed in a leather pouch and given to the purchaser.

5. The exchange of money.

6. An official walk through the land - this is to verify that it is in fact the property that you want to buy, and to announce to everyone that there is a new owner.

7. The ownership has now changed hands.

Look carefully at Luke chapter 14. Here, Jesus is telling the Parable of the Great Banquet. He said,

But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought as field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.' Luke 14:18

There can be no doubt that the responses of the invited guests were exactly what Jesus called them, "excuses." We must also understand, however, that the excuses represent things that the people who listened to Jesus would understand. John Peter Lange, a German Biblical scholar of an earlier generation, speaks of this particular excuse in these terms:

_Whoever finds it unreasonable that the yet unviewed field was already bought, need not hesitate to conceive the matter thus: That the purchase was not yet unconditionally concluded, and that at this very moment it depended on the viewing whether he should become definitive possessor of it. 7_

The process which the man called "go and see it" is exactly what God was telling Abraham to do in Genesis 13. Notice what God said to Abraham:

Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you. Genesis 13:17

Abraham and Lot had just had intense words about their relationship and proximity to each other. Abraham was generous and invited Lot to take whatever land he would and Abraham would take what was left. Lot, shockingly, chose the very best land, around Sodom and Gomorrah, and left the barren wilderness for Abraham.

God was telling Abraham that he would not be abandoned because of this unkind gesture by Lot. God was going to give Abraham all the land that he could see in all four directions. It was going to belong to Abraham and God wanted him to do two things:

1. Walk through the land and inspect it. See what it is that I am giving you.

2. Go through the land and demonstrate to all that this has become your land.

Land ownership was not transferred when the agreement was made and the money paid. The transfer took place after these necessities had been concluded and the new owner walked through the length and breadth of the land to demonstrate his ownership.

If you study the entry of Israel into Canaan, you will see that God told them to go in and possess the land. It meant that they must go all through the land and demonstrate that the land in fact belonged to them. They did not want to do that. They moved in and settled down. They did everything possible to avoid conflict with the people who already lived in the land. Consequently, the people did not get the impression that these people in fact had taken ownership of the land, but that they were interlopers.

The point of "walking through the land," was not just to become familiar with what it was like, as some have thought. It was also to demonstrate ownership and complete the legal transaction. God said that this land was to belong to Abraham. God wanted that to be clear to others as well.

# PRUNING MEANS LIFTING

He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit, he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. John 15:2

Did it ever bother you to hear a sermon on this passage? It really bothered me for many years. The pastor would preach about the lack of fruit-bearing and then talk about how God deals with that situation by "pruning." I could just visualize God taking the trimming shears to my spiritual life. I was drawn to the passage, but repulsed by a misunderstanding of the imagery.

We need to remember the situation in which John15:2 is found. This is the only place in the Gospels where the message of the vine and the branches is presented. Jesus had predicted His death and the disciples' denial of Him. They were distraught by this announcement and Jesus comforted them, promising to send the Holy Spirit in His absence. It is at this point that Jesus spoke of the vine and the branches, of spiritual growth by obedience and by dwelling in Him.

I thought I could get some help by studying the passage in the Greek. I looked up the word "prune" and discovered that the word was "kathairei." It is the source of our English word "catharsis," which means to purge or purify. This piece of information confused me. How does one cleanse a vine? I struggled with this verse for years, but on my first trip to Israel I gained an insight.

Most of us have seen grape vines growing in America. These vines characteristically grow in rows about four or five feet apart. The plants grow to a height of three to four feet and travel along a wire strung between cedar poles. That is excellent in areas where there is sufficient rainfall. However, Israel has very little rainfall. The area has very hot days and extremely cold nights, creating conditions very conducive to the formation of dew.

It may seem unusual to us, but in Biblical times, grapevines grew along the ground much like pumpkin vines. To facilitate the growth of grapes, a rock was placed beside the main stem of the grape vine. When dew formed on the rock, it watered the plant. If a plant touched the ground at the place where a bunch of grapes should grow, no grapes would be formed. The vine would probably mildew, and certainly would not produce grapes. A vineyard keeper watched for this situation. When the problem began to develop, the keeper lifted up the vine, at this point, and placed a rock under it. This lifted the branch off the ground and inhibited the formation of mildew. Grapes then could grow.

After actually having seen this procedure in Israel, I looked at the Greek again and realized that I had studied only half of the verse. A good translation of the Greek might be, "he lifts up every branch in me that bears no fruit." The Greek word "airei" literally means "to lift up, to raise or to suspend." This affects our view of how God deals with us. It isn't as though God has a new pair of clippers and just watches for a chance to snip us off. He watches for our difficulty and lifts us up to enable us to achieve His will for our lives. That is shouting material!

Again I looked at the verse in the Greek. Suddenly the second part of the verse also made sense when some childhood experiences came to mind. I had grown up in an area where there were many orchards and also some vineyards. Each year the trees were pruned in a way that seemed severe to me. Because it bothered me so much, I asked about it. The growers told me that they trimmed back the trees so that the energy of the plant would go into the production of fruit rather than the production of longer branches. It was only at this point that the use of the word "kathairei" made sense to me. Jesus was not saying that the vinedresser trimmed away the parts of the plant where mildew had formed. He was saying that the grower lifted the mildewed part of the plant off the ground so that growth could take place. Only then would abundant growth occur. The pruning took place only in parts of the plant that would not produce fruit.

Think about this in terms of your spiritual growth. I suspect that there have been times in your spiritual life when you were not producing fruit at all; other times when the yield was a bit slim. In John 15:2, Jesus was giving direction for these times in our lives.

When spiritual growth ceases to exist, Jesus does not scold or punish; He "lifts us up" so that we can grow in His likeness. There are also times when our spiritual growth is sluggish. God uses these times to trim away the things in our lives that hinder our growth and divert our attention from Him. I had learned quite a bit about grape vines, but I learned much more about my own spiritual growth. God lifted me up to protect me from conditions that would stunt my spiritual growth. On other occasions, in His great wisdom, He trimmed away the false growth that hindered real spiritual growth from taking place. I must say, there were times when I wondered if He had not trimmed away too much, too harshly. It is only as I look back at my spiritual journey that I can see how wise and gracious He really was to me.

# BALDNESS BETWEEN THE EYES

You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession. Deuteronomy 14:1, 2

A more literal version of the Hebrew text, from which our Bible was translated, is more specific.

You are sons of Jehovah your God. You shall not cut yourselves and shall not put any baldness between your eyes for the dead, for you are a holy people to Jehovah your God and Jehovah has chosen you to be a people to him, a special treasure out of all the people on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 14:1, 2

Moses begins the message by reminding the people of who they are. They are "sons of Jehovah your God." To be a son involved several understandings. The context clearly indicates that "son" is not used here as a male identifier. It identified the whole people. It was also used here to include some information which was culturally significant. In that culture, to be a son was to be an heir. It also suggested the passing on of certain personal characteristics. This is the idea of which Jesus spoke in the Gospel of John:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44

Jesus was not saying that Satan fathered these people, but that they bore his character and characteristics. Being a son involved the emulation of lifestyle and personality. Many will remember hearing some older people speak of a child's actions being like the parent's by saying, "an apple never falls far from the tree."

When Moses speaks to them as being "sons of the Lord your God," this was more than a way of identifying deity. In Hebrew it is "Jehovah your eloheyka." "Jehovah" is the name for God which stresses His judgment while "eloheyka" stresses His eternal mercy.

Moses said that Israel was "holy." In this he was identifying all other nations as "unholy." We tend to associate "holy" with "pure." It is that, but it is more. To be "holy" has to do with purpose. And here the purpose was that they were set apart from all the nations to serve God.

Israel was a special treasure "out of all the people on the face of the earth." God loved every nation, but out of all these nations Israel enjoyed a relationship with God which was special and unique.

Because these things are true, there are some special situations which must be observed. As Moses will identify later in the chapter, this uniqueness will have a direct effect on their dietary choices. It will have an impact on the way they live their lives and respond to life situations. Shaving the forehead is a case in point.

At the time Moses said these words, Israel was poised on the east side of the Jordan, at Pizgah. They were about to cross over into the Land of Promise which was inhabited by Canaanites.

These Canaanites were idolatrous people and participated in some brutal pagan practices in the name of their deities. One of those had to do with the death of a relative or close friend. Their mourning was intense. They would cut their forehead and rub ashes into the incision to produce "proud flesh." This was somewhat like the "rites of passage" observed in parts of Africa where a child received "beauty marks" to indicate the onset of adulthood. These "marks" also identified a person as a devotee of the idol in whose honor the characteristic "marking" or "shaving" was performed.

The Canaanites also shaved off their eyebrows as part of this religious mourning of personal loss. Though their actions had definite idolatrous overtones, it was a bit like the more modest practice in some countries of wearing special clothing for the rest of their life, or in other countries where they wear special clothing for one year following the death of one's spouse.

Some have used this passage to teach that people should not pluck their eyebrows. That was not Moses' intent. He was saying that Israel was considered as God's family, a special people. If they were to be a witness to the other nations of the world, then they must not accept any practice which affirms the existence of any other god. They must abstain from any hint of pagan practice, for they are "sons of the Lord their God."

# CAST THE FIRST STONE

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' John 8:7

From early childhood I remember sermons preached on this passage, telling me that Jesus was challenging the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, almost daring them to stone the guilty woman.

There is something of that nature in the text, but there is more-- much more.

According to the Old Testament law, witnesses did more than tell what they had "seen and heard." Having given the testimony that convicted the guilty person, the witnesses were required to throw the first stones, to carry out the mandatory sentence of death by stoning. Following this, the whole community was required to take part in the stoning.

There was a good reason for this. The witness must throw his stone with the convicted person and the whole community looking on. It did a great deal to sharpen the witness' memory and help him to tell the whole truth.

The entire community was required to take part in the stoning. It was hoped that their participation and viewing of the punishment would impress upon them the intense gravity of the particular sin for which this person was being stoned.

The law in question here is stated in Deuteronomy:

The hands of the witnesses must be first in putting to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge evil from among you. Deuteronomy 17:7

In the Gospel of John, there is a picture of such an experience in Jerusalem. We should be reminded that this experience is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Further, the very best manuscripts do not include it in the Gospel of John. There are some manuscripts, however, in which it is recorded.

Notice what the author wrote:

When they kept questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' John 8:7

Jesus was in the courts of the temple at Jerusalem (v.2). A woman was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. They accused the woman of being taken in the act of adultery. There is no mention of her denial of this accusation.

It would be easy to overlook some information these details provide for us. If this woman was taken in the act of adultery, then she was unclean and those who brought her to the temple were unclean. In that case, neither the woman nor her accusers were permitted to be in the temple. No unclean person was permitted to enter the temple compound.

Chefetz Chayim, a noted Hebrew scholar, discussed this law in these terms:

_For Scripture says, 'If there is among you any man who is not clean...he shall not come within the camp' (D'varim 23:11) and the Sages of blessed memory received the teaching... that this means the 'camp of the Levites,' which is the Temple mount... 9_

We need to remember that the accusers did not come seeking truth or light. They had more expertise in the Law than anyone else in Jerusalem. The Pharisees and Teachers of the Law were enemies of Jesus. They did not come out of great love for the Law, for they were using the Law to serve their own purposes, rather than being servants of the Law. These Pharisees and Teachers of the Law were not only experts in the interpretation of the Law, but men who relished being known as the holiest people in the realm. It was they who brought the woman to Jesus, seeking to trap Him with His own words.

As you read the passage in John 8 again, notice that he says that they kept on questioning Jesus. It was a way to intensify the pressure, in the hope that He would say something they could use against Him.

They used an ingenious method in trying to put Jesus on the spot. They asked if this obviously guilty woman should be stoned. It seemed simple enough, but it was a clever trap. If Jesus said they should stone her, then it would contradict His consistent teaching of forgiveness for all. On the other hand, if He gave the verdict to release the woman from stoning, which they hoped He would do, then they could charge Him with violating the Law of Moses. They were convinced they could do away with Jesus whichever way He responded.

Jesus did not defend her error. He affirmed the Law of Moses both by His words and His actions. He very quietly taught His enemies a lesson. He put them on the spot. If they refused to throw the stones, they would be guilty of rejecting the Law, rejecting the prescribed punishment for a bona-fide crime and rejecting their personal responsibility to participate in the judgment as the people of God.

On the other hand, if they threw the stones, they would be claiming sinlessness, and they knew that the people who watched could make a long list of their trespasses.

Jesus wrote in the sand as they thought over their dilemma and the guilty woman worried.

The text says that the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law went away. This was a culture where age was treated with deference and respect. When Jesus' enemies went away, the eldest left first and then in succession down to the youngest. They all went away. Apparently they felt the only way for them to save face was to walk away.

In so doing, however, they rejected the Law; they rejected the punishment for sin prescribed in the Law; they rejected their personal responsibility to uphold the Law by carrying out its mandate of throwing the first stones.

It seems clear that the woman was guilty, but there were no accusers, for they all left. John 8:4 says she was taken in the very act of adultery. There was no one present who could witness that they had seen the crime, thus the law required that she go free.

There might be some who would hold that Jesus took a soft position against a terrible sin. That is not the case. Jesus would hold that adultery was as horrible a sin as the arrogance, deceit and pride of the Pharisees. In His mind, there were no shades of sin. Every sin was evil, tragic and worthy of punishment. He instructed the woman not to sin again. The issue the Pharisees brought was: "How can we trap Jesus?" The issue Jesus dealt with was: "There is no difference between the adultery of this woman and the presumption, pride, deceit and abuse of the Pharisees."

The text does not say, but I would suspect that as the Pharisees went away one by one, the crowds who stood by, cheered.

# LOWERING FOOD IN A SHEET

He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. Acts 10:11

Did you ever wonder about this passage? I have! For years I visualized a huge bed sheet being let down on the roof of this house. That satisfied my curiosity for some time. On one occasion I thought carefully about the story. I wondered, where did they get sheets when they did not sleep in beds? Now I had a problem to study. I puzzled over this for a long time before I gained any insights.

From 35 - 75 A.D., the early church really struggled. The established Jewish religious leaders were bent on destroying this spiritual movement we call "the church." The Roman authorities were increasingly antagonistic toward the Christians. The Romans began to see Christians as traitors because they would not make an incense offering to the emperor.

Within the church, there were two other struggles:

1. Heresies and other false teachings were creeping in. This was extremely divisive.

2. The whole issue of Gentile believers was beginning to divide the church into two groups.

The church was largely Jewish, but there were already some Gentile believers - e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch and now Cornelius, the Roman Centurion. This whole issue would come to a head at the Jerusalem Council as reported in Acts 15:13, but that had not taken place as yet.

Acts 10 tells us that God sent Cornelius to Peter. Cornelius was a Roman, most likely of the noble Cornelii family. He was probably not a Jewish proselyte, but he may have affiliated himself with a group which was committed to Judaism at a lower level called "the Proselytes of the gate." He was a Centurion of the Italian Cohort at Caesarea. Acts 10:31 shows us he was well-known among the Jews because of his gifts to the Jewish poor and was highly respected by them as well. He had to be an unusual man for the Jews to respect him.

Cornelius was very important to the early church because he appears to be one of the first Gentiles upon whom the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit came.

Peter was the houseguest of Simon the Tanner, whose house was by the sea in Joppa. Peter was on the rooftop in prayer when he had a vision. In this vision, he saw the heavens opened and a huge vessel like a sheet was let down by the four corners. Peter saw every possible kind of clean and unclean animal and creeping thing. Three times, a voice from heaven instructed him to "kill and eat."

To say the least, Peter was shocked and stunned. He was deeply concerned about these persistent, heavenly instructions because no strict Jew would ever consider eating the flesh of an unclean animal. His initial response was revulsion and refusal. It bothered him that the voice came again and again.

Remember, Peter is a houseguest in the home of Simon the tanner. Simon was probably a Jew, but he lived with severe restrictions. In his work as a tanner, he would constantly come in contact with dead carcasses. This would make him unclean all the time. He was probably always forbidden to come to worship. It shows a remarkable change in Peter to be willing to stay in the home of an unclean person without severe frustration on his part. Peter was very strict and would do whatever necessary in order to preserve his ceremonial cleanliness.

A servant of Cornelius came to Simon the Tanner's house asking for Simon Peter. God instructed Peter to go with this Gentile. Whatever else may be said, Peter was obedient. He invited this Gentile to be his houseguest in Simon's house. The next day they went to Caesarea. Peter confessed to his earlier prejudice and told how God had instructed him concerning the equality of peoples in the sight of God. That day, Cornelius became a Christian and the Holy Spirit came upon him. Peter saw what God had been showing him in his dream. Just as God instructed Peter to not think of the animals He had created as unclean, so he should not think of a non-Jewish person as unclean either.

Remember, the text says that Peter was in Joppa. The city of Joppa is on the Mediterranean coast, about 30 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Unger, a well-known biblical scholar of a former generation, speaks of the city in these terms:

_Its harbor naturally made it the port of Jerusalem... Here Jonah embarked for Tarshish. 10_

In our text, Luke uses two words which are very helpful. In English, the words are "vessel" and "sheet." Peter could see the docks from this rooftop. The Greek word for "vessel" (skeuos), was exactly the same word which was sometimes used to describe the tackle rigging of a sailing vessel. The word "sheet" (othone) literally means "fine linen." Pieces of this linen were torn in narrow strips and used to wrap the body of Jesus in preparation for burial. It was from this material that the finest sails were made.

Again this is Joppa, a world-class seaport. The docks of that day did not have the powerful cranes one would find at our waterfronts today. We know that when a vessel put into port, the sail was taken down and used as a cradle to lift heavy loads out of the hold of the ship. It was not uncommon for heavy animals to be removed from a sailing vessel in this manner. There are extant carvings of ships being unloaded in this manner.

The man to whom the book of Acts was written would understand this just the way Luke wrote it. The people who lived near the port cities had probably seen this event many times. It begins to make more sense to us when we discover some of the things that were so commonplace to the people of that day.

# JOHN'S CLOTHING AND FOOD

John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:4-6

John the Baptist is mentioned in a special light in the New Testament. Modern readers however seem to have some difficulty identifying with him. This is due in part to his lifestyle - his clothes and his food.

His was a distinctive style of clothing to say the least:

_The long hair of the camel, which is somewhat woolly in texture, becomes, toward the close of spring, loose, and is easily pulled away in licks from the skin. The modern Arabs still weave it into a coarse sort of cloth for tent covers and coats for shepherds and cameldrivers. Garments of this material were worn by John the Baptist in the wilderness 12._

There are a number of unanswered questions concerning this prophet:

1. How did the people of Jerusalem and Judea know that he was preaching out there in the wilderness? Why would he choose the wilderness as the place to preach the Gospel? Why not the temple?

It may have been that John had forsaken the comfort and evil of city life and moved to the sterner wilderness in order to escape the evil ways which characterized life in the city. We know for instance that this is what happened with the Essenes- a group who seem as austere as John and lived in the same area. Many scholars believe that John was a part of that group, at least for a short period of time.

Each of the Synoptic writers - Matthew, Mark and Luke - tells the story of John the Baptist. Both Matthew and Mark tell about His clothes and food. The picture of John the Baptist seems strange to us. What difference does the mention of his clothes and food make in relation to the meaning of this story? What would have been lost if the Gospels of Matthew and Mark had never mentioned the clothes or the food?

This is the first mention of John the Baptist in Matthew and Mark and the first mention of him anywhere in the Gospels since His birth in the other Gospel records. After 400 years of prophetic silence (which is exactly the same length of time Israel was enslaved in Egypt), God now speaks through John whose father was a Levitical priest serving in the Jerusalem temple. John, at least 30 years of age by now, should have been married, serving as an Aaronic Priest. He may well have been trained as a priest, but it is clear that he was not serving as such.

Both Matthew and Mark draw attention to the clothes worn by John the Baptist. John's attire was a garment made of camel hair, not camel skin. He also wore a leather belt. This differentiation is very clear in the Greek. Why would John wear such clothing as this? There were at least two good reasons for his avant-garde clothing. First, the New Testament goes to great lengths to identify John the Baptist with Elijah. The name "Elijah" in the New Testament is called "Elias." It is important to remember that the Jews believed that Elijah would return before the Messiah was revealed. This belief was based upon the following statement written by the prophet Malachi:

See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. Malachi 4:5

For this reason, the Jews still set a place for Elijah at their Passover table knowing that he must come before their Messiah comes.

On one occasion, Jesus spoke about John the Baptist in this manner.

And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. Matthew 11:14

This statement would certainly have shocked the Jewish people to whom Jesus was speaking.

The reference to John the Baptist's clothing was not a casual statement. Notice what an Old Testament author said of Elijah:

They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah theTishbite." II Kings 1:8

The New Testament does not say so, but it seems probable that the clothing worn by John the Baptist was intended to have a symbolic significance. This fact would certainly not be wasted on his audience. Elijah was a strong prophet for the Lord at a time when the Jewish people had forgotten their covenant with God and were involved in a number of idolatrous and other evil schemes. This was again true during the ministry of John the Baptist. The people would remember that the message of Elijah and that of John the Baptist had a great deal in common. They both reprimanded the people for their sin and promised that God would destroy them and their land for this disobedience. Whatever other reasons may be involved, it is clear that the clothing John the Baptist wore was intended to tie his ministry to that of the great prophet Elijah.

The second reason behind the style of dress which John the Baptist had adopted was that this was what was worn by the poorest people of the realm. It was well-known that religious leaders identified with the well-to-do, not with the extremely poor. It was the well-to-do who made life so unbearable for the poor. That fact was not lost on John the Baptist's audience. There is little doubt that john the Baptist dressed in the same manner as Elijah on purpose. It also appears certain that he knew that he was the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah.

As we said earlier, both Matthew and Mark drew careful attention both to John the Baptist's dress and diet. Modern Americans cringe when they read these words,

"His food was locusts and wild honey." Matthew 3:4b

The sound of a locust is threatening to us because of the tragic losses experienced by Americans on the western plains a generation or so ago. Just the thought of eating bugs is distasteful to most of us.

We should be reminded about what went through the minds of religious Jews when the idea of eating a locust was mentioned:

Of these (winged creatures) you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grass-hopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. Leviticus 11:22, 23

Dr. Carson is helpful in this regard.

_Locusts (akrides) are large grasshoppers, still eaten in the east, not the fruit of the locust tree. 13_

That certainly clarifies the issue, I doubt, however, that it makes the whole experience much more palatable to Americans in general.

Again, why would Matthew and Mark stress the fact that this was John's daily diet? There are two good reasons for their reminder:

1. This is one more way to identify John the Baptist with Elijah. Not only did they wear the same clothes, they ate the same diet. It was a symbolic way to let the people know that this was a prophet after the style of Elijah.

2. It, again, was a way to endear John the Baptist to the poverty stricken people of the area. It was a reminder that though the religious leaders of the people catered to the rich, the prophet of God felt a kinship to the poorest of the poor. Everyone who knew about this diet would understand that message immediately.

There was also a figurative message in all of this as well. Dr. Unger helpfully reminds us of this:

_It (the dress and diet) was an outward mark of that deadness to carnal enjoyment and mortifi-cation which marked John's mission as God's prophet in the apostasy of Israel. In this he imitated his great predecessor and type, Elijah (II Kings 1:8), in a time of similar degeneracy. 14_

The clothes he wore and the food he ate testified to the evil way of life in which many of his people lived.

John the Baptist, by his dress and diet, vividly identified with the prophet Elijah, who must come before the Messiah comes, and also with the poorest of the poor in his land. We would never notice this, but the people who saw and heard him could not miss the parallels. It was the evidence the people of Israel needed, if they would heed it, that the Messiah was coming.

# GO IN AND OUT

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and out, and will find pasture. John 10:9

In this portion of John's Gospel, he quotes Jesus talking about Himself using two images:

1. I am the Light of the World

2. I am the Good Shepherd

In John 10:7-18, Jesus, on two occasions, refers to Himself as "the good shepherd." One only needs to speak of the "good" shepherd if there is a "bad" shepherd. These people were very familiar with the picture of the hireling in Ezekiel 34.

In the time of Jesus, there were three basic religious groups:

1. The Sadducees - the aristocrats

2. The Pharisees - originally the reformers

3. The Essenes - the radical purists

The Sadducees grew out of the priestly group in the time of Ezra. They were the pragmatists. To some extent, they collaborated with Rome. They accepted the Roman appointment of the High Priest, though it should have been an election by the Jews. The Sadducees received a commission on the money exchanged for bird and animal sales in the temple. This prompted Jesus to drive the money changers and those who sold animals out of the temple.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, came from among the Scribes. They were separatists. They originally stood for the very careful observance of the Law. This changed radically and in the time of Jesus became a rallying center for power and wealth in the guise of religiosity.

The Essenes came into being about the second century before Christ. This ascetic community felt the religious leaders, in Jerusalem, had abandoned the faith and went out into the desert regions to practice the true faith.

People who would not cooperate with the Sadducees were barred from the door of the synagogue. Look back at John, chapter 9, to see an illustration of this. Jesus had healed the man who was born blind. When the parents of this man were questioned, they would only say, "This is our son" and "He was born blind."

John goes on, however, to give an explanation as to why the parents were so unwilling to comment any more than they did:

His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. That was why his parents said, 'He is of age; ask him.' John 9:22, 23

These Sadducees, bad shepherds, were willing to use force to get people to cooperate with their way of thinking and acting.

While the evil shepherds were busy keeping uncooperative people out of the synagogue, Jesus addressed the issue. Twice in the paragraph from which we just quoted, Jesus said, "I am the door." While Sadducees were busy keeping people out of the synagogue, Jesus was the door through whom the helpless could enter.

The people of Jesus' day understood this picture very well. In the desert area, sheep were kept in an enclosure beside the tent at night. In this part of Palestine, however, sheep were kept in the sheep-fold at night. It was an enclosure which was a totally walled-in area and sometimes was at the mouth of a cave to give protection from the cold of night. The shepherd himself slept in the doorway of this sheep-fold. A good shepherd was prepared to sacrifice himself for the good of the sheep. The bad shepherd was busy using and taking advantage of the sheep.

Speaking of himself as "the door," Jesus went on to explain:

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:9, 10

_Everyone who heard Jesus knew that a good shepherd cares intimately for the needs of his sheep. The animals come into the fold for shelter and protection; they go out to find green pasture and food. 15_

The people of Jesus' day were familiar with another image. Kings established their reputation by taking cities away from another king. This danger brought about "walled cities."

During the day and in peaceful times, the gates of the city could be left open. At night, however, and during times of great danger, the huge gates of the city were closed and barred. No one could come in or go out. A powerful king had the ability to have the city gates open and the people feeling secure.

Jesus was under attack for being a fraud: or worse, for having a demon. Jesus was explaining that He was willingly laying down His life for the benefit of the sheep, while the Sadducees were busy taking financial and political advantage of the people and keeping them from one of their most valued experiences -- the worship of God in the temple.

Again, the Jews would think of "go in and out" as something very specific in their culture. It was a way of describing peace in a nation; a way of describing security in the sheepfold. To us, it is a way of saying that in Jesus Christ we find the one who brings peace and security in a way that no earthly king has ever been able to duplicate.

# THE LAMB

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!' John 1:29

Did you ever wonder why John called Jesus a "lamb"? It certainly was not the most flattering thing Jesus could be called. Sheep are very trusting, but not very bright. Agriculturists have told me that the lamb/sheep does not have a brain in its head. What brain it has, and it isn't much, is in the spinal column. Just why would John call Jesus a lamb?

The context of our text indicates that priests and Levites had been sent to find out just what John was doing that drew such great crowds to hear him. Jesus said, in Matthew 11:14, that John the Baptist was the Elijah who must come to prepare the way for the Messiah.

John preached a message of repentance from sin. In the midst of his denunciation of the sin of the people as well as the religious leaders, John saw Jesus and cried out, "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John was speaking of Jesus, His second cousin.

John did not say, "Look, the prince of Israel, who will deliver us from the bondage of Rome". John said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John was specific as he described why Jesus had come. His emphasis was totally on Jesus' deliverance of the people from the sins about which he had been preaching.

The word "lamb", which John used was "amnos". There are at least two Greek words for "lamb" in the New Testament.

_The use of amnos points directly to the fact, the nature and character of His sacrifice; arnion (only in the apocalypse) presents him on the ground, indeed, of His sacrifice, but in acquired majesty, dignity, honor, authority and power. 16_

John carefully chose the word he used to stress the sacrifice of Jesus rather than His majesty and power. This word "amnos" is used only four times in the New Testament:

1. John 1:29 - "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John was identifying Jesus.

2. John 1:36 - "Look, the Lamb of God!" John identified Jesus again.

3. Acts 8:32 - Philip attempted to explain Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch.

4. I Peter 1:19 - Jesus as Lamb without spot or blemish - the Paschal Lamb.

Of these four references, our text is the most prominent.

There is one other factor about the Lamb. This helpless creature may not be too bright, but it is known for the fact that it is the purest of the animals. There is no other animal for which the lamb is an enemy. The sheep will only drink from clear quiet water. That fact is truly characteristic/symbolic of the holiness and purity of Jesus. Jesus was as different from the pagan as the sheep was different from the pig. Just as the lamb would not drink from fouled, stirred up water, so Jesus lived His life in such a way that they could find no fault in Him.

Any Jew who heard John say these words would be reminded of an Old Testament situation which they knew very well. Abraham took Isaac and went to make a sacrifice to the Lord. Not knowing about God's command to Abraham, Isaac asked him where the sacrifice was. Abraham's response was very prophetic. He said,

My son, God will provide for himself a lamb for a burnt offering. Genesis 22:8a

The statement by John harks back to Abraham's words, when John said, "Look, the Lamb of God..." The phrase, "Lamb of God" really means the Lamb provided by God. This is precisely what both Abraham and John were saying.

Luke 9:51 indicates that Jesus voluntarily came to Jerusalem and to His death. The Old and New Testaments parallel Jesus with the Passover Lamb slain in Egypt on the night before the slaying of Egypt's firstborn sons and the beginning of Israel's exodus from Egypt. Jesus was the deliverer from sin and death just as the Paschal Lamb was the one who preserved the first-born alive and triggered the release of Israel from bondage.

# JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, 'Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.' Judges 11:34, 35

The stories in the book of judges are not the best known in the Bible. The story of Jephthah is a continual source of shock and confusion for many readers. People respond in shocked disbelief, "how could he make such a promise?" and "how could he do that to his own daughter?"

This was an era in Israel's history when things were going from bad to worse. God promised to give them the land of Canaan, but required that the residents be killed or driven out. Israel took the land, but did not remove the people. Their punishment was that God left the people to be a thorn in Israel's side and therefore Israel was being attacked and destroyed by her neighbors. It is amazing how often the punishment we receive for our disobedience is that we receive what we want.

Jephthah was an illegitimate child and his half-brothers never let him forget it. They finally drove him away and he led a band of thieves. Leadership in Israel was so poor that Israel pleaded with Jephthah to be their leader. He agreed.

Things went well, at least for a while. When reverses came, Jephthah displayed a remarkable determination. Was it because he felt that his background and heritage demanded that he succeed? We can only conjecture. For whatever reason, Jephthah made a shocking covenant with God. Jephthah said,

...If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever(whoever) comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. Judges 11:30, 31

As Judges 11 indicates, God gave Jephthah victory over Ammon. Jephthah returned home in triumph. When he reached his home, he had to be shocked to see his only daughter come out to meet him.

The words of Jephthah make it clear, this was not what he had in mind when he made the vow. Notice his words,

When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, 'Oh! my daughter! you have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord and I can not break it. Judges 11:35

After giving her some time with her friends, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as he promised God he would do.

A host of questions come to mind as we read this story. Why would Jephthah make a covenant at all? It was not a way to coerce God into doing something He would not otherwise do. It probably seemed like Jephthah's only means to demonstrate to God that he was serious about his commitment.

If we update this a bit, it may be easier to understand. Many young soldiers have prayed as they lay in their foxhole under attack, "O God, if you get me through this alive, I promise I will be a minister." How many parents have stood by their infant's bedside as life began to slip away and cried out, "O God, save my baby's life and I will live for you every day"? It is the cry of our weakness. It may well have been for Jephthah as well.

Why would Jephthah make this covenant? Granted, it seems inhumane, but it is not as cold hearted as it may seem. First, notice that the text says, "whatever" not "whoever." There are some variants which could be translated "whoever", but the weight of evidence favors "whatever." If that translation is correct, then Jephthah was not expecting a person to greet him. The word choice suggests a thing, not a person.

In the homes of families who had servants, the lowest servant in the house was assigned to greet people at the door and wash their feet. If a family had only one servant, that person greeted guests and washed their feet. Under no circumstances would a member of the family, especially a young woman, stoop to greeting guests at the door, or worse, go out to meet them.

As we indicated in the story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus shocked His audience when he had the father in the story run out to welcome his son. That simply was totally unacceptable to the people of that day.

Jephthah was trying to make a reasonable promise to God that would demonstrate how important God was in his life. He had no idea that it would be so costly.

It is easy for us to ask questions about Jephthah's wisdom and intelligence. Not too many know the pain he felt before he made the vow, or the anguish he felt when he returned home in triumph.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. When your daughter came out to meet you, what, honestly, would you have done? Personally, when I read this story, I read it through tears. I can only stand in Jephthah's presence, hat in hand, wishing that my commitment were so deep.

# PETER ON THE HOUSETOP

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. Acts 10:9

Our discoveries in this instance will probably not correct an error in our thinking, but it should add breadth to our understanding.

This is the story of Cornelius the Centurion. This Roman officer was very well known and dearly loved by the Jewish people. Unlike many other Roman officials, he was very kind to the Jewish people under his care. He was also very generous to the Jewish religious groups and synagogues. This has led some to believe that he may have had a Jewish mother or that he was a low level inquirer concerning the Jewish faith.

This centurion, from the Roman city of Caesarea, had a vision directing him to go to Joppa, some 30 miles to the south, to find a man named Simon Peter. Cornelius, with two escorts, made the trip. The text indicates that they arrived at Joppa about noon. The passage tells us that Peter was the house guest of Simon the Tanner. Luke tells us that this house was by the sea. Simon was probably a Jew. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia adds a helpful piece of information.

_...(Simon) a tanner with whom Peter lodged at Joppa (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32). His house was by the seaside, probably segregated from the Jewish community, because tanning was an unclean trade (cf. Leviticus 11:39f). 17_

The reference to Leviticus contains this idea:

If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Leviticus 11:39

Because a tanner worked with dead animals, he was perpetually unclean and ostracized from the Jewish community. This tells us something very important about Peter. By staying in the tanner's home, Simon Peter would also be considered unclean. Nevertheless, Peter chose to accept Simon's hospitality. This was a major departure from Peter's usual activities:

_Strict Jews believed that God had no use for the Gentiles. Sometimes they even went to the length of saying that help must not be given to a Gentile woman in childbirth, because that would only be to bring another Gentile into the world. 18_

Was Simon the Tanner a Christian? The text does not say, but it is reasonable to conjecture that he was. Until this time Peter had stayed an appropriate distance from any Gentile if at all possible. He had probably never met a Gentile or visited a Gentile city before becoming a disciple of Jesus. Because Simon the Tanner was a Jew, Peter was able to associate with him. In all probability because Simon the Tanner was a Christian, Peter could overlook the stigma of the uncleanness of a tanner's home and stay there anyway.

Did you ever wonder why Peter was on the housetop when Cornelius, the Centurion, arrived? There are at least three good reasons for this:

1. The text clearly states that it was noon. (Some translations say "the sixth hour". This is one of the hottest times of the day. The roof of this home by the sea would be the coolest place in the house.

2. The text also indicates that Peter was praying. Noon was the time of the "noon prayers" which was observed by the strictest Jews. Peter was one of these and certainly took time to daily pray at noon. The Jews considered the tanning trade to be dishonorable and Simon was thus poorly-paid as well. If this is true, then Simon's house, on the fringe of the Jewish community, was also probably very small, perhaps a single room. To pray without distraction in such a setting might be difficult at best.

3. The text also indicates that Peter was a guest of Simon the Tanner. The only place for a guest chamber in such a home was the roof.

You may remember, from the discussion concerning "the inn" that the Greek word for "guest-chamber" was "kataluma." The Greek word that Luke used to describe Simon's roof, however, was "doma." Why are they different? The most accurate answer is, we do not know. It is very possible that the place usually called "kataluma" is here called "doma" because this particular roof would not have been as nicely appointed as a "kataluma" would be. It is understandable that a tanner's financial situation would dictate this.

The word "doma" means literally "to build." It came to be identified with a rooftop, but not necessarily a "kataluma" or "guest chamber."

This whole story says some remarkable things about the growth of the Apostle Peter. He went from not speaking to Gentiles to accepting the hospitality of the outcast tanner and going to the home of the Gentile, Cornelius, in order to minister to his family. And all of this occurrred in a very short period of time. It is marvelous what God can do in the heart of a committed disciple.

# THIEVES IN SCRIBE'S CLOTHING

They devour widow's houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely. Luke 20:47

Throughout much of His ministry, Jesus was challenging the attitudes and practices of religious leaders rather than those of the publicans and sinners. Jesus' most scathing accusations were directed toward these religious leaders. In Matthew chapter 23, Jesus delivered his most caustic attack against them. Seven times Jesus assumes a prophetic role:

Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites... Matthew 23:13

This indictment is repeated in Matthew 23:15, 16, 23, 25, 27 and 29. The attack must have infuriated these haughty religious leaders.

In Luke 20, the scribes, chief priests and elders challenged Jesus' authority. Luke tells us in Luke 20:20 that the chief priests and elders sent spies to try to find something with which to accuse Jesus. These religious leaders asked whether they should pay taxes to Caesar or not. Again, the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection, tried to trap Him by asking whose wife a barren woman would be in the resurrection.

It was at this point that Jesus urged His disciples to beware of the scribes. Jesus used six descriptive statements which form a stinging indictment against the scribes:

1. They desire to walk in long robes. This is to give the twin impressions of wealth and great importance.

2. They love salutations in the marketplace. This is the intense desire to be held in high respect by everyone.

3. They long for the chief seats in the synagogues. The first row seats in front of the ark, in the Jewish synagogue, were reserved for religious leaders and other important guests. This honor was very important to the Scribes.

4. They craved the chief seats at the different feasts. Again, their driving urge for attention controlled their lives.

5. They devour widow's houses. This was a way to describe taking advantage of the helpless.

6. They pray long prayers for a pretense.

Notice that all six accusations are in the plural. These were not isolated incidents. They happened in the lives of a host of scribes in a multitude of different settings.

Notice that five of the six accusations deal with the scribes' urgent desire to be known as people of wealth, power and position. The one exception is a blistering attack on them both from the religious and social perspectives. Notice how Jesus said it,

Who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. Luke 20:47

This is an attack on their hypocrisy. They were hardened to the plight of the widows, but made long prayers pretending to be pious.

Jesus said,

...Who devour widows' houses... Luke 20:47

The word "devour" is extremely graphic. It is an intensive form:

_...signifies (a) to consume by eating to devour. It is said of birds, Matthew 13:4; of the dragon, 12:4, of a prophet eating a book. Revelation 10:9, 10 19_

It is an incredible picture and Jesus describes the actions of the scribes in very graphic terms. They devour the helpless widows' (plural) homes like a ravenous animal would gorge down its first meal in many days.

Jesus did not spell out this crime against the widows, but everyone who listened to Him knew exactly what He was talking about. It was not permissible for a scribe to charge for his services. He was to have another vocation by which to sustain himself and his family. As spiritual life deteriorated in Israel, these religious leaders took advantage of their positions in two tragic ways:

_Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, says of certain times of intrigue in Jewish history, that the Pharisees valued themselves highly upon their exact skill in the law of their fathers, and made men believe that they, the Pharisees, were "highly favored by God" and that "they inveigled" certain women into their schemes and plottings. The idea behind this seems to be this. An expert in the law could take no pay for his teaching. He was supposed to have a trade by which he earned his daily bread. But these legal experts had managed to convey to the people that there was no higher duty and privilege than to support a rabbi in comfort, that, in fact such support would undoubtedly entitle him or her who gave it to a high place in the heavenly academy. 20_

The commentator, John P. Lange, suggests the second avenue through which the greed of these officials worked:

_...In the sphere of philanthropy, where they devoured widows' houses while they pretended to advance their interests. 21_

This was accomplished by taking advantage of poor widows. When left without visible means of support, by the death of her husband, a widow could be trapped. She could be left with nothing except her home and her little children. Under the apparent guise of trying to be helpful, the scribes would offer to lend her an adequate amount that she needed for food and other necessities. When the debt came due, she could not pay. The scribes would then take her home, or her children, or both, in payment of the debt. The travesty of justice was that the scribes knew that she couldn't pay and counted on being able to take her home and children away from her in court.

There were obvious moral problems in all this. The scribes, like no one else in all Israel, knew the Law. One very well-known law in Israel was this:

Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. Exodus 22:22-24

It was outright disobedience to the command of God for anyone in Israel to afflict widows or other helpless individuals. The scribes got around this by a technicality, but they knew very well that this was a glaring disobedience to the command of God.

In Deuteronomy you will find these words:

He(God) defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens for you yourself were aliens in Egypt. Deuteronomy 10:18, 19

The Scribes knew this passage by heart. They knew that their cold calculating schemes were in direct conflict with the plan and actions of God. God's plans for the helpless - widows, the fatherless and sojourners - were elaborate.

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. Deuteronomy 14:28, 29

All the tithe Israel had stored up was to be made available to the Levites as well as the widows, the fatherless and sojourners.

God made elaborate plans to provide a way for the helpless to live and survive. The scribes plotted legal ways to take away everything God had given these helpless people.

There is no question about Jesus' words to His disciples:

Beware of the Teachers of the Law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogue and have the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely. Luke 20:46, 47

# THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders. Matthew 27:3

The phrase "30 pieces of silver" or "30 silver coins" appears only five times in the Bible. These references are:

Zechariah 11:12

Zechariah 11:13

Matthew 26:15

Matthew 27:3

Matthew 27:9

All three New Testament references deal with Judas and his arrangement with the Jewish religious leaders concerning the betrayal of Jesus.

When people read these passages, it may appear to them that the number "30" was simply a financial agreement arrived at by two interested parties. There is no Biblical statement to deny this possibility.

It is interesting, however, that "30 pieces of silver" just happened to be the price agreed upon for Judas to betray Jesus. It also happened to be the going price for the purchase of a slave at that time.

_"Thirty pieces of silver were, according to Exod. 21:32, the price of a slave. Hence in Zech. 11:12, the price at which the Shepherd of nations is valued, was thirty pieces of silver. The literal fulfillment of this word should not make the round sum suspicious. We should rather assume that the Sanhedrin designedly, and with cunning irony, chose the price of the slave in Exod. 21." 22_

Knowing this, did the Sanhedrin set the price intentionally to coincide with the price of a slave or did it just work out that way? Lange makes it clear he believes that it was deliberate. He goes on to say,

_But Jerome did not see, nor any of the Fathers, that thirty pieces of silver was the regular price for the life of a slave, which explains this sum in our case as a deliberate insult of the Sanhedrin to our Lord who died the death of a slave and a malefactor, that He might redeem us from the slavery and eternal misery of sin. 23_

"30 pieces of silver" is not an outstanding price for which to betray a person to death. That being the case, it appears questionable that one can properly substantiate the idea that this was just a financial arrangement.

On the other hand, the fact that Jesus was sold for the price of a slave was more than an interesting coincidence. Jesus was not only treated as a common criminal, he was also treated as the lowest level of humanity, the least valuable of slaves.

A person in that culture would most certainly make this connection without being reminded of the cost of a slave. In our culture, that would not be known and would thus be glossed over in reading.

Matthew obviously knew about the cost of a slave. The inclusion of this piece of information was a quiet way for Matthew to point out the fact that Jesus was not only submitted to unbelievable humiliation and rejection, but was also treated with less respect than the average slave.

# A COVENANT OF SALT

Don't you know that the Lord, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt? II Chronicles 13:5

There are only two specific references to a covenant of salt in the Old Testament, but a host of references where the Jewish mind would understand that this was the author's intent. I thought of the "covenant of salt" as a fancy way to describe the actions of Old Testament people. This phrase describes something quite specific in the Hebrew mind. In Leviticus, the author specifically instructs Israelites to include salt with every sacrifice they made to Jehovah:

Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. Leviticus 2:13

Salt was one of the most valuable possessions in the Israelite homes. Their very best was a part of every sacrifice they made.

The people of the Near East used salt in a number of ways. It was their best, and in some instances, their only means of preserving food. Salt would thus be associated with preservation and longevity. It is not surprising that God chose to use salt in accordance with each sacrifice. There is the obvious suggestion that the covenant, inherent in the sacrifice, be an enduring one. Because of salt's obvious qualities of preservation, it was used symbolically to suggest that the two parties of a covenant eat salt together and in so doing establish a relationship that was enduring.

Salt was also an excellent cleansing agent. It was used to cleanse wounds and to retard the operation of bacteria in food. It is therefore not surprising that God chose to insist that every sacrifice include some salt as a reminder of the need to be pure in one's relationships with God.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia identifies still other uses of salt:

_When men ate together they became friends. cf. The Arabic expression, "There is salt between us." 24_

If two people ate together, if they shared salt, they were considered friends. A friend was not only someone you could trust, but also one who would be like family; one whom you could trust never to attack you.

If you ate with a person, shared salt with him/her, it was a message to the community concerning the relationship between the two:

_'He has eaten my salt' which means partaking of hospitality which cemented friendship; cf. 'eat the salt of the palace.' (Zero 4:14). 25_

The "salt of the palace" had at least two connotations. To eat at the palace acknowledged a friendship with the king. It also identified the fact that there was an enduring friendship which may not have been seen as dependable previously.

Just as every sacrifice included salt, as previously described, so covenants between individuals were sealed at a meal which included salt:

_Covenants were generally confirmed by sacrificial meals and salt was always present. 26_

A "salt covenant" was one in which the two parties had shared in a sacrificial meal and shared salt together. There are two parts to the meaning of this. The sacrificial meal was a reminder to both of them that they entered into this together with God. Secondly, it was a reminder that salt covenants could never be broken. It was a symbol to all present that the covenant was indeed confirmed and would not be broken:

_Covenanting parties were accustomed to partake of salt, to make the covenant a covenant of salt..., ie., inviolably sure. 27_

This is what was being suggested in the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter:

Don't you know that the Lord, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt? II Chronicles 13:5

Salt was very important in the Jewish community.

Treaties were sealed with salt... The Talmud says, 'The world can get along without pepper, but it cannot get along without salt.

_In present-day Israel, the mayor of Jerusalem often greets distinguished visitors at the entrance of the city with an offering of bread and salt. Arabs, to this day, seal agreements with bread and salt. 28_

This gives us some impression of just how pervasive the idea of salt has been down through the centuries to the whole Near East region.

In the book of Numbers, Moses is describing not only the responsibilities but also the rewards of the priests. In that process he quotes God:

Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the Lord I give to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord for both you and your offspring. Numbers 18:19

God is assuring them that the agreement to give them these blessings was as sure as His word. He chose to symbolize that by referring to it as a "covenant of salt."

Jesus, of course, was quite conversant with both the Old Testament and the customs of His people. It is not surprising that He referred to the covenant of salt when He said:

Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other. Mark 9:50

As we indicated previously, the idea of salt conveyed a number of symbolic meanings to the Jewish mind of that day:

1. A cemented friendship

2. An enduring quality of life

3. An agent of preservation

4. A cleansing agent

5. A symbol of dependability

A more literal translation of the intent of Jesus might be:

...Have and keep on having salt in yourself and be at peace and keep on being at peace with others.' Mark 9:50

There is every reason to believe that Jesus had these symbolic ideas in mind when He gave this command. If that is true, Jesus was saying that we should establish a dependable, never-ending friendship with ourselves so that we can establish the same kind of relationship with others. That is peace!

# WHERE ARE MY SHOES?

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.... When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, 'Moses, Moses' And Moses said, 'Here I am.' 'Do not come any closer' God said, 'Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.' Exodus 3:1-5

We know the burning bush story so well that we tend to skip it or not take it seriously. Therefore, it is easy to miss what God is saying about Himself and His people. Open your Bible and read Exodus 3, 4 and then we can share together.

When did this experience happen? Several Biblical experiences are precisely pinpointed, but not this one. In the midst of the dreariness of everyday life, God spoke to Moses. Accustomed to the busyness of big city life, the noisy palace activity, the sumptuous royal surroundings, the best of everything: this former prince was now all alone with animals for company, the craggy mountains for a vista and silence for entertainment. The heir-apparent to the throne of Egypt had become a sheepherder for a priestly family. Did these sudden changes have an effect on Moses? Does the sun rise every morning? It was in these surroundings that God spoke to a forgotten man.

Moses did not go crying to God; God came to him in the midst of his nightmare of meaninglessness. The burning bush was just to get Moses' attention. The real issue was not unconsumed burning bushes, but the fact that God spoke to a forgotten man. It was a very personal encounter. God called Moses by name.

In two ways God emphasized His royal, revered presence:

1. God told Moses not to come closer (even in intimacy, God is still awesome).

2. God told Moses to take off his shoes.

This was an expression of awe and reverence. God was helping Moses to realize that wherever he was, in God's presence, it was holy ground. Using the name "elohae", which stresses His mercy, God identified Himself in four different ways:

1. I am the God of your father. The one who was able to keep you alive against Pharoah's command.

2. I am the God of Abraham who promised to take him to a land, and I did.

3. I am the God of Isaac, who promised his seed would be like the sand of the seashore, and it was.

4. I am the God of Jacob, the one who forgave him of all his "heelgrabbing" ways, and I did.

In God's speaking we glimpse something of His glory. God demonstrated His awareness saying, "I have seen the affliction of my people." God divulged His great concern saying, "I am come down to deliver." God revealed His divine generosity when He promised to give them "a land of milk and honey."

God came to Moses with a task for him to perform. He sent Moses to deliver Israel from an impossible situation. God often sends very common people to do uncommon tasks.

Moses was certain that there was a mistake. God couldn't want him to do that. People wouldn't listen to him; he wasn't a speaker, the Pharoah wouldn't listen to him. Besides, he was a wanted man in Egypt. His "reasons" were endless. Gideon and Isaiah both had lists like that. Somehow, these are the people God can use best. Moses suffered, not from lack of ability, but because he could not act upon what he already knew about God.

God has always spoken to common people, calling them to do uncommon tasks. God never changes. All that God was and did in the Old Testament, He still is and does. In the "everydayness" of your life, God torches a bush in your kitchen, office or work-bench and reaches out for your zeal and commitment.

God does not call every person to be a Moses, a David, an Esther, Deborah or Paul. God does call every servant of His to serve Him with abandon. God calls modern, common people to do equally uncommon service. You and I are common people. What is the uncommon task to which He calls us? Our bush is burning. How will we answer that call?

# CONCLUSION

When theologians talk about the inspiration of Scripture, they are usually speaking of the action by which the Holy Spirit works through the skill and personality of the writer to convey God's revelation of Himself to people. This is a vital part of that understanding. You can see this in the logic of Paul that is so obvious in the epistle to the Romans. It is also obvious in the immediacy of the Gospel of Mark, which is evident in none of the other three Gospel records. What other Gospel record has the human and medical sensitivity that you find in the Gospel of Luke?

When we talk about inspiration, we also mean that God, by the Holy Spirit, reveals Himself and His will through the facility and characteristics of the language in which it was conveyed. The romantic, emotional Hebrew language is a perfect vehicle by which to describe the character of God as He revealed Himself in the historical record of the lives of Old Testament personages. Likewise, God revealed the intricate detail of His personality and His will for our lives through the deft precision of the Greek language. This is most obvious in the epistles.

We are beginning to realize that we are only scratching the surface in our understanding of what is involved in the inspiration of the Scripture. God, by the Holy Spirit, used the cultural mores and understandings as a means to reveal Himself and His will for the lives of His people. This book is a series of illustrations of this truth.

The church has been documenting a regression in the understanding of Scripture. Over a century ago, the church struggled because the people outside the church were Biblically illiterate. In the early part of this century there was a gradual drift away from Biblical preaching and teaching in some segments of the church. In more recent times this decline has pervaded an increasing segment of the church until, in some places, a pastor cannot use a Biblical illustration without explaining it. This is because major segments of the congregation would not know what the pastor was talking about.

We need to change directions in the church. We need to gain a deeper grasp of the basic understandings of the Bible. We need to teach the Scriptures to many who have been a part of the church all their lives. We must also teach the Scriptures to the people who have recently become followers of Jesus.

As we discover the meaning of Scripture and the additional clarity which these cultural details provide, it must make a measurable difference in our Christian lives. As we increase our knowledge of Scripture, we also seriously increase our potential for knowing God more completely. Catching a clearer glimpse of God, we open ourselves to a dramatic discovery of His will for our lives. Again, as we discover God's will more clearly, we can become open to the possibility of becoming both useful in His kingdom, and also of growing as obedient disciples.

An understanding of the words and phrases highlighted in this book can clarify our grasp of God's revelation of Himself and His will for our lives.

We hope that you will continue to delve more deeply into the Word of God. We also hope you will discover even more of the intricate detail of God's revelation of Himself and His will.

###

# ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bill's books and Bible Studies are available in print format and can be ordered on his website:

http://billcooperlogos.org

Bill Cooper was a pastor for 29 years and has made ten trips to Israel. He is the president and founder of Logos Ministries, Incorporated. Bill has taught in six different countries for 10 years and then for 8 years he directed and taught in the Emmaus Biblical Seminary in Vaudreuil, Haiti.

He is active in his local church in Fort Collins, Colorado and he also conducts Spiritual Life Retreats for church conferences and congregations. He and his wife, Ruth, an internationally known porcelain artist, have two grown children: a daughter, Ruth, and a son, Kiel.

Bill presently devotes full time to teaching Inductive Bible Study and writing books on Bible study for the laity.

Bill holds the following degrees:

B. Th. - Nyack College

B. A. - Wayne State University

M. Div. - Biblical Seminary in N. Y. C.

D. Min. - Ashbury Theological Seminary

# ENDNOTES

1 Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957) p.1084.

2 Hershel Shanks, The City of David, (Washington: The Biblical Archaeological Society, 1975) p. 19

3 Hershel Shanks, loc. cit., p. 68

4 Merrill F. Unger, Op. Cit.,p. 86

5 William Barclay's, The Gospel Of Mark, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975) p. 129

6 R. Laird Harris, Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament Volume 1, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) p. 465

7 John Peter Lange, Commentary On The Holy Scriptures, Luke, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) p. 227

8 Philip Schaff, Ed., Lange's Commentary On The Holy Scriptures, Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House) p. 131

9 Chefetz Chayim, The Concise Book Of Mitzvoth, (New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1990) p. 273

10 Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957) p. 604

11 John R. Kohlenberger III, ed., The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984) p. 676

12 Merrill F. Unger, vUnger's Bible Dictionary, (C hicago: Moody Press, 1957) p. 169.

13 Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed., The Expositor's Bible CommentaryVolume 8, (Matthew, Dr. D. A. Carson),(Grand Rapids: Zandervon Publishing House, 1984) p. 102.

14 Merrill F. Unger, p. 169.

15 James Fleming, I Am The Good Shepherd, (Jerusalem: Biblical Resources, 1984) a tape

16 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), p. 637

17 Geoffrey Bromiley, Gen. Ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4 ( Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) p. 516

18 William Barclay, The Acts Of The Apostles, The Daily Study Bible Series, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977) p. 80

19 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., The Expanded Vine's Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984) p. 299

20 William Barclay, The Gospel Of Mark, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976) p. 300

21 Philip Schaff, Ed., Commentary On The Holy Scriptures, Luke, John Peter Lange, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House p. 313

22 Philip Schaff, Ed., (Commentary On The Holy Scriptures, Matthew, By John Peter Lange, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co.) p. 464

23 Ibid., p. 464

24 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 1, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) p. 794

25 Ibid

26 Ibid

27 Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957) p. 224

28 Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book Of Why, (Middle Village: Jonathan David Press, 1988) p. 328
