They basically say we should only be thinking happy and uplifting thoughts, and not drag ourselves down with any “negative confessions” or lingering contemplation of life’s more unpleasant and unsavoury matters. I have already dealt with this sort of thinking in a more general fashion elsewhere: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/04/13/i-just-dont-want-to-think-about-it/

But here I wish to focus on this passage in a bit more detail. Even taking it at face value, it cannot mean what either the positive confessionists believe, or those who just don’t want to think about all the yucky things in life. The passage says this:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Consider just one thing that we are supposed to consider: that which is true.

Now here are some true things – things which we must therefore consider:

-the terrible persecution of Christians around the globe
-the rape and abuse of children
-the slaughter of millions of unborn babies each year
-the breakdown of marriages and families
-the many lives destroyed by drug and alcohol abuse
-the widespread carnality, compromise and lukewarmness in the churches
-the proliferation of cults and false religions
-the scandalous cases of apostasy, sexual sin, and abuse in the churches
-the many cases of false doctrine, false teachers, and false prophets causing all sorts of mischief

These are just a few things which happen to be true, and which we must consider. It certainly does no one any good to close our eyes and try to wish all these problems and tragedies away. That has nothing to do with Christian witness in a fallen world, and it has nothing to do with what this verse is attempting to convey.

And bear in mind that the Word of God itself is true – and it gives us the full picture of life in a fallen world with all of its sin, suffering, degradation and evil. Our calling as believers is to deal with all that and seek to be salt and light in this very needy world, and not pretend it does not exist.

So just what is Paul saying here then? First, a bit of context. In this brief letter Paul talks about joy and rejoicing more than in almost any other book in the Bible. And that is quite amazing because he wrote it while in a Roman prison. The point of the epistle is to encourage believers, and to get them to focus on Jesus, not just their circumstances.

Of course that does not mean Paul is just trying to wish away his difficulties, or do some mind-over-matter routine about his actual condition. Paul is a realist and he knows his situation is not so great. But he knows his God is great, and whatever happens, he wants to see Christ glorified.

Gordon Fee, a Pentecostal pastor and New Testament scholar, who wrote a devastating little booklet back in 1979 called The Disease of the Health & Wealth Gospels, writes in his commentary on this epistle:

“What Paul says here is much less clear than the English translations would lead one to believe. The impression given is that he is calling on them one final time to ‘give their minds’ to nobler things. That may be true in one sense, but the language and grammar suggest something slightly different. The verb ordinarily means to ‘reckon’ in the sense of ‘take into account,’ rather than simply to ‘think about’. This suggests that Paul is telling them not so much to ‘think high thoughts’ as to ‘take into account’ the good they have long known from their own past, as long as it is conformable to Christ….

“Thus, he appears to be dipping into the language of hellenistic moralism, in his case tempered by Jewish wisdom, to encourage the Philippians that even though they are presently ‘citizens of heaven’, living out the life of the future as they await its consummation, they do not altogether abandon the world in which they used to, and still do, live. As believers in Christ they will embrace the best of that world as well, as long as it is understood in the light of the cross.”

And this is not mere happy reflections, daydreaming, or theoretical musings. Right thoughts are meant to be coupled with right actions, as verse 9 makes clear. As Gerald Hawthorn remarks, “These verses constitute a single sentence in Greek that is marvelous for its rhetorical expression and for the loftiness of the moral standards it sets forth….

“They fairly well sum up what is involved in standing firm in the Lord: (1) ‘you must think’, and (2) ‘you must act’. . . . The Philippians must ever be critical towards heathen culture and evaluate carefully its standards of morality. But certainly he does not intend by [the use of ‘consider’] any encouragement to reflection without action.

“Rather he intends to say that the Philippian Christians must carefully consider certain things and evaluate them thoughtfully for the ultimate purpose of letting these things guide them into good deeds.”

Moreover, the list of virtues found here of course culminates fully in the person of Jesus Christ. It is him that we are to be mindful of and to continuously consider. When we do that, we can endure whatever difficult circumstances come our way, and be effective in the work of the Lord.

Thus this passage is not about any “positive confession” theology, nor is it a command to look away from the world’s troubles and problems. It is a call to have the mind of Christ and apply it to the ills of the world as we seek to represent him faithfully, and minister into the needs and difficulties of the day.

[1028 words]

But a bit of background first. In Luke 4:16-21 we read about Jesus going to Nazareth and speaking at a synagogue on the Sabbath. He reads from the Hebrew text which was perhaps allotted for the day (there may have been a fixed reading schedule), which comes from Isaiah 61. The first three verses make up one long sentence, and Jesus starts with verse one, but only gets halfway through verse two.

When he finishes reading, he puts down the scroll and makes this amazing statement: “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Suffice it to say, the Jews were all “amazed” at his words (v. 22). The problem is that he stops his reading at Is. 61:2a. He does not read the other two lines of it, nor v. 3. What he read in the synagogue was this:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

What he did not continue reading was this:

“and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.”

It is the bit about vengeance which has been left out. This has puzzled some, and left others to posit a bifurcation in the nature of God. Some argue that Jesus only stresses the good stuff here: good news, freedom, favour, etc., but not the bad stuff: his judgment on sin, etc.

Some suggest that this means Jesus is somehow different than the Old Testament God (supposedly a God of wrath), and that he only emphasises love and mercy. This of course is a faulty understanding not only of this text but the entire Bible. As I have written elsewhere, God is exactly the same in both Testaments.

He is not a grumpy, wrathful God in the Old Testament and a loving, forgiving God in the New Testament. He is fully both in both Testaments. But see here for more on this: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/27/on-divine-love-and-wrath/

So what is going on here then? Is Jesus downplaying divine justice, and simply elevating divine mercy? No, not at all. The short answer is this: Jesus stopped where he did in his reading of Isaiah to emphasise his servant role in his first coming. He did not come as a conquering king the first time around, much to the chagrin of the Jews who were hoping for such.

The messianic hope for many Jews back then was that the Messiah would come and kick some Roman butt, freeing them from their oppression under gentile rule, and making them pre-eminent once again. But Jesus came as a suffering servant the first time, as predicted in places like Isaiah 53. That is why most Jews missed him back then. They were not looking for a servant, but a military king.

And they certainly did not expect their deliverer to come as someone who would die a criminal’s death on a cross. They missed out completely on the need for Jesus to die this way, to bring about their freedom, favour and so on as predicted in Is. 61.

But in Is. 61:2b we find his messianic role as judge being emphasised. And this as we know will certainly be the case when Jesus returns in his second coming. Thus this entire Isaianic passage is fully being fulfilled in Christ, and there is no discrepancy here at all between the different aspects being emphasised.

God’s love and justice are both fully part of who he is, and this text refers to both aspects of who God is. He will indeed come again to execute just judgment on those who reject him. Now he offers folks grace and mercy, but then it will be too late. Then they will face his wrath.

Moreover, for anyone suffering oppression, the favour that Jesus speaks about in 2a will of course nicely be implemented by his just vengeance spoken of in 2b. Those who suffer now will one day be vindicated, and that provides great hope and comfort now.

So the text is a whole piece which cannot be divided in terms of who God is, but it can be divided in terms of when and how these aspects of God’s character are fully made manifest. The first half of the text finds fulfilment in the first coming, while the section on vengeance finds fulfilment in his second coming.

The truth is, the much longed for “day of the Lord” which ancient Israel awaited in fact is a very long day, with two main parts. It began with the first coming, and with Christ’s work on the cross. That inaugurated the day of the Lord. But it will not be fully consummated until his second coming.

Thus a passage like Is 61:1-3 presents us with the full day of the Lord, but the dual aspect of this day was not clear to the Jews back then. It is like looking at a range of mountain tops from a distance, in which one may not be able to see the large gaps between the mountains. We now can see a chronological gap between the two comings, but in Is. 61 it seems to be all compressed into just one period or one event.

This reflects the “already, and not yet” understanding of the New Testament. Already the day of salvation has come, already the kingdom of God has been inaugurated, but it is not yet fully realised, it is not yet fully brought to completion. For more on this important NT interpretive framework, see these two articles:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/01/28/living-between-the-ages/

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/07/v-e-day-and-the-end-of-the-world/

But all this is a fairly common understanding of this passage, so let me buttress my remarks by a few quotes from some of the experts here. Alec Motyer for example puts it this way in his commentary on Isaiah: “This is the passage the Lord Jesus deliberately sought out as the starting point of his public ministry (Lk. 4:16-22). His action validates authoritatively the understanding we have reached without appeal to the gospels, that Isaiah displays here a Messianic figure.

“In his reading, the Lord Jesus stopped at the words the Lord’s favour (2a) and did not proceed to the day of vengeance. Thus he expressed his own understanding of his mission at that point, not to condemn but to save the world (Jn. 3:17). He was also aware, however, of a coming day when he would execute the judgment committed to him (Jn. 5:22-29). In other words, what Isaiah sees as a double-facetted ministry the Lord Jesus apportions respectively to his first and second comings, the work of the Servant and of the Anointed Conqueror.”

Or as Raymond Ortlund puts it, “Christ fulfils all the prophecies, but not all at the same time. At his first coming, he inaugurated the year of the Lord’s favour. At his second coming, he’ll bring in the day of the vengeance of our God, when the door of grace will shut forever. There’s a time gap between the first line of verse 2 and the second line of verse 2, and we’re living right now in that interval.

“It’s as if Isaiah looks into the future and sees two mountain peaks far away, one beyond the other. But he can’t see how much distance there is between them. So we don’t know how long we have. But as long as this season of favour lasts, the Messiah continues to use the preaching of the gospel to take away the ashes of mourning that our dark thoughts heap on our heads and to pour upon us the oil of gladness.”

Lastly, Darrell Bock comments on the Lukan passage: “The ultimate time of God’s vengeance is not yet arrived in this coming of Jesus (9:51-56; 17:22-37; 21:5-37). The division of deliverance and judgment in God’s plan, alluded to by the omission [of Is. 61:2b], is sorted out later in Luke.

“This omission represents part of the ‘already-not yet’ tension of NT eschatology, and a Gospel writer can discuss an issue from either side of the temporal perspective. Jesus’ mission is placed initially in terms of hope, but it also brings an implication of judgment about which he will warn in 4:24-27.”

So we really have no problem here. Simply having an understanding of general biblical eschatology, with its emphasis of two comings as part of the day of the Lord, along with an understanding of “living between the ages” helps us to see this passage aright.

These understandings also help us to see even more clearly that there is no OT God/NT God distinction, nor is there a division of God’s attributes. He is fully loving and merciful, but he is also fully holy and just. We see both aspects on display at Calvary, and we will see both aspects on display when he comes again.

[1604 words]

The NIV rendering of the text is as follows: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Now there is nothing too problematic here, but that is because of the way the passage has been translated. If you take something like the KJV then you find matters become a bit more cloudy: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

But real issues arise if we use something like the RSV: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Here you can see what the problem is, and how it relates to the abortion debate. It seems that a baby has been killed here, yet the fine is just a monetary one. The pro-abortion crowd seize on this and argue that the unborn baby is obviously not very important if it only is worth some monetary compensation.

This then is really an exegetical and hermeneutical problem. Getting a right understanding of the original Hebrew is the way to proceed here. So which translation best conveys the meaning of this text? The main phrase that we must focus on of course is this: “and she gives birth prematurely”.

Is the NIV on the right path here? Let me here draw upon the expertise of a number of Old Testament scholars and Hebrew experts. Douglas Stuart for example notes, as do most commentators, that there is admittedly some wording here “that is without parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament and thus challenging to translate”.

He looks at the various translation options here and then says this: “The most likely translation for the disputed portion of the law would seem to be, “If men get into a fight and hurt a pregnant woman but she is still able to have children and there is no harm…”

John Piper offers five reasons why the NIV rendering is the preferred option. He says, “I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew: And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman (‘ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse’u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

He concludes, “The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother. Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.”

Philip Graham Ryken takes this approach to the text: “When a pregnant woman was struck in a way that induced labor, there was an obvious risk of injury or even death to both mother and child. If there was a serious injury to either one of them, then the man who caused it would deserve strict justice – an eye for an eye, and so on. But even if the mother and her child survived, the man still needed to pay a fine, as determined by the elders. His rash and violent act had threatened two of the most vulnerable people in society: a mother and her unborn child. The law demanded a fine to show that the weak deserve special care.”

In his commentary, John Durham puts it this way: “If two men in a scuffle inadvertently strike a pregnant woman, causing by the trauma of the blow the premature birth of her child, if there is no harm, presumably either to the mother or the newborn child or children, the man who actually inflicted the blow is to pay compensation, fixed by the woman’s husband on the basis of an assessment agreed upon by an objective third party. If, however, there is permanent injury, either to the woman, or, presumably, to the child or the children she was carrying, equal injury is to be inflicted upon the one who caused it.”

In sum, it seems we can say that the full text provides us with this basic principle:
-if in a personal injury to a pregnant woman resulting in premature birth there is no serious harm, then the one who caused this is to make a monetary compensation as the appropriate price to pay (v.22);
-if in a personal injury to a pregnant woman there is serious harm, then the one who caused this is to receive the death penalty as suitable punishment (vv.23-25).

John Jefferson Davis offers his own summary of the data: “Exodus 21:22-25, far from justifying permissive abortion, in fact grants the unborn child a status in the eyes of the law equal to the mother’s. The passage is thus consistent with the high regard for prenatal life manifested elsewhere in Scripture.”

A concluding thought on this text comes from Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline who writes, “the most significant thing about abortion legislation in the biblical law is that there is none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code.”

www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-2122-25-by-pro-choice-advocates

[1114 words]

The passage is this: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Some rather undiscerning and unbalanced Christians have managed to major in minors here. Thus there are a number of regular snake-handling services in some of these Southern churches. And of course many of these snake-handlers have been killed by playing with poisonous snakes.

Consider this very recent news story: “A ‘serpent-handling’ West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before. Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford, 44, hosted an outdoor service at the Panther Wildlife Management Area in West Virginia Sunday, which he touted on his Facebook page prior to the event….

“Robin Vanover, Wolford’s sister, told the Washington Post that 30 minutes into the outdoor service, Wolford passed around a poisonous timber rattlesnake, which eventually bit him. ‘He laid it on the ground,’ Vanover said in the interview, ‘and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh.’ Vanover said Wolford was then transported to a family member’s home in Bluefield about 80 miles away to recover. But as the situation worsened, he was taken to a hospital where he later died….

“Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling. ‘Anybody can do it that believes it,’ Wolford said. ‘Jesus said, “These signs shall follow them which believe.” This is a sign to show people that God has the power.’ Wolford said he watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him during a similar service.”

So what are we to make of all this? More particularly, how are we to understand this passage? Several things can be stated. Perhaps most importantly, these verses are not even in the best New Testament manuscripts. We have in fact two questionable endings to Mark. One is a longer one (vv. 9-20) and one is quite short. Neither seems to be part of Mark’s original gospel.

Most good Bible translations will mention this fact, whether or not they actually run with these final dubious verses. The technical details are not something to be fully entered into here, but a few quick thoughts. The content of the longer ending seems to be a collection of bits and pieces from the resurrection narratives of Matthew and Luke.

Given that most scholars believe that Mark was written before these two other Synoptic gospels, then it does seem to be a later addition. And the various extant manuscripts have a number of differing arrangements of these suspect verses. Most good critical commentaries discuss the various bits of textual evidence and concur that the Gospel as we now have it ends at 16:8, and most therefore do not comment on the extra verses.

Thus most of modern textual scholarship is settled on this much: there is almost no scholarly debate about the textual reliability of either the shorter or longer endings. Genuine debate however does still exist over whether or not we should understand v. 8 to have been Mark’s intended final verse.

So it looks like this passage may not be part of the inspired original text. Thus we could end our discussion here. But let’s look at the passage anyway, and see how it lines up with the snake handlers’ claims. Even if it were part of the canonical Gospel of Mark, it is clear right away that this is not a command.

What Jesus says about poisonous drinks – “if they drink any deadly thing” (KJV) – would seem to also apply to the issue of handling snakes. It is not something we are to go out of our way seeking, but if it does occur, there may be healing power available in Christ.

Indeed, there are hardly any other passages which even speak of such things, let alone command believers to make this a vital part of the Christian life. We certainly have no New Testament account of drinking poisons. We do have one narrative account of a snakebite occurring accidently – and not being sought after.

Paul was bitten by a serpent in Malta while tending a fire, but he flicked it off and was not harmed (Acts 28:1-6). He certainly did not go out of his way looking for dangerous serpents. Indeed, he did not devote entire church services to messing around with a bunch of deadly snakes.

The only other similar sort of text is Luke 10:18-20, where Jesus speaks of having authority over serpents and scorpions. It is mentioned in the context of the downfall of Satan. But both these passages can be taken metaphorically, given how Satan is portrayed as a serpent in Scripture, going back to Genesis 3.

As James Edwards says about the Markan passage, there is the question of “whether the image of ‘picking up snakes in their hands’ cannot be understood metaphorically, that is, that in the age of salvation the curse of the serpent has been overcome.”

Darrell Bock comments on the Lukan text: the disciples “have the right to overcome hostile creation as represented by serpents and scorpions, as well as overcome the enemy’s power, an allusion to Satan. . . . The point is not so much that such beings can be handled safely, as much as that such forces and what they represent can be opposed and crushed. The disciples are secure in God’s hands. Nothing can really hurt them.

“The picture is drawn from OT figurative language, which describes God’s protection in terms of trampling over created beings. . . . This emphasis on power is not the one Jesus wants the disciples to have. He wants them to focus on their gracious and secure standing before God. There is joy greater than their authority: their names are written in heaven.”

Or as David Garland says about the passage in Luke: “Jesus is using these as metaphors for God’s divine protection (Deut 8:15) and the crushing of evil; ‘the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet’ (Rom 16:20). Jesus is not giving clearance to handle snakes (Mark 16:18) to prove one’s invulnerability. The point is that ‘a powerful and resourceful enemy,’ including the forces of nature, will not be able to stop the success of the Christian mission.”

Many scholars take this metaphorical understanding as a valid option. But even if this is not the best way to proceed, surely the emphasis is on having victory over Satan in general, and not in spending time holding snake handling meetings. This is not only presumption and foolishness, but it is losing track of biblical priorities.

Church services are meant to be about worship, ministry of the word, and the sacraments. They are not about foolish displays of human bravado and unnecessarily tempting the Lord in this way. How some Christians can get their priorities so bent out of shape is quite remarkable.

We don’t need more gullible church leaders dying from snake bites to prove their faith. Simply dealing with a congregation with the problems and difficulties which that entails needs faith enough as is. That is where we prove our faith, in faithful service to the body of Christ, not in spectacular stunts and gimmicks.

To say all this of course is not to deny that God can and does heal. In any time of crisis, we pray and seek God’s healing power. But we are not to major in minors, nor spend our time playing with snakes when much more pressing needs, challenges and callings exist.

news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645–abc-news-topstories.html

[1384 words]

Can a full-blown theology of healing be developed from this passage? Are those who argue for such an interpretation correct? Just how are we to understand the healing elements of Is. 53? Let’s consider this last question. Gordon Fee puts it this way:

“The Isaiah passage itself is ambiguous; it is clearly a metaphor for salvation, but in the prophetic tradition such salvation also included the healing of the people’s wounds incurred in their judgment. Thus in the NT this passage is understood both as a metaphor for salvation (1 Pet. 2:24) and as a promise of physical healing (Matt. 8:17).

As R.T. France reminds us, in “many OT texts healing and forgiveness are so closely related that it is hard to tell whether the language of healing is meant to be understood of physical illness or metaphorically for restored spiritual health (e.g., Pss. 41:4; 103:3; Is 53:4-6)”.

It is worth examining the two New Testament passages in a bit more detail. The first is Matthew 8:16-17: “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases’.”

The case for healing in the atonement perhaps can best be made from this passage. Yet a number of issues need to be explored. It should first be noted that the word translated “infirmities” in v. 17 is the same word Paul uses in 2 Cor. 12:9: “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” If, as the faith teachers suggest, the healing of all sickness and illness is included in the atonement, then we must ask with James Dunn, “How could Paul glory in something that Christ took away when He died?”

Donald Hagner remarks that consideration of context is important here: “Given the entire sweep of the Gospel, the healing pericopes become relatively insignificant. As the Isa 53 quotation suggests to the reader who knows the story to its end, the healings are but one aspect of a much more important work to be performed by Jesus”.

Indeed, “Isa 53:4 guarantees no one healing in the present age. What is guaranteed is that Christ’s atoning death will in the eschaton provide healing for all without exception. The healings through the ministry of Jesus and those experienced in our day are the first-fruits, the down payment, of the final experience of deliverance”.

Even if healing is in the atonement, other facets of the fall could then also be claimed, such as sorrow, death, pain, etc. Most commentators take this line. As Dunn notes: “Death as a consequence of the fall is emphasized in the Bible much more than sickness; if the atonement removed all the  results of the fall, why do Christians still die?”

We seem to be a bit selective in what we want included in the atonement, as Dunn points out: “There were other consequences of the fall besides sickness – man must earn his living by the sweat of his brow, woman must struggle and suffer pain in childbirth, just to mention a couple. And yet I have never heard anyone claim atonement for these things, and as far as I can tell they are still very much with us.”

D.A. Carson agrees, stating that this passage “cannot be used to justify healing on demand. This text and others clearly teach that there is healing in the Atonement; but similarly there is the promise of a resurrection body in the Atonement, even if believers do not inherit it until the Parousia. From the perspective of the NT writers, the Cross is the basis for all benefits that accrue to believers; but this does not mean that all such benefits can be secured at the present time on demand, any more than we have the right and power to demand our resurrection bodies.”

Craig Blomberg concurs: “There is physical healing in the atonement for this age, but it is up to God in Christ to choose when and how to dispense it. Perfect healing, like the believer’s resurrection body, ultimately awaits Christ’s return.” Or as B.B. Warfield put it back in 1918, “If sinfulness is not to be removed in this life [in the sense of sinless perfection], neither is sickness.”

Gordon Fee, a New Testament scholar associated with the Assemblies of God, points out that Matthew’s use of Is. 53:4 does not even refer to the cross: “rather he clearly sees the text as being fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry”. He continues: “Matthew clearly saw Isaiah 53:4 as referring to physical healing, but as part of the Messiah’s earthly ministry, not as part of the atonement.”

Michael Brown’s brief treatment of this passage concludes by noting that it should be tied in with Is. 33:17-24, which speaks of the messianic kingdom. Verse 24 reads: “No one living in Zion will say, ‘I am ill’; and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven”. Here spiritual and physical blessing are tied together: “By bearing sin and iniquity the servant bore sickness and pain; by taking his people’s guilt he thereby incurred their punishment; and it is at the cost of his wounds that total healing has come. There is no artificial dichotomy here! The whole man has been wholly healed. The straying and sickly nation has been completely restored and made well.”

Commenting on Is. 33:24, John Oswalt says this: “As in ch. 53, forgiveness of sin and healing from disease are related. This is not to say that all disease can be related to specific sins committed by the ill person. But neither can we say no relation exists between the two. Disease is in the world because of sin.”

Millard Erickson says this: “The prophet is referring to actual physical and mental illnesses and distresses, but not necessarily to a vicarious bearing of them. . . . What we are suggesting here, then, is that both Matthew and Isaiah are referring to actual physical sicknesses and mental distresses rather than sins. They do not have in view, however, a vicarious bearing of these maladies. It seems likelier that they are referring to a sympathetic bearing of the troubles of this life.”

Thus it was the incarnation and life of Jesus in general, rather than the atonement in particular, that is in view here, although in a “general sense, of course, the atonement cancels all the effects of the fall. But some of the benefits will not be realized until the end of time (Rom. 8:19-25).”

John Stott offers this three-fold critique of the idea that healing is found in the atonement. One, the Hebrew verb rendered “to bear” (nasa) is used in a variety of ways in the OT, often with the idea of carrying. But the verb “in itself does not mean to ‘bear the punishment of’”. Two, while one can intelligibly speak of ‘bearing the penalty of sin’, the same cannot be said for bearing the penalty of sickness. Three, Matthew uses Is. 53:4 to apply to Christ’s healing ministry, not his atoning death.

Craig Keener ties together some of the various threads of thought with this remark: “The context in Isaiah 53 suggests that the servant’s death would heal the nation from its sin. . . . But the broader context of Isaiah … shows God’s eschatological concern for his people’s complete wellness (29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6), suggesting secondary nuances of physical healing in 53:4-5 as well. . . . The servant’s suffering would restore to Israel eschatologically the benefits lost through sin (cf. Deut 27-28). Thus Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 to demonstrate that Jesus’ mission of healing fulfills the character of the mission of the servant, who at the ultimate cost of his own life would reveal God’s concern for a broken humanity. Matthew himself also recognizes that genuine physical healings can illustrate principles about spiritual healing (9:5-7, 12; 13:15).”

The other NT passage that cites Isaiah 53:4,5 is 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed”. This passage is somewhat more straight forward, with the result that commentators show much more unanimity regarding its meaning. The context of this passage shows that the healing being described is clearly a moral/spiritual healing.

As Fee remarks, Peter “saw the healing in Isaiah 53 as being metaphorical and thus referring to the healing of our sin sickness”. Most commentators agree. Wayne Grudem says that “Peter here applies the words [of Is. 53:5] morally: by Christ’s wounds we have been ‘healed’ from sin.”

Connelly, commenting on this passage, says this: “Nowhere in Scripture are we given any indication that Christ took upon himself human sickness in the same way as he did human sin. The apostle Paul clearly says that God the Father ‘made [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21). The Bible never says that Christ was made sickness for us.”

Alan Stibbs offers this thought on the passage: “Peter’s thought here, however paradoxical, is deliberately that of benefit to be gained by sinners from our Lord’s suffering in their stead. Here, as Theodore said, is ‘a new and strange method of healing; the doctor suffered the cost, and the sick received the healing’.”

In sum, the relationship between healing and the atonement will continue to be disputed. The cessationists will take one side, the faith healers, another, and numerous mediating positions will continue to be pushed. This author recognizes that healing, like so many concepts, has both a literal and a metaphorical usage in scripture. It may be impossible to fully distinguish the two. Indeed, this may not even be desirable; often a term can be used in both senses simultaneously.

On the issue of Is. 53, the comments by Bailey (an advocate of divine healing) offer a safe course: “The Scriptures state that healing is in the atonement but they do not disclose how healing is in the atonement.” Or perhaps more to the point, as another scholar notes, the “question is not whether our bodies receive healing because of the atonement of Christ, but when.”

[1838 words]

These so-called leaders ought to be ashamed of themselves, and they have a lot to answer for as they deceive their flocks, pervert the Bible, and cause untold damage to the cause of Christ. And they are getting bolder as they seem to get more and more mentally and morally lax.

A clear example of this is how they either ignorantly or deliberately misunderstand and twist the cleanliness and holiness laws found in the Old Testament in general, and Leviticus in particular. It is quite common for both homosexual activists and deluded Christians to throw out the challenge that the laws forbidding homosexuality in the Old Testament also forbid things like eating animals which do not chew the cud, or fish without scales.

These critics who think they are quite clever argue, ‘if it is now OK to eat all foods, why forbid homosexuality?’ As but one example, I recently received this comment: “Bill, it’s not just the homosexual Christians we should be worried about. What about the cray-fish eating Christians, or indeed the mixed-fabric wearing Christians. Both these ‘Christian’ types distort God’s holy directions as laid out in His bible. What do you suggest we do, Bill?”

While this fellow thought he was being cute, all he did was reveal that secular homosexual activists know nothing about biblical theology or Old Testament legislation. Sadly of course, many believers do not know much more either, so it is worth looking at this whole issue in some detail.

To keep this discussion from blowing out, let me just interact with what we find in the book of Leviticus. In Lev. 11-15 we find laws concerning the clean and unclean. In Lev. 17-26 we find what is known as the “Holiness Code”. These are the main chapters dealing with holy and unholy, pure and impure, clean and unclean.

Admittedly, much has been written about these laws, and how they are to be understood today. Briefly, this legislation primarily had to do with the proviso found in Lev. 19:2: “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy”. Israel was to be a holy and clean people before the Lord.

It was also to be clearly distinguished from the surrounding cultures. That in part explains the various laws about distinction, division, and separation. Holiness always implies separation, being set apart from that which is unholy, and devoted to that which is holy.

As Bruce Waltke explains, “The Israelites were commanded not to mix seeds or crops and not to mix different types of cloth in sewing. Therefore, the theme of purity was worked into the everyday life of the Israelites and safeguarded them from mixing their human seed with pagans. These purity laws inculcated the notion of holiness so that Israel would learn that they were to be a pure people, set apart for God.”

Or as John Goldingay puts it, “Israel’s holiness lies in distinctively belonging to Yhwh. Distinguishing holy and ordinary, and also pure and taboo, then contributes to its manifesting its distinctiveness over against other people. . . . Israel’s observance of these distinctions is an expression of its accepting its position as a people that God has distinguished from the rest of the world.”

And one must bear in mind the differences between the realm of the clean/unclean, and the realm of the holy/profane. Ceremonial uncleanness was particularly associated with Israel in Old Testament times, while moral holiness is forever enjoined upon all peoples.

Thus while it is true that we are no longer under the ceremonial and civil laws of ancient Israel, the moral laws remain. As Allen Ross explains, “To be free from the regulations of the law is not a license to be free from obeying what the law revealed.” He continues,

“The New Testament makes this very clear: moral imperfections and impurities – that is, the sinful activities that rendered a person unclean in the Old Testament – are still sinful in the new covenant and still require repentance and confession and forgiveness in order to comply with God’s standard of holiness. It is folly – it is dishonest – to argue that because the purification regulations of Old Testament Israel were fulfilled by the death of Christ, the sins listed in Leviticus are no longer sins.”

Goldingay ties this all together concerning the issue of homosexuality: “Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 explicitly disallow homosexual acts. Yet it also disallows many other practices (such as sex with a woman during her period) on the basis of a concern with purity and taboo, and in general such prohibitions are withdrawn in Christ.

“It has also been argued that the Levitical ban on homosexual acts also ceases to apply once Christ has made all things clean. But the context of these regulations in Leviticus implies that they are not simply concerned with purity and taboo.”

And Ross reminds us of the differences between the ceremonial and moral when we consider the means of absolution: “Homosexuality was never merely part of the purity problem that sanctuary ritual covered; it was a major offense for which there was no ritual law – it required forgiveness because it violated the moral code.”

It is worth looking more closely at Leviticus 18-19, so that I shall do in Part Two of this article: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/03/28/time-for-some-clear-thinking-on-homosexuality-and-the-bible-part-two/

[921 words]

As noted there, the theological revisionists attack the passages on homosexuality found in Leviticus, arguing that in the same passages are verses which also forbid men from cutting the corner of their beards, (19:27) or warn of menstrual uncleanness (20:18), and so on. They say that we obviously no longer obey passages on beard trimming and the like, so we can ignore the ones on homosexuality as well.

Most evangelical scholars recognise that the passages in question (18:22; 20:13) are both prohibitive of homosexuality and normative for today. The holiness code, of which these passages are a part (chapters 17-26), was a clear reminder to Israel to maintain distinct ethical practices from the surrounding Canaanite nations. “Seven times [in chapter 18] it is repeated that the Israelites are not to behave like the nations who inhabited Canaan before them (vv. 3 [2x], 24, 26, 27, 29, 30).” As such it contains numerous prohibitions, some of which are still normative for today, and some of which are not. The whole of Scripture offers the context in which we make such distinctions.

How do we decide which are still normative? James De Young is worth quoting at length here:

“Although some instructions and prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are limited to Israel (distinguishing clean and unclean animals and having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period), most are not. The context itself distinguishes limited, cultic prohibitions from universal prohibitions. The reader is able to discern which laws are universal. In addition, the similarity of these chapters to the Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s applications of this section warrant consideration of most of these rules as valid. Prohibitions of homosexuality elsewhere in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testament also justify the interpretation that the prohibition is universal.”

Moreover, there are other interpretive clues. For God to assign the death penalty to homosexuality obviously means that he takes it very seriously indeed. However, there is no death penalty for a women’s monthly period. Instead, the woman was considered ceremonially unclean for a seven-day period (Lev. 15:19). Most of the other ceremonial purity laws also have much lighter penalties. As Grenz remarks, “under the Old Covenant the severity of the penalty was an indication of the importance of the precept.” Thus the penalties imposed tell us something of the nature of the various laws in the Holiness Code.

Of interest, it should be noted that bestiality is also condemned here (Lev. 20:15-16), and it also carries the death penalty. The same reasoning applies to bestiality as to homosexuality: In both cases God’s original intention for human sexuality is being violated. “With bestiality, as with homosexuality, one is breaking the ‘boundaries’ of biological design and sexual order. Reproduction of species does not take place between an animal and a human; nor does it take place between humans of the same sex.”

As Norman Geisler explains: “The prohibition against homosexuality is moral, not merely ceremonial. Simply because the Mosaic prohibition against homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus does not mean that it was part of the ceremonial law that has passed away. If this were so, then neither would rape, incest, and bestiality be morally wrong, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).”

He continues, “Homosexual sins among Gentiles, who did not have the ceremonial law, were also condemned by God. It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (18:1-3, 25). Even in the Levitical law for the Jews, there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law by eating pork or shrimp, which was a few days’ isolation, and that for homosexuality, which was capital punishment (18:29). Jesus changed the dietary laws of the Old Testament (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:12-15), but moral prohibitions against homosexuality are repeated in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9: 1 Tim.1:10; Jude 7).”

Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser also examines the argument that says the law against homosexuality is a part of the ceremonial law, and so is done away with the coming of Christ: “Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.”

Also, we must understand how the New Testament appropriates these portions of the Old Testament. Most Christians understand that the Old Testament laws can be divided into civil law (pertaining to the civic culture of ancient Israel), ceremonial law (ritual cleanness and dietary laws, for example), and moral law (timeless and universal moral truths). Civil laws, relating to Israel as a nation, are not applicable today, as the nation of Israel no longer exists as God’s sole covenant people. The ceremonial laws too have been rescinded in the New Testament. But transcultural moral laws remain in force.

Admittedly, confusion can arise at times when all three types of laws are found in the same passage. But again, the context often determines how to proceed. Scripture usually tells us what are timeless moral truths and what are cultural and temporal regulations. As Webb remarks, the “homosexual prohibition is not tied to mere ceremonial impurity. . . . The homosexuality laws are not part of ceremonial law, as can be seen from its severe penalty and the New Testament handling of homosexuality, in contrast to its treatment of ceremonial law.”

As to the specific passages, the revisionists want to argue that only certain types of homosexuality are being proscribed, such as cultic prostitution or idolatrous practices. But as Wold summarises, after a detailed examination of the terms and the texts, “all same-gender sexual relations are categorically forbidden by the Hebrew terms. The biblical writer leaves no room for compromise. The language is emphatic. . . . The inference is clear: only heterosexual intercourse is normal and normative.”

And as one Old Testament scholar points out, what is being condemned here is not just outward actions but inward lusts. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi is worth quoting at length here in this regard:

“It is not just that the fate of one’s soul is seriously affected by his conduct, but v. 29b explicitly states that the souls who do (‘violate’) them will be cut off. Herein lies the deepest cause of the abominations: the desire to violate a prohibition springs from the innermost part of the human, which is why the soul is said to be cut off. Despite the chapter’s apparent emphasis on outward but hidden acts, an inner desire such as lust is assumed to be the source of the misconduct. Furthermore, the phrase ‘the souls that do’ stresses the inseparable bond between one’s inner motives and outward conduct. And this opens up the possibility that all the acts prohibited in this chapter are merely manifestations of the human soul: the prohibitions assume no room to exist between what a person desires in the heart and how he or she behaves. It is only a small step towards Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, ‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt.5:28 NRSV).”

Finally, as mentioned previously, God’s unchanging purposes for human sexuality have to be taken into account here. Many commentators highlight the creation account and how homosexuality is a violation of God’s fundamental purposes for mankind. As Radner says, homosexual coupling is a “rejection of the created and creative purposes of God by which life is received, nurtured, and passed on”.

Or as Goldingay notes, “If we again consider how things were ‘at the beginning of creation,’ then Genesis 1-2 note that ‘God made them male and female’ (Mk 10:6) and envisage sexual relationships only between a man and a woman. It seems likely that the Torah’s ban on homosexual acts is based not just in rules about cleanness and taboo, but on the purpose of creation.”

Veteran Old Testament scholar Kenneth Mathews connects this passage with the New Testament: “We have the reasoning of why homosexuality is unlawful provided in Romans 1 when the Apostle Paul addressed the universality of human sin and guilt (vv. 18-30, esp. 26, 27). The Gentiles had rejected the testimony of nature and chose sinful idolatry and sexual perversions to honor their gods. The sexual practices of the Gentiles were a great affront to God because they were a rejection of God as Creator.

“He made men and women to play their appropriate sexual roles whereby they would propagate and dominate the world as stewards of the Lord’s creation (Genesis 1:28). Heterosexuality outside the bounds of marriage is no less a sin, but the nature of homosexuality has more serious repercussions since it is a repudiation of the Lord’s claim on his created order.”

The foolish and disingenuous attempts to twist these texts to further the homosexual cause is intellectually and theologically deficient, and we need to reject this reckless and harmful theological revisionism and stay true to Scripture.

Note: Most of this article is found – with complete references – in my new book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality, which is available from these outlets:

freedompublishing.com.au/product_info.php?products_id=9346

orders.koorong.com.au/search/product/strained-relations-bill-muehlenberg/9780646560953.jhtml

www.word.com.au/details.aspx?ProductID=602543

Part One of this article can be found here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/03/28/time-for-some-clear-thinking-on-homosexuality-and-the-bible-part-one/

[1558 words]

There are a large number of times when we read about enemies, and there are frequent cries for vindication, revenge, retaliation and retribution. These often take the form of a formal cursing of enemies, with powerful calls for their speedy and complete demise.

I have just penned a piece on the lament psalms, which are psalms of protest and complaint. They feature real people venting real emotions about real problems and real tragic situations. The Psalter is filled with such psalms, and they are there for a reason.

But here I want to concentrate on one particular type of protest psalm – the imprecatory psalm. We find many psalms containing harsh words about enemies, with calls for their destruction and so on. An imprecation is a call for divine judgement, or an invocation of curses, upon enemies or upon the wicked.

There are perhaps 36 or 37 psalms that contain a formal imprecation, such as psalms 35, 69, 83, 88, 109, 137, and 140. Because they seem to wish ill on enemies, call down curses, urge violence upon foes, and appear to exalt in the destruction of the wicked, they make many Christians uneasy. All the talk of retribution and vengeance seems to be rather problematic for believers today.

C.S. Lewis for example famously spoke of “these terrible or (dare we say?) contemptible Psalms” in his Reflections on the Psalms. Plenty of other Christians could be cited here. The dis-ease and discomfort many believers have with these psalms is all too apparent.

Not that such concerns are without warrant. Some of these imprecations are indeed very strong and jarring. The most severe candidate of course would have to be Psalm 137:8-9 which offers this caustic cry: “Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

I will speak to this psalm later, and address it in context. But we certainly find some very strong and angry words in the psalter, with calls for violence, retribution, bloodshed and vengeance. Many Christians are plainly squeamish about these psalms, and want little or nothing to do with them.

So the question arises: can these be used, or shared in, by Christians today? Does the New Testament rule these psalms out? Are they something Christians should be embarrassed about? Do the teachings of Christ about loving your enemies and so on render these psalms null and void?

The real issue is, how can Christians justify these psalms? Or can they in fact be justified at all? Here I wish to make several points as I seek to show that they can be justified, and they are still of value and use to the contemporary Christian. Taken together these various observations may help us to see these psalms in a different, and hopefully more positive, light.

Perhaps the first thing to note is, as I have already mentioned, they are quite frequent in appearance. There are well over 60 lament psalms, and there may be at least 36 psalms that contain a formal imprecation. So we can’t just wish these psalms away, or pretend they are too few in number to be concerned with.

Second, we must realize that such imprecations or curses are also found throughout the Bible – indeed, in both Testaments. I cannot here spend time on these passages, but here are just a few, first from the Old Testament: Numbers 31:2; Deuteronomy 7:1-6; Nehemiah 4:4-5; Nahum 1:2-3; and so on.

And consider some NT imprecations, calls for vindication, justice, and the like. Here are some of them: Luke 18:6-8; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:8-9 2 Thess 1:3-10; 2 Tim 4:14; Rev 6:10-11; 19:1-5. Of some import is the fact that we even find curses being called down in the NT, even by Jesus himself.

He of course cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14), but he also pronounced seven curses on the teachers of the law and Pharisees (Matt 23). And we find Jesus readily making use of and drawing from one of the more prominent imprecatory psalms in the OT, Psalm 69.

In that psalm we read about such things as: let their table become a snare (v. 22), let their eyes be darkened (23), pour out your indignation upon them (24), let their habitation be desolate (25), add iniquity to their iniquity (27), blot them out of the book of the living (28), and so on.

Jesus and other NT writers draw directly upon this psalm, as in:
John 2:17 – zeal for thy house has consumed me – Ps. 69:9
John 15:25 – they hated me without a cause – Ps. 69:4
Acts 1:16-20 – Judas fulfills Scripture – let their habitation be desolate – Ps. 69:25
Rom. 11:9 – let their table become a snare – Ps. 69:22
Rom. 15:3 – Christ bore our reproaches – Ps. 69:9

But a fuller examination of the NT use of the imprecatory psalms and the like will have to wait for another article. Here I merely point out just how widespread imprecation can be throughout the entire Bible.

Third, we should bear in mind that these psalms were of course part of Israel’s corporate worship. They were sung to Yahweh in times of worship, and were written as models of prayer. And we believe that the Psalmists were inspired of God to write these psalms.

That leads to a fourth point about these psalms, and how we are to understand them. A key point is that God is ultimately being asked to act. This is not really about personal vengeance, or embittered saints getting angry at enemies. It is more about general concerns for justice, and to see God act on behalf of his people.

Perhaps the best way to see how these general considerations stand up, it will be worth looking at several of these imprecatory psalms in more detail. That shall be done in Part Two of this article.

[1064 words]

Psalm 35 is a clear example of an imprecatory psalm. It contains the main features usually found in such a psalm. It begins as follows: “Contend, LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take up shield and armor; arise and come to my aid.”

David wishes this upon his enemies: “May they be like chaff before the wind, with the angel of the LORD driving them away; may their path be dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing them. Since they hid their net for me without cause  and without cause dug a pit for me, may ruin overtake them by surprise— may the net they hid entangle them, may they fall into the pit, to their ruin” (vv. 5-8).

He eagerly awaits God’s vindication: “Awake, and rise to my defense! Contend for me, my God and Lord. Vindicate me in your righteousness, LORD my God; do not let them gloat over me” (vv. 23-24). And he finishes with seeking God’s glory: “May those who delight in my vindication shout for joy and gladness; may they always say, “The LORD be exalted, who delights in the well-being of his servant. My tongue will proclaim your righteousness, your praises all day long” (vv. 27-28).

Like anyone, he is not keen about enemies, opposition, persecution and the like. But at the end of the day he is calling for God’s vindication, and not seeking his own personal revenge. And importantly, he realizes that his enemies are God’s enemies.

James Montgomery Boice makes several points about this psalm which are worth noting. He reminds us that David, who authored this and many of the other imprecatory psalms, was not known as a man of personal vengeance, but as a forgiving person, as seen for example in his treatment of Saul.

Thus, he is “not writing as a private citizen but as the king and judge of Israel. The judgment he calls for is a righteous judgment upon those who, by opposing him, oppose God and godliness.” While forgiveness is commendable when we receive personal insult or injury, it is “quite another thing to overlook a wrong done by an evil person to another party, especially if you are the one chiefly responsible for administering law or justice in that circumstance. A policeman, judge, governor, or president must deal with violent people differently from how you or I might deal with them.

“I also suggest that there is a place for private citizens, especially Christians, to oppose evil vigorously. We can pray for the conversion of the very wicked, but if they are not going to be converted (and many are not), we can certainly pray for their overthrow and destruction. It was right for all good people to pray for and rejoice at the fall of Adolf Hitler.”

He also reminds us that the “rejoicing of the righteous at the fall of the wicked” is not just found in the OT. “The chief example is the joy of the righteous at the fall of mystical Babylon, recorded in Revelation 18 and 19.” Consider just one verse, Rev 18:20: “Rejoice over her, you heavens! Rejoice, you people of God! Rejoice, apostles and prophets! For God has judged her with the judgment she imposed on you.”

Gerald Wilson concludes his commentary on this psalm with these words: “There is innocent suffering that needs to be confronted and judged. We ought not to turn a blind eye on injustice or oppression, whether directed to ourselves or others. But the psalmist reminds us that what is finally at stake is not our reputations or even our well-being but God’s glory and righteousness. To pray that he will set things right is to admit our own culpability in the ‘unrightness’ of the world around us and to cast ourselves on him – both for forgiveness and for deliverance.”

Psalm 94 is also a good example of the imprecatory lament. While the majority of laments are personal, this one is basically a communal lament. But it contains the main features of a lament, and is worth looking at further.

Here a God of vengeance is appealed to because of rampant wickedness. The psalmist calls for God to act and bring forth justice. Although he can become overwhelmed at how the wicked seem to prosper, he knows that “He will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness; the LORD our God will destroy them.”

Whatever the exact distress, injustice or enmity the group or individual may be facing, the cry is for God to vindicate them and establish his justice. As has been noted, this is a fully biblical and moral consideration. It is the same as when Jesus instructs us to pray: “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10).

Finally let me return to Psalm 137 which I referred to earlier. The context is the deportation of the people of Israel to Babylon and all the misery which accompanied that awful occasion. As Willem VanGemeren remarks, “the Babylonians were famed for their cruelties. The psalmist relishes the thought that some day the proud Babylonian captors will taste the defeat they have dished out and that they will be reduced to such a state of desolation and defenselessness that they are unable to defend even their infants.”

Walter Kaiser says of vv.8-9 that these hard sayings “are not statements of personal vendetta, but they are utterances of zeal for the kingdom of God and his glory. To be sure, the attacks which provoked these prayers were not from personal enemies; rather, they were rightfully seen as attacks against God and especially his representatives in the promised line of the Messiah.”

Even C.S. Lewis whom we cited earlier could agree that “the ferocious parts of the Psalms serve as a reminder that there is in the world such a thing as wickedness and it (if not its perpetrators) is hateful to God. In that way, however dangerous the human distortion may be, His word sounds through these passages too.”

John Day, in his recent book on the imprecatory psalms reminds us that they show a concern for:
-“the honour of God”
-“the realization of justice amid rampant injustice”
-“the public recognition of the sovereignty of God”
-“the preservation of righteousness”
They also demonstrate “a hope that divine retribution will cause the enemies to seek Yahweh” and “an abhorrence of sin”.

Erich Zenger says this about the “psalms of vengeance”: they are “a passionate clinging to God when everything really speaks against God. For that reason they can rightly be called psalms of zeal, to the extent that in them passion for God is aflame in the midst of the ashes of doubt about God and despair over human beings. These psalms are the expression of a longing that evil, and evil people, may not have the last word in history, for this world and its history belong to God.”

Back in 1942 Johannes G. Vos wrote an important article on these troubling psalms, part of which may serve as a conclusion here: “God’s kingdom cannot come without Satan’s kingdom being destroyed. God’s will cannot be done in earth without the destruction of evil. Evil cannot be destroyed without the destruction of men who are permanently identified with it. Instead of being influenced by the sickly sentimentalism of the present day, Christian people should realize that the glory of God demands the destruction of evil. Instead of being insistent upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights of men, they should focus their attention upon the rights of God. Instead of being ashamed of the Imprecatory Psalms, and attempting to apologize for them and explain them away, Christian people should glory in them and not hesitate to use them in the public and private exercises of the worship of God.”

For further study

Specific studies

Adams, James, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace: Lessons From the Imprecatory Psalms. Presbyterian & Reformed, 1991.
Day, John, Crying for Justice: What the Psalms Teach Us about Mercy and Vengeance in an Age of Terrorism. Kregel, 2005.
Zenger, Erich, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath. Westminster John Knox, 1996.

General studies

Bateman, Herbert and D. Brent Sandy, eds. Interpreting the Psalms for Teaching and Preaching. Chalice Press, 2010.
Brueggemann, Walter, The Message of the Psalms. Augsburg, 1984.
Brueggemann, Walter, Praying the Psalms. Paternoster, 1980, 2007.
Bullock, C. Hassell, Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction. Baker, 2004.
Estes, Daniel, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms. Baker, 2005.
Firth, David and Philip Johnston, Interpreting the Psalms. IVP, 2005.
Lewis, C.S., Reflections on the Psalms. Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1958.
Longman, Tremper, How To Read the Psalms. IVP, 1988.
Lucas, Ernest, Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Psalms & Wisdom Literature. IVP, 2003.
Miller, Patrick, Interpreting the Psalms. Fortress, 1986.
Wenham, Gordon, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. Baker, 2012.

[1560 words]

While even today it is common to talk about “putting out a fleece,” we as believers need to ask what we should make of Gideon’s attempt to find God’s will this way, and if indeed he was even in the will of God to seek to do so. Was he engaged in faith or presumption?

That is, is it ever appropriate for Christians today to say something like this? “God, if you make someone knock on my door in ten minutes time, inquiring about our house, I will then know it is your will to sell this house.” Is this a valid method? Or is it improperly putting God to the test?

Indeed, is this a valid and spiritually-acceptable method of determining God’s will? Was Gideon right to employ it? May we do the same today? These are all good questions, so in order to properly answer them, it is of course necessary to look more closely at the Judges passage.

The full story is found in Judges 6-8, and needs to be read in context. The Midianites and others had come to challenge Israel. We are told in 6:11-12 how Yahweh had appeared to Gideon. It is actually a bit humorous. The angel of the Lord appears to him and says, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior”.

Yet Gideon had effectively been hiding from the Midianites in the threshing room. Not much of a warrior there! God often graciously condescends to our lowly and humble estate. The first thing Gideon says is, “Hey, if the Lord is with us, then why are we in such a pickle” or words to that effect (v. 13).

The Lord says he will use him to defeat the Midianites. In response Gideon asks for a sign (v. 17). Yahweh agreed and performed a clear revelatory sign for him. Emboldened by this, at God’s command, he tore down some pagan altars which never should have been there.

The locals made a stink about this but Gideon stood his ground. It is after all this that we read about the Midianites and others crossing over the Jordon, as they had done before (v. 33). It is at this point that Gideon asks for the sign of the fleece.

He tells Yahweh: If this fleece will be dew-soaked while the rest of the ground stays dry, then I will know that you have sent me and will be with me. And sure enough, the next morning he finds the fleece soaking wet, while the ground next to it is dry.

But the story does not stop there. In vv. 39-40 we read: “Then Gideon said to God, ‘Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece, but this time make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.’ That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.”

In chapters 7 and 8 we read about how Gideon defeated the Midianites, after of course he greatly pared down his numbers so that God would get the glory, not him. So his original army of 32,000 men was shrunk to just 300. There are of course wonderful spiritual lessons to be drawn from that as well.

But the fleece episode, and the earlier sign which Gideon asked for, can now be more properly assessed. Were these requests legitimate? Were they acts of faith or maybe indications of unbelief? Are they something which believers today should emulate?

A few things seem to be clear about this episode. First, this was actually not about discerning God’s will, or discovering what God wanted. Yahweh had already clearly told Gideon what he was going to do. All Gideon had to do was agree with God about this and get on with the job.

But instead Gideon had to go through three different tests before he actually does what he is supposed to do. He was not exactly acting in faith here. So if we take this as an example for us today, we can only use it as far as it is used there. That is, God’s will has already been revealed, and we are just wanting confirmation about it.

Also, it seems this whole episode is one about a lack of faith – even unbelief. Simply having the angel of the Lord appearing to him should have been enough. Then he got another miraculous sign from Yahweh: the divine fire consuming the meat and the bread.

Yet he still wanted another, double, confirmatory sign. He was probably aware of how this may not have been pleasing to God when he said, “Do not be angry with me…” If he was doing something patently acceptable in Yahweh’s sight, there would have been no need to make such a statement.

Indeed, twice Gideon says that God had promised that he would deliver Israel through himself (vv. 36, 37), but in spite of this promise which he was fully aware of, he still puts God to the test by demanding more signs. This was not an act of faith but of unbelief.

Lastly, we of course have no clear New Testament example of, or command for, such a test. Instead, we have Jesus and the apostles downplaying this, and at times getting upset when people asked for a sign. As Jesus complained, “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah” (Matt 16:4). Or as Paul said, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:22,23).

In sum, as K.L. Younger remarks, this fleecing “is nothing short of a pagan divinatory test of the deity.” He continues, “The fleece incidents are far from a model for the discernment of God’s will. . . . His problem is his lack of willingness to trust the lord, to take him at his word. Thus the fleece incidents are about Gideon’s unbelief and stubbornness in response to God’s call. In such cases, God is not obligated to respond, and if he does, it is only by grace. Those who use this passage as a means of discerning God’s will are simply misapplying Scripture.”

Of course all this is not to say that God cannot and does not provide signs. Indeed, in biblical times miracles were primarily used as confirmatory signs of divine revelation. Today however Christians are not to depend on signs and wonders as they seek God’s will. Thus we need to be careful here.

As Herbert Wolf comments, “If this ‘fleece’ consists of a careful observation and interpretation of God’s leading through circumstances, the procedure can be a healthy one. But Gideon’s method was to make purely arbitrary demands of God, and insist on immediate guidance. Such an approach can hardly be recommended for Christians today.”

Instead, like most aspects of the Christian life, there is the long hard slog of doing what is right, having strong faith, and persevering, even when things are not always perfectly clear as to the way ahead. There are no short cuts to spirituality, in other words.

Daily trusting God, denying ourselves, and remaining obedient and faithful, that is the stuff of the normal Christian life. And that is the stuff of seeking God’s will. God may well choose to confirm his will with a sign of some sort, but that tends to be the exception to the rule.

Learning how to trust God, walk with God, and depend on him, even in the darker times or when things are not always crystal clear, is how God is mainly glorified and how we mainly are to follow him today. So it seems that putting out a fleece to discover God’s will is not what believers today should be doing.

[1370 words]