9/30/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Peter's Denial Of Jesus (26:69-75)

 






"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Peter's Denial Of Jesus (26:69-75)

 
INTRODUCTION

1. Among the things Jesus suffered, was the indignity of Peter's denial...
   a. Three times, with increasing intensity, Peter denied knowing Jesus - Mt 26:69-75
   b. Peter denied knowing Jesus, despite being with Jesus:
      1) From the beginning of His earthly ministry - Mt 4:17-19
      2) At the healing of his own mother-in-law - Mt 8:14-15
      3) On the Sea of Galilee, walking on the water - Mt 14:22-33
      4) On the mount, seeing Jesus with Moses and Elijah - Mt 17:1-13

2. How did Peter come to deny his Lord and Savior?
   a. What forces were at work, that led to his cowardly deed?
   b. Might they be forces we face today, encouraging us to do the same?

[From "Peter's Denial Of Jesus", there are important lessons to be
gleaned. Indeed, Peter himself can help us to avoid making the mistakes
he made when he writes as one who knows the dangers before us. For
example, we note first of all that...]

I. PETER WAS BETRAYED BY PRIDE

   A. HE BOASTED HE WOULD NEVER DENY JESUS...
      1. Proudly proclaiming that even if all left Jesus, not him! - Mt 26:31-33
      2. In so doing, Peter took the first step in falling away - Pro 16:18
      3. We can also be overconfident in our service to God - cf. 1Co  10:12

   B. PETER LATER COMMANDED HUMILITY...
      1. To be clothed with humility - 1Pe 5:5
      2. To humble ourselves before God - 1Pe 5:6

[Peter learned the hard way about the danger of pride. Will we learn
from the mistake of Peter, and value the importance of humility? Next,
notice that...]

II. PETER WAS BESIEGED BY LAZINESS

   A. HE KEPT FALLING ASLEEP...
      1. At a time when he needed to be watchful - Mt 26:36-46
      2. His laziness therefore led to lack of preparation
      3. The same thing can happen to us!
         a. Without diligent preparation, we too can be unprepared - cf. Lk 21:34-36
         b. More often than not, we gradually "drift away" because we
            are too lazy to "give the more earnest heed" - cf. He 2:1-3

   B. PETER LATER ENJOINED DILIGENCE...
      1. Commanding vigilant resistance against the devil - 1Pe 5:8-9
      2. Calling for diligence that we might:
         a. Grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus - 2Pe 1:5,10
         b. Be found in peace, without spot and blameless - 2Pe 3:14

[Do we allow simple laziness to keep us from careful preparation? Do we
fail to attend services, study God's Word, or even pray, because of
laziness? If so, how can we hope to stand up for Jesus when put to the
test? As we continue, we observe that...]

III. PETER WAS BESET BY COWARDICE

   A. HE FOLLOWED JESUS AT A DISTANCE...
      1. Peter still followed Jesus - Mt 26:58
      2. But now that Jesus was unpopular...
         a. He stays far enough away so not to be identified with Him
         b. He was unprepared to face the challenge of ridicule and persecution
      3. Might we be guilty of trying to follow Jesus, but with cowardice?
         a. Ashamed to be seen carrying a Bible?
         b. Ashamed to be seen giving thanks?
         c. Ashamed to be seen with other Christians?

   B. PETER LATER EXHORTED GLORIFYING GOD...
      1. Charging us not to be ashamed, but to glorify God - 1Pe 4:16
      2. Thinking not of what things mean to us, but what they mean to
         God! - cf. Mt 5:16

[With cowardice keeping him at a distance from his Lord, Peter was a
prime candidate for succumbing to what came next...]

IV. PETER WAS BELEAGUERED BY WORLDLINESS

   A. HE WAS INFLUENCED BY THE WORLD...
      1. By sitting with the servants of the High Priest, and warming
         himself by their fire - Mt 26:58; Mk 14:54
      2. Ashamed to be seen with Christ, it was easy to mingle with
         those of the world and enjoy their comforts
      3. But one cannot be "comforted by the fire" of the world, and
         not be "burned"!
         a. E.g., close contact with things that can harm has an effect  cf. Pr 6:27-29
         b. So we cannot flirt with the world and walk away untouched - 1Co 15:33

   B. PETER LATER CALLED FOR US TO BE OTHER-WORLDLY...
      1. To live as sojourners and pilgrims, abstaining from fleshly
         lusts and with honorable conduct among the nations - 1Pe 2:11-12
      2. To look for that new heavens and new earth, being diligent to
         be found by Christ in peace, without spot and blameless - 2 Pe 3:13-14

CONCLUSION

1. When Peter concluded his second epistle, he did so with a warning...
   a. To beware lest you fall from your own steadfastness - 2Pe 3:17
   b. To grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ - 2Pe 3:18

2. These admonitions come from one who was well qualified to speak...
   a. For he knew how easy it was to fall through such things as:
      1) Pride
      2) Laziness
      3) Cowardice
      4) Worldliness
   b. But he also knew how to grow in grace through such things as:
      1) Humility
      2) Diligence
      3) Glorifying God
      4) Living as strangers and sojourners

Yes, we know that Peter, though he denied Jesus three times and wept
bitterly, received grace when forgiven by Jesus and permitted to
fulfill his role as an apostle (cf. Jn 21:15-17).

If we have been guilty of letting our Lord down, look to Him for the
grace to repent and grow that only He can bestow! 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker


The Survey Says… by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=557

The Survey Says…

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Rarely do you hear a Christian confidently assert, “Yes, I know that I am saved!” More often than not, if a Christian is asked the question, “Do you know you are saved?,” the response goes something like this: “I hope that I am,” or “I think that I am,” or “I really don’t know if I am saved or not.” This is truly a sad state of affairs.

In light of the manner in which many Christians respond to the question, “Do you know you are saved?,” I decided to poll a particular church a few years ago to find out what kind of “assurance” the members had of their eternal salvation. I conducted an anonymous survey in a congregation of about 200 members in the heart of the “Bible Belt.” In the survey, I asked several different questions, but I deemed none more important than the one that pertained to the reader’s eternal destiny. The question read as follows: “If you died within the next ten minutes, do you believe you would go to Heaven?” The results of the survey revealed that nearly 9% of the members knew unreservedly that if they died at the time they were taking the survey, they would not go to Heaven. (Needless to say, such a response was shocking on its own merits!) Nearly 50% of the congregation was unsure as to whether they would go to Heaven. And only 40% believed they would go to Heaven if they died that very day. In other words, almost 60% of the congregation either knew they were lost or did not know if they were saved!

How sad it is that so many members of the Lord’s church (the “saved”) either know they are lost or do not have assurance that they are saved. (Is it not paradoxical to speak of the “saved lost” or the “unsure saved”?) What makes these figures even more disturbing is that (according to the results of a survey published in the U.S News and World Report in March 1991) approximately 78% of Americans fully expect to go to heaven when they die. Thus, if the particular congregation surveyed is representative of the church worldwide, Christians have even less confidence in their eternal destiny than the average person on the street. In fact, the above surveys indicate that the average American is twice as likely to claim heaven as their eternal home as the average member of the Lord’s church.

God did not send His Son to die for us so that we could be uncertain about our salvation. Rather, Jesus came so that we might know we are free from sin (John 8:32), and so that we might know we have eternal life. The apostle John wrote: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13, emp. added). By a simple self-examination in light of the Scriptures, we should be able to know whether we are saved or lost.

Christianity is not an “I-hope-so/pie-in-the-sky/by-and-by” kind of religion. Rather, it is based upon knowledge, reason, and the assurance that if we accept the grace of God and are faithful to Him, He will save us from our sins (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9; Revelation 2:10). It is from such knowledge that we thus derive the “peace of God that passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). How very sad that so many have forgone that peace.

The Spirit and Letter of the Law by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225

The Spirit and Letter of the Law

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

All erroneous systems of belief share in common the fact that several “props” are necessary to support them. The fact that the belief system is false, necessarily implies that one or more of the props are false. But the mere presence of an array of props gives the appearance and the impression that the belief system has much “evidence” to support it. One of the props that is marshaled to support the concept known as “situationism” is the notion that a legitimate distinction may be made between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law.” It is argued that sometimes it is necessary, even mandatory, to violate the “letter of the law” in order to act in harmony with the “spirit of the law.” According to this line of thinking, those who insist that obedience to God’s law always is required—without exception—are “hung up on the letter of the law” instead of being led by the “spirit of the law.”

Of course, this kind of thinking naturally breeds and nurtures a relaxed attitude toward obedience. It militates against a desire to be precise and careful in conformity to Bible teaching. One individual explained how his feelings of devotion to Jesus made him feel that as long as he maintained a close sense of nearness to Him, he did not have to fret over “nitpicky” concerns, like whether he was staying within the speed limit when he drove his car. Another person avowed that she did not “sweat the small stuff,” since she was living her life in recognition of God’s grace, and felt certain that Jesus would “cut her some slack.” The “small stuff ” to which she referred included such things as whether God would approve of unscriptural divorce and remarriage, whether God would accept instrumental music in worship to Him, and whether one church was as good as another.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:4-18

The primary passage in the New Testament that is marshaled in an effort to support the “spirit vs. letter” antithesis is Paul’s remarks to the church of Christ in Corinth. The reader is urged to pause and read the third chapter of second Corinthians before reading the analysis that follows. Two phrases typically are excised from the context and used as proof-texts to support a notion contrary to the chapter: “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (vs. 6), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (vs. 17). These phrases are set forth as proof that Christians ought not to be too meticulous in conforming strictly to New Testament directives. Those who take such a position assume that “letter” refers to the commands of God—the written statements of Scripture that specify and regulate human behavior. They also assume that “spirit” refers to one’s attitude or feelings. Hence, if the individual feels devoted, concerned, and sincere, he or she is deemed in line with “the spirit of the law.” On the other hand, the individual who appears inflexible and rigid, or overly concerned with strict obedience, is perceived to lack “compassion” and “sensitivity,” and too concerned with “the letter of the law.”

Incredibly, if one would take the time to study God’s Word and refrain from mishandling its intended meaning (Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), one would see that neither Paul nor any other inspired writer agreed with such thinking. In a pericope dealing with his apostolic ministry, Paul crafted a beautiful allegory—what D.R. Dungan called “the most perfect antithesis to be found in the whole Bible” (1888, p. 349). By arranging the contrasting phrases of the antithesis into two columns, one is able more easily to grasp Paul’s intended meaning:

2 CORINTHIANS 3
Old Covenant New Covenant
  Ministers of the new covenant (vs. 6)
Of the letter (vs. 6) Of the Spirit (vs. 6)
The letter kills (vs. 6) The Spirit gives life (vs. 6)
Ministry of death (vs. 7) Ministry of the Spirit (vs. 8)
Written/engraved on stones (vs. 7)    
Ministry of condemnation (vs. 9) Ministry of righteousness (vs. 9)
Glorious (vss. 7,9) Much more glorious (vss. 8,9)
Passing away (vs. 7) Remains (vs. 11)
Veil on Moses’ face (vs. 13)   Great boldness of speech (vs. 12)
Veil remains in reading O.T. (vs. 14) Veil taken away in Christ (vs. 14)
Veil lies on their heart (vs. 15) Veil taken away when heart turned
to the Lord (vs. 16)

It should be immediately evident to the unbiased observer “that the two legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old Covenant” (Dungan, p. 268). Precisely the same meaning is conveyed by the same terminology in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:29; 7:6). The Old Testament legal system, though an excellent system for what God had in mind (Romans 7:12), was unable to provide ultimate forgiveness for violations of law and, in that sense, “kills.” It took Jesus dying on the cross to make “life” possible (i.e., actual cleansing from sin).

When one recognizes the contextual meaning, it becomes apparent that these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged “spirit vs. letter” contention! In fact, the Bible nowhere postulates such a thing. Like all liberal thinking, one must refrain from thinking too much about it if one does not wish to see the absurdity and nonsensical nature of it. The “spirit vs. letter” contrast is gobbledygook that is “better felt than told.” It makes no sense. On April 3, 1897, J.W. McGarvey responded to just this type of thinking in an article titled, “The Letter That Killeth”:

Just once in the course of his writings Paul makes the declaration that “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:7); and no remark that he ever made has been applied in a greater number of unlicensed ways. If a man insists upon preserving some ordinance in the very form of its original appointment, such an ordinance as baptism or the Lord’s Supper, for example, he is accused of contending for the letter that killeth, while the man who makes the charge, and who changes the ordinance, claims that he is following the spirit that giveth life. All of that large class of writers who make free with the Scriptures while claiming to reverence their authority, employ this device to excuse their departures from the word of God, while those who remonstrate with them for their license are denounced as literalists, or sticklers for the letter that killeth. In all these instances it seems to be claimed that if you stick close to the ordinance as Christ gave it, you will kill somebody. The last example that attracted my attention was in connection with the number of elders that should be appointed in a church. The writer says: “It has been thought to be a greater evil to have a congregation without a plurality of elders than to have an eldership without the requisite qualifications;” and he adds: “This is to do violence to the spirit of the New Testament in an effort to be loyal to its letter.” But which, in this case, is the letter, and which is the spirit? To have a plurality of elders is certainly the letter of the New Testament; that is, it is the literal requirement; and the literal requirement also is to have elders of prescribed qualifications. Where, then, is the spirit as distinguished from the letter? Echo answers, Where? The writer was so in the habit of using this favorite expression where he wished to justify a departure from Scripture precedent that he evidently applied it in this instance from pure habit and without thought. The watchful reader will have seen many examples of the kind (1910, pp. 160-161).

Indeed, redefining the biblical expressions “spirit of the law” and “letter of the law” enables the situationist to promote his agenda under the cloak of Bible backing.

If one wishes to use the expression “the spirit of the law” to refer to a proper attitude, and “the letter of the law” to refer to compliance with the explicit dictates of Scripture, it certainly is true that a person can distort or disregard “the spirit of the law” while following carefully “the letter of the law.” A person may engage in external, rote compliance without heartfelt, genuine love for God and His will. But it is impossible to represent faithfully “the spirit of the law” (i.e., to have the right attitude) while acting out of harmony with the specific details of the law. When Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commands” (John 14:15), He pinpointed the fact that “love” for Him includes “obedience.” It is possible to obey and not love; but it is not possible to love and not obey. One may have good intentions in one’s religious pursuits, but if those religious actions are contrary to God’s specified will, the activity is unacceptable to God. The situationist’s claim that sincerity and feelings of “love” legitimize whatever action “love” takes, is in direct contradiction to Bible teaching.

The fact of the matter is that God always has required that people approach him “in truth”—i.e., according to the divine directives that He revealed to man. The only worship that has ever been acceptable to God has been that worship which has been undertaken with (1) a proper attitude, frame of mind, and disposition conducive to spirituality, and (2) faithfulness to the specific items that God pinpointed as the proper external acts to be performed. Jesus made this fact very clear in His encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:23-24). God never has accepted one without the other. He always has required both. He always has required two facets of response to His will: the right action with the right attitude. Notice the following chart of scriptures:

PASSAGE ATTITUDE ACTION
John 4:24 spirit truth
Joshua 24:14 sincerity truth
Ecclesiastes 12:13 fear God keep commands
Acts 10:35 fear Him work righteous
James 2:17 faith works
1 John 3:18 word/tongue deed/truth
Deuteronomy 10:12-13   fear/love—heart   walk/ways
Romans 1:9 with my spirit in the gospel

To emphasize one dimension of obedience over the other is to hamper one’s acceptance by God. Bible history is replete with instances of those who possessed one without the other, and thus were unacceptable to God. The Pharisees (Matthew 23:3), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2-4), and the people of Amos’ day (Amos 5:21-24) engaged in the external forms, but were unacceptable because of their insincerity. Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:1), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2), and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6) all demonstrated genuine motives, but were unacceptable to God because of their failure to observe the right forms.

Think for a moment of the many people in biblical history who failed to approach God “in truth”—that is, they approached God, but did so without sufficient attention to complying with the details and guidelines that God had articulated. Adam and Eve, regardless of the condition of their attitude, were condemned by God for the external act of eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17; 3:11). Likewise, Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3), the Sabbath breaker (Numbers 15:32-36), Moses (Numbers 20:11,12), Achan (Joshua 7), Saul (1 Samuel 13:13,14; 15:19-23), Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1-7; 1 Chronicles 15:12,13), King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16-18), and Ezra’s contemporaries (Ezra 10)—all experienced the displeasure of God for their deviation from divine directions.

God has not changed in His insistence upon man’s loving obedience to His instructions (John 14:15; 15:14; 1 John 5:3). The Old Testament was written, among other reasons, in order for Christians to learn from the example of those who departed from God’s way (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). New Testament faith, the kind of faith that Christians must possess if they wish to be pleasing and acceptable to God, is obedient trust—trust that conforms to God’s will (Hebrews 11; James 2).

The psalmist understood that God’s truth consisted of God’s written words (cf. Psalm 119:30,43,142,151,160). So did Jesus when He said, “Thy word is truth,” and declared that the basis of judgment would be the words that He spoke (John 17:17; 12:47-48). Worshipping God “in truth” is equivalent to “doing truth,” which entails “deeds” or external actions which are prescribed by God (John 3:19-21; cf. loving “in truth” in 1 John 3:18). When Jesus taught the way of God “in truth” (Matthew 22:16), He related information that accurately represented God’s will. When the Colossians heard “the word of the truth of the gospel” (Colossians 1:5), they heard the specific tenets, doctrines, requirements, and teachings to which they had to conform their lives.

Situationism, antinomianism, and liberalism share in common their mutual aversion to law keeping. Christians must not fall prey to these sinister forces that attempt to soften and obscure the clear call from God to render obedience to His directives. All He seeks from people is conformity to His laws out of hearts full of sincerity, earnestness, and love.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

The Sound of Silence by Frank Chesser, M.S.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5673
 

The Sound of Silence

by  Frank Chesser, M.S.

[NOTE: The following article is a sermon that was preached by an A.P. board member in Montgomery, AL in early 2019.]

The life of David is a spiritual treasure house that instructs, enriches, and warns the soul. There is a brief and yet profound event narrated in 2 Samuel 7:1-7 that contains five monumental truths and two questions exceedingly worthy of perpetual contemplation. First, there is the serenity of peace. “And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies” (vs. 1). Cain’s bloody hand of violence commenced a flow of earth staining blood that would never end. Lamech, Cain’s great-great grandson, boasted of his violent nature, and when Cain’s vile descendants corrupted the offspring of Seth, the “earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). Implied in God’s general law for murder that embraces the whole of time, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 9:6), is the tragic truth that man would never live to see the door close on blood staining the earth.

War in any form is exceedingly injurious. It harms and disrupts life on every level. World, national, and civil wars have saturated the human family with death and endless sorrow. As the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6), Christ is the head, foundation, and savior of the church; yet, bitter strife and contention are as common in many congregations as light is to day or darkness to night. “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1) Innumerable homes are afflicted with the acrid sounds of family warfare. The tranquil environment in which David now lived would be shattered by his own adultery and murder, followed by lust, rape, murder, betrayal, fornication, and incest that infested his own family unit. God said, “Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thine house” (2 Samuel 12:10). Wars rage in individual hearts where sin and its fruits are constant companions. “But the wicked are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked” (Isaiah 57:20-21). There is no substitute for peace among nations, in the church, home, and heart.

Second, there is the presence of God.  David said unto “Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains” (vs. 2). The Ark of the Covenant symbolized God’s presence with the nation of Israel. The top of the ark was made of pure gold, and it was called the “mercy seat.” The Day of Atonement was the most sacred day in Judaism. It was on that day, each year, that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of a perfect lamb and made atonement for the sins of the people. God said, “And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat” (Exodus 25:22). During a battle, the ark was seized by the Philistines. When Eli was informed of this tragedy, he fell, broke his neck and died.  In the process of dying while giving birth to a son, his daughter-in-law affirmed, “The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken” (1 Samuel 4:22).

Third, there is mental preoccupation. As king of Israel, there would be numerous affairs of state demanding David’s mind, time, and energy, but his statement to Nathan the prophet in verse 2 stresses his desire to build the Temple as his principal aspiration. Life is composed of numberless things that require one’s attention and execution. Just providing for the three basic essentials of life—food, clothing, and shelter are time consuming activities. But loving and serving God and making preparation for Heaven should be the preeminent objective of life. It was this very sentiment that Paul was pressing when he said of himself, “This one thing I do” (Philippians 3:13). Life is a diverse affair involving a variety of essential pursuits, but the whole of life should have as its pivotal thrust to be among those to whom Jesus will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Matthew 25:21).

God had a work for David and a work for Solomon. It was God’s will for David to secure the nation of Israel, thereby enabling Solomon to construct the Temple without distraction. David’s work involved war and bloodshed. These were God’s righteous wars of judgment, and David was His agent to bring His will and plans to fruition. Solomon spoke to these very truths when he said, “Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the Lord his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrence” (1 Kings 5:3-4).

Hence, God’s statements regarding forbidding David to build the Temple because he was a man of war and shedder of blood are not accusatory or condemning in nature. In two battles with the Philistines, David inquired of God as to what he should do. Regarding the first, God said, “Go up; for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thy hand” (2 Samuel 5:19). Concerning the second, God said, I will “go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines” (2 Samuel 5:24). Twice, in addressing David’s conflicts with the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Ammonites, and Amalekites, inspiration declares, “And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went” (2 Samuel 8:6 and 14). David stressed this truth when he said to Solomon, “Is not the Lord your God with you? and hath he not given you rest on every side?  for he hath given the inhabitants of the land into mine hand; and the land is subdued before the Lord and before his people” (1 Chronicles 22:18). Even though it was not God’s will for David to build the Temple, he did what he could as he reminded the people in his final words, “Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God” (1 Chronicles 29:2).

Four, there is the impropriety of granting permission void of divine authority. “And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee” (2 Samuel 7:3). Nathan was a faithful prophet of God. He loved God, he loved the truth, and he loved David, and would never have intentionally misled him. He fully believed that he was doing the right thing by encouraging him to proceed with his earnest desire to erect an appropriate edifice for the Ark of the Covenant. But he was wrong. He was very wrong. He was granting permission where God had given none; authorizing where God had not authorized, and speaking where God had not spoken. Nathan had entered a realm where he had no right to be. No man can speak for God where God has not spoken Himself.

Fifth, there is the deafening sound of prohibition in divine silence (vss. 4-7). This matter was so spiritually grave that God did not delay in dealing with it. That very night He instructed Nathan to go to David with His first question, “Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?” (vs. 5). The very nature and tone of this question resounds with the need for God to speak in order for man to have the right to act.  Divine legislation is the sole prerogative of God. David’s heart was in the right place when he expressed a desire to provide a suitable habitation for the Ark of the Covenant. This intent was in the mind and plan of God, but not for David to accomplish. Both David and Nathan needed instruction from God that would enable them to act by faith in harmony with the will of God.

God took David and Nathan’s mind on a journey encompassing the whole of Israel’s history from Egypt to that present day. As they pondered God’s relationship with the nation over all the preceding centuries. God demanded that they point to a single moment in time when He addressed one of the tribes, saying, “Why build ye not me an house of cedar?” (vs. 7). The significance of this simple question cannot be overstated. As David the king and Nathan the prophet deliberated upon this potent question from God, what sound did they hear? They heard the sound that only a diminutive number of people in the world have heard. They heard the sound that Catholicism, denominationalism, and the church of liberalism have never heard. They heard the sound of silence. In all of the previous centuries, God had never commanded or authorized a man, leader, or tribe in Israel to construct for His symbolic dwelling place a house of cedar. Wholly devoid of authority from God, all that David and Nathan could hear regarding His question was the sound of silence.

It is a display of unbelief to attempt to thwart the necessity of divine authority for a specific act or religious practice. Such is the nature of the argument of the spirit of liberalism that sanctions any action or behavior that is not expressly forbidden by a “thou shalt not.” This self-will disposition of heart is an intrusion upon the silence of God. If David and Nathan had adopted the spirit of liberalism as their own, they could have argued with God’s question, declaring, “But you never said to Israel, ‘Thou shalt not build me a house of cedar.’” The foundation of faith is “God said” (Romans 10:17). Love for God can only be manifested by obeying the commandments of God (John 14:15). Both faith and love are dependent upon the word, statutes, commandments, precepts, or laws of God. God supplies grace (Titus 2:11). Christ provides blood (Matthew 26:28). The Holy Spirit furnishes revelation (2 Peter 1:21). Paul pointed to man’s only role in the redemptive process when he said, “faith which worketh by love” (Galatians 5:6). Love for God cannot move faith in God to do anything without a word from God. It is impossible for biblical faith and love to presume upon the silence of God. Demanding a “Thou shall not” to deny one’s right to any form of conduct or religious activity nullifies both faith and love.

Noah framed the ark by “faith” (Hebrews 11:7). Noah’s faith did not need a list of specific prohibitions to keep him from tampering with God’s blueprint for the ark. His faith did what faith always does and can only do, “according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Genesis 6:22). Inspiration devotes seven chapters to God’s pattern for the tabernacle and its components (Exodus 25-31). These chapters were not accompanied by a host of explicit restrictions to assure Moses’ compliance with God’s will and their absence did not constitute an invitation for him to make additions or adjustments according to his own thinking. When the time arrived for Moses to erect the tabernacle, his faith did what faith always does. Eight times the divine record affirms that he did “according to all that the Lord commanded him” (Exodus 40:16-32). On one occasion, Moses momentarily discarded his faith and intruded upon the silence of God by striking instead of speaking to the rock (Numbers 20:7-11). God described what Moses and his brother Aaron did as an act of unbelief and rebellion (Numbers 20:12; 27:14). The absence of a specific prohibition from God regarding striking the rock could not justify their sinful conduct, nor convert their unbelief into faith.

God’s authorized means of transporting the Ark of the Covenant called for Kohathites, shoulders, and staves (Numbers 7:9; Exodus 25:15). Walking in the steps of Moses and Aaron, David temporarily relinquished his faith, supplanted Kohathites, shoulders, and staves with oxen and a cart. As the ark tilted and Uzzah attempted to steady it, he paid for his transgression with his life (2 Samuel 6:1-7). Later, David acknowledged his error, declaring, “We sought him not after the due order” (1 Chronicles 15:13). The lack of a “Thou shall not” concerning oxen and a cart did not constitute divine permission for their use.  Faith seeks God according to His due order, His will, His Word, commandments, laws, statutes and precepts. Faith honors both the sound and the silence of God. The very nature of Biblical faith will not allow it to presume upon the sound or silence of God by speaking or acting where God has not spoken, authorized, or commanded.

God’s choice for music in New Testament worship is congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16);1 for partaking of the Lord’s supper is Sunday (John 16:12-13); Acts 20:7);2 for leadership in worship is male (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:3-4);3 for gathering funds to support His work in Sunday contributions (1 Corinthians 16:1-2), and His only reason for divorce and remarriage is fornication (Matthew 19:9).4 Where lies the difference in “strange fire” (Leviticus 10:1-2), and strange music in worship, strange days for taking the Lord’s Supper, strange leadership in worship, strange ways of collecting funds for spiritual work, and strange reasons for divorce and remarriage. Speaking or acting where God has not spoken is an intrusion upon the authority and silence of God.

The Bible is permeated with this principle. It stands like a sentry on every page. It is as easy to perceive as the sun at high noon on a cloudless day. It instructs, warns, and threatens. It longs to keep man spiritually safe. It is the mind of God at work for man’s good. Only the self-will disposition of liberalism, which is the spirit of unbelief, would be so arrogant and full of pride as to quarrel with it. “Why build ye not me an house of cedar?” That question points to the realm of divine silence, where there is no word from God.

Endnotes

1 Dave Miller (2003), “Instrumental Music and the Principle of Authority,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1215&topic=288.

2 See Dave Miller (2007), “Sunday and the Lord’s Supper,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1254&topic=446.

3 See Dave Miller (2005), “Female Leadership and the Church,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1407&topic=389.

4 Dave Miller (2003), “The Sacredness of Marriage,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1237&topic=324.

Theme for 2020 by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2020/01/06/theme-for-2020/#more-15131

Theme for 2020

During the last number of years when I was engaged in full-time local church work, we had an annual theme that we focused on for the year. We built our sermons and classes around that general theme. It was a spiritual challenge to the congregation to zero in on a single idea.

Although we’re now engaged in an international itinerant ministry, I’ve decided to make this my theme for the year–2020 Vision: Restoring Our Focus. It’s a personal pursuit. One that I will be blogging about on ThePreachersWord. And as I have opportunity it’s a theme I want to share as we visit various congregations.

When we think of vision, from a physical viewpoint we automatically think of eyesight. However, vision has to do with perception. Insight. Imagination. And conception.

Vision allows you to look beyond the present moment. To see what is really important. To recognize opportunities. To detect obstacles. And get a glimpse of what the future holds.

Inventors like Thomas Edison, writers like William Shakespeare, businessmen like Warren Buffet and social reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr. were all people of vision. They approached their respective fields of endeavor seeing not what was, but what could be.

Helen Keller, the American author, political activist, and lecturer was the first person born blind and deaf to receive a BA degree. She was once asked by an interviewer, “What would be worse than being born blind?” She quickly replied, “To have sight, but no vision.”

Spiritually speaking vision is vital to our divine association with God, personal spiritual growth, and congregational well-being. When Paul prayed for the Ephesian brethren he asked the Lord to give them wisdom and knowledge so that the eyes of their understanding would be enlightened. Through which they could clearly see their hope in Christ, His role in their lives, and their future inheritance (Eph. 1:15-21).

However, like the religious leaders that Jesus condemned (Matt 13:11-16) it’s possible that our eyes become blinded by sin. That our vision is obscured by the cares of the world. And lose sight of our heavenly goal.

When our spiritual vision is blurred, our faith is dimmed, our hope is diminished, and our work for the Lord declines. When we lose sight of our mission and ministry, in our myopic condition we become dismayed, discouraged and depressed. This is true of individual Christians, as well as entire congregations.

Sometimes, disturbing distractions like fear, worry and pessimism pervade our thoughts and permeate our emotions so that our focus is on our feelings instead of our faith. This dissipates our energy. Squanders our resources. And blinds us to exciting opportunities and God’s precious promises.

The need is real. The challenge is imperative. And the answer ought to be obvious. Restore our focus.

The wise man’s counsel will redirect our view. “Let your eyes look directly forward, and your gaze be straight before you” (Prov. 3:25).

The plea of the Psalmist will adjust our sight: “Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law” (Ps. 119:18).

And the exhortation of the Hebrew writer will restore our focus. “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).

Our vision will never rise any higher than our thoughts. The popular author anonymous was right: ‘Your thoughts shape your vision. You see what you want to see.”

So in order to sharpen our vision and restore our focus, we must think about things that are true. Honorable. Just. Pure. Lovely. Admirable. Excellent. And praiseworthy. (Phil. 4:8)

To paraphrase Peter Block, “Your spiritual vision is not only a roadmap but also a compass.” So, look to God’s Word for guidance. And stay focused on Jesus for direction.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

THE MAJORITY HAS NEVER BEEN RIGHT by steve finnell

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-majority-has-never-been-right-by.html

THE MAJORITY HAS NEVER BEEN RIGHT by steve finnell


When the subject of Christianity has been debated the  majority has never been right.

The majority of first century Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah.---The majority has never been right.

John 4:25, 26 The woman said to Him. "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When He comes, He will tell us all things."
26 Jesus said to her. "I who speak to you am He."(NKJV)

The majority of world rejects Jesus as the only Savior.---The majority has never been right.

Acts 4:10-12 ...the name of Jesus Christ.....12 "Nor is there no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(NKJV)

The majority of those who claim to be Christians believe the false doctrine of original sin. They believe that because Adam and Eve sinned that all men are guilty of spiritual sin at birth. They believe in inherited sin.---The majority has never been right.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (NKJV)

No man has inherited the guilt of Adam. Men will face spiritual death because of their own sins.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned---(NKJV)

Death spread to all men because all men have sinned. 

The majority of those who claim Jesus as Savior believe that modes of water baptism are sprinkling and pouring---The majority has never been right.

Mark 16:16 Whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved; whoever does not trust will be condemned. (Complete Jewish Bible)
Mark 16:16 He who has believed, and has been immersed, will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (The Better Version of the New Testament by Chester Estes)

There are no translations that translate Mark 16:16 as such, "He who believes and has been sprinkled or poured shall be saved."---The majority has never been right.

The majority of Baptist believe that water baptism is not essential to the forgiveness of sins and that once you are saved you can never be lost---The majority of Baptists have never been right.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)
Galatians 5:1-4.....you have fallen from grace.(NKJV)   

The majority of those who claim to be Christian believe that their church denomination is the final authority when it comes to faith and practice of the Christian faith---The majority has never been right.

The word of God found in the Bible and the Bible alone is not only the final authority, but the only authority for mankind.

THE MAJORITY WILL NOT BE GOING TO HEAVEN

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.(NKJV)

If the majority were always right there would be many who find life eternal, however---The majority has never been right.

Luke 13:23-24 Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them, 24 "Strive to enter the narrow gate for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.(NKJV)

Is the Church Important? by J.C. Bailey

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/churchim.html

Is the Church Important?

It is a very common teaching today that Christ should be magnified but that the church is relatively unimportant. You can belong to the church of your choice, or you do not need to belong to any church. We shall answer this argument from the Bible.

We shall assume the truth of the following two propositions. The Bible, as it is, is sufficient for man as he is. The best commentary to the Bible is the Bible itself (II Timothy 3:16-17).

I held a meeting one time, and after the meeting a man came up to me and said, "Do you know what Moody said on baptism?" I said, "No, but I know what Paul said." Let me show you how the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible.

Jesus said that the church would be built on a rock. Certain commentaries would say that the rock was Peter. What saith the scriptures? I Corinthians 3:22 says that there is only one foundation and that foundation was Christ. I Corinthians 10:4 says that the rock was Christ. All the man-made commentaries in the world cannot change these basic truths (Hebrews 13:8).

The church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). Can we mutilate the body of Christ? Can we exchange that body for another body (Ephesians 4:4)? No, the church is to be presented to Christ without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27). Christ is the savior of the body (Ephesians 5:23). Christ purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus said that the gospel was to be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15). Jesus said that He had all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He became to those who obey him the author of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:9).

We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Faith comes by hearing the word (Romans 10:17). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Jesus prayed that we might believe through the word, given to us by the apostles (John 17:20-21). In order that we might listen to the apostles, we have the written word (John 20:30-31). The faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

The Old Testament was our tutor to bring us to Christ, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the tutor (Galatians 3:24-25). When Jesus was on the Mount with the three apostles and Moses and Elijah appeared, Peter suggested that they have three places of worship: one for Moses, one for Elijah and one for Christ. God himself spoke from heaven. Listen to my Son. When John laid down the pen of inspiration he said that nothing more was to be added (Revelation 22:18-19).

For all time the church is to be honored with Christ (Ephesians 3:20-21). Men have made many denominations. But Jesus said that they were to be rooted up (Matthew 15:13). The church, that divine institution, began at the right time, at the right place. The Lord had declared that the law of the Lord would come from Jerusalem. God's house would come from there (Isaiah 2:2-3).

The apostles were gathered. The Holy Spirit, who was to guide them into all truth, came. The gospel had become an established fact. Christ had been raised from the dead. He had gone back to heaven (Acts 1:8-11). Jesus had said that repentance and the remission of sins should be preached in His name beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47).

Peter explained the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Then he declared the fact of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. This brought conviction. The divine record says that they were pricked in their hearts (Acts 2:37). They asked what they should do. The answer came, not only from the apostles, but from the Holy Spirit. "And Peter said unto them, 'Repent ye and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" To whom does this apply? Verse 39 answers that question: "For to you is the promise, and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Emphasis mine - JCB). What happened? "They then who received his word were baptized, and there were added unto them in that day about 3,000 souls" (Acts 2:41).

What did this church do? "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Yes, the church is important. Christ did not die for something unimportant.

J.C. Bailey, 1993, Weyburn, Saskatchewan

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

9/28/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Betrayal Of Jesus (26:47-50) by Mark Copeland

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Betrayal Of Jesus (26:47-50)

INTRODUCTION

1. Certainly one of the saddest moments in the life of Jesus was His
   betrayal by Judas...
   a. One of Jesus' closest disciples, even one of His twelve apostles - Mt 26:47-50
   b. Who had been privileged to a part of Jesus' ministry here on earth - Ac 1:17

2. What led Judas to betray his Lord and Savior?  How could one who had
   been with Jesus...
   a. Seen His miracles
   b. Heard His teachings
   ...betray Him with a kiss?

3. What about us, who claim to be Jesus' disciples today?
   a. Could we be guilty of betraying Jesus in some way?
   b. Are there things that misled Judas that could have a similar effect on us?

[What might we learn from "The Betrayal Of Jesus"?  Lest we follow the
same path of Judas, let's reflect for a few moments on what we can
glean from the Scriptures...]

I. JESUS WAS BETRAYED BY A CLOSE FRIEND

   A. JUDAS WAS NO STRANGER TO JESUS...
      1. As already mentioned, he was one of the apostles - Mt 10:2-4
      2. He was among those whom Jesus loved - Jn 13:1
      3. Yet as prophesied, Jesus was betrayed by "a familiar friend" - Ps 41:9

   B. BEING CLOSE TO JESUS IS NO GUARANTEE...
      1. Just being His disciples is no assurance we could not betray Him
      2. Like several of the churches in Asia Minor, we could...
         a. Leave our first love - Re 2:4-5
         b. Begin to tolerate false doctrine - Re 2:14-16
         c. Permit false teachers to spread their doctrines - Re 2:20
         d. Fail to perfect our works, and not be watchful - Re 3:1-3
         e. Become lukewarm - Re 3:15-16
      3. Yes, we can betray Jesus by denying Him who bought us - 2 Pe  2:1

[Therefore we need to heed Jesus' admonition to be "faithful unto
death" (Re 2:10), and not assume that close proximity to Jesus in the
past guarantees faithfulness in the future.]

II. JESUS WAS BETRAYED BY A LOVER OF MONEY

   A. MONEY WAS A PROBLEM FOR JUDAS...
      1. He often pilfered from the money box - Jn 12:4-6
      2. The opportunity to make money led him to betray Jesus - Mt 26:
         14-16

   B. MONEY CAN BE A PROBLEM FOR US...
      1. The deceitfulness of riches can render us unfruitful - Mt 13:22
      2. The desire for riches and the love of money can lead us to
         stray from the faith and drown in destruction and perdition - 1Ti 6:9-10
      3. The Laodiceans' preoccupation with wealth made them lukewarm - Re 3:16-17

[Could we be guilty of betraying Jesus by our desire for riches,
letting such things take precedent over our service to God and His church?]

III. JESUS WAS BETRAYED BY A SHOW OF AFFECTION

   A. JUDAS BETRAYED JESUS WITH A KISS...
      1. He could have simply pointed...perhaps by kissing he sought to
         soften the blow of betrayal - Mt 26:48-49
      2. Jesus noted the obvious contradiction - Lk 22:47-48

   B. DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION DON'T ENSURE FAITHFULNESS...
      1. Many people are very emotional in their religion
         a. As displayed in their worship
         b. Believing it to be evidence of being "Spirit-filled"
      2. Yet emotions alone are not a reliable guide
         a. They can easily mislead us - cf. Pr 16:25; Jer 10:23; 17:9
         b. They are often present in the unstable believer - Mt 13:20-21
      3. This is not to discount the place and value of emotions
         a. We are to love God with all our heart and with all our mind - Mt 22:37-38
         b. The Spirit does produce fruit in our lives that affects our emotions - Ga 5:22-23
         b. But we must keep them in the proper order:
            1) Our emotions must come from faith, not faith coming from emotions
            2) Otherwise we are led by emotionalism, not faith
            -- And true faith comes from the Word of God - Ro 10:17;Jn 20:30-31

[If we believe that displays of affection in our religion can make up
for our failure to heed God's Word, we deceive ourselves and betray
Jesus in the process!]

IV. JESUS WAS BETRAYED BY A MISTAKEN DISCIPLE

   A. JUDAS MISTOOK THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTION...
      1. He evidently didn't think Jesus would be condemned - Mt 27:3-4
      2. This has prompted some to think that Judas was motivated by
         more than money
         a. That perhaps his betrayal would force Jesus to act, show His true power
         b. That in such a way it would demonstrate who Jesus truly was

   B. WE CAN BE GUILTY OF MISTAKEN SERVICE...
      1. Thinking our service is acceptable, when it is not - Mt 7:21-23
      2. Thinking we can improve on God's way, when we can't know what
         He wants unless He reveals it - Isa 55:8-9
      3. We need to head the Preacher's advice - cf. Ec 5:1-2
         a. Come to hear and do what He says
         b. Not presume to know what pleases God and offer what we think is best

[In our zeal, we may be guilty of acting on mistaken knowledge (cf. Ro
10:1-3).  Dare we possibly betray Jesus by presuming we know what is
according to His will and plan?]

V. JESUS WAS BETRAYED BY AN OVERWROUGHT FOLLOWER

   A. JUDAS REACTED TO HIS SIN THE WRONG WAY...
      1. He was overcome with grief - Mt 27:3
      2. He took the wrong course of action and hung himself - Mt 27:5

   B. WE CAN REACT TO OUR SINS THE SAME WAY...
      1. There are two kinds of sorrow - 2Co 7:10
         a. Sorrow of the world that produces death
         b. Godly sorrow that produces repentance
         -- The first is sorrow where one is preoccupied with self; the
            other is sorrow due to sinning against God
      2. It is natural to be sorrowful for our sins
         a. But we should not wallow in our grief
         b. But repent, as did Peter who denied Christ
      3. Paul provides another example of one who did not let his sins
         of the past hinder his service in the present
         a. He focused on God's grace which gave him another chance  1Co 15:9-10
         b. He directed his attention on striving for the upward call of God - Php 3:12-14

CONCLUSION

1. While Jesus was betrayed by all these things, let's not forget the
   influence of Satan...
   a. Satan used Judas to betray Jesus - Lk 22:3-4
   b. Satan put it in Judas' heart to betray Jesus - Jn 13:2
   -- For this reason Jesus referred to Judas as "a devil" - Jn 6:70-71

2. Yet how did Satan influence Judas?  By some of the very things we've noticed...
   a. Through his love of money
   b. Through his emotionalism
   c. Through his mistaken ideas
   d. Through his preoccupation with self
   -- Even Peter was influenced by Satan through some of these things (cf. Mt 16:23)

And so while we may decry the treachery of Judas, we should humbly
learn from his mistakes, taking to heart the words of Peter:

   "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks
   about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.  Resist
   him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings
   are experienced by your brotherhood in the world."
                                                    - 1Pe 5:9-10   
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

The Saga of Ancient Jericho by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=988

The Saga of Ancient Jericho

by  Wayne Jackson, M.A.

After having spent forty hard years in the wilderness of Sinai, the children of Israel were stationed on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, just north of the Dead Sea. The challenge was now before them; they were to take the land of Canaan that Jehovah had promised to Abraham five centuries earlier.

The first obstacle in Israel’s path was the fortress city of Jericho. Joshua sent spies across the Jordan to survey the situation. When the presence of these Hebrews was detected, a Canaanite woman—Rahab the harlot—befriended them. Doubtless she saved their lives, and in turn, the spies promised that she and her family would be spared during the coming invasion (Joshua 2).

Shortly thereafter, Joshua led Israel against Jericho. The procedure for capturing the city was strange indeed, according to military standards. The Hebrews were to encompass the walls of the city once a day for six days, then, seven times on the seventh day. A blast was to be made on the priests’ trumpets, the people were to give a great shout, and the city would be theirs—for God had given it to them (Joshua 6:2,16). When the Hebrew people, by faith, followed this plan, the walls of Jericho fell down. According to divine instructions, the Israelites then destroyed the inhabitants of the city (with the exception of Rahab and her kinsmen), both man and beast. They were charged to confiscate the gold and silver and the vessels of brass and iron for Jehovah’s treasury, but they were prohibited from taking any personal booty. The city then was burned. Finally, a prophetic curse was placed upon any who attempted to refortify Jericho (Joshua 6).

It is important to note at this point that the chronology of the Bible indicates that the Israelite conquest of Canaan took place near 1400 B.C. Upon the basis of archaeological data, we know that Solomon commenced his reign over the united kingdom of Israel about 970 B.C. Additionally, 1 Kings 6:1 states that from the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, back to the time of the Exodus from Egypt, was a period of 480 years. This would suggest that Israel’s departure from Egypt occurred circa 1446/5 B.C.Since the invasion of Canaan commenced about forty years later (after Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness), this would put the conquest of Canaan at approximately 1406/5 B.C.It is important to remember this because liberal scholars, rejecting the chronology of the Bible, date these events 150 to 200 years later!

There are several important elements in this account worthy of consideration.

IS THE ACCOUNT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?

The historical accuracy of the fall of Jericho has lain under a cloud of doubt in the minds of many for more than three decades. John Garstang, a professor at the University of Liverpool, excavated Jericho between 1930 and 1936. Garstang identified a destruction level at the ancient site that he called City IV. He concluded that this was the occupation level which paralleled the city of Joshua’s day, and that the biblical account was accurate. Jericho had fallen to Israel about 1400 B.C. He wrote: “In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative” (1937, p. 1222). For several years, scholars generally accepted Garstang’s conclusions. However, that was to radically change.

From 1952 to 1958, Kathleen Kenyon, of the British School of Archaeology (daughter of famed archaeologist, Sir Frederic Kenyon) supervised an expedition at Jericho. Her work was the most thorough and scientific that had been done at this site. Her team unearthed a significant amount of evidence, but surprisingly, Kenyon’s interpretation of the data was radically different from Garstang’s. She contended that City IV had been destroyed about 1550 B.C. and therefore there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer around 1400 B.C. She suggested that the archaeological evidence discredited the biblical record! And, not surprisingly, a sizable segment of scholars fell dutifully into line. Whenever there appears to be an apparent conflict between the Bible and other data, there is always a certain group that immediately calls the Scriptures into question. They never have the patience to wait for the more complete picture. Comments like those of Magnusson are typical: “...on a purely literary level, the Book of Joshua reads more like an adventure story than history...there is no archaeological evidence to support it” (1977, p. 96).

One of the most curious elements of this whole matter, however, is the fact that, prior to her death in 1978, Kathleen Kenyon’s opinions regarding Jericho had been published only in a popular book (Kenyon, 1957), in a few scattered articles, and in a series of preliminary field reports. The detailed record of her work was not made available until 1982-83, and an independent analysis of that evidence is bringing to light some startling new conclusions.

The March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (certainly no “fundamentalist” journal) contains an article titled “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?—A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” authored by Bryant G. Wood. Dr. Wood is a visiting professor in the department of Near Eastern studies at the University of Toronto. He has served in responsible supervisory positions on several archaeological digs in Palestine. In this scholarly article, Wood contended: “When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the Biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of Jericho, we find a quite remarkable agreement” (1990, p. 53, emp. added). The professor emphasized several major points of agreement between the archaeological evidence and the record in the book of Joshua. A summary would appear as follows:

  1. The Bible indicates that Jericho was a strongly fortified city. It was surrounded by a “wall,” and access to the fortress could only be obtained through the city “gate” (Joshua 2:5,7,15; 6:5,20). Biblical Archaeology Review notes: “The city’s outer defenses consisted of a stone revetment wall [some 15 feet high] at the base of the tell [hill] that held in place a high, plastered rampart. Above the rampart on top of the tell was [the remnant of] a mudbrick wall [about 8 feet high at one point] which served as Jericho’s city wall proper” (see Wood, 1990, p. 46).
     
  2. According to the Old Testament, the invasion occurred just following the 14th day of Abib (March/April) (Joshua 5:10), thus in the springtime, or in the harvest season (3:15). Rahab was drying flax upon her roof (2:6). Both Garstang and Kenyon found large quantities of grain stored in the ruins of Jericho’s houses. In a very limited excavation area, Kenyon found six bushels of grain in one digging season—“This,” as Wood commented, “is unique in the annals of Palestinian archaeology” (1990, p. 56).
     
  3. The biblical record affirms that the conquest was accomplished swiftly in only seven days (6:15). The people of Jericho were confined to the city with no chance to escape (6:1). The abundance of food supplies, as indicated above, confirms this. Had the citizens of Jericho been able to escape, they would have taken food with them. Had the siege been protracted, the food would have been consumed. The Old Testament record is meticulously accurate.
     
  4. When the Israelites shouted with a great shout on that seventh day, the “wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city” (6:20; cf. Hebrews 11:30). Kenyon’s excavations uncovered, at the base of Jericho’s tell, a pile of red mudbricks which, she said, “probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank” (Kenyon, 1981, p. 110; as quoted in Wood, 1990, p. 54). She described the brick pile as the result of a wall’s “collapse.” Professor Wood stated that the amount of bricks found in the cross-section of Kenyon’s work area would suggest an upper wall 6.5 feet wide and 12 feet high (1990, p. 54).
     
  5. According to the Scriptures, Jericho was to be a city “devoted” to God, hence, the Hebrews were to confiscate the silver and gold, and the vessels of brass and iron for Jehovah’s treasury. However, they were to take no personal possessions(6:17-19). The archaeological evidence confirms this. As indicated earlier, a considerable amount of grain was found in Jericho. Grain, in biblical times, was exceedingly valuable, being frequently used as a monetary exchange (see 1 Kings 5:11). It therefore is unthinkable, unless by divine design, that the Israelites would have taken Jericho and left the grain intact. The Bible is right!
     
  6. The Scriptures state that during the destruction of Jericho, the city was set on fire (6:24). When Miss Kenyon dug down into the city, she discovered that the walls and floors of the houses were “blackened or reddened by fire...in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt” (Kenyon, 1981, p. 370; as quoted in Wood, 1990, p. 56).
     
  7. The Bible indicates that Rahab’s house was built “upon the side of the wall, and she dwelt upon the wall” (2:15). A number of houses were found just inside the revetment wall, which could have abutted the wall [see point (1) above], thus easily accommodating an escape access from the city (Wood, 1990, p. 56). The evidence indicates that this area was the “poor quarter” of the city—just the type of residence that one might expect a harlot to have.
     
  8. Whereas Kathleen Kenyon contended that Jericho (City IV) had been destroyed about 1550 B.C., and abandoned thereafter, hence, there was no city for Joshua to conquer in 1400 B.C. (according to the biblical chronology), the actual evidence indicates otherwise. A cemetery outside of Jericho “has yielded a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs [small, beetle-shaped amulets, inscribed on the underside, often with the name of a pharaoh] from the 18th through the early-14th centuries B.C.E., contradicting Kenyon’s claim that the city was abandoned after 1550 B.C.E.” (Wood, 1990, p. 53).

Other evidences indicate a harmony with the biblical chronology as well. There is absolutely no reason to contend that the book of Joshua is in error in its description of the conquest of Jericho.

MORAL DIFFICULTIES

Some have argued that the account of Jericho’s destruction places the Bible in a morally compromising position. It is alleged that Rahab’s lies (Joshua 2:4-5) condone situation ethics, and that the slaughter of the city’s women and children (Joshua 6:21) is reprehensible—a reflection upon a benevolent God. These objections simply are not valid.

First, one should note that the Scriptures do not attempt to conceal Rahab’s falsehood. Her weakness is bluntly revealed. This evinces the impartiality of the divine record and is an indirect suggestion of inspiration. Too, one should understand that this woman was from a pagan environment. Her concept of morality and her personal lifestyle (she was a harlot) needed considerable refining. In spite of her sordid background, she had developed a sincere faith in Israel’s God (see Joshua 2:9ff.). Consequently, when the spies approached her, she was not “disobedient” as were the others of Jericho. She received the spies and sent them out another way. It was by these “works” of faith that she was delivered (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). She was not “justified” by lying; rather, she was justified by her faith and her works, in spite of her ignorance and/or weakness. It would be a gross misuse of this narrative to employ it as proof that there are occasions when it is divinely permissible to lie.

We must not pass from this point without noting that the case of Rahab demonstrates the wonderful harmony between faith and works in the divine plan. The writer of Hebrews states that Rahab perished not, as a result of her faith; James declares that she was justified by her works. These two requirements are not mutually exclusive of one another.

Second, while the extermination of an entire population may seem excessively cruel when viewed as an isolated incident, other factors shed light on that situation. Consider the following: (a) The destruction of Canaan’s heathen tribes was justified in view of their utter abandonment of moral restraint. The ancient evidence indicates that they practiced child-sacrifice, religious prostitution, sodomy, etc. A people can reach a state of such deep depravity that the justice of God demands punishment. (b) Their destruction had not been rendered impetuously. Jehovah had been patient with them for more than 500 years; finally, their cup of iniquity ran over and the time for judgment came (see Genesis 15:16). (c) This type of punishment was implemented on a rather limited basis—principally, upon the tribes of Palestine. This was due to the fact that God had chosen Canaan as the place where the Hebrew nation was to be cultivated in view of the coming Messiah, the Savior of the world. It was an example of moral surgery for the benefit of all mankind. (d) Finally, it still is true that these Old Testament narratives illustrate the fact that innocent people (e.g., infants) frequently have to suffer the consequences of evil acts that others generate, due to the kind of world in which we live. This should motivate us to want a better state wherein wickedness does not exist. And so, though such cases as the fall of Jericho may entail some difficulty, the problem is not insurmountable.

THE PROPHETIC CURSE

Following the destruction of Jericho, Joshua pronounced an imprecation upon the ancient city, saying: “Cursed be the man before Jehovah that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: with the loss of his firstborn shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it” (Joshua 6:26).

Some writers have assumed that this prophecy failed, for not many years after Jericho’s fall, one reads of people living in Jericho (see Joshua 18:21; Judges 3:13; 2 Samuel 10:5). In fact, it is called specifically “the city of Jericho.” And yet, there is no record of the “curse” being fulfilled in those times proximate to Joshua’s invasion.

In response to this charge, several factors need to be noted. First, the prophetic curse did not state that Jericho never was to be inhabited. It does not even indicate that the city never was to be rebuilt. The divine prediction was simply this: The man who attempts to rebuild Jericho, as a fortress city (cf. “set up the gates of it,” 6:26) would be the recipient of the divine curse (see Coslinga, 1986, p. 73).

The fact of the matter is, five and a half centuries later, during the reign of Ahab of Israel, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho as a fortress. And, precisely as Joshua had declared, he lost his oldest son when the foundation was laid, and his youngest son when the gates of the city were set up (see 1 Kings 16:34). The prophecy was fulfilled. There is no discrepancy in the Bible record.

REFERENCES

Coslinga, C.J. (1986), Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Garstang, John (1937), “Jericho and the Biblical Story,” Wonders of the Past, ed. J. A. Hammerton (New York: Wise).<

Kenyon, Kathleen (1957), Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn).

Kenyon, Kathleen (1981), Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, ed. Thomas A. Holland (London: British School of Archaeology).

Magnusson, Magnus (1977), Archaeology of the Bible (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Wood, Bryant G. (1990), “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?—A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[2]:44-58, March/April.


Originally published in Reason & Revelation, April 1990, 10[4]:17-19.