Catching Fog

To have a full understanding of the wisdom literature, poetry, and prophets of the Old Testament, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the Law of Moses: Genesis through Deuteronomy, and especially Deuteronomy. It is these five books of the Law which form the pillar on which the rest of the temple called the Bible is built, including the New Testament. And likewise then, to fully understand the New Testament it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the Old Testament, and especially of those first five books. If you don’t know the Old Testament, when you read the New Testament you’ll be like someone who missed the first ninety minutes of the movie and wonders what’s going on now.

Consider some examples:

Compare Mark 1:40-45 with Leviticus 14. So what is the significance of Jesus’ words, “don’t tell this to anyone…offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing as a testimony to them”?

The cleansed man was to say nothing. Yet his sacrifice was to be a testimony to them — a witness to them of something. Of what? Of Jesus. Compare also the sacrifice to the work of Jesus on the cross with the Old Testament sacrificial system. What Jesus says to the man he healed illustrates the significance or truth of Jesus’ words in John 5:39-40: “You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

More importantly, if you don’t know the Old Testament, you’ll miss the allusions to it in the New Testament, and thereby miss a lot of what the New Testament is talking about; you’ll lose perspective, as well. As one of the more obvious places where an understanding of the Old Testament is critical is the book of Revelation. There are many allusions to Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Exodus and Zechariah (among others) that show up in the book of Revelation. Given the widespread ignorance of the connections that the author of the book of Revelation is making to the OT, it is not surprising that so many entirely misunderstand what the book of Revelation is actually all about (a comparison between Babylon and the Roman Empire, both of whom mistreated God’s people and both of whom would suffer God’s judgment).

For instance Revelation 22:1-2 reports:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb  down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Consider that the same imagery appears in Ezekiel 47:1-12:

The man brought me back to the entrance to the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar. He then brought me out through the north gate and led me around the outside to the outer gate facing east, and the water was trickling from the south side.
As the man went eastward with a measuring line in his hand, he measured off a thousand cubits and then led me through water that was ankle-deep. He measured off another thousand cubits and led me through water that was knee-deep. He measured off another thousand and led me through water that was up to the waist. He measured off another thousand, but now it was a river that I could not cross, because the water had risen and was deep enough to swim in—a river that no one could cross. He asked me, “Son of man, do you see this?”

Then he led me back to the bank of the river. When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds—like the fish of the Mediterranean Sea. But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt. Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear fruit, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing.”

Consider Deuteronomy 6:4-9:

 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

How might that inform your understanding then of Revelation 7:3?

Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.

And how about its implications for our understanding of Revelation 13:16-17:

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Or consider a comparison of the plagues being poured out upon the “earth” in Revelation with the plagues that were poured out on Egypt in order to rescue the people of God from oppression and slavery. And why does Revelation refer to Rome as Babylon (as did Peter in 1 Peter 5:13) The answer is related to how Rome treated the Jews, and that like Babylon, the Romans destroyed both Jerusalem and the Temple.

Consider the imagery of the little scroll in Revelation 10:9-11:

So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’” I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”

It should bring to mind Ezekiel 3:1-4:

And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat.

 Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth.

He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them.

Wherever you go in the New Testament, you’ll find yourself standing upon the foundation of the Old Testament and walking along its familiar paths (at least familiar to the people and writers of the New Testament).

And one more thing. When Paul told Timothy “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God p may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17) he was not thinking about the New Testament at all. It didn’t exist yet. Instead, he was thinking of the Old Testament. Quite obviously the Old Testament was quite useful to the early Christians. It seems likely it’s still useful to us, even in the twenty-first century.

Send to Kindle

Some of my thoughts about the Devil are as follows:

The apostle James comments that demons believe in one God “and tremble’ (James 2:19). One obvious thing about Satan, therefore, is that he is not an atheist. He knows there is a God in the same way that you know you have a spouse, child, acquaintance, friend or enemy. He doesn’t wonder about it. The philosophical questions and theological arguments about his existence are of little interest or importance to him. You might as well develop arguments to demonstrate the existence of your best friend. It would make as much sense. You have personal experience with such people and likewise Satan has personal experience with God. He has talked to God, argued with God, and even tempted God.

Satan is a convinced monotheist. He knows there is only one God, not many. He can count, after all. He knows God is powerful. He’s seen what he can do.

But does Satan understand God? Is his perception of who God is, what God wants, and what God expects accurate? Does he have a clear picture of God’s personhood, his personality, his desires and wants, his nature? Does Satan know, metaphorically speaking, what God’s favorite color, favorite music, or favorite dessert might be?

Does he know God?

Whether Satan has ever sat down at a desk somewhere and written out what he believes; whether he has ever stared at the ceiling and pondered what he thinks about life, the universe and everything—it is clear that he does have a point of view, a way of thinking about reality, a way of interacting with those around him. Like a character in a novel, we can look at what he says and does and get a pretty good sense of who he is.

Satan is first mentioned by name in the book of Job (if we follow the Jewish order of the canon). Prior to that, he does not appear, unless the serpent that seduces Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is to be understood as somehow empowered or possessed by the Devil. Given that the Bible nowhere makes that connection, we are left to speculation. Admittedly, most people do assume that the serpent is to be identified as the Devil.

So. Assuming that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is somehow motivated or directed by the Devil, perhaps one of our first insights into Satan’s thinking shows up at the very beginning of the biblical story:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

The serpent casts doubt into the mind of Eve, convincing her that God was holding back on her: that in fact, God did not really love her or want what was best for her, since he has forbidden her something that is “beneficial.”

Is this then an indication of one of Satan’s core beliefs about God?

Consider what he says about Job when he approaches God in his throne room: “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (Job 1:9-11)

In both the words to Eve and the words spoken to God, Satan betrays his fundamental doubt of both God’s goodness and his love. Satan believes God “loves” only as he gets something out of it. He believes that God is just as selfish as the creatures made in his image are. It is a belief that Satan has seeded into the hearts of people: he planted it in the mother of us all so that it infects the entire species. Satan does not believe that God is good and he does not believe that he loves anyone. He expresses this thought to Eve and she decides to accept his belief as the truth. The consequences of believing and then acting upon that belief were devastating for Eve and Adam and for the human race.

A question that arises at this point (which may be unanswerable) is an obvious one. Does Satan believe what he told Eve? Does he, in fact, believe that God was withholding something good and worthwhile–that he did, indeed, not have Adam and Eve’s best interests in mind? Or was Satan simply trying to create havoc for havoc’s sake—vandalizing the creation for no other reason than to create chaos?

If the latter is true, we still have to wonder why he would do that? Why would he want to harm Adam and Eve? What motivated him to destroy?

Or, does Satan actually believe deeply that God is less than good, that he has a selfish agenda? That he withholds something from his creatures because he fears that they will become like him? After all, that is something the serpent itself tells Eve.

On the other hand, the Bible tells us that Satan has “no truth in him” and that “when he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (see John 8:44) and so it is unreasonable to simply accept what Satan says at face value. Based on Jesus’ statement, if the Devil told me the sky was blue, I’d be wise to poke my head out a window and double-check.

Liars—especially good ones—do not tell only fibs. The truth tends to get mixed with the lies. And liars generally lie for the purpose of self-preservation, out of fear that something bad will happen if the truth comes out. The child caught sneaking cookies from a cookie jar lies not out of maliciousness, but out of fear of punishment. People generally love themselves, but are afraid that no one else does. They think that the truth will make people love them less, or that they will stop loving them altogether. My oldest daughter was four before she understood that when she was disciplined it did not mean that we had stopped loving her, or that our love for her was dependent upon how she behaved. Our discipline of her, in fact, was a result of our love for her.

I think that what Satan believes is that when it comes to love, God’s love is conditional. I don’t think the Devil understands that love—real love—exists: love that loves regardless of the behavior of the beloved. Notice that when he talks with God about Job, he believes, without any apparent doubt, that Job’s love for God was entirely conditional: dependent upon Job continuing to be blessed by God. He was certain that as soon as Job suffered, he would turn against God and curse him—just as he and Job’s friends were certain that God’s love was expressed only when blessings flowed and life was good. Like Satan, therefore, Job’s friends think that God’s love is conditional. The advent of suffering, in both Satan’s mind and the mind of Job’s friends, was proof of God’s disfavor: of the withdrawing of God’s love. Satan was therefore certain that Job could not respond to God but in kind: that Job would withdraw his love and curse him instead.

So why does the Devil do what he does? What motivates him?

Well, why do you do what you do? Why do you think Satan would be any different than you?

He is a limited, fallen creature. He differs from you in but one essential as far as we can see from the Bible: he is not mortal. Is he corporeal? If the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels, then they—and he—are corporeal enough to successfully mate with human beings. We see other angels eating (cf. Genesis 17-18 and the “three men” for whom Abraham prepared a meal; they didn’t leave until after eating).
So again: why does Satan act the way he does?

And again: why do you?

First, simple self-interest. I do what I do because I derive pleasure from it. It’s fun. It helps me. I gain something from it. It helps those who are important to me (and they are important to me because I derive pleasure from them.) Second, I do what I do because it is, for some reason, important to me. I believe in it—which is why I share my faith, attend church, vote, participate in community activities and give to charities. It is why people give themselves for others or a cause. Though to be cynical about it, even giving for others, ultimately, may be due to the perceived benefit for oneself: self-esteem, helping others helps me, it’s fun, and so on.

Satan does not really believe in selfless love. Satan is certain that God is mostly concerned about the rules, and that God’s favor is based on performance. Likewise, he is certain that the only reason human beings obey God is because they believe that by so doing, they will receive a blessing from God.

Satan probably wonders sometimes whether even that common human belief is justified. It appears, in fact, that Satan doubts God’s ultimate goodness and suspects, or perhaps is convinced, that God is only interested in what he can get for himself: that God’s motivation in how he treats people is in how they treat him. And Satan would not be unreasonable for thinking that way, since most people’s relationships are founded on just that point of view.

After all, we spend time with people who are nice to us. If my neighbor spits in my face every time I talk to him, chances are I’ll stop talking to him. If someone is always mean to me, chances are I’m not going to go out of my way to be nice to him. If someone invites me to dinner, I’ll feel obligated to invite her to dinner. And so on. Satan understands how people behave; he’s had lots of experience over the years. It’s how the world works. It is how he works. Thus, his statement to God when he talks about Job, that Job will curse God if God takes away all his stuff, his family, and his health (see Job 1:9-11), is based on his experience with other human beings and how they relate to each other. It is also based, quite frankly, on his own motivations, which seem no different from that of human beings. He sees himself in us.

Send to Kindle

The church is described in Ephesians 4:11-16 as comprising individuals who have spiritual gifts. The members are appointed by Christ to specific service in keeping with the gifts they’ve been given. The body is a living organism, united forever with Christ. It is composed of people of all sexes, races, nations, cultures and social classes (Ephesians 1:23; 2:15-16; 3:6; 4:12-16; 5:30). There is no division or distinction in the body of Christ between Jew, Gentile, slave or free, male or female. All are one in Christ. (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).

In Matthew 22 a lawyer asked Jesus what the greatest commandment in the Law might be. In verses 37-39, Matthew records our Lord’s answer, which was to love God and to love people. He made a similar point in John’s Gospel, when he told them that his “new” commandment for them was to “love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

Yet, in the Church, how often do we see a different reality: members sniping at one another, murmuring, gossiping, critical of the Church, the preaching, the pastor, the music, the food, each other, concerned that music and preaching be done to fit preconceived notions of propriety, worried more about turf and power, prestige and the respect of others, than about helping the brothers and sisters? Worse, how much of Church becomes jockeying for power, forgetting entirely that in the church, no one is in charge and everyone is a servant (Matthew 20:20-24).

As Americans we are taught to stand up for our rights, and to allow no one to push us around. But scripturally, we are to be un-American. We must stand up only for others, never for ourselves. Instead, the message of the Sermon on the Mount is important as Christians consider their role (see Matthew 5:38-48).

As Christians we are called to do the impossible: to love the unlovely, to love those who hate us, to love those from whom there is no hope of ever receiving anything back. True Christian love means that often time our love will go unrequited.

Our righteousness, our love as Christians is for the sake of others, not us, and should never, ever be dependent on what someone else does. “Well if he would just apologize.” Or, “If they don’t change the music, or change the pastor, or change [your gripe here] then I just won’t tithe any more”. Or, “Since I can’t have my way, I’m leaving.” Oh, but “This is a matter of principle!”

Why am I in church? Why do I serve God? For myself? Because it makes me feel good? Because I hope God will look with favor on me? Satan tempts us with good things, like the fruit that the serpent dangled in front of Eve that she couldn’t help noticing was “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom.” (Genesis 3:6)

Send to Kindle

I get interesting questions from time to time. One emailer asked about Psalm 41 and how to make sense of it if it’s a messianic psalm.

This was my response:

It is true that Psalm 41:9 is quoted in John 13:18 and applied to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. This does not mean, however, that the entire 41st Psalm references Jesus. Psalm 41 is about a person facing hard times, a person who is ill and surrounded by enemies who hate him, one of whom turns out to be someone he thought was a friend. The psalmist asks for God’s mercy and for restoration.

Jesus’ application of verse 9 to himself is simply because of the overall theme of the passage (a man facing trouble and enemies), and then the specific wording of verse 9 fits what he was facing with Judas.

The way the New Testament authors made use of the Old Testament is not always the same way we would have used it. Not all quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are to be taken “literally.” There is variety in how the New Testament makes use of the Old Testament, ranging from explicit quotation and application according to historical-grammatical methods, to simply playing off a theme, making further developmental use of the picture. The process is often times similar to what Copeland did with American folk music in Rodeo or Appalachian Spring, or what Rachmaninoff did with the rift from Paganini in his Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (other composers have done similar things, both modern and classical; think of what rap artists do with sampling). Thus, Isaiah’s “apocalyptic” statements of “new heavens and new earth” (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22) in context are metaphors for the new life Israel would have once they returned from Babylonian captivity (think of how someone feels, and the metaphors they might use, after recovering from a long and serious illness).

The NT will play off these OT images and take them in new directions and develop them further. And sometimes the NT will merely allude to the OT pictures. Consider the many allusions to Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Exodus and Zechariah (among others) that show up in the book of Revelation. Given the widespread ignorance of the connections that the author of the book of Revelation is making to the OT, it is not surprising that so many entirely misunderstand what the book of Revelation is actually all about (a comparison between Babylon and the Roman Empire, both of whom mistreated God’s people and both of whom would suffer God’s judgment).

In thinking about the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, also consider how Christians today will use catch phrases and biblical imagery and then apply them to situations far removed from their context or original purpose. Just as we will use literary, television, or movie allusions the same way (“I’ll be back” “Luke, I am your father”, etc). The allusion process we use today in day to day speech should not be excluded from consideration as we think of the NT use of the OT. They were normal people, just like us, after all. We should also remember (or become aware of) the first century Jewish practice and methods of interpretation and use of the OT.

We must be careful not to let our modern, post Enlightenment, twenty-first century engineering-technical, urban and industrialized approach to the world overwhelm our understanding of what the Bible and its authors (pre-industrial, pre-Enlightenment, and agricultural world) were doing.

As a classic examples of this sort of thing, where the NT use of the OT is radically different than the way we would use it, compare Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:22-23. Matthew applies the passage to the birth of Jesus by the virgin Mary. In the context of Isaiah 7-8, the phrase applies to “the prophetess,” apparently Isaiah’s wife, who then gives birth to a child, fulfilling the prophecy and serving a sign to the King of Israel that he would defeat his enemies. Likewise, Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:14 is different than Hosea’s point if you read Hosea.

And yet, there are other examples where NT authors follow a historical-grammatical usage, as for instance Hebrews 8 and its use of Jeremiah 31:31-34, or how Peter uses Joel 2:28-32 on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:14-21.

As to what is going on in Psalm 41:9 and its connection to verse 4, it makes good sense in the context of the overall point of Psalm 41 which in context has nothing to do with Jesus but only a man suffering problems. Any modern translation I know of is a good presentation of the underlying Hebrew. There is nothing out of the ordinary or difficult about verse 9:

Gam ish shlomi = also my close friend, lit. also man of my peace, or also man at peace with me

Asher batahti bo = which I trusted him

Okel lahmi = eating my bread

Higdil alai aqev = a heel was lifted against me; aqev is the subject of the passive verb higdil; it is an idiom meaning something along the lines of “has betrayed me” or “turned against me”; think of the use of the same word in Genesis when one of Isaac’s sons is named “heel grabber”, that is Jacob (Genesis 25:25-26) and his birth is immediately followed by the story of how he cheated Esau out of birthright. Then, later, after he has stolen Esau’s blessing, we have this:

But he said, “Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.”

Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!” (Genesis 27:35-36)

Esau feels cheated and betrayed by his brother “heel grabber”.

Send to Kindle

The word “gospel” is an old English word that simply means “good news.” The content of the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, freeing us from bondage and the consequence of our sins and reconciling us to God.

The Gospel message may be summarized as follows:

All people are sinners by birth. (See Psalms 51:5)

Consequently, since it is our nature to sin, there is nothing we can do to stop sinning, anymore than we could stop breathing. (See Romans 3:10-12)

Therefore, God had to take care of the problem. (Isaiah 63:5, 43:11)

He did this, by sending his son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for the sins of humanity. (Romans 5:7-10)

If we decide to accept the gift of his death, and turn our lives over to God, then he puts his Holy Spirit inside us, making us Christians. Becoming a Christian is entirely the work of God; we do not contribute to it ourselves. No amount of being good will make a person a Christian, because being good has nothing to do with it. (Galatians 3:1-5 and
Ephesians 2:8-9)

Becoming a Christian results inevitably and automatically in obedience to Christ. The first act of obedience is baptism — being immersed in water — to signify to friends and family that one has died and been buried with Christ, raised to live a new life in Him. (Ephesians 2:10, Acts 2:41)

Good works are the consequence of becoming a Christian, not the cause. The good works that are done are the work of God through the Christian, not the Christian’s own efforts. Therefore there is no place for pride or self-righteousness. (Galatians 6:14, Romans 3:27-28, Galatians 2:20-21)

Grace is the gift of God –eternal life– given to us even though we do not deserve it. It is the gospel, as distinguished from the law.

Grace is a difficult concept for people to understand because it runs counter to our daily experience. In life, rewards come as a result of performance. We get paid for our jobs because we work; we get grades in school because we do our work. Even our friendships are made or kept based on how we behave. If someone hits me in the face every time I see him, I’ll soon start avoiding him. But our relationship with God is counter to all else that we know.

Look at what Paul writes in Romans:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Romans 5:6-10)

Jesus died for our sins while we were still his enemy. Our relationship with God is independent of our behavior, good or bad. Jesus’ death on the cross is what has reconciled us to God. There is nothing left for us to do or not do. Jesus did it all; we are paid in full. There is nothing more due, no more payments to make. (see also Ephesians 2:8-10, Galatians 2:20-3:1-6).

It is a significant mistake to imagine that there is something that a person must do in order to become or remain acceptable to God. It is a mistake to imagine that behavior has anything to do with one’s relationship with God in this sense: you are a child of God, filled with the Spirit. You can’t get any closer to God than having him live inside of you. The New Testament explicitly teaches that salvation is by grace, through faith. The Old Testament illustrates it. Take, as an example, Lot. In 2 Peter 2:7-8 Lot is called a righteous man. But there is not one righteous act recorded for Lot in the Bible. In Genesis 19, this is what we find out about Lot: he did not want to leave Sodom. Once out of Sodom, he lived in a cave, got drunk more than once, and impregnated both of his daughters.

How is it that Lot is a righteous man? Did he perform some noble act that the Bible doesn’t record?

It doesn’t matter.

Lot is not righteous because of what he did or did not do. He is righteous in the same way that any human being is righteous (whether in the OT or NT): because of the cross of Christ.

…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (Philippians 3:9)

 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe… (Romans 3:21-22)

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:19-21)

 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:1-5)

Send to Kindle

Temptation is a word that is used to describe the enticement to sin against God or another human being. One can be tempted to do only something that one wishes to do. That is, while I can be enticed to eat chocolate cake, I can never be enticed to eat liver. Temptation is not sin; only giving into the temptation is a sin. Genuine temptation requires that the enticement be for something that is desired, and that there is an actual opportunity to do it. Sin occurs only if you give in to the temptation.

James writes:

…but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:14-15)

Sin is given birth to. It is sin when it comes out, not when it is, as it was, in the womb. Resisting temptation can be thought of as a kind of spiritual abortion.

Jesus, according to Hebrews 4:15, “has been tempted in every way, just as we are” but, says the passage, Jesus remained sinless.

And yet, it remains quite common in the Christian community for people to be condemned for being tempted: condemned for what they think. Passages will be quoted, such as: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

However, as is too often the case, the context has been ignored, and the quotation is not quite exact, though it most closely resembles what appears in the King James Version of 1611. It comes from Proverbs 23:7. Let’s take a look at it in its full context, in a modern translation:

Do not eat the food of a begrudging host,
do not crave his delicacies;
for he is the kind of person
who is always thinking about the cost.
“Eat and drink,” he says to you,
but his heart is not with you.
You will vomit up the little you have eaten
and will have wasted your compliments. (Proverbs 23:6-8)

That’s from the New International Version. You’ll no doubt notice that the famously quoted phrase–or even anything like it in meaning–fails to make an appearance. So let’s take a gander at the same passage in the old King James:

Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye,
Neither desire thou his dainty meats:
  For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:
Eat and drink, saith he to thee;
But his heart is not with thee.
The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up,
And lose thy sweet words.

Ah, so now the modern translation makes sense–and the way the phrase gets bandied about in the modern church–well, it just doesn’t say that, now does it? Although the phrase is in the passage, even in the King James, it obviously doesn’t mean what people have been taught to think it does. Context really matters. Yanking it out of context and ignoring what it is actually all about, well, that creates some problems, right?

But then there’s the old standby that gets trotted out if that passage in Proverbs doesn’t work:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

It is most commonly used to beat adolescents over the head, but is often generalized and applied to things beyond just sexual urges. The problem, obviously, is that it seems at odds with making a distinction between temptation and sin, at least the way it is commonly used: that if you’ve thought it, you’ve as good as done it. Which makes little sense when you, well, think about it. If you think about murdering me, that’s not at all the same thing as putting a knife through my heart, now is it? You won’t get arrested, and I will continue on my way, oblivious–alive and cheerful. Not at all the same as being six feet under.

But what I find especially interesting is the very next two verses after Matthew 5:28 (that whole context thing again):

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Oddly, while verse 28 will be taken absolutely literally so we can make adolescent boys feel guilty, most Christians–if they even talk about Matthew 5:29-30–will recognize that Jesus is using a common literary technique called “hyperbole.” As in such familiar phrases as “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times” or “He always does that” or “there must have been a million of them!” Very few Christians imagine that Jesus, in Matthew 5:29-30, is suggesting that people should maim themselves. But they insist in the previous verse that Jesus was being literal and is equating temptation–thinking about a woman, or whatever the temptation might be–with the sin that sometimes comes from it.

And see, that’s the actual point, I think: sin indeed has its origins in our thoughts. Elsewhere, both in Matthew and Mark, Jesus is quoted as saying the following:

But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.  These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them. (Matthew 15:18-20; see parallel account in Mark 7:20-23).

While our thoughts may give birth to a variety of evils, the operative term here is “come out.” If the thoughts don’t come out, if they don’t escape, if you don’t give birth to them, then they are, in fact, resisted temptations. And only temptations. We shouldn’t be making folks feel guilty for being tempted and resisting . In fact, that’s kind of counterproductive: too often people–those adolescents I mentioned above–might think to themselves, “well, I thought it, so now I’m guilty, so I might as well have the fun of doing it.” or “I thought about eating that chocolate cake so I might as well chow down.”

See the problem? If you don’t eat it, it won’t put pounds on your thighs. Notice the difference between a thought and a deed: think about eating cake–you weigh the same as before you had the thought. Eat the cake–that’s when you gain weight.

Hmm. Didn’t James write something along those lines, though looking at it from the other end: that is, good thoughts versus good deeds:

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

So let’s look back at Matthew 5:28 again. Perhaps Jesus is merely warning as clearly as possible, by using some hyperbole, that temptation is a slippery slope and the distance between thoughts and actions is very thin. I really don’t think he was arguing that thoughts and deeds are the same thing, or that you’ve sinned just by being tempted.

Remember: Hebrews tells us, Jesus was tempted, just like any other person–but he didn’t slip down the slope and sin.

So a bit of good news then: you, too, don’t have to move from temptation to sin.

And remember, there really is a difference between the two.

Send to Kindle