Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 2

Okay, verse 41: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”

I’ll remind you that in Bell’s mind this means that when a Roman soldier forces you to carry his stuff for one mile, which Bell says was the legal limit, you should continue to carry his stuff past the one mile marker and therefore put the soldier in a position of weakness. You will have forced him to treat you with respect because he needs you to give him back his stuff so that he won’t get in trouble with the government for having someone carry his stuff past the legal limit of one mile.

Two things jump out at me. First, Bell has built his whole interpretation of this passage on the fact that the Romans were an extremely violent culture and that the Jews needed a way to resist in a non-violent manner. But suddenly, when Bell gets to this verse, the Romans become pacifists. These brutes, whom Bell portrays in his interpretation of v.39 as having a penchant for beating Jews, have turned hippie for no apparent reason. Does it make any logical sense that a Roman soldier wouldn’t beat the hound out of a Jew who refused to give him his rightful belongings? Does it make any logical sense that a Roman would allow himself to be forced to say to a Jew, “Please, give me my stuff back”? No, it does not.

Second, how would a third party standing near the one mile marker know that it was the one mile marker? In other words, short of satellite surveillance, how would anyone know that this Jew had been carrying the Roman’s stuff for more than one mile? If a witness had been on the same road and gone the same distance and therefore knew when the one mile marker had been past, the witness would also see that the Jew refused to give the Roman his stuff and the violation was therefore not the Roman’s fault. In fact, it would be far more likely that the Jew would be charged with theft, rather than the Roman being charged with forced labor.

So, we’ve seen with each of the three examples Jesus gives illustrating the principle in v.39, “do not resist an evil person,” that the verses themselves do not allow Bell’s interpretation. But what about the context? I asked you last time to take a look at v.42. Every study I checked shows v.42 as a part of the passage we have been talking about. A cursory reading of the text also makes it clear that vv.38-42 are one passage. What does v.42 tell us?

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Why would Bell leave this verse out of his message? I think the answer is obvious: it ruins his interpretation of the preceding verses. It simply does not fit the idea of asserting your rights against someone else. It runs opposite of Bell’s campaign to force the strong to treat the weak as equals.

Now let’s widen our context a little and look at the preceding sections. First, we have the opening section, the Beatitudes - things like, blessed are the meek, blessed are those who are persecuted, blessed are the peacemakers. That doesn’t sound anything like the spirit Bell proposes in his message, which says, “assert yourself and make people stop persecuting you.” Next, we have a series of sections beginning in v.21 in which Jesus gives an OT commandment and then proceeds to raise the bar, calling on the listener to pay closer attention to the heart issue involved in each commandment and not just the letter of the law. For example, in vv.21-22 we read, “You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

Does that sound like something that the people would be cheering about? If you are angry with your brother, you deserve the same punishment as a murderer – does that make you feel good? No? That’s because Jesus is raising the bar. What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus saying a lot of harsh things. If you lust, you are an adulterer. If you marry a divorced woman, you are an adulterer. If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. Love your enemies. Do not love the things of this world. Do not worry about any of your own needs. Do not judge. The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life. Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To these Rob Bell would add: “Assert yourself and force your enemy to treat you as an equal." "Reclaim your own diginity." "Assume a position of power." "Take the initiative away from your enemy." His interpretation, when viewed from the context of the entire Sermon, sticks out like a sore thumb. It runs counter to everything else Jesus said. It is not just off - it is the exact opposite of what the verses are teaching. The Sermon has absolutely nothing to do with dignity, non-violent resistance, or asserting yourself. It is about selflessness, humility, discipleship, and suffering. But Bell is saying that in a Sermon full of sayings that would be very hard to hear, there are three verses which would really excite the listeners. It doesn't make sense.

What about Jesus’ example? Did He practice what Bell has proposed? No. Jesus consistently put others before Himself and the greatest picture of this is in the Passion. Isaiah 53:7 reads, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.” Jesus was struck repeatedly, and yet He did not assert Himself and force His attackers to treat Him like an equal. His clothes were taken away, leaving Him naked before the world, and yet somehow the Jewish leaders were not shamed by it or forced to treat Him with respect.

Scripture never records Jesus living the interpretation that Bell gives. It shows Him doing the opposite. So, if Rob Bell is correct, Jesus is a hypocrite.

Now, how do we know what the right interpretation is? As I alluded to above, in the surrounding context, Jesus repeatedly uses the phrases, “You have heard it said...” and “But I say to you...” He uses these phrases to signal His main points. In the case of our passage, He says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist an evil person.’” That is the main idea - do not resist an evil person. Jesus then illustrates the point with the three examples in verses 39-41. There is no reason to try to find a meaning beneath the text of the three examples. Jesus has already told us what He means by the examples - do not resist an evil person. The best understanding of the examples is the straightforward meaning of the words. If someone hits you on your right cheek (whether this is a metaphor for an insult or not), let him hit your left cheek also. If someone sues you for your cloak, give him more than is required - give him your coat, too. If someone forces you to go a mile with him, do more than is required - go with him two. In other words, do not resist an evil person. Then in v.42 he recaps the idea of not resisting an evil person.

This is why it is dangerous to have a preacher who doesn’t preach all the way through a book of the bible. When he preaches a passage from one book one week and another the next week, he is out of touch with the context and can end up making big mistakes, even unintentionally.

I have couple of things to say to Rob Bell. If I ever have the opportunity to speak to him face to face I will say it then. But on the off chance that he may stumble upon this post, I’ll leave it here.

First, thank you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. You have given us a great training tool. You so thoroughly distorted the meaning of the words of these verses, that we were able to see from multiple angles what it looks like when someone has absolutely no regard for sound principles of interpretation. My prayer is that those who have looked at your view of this passage will have the discernment to recognize error in your more subtle counterparts.

Second, shame on you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. I fear for you that you may be a fulfillment of 2 Tim 4:3-4 and James 3:1. You are a danger to the body of Christ. I pray that the Lord, for His own glory, will either open your eyes or close your mouth.


For next time, Matthew 6:7-15. Drink deep.

Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 1

There are two things that might make Rob Bell’s interpretation fascinating. First, no one has ever heard it before. That should always be a huge red flag. I've said it before, I'll keep saying it, what are the odds that in the 2000 year history of the church someone in Michigan c.2006 is the first person to have come up with the correct interpretation of this passage? It is as arrogant as it is crazy. In effect, to espouse such an innovative interpretation is to say that Augustine got it wrong. Athanasius got it wrong. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper - all got it wrong! But not Rob Bell. Second, this interpretation is fascinating and attractive because it brings in all this extra-biblical information about 1st century Jewish culture. What we have to keep in mind with that kind of thing is that it doesn't matter if every history book in the world says the same thing, if a piece of historical information leads to an interpretation that simply is not allowed by the text, then the historical information is suspect, not the Holy Scriptures. And that is precisely what we have in this case. In order for Rob Bell's interpretation to be valid, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount must be either thrown out or rewritten. And actually, much of the rest of the NT becomes obsolete because what Bell has proposed here is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures.

I want to you to hear me very clearly once again: Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan is a false teacher. I may sound like a broken record, but somebody has to. There is a pervasive unwillingness in the pulpits of the modern church to call a spade a spade. I’ll not be found guilty of looking the other way as a wolf snatches and scatters the sheep. His handling of the passage we are looking at is indicative of his recklessness with the Word, a recklessness that has led him to espouse a host of heretical positions.

But, friends, stick to the text, be a slave to the text, and you will not fall prey to the false teachings of all the wolves on the prowl out there. Learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

So, let’s look at the specifics. There is so much to say here I almost don’t know where to begin. But we’ll start with the text itself, then look at the context. If you have not read my last post, now would be a good time to do that since most of what follows won’t make any sense otherwise.

Bell’s interpretation has problems from the very beginning – v.38: “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. And yet, Bell’s interpretation could be summed up in the statement, “Here’s how to resist an evil person.” He has made this passage mean precisely the opposite of what it says. Here is a rule of thumb that should be so obvious it is ridiculous to even put it in writing: any time a teacher proposes an interpretation that flips the plain meaning of the text on its head, discount whatever he says.

Things don’t get better for Bell as we move forward – v.39b: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” He claims that because it would be improper to use the bathroom hand (left hand) to slap someone, this first slap must be a backhand slap with the right hand. He further claims that the victim’s turning the other cheek to the attacker would force the attacker to hit him with a closed fist, and thereby treat the victim as an equal.

This logic has several holes. First, the attacker could simply give an open-handed slap with the palm to the left cheek. Second, since the Romans had such a disdain for the Jews, there is no reason to think that the Romans would have had any qualms about using their bathroom hands to slap the Jews. Third, if the Romans were so prone to gratuitous violence, it is not likely that they would have allowed a lowly Jew to force them to treat the Jews like equals. Fourth, Bell would have us believe that these masters of brutality have only two ways to hurt people: a backhand and a punch.

What does the text say? “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Couple that with the first half of the verse – “Do not resist an evil person” – and what do you have? You have a verse that tells you not to resist an evil person - when he strikes your right cheek, let him slap the other also. Just read the text, Rob.

Verse 40: "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Bell says that this verse is a command to get completely naked and thereby shame the oppressor into treating you like an equal. He sites Gen 9:20-25, where Noah’s son Ham sees him naked and is cursed. Bell extrapolates from this that it was more shameful in the Jewish culture to see someone naked than to be seen naked.

There are a couple of problems with this. Huge problems. First, the idea that nakedness was a shame to the viewer and not the naked person doesn't work with the whole counsel of Scripture. While it is true that it was definitely not a good thing to look at another person naked, there is even more biblical evidence that shame was more closely associated with one's own nakedness. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God because they were ashamed by their own nakedness. In Deut. 28:48, as God is outlining the consequences of disobedience, one of the things listed is slavery to the enemy in hunger, thirst, and nakedness; that is, nakedness would be a curse for their own sinfulness. Likewise, Is. 47:3 says 'your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed.' There are numerous similar examples. To say that becoming nude in front of someone would put you in a position of power over them is just wrong. To become naked was not a power play but a cause for shame.

Second, Bell assumes that what was true of Jewish culture was also true of the Romans. But even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Roman culture exposes this as ludicrous. This was a culture known for their manifold public bath houses in which men soaked together both nude and partially nude while discussing business. Also, the Romans, who perfected crucifixion, routinely crucified their victims completely nude on crosses positioned right along the major thoroughfares. And don’t forget the ancient Roman art rife with images of the naked body. These were people who had no problem whatsoever with nudity. But Rob Bell wants us to believe that a Jew could so shame a Roman by getting naked in front of them that the Roman would be forced to treat them as an equal? Please.

Again, what does the text say? “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now jump back to v.39a: “Do not resist an evil person.” Put them together and what do you have? Do not resist an evil person – if he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat also. Friends, there are undoubtedly some things that Jesus said during His time here that are very difficult to understand, but these are not them. This is as straightforward as it gets.

There is still so much to cover and this post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to have to break this up. But keep looking at the passage. Check out v.41 and search for why Bell’s interpretation won’t work. Also, look at v.42, which Bell omitted, and determine why it was far more convenient for him to ignore it than to face it.

Look at the larger context, too – the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. Does Bell’s interpretation fit? And does Bell’s interpretation match the example set for us by Jesus?

Matthew 5:38-42 - A Case Study in Bad Interpretation

Okay, this wasn’t the passage I’d originally intended to do in chapter 5, but a couple of posts ago, I mentioned this passage as having been abused by a teacher. A friend suggested that I give a more detailed treatment of it. I realized that this would provide a great opportunity for everyone to look at an interpretation and try to determine why it is wrong.

So, in this post I’ll give the false interpretation. I’ve found the original source of this teaching, downloaded the message, and determined that the lesson I heard was taken almost verbatim from the original.

The original teacher is a guy named Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. You may have heard of him. He’s written a few books. He does national tours teaching on different themes. He has also made a series of videos called NOOMA. His church is believed to be the fastest growing church in America and some have called him the next Billy Graham. He is quite well known.

And he’s a false teacher. I don’t say that lightly and I’m not saying he’s a false teacher just because he has so egregiously abused Matt 5:38-42. I feel a responsibility to warn you about anyone who denies essential components of the gospel. As I’ve mentioned before, the NT spends much time warning us about false teachers. I don’t intend to take the time here to make a case against Rob Bell. Others have done that far better than I could. (Two sites you may want to look at are: Truth is Truth – this one has a couple of good posts on Bell and is an overall good resource for commentary on a host of issues; Apprising Ministries – this site has a wealth of information on Bell. The tone is a little too sarcastic for my taste sometimes, but has good information.) I want this site to be about biblical interpretation, and since Bell has provided us here with a great case study in irresponsible interpretation, I don’t think it will be a bad thing to mention him.

So, in this post I’ll give you Bell’s interpretation, and in the next post we’ll look at how we can know that it is wrong, as well as how we can know what the correct interpretation is. This passage is so straightforward that finding the correct interpretation is as simple as just reading the verses. The main thing I’d like for you to do is try to determine why Bell’s interpretation is wrong.

Okay, here’s the Bell interpretation:

To understand what Jesus is really saying here, we need to know a little about the culture of that day. The Jews in the 1st century were a downtrodden people living in an extremely violent world, oppressed by the Roman empire. They were poor, overtaxed, and brutalized in every way.

So here comes Jesus with a message for these people – people who know that violence is wrong but who need some way to resist, reclaim their dignity, and assert their rights.

Let’s look at the first few lines: “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” What Jesus is saying, is that the eye for an eye thing is out. You shouldn’t engage in violent resistance. So if someone hits you, you shouldn’t hit them back.

But Jesus offers another way to resist: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Now there are some things we need to know about the culture. Back then people used their two hands for very different things. Your left hand was your bathroom hand and you didn’t use it for anything else. So if you were going to hit someone, you would use your right hand. Also, you would never use a closed fist to hit someone whom you thought was beneath you. You would slap them. It was a degrading gesture and the Jews were well accustomed to being slapped by the Romans.

So let’s think about this. If I slap someone – again, only using my right hand – and then they turn the other cheek for me to strike them again, they have put me in a very awkward position. [This is where the teacher I heard differed with Rob Bell. The teacher I heard portrayed the first slap as happening to the left cheek, which ignores what the passage says. When someone in the class called his attention to this, he basically brushed it off. Bell portrayed it as a backhand to the right cheek with the right hand.] Striking them on the other cheek would be impossible to do. I would be forced to use a closed fist. So what has that person done? That person has said, “No. You will not treat me this way anymore. You will treat me as your equal!”

Now the people listening to this would have been thinking, “This guy is a genius! This is awesome.” Jesus had just given them a way to reclaim their dignity, to assert themselves and stand up in a non-violent way. This is Non-Violent Resistance 101.

Jesus then gives another example: “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now, back then people only wore two garments - an inner shirt and an outer coat. To sue someone for their shirt was a pretty low blow. You would be leaving them with only one garment.

Again, we need to know something about the culture at the time. Back then, to see someone naked was shameful. Remember when one of Noah’s sons saw him naked and then was cursed? Yes, it was more shameful to look at someone naked than to be naked. So, in this situation, if someone wants to take my shirt and I give them my coat also, I have just gotten naked in front of them and I have heaped shame on them. Now, they are in a position of weakness. Once again, non-violent resistance. Don’t allow someone to take the upper hand and treat you poorly – you turn the tables on them, and force them to treat you well.

Can you imagine what the people in the crowd must have been thinking? “I love this guy. This is great.”

But Jesus doesn’t stop there. He gives another example: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.” Now, back then the Roman soldiers were permitted by law to force a Jew to carry their stuff for them for up to one mile. To have someone carry something more than a mile was a violation of the law. So what Jesus is advocating is to take the soldier’s stuff and when the one mile mark comes, just keep going. Now that soldier is in violation of the law and if his superiors see this, he’ll be in all kinds of trouble. Who is in a position of power then? Yes, the person carrying the stuff has put the soldier in a position of weakness, who is forced to say, “Hey, stop, stop, please give me my stuff.” So the Jew will have asserted himself, turned the tables, reclaimed his dignity, and forced the Roman to treat him with respect.

The people hearing this would have been pumped. “This guy is a genius!”

What does this mean to us? Whenever we are in a position where we are being victimized, rather than responding with violence on the one hand, and rather than just letting them walk all over us on the other hand, we should look for a third way. Look for a way to respond that will say, “No, you will not treat me like this. You will respect me and treat me like a human being.”
_________________________

Okay, now I’m Greg again. I want to assure you that I have not caricatured Bell’s message at all. This is a true synopsis of what he proposes.

I really want to challenge you to take some time and work on this. Look at the text. See if it supports this interpretation. As you do, here are some things to consider:

1. Does the plain reading of the text support this? Does Bell’s interpretation require these words to mean something other than what they say?

2. Does the immediate context support this? Look at the section before and after. What is Jesus trying to get across? I’ll point out that Bell did not include v.42 in his message. Why not?

3. Does the larger context support this? If you have time, read the entire Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. See if this interpretation is consistent with the other things Jesus is saying.

4. Are Jesus’ own actions consistent with this interpretation? Is Jesus practicing what He preaches? Look especially at the Passion.

5. Does the NT as a whole support this? Can you find any clear teaching anywhere in the NT consistent with what Bell has proposed?

Alright, drink deep.

Matthew 4:1-11 - The Father Alone

Here in this third temptation, the tension is palpable. If you notice, each temptation has taken place at a higher level than the one before. The first temptation was in the wilderness, the second was at the pinnacle of the temple, and here the third takes place on an exceedingly high mountain. Let's remember that as this experience has progressed, Jesus has undoubtedly become more and more hungry and exhausted. In each of the previous two temptations, Satan has offered Jesus the easy way out of His suffering. Here on the high mountain comes the most difficult temptation of all.

It may seem counter-intuitive that this temptation would be a temptation at all. Worship the devil? But the temptation is never in the price, but in the perceived reward. As Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and their glory, he is showing Jesus what has been promised to Jesus from ages past (Ps 2:7-8). If we look forward in the book of Matthew, we see that the theme of authority looms large over the narrative. Jesus proves that He has authority to forgive sins in ch.9. He gives His disciples authority to minister the same way He does in ch.10. But most importantly, what does Jesus say after the resurrection in ch.28 before giving the great commission. "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to Me." Ephesians 1:22 tells us that when Jesus was raised God put all things in subjection under His feet. Jesus knew that everything He could see from that mountaintop was rightfully His, but He also knew that it was the Father's will for Him to go through the cross to get it.

And yet, here it is right at His fingertips. He has the opportunity not just to end His current suffering, but to avoid the cross. Here is a way to circumvent the agony and go straight to the reward. This third temptation is different from the others in that it does not contain a command, but a promise. "I will give to you..." Jesus is not being tempted to put on any display of power as in the first two temptations, but rather to simply receive something. The verb used for "worship" by Satan is in the aorist tense, which is the most nondescript tense. The idea is that this act of worship would be just a simple act. In and out, no problem. Just this one bending of the knee and all the earth would be His.

Of course, Jesus responds again with Scripture, "Go away, Satan. For it has been written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve." And again, His quotation, Deut 6:13, hearkens back to the Israelites’ failure in the wilderness. Exodus 32 records the fashioning of the golden calf and the blasphemous words, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." The Israelites got tired of waiting for God to go ahead of them, so they made a god for themselves.

Jesus was tired, too. He may have felt alone. He may have wondered when the misery would end. But if He did, the Holy Spirit was not concerned that we know about it. All that is recorded is the rock solid faith in and devotion to His Father with which He repelled every temptation and passed every test. He fulfilled all righteousness and obeyed where Israel failed. For Jesus there was only one God, the Father, worthy of service and worship.

When the devil goes away, the angels come and minister to Jesus. The Greek word translated ministered means 'to meet the immediate needs of.' It carries the idea of all manners of sustenance, physical, emotional, and spiritual. These angels are almost certainly literally feeding Jesus, as well as comforting Him after His long ordeal. So what Satan offered Jesus in the first temptation, He is now receiving in the Lord's time and in the Lord's way. And what Satan proposed to Jesus in the second temptation, the company of angels, He is now receiving in the Lord's time and in the Lord's way.

What Satan offered Jesus in the third temptation, He will receive - but not until the cross. In a beautiful irony, Jesus' suffering in the wilderness has qualified Him for far greater suffering on Golgotha.

I may have said this before, but it bears repeating: everything was riding on this. When the writer of Hebrews writes that Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, yet, without sin, he was pointing back to the wilderness. Of course, there were other times of temptation in Jesus' life, but this account is the one the Holy Spirit has chosen to frame for us. All salvation history hinged on this battle. One falter and all would be lost. One failure and the book of Hebrews would never be written, nor would the rest of the NT Scriptures. All the saints who had gone before were undoubtedly anticipating with baited breath this milestone on the road to Calvary.

Everything was riding on this for Satan, too. Since Eden, the words of God had surely been buzzing in his ears, "He shall bruise you on the head..." As he plagued Israel throughout her history, I'm confident he looked forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to prove God wrong and to derail His plan to undo what had been done back in the Garden. How invigorated and surprised he must have been to see the Holy Spirit delivering up the Son in a weakened state into the devil's backyard. It was his shining opportunity. Everything was riding on this.

And as all watched - the saints of old, the heavenly host, the devil and his minions, and the First and Third Persons of the Trinity --

the Holy One of God fulfilled all righteousness.

When tempted to prematurely end His temptation and trial in the wilderness, He humbly trusted, obeyed, and worshiped the Father alone. This passage is not simply a how-to on using Scripture as spiritual mace for the devil. It shows us how Christ fulfilled all righteousness. We, too, when faced with trial and temptation must cling to the claim placed on our lives in the Scriptures, trusting God alone, submitting to God alone, and worshiping God alone, with Christ our Brother and Great High Priest sympathizing with us and offering mercy and help in our time of need. What a magnificent portion of Scripture this passage is. May the Lord be so gracious as to work it deeply into our hearts.

Next time, Matthew 5:38-42.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Testing God

I want to start out up front by saying that this particular temptation has been difficult for me to grasp. We know from v.1 that Jesus was truly tempted by these things. It was hard for me to envision how jumping off the temple would have been a true temptation. I wondered, what was the essence of this temptation? What was Jesus being asked to do? The answer may have jumped off the page at you, but I have really had to wrestle with the text, praying and meditating, exploring possibilities, and basically just going over and over it.

I'm thankful for difficult texts for several reasons. First, they remind me that I am only a man studying the words of an unfathomable God. For me to expect to easily understand all that He has said is foolish. Second, they sharpen my awareness of my need of the Holy Spirit's guidance whenever I study. Third, its just fun to dig and dig, and become buried in the words of His book. And fourth, this particular text will provide a great opportunity to explore how we should handle a passage that is difficult to interpret.

The main thing we want to keep in mind is that an obscure or difficult text does not provide a warrant for wild speculation. We're not interested in what it could mean - we want to know what it does mean. We have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We need to be able to literally put our finger somewhere on the page of Scripture and say, "This is what leads me to my interpretation." If there are no textual markers that lead us to our interpretation, then we have taken gross liberty with the Word.

First, let's remember Jesus' physical condition. V.2 tells us that Jesus has been fasting for 40 days. He is hungry and exhausted and we know from v.3-4 that He has just repelled a temptation to make bread and thereby alleviate His own suffering. So He is still in a very fragile state.

Second, what is it that Satan is specifically asking Jesus to do? He wants Jesus to jump and he justifies this by quoting Scripture, reassuring Jesus that God will send angels to catch Him. If we just read the text for what it is, I really don't think we can say that Satan is trying to trick Jesus into killing Himself. Jesus is far smarter than that and Satan is too smart to think that it would work. Plus, Jesus' response also indicates that this is not a temptation to commit suicide - if it was, the Scripture He quoted would have been ill-suited for the situation. Further, Jesus is well aware of His authority to call for the assistance of angels (26:53), so there shouldn't be any fear in Jesus' mind that He would be in danger if He were to jump.

And that, I believe, is what makes this temptation so tempting. It is a huge stretch to believe that Jesus would ever be tempted to kill himself. But if this is not a temptation to jump to destruction, but rather to jump to safety (which is what Satan has explicitly asked Him to do), and to reassure Himself that God is there, then things start to make a little more sense.

Things will become clearer if we look at Jesus' response closely. After the devil has quoted Scripture, Jesus replies, "Again it has been written, 'You shall not test the Lord your God.'" He is quoting Deut 6:16, "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah."

What happened at Massah? If you have time, look at Exodus 17. There we find Israel grumbling to Moses about their thirst. Again, they are wishing they had never left Egypt, and God then reveals to Moses how He will provide water for them. The last verse of the account, 17:7 reads, "He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?"

"Is the Lord among us or not?" The testing of the Lord, that is, the asking of that question - "Is the Lord among us or not?" - is at the heart of Israel's failure in the wilderness. They have seen extraordinary things from Yahweh. The ten plagues. The parting of the Red Sea. The manna. Time after time, God has worked on their behalf and yet they demand water as a sign that the Lord is among them. The Psalmist revisits this in 95:8-9: "Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers tested Me, they tried Me, though they had seen My work." This failure, like the preceding failure when they grumbled for food, is essentially a failure to trust God. Their problem is a lack of faith. And in their demand for water, they are demanding that God prove Himself faithful.

Now, we know that Jesus is desiring to fulfill all righteousness, to obey where the Israelites disobeyed, to succeed were they failed. And in this case, we know from His use of Scripture and from the OT context of that Scripture, that He intends to trust the Father where Israel tested the Father. He assumes a position of subjection to God, rather than forcing God to act.

Like the first temptation, here Satan is tempting Jesus to use His prerogative as the Son of God to prematurely end His testing. To jump to safety would be to end the suffering. The desire to be rid of the wilderness testing parallels the Israelites' desire to be rid of their thirst. They failed by testing God's faithfulness in an attempt to end their suffering. Jesus succeeds by not testing God, but by trusting Him and His purpose in and through the suffering.

It is important for us to assume the same posture that Jesus did. God is God and we are His children. We must understand that it is God who tests us - we do not test Him. He leads us into temptation and testing, we do not lead Him. He holds us accountable, we do not hold Him accountable. He tests our faith, we do not test His faithfulness.

This whole thing reminds me of the name-it-and-claim-it phenomenon. You know, there are times, when the Lord wants me to be sick. There are times when the Lord wants me to suffer physically. There are times when He wants me to hurt and mourn. There are times when He wants me to be penniless and hungry. He has purpose in all those things, building my faith, teaching me to trust, and making me more like Him. How disrespectful it is for me to claim that He doesn't want me to experience that testing and to "claim" deliverance from it, to behave as if God is obligated to serve me, to make my will God's will.

"Is the Lord among us or not?" Israel assumed that because of their thirst, God was not among them. We make the same mistake. We assume that suffering means that God is not with us and we cry out for Him to deliver us from it and show Himself faithful. But to test God is to doubt Him. To doubt Him is to not trust Him. To not trust Him is sin.

But God is with us in the suffering. May we trust Him in it and submit to His purpose in it as Jesus did.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Satan, The Expositor

This second temptation is unique in that an unlikely figure quotes Scripture. That Satan would use the Word as a catalyst to sin should lead us to be very careful when listening to teaching and preaching. I suppose that most false teachers do not know that they are false teachers. Still, whether they know it or not, they are agents of the evil one and routinely distort the Word. It is troubling to me how lax pastors have become about teaching their flocks to rightly interpret the Bible. Without having to say a word, they are convincing their congregations that all you need in order to be the church is love. And they are setting the flock up to be ravaged by wolves. Of course, love is imperative, but it's not all. We also need discernment. 24 of the 27 NT books warn us about false teaching, and yet we hear very little about this from our pulpits. It is no wonder that the Emerging/Emergent folks are growing like wildfire - their pastors are all very engaging speakers, and for those Christians who have not been warned about false teaching and are unable or unwilling to rightly divide the Word of Truth, world-class oratory is all it takes to win them over. Is a shepherd really a shepherd if he does not protect his sheep from wolves?

My goal for these posts is to hopefully help you gain some understanding of how to be careful with the Word and interpret it accurately. Now, in this second temptation, we have two Scripture quotations, one from Satan and one from Jesus. One leading to error; one leading to truth. This post will concentrate on Satan's quotation. It will be very instructive to look at what Satan says, what interpretation he slaps on it, and how his interpretation fits with the verse in its context.

Matt 4:6 says, "and he said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" (The words in caps are quoted from the OT.)

Satan is quoting Psalm 91:11-12. How do we know what his interpretation is? The answer can be found in what he is wanting Jesus to do in response to it. (And in Jesus' response, which we will look at next time.) He is telling Jesus that God has obligated Himself to save Jesus, therefore, it is okay to try Him.

Sounds logical, doesn't it? God has said He will do this thing, so why not try it out? If God wasn't willing to do it, He wouldn't have made this promise, right? Satan has Scripture to back it up, doesn't he?

Pretend for a second that this isn't Satan, but rather a blond-haired, blue-eyed man with an engaging tone showing not Jesus, but you, from Scripture that some random act is acceptable and encouraged. I'm afraid that many people wouldn't bat an eyelash. Why? Because he's using Scripture.

So how does Satan's interpretation fit with its original context? The first problem is that Satan omits an entire phrase from the quotation. Psalm 90:11-12: "11 For He will give His angels charge concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 They will bear you up in their hands, That you do not strike your foot against a stone."

Why would Satan omit this? It is inconvenient for his purposes. This phrase implies a general protection over all of life. But Satan has presented it as a warrant for a specific act, taking a nosedive off the temple: if you jump, God has promised to have angels catch You. The phrase he has omitted doesn't lend itself that interpretation, so he leaves it out.

Second, the larger context of the Psalm 91, will not allow Satan's interpretation. I don't want to reproduce the whole chapter here, but I would encourage you to look at it. The gist of the chapter is that God is a shelter from danger. The writer mentions a number of things from which God will protect him: snares, pestilence, terror at night, arrows by day, lions, and cobras. All of these are dangers that bring themselves upon the writer. They are not dangerous situations into which the writer can throw himself and expect protection. This chapter is not an invitation to live recklessly or to test God. It is simply an assurance that God will shield from danger the one who trusts Him. It is certainly not a mandate to intentionally put oneself in danger, demanding that God come to the rescue.

That Satan quoted Scripture should be striking. It should be even more striking that he is using it to produce sin. It is sobering to think that what Satan has done here is something that happens in pulpits all over the place every Sunday. No, the intent is not the same, but the treatment of the Word is. Many preachers are doing through negligence what Satan did on purpose. Neglect the context. Point out only what makes your point; skip over what doesn't. Make it mean whatever you need it to mean. You set the agenda.

Why does it matter? I recently heard a guy teaching from Matthew 5:39-41. This is the passage about turning the other cheek when someone strikes you, giving someone your coat when they ask for your shirt, and going 2 miles with someone when they ask you to go one. The teacher proposed that the theme of the verses was that we are to reclaim our dignity when attacked by someone else, that we are to assert ourselves when someone tries to put us in a position of weakness. He said that we should turn the tables on the other person and assume a position of strength, making that person treat us with respect. Time will not allow me to explain to you how he got that from these verses, but it was preposterous. He showed an utter disregard for the context as well as the verses themselves, deliberately ignoring certain phrases that did not fit his interpretation. He made the passage mean the exact opposite of what it said.

And it was so well received that the people in the class were asking for more resources on it.

Doubly disturbing is that this was a second generation poisoning. This teacher did not come up with it himself, but had bought it hook, line, and sinker from a sermon preached by a prominent leader of the Emergent Movement. So here we have the Emergent guy abusing the Word, a teacher who adopted that interpretation without studying to confirm its validity, and a class who adopted it eagerly.

Friends, if the people in that class act on what they learned in that lesson, they will have sinned. They will have done the opposite of what Jesus commanded in those verses in Matt 5. Because they didn't know the Word. Did the teacher intend to deceive like Satan did? Of course not. But the end result was still deception and potential sin.

If Satan had the audacity to use Scripture to try to deceive the Son of God, what on earth makes us think that he will not try the same thing on us, especially now when biblical literacy is so scarce in the pews as well as the pulpits? And yet, the average church member will accept anything with a Scripture reference under it.

If you are in a church where the messages preached do not have a central text from which the message is taken, but rather follow an outline created by the preacher and supported with random verses from all over the Bible, you are in a breeding ground for error. I would encourage you to take one sermon outline, take each verse quoted, and study each verse in its context to see if the pastor's usage was faithful to the passage. Ask yourself, is the pastor using the Bible or is the Bible using the pastor? If it is the former, the message you are hearing is the pastor's. If it is the latter, the message you are hearing is the Lord's.

Satan used Scripture to tempt. May we never be so naive as to think he has given this up.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Turning Stones Into Bread

Okay, it's time for the first temptation. First, lets look at Satan's words, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." The opening phrase, "if you are the Son of God," is classified in Greek as a 1st class condition. Basically, Greek classifies different kinds of conditional sentences in a way that allows us to understand what is meant by it. In other words, what does he mean by "if". You will frequently hear this stuff abused in preaching and teaching, with people reading stuff into it. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say that a 1st class conditional "if" actually means "since." That is not the right idea, especially here in these verses.

Instead, a first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. So here, Satan is not saying, "Since you are the Son of God, make bread." Rather, he is saying, "If you are the Son of God - and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument - then command that these stones become bread." Ultimately, Satan is wanting Jesus to prove his sonship.

(We'll see this phrase two more times in Matthew, one more time in this passage, and once in Matt 27:40. In 27:40, it is interesting that the people passing by as Jesus was crucified were using these words verbatim. "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." I think this temptation in the wilderness, where Jesus is focused on fulfilling all righteousness, was preparing Him for the cross. He is both proving His worthiness to bear the sins of men and being prepared to bear the sins of men.)

I don't want to beat a dead horse and rehash the last post, but do you think this would have been a legitimate temptation? My dad always says, hunger is a strong motivator. Jesus had had no food for forty days. He's hungry, thirsty, and exhausted. And yet, He has all the omnipotence of His heavenly Father right there - the ability to take care of His own needs immediately. I think it would have been very tempting.

So how does Jesus respond? His response will give a clear picture of His own understanding of what this temptation means and what His objective is. He says, "It has been written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word proceeding from the mouth of God,'" a quotation of Deut 8:3.

When interpreting any passage, we want to pay close attention to any OT quotations. The fact that this quotation is coming from Jesus should draw our attention even more. So we should look at the context of Deut 8:3. There Moses is recalling the period of the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness detailed in Exodus 16. That means that we should back up even further and look at Exodus. In Exodus 16 we find the Israelites overcome with hunger and grumbling about their lot, wishing that they had stayed in Egypt, and having such a short memory and so little faith that they do not believe that the God who parted the Red Sea could provide food for them. They have a faith problem. God provides for them anyway.

Fast forward to Deut 8. To get more of the context, lets start in verse 1 and go through verse 6:

"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers. 2 "You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. 4 "Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. 5 "Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son. 6 "Therefore, you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him."

If we take a step back and look again at the parallels in Matthew between Jesus' life and the history of Israel, Jesus' quotation here makes total sense. He is in a situation just like the Israelites were. Hunger and exhaustion. Yet, where Israel failed, Jesus did not. He is fulfilling all righteousness, obeying where Israel did not, keeping the commandments Israel broke. He is trusting His Father where Israel did not.

Satan is offering Jesus the easy way out. If you are the Son of God, why should you suffer? Use your power to provide for yourself. But what was Israel's failure in the wilderness? They did not trust Yahweh to provide for them. So what must Jesus do to obey where Israel did not? He must trust Yahweh to provide for Him. He must live on every word proceeding from the mouth of God - be totally dependent on His Father for all things, not only for physical sustenance, but in every other way as well. He must fulfill all righteousness.

Let's think now about the Hebrews passage I referred to last time:

Hebrews 4:14-16 "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

How effective a high priest would He be if He used supernatural means to deal with temptation? Would He be able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" if He had chosen to just turn the stones into bread? Notice also the "therefore" in v.16. The fact that Jesus was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin, is the basis on which we may draw near with confidence to Him so that we may receive mercy and find grace when are in need. It was necessary for Jesus to resist this temptation for two reasons: 1) we cannot supernaturally meet our own needs, therefore to sympathize with our weakness He needed to endure temptation as we do; and 2) it would have signaled a lack of faith in His heavenly Father to provide for Him.

I think we need to step back from this very familiar passage and meditate on the depth of the love of Christ for us, His covenant brothers and sisters. In His hour of hunger and weakness with His body undoubtedly crying out for Him to follow the tempter's advice and take care of His own need, He chose to trust His Father, fulfill all righteousness, prepare Himself for the cross, qualify Himself to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and experience the full weight of temptation that He might serve as our great high priest, able to sympathize with our weakness and grant us mercy and grace. Oh, how deep is the love of Christ...

So, what are we called to do here? We are called to do what Jesus did - trust in our heavenly Father to provide for us. There are a myriad of ways that we could be tempted to meet our own needs outside of the plan of God. Whatever the temptation, the key is to be totally focused on God as our Great Provider and Christ as our Great High Priest. We must ask Him for grace and mercy in our time of need. We must draw near to the throne of grace and call on our High Priest, who has been tempted in every way as we are, for the strength to persevere and obey until the Father meets our need.

How do we draw near? By meditating on the Word and by prayer, all our attention on Him. Trusting Him.

For next time, look at the second temptation. Try to find the OT verse Jesus quotes and the verse Satan quotes. What light does this shine on the NT narrative?

And thank the Savior for fulfilling all righteousness so that He might become our Great High Priest. Drink Deep.