Commentary on First Peter (5)
Let me use the Chinese Bible (United Bible Society, 1988) to illustrate a point. In 1 Peter 1:2, the Chinese translation for "foreknowledge" literally means "foresight." In the English, the word "know" can refer to a personal relationship without much of a stretch, so that if a person were to take into account the biblical usage, he should be able to derive the true meaning of the word without a scholar's assistance. Whether he is careful enough to do this is another question – the point is that the translation itself does not prevent the correct understanding. On the other hand, the Chinese translation in this verse can hardly mean anything other than prescience.
Nevertheless, at this moment, I cannot think of a simple way to offer a "literal" translation without restricting its meaning to prescience. There is more than one verb in the receptor language that I can use, but the result either means foresight, to see in advance, or foreknow, to passively know about something in advance. We can use the Chinese word for "know" that refers to personal acquaintance, but that would be the equivalent of translating it as "foreloved" in the English, and it might have to be stated as a phrase rather than in just two Chinese characters, as it is now. In this case, the more literal translation of the word might in fact completely obscure the actual meaning.
In another context, or if we were dealing with another document, I would recommend the so-called "dynamic equivalence" approach, and just translate the meaning. But since we are dealing with the Bible, where precision is needed to retain all the originally intended ideas, I would suggest offering the closest literal translation along with an explanatory footnote. This does not really eliminate the problem for the Chinese translation, since one would still have to decide which word to offer as the closest literal translation. To those who have access to the Chinese Bible, also consider the translation of Romans 8:29.
Then, in the Chinese Bible, the "know" in Matthew 7:23 is translated with a word that can refer to personal acquaintance. This is the obvious and the right choice, because this is what the word means here, in this context, but notice that a choice has been made. At the moment, I cannot think of a Chinese word for "know" that can equally mean either a personal or non-personal awareness in this context. Now take a look at Jeremiah 1:5 in the Chinese.
I am certainly not against a "literal" translation of Scripture, but some of the proponents of this method of translation have a rather naïve view of language, and to them a literal translation is almost a transliteration of the original. There are already enough problems (not insurmountable) with translating the Bible into English, but once you are dealing with a character-based receptor language rather than an alphabet-based language, and one that has different rules of grammar, it is not nearly so easy to be "literal."
What is considered a "good" translation depends on the purpose of the translation and nature of the original text. For general purposes like ordinary conversations and movie subtitles, the most "literal" translation is often also the worst possible option, and the one that makes it hardest for the audience to grasp the meaning – "dynamic equivalence" is best in these cases.
Let us take an idiom as an example. Suppose I am speaking Chinese to you through a translator, and I am trying to tell you that John Smith is, literally translated, "not three not four." In an ordinary conversation, our translator would be foolish to give you this literal translation, or to give it to you without explanation. And once you learn what "not three not four" means, you cannot assume that you understand me when I tell you to stop being "fifteen sixteen," since that means something very different. In many situations, the most effective route would be to forgo the literal translation altogether and say, "Vincent says that John Smith is a dubious, shady kind of person," or even that he is "neither fish nor foul." The best translation still depends on the context.
Then, there is the word that, literally translated, says "righteous breath" or "righteous spirit." This translation itself makes good sense, and might fit well into the sentence in which it appears, but the Chinese refers to a strong loyalty that has backbone, and that will go the distance, even to the point of sacrificing oneself. It is the opposite of being a snitch, a coward, or a traitor.
You can find an example of this noble trait in Jesus (John 18:8), and an example of its opposite in Judas. In this case, the most literal translation offers something very different from the intended meaning. However, to convey the full meaning would require many words, and would severely mar the flow of the translation if assigned to the main text. Therefore, although the explanation should be retained, it is best relegated to the footnotes.
Yet the translator must still decide whether to say "righteous spirit" or "strong loyalty" in the main text. The best option, it seems, is to put "strong loyalty," or "backbone," or the most appropriate translation depending on the context, and then include in the footnotes any relevant information, such as the most literal translation and a short explanation on the word or idiom.
That said, the context is a tremendous help to interpretation, so that the reader is not at the mercy of any one translated word or expression. When Jesus says, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" it is obvious that the statement reflects a negative attitude toward the devil, and that he is not just telling the devil to physically position himself behind him. So we should know this much even without any further investigation.
Sometimes the context is so strong that we could replace a word with a blank space, and the reader should still be able to accurately infer the meaning of what ought to be there. But people place so much dependence on the translation of individual words that they fail to think along with the flow of the entire context, which is often a much stronger indicator of the author's meaning. General reading comprehension is the most valuable skill in biblical exegesis – in fact, to understanding any written document – but interpreters often neglect it because they are distracted by the technical details, so that whether they get a particular detail right, they sometimes get the whole verse or passage wrong.
Perhaps something like a legal contract would require greater precision, but even here, "precision" can hardly ignore the meaning. Now, if the nature of the original is the Word of God, in which every letter is inspired, meaningful, and authoritative, then a translation should offer a still clearer picture of the original. However, insofar as it obscures the meaning, it is still a poor translation. This is why, again, I suggest a close translation of the original in the main text coupled with a generous use of translators' notes. Overall, this is perhaps the best approach to Bible translation, even if the product might appear a little cumbersome, and this seems to be the direction taken by the New English Translation (NET).
Unfortunately, there are many careless Christian readers, and who are even more careless than usual when they are especially sensitive to the issue under discussion. So to prevent misunderstanding and slander, let me repeat: I am for a so-called literal translation when it comes to the Bible, even though this approach might not be my first choice when it comes to other documents and informal settings, but I think it is necessary to increase the use of translators' notes. This is the essence of the point that I have been trying to get across.
Commentary on First Peter (4)
Peter says that Christians "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." When completely removed from the context of biblical usage, the English word easily lends itself to the misunderstanding that the word means nothing more than foresight or prescience, an awareness or prediction of the future. From this false conception of foreknowledge, it is then a small step to the unbiblical conclusion that election is based on foreseen faith. This makes election little more than God's acknowledgement of those who would have faith in the future, so that in a real sense, it is not God who chooses the believers, but the believers who choose God by their faith in the gospel.
Of course, this is contrary to the whole pattern of biblical teaching, and it is the result of a false understanding of God's foreknowledge. However, before we explain the biblical meaning of foreknowledge, we can point out that even this false view does not necessarily overturn the biblical doctrine of election, or the view that it is God who sovereignly chooses those who would be saved without any consideration of foreseen faith or merit in them.
The false view of election first takes foreknowledge to mean a passive prescience. That is, they take it to mean that God passively discovers what his creatures would decide in the future apart from his sovereign control, and then he makes a decision regarding the status of these creatures on the basis of this awareness. But this means that his decision regarding the status of these creatures is in a real sense determined by these creatures themselves, and the difference between these creatures and other creatures are in the creatures themselves, apart from God's sovereign decision to make a distinction between them. It may be said that God is still the one who determines the principles by which men must be saved, but it is the men themselves who decide which ones would receive salvation.
The problem with this view is that, even if we allow foreknowledge to mean a passive prescience, the argument remains incomplete and futile. This is because our opponents must establish something else as well, namely, that faith is not a gift from God, but that it is something generated by the creatures themselves. Otherwise, if faith is a sovereign gift from God as the Bible teaches, then for God to base election on foreseen faith would be just another way of saying that he bases election on what he himself will do in the future.
That is, if God is the one who grants faith to whomever he chooses, and if men cannot generate faith in and by themselves, then whether foreknowledge refers to mere prescience does not make a pivotal difference for the doctrine of election. In this case, since God knows himself, since he knows his own plans and purposes, and since he knows his own decision regarding how and to whom he would distribute faith, it remains that election is based solely on God's own sovereign will, and not any foreseen condition in the creatures.
Therefore, it is not enough for opponents of the biblical doctrine to assert that foreknowledge means mere foresight or prescience, but they must also establish that faith is not a gift from God, and that men are willing and able to generate in and by themselves faith in Jesus Christ, and that even in their depraved condition, they are still willing and able to choose that which is so spiritually good, that is so against sin and unbelief, and that which is the opposite of their spiritual disposition.
The Bible teaches that the faith that is unto salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) and that unbelief is under God's direct control (John 12:39-40). God gives faith to whomever he chooses, and he actively causes the rest to remain in unbelief. If our opponents even attempt to refute this, they are in open defiance against Scripture and thus commit a crime that is deserving of official reprimand, if not excommunication. But unless they refute this, their false conception of foreknowledge contributes nothing to their attempt to deny the biblical doctrine of election.
That said, foreknowledge in fact does not refer to the ability to predict the future in a passive manner, that is, to know about the future without causing it. In my admittedly limited research on First Peter, all commentators recognize that foreknowledge means something more or other than mere foresight. But perhaps this just means that I read good commentaries.
Now, there is a personal element in foreknowledge, but before we get to that, we should first mention the nature of God's knowledge of the future. Since God is indeed sovereign over all things as the Bible teaches, not just in the sense of arranging things according to his will but in the sense of causing things according to his will, then there is no such thing as passive knowledge in God, whether of things past, present, or future. Since God is sovereign in this sense, then this means that God's sovereignty and knowledge are in fact united. He knows all things because he causes all things, and he knows himself perfectly.
As he declares in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." He can make known the future not because he passively discovers what will happen, but because everything is in his direct control and he always does what he pleases. Since he knows all that he will cause in the future, naturally he also knows all that will happen in the future.
Foreknowledge is even more specific than this, since in our context the "knowledge" includes a personal element. In the Bible, this knowledge involves a loving fatherly care, and that this is his "foreknowledge" indicates that God has chosen to direct this care toward the creature in advance, even in eternity before the creation of the world.
He says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Certainly, "I knew you" here cannot mean "I found out about you," for otherwise this would imply that either the very idea of Jeremiah or at least his physical conception had occurred apart from God, and that God had discovered it only after it was done. But God says, "I knew you" before "I formed you." He had conceived of Jeremiah in his mind and there had established a loving and purposeful relationship with him before he actually formed him in the womb. The "knowledge" here is at least partly relational.
Then, to offer a negative example, Matthew 7:23 states that the Lord would say to some, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" Of course this cannot mean that God himself was never aware of their actions or even their very existence. Instead, it means that God never had that willing and loving relationship with them, as he did with Jeremiah and as he does with every Christian, every person whom he has decided to save from death and hell.
Perhaps to clarify the meaning and to prevent misunderstanding, some translations abandon the word foreknowledge and simply say "chosen," or something to that effect. But as we have just seen, "foreknowledge" has a specific meaning that is valuable to a full and proper understanding of God's nature and his eternal loving care toward his elect. So the word ought to be retained, but an explanation in the translators' notes would be helpful. At least one translation say "foreloved." There are disadvantages to this, but it does make the meaning immediately more clear in the English. In this case, I would suggest a footnote that states the original as "foreknowledge."
Commentary on First Peter (3)
Now, although the Bible refers to God as the potter and the creature as the clay, there are some people who claim to affirm the doctrines of divine sovereignty and of election, but then proceed to speak as if God has taken his hands off the potter's wheel and evil humanity just spins itself into existence. Only after this does God select certain individuals for salvation.
But this is also false doctrine and a rejection of God and Scripture. It compromises with dualism, deism, and pagan views of the gods. The only and true God never lets go of the potter's wheel, but from it he spins out whatever he wishes, whether good or evil, including those he has designed and chosen for salvation, as well as those he has designed and chosen for damnation.
Nevertheless, God's direct control over evil does not make him evil. Any misunderstanding here is probably due to unjustified assumptions and the tendency to judge God as a creature. "If I were to do this, I would be considered a criminal!" A complaint like this is stupid even on a human level. If I were to stop the traffic and search through the cars, I would be considered a criminal also – but this is because I am not a policeman!
That people would judge God as if he is just a creature betrays their sinfulness and defiance. Those who reject the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty and those who accept only some of it – that is, those who reject less of it – should eventually come to terms with the fact that they are not God, and God is not a mere creature. God possesses absolute and unlimited rights over his creation.
It is alleged that there is a tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom. But there is no tension at all, because there is no such thing as human freedom – divine sovereignty is complete and absolute. The Bible does not teach both divine sovereignty and human freedom, but it teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. False doctrine results when people confuse responsibility with freedom, or when they assume that responsibility presupposes freedom, so that humans are responsible only if they are free.
However, there is no necessary relationship between responsibility and freedom – the relationship is purely imaginary, and entirely unbiblical and irrational. By definition, a person is responsible if he is accountable to someone for his thoughts and actions. So humans are responsible before God if God has decided and decreed that he would hold them accountable for their thoughts and actions. God has indeed so decided and decreed; therefore, humans are responsible to God for their thoughts and actions.
Human freedom has no logical place in the discussion at all. In fact, the above shows that human responsibility is in reality founded solely on divine sovereignty, on what God has decided and decreed, so that we are responsible precisely because God is sovereign and we are not free. Whether our thoughts and actions are controlled by God, again, comes under the question of human freedom, and finds no logical place to be introduced into the discussion at all.
This biblical and rational view has been falsely accused of undermining human responsibility, but the reverse is true. Our opponents claim to uphold responsibility, but they do so at least partly by basing responsibility on freedom. However, we are not aware of any professing Christian who attributes to man total freedom, in the sense that man is as free and as able as God, and as if he has unlimited freedom and ability to create, transverse, transform, and so on. Of course, a person who holds such a view would not be able to defend it, and neither would he be a Christian. Rather, even in their false doctrine, the freedom on which this responsibility is based is small and relative, not complete and absolute.
On the other hand, our view places human responsibility entirely upon divine sovereignty – that is, upon God's sovereign decision to judge, upon his omniscience to know, and upon his omnipotence to execute his will. Therefore, in our view, humans are as responsible as God is sovereign. Just as God is totally sovereign over man, man is totally responsible to him. There can be no stronger view of human responsibility than this. Since there is no room left for God to be more sovereign, there is no room left for man to be more responsible. By necessity, everyone who disagrees with this has a weaker view of human responsibility.
But our opponents undermine both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. They think that there is "tension" within the Bible, and that we should affirm both sides of this tension, although they feign reverence by claiming that there is no actual contradiction. The real tension, however, is between their false doctrine and biblical teaching. They disagree with God, and blame it on the Bible. And they accuse those who adhere to Scripture as unorthodox, but this is only true if they define orthodoxy by their own opinion and not by divine revelation. The proper solution is for them to exhibit sincere repentance and undergo the renewing of the mind.
Commentary on First Peter (2)
1 PETER 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
When you purchase a piece of electronic appliance, it will most likely come with an instruction manual. The typical manual will begin by thanking you for your purchase. It will then assure you that you have made a wise decision by asserting that the item is a product of quality and durability, and very likely to serve you for years to come, if not for a lifetime. Then, it might even provide a brief summary of the advantages and features of the product.
Sometimes the manufacturers seem a little presumptuous, so that rather than thanking the customers in their manuals, they begin by congratulating them. Perhaps they wish to appear confident about their products, or perhaps this is a psychological device to assure the customers about the quality of the products they have purchased, as if they are especially fortunate to own them. Another motive behind these introductions might be to alleviate buyer's guilt, that is, when the customer regrets his decision after he has made the purchase.
But whether the manuals begin by thanking the buyers or by congratulating them, they never fail to acknowledge the roles of the manufacturers and the customers, and the relationship between them. The manufacturers produce the items, but it is up to the customers to buy them. The only thing that the manufacturers can do is to woo potential buyers. They can do nothing more to make these transactions happen.
Now, it is a most serious error to think that our relationship with God, or the way we come to salvation, is anything like the relationship between a manufacturer and its customers. In many circles, however, this is very close to how salvation is presented. God has made salvation possible, and now it is up to man to decide whether he wants to accept it. God can only woo him, but man is the master of his own fate, and even his eternal destiny.
This false perspective entails a blatant perversion of the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of salvation. The teaching betrays such an ignorance, distortion, and even a rejection of Scripture that the professing Christian who embraces this school of thought might as well write his own Bible.
The Bible does not say to the Christian, "Thank you for choosing Jesus Christ" or even "Congratulations on your wise decision"; rather, it says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Needless to say, to misunderstand or even reverse this fundamental truth in our doctrine of salvation is to cripple a person's relationship with God at the very beginning. And for this person to perform the work of the ministry is to spread heresy.
No manufacturer would dare say to its customers, "We spit on your money! Your positions and achievements mean nothing to us! You have been selected to own one of our products only because of our graciousness without consideration of your status or worth. This is a special privilege for which you must be eternally grateful and because of which you must serve us forever."
On the other hand, this is the exact teaching of Scripture regarding our relationship with God and the nature of salvation. This is because when you are dealing with the Christian faith, you are not dealing with a mere man, or even a superman, but you are dealing with an absolutely sovereign and powerful God. He has no need of anything that you give him, as if you can give him anything, but you have need of him to give to you, and you are always entirely at his mercy. People sometimes forget that, or they simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Peter begins, then, not by thanking the Christians, as if they have done God a favor in believing the gospel. But he begins by calling them the "elect" or the "chosen." People believe the gospel and receive salvation not because they have a free will, and not because in and of themselves they decide to have faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, whoever believes the gospel does so only because God chooses to save him, to change his inner nature, and to produce faith in him.
Yes, the one who is saved must believe the gospel, and this involves something on his part, in that he must understand and decide about the gospel. However, even this understanding and this deciding is a work of God. Faith in the gospel in no way comes from the person himself – the understanding is sovereignly granted by God as he removes the blindness from the mind and enlightens it, and the willful assent is produced in him by God's power, as a gift that he gives only to those whom he has chosen. Just as God actively and directly controls the mind of every unbeliever, compelling his evil nature and preventing him from believing the gospel, God also actively and directly controls the mind of every person who converts to Jesus Christ, causing him to believe in the gospel message.
It is a false doctrine to suggest that God provides the mere possibility of salvation, and that it is up to each individual to actualize it when he believes the gospel by his own free will. Instead, the Bible denies any free will to man, and depraved and unconverted man is kept in bondage by God's own power, but it is God who provides both the possibility and the actuality of salvation for his chosen ones.
Commentary on First Peter (1)
INTRODUCTION
Peter, originally a fisherman, was chosen by Christ to become one of the twelve apostles. He was eager, impetuous, and outspoken. At first his faith lacked substance and he overestimated his own devotion to Christ. When his master was arrested to be tried and crucified, he denied him three times out of fear, swearing that he did not even know the man. Afterward he was ashamed and wept bitterly. But Christ restored him, filled him with his Spirit, and he became a leading spokesman among the apostles.
His life teaches us that our faithfulness to God is not something that is inherent in our personality, nor do we have the "free will" to simply decide to become loyal disciples. But our faithfulness to the Lord is itself a work of his sovereign grace, so that if we are faithful to him, it is not he who owes us, but it is we who owe him! There is no place for boasting, but only for praise and gratitude.
He identifies himself as the author of First Peter (1:1), and states that he writes from Babylon (5:13), which is most likely a cryptic name for Rome. There is some discussion about the role of Silas in the writing of this letter (5:12), as to whether he is merely its bearer, or whether he has a hand in polishing the language, or if he is even the one who puts Peter's thoughts into words. Although this is a matter of interest, it does not disturb the fact of Peter's authorship, that this letter come from divine inspiration through the apostle and that it is sent with his approval.
Commentaries offer arguments dating this letter to some time between AD 60-68, and even 63-64. While I am in substantial agreement with these arguments, there is one that I find problematic. Although it is unimportant to identify the precise year in which the letter was written, since this argument has to do with how one interprets a significant passage in the letter, it is worth a mention.
In July of AD 64, a great fire broke out in Rome that destroyed numerous buildings and left many of its citizens homeless. When suspicion fell on the Emperor Nero, he diverted the rage of the populace by placing the blame on the Christians, who for some time had been preaching that the world would one day be judged and perish in fire. It was not too difficult for Nero to distort the teaching and then slander the Christians with it.
Some scholars find it impossible to reconcile the deadly persecution that followed with the admonition in 1 Peter 2:13-17 that believers are to submit under "every authority instituted among men" and to "honor the king." This is given as a strong reason for dating the letter to some time before the great persecution under Nero, so that it must have been written before the great fire in AD 64.
But the argument is defective, so that even if the letter was written in or before AD 64, the above should not be considered a compelling reason to adopt the date. One of Peter's main points in the letter is that Christians should disprove the slanders against them by their good behavior. And so the admonition to submit under the government is precisely what we should expect, as it is also consistent with what the New Testament teaches elsewhere (Romans 13:1-7). Except in cases where the Christian must choose between God or man, he is to be a law-abiding person of the land in which he resides.
As for the intended audience, Peter addresses his letter to "God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The locations named here cover most of Asia Minor, or modern Turkey. The words translated "strangers in the world, scattered…" is better rendered in the HCSB as "temporary residents of the Dispersion." The term "Dispersion" (diasporas) typically referred to Jews scattered throughout Gentile territories, and for this reason, some are convinced that the letter's primary readers were Jewish. However, it could be that Peter is applying to the Christians a term that was previously reserved for Jews. This is entirely in accord with New Testament doctrine (Galatians 6:16).
Contrary to some, neither is the abundance of quotations from the Old Testament evidence that the intended readers were mainly Jewish, as if Gentiles were not expected to respect or have any knowledge of the Old Testament even through they were Christians.
On the other hand, a verse like 1 Peter 2:10 strongly indicates Gentile readership: "Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." This is an allusion to the words of Hosea, which Paul quotes and applies to the salvation of Gentiles in Romans 9:23-26:
What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," [Hosea 2:23] and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" [Hosea 1:10]
It is to these people that Peter writes, "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul" (2:11). Whether Jew or Gentile, all Christians are in one sense "strangers in the world," having been regenerated, and called out of the false thinking and wicked practices of the unbelievers. But because of this and other verses (1:18, 4:3), some even contend that the letter was written to mainly Gentile readers.
After weighing the various arguments, I am content to agree with those who conclude that the letter was intended for a mixed audience, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. At any rate, the most important point is that the letter is for "God's elect…who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1:1-2). In other words, its authority and teaching apply to all Christians everywhere, and in all generations. Through this letter from the apostle, God speaks to his chosen people, encouraging and admonishing them in their pilgrimage, telling them how to behave as a royal priesthood and a holy nation, even in the midst of hardship and persecution (5:12).
Commentary on First Peter (0)
As I have mentioned several times before, it is rare that I write anything directly for this site, and in that sense I don't really "blog" at all. Rather, I am constantly writing books, articles, sermons, and so on. It used to be that people had to wait a while between new releases. At times the wait can be weeks or months, especially if I am working on a book. This site was originally established so that, instead of waiting until a project is finished, I can let my readers follow along as I progress on whatever I am working on.
To chop up long projects this way and to release them in pieces might not make the best blog articles, but this is the way it has to be, because I don't really have the time to work on my regular projects and still write separate articles for this site. Then, again, this site was never intended to have materials especially written for it in the first place. Anyway, some people prefer to wait until I have completed a piece of writing and then read it as a whole. That is fine. But I have been pleasantly surprised at how many of you are willing to follow along and read just a little piece each day from beginning to end, such as with Born Again, even though it was divided into 49 parts. It spans 65 pages in the PDF file (letter size), and 104 pages in paperback (6 x 9).
I am repeating all of this now because I am about to begin another one of these longer projects, a commentary on First Peter, and I would like to remind you of this so that you will know what to expect. What I will try to do to make it easier is to, as much as possible, chop up the text in such a way that the reading for each day forms a meaningful unit, so that it will not seem to begin from nowhere and end in the middle of nowhere, and so that it will have some spiritual value especially for you daily readers. But this also means that the reading will be longer for some days and shorter for some days, depending on how the text is logically divided.
Now let me say something about the commentary itself.
For several years now, I have been telling myself that, if in my lifetime I were to have the time to write on everything that I wish to write about, I will have to be more concise. Practically, the easiest way to do this is just to leave out some of the things that I come up with, both in research or in reflection. But psychologically speaking, this is perhaps the hardest to do. If you think that something is important and should be said, it is hard just to leave it out altogether. I suppose this problem is preferable than having writer's block. And I do pray for insights and ideas, so I am getting exactly what I ask for. But still, like I said, if I were to write on all the things that I want in my lifetime, I will have to exercise restraint.
I say this because the beginning of this commentary on First Peter has already become too long. At first, I intended to divide the text into sections, and then spend only several pages on each section. Each section would then have one to three days worth of materials for this site. This way we would get through First Peter pretty quickly. But right now I am in the middle of 1:8, and the text is already over 30 pages, instead 5 to 10 pages like I wanted. However, not to despair — I will try to chop these into larger chunks for this site, so that it will not take as long to get through them. And looking through the subsequent passages in First Peter, I suspect that I can keep the length under control beginning from 1:10. In future commentaries, I hope to write in shorter sections, but for First Peter, this will have to do.
As with my other commentaries, this book on First Peter is not mainly intended to be a reference work, even if it could be used as such. I will not comment on every verse and clearly mark out the comments that are directed to each verse. Rather, I will divide the text into sections, sometimes rather large sections, and then offer a "free" exposition on each one.
By this I mean that I will take great liberty regarding the length, depth, or even the content of each section, without forcing myself to maintain balance and proportion. Some portions of the text will receive more attention while others might receive none. And rather than offering a detailed grammatical analysis of each passage, I will usually focus on its theological, ethical, pastoral, and devotional aspects instead.
Those who have read my other commentaries probably realize by now the advantages of this particular approach, what it can accomplish, as well as what it is not supposed to achieve, since no commentary can do everything at the same time. Such a work is intended more to be read than simply consulted, although it can serve the latter purpose also. And because it is of this nature, the commentary is well-suited to be studied straight through from beginning to end. It does not have the disconnected feel that often accompanies the more technical references.
Although this commentary is self-contained, it is preferable to have access to some of my other writings. This is because there are some doctrines in First Peter that I have already addressed in other places. Rather than to expound these doctrines all over again, I will more or less restrict my comments to what is in First Peter and point you to my other works for additional explanation (but remember that all footnotes will appear in the official release, in PDF and in print, rather than on this site).
For example, I have discussed in detail the meaning of the word "foreknowledge" (1:2) in Commentary on Malachi, and I have addressed the submission of women (3:1-6) in Commentary on Ephesians and Renewing the Mind. So I do not feel compelled to offer meticulous arguments and documentations on these subjects when writing this new commentary.
And when it comes to the doctrine of election, all of my books mention it, and several of them discuss it at great length. Therefore, I will refrain from providing a full treatment on the topic when it comes up in First Peter. Nevertheless, as election is a controlling doctrine in First Peter, I will still give it ample attention, so that mention of it will not be scarce.
Finally, since from a blog's perspective, this will be a long series of posts, if I ever need to comment on its progress, I will write something on the upper right corner of this site instead of interrupting the series.
"Matthew 23:37" in PDF
"Matthew 23:37" is now available as a PDF file at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/matt23-37.pdf
Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.
Matthew 23:37
MATTHEW 23:37
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
When the Arminians come against the biblical doctrines of divine sovereignty, election, reprobation, and so on, this is one of the verses that they frequently mention to support their position. What Jesus "wanted" was unfulfilled because the people were "unwilling." This is supposed to show that man possesses a free will that can oppose the divine will, so that God's desire can be finally frustrated, and that his grace can be successfully resisted. The following will not offer a positive exposition of the biblical system, but it will show only that this verse cannot be used to support Arminianism.
As for the scheme called Calvinism, we may distinguish between two forms. We shall call one the biblical or consistent view, and the other the popular or inconsistent view.
Consistent Calvinism affirms with Scripture that divine sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom, and since Scripture teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, this completely excludes and destroys human freedom. Man has no free will; he is not free at all. It is true that man exercises his will – he makes decisions – but his will is not free. Rather, his will – how he makes decisions and what decisions he makes – is directly and constantly controlled by God for both good and evil, both faith and unbelief. And God is righteous by definition in all the actions that he performs upon the creatures. I have offered full expositions of this biblical scheme elsewhere.
Then, there is the popular form of Calvinism. This is the inconsistent view that says divine sovereignty and human freedom are "compatible" in some sense, that moral responsibility presupposes some measure or sense of "self-determination," that God has desires that contradict one another, that God issues divine decrees to effect things against that which he desires, perhaps to establish that which he desires even more, that God could decree the reprobation of individuals, making it impossible for them to believe, but still "sincerely" offer them salvation as if they could believe, that God somehow rules over evil but have no direct causative relation with it, that Adam was created innocent and without evil but could somehow perform evil without God causing him to do so, that we can affirm the reality of evil but deny that God exercises any direct causative power over it and still somehow avoid lapsing into deism or dualism, that we can affirm both sides of an "apparent" contradiction, and that Scripture teaches "apparently" contradictory doctrines that are not real contradictions in the mind of God. We will make no attempt to defend this unbiblical and irrational bundle of confusion.
We should begin by noting the context in which our verse appears. You are advised to read Matthew 23 in its entirety before proceeding, but if you lack the patience, at least do it after reading this exposition. It will help you better grasp the points that we will make. Luke 13:34 is a parallel verse. There the context, in terms of the topic raised by the surrounding verses, is similar enough so that it does not demand a separate treatment. And because of this, I will pay no attention to this other verse in our discussion. After we have completed our discussion on Matthew 23:37, you should have no problem with Luke 13:34.
The chapter begins, in verses 1-12, with Jesus making some remarks about the hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees. He says that insofar as they teach the law, the people must obey. Then, he adds, "But do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger" (v. 3-4).
In verses 13-32, he pronounces seven woes upon them, citing the charges that he has against them along with each woe. This portion of the chapter is essential to a proper understanding of verse 37. As you read through these verses, notice how Jesus pronounces one woe after another, and notice the intensity with which he does it. Then notice to whom he is addressing these woes in such an unrelenting manner: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" Note all the instances in which he directs his statements to "you" – the scribes and the Pharisees. Pay special attention to verse 13, which says, "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
Then, in verses 33-36, he identifies them with those who, throughout Israel's history, had killed the prophets that God sent to the people. He says, "…so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth…Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" (v. 35-36). Without doubt, he is referring to the impending destruction of the temple. The context bears this out, since only several verses later, we read, "Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, 'Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down'" (Matthew 24:1-2). This prediction was fulfilled in AD 70, that is, in the same generation to which Jesus ministered and preached, and the same generation that murdered him. The people were slaughtered and the temple was destroyed.
Jesus has not changed the subject by the time he gets to verse 37. The very next verse again refers to the destruction of the temple: "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" (v. 38). In fact, as we have just noted, he is still on the same subject as Matthew 24 begins. It is with this background in mind that we should read our verse: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
Here "Jerusalem" does not refer to the physical city, or to every person in the city individually considered. "Jerusalem" is said to be one that "kills the prophets," and in context, those who would kill the prophets are the leaders of the people – including the scribes and the Pharisees. They imitate their forefathers who "murdered the prophets" (see v. 29-32). In verse 34, Jesus says that he is about to send them prophets and teachers, and these leaders will mistreat them just as their forefathers mistreated the ancient prophets: "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city."
As for the "children" in verse 37, naturally they are the people who live under the authority and guidance of these leaders. Religious and political leaders are sometimes called "fathers" in Scripture (Acts 7:2, 22:1), and those over whom they exercise power and influence are called "sons" and "children" (Matthew 12:27; Isaiah 8:18).
We should first observe, then, that this verse cannot refer to the willingness or the faith of individuals to accept the gospel, for otherwise the verse should say, "I wanted to gather you…but you would not," or "I wanted to gather your children…but your children would not." But the verse says, "I wanted to gather your children…but you would not." It is not the "children" who resisted, but the "you" who resisted in order to prevent the "children" from being gathered. The verse, therefore, is referring to the same thing that is already mentioned in verse 13: "You do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
The Arminians may affirm human freedom and deny that God directly controls a person to either believe or disbelieve. But having denied control to God, we suppose that even they are not foolish enough to then turn and attribute to the human religious and political leaders direct internal control over the minds of the people, as if the Pharisees could wield greater control than God over the people, so that they could have mercy on whom they wished to have mercy, and harden whom they wished to harden. No, it is evident that verses 13 and 37 are referring to how the religious leaders hindered the prophets on a purely human and external level, to prevent their message from getting through to the people, and to prevent the people from embracing their message. Jesus is speaking about a social and external influence, not a metaphysical and internal power.
It follows, then, that the "I wanted" in verse 37 is also referring to Jesus' relationship with these leaders and their people on a human and external level. There is no hint in this verse that the divine desire or the divine decree can be successfully resisted just because someone is "unwilling." The Bible is clear on the teaching that, if someone is unwilling, it is because God makes him unwilling (John 12:40; Romans 9:18, 11:7), and if someone is willing, it is because God makes him willing (John 6:44, 65). No one that God makes unwilling can come (John 6:44), and no one that God makes willing can stay away (John 6:37).
The objection might arise that what is attributed to the "I" here cannot possibly be performed by Jesus considered on a purely human level. But in almost any other context, perhaps in a discussion about the deity of Christ, even the Arminians would admit that as the God-man, Scripture does not always meticulously distinguish between what is attributed to his divine nature and what is attributed to his human nature. We can make the distinction when we must, but Scripture does not always make a point out of it.
For example, in John 4:10, Jesus is at the same time someone who asks for a drink of water, and someone who gives living water. But Jesus in his divine nature cannot become thirsty. In Acts 3:15, Peter says to the Jews, "You killed the author of life" (NIV). But Jesus in his divine nature could not be killed. Of course, this is not a problem for the inspiration of Scripture, for the deity of Christ, or for the doctrine of the incarnation. Rather, it is a testimony to the fact that the divine nature and the human nature are indeed intimately united in Christ, and yet they remain distinguishable, so that there is no mixture or confusion. The one is not deified, and the other is not humanized.
At any rate, it is possible to answer the objection from the verse itself. Notice that the sending of the prophets is not attributed to the "I"; rather, only the gathering of the children is so attributed. And since the gathering is referring to the ministry on a human and external level, it does not demand a divine subject. The fact that a ministry is resisted on a human level says nothing about divine sovereignty or human freedom on a metaphysical level.
Although we may bring to the surface additional details to strengthen the case, our present effort is more than sufficient. We have shown that the verse lends no support at all to the heresy of Arminianism, and we urge its adherents to abandon their humanistic thinking in order to embrace the biblical doctrine.
Neither can the false scheme of inconsistent Calvinism find refuge here, since our case applies equally against them and their misuse of this verse, for example, in their teachings on the "sincere offer" of the gospel and on the tension between contradictory desires in the mind of God. We urge the adherents of this anti-biblical theology to forsake their irrationalism, and to finally remove all traces of the Arminian heresy from their thinking.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
From rmiweb.org:
"Faith to Move Mountains" in PDF
"Faith to Move Mountains" is now available as a PDF file at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/faithmountain.pdf
Remember that the PDF version of each article is the official release, and may contain footnotes and other features that do not appear on this site. The footnotes may include information on the works cited, and sometimes also remarks that supplement and support the main text.
Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.
Coming up…
I have already started to work on a new commentary and was planning to release its first installment on this site on Monday.
However, since I received many requests to address Matthew 23:37 (or Luke 13:34) in the past years, and several more in the past several weeks, I finally decided to capitulate. This is the verse where Jesus says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling" (NASB). It is used by Arminianism and inconsistent Calvinism to support their respective doctrines. So I hurriedly wrote an article on the verse, and it will appear on this site on Monday.
As for the commentary, the first installment is now postponed to Wednesday. I plan to say more about it on Tuesday.
Thank you for your readership and support.
Faith to Move Mountains (16)
To recapitulate, verse 23 teaches that if we have faith, we can even command a mountain to move, and it will happen. Whether we will have this kind of faith is up to God, and at any time, it is possible that he will grant this kind of faith. It is from this same perspective that we can derive a correct understanding of verse 24. In that verse, Jesus refers to "whatever you ask for in prayer." Commentators again pile qualifications upon qualifications upon this, until they drown the verse deep into uncertainty and unbelief, making it practically useless for the readers. Of course any scriptural promise must be understood within the larger context of the Bible. However, this verse is clearly positive in intent, and should be expounded from a positive angle.
Larry Hurtado notes that Mark places great emphasis in calling Christians to follow Jesus' ministry, and we should understand this teaching about faith in such a context. He adds, "Here Mark presents Jesus as an example of faith, and his readers are not only to admire Jesus' faith but also to imitate it."
We should support this perspective, since it is true that the Bible stresses faith as something that glorifies God and furthers his purpose. However, it is possible to press too far even this legitimate point, since the Bible also describes faith's crucial role in drawing on God's resources for our own success and preservation. We must not hesitate to exercise faith in God to meet our personal needs, as if to say that God's resources are required for ministry but optional for our everyday living. A Christian should look to God for everything, even his daily bread (Matthew 6:11).
Perhaps it is best to acknowledge that faith in God can work for both our own benefit and for the advancement of his kingdom, and these two are seldom in conflict when we place the former within a broader concern for the latter. In other words, our faith for self-preservation and various benefits must be shaped by and subordinate to our concern for God's kingdom.
Another aspect of faith has to do with persistence. Throughout the Bible, faith is sometimes portrayed as a quality that performs single and instantaneous acts of greatness, but at other times it is portrayed as a persistent and stubborn conviction that produces consistent speech and action over long durations. One only needs to read through Hebrews 11 for examples of both facets of faith. It is through "faith and patience" that we inherit God's promises (Hebrews 6:12). This is an important reminder for all those who venture out in faith for the work of the kingdom. Our trust is in God's word, which never fails, and not in immediate or short-term results.
Then, verse 25 cautions us against an extreme individualism in our faith. We cannot love God and at the same time hate our brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot have faith toward God and at the same time harbor resentment toward others. Strong faith thrives in an environment where God's people live in love and harmony, but strife will suffocate it. As 1 Peter 3:7 says, "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
Jesus tells us that faith can move mountains. This is not a teaching for us to explain away or for us to drown under a thousand qualifications. Instead, it serves to confront our unbelief and encourage stronger faith in us. It enables us to attempt new things, attain greater heights, and stretch our imagination. We must not shun or deny this faith. We must covet it!
Lord, we believe, help our unbelief! Increase our faith, so that we may "encourage the exhausted, and strengthen the feeble" (Isaiah 35:3, NASB). And if it pleases you, grant us a faith that can even uproot a mountain by a mere word of command. Lord, grant us this faith – now in the form of an explosive power, now in the form of a persistent trust – so that we may cast aside all obstacles and perform exploits in your name, for your glory and for the good of your people. Amen.
(end of series)
Faith to Move Mountains (15)
Here is the answer, then. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing the word of God. From this, the false teaching in question has inferred that faith always comes when a person hears the word of God. But the verse does not say any such thing. In context, the verse is talking about the preaching of the gospel. As Paul writes, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14). But nowhere is it suggested that everyone who hears the gospel will believe and thus be saved.
Salvation comes when a person believes the gospel, and a person can only believe the gospel when he finds out what the gospel is and what it says. Thus someone must go preach the gospel so that people might hear it. But the point is not that everyone who hears the gospel will become a Christian. Still less is Paul suggesting that the more a person hears, the more faith he is guaranteed to receive. The false teaching in question confuses how faith is usually facilitated or "delivered" (hearing) with what actually causes a person to believe what he hears.
So what causes a person to believe the word of God when he hears it? The Bible teaches that both faith and unbelief are controlled by God. It teaches in numerous places that a person refuses to believe because God actively works in his mind to harden his heart (John 12:39-40). So a person can hear the word of God every day for half a century, but unless God sovereignly grants him faith to believe what he hears, he will remain in unbelief.
The kind of conviction that comes from nothing more than prolonged repetition could very well be the effect of brainwashing, for a lack of a better term. It is true that there can be a relationship between continuous exposure to the Bible and an increase of faith, but right now I am referring to mere repetition without the work of the Spirit. If the kind of faith that the Bible talks about can come this way, then the most effective form of evangelism would be to kidnap the unbelievers and lock them into a room where the Bible is played on loud speakers all day and all night. There would be no need for prayer, for persuasion, or for the Holy Spirit.
But again, the resulting conviction would be the result of mere brainwashing, and the profession of faith a mere parroting of what has been heard, similar to how an insane person might mindlessly mutter some of the phrases that he overhears or that are fed to him by others. There would be no genuine belief in the promises of God, but the conviction would serve only as the lifeless and thoughtless replacement to the person's previous beliefs that have now been forcibly short-circuited by the process. The person might feel convinced, but there can be no power and no salvation in this kind of "faith."
True faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). In 1 Corinthians 12:9, Paul refers to the kind of faith that is a special manifestation of the Spirit. From its mention in 1 Corinthians 13:2 – that is, in the context of spiritual manifestations – we understand that it is this kind of faith that moves mountains. Just as faith to believe the gospel for salvation is sovereignly granted by God to whomever he chooses, this special manifestation of faith is also granted "just as he determines" (1 Corinthians 12:11).
This biblical understanding of faith returns the fulfillment of Mark 11:23 to the sovereign hand of God. In the process, it destroys the false teaching in question without compromising the principle taught by Jesus – that if we have faith, we will have whatever we say. The difference is that whether we have faith, or whether we have this kind of faith, is entirely up to God. He might deliver it to us by means of his word, but hearing his word does not guarantee this kind or level of faith.
Our faith depends on the work of the Spirit, who applies the word of God to our hearts and convinces us of its truth, giving us confidence of its effect, power, and relevance. The above commentators would be relieved that I have provided a legitimate way to explain how what Jesus says would not happen. But I have also explained how it could happen – it will happen when God grants the faith. So it remains for the commentators, or those who think like them, to assert that God will never grant this kind of faith. However, there is no biblical evidence for this, and if God would never grant this kind of faith even in principle, then this would render Jesus' statement pointless. Thus it appears that the suggestion, that God would never grant this kind of faith even in principle, once again comes from nothing other than unbelief.
(to be continued)
Faith to Move Mountains (14)
The proper way to counter abuse is not to change the meaning of the verse, but to criticize the false teaching where it truly deviates from Scripture. To illustrate, I will raise two points about the teaching in question. The first has to do with the nature of faith, and the second has to do with the source of faith, or how faith is generated. These two points do not cover all the erroneous ideas espoused by the teaching, but our present purpose is to arrive at a correct positive understanding of verse 23, nothing more.
First, this false teaching conceives of faith as a force that is powerful in itself. Sometimes it is less esoteric and amounts to a christianized version of the self-centered doctrine of "positive thinking." Its proponents are not always consistent in this, but when they do speak from such a perspective, they do not refer to faith as a person's belief and reliance on a proper object – as in God, his promises, and so on – but that belief itself is the power that produces the desired effects. Attacking this misconception of faith will at the same time check the abuse of verse 23.
Second, the false teaching appeals to Romans 10:17 ("faith comes by hearing") and asserts that faith is produced by hearing the words of Scripture over and over again. One way to do this is for a person to repeatedly speak some selected biblical verses to himself. For example, a sick person can say, "By his stripes, I am healed" (see 1 Peter 2:24) several hundred times a day. He might doubt the statement at first, but he will eventually become convinced that it is true, and then by the principle taught in Mark 11:23, physical healing will follow.
When they attempt to oppose this teaching, many people end up attacking Scripture itself. They would criticize the principle that a Christian can command things to happen by faith. But this principle is exactly what Jesus teaches. Adherents of the false teaching are right to complain that it is sheer unbelief to suggest that Jesus does not literally mean what he says in verse 23. All Christians should affirm that if we have faith, then we can command a mountain to move, and it will happen. Jesus demonstrated it on the fig tree, and then he said that we can do the same and even more, if we have faith. So unless we are willing to sacrifice the inspiration of Scripture due to unbelief, this principle is not subject to debate.
What is wrong with the false teaching is not their understanding of the principle, but in their understanding of faith. First, they erroneously conceive of faith as a force – that the power resides in belief as such – instead of understanding faith as the belief in divinely revealed propositions that require God's conscious exercise of his power to make good. Second, they falsely conceive of faith as something that they can produce within themselves by repeatedly listening to biblical propositions.
The first misunderstanding makes their definition of faith altogether non-Christian. This point alone is sufficient to refute their doctrine concerning Mark 11:23. But the second point is even more relevant to our main purpose, which is to attain a correct positive understanding of the verse. To review, Jesus teaches the principle, "if we have faith, then we can move mountains." Commentators have focused on qualifying the "we can move mountains" portion of the principle. But I suggest that we should focus on the "if we have faith" portion instead.
(to be continued)
Faith to Move Mountains (13)
Then, there is the silly observation that there are greater miracles than moving a mountain, such as the conversions of human hearts. Of course conversion is greater. As the Chinese proverb, loosely translated, says, "A kingdom is easy to change, but a person's nature is hard to move." But this point works against their position, for if the greater miracles like spiritual conversions happen every day, then what is there to prevent the much smaller miracles like moving mountains from occurring? It is absurd to say that because there are greater miracles, therefore the much smaller ones never happen and are never meant to happen.
Another way that some have challenged a literal interpretation of verse 23 is just to ask, "What good is it?" Why would someone ever need to move a mountain, and to do it by a verbal command? But the question is irrelevant to the discussion. We are considering whether it can happen, not whether we ever need something like this to happen. Many things that we never need to happen are nevertheless possible. Still, no commentator can show that a need for such a miracle would never come up in all of human history.
In Matthew 21, when the disciples ask, "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" (v. 20), Jesus replies, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done" (v. 21). Note that he says, "not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain…."
Regarding Matthew 21, one commentator has the nerve to say that although the fig tree that Jesus curses is literal, when he says in verse 21 that the disciples can do the same, the fig tree has become symbolic, just as the mountain is symbolic. It would be easier to assert that the fig tree that Jesus curses is symbolic as well, and that somehow the disciples witness a symbolic fig tree that symbolically withers away. It is easier still just to throw the Bible away and become a non-Christian. There is really no allowance for a solely symbolic interpretation of either the tree or the mountain.
It seems that the most common reason for asserting a symbolic interpretation of Mark 11:23 is just plain unbelief. These commentators fail at the very thing that the verse promotes – the idea that great things are possible when a person believes in God and relies on his power. But their interpretation amounts to a veiled declaration that what Jesus says is false.
For some people, another reason to soften or spiritualize the verse is to prevent its abuse. In our time, there is a teaching that is popular in some charismatic sects. In fact, it is so prevalent that we can even call it a movement. Supposedly derived from Mark 11:23 and similar verses, it says that if a person believes, then whatever he says will happen, and the diligent application of this teaching could bring anyone health and wealth. Commentators are afraid to say anything that would encourage such a teaching. However, to illegitimately soften or spiritualize a biblical verse is a misguided way of solving the problem of abuse. Moreover, the verse does say that if a person believes, then whatever he says will happen. It is futile to counter abuse by denying what the verse clearly and literally means.
(to be continued)
Faith to Move Mountains (12)
There is the claim that the statement is a hyperbole, a deliberate exaggeration to get a point across. I do not object to the idea that Jesus sometimes uses hyperbole as a rhetorical or literary device to communicate a teaching; however, verse 23 cannot be thus interpreted. In fact, to understand it as solely hyperbolic would produce blasphemous implications.
Let me explain. To suggest that it is hyperbole to say that through faith we can command even a mountain to move implies that we can accomplish lesser things through faith. That is, if moving a mountain is an exaggerated picture of the power of faith, then it means that faith can still perform lesser things than moving a mountain.
However, notice that Jesus says, "Have faith in God," and not "Have faith in yourself." What is accomplished is done in utter trust and dependence on God, through the power and energy of God. When we have faith in God for something to be accomplished, such as to move a mountain, it is really God who performs the task.
Therefore, to say that this statement is mere hyperbole is to say that it is an exaggeration of what God can accomplish, so that even God cannot uproot a mountain and throw it into the sea. Otherwise, the interpretation implies that anything that is accomplished by faith is in fact our own doing, so that a faith that moves a mountain is an exaggeration because in ourselves we cannot move a mountain. The former denies God's omnipotence; the latter amounts to deism. I will leave it up to you to decide which one is worse, but suffice it to say that both implications are wrong. And because both implications are wrong, the position generating them must also be wrong. The statement cannot be mere hyperbole.
Then, more than a few commentators suggest that verse 23 refers to precisely the type of miracles that the Jews demanded from Jesus, and which he refused to perform. First, from reading the Gospels, I question whether the Jews ever required from Jesus a miracle of this magnitude. It might have never crossed their minds to demand something like this. Second, Jesus did perform tremendous signs and wonders – in fact, more than what was demanded of him. He walked on water, calmed the storm, and here he cursed the fig tree and caused it to wither. Not all the great miracles were performed only before his disciples, for he also raised Lazarus from the dead before many witnesses and multiplied the fish and the bread before thousands of people (John 11:19, 45; 6:10). Neither did he refuse to perform miracles before his critics. For example, he publicly healed a man with a shriveled hand before the Pharisees and the scribes (Luke 6:7-10).
What Jesus did refuse to do was to perform miracles – great or small – on demand, especially when the challenge came from hardened unbelievers, who already knew he could work miracles, and who were not looking for reasons to believe, but for reasons to convict him of some crime. So, since Jesus did perform very great miracles, and since he even did many of them in public and before hostile skeptics, we conclude that what the commentators say about Jesus refusing to perform great miracles is misleading, and in fact outright inaccurate.
(to be continued)
Faith to Move Mountains (11)
As for faith and prayer, although the context of verses 22-25 is the false piety of the Jews and the destruction of the temple, these verses make several points about faith and prayer that are true in themselves and in the larger context of biblical teaching.
In verse 21, Peter marvels that the fig tree that Jesus has cursed has withered, even from the roots. Jesus apparently wishes to push his disciples' thinking further and tells them that if a person has faith, he can even command a mountain to be uprooted and to be cast into the sea, and it will happen. From what we understand about the location of the group as this is spoken, "this mountain" is the Mount of Olives and "the sea" refers to the Dead Sea. For our purpose, it matters little which mountain or which sea Jesus is pointing to. However, that Jesus is referring to a particular mountain carries some significance, as we will see below.
Commentators of all varieties and persuasions immediately scramble to assert that Jesus' statement is not to be taken in the literal sense, but that the mountain is symbolic of some difficulty or obstacle (Zechariah 4:6-7). Although I agree that the mountain represents something more than just the physical mountain referred to in the statement, and indeed to "move mountains" is a common rabbinic expression, I would insist that we must first take the statement in its fullest literal sense, and then acknowledge those things that the literal mountain symbolizes.
It is sheer foolishness to think that if something is a symbol for something else, then the symbol itself has no literal status. The Passover lamb represents Jesus Christ, the true and final sacrifice, but there is indeed a physical lamb at the Passover Feast. Verse 23 itself is couched in the context of the cursing of the fig tree. For certain, the fig tree represents something else, but there really is a fig tree, which Jesus curses, and which then withers from the roots.
How, then, can we say that because the mountain is a symbol for difficulties and obstacles, therefore the mountain is not literal? The same commentators would say that Jesus is pointing to the Mount of Olives as he makes his statement. So, when he says "this mountain," does he mean this mountain or not? Or does he mean, "If you have faith, you can say to this mountain, but not really any mountain"? No, if X is a symbol for Y, then a statement using X to make a point about Y would apply to X and Y, not Y minus X.
(to be continued)