Acts 21, The Will of God, and a Literary Example
I haven’t posted here at this blog lately, because instead I’ve been writing articles around a different theme, at a new blog site. For those who are interested, visit my posts at https://ourblessedhope.wordpress.com. Our Blessed Hope: Thoughts on Imaginative Christian Writing (particularly J.R.R. Tolkien so far).
The following is a sample article — also at this link.
A recent Sunday sermon was on Acts 21, and in this incident, especially verses 11-14, I was reminded of a similar illustration from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers — and Faramir’s last words with Frodo.
These verses in Acts 21 tell of when the prophet Agabus visits and makes a “bad news” prophecy, that trouble awaits the apostle Paul in Jerusalem: the Jews of Jerusalem would bind Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles. The people, on hearing this, plead with Paul not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul insists on going to Jerusalem, proclaiming his willingness to be bound and even to die in Jerusalem, and then the people accept this, saying “The Lord’s will be done.”
As harsh as Paul’s experience ended up being, Tolkien’s picture of a similar type of thing appears to be of even worse circumstances — with great details to engage the reader and to strongly identify with the characters. This illustration in turn can give us a greater appreciation of the actual trials experienced by the apostle Paul.
In the Middle-Earth event, the place is that of known danger, of some great, ancient evil — Cirith Ungol. Frodo at first does not know its name, and can only describe the general direction and path of this entrance into Mordor that Gollum has described. Faramir plays a role similar to Agabus and the people who heard Agabus’ prophecy: first, in the prophecy of extreme danger, and then — like the people who heard Agabus — strongly advising Frodo not to go there. Yet, like the apostle Paul – and in a way that both Jesus and Paul in Christ’s steps showed us — Frodo keeps to the will of God (as pictured in the Council of Elrond, and the great task that he must accomplish). After giving the warnings to Frodo, and seeing Frodo’s determined choice and willingness to his work, Faramir — like the people who accompanied the apostle Paul, in similar effect did the same: Since he would not be persuaded, we said no more except, “The Lord’s will be done.”
It is this feature in Frodo’s character, as well as later events that happen to him, that is in mind when Frodo is commonly referred to as the representation of the Priestly Office of Christ — along with Gandalf the Prophet and Aragorn the King, for the types of Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King in Tolkien’s epic work. A few excerpts for consideration, from the scene in The Two Towers:
‘Frodo, I think you do very unwisely in this,’ said Faramir. ‘I do not think you should go with this creature. It is wicked.’
…
‘You would not ask me to break faith with him?’ ‘No,’ said Faramir. ‘But my heart would. For it seems less evil to counsel another man to break troth than to do so oneself, especially if one sees a friend bound unwitting to his own harm. But no – if he will go with you, you must now endure him. But I do not think you are holden to go to Cirith Ungol, of which he has told you less than he knows. That much I perceived clearly in his mind. Do not go to Cirith Ungol!’ … …. Of them we know only old report and the rumour of bygone days. But there is some dark terror that dwells in the passes above Minas Morgul. If Cirith Ungol is named, old men and masters of lore will blanch and fall silent.’
Then a further plea:
It is a place of sleepless malice, full of lidless eyes. Do not go that way!’
Frodo’s response: ‘But where else will you direct me?’ said Frodo. ‘You cannot yourself, you say, guide me to the mountains, nor over them. But over the mountains I am bound, by solemn undertaking to the Council, to find a way or perish in the seeking. And if I turn back, refusing the road in its bitter end, where then shall I go among Elves or Men? … ‘Then what would you have me do?’
Faramir: ‘I know not. Only I would not have you go to death or to torment. And I do not think that Mithrandir [another name for Gandalf] would have chosen this way.’
‘Yet since he is gone, I must take such paths as I can find. And there is no time for long searching,’ said Frodo.
‘It is a hard doom and a hopeless errand,’ said Faramir. ‘But at the least, remember my warning: beware of this guide, Sméagol. He has done murder before now. I read it in him.’
Faramir’s final words on this subject:
He sighed. ‘Well, so we meet and part, Frodo son of Drogo. You have no need of soft words: I do not hope to see you again on any other day under this Sun. But you shall go now with my blessing upon you, and upon all your people. … If ever beyond hope you return to the lands of the living and we re-tell our tales, sitting by a wall in the sun, laughing at old grief, you shall tell me then [Faramir’s questions about Gollum, and how Gollum had been involved with possessing the great ring of power]. Until that time, or some other time beyond the vision of the Seeing-stones of Númenor, farewell!’
An important element in both the Bible story in Acts 21, and the similar type of event in Lord of the Rings, is that the main character, the protagonist, is heading into great danger. For Paul it certainly meant bonds, being whipped and physically abused, and (for all he knew) death. For Frodo it meant likely death, and indeed we see in the later events, that Frodo (again similar to Gandalf and Aragorn) did experience a type of death that is like to the real sufferings of Paul as well as Christ.
Yet, when Agabus gave that prophecy to Paul, nothing in the prophecy itself indicated to the recipient (Paul) that he should thus change his course and direction, and avoid the place that would provide such a negative experience. A common life saying I’ve heard from a local acquaintance goes something like, “if I knew the place where I would die, I would avoid that place like the plague.” Such is our natural reaction, to avoid pain and suffering. But the call of God on the life of a Christian, as shown in the 1st century experience of the apostle Paul, and shown for us in the best of tales and epic sagas, takes precedence. As Elisabeth Elliot observed (see previous post), the great heroes went on their adventures, facing great difficulties, because of the promise of great reward. Paul the apostle certainly had this heart, knowing the love of God which constrains us, with a willingness to suffer, since (Romans 8:18) our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the future glory. Frodo, too, realized the importance of carrying out his mission — to destroy the evil works of Sauron the Dark Lord, to bring peace and safety and happy lives to the people of Middle Earth, to free them from their fears and the threats and bondage of Sauron.
On Bible (Manuscript) Contradictions: Number Differences, and Major Differences (Judges 19:2)
In apologetics study, one focus is on addressing the skeptics’ claims of supposed “Bible contradictions,” and here I appreciate such blogs as the “Domain for Truth” series answering the skeptics to show that such supposed conflicts are not actually conflicts when we correctly understand the meanings of words, such as in genealogies and direct descendants versus multiple-generation ones: the Bible languages did not have differing words for “son” versus “grandson” or “great-grandson” as we have in English, for instance.
But another area of contradictions, that I have recently looked at, is that of textual variant contradictions: where one set of manuscripts has one word, and other manuscripts have a different word, and a real contradiction exists, in that the two differing meanings cannot both be true, and are mutually exclusive. This comes up especially when reading the King James text as compared to modern English translations, and interacting with KJVO people. Most of these differences are relatively minor; yet some feel that even a number count difference is worth some study time and then writing about — insisting that the number in one manuscript is correct, over the other number; as for example in Luke 10:1 and 17, did Jesus send out 72, or 70, to preach? An online article that addresses this 72/70 question then concludes that “The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.”
It’s well and good to put forth reasons and good logical arguments in support of one particular view over another (72 instead of 70). But then consider the following other textual problem in the KJV/NKJV and MEV (all based on same manuscript sets): in these translations, 2 Chronicles 22:2 states that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king. However, the same KJV/NKJV/MEV in the parallel passage, 2 Kings 8:26, state his age as 22 years old; in fairness to the MEV and NKJV, both of these translations add the footnote of the parallel text 2 Kings 8:26, “twenty-two.” These same three texts agree in 2 Chronicles 21:5, 20, that Ahaziah’s father Jehoram was 32 when he became king, and reigned 8 years — meaning that he was about 40 when he died, and his short life is noted as the result of God’s judgement upon him for his great wickedness.
The obvious way to understand this is that Ahaziah was 22 years old, not 42 (which would put him at 2 years older than his own father!), but the KJV/NKJV/MEV retained their faithfulness to a specific set of manuscripts – even retaining this obvious number error found in a particular set of manuscripts of 2 Chronicles 22. But to insist, after examination of a different text such as Luke 10, that ‘the King James Bible is always right,’ goes beyond what ought to be claimed; clearly the King James translation, by its limiting to only certain manuscripts, does include errors such as in 2 Chronicles 22:2.
But aside from the small differences such as numbers, there are at least a few Bible texts where even one word in differing manuscript sets makes a great difference in the understanding of that text. One example I recently encountered was Judges 19:2, and the word which describes the woman — in some manuscripts, as “played the harlot,” others “was unfaithful”, while others have “became angry.” According to one version of the story, the wording in KJV and similar translations, this woman had been a-whoring with one or more men in sexual immorality. Further, according to some Bible teachers (including, for instance, the MacArthur Study Bible notes) — and going beyond even what that version of the text says — the Levite should never have married her in the first place because she was already a harlot before he married her. This view then sees a type of divine retribution, lex talionis, in that the woman at the end experienced what she had previously done in her own sin. From the Matthew Henry commentary, as one such example:
(Referring to the woman returning to her father’s house): Perhaps she would not have violated her duty to her husband if she had not known too well where she should be kindly received. Children’s ruin is often owing very much to parents’ indulgence. …
Many bring mischief of this kind upon themselves by their loose carriage and behaviour; a little spark may kindle a great fire. … In the miserable end of this woman, we may see the righteous hand of God punishing her for her former uncleanness, when she played the whore against her husband, v. 2. Though her father had countenanced her, her husband had forgiven her, and the fault was forgotten now that the quarrel was made up, yet God remembered it against her when he suffered these wicked men thus wretchedly to abuse her; how unrighteous soever they were in their treatment of her, in permitting it the Lord was righteous. Her punishment answered her sin, Culpa libido fuit, poena libido fuit—Lust was her sin, and lust was her punishment. By the law of Moses she was to have been put to death for her adultery. She escaped that punishment from men, yet vengeance pursued her; for, if there was no king in Israel, yet there was a God in Israel, a God that judgeth in the earth.
The other meaning of the word in Judges 19:2, became angry, of course gives us a very different view of this same text. The narrative itself, outside of that phrase in verse 2, says nothing that would suggest that the woman was a harlot — no mention of any other man or men; the husband actually comes to her trying to win her back, only to later — when his own life was in peril — send her out to the mob, and then the next morning addressed her casually, a ‘let’s go’ attitude. Certainly in any other setting — without the meaning given in some manuscripts in verse 2 — the narrative suggests instead a man of poor character, with a bad-temper, similar to what is observed in our day the social situation of an abusive man who regrets his bad temper after the fact and comes to the injured party (such as the abused wife) promising that it won’t happen again; and then after some time, the bad temper does return — when things aren’t going well, the old nature resurfaces.
Other articles have addressed this specific passage in more detail, regarding the two possible meanings of 19:2, such as this post written for general audience. In my online searching I also came across a 17 page (PDF-format) academic paper, “Was the Levite’s Concubine Unfaithful or Angry? A Proposed Solution to the Text Critical Problem in Judges 19:2,” which looks at the details of the different manuscript sets, and sets forth a case that the original and earliest wording was “and she was furious with him,” which at later points in time was changed to the rendering in the MT (and KJV group) of ‘played the harlot.’ The Abstract:
Judges 19:2 poses a text critical problem that has vexed scholars for over a century. According to the MT, the Levite’s concubine left her husband and returned to her father’s house in Bethlehem because she had “played the harlot against him.” According to LXXA , the woman left her husband because she was “angry with him.” However, no other Greek, Latin or Aramaic variant of the verse supports MT or LXXA. This article proposes a new hypothesis for understanding the relationship among the various textual variants of Judg 19:2. It will be argued that the earliest Vorlage used the verb עבר in the hitpa‘el form which has the meaning “to be furious”. This Vorlage is reflected in LXXA . Later scribes then read the verb עבר in the qal form that has multiple meanings that depend on context. LXXB translated the verb in Greek with the meaning of “to move on”. In contrast, Pseudo-Philo interpreted the verb with the meaning of “to transgress”. The MT, which emended “to transgress” to “to play the harlot”, represents the final stage in the redaction process.
Manuscript contradictions is an interesting topic, with differences that sometimes can have major interpretive differences. As the scholarly paper linked above notes in the introduction: Was the woman unfaithful to her husband or did she become angry with him? Clearly, a story that revolves around a common place conjugal disagreement is a very different narrative than a story that describes the consequences of a woman’s adultery and abandonment of her husband. …. The relationship among the various textual variants of this verse has interested scholars for over a century.
All such contradictions, of course, must be taken on a case by case basis by looking at the various English translations as well as any other texts that reference the same person or event (if such are available), as well as considering the different manuscripts and the actual sense and context of a narrative passage.
Judges: Apostasy and Political Anarchy, and a Type for the Second Coming
In my study through the book of Judges, now to consider the last 5 chapters, which serve as an appendix to the main book: two stories of events that occurred at the very beginning — just before the events starting in Judges 3. Joshua and the leaders associated with him had passed from the scene. Before this study, these last 5 chapters were ones I read 1-2 times per year in my regular Bible reading, but did not think about too much, as to why these stories are here, their placement in the book, and the purpose they serve along with lessons to learn from them.
Alan Cairns’ final lecture on Judges is a summary overview of these last chapters. Of particular significance: the connection between spiritual apostasy and political anarchy. Both of these are present in these last chapters: there was no king, no one in charge, and so everyone did what was right in their own eyes. As Cairns observed, wherever we find spiritual apostasy we also see political anarchy: and wherever we find political anarchy, the spiritual apostasy is also there. Though recorded in reverse sequence (the beginning, at the end of the book), it was the situation in these last chapters, encompassed in these two events, that caused the Lord to bring judgment and mercy to the people, to begin that cycle of apostasy – judgement – repentance by the people – a judge sent as deliverer.
For further reflection, and to see a type here for our time and Christ’s Return: we see increasing apostasy and increasing political stability, that which leads to anarchy. Yet we have God’s word and His promises sure, regarding the end to come. In the prophetic events yet to come, we will see the great punishment coming — the Great Tribulation. But just as God had mercy upon the apostate Israelites, and did not leave them in that situation: God will yet show His mercy after the judgment — the chastening — has done its work in His people, the elect. In the time of the judges, God brought trial and tribulation, and then sent them judges — who were types of our savior God, the Lord Jesus Christ. So, in this great OT type, along with the prophetic word regarding the future, we have the great hope of His return, in seeing our salvation drawing near (Luke 21:28 ). As the apostle Paul said, Romans 11:32, “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”
Judges 9: Abimelech as a type of the antiChrist
Continuing in the book of Judges, both Alan Cairns and George Bush (commentary, “Notes, Critical and Practical, on the book of Judges”) have some interesting observations regarding the rather sordid events of Judges 9, the story of Abimelech and the people of Shechem.
As George Bush noted, Jotham gives the first parable in the Bible — in this case, a fable.
this veiled form of instruction has always been in high repute, whether in conveying wholesome truths to the ear of power, or inculcating lessons of wisdom and justice and duty upon the obtuse and unreasoning multitude. … ‘The people of the East are exceedingly addicted to apologues, and use them to convey instruction or reproof, which with them could scarcely be done so well in any other way. A short fable, together with its ‘moral,’ is more easily remembered than a labored argument or the same truth expressed in abstract terms, and hence it is that we find this vehicle of instruction so frequently employed in the Scriptures.
Alan Cairns, in his message on Judges 9 (February 1990), connects the account of Abimelech to prophecy and eschatology, and describes how Abimelech is one of several OT “vivid foreshadowings” of the antiChrist to come. Abimelech comes in the line of OT types, starting with Cain who slew Abel; also, Nimrod of Babel; Pharaoh, and (after Abimelech) Goliath of Gath who defied the armies of Israel.
Abimelech is, an outstanding picture or parallel of antiChrist, a message for the last days. The scene is Israel in the midst of Baal worship, a time of great apostasy — Babylonianism, antiChristianity — so often seen in the book of Judges. This apostasy and Baal worship is also seen throughout history, and is at the heart of Bible prophecy. Cairns goes on to describe such apostasy, relating the events of Judges 9 to similarities with Revelation 17 and 18. Just as this apostasy occurred in Shechem, known for the sordid events of Genesis 34, “where the virgin daughter of Israel lost her purity,” so the future great apostasy centers on a great city, a city of ancient immorality and with political power. Cairns remarked on the modern-day Christian concern about communism: but communism is not here to stay, it is not the final enemy of the people of God, and communism is not mentioned in the Bible.
Cairns relates the items in Jotham’s fable to those who will not take part in the End Times apostasy:
- The olive tree — its oil, which in God’s word represents the Holy Spirit; those who have this oil will have nothing to do with apostasy.
- The fig tree — we should be fruitful, and we should be sweet; strong, and firm, but not bitter and contentious. God’s people will not embrace the system of antiChrist, the rule of an Abimelech.
- The vine — in Psalm 80, the vine is a picture of the redemption of Israel. The redeemed want no part of apostasy. Those who please God will not give up their new wine, which cheers God and men (Judges 9:13).
An additional parallels between Judges 9 and Revelation 17-19: in Revelation 17, the very nations and kings that raised her up, turn against her. In Judges 9, the great criminals of the apostasy were judged: the men of Shechem, and then Abimelech. Likewise, in Revelation 19 Babylon the system falls, Rome falls, the beast falls, the false prophets fall — all the great actors come under God’s judgement.
God’s sovereignty comes through: God sent the evil spirit in Judges 9. Our God is on the throne. After Abimelech and that age of apostasy, we are shown the events of Judges 10. God’s grace continues; God sent good judges after that evil time. Jotham was vindicated, and the prophecy of Jotham was fulfilled. So too, great things will occur during the future Great Tribulation — the two witnesses, and those who stand for God. The Spirit of God is not and will not be removed from the world. He’s the omnipresent God. The Holy Spirit will be so active; God is moving to save a great number, an innumerable multitude, during the Great Tribulation. Our God has not abdicated; His kingdom rules. There is a sense in which Christ will yet be crowned, and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ. Yet He is reigning now also, at the right hand of God.
The commentary from George Bush also includes some great statements of wisdom, the greatness of God throughout the story of Abimelech:
There now lies the greatness of Abimelech; on one stone he had slain his seventy brethren and now a stone slays him; his head had stolen the crown of Israel, and now his head is smitten. O the just succession of the revenges of God!
The ephod [Gideon’s ephod] is punished with the blood of his sons; the blood of his sons is shed by the procurement of the Shechemites; the blood of the Shechemites is shed by Abimelech; the blood of Abimelech is spilt by a woman. The retaliations of God are sure and just, and make a more due pedigree than descent of nature.’
That they who thirst for blood, God will at last give them their own blood to drink. The weak in God’s hand can confound the mighty, and those who walk in pride, he is able to abase.
Abimelech’s conduct, in this particular, affords but another proof that he who has a wicked purpose to serve will not stick at a lie to accomplish it, and that those who design ill themselves are ever ready to charge similar designs upon others. Nothing is more common, in the providence of God, than for the revenues of sin to be made a plague and a curse to those that amass them.
Both Bush’s commentary and Alan Cairns’ series on Judges are helpful in this study through the book of Judges, showing so many interesting points as well as scripture parallels and types of Christ as well as other future things such as the antiChrist and the Great Tribulation.
Christ’s First and Second Comings: In the Type of Ehud
As I continue listening to Alan Cairns’ sermons, now in a series on the book of Judges, I notice a lot of similarities in the Spirit in him and qualities in Charles Spurgeon. Cairns’ ministry was about 120 years after Spurgeon, yet many common preaching features. From a sermon on Judges 3: allowing the Spirit to lead in determining what to preach on for any given Lord’s Day, rather than rigid, scheduled, pre-planned series; and remarks about those who had sat under his preaching ministry for many years, and still unmoved and not saved. Cairns, like Spurgeon, also believed Revelation 6, the first seal, was referring to Christ and not the AntiChrist (unlike most other premillennialists), and had a very optimistic view regarding the great spiritual blessings we now have. Like Spurgeon, Cairns firmly stated his belief in the future millennial reign of Christ, yet expected great things of God, true revival, in this age.
Apparently Charles Spurgeon never preached a sermon on Ehud, the second of the Judges of Israel. But if he had, the sermon would have been quite similar to this one from Dr. Cairns in 1989. In “The Train of Christ’s Triumph” we see Ehud as a type of Christ, and both Christ’s First and Second Comings in the story of Ehud in Judges 3: Ehud’s individual work and victory over Eglon; and then, his blowing the trumpet to rally the people to follow him. In this type, we see freedom from sin and judgment, fellowship (they followed Ehud), and the people as followers in the king’s army.
First, Ehud did the conquering work, slaying Eglon — like Christ’s defeat of Satan at Calvary. Here, the mighty message of freedom; the bondage of sin broken by the power of Christ, and our reconciliation and redemption.Then, Ehud blew the trumpet, rousing the people to leave everything and to follow him. The trumpet can be seen as a representation of the Lord Jesus Christ: having triumphed at Calvary, calling to people to leave all and follow him.
Fellowship: Ehud’s trumpet blast announced what he had done, and for the people to leave their sheepfolds, their earthly occupations, their fears and worries of Moab, to leave all–and come out in open fellowship with this mighty conqueror. Christ’s victory, the reality of this type: the victory only profits those who have been brought into fellowship with Him.
The Crusade of Victory: Ehud’s leading the people, can be seen as a type of the progress and triumph of the Gospel. Christ led His church, the New Testament church. We are reminded of the essence of the Christian life: to enter in experimentally, into what Christ has accomplished for us at Calvary. Pentecost was their first taste of victorious service for Christ. Then, in Acts 1:8, the apostles were given their commission: in the conquest of Calvary. They are going to conquer them (Jerusalem, Judea, the world) with the gospel. He has gone into His Eglon, and come out victorious. He’s the conqueror. Those men could challenge the world, and conquer the world, and they did.
Judges 3:27 describes the mountains of Ephraim; and the children of Israel went down with him from the mountains. A spiritual application and type here also: When God’s people spend time in the mount with their conqueror, then they come down with irresistible power.
In the first part of Ehud’s story, he slayed Eglon. Christ’s First Coming was in humiliation, largely unknown, unheralded. In the second part of Ehud’s story, he blows the trumpet. Here we have a picture of Christ’s Second Coming, with power, with hosts and armies of glory, and the blowing of the last trumpet.
The full sermon is powerful, convicting, and well worth listening to. Cairns brings home the importance of the Christian’s experience, the power of God for the Christian church, and the importance of serious prayer. Cairns — again, very similar to Spurgeon’s sermons of optimism with reference to this age — noted that the church no longer had the vision of God’s word for His church, the vision had been lost — because of a peculiar notion of the Second Coming and millennial reign. ‘Well, we can expect nothing too much in this day and age, and we’ve postponed all expectations until Christ’s victories until the millennium.'”
Cairns considered the reason why we don’t see revival, but instead apostasy: this is all an excuse for carnal laziness. God had given a mandate to the apostles, and a message, and a promise of the mighty results that He would give.
Nothing in scripture says that God has withdrawn the message, the mandate, or changed the promise. A cloak in most cases, for our own carnality. Cloaked in the respectable garments of theological language and theological excuses. …. The Lord Jesus Christ is not coming back for a church in defeat, or a church in reverse-gear or a church that has only the memory and the theory of the power of the Holy Ghost. He’s coming back for a church whose lamps are trimmed, whose witness is bright, whose experience of God is real, and whose knowledge of revival is intimate. He has never changed that.
From our viewpoint today, over 30 years later and the apostasy of the professing church increasingly more apparent, I observe that, yes, God still has that message, mandate, and promise — and yet, clearly God has used that “carnal laziness” to bring about what He has purposed for the last of the last days, that this age would end in failure, in increasing apostasy– and not in revival. Yes, God does have His people, who have real experience of God, the virgins whose lamps are trimmed. But such will not be the characteristic of the majority, of the overall professing Church. As God has also purposed and revealed in His word, the people at the Second Coming would be asleep (both the virgins with their lamps trimmed, as well as the others who did not have oil), and “when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)
Amid his words about the trumpet, that call to challenge the world and to conquer this world for God, Cairns acknowledged that God is sovereign, and He does not promise that every day will be a Pentecost. Along with mention of the 1850s Prayer Revival in the US, and emphasis on the importance of prayer, he related a story about a preacher in Romania (then behind the Iron Curtain) and their real persecution and hard suffering, and that man’s interaction with a Western-thinking evangelist. The only places where revival occurs today, are places where people are poor, and where their lives are in danger. It is not happening in the West, because of the carnality of God’s people at ease.
We are still in God’s good hands, in spite of this. After all, in Revelation 5, it is the Lamb who opens the seals, it is He, the Lamb, who unfolds these terrible events. We’re in the hand of our Savior. The seven trumpet blasts in Revelation represent serious, solemn markers of God’s progressing purpose during the last of the last days, this last period before the return of Christ. We look forward to the last trumpet, that time of deliverance from sin and bondage, and entering into the full enjoyment of that deliverance.
Biblical eschatology must include Christ’s First coming. Sensationalism comes from forgetting Christ’s First Coming and speculating about dates and ideas that are not even in the Bible–such as the notion of Russia being in the Bible (when it is not, the similar sounding word does not mean Russia), and since the US isn’t mentioned in the Bible it’s going to be blown to bits. Here I also recall J.C. Ryle’s emphasis upon both “the cross and the crown.”
Some more great observations from this sermon, and the hope we have:
… those not premillennial, you don’t believe Christ will reign upon the earth. I’m not too worried about it; you’re going to learn. It won’t keep you from heaven, but will make life a little more difficult for you. … the childish rubble they will come up with to try to deny that 1000 year reign of Christ. He came, He conquered, He gives His church a mandate, a message, and a promise, and He’s coming back in mighty final glory. Do you have that hope? Has your soul ever been gripped with those things?
Jephthah: His Character and His Vow
In my continuing study of the book of Judges, with the help of a very well-written commentary, I now have a much greater understanding of and appreciation for Jephthah — one of the Judges that has often been misunderstood and who has received a bad rap in modern times. A common idea in teaching today is of Jephthah as a rough and crude warrior, or a “religious hypocrite” (without any scriptural exposition to backup that assertion) who fully imbibed the pagan culture of his day and actually killed his daughter in a burnt sacrifice — an idea taught, for example, in the MacArthur Study Bible and by those associated with TMS.
Yet a closer look at the details reveals a very different picture of Jephthah: a man who experienced great difficulties in early life — the shame of his parentage, and rejection by his family (Judges 11:1-2). He then was far away from the formal worship of Israel, with “worthless men,” the rejects of society — yet, as commentator George Bush rightly observes, The mode of life here indicated, is precisely that which was followed by David, when his reputation brought around him men of similar character to these followers of Jephthah. Jephthah was thus lacking in full, proper instruction in God’s word, and his ideas of the true God were tainted by the pagan customs around him. Yet in Jephthah we see a man given grace –God’s grace to overcome the shame and rejection of his early life. We also see a godly, pious man who took God seriously, and who uttered words before God with the utmost sincerity. As described in verses 9 through 11, he is somewhat cautious with those who had rejected him — not unlike Joseph who first tested his brothers in Egypt — and then was willing to go with them — indicating forgiveness, not continuing in bitterness and anger toward them. Then, Jephthah spoke all his words (the agreement between the elders of Gilead and Jephthah as their leader) before the Lord in Mizpah. Jephthah also shows great concern and knowledge of his nation’s history, and great diplomacy in how he deals with the Ammonites — first seeking peace, to talk with the enemy before going to fight and kill.
In Judges 11, yes we have his rash vow, one that he really should not have made, but we also see the example of his daughter. Whatever the details of Jephthah and his daughter’s lives (the mother is nowhere mentioned, so we do not know what happened to her), we see the daughter walking in godly, humble submission to her human father and to God’s will for her life, through her father’s vow. Jephthah’s daughter does not come across as the offspring of a “religious hypocrite,” but a child brought up well and not rebellious — instead, her having whatever understanding of God that her father had, so that she showed such honor to him. Indeed, as George Bush here remarked: if she believed when she uttered these words, that she was to be put to death, neither Greece nor Rome, with all their heroes and heroines, can furnish an instance of sublimer self-sacrifice than this of the humble maid of Israel. Had it occurred among these boasting people, instead of the plain unvarnished tale of the sacred historian, we should have had it pressed on our admiration with all the pomp of eloquence. Indeed it cannot be doubted, had but Jephthah and his daughter been heathens, that the very persons, who now find in the transaction nothing but a pretence for vilifying the Scriptures, would then have extolled the whole as exhibiting the finest example of the most noble constancy, the most disinterested virtue.
Bush’s commentary, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Judges, is especially helpful in its lengthy treatment of Jephthah’s vow in its two parts: first, the actual words and the making of the vow, and secondly, the later fulfilling of the vow. Alan Cairns’ sermon on this part of Jephthah’s life (“A Portrait of Jephtha”) agrees with the same conclusions as presented by Bush, though without the lengthy explanation and details more appropriate for a commentary than the format of a sermon.
As noted in the commentary, scholars have taken four different interpretations of the words of Jephthah’s vow in verses 30-31, different grammatical variations to try to explain away what Jephthah actually vowed — such things as translating the last clause as “or” offering it up as a burnt offering. Bush examines the actual Hebrew wording and these variations, concluding (as do nearly all English translations), that the wording really does support the idea that Jephthah intended to offer a human sacrifice, a burnt offering, and that he expected that it would be a rational, intelligent creature coming to meet him (an act of volition) — and not a mere animal. Quite possibly, Jephthah had in mind that the sacrificial victim would be one of his household servants.
After the lengthy section addressing these two verses, Jephthah’s making of the vow, and then in sequence addressing (rather briefly) the intervening verses, Bush’s commentary then provides great observations and what he feels is the best explanation of what actually unfolded in the fulfilling of the vow — acknowledging that every interpretation has some difficulties, but that this view has the fewest difficulties and makes the most sense of the text. Jephthah at first really did expect to offer up his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, as exhibited in his great anguish upon first seeing her. Then, over the next two months, he became better instructed regarding the Mosaic law and acceptable sacrifices. After all, who would have given the actual burnt offering? The priests at the tabernacle would not do so — they who did know the Levitical law. Jephthah himself could not have, for that would also have been against the Levitical law, that offerings were actually made by the priest. Another interesting point is the circumstance and the geography: the tabernacle was at Shiloh, in the tribe of Ephraim — and we also find Jephthah, right after the triumph over the Ammonites, in a battle with the men of Ephraim.
The remaining verses indicate mention of the daughter remaining a virgin, and that he did to her according to his vow. The evidence strongly indicates that he fulfilled the vow, not in the way he originally intended, but in a way that fulfilled the spirit of the law — that his daughter was made “dead to him” in that she was given to lifelong service at the tabernacle, and he would have no descendants, his line would be cut off.
As to the idea of tabernacle service, and that in fulfilling this service she could never marry, two additional considerations. First, regarding a custom of children dedicated to the Lord’s service:
Regarding the objection, that Samuel and Samson were both dedicated to the Lord, and yet were able to marry — we observe here the difference regarding young men and women. The woman in marriage is under the control of her husband, who could have overruled and interfered with her duties to God; she would not have been free to fully serve God, with the same liberty and in the same way that the husband has.
Some of the concluding remarks from the commentator, George Bush (emphasis added):
Another interesting point, as to why the text ends as it does, stating that Jephthah did to her according to his vow — without mentioning the details: Jephthah was a leader, a judge, and the story of his vow became well known by all the people. Yet the Levitical system regarding vows is such a serious matter, never to be taken lightly or disregarded. To include the full details of what actually occurred, that Jephthah “only” consigned his daughter to lifetime service to God and she was not killed, could possibly signal to the common people the general idea to lightly esteem vows, that vows could be altered and changed willy-nilly. We certainly know that throughout Israel’s history such did become a problem, of people taking vows in wrong ways and breaking their vows –texts such as Matthew 5:33-37) and Jeremiah 34:8-11 come to mind.
In the commentator’s words:
This commentary on Judges, by 19th century writer George Bush, and in the list of Charles Spurgeons’s recommended commentaries, is well worth the Logos purchase and the time for reading it. Nowhere before in all my reading, including of sermons and online articles, have I read such a thorough examination of all the data, and thorough responses to all the possible questions and objections that have been raised concerning Jephthah’s vow and its fulfillment.