Dress, makeup, jewelry

“In like manner also, (I command) that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with restraint and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…” (1Ti 2:9).

This word “apparel” includes more than dress. It may be translated “deportment” or “bearing”. Actions are very much a part of this “apparel”! This reminds us of so many Biblical passages showing clothing as a symbol of our life in the Truth (Job 29:14; Psa 132:9; 1Pe 5:5; Isa 11:5; Rev 19:7,8). Paul is looking for modesty that is firmly rooted in the character — not the “modesty” of a showy affectation. “Sobriety” denotes soundness of mind and judgment. It is a habitual, inner self-government, which puts a constant rein upon the natural desires and passions. Sobriety puts into action what the “modesty” recognizes to be proper.

With such qualities of modesty and restraint the sister must adorn herself, so as to be pleasing in God’s sight.

“The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1Sa 16:7).

God sees the thoughts and intents of our hearts (Heb 4:12), and our “adornments” must be those characteristics in which He finds delight. These verses are specially for the women, but the ultimate application is for all: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1Pe 3:3,4).

Paul is commending the virtue of self-restraint: the refusal to conform to the foolish fashions of a vain and changing world. How closely should a brother or sister conform to the fashions of the world, as to dress, makeup, and so forth? Men and women are born, make changes while they live, grow old and die; and others come to take their places. This world’s fashions come and go, and the only sure thing about them is that nothing will remain the same for long. But the Almighty God of heaven never changes. In this is sufficient reason to shun (as much as is practical and reasonable) the passing fancies of a godless world.

By slavishly following the fashions of this world, we are showing our misplaced dependence upon it. We are showing that we regard the favor of the world as of greater value than the favor of God. We think more of the world’s fellowship than we do of God’s fellowship.

Furthermore, stylish dress, elaborate hair-styles and excessive makeup, which imitate the changing fashions of today, give the impression to others of a similarity of thought and behavior. This is not something which a believer in Christ should wish to imply. As much as is practical we must show our separateness from the world. Thus we should be modest, neat, and tasteful — not skimpy on the clothes, not excessive in our spending, not elaborate and time-consuming in our personal grooming. The overall key — and especially is this true for the sisters — is modesty (not seductiveness) in apparel, and in deportment.

Drinking

How easy it is, and with what a sense of comradeship (it seems) can one join one’s friends in a group for a few drinks. What harm is there, provided one is “temperate”? Did not Paul advise the young Timothy to “use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine oft infirmities”?

The trouble with drinking is that it is not in the nature of the young, generally, to be temperate. And drink clouds the mind; it over-stimulates the senses and weakens the self-control. A car can be an instrument of death in the hands of someone who drinks to excess.

Drink can arouse excessive merriment in some and bad temper in other. The most violent quarrels occur in bars.

Paul used a phrase which aptly described the weakness of will which can be caused by drinking: “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess” (Eph 5:18). It is in the nature of alcoholic beverages that they encourage “excess” in many different ways — all of which are negative.

It is not so much that we should never touch wine and the like, but the company, the places and the dangers must ever be in our minds.

“Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man” (Luk 21:34-36).

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers… nor drunkards… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:9,10; cp Gal 5:19-21).

The loathsome effects of excessive strong drink are described — almost humorously — in the book of Proverbs:

“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. ‘They hit me,’ you will say, ‘but I’m not hurt! They beat me, but I don’t feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?’ ” (Pro 23:29-35).

Present-day abstainers are in very good Scriptural company: John the Baptist was one of the greatest men who ever lived (Mat 11:11), and he was a teetotaler (Luk 1:15; 7:33). The leaders of the early ecclesias were commanded to be “sober”, “not given to wine” (1Ti 3:1,2; Tit 1:7). Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s wine (Dan 1:8). The Nazarites also vowed to separate themselves from every product of the grape (Num 6:3).

The moral issue from the Biblical standpoint is therefore simply this: A brother under the influence of alcohol is a brother who deliberately deprives himself of the ability to “serve the law of God with his mind” (Rom 7:25). God has graciously given us a knowledge of the Truth: an understanding of His laws, as well as a spirit “of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2Ti 1:7). Are we acting lawfully when we knowingly engage in a practice which will deprive us of soundness of mind, and bring us under its power (1Co 6:2), exposing us to the uncontrolled workings of the flesh? Is this the way to “flee from sin”?


Also, see Lesson, Addiction.


A member of Alcoholics Anonymous once sent columnist Ann Landers the following:

We drank for happiness and became unhappy. We drank for joy and became miserable. We drank for sociability and became argumentative. We drank for sophistication and became obnoxious. We drank for friendship and made enemies. We drank for sleep and awakened without rest. We drank for strength and felt weak. We drank “medicinally” and acquired health problems. We drank for relaxation and got the shakes. We drank for bravery and became afraid. We drank for confidence and became doubtful. We drank to make conversation easier and slurred our speech. We drank to feel heavenly and ended up feeling like hell. We drank to forget and were forever haunted. We drank for freedom and became slaves. We drank to erase problems and saw them multiply. We drank to cope with life and invited death.

Drugs

It is a good rule that the saint should keep his body pure from smoking and excess drinking. And he should certainly keep his body clean of drugs either of the narcotic or stimulant types unless it be under proper medical attention.

In such a drug-accustomed world as ours, is it any wonder that foolish young people, scared of the violence and uncertainties of the world into which they have been born, should turn to drugs that will take them into a dream world? Unfortunately there is always the awakening to an even more terrible mental state as one becomes addicted to drugs.

What is not realized even by the habitual user of “hard” drugs, is that he has set himself on a course of moral, spiritual, and physical deterioration which may result in irreparable damage to the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, and bladder. Or the victim may find himself suffering from asthma, heart disease, or other serious ailments.

One of the worst dangers of drugs is that different people react to them in different ways. A few “pep” pills have made some people feel over-confident and led them into silly actions. Others have become vicious and brutal, in a few cases to the extent of murder; whilst others have become so depressed by the pills as to commit suicide.

We have to work in the world, or we may have to leave home for further study. But wherever we find ourselves, and however young we may be, we are ministers of the Word and lights in the world. It should be our business to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, meanwhile keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world”.

The world can be a cruel place; it is also a testing ground. But we have the assurance that, if we are loyal to our spiritual heritage, we shall with the Father’s help conquer the world:

“Whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”


Also, see Lesson, Addiction .

Disciples, awe of Jesus

Mar 9:32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Joh 4:27,33 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”… Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”

Joh 12:20-22 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

Joh 13:22-24 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”

Joh 21:12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord.

Devil and Satan — “You are the man”

An officer came up one day before the king of the land and presented the following:

“Sir, please decide with regard to the following case: There is a person who is horrendously evil. His name is Satan; he also goes by the name The Devil. He has prompted countless people to sin, enticing them with deception and lies. He opposes God, and even calls God a liar. Satan slanders God, and is not even interested in the welfare of those he supposedly cares for. He despises God’s laws, as they are too restrictive. He brings harm to others, and takes for himself glory which belongs to God. He offers as rewards for following him things which he does not have the authority to offer, and he is the father of all lies. Satan does not care for the interests of God or the interests of anyone but himself. God gave great gifts and power to this man, but he lifted up his heart in pride, and he has rebelled against God. Now, I ask you, should Satan be granted immortality? Should he be allowed to live forever in God’s kingdom?”

The king replied, “Of course not!” as he rose out of his throne, startling his servants. “There is only one thing that this man deserves: DEATH! It would be absurd to suppose that such a person deserves eternal life. Let us have Satan apprehended AT ONCE so that he can be executed as quickly as possible.” As the king retook his seat upon the throne he asked the officer, “Do you know where Satan is right now?”

“Why, yes.” the officer said.

“Well, why in the world haven’t you apprehended him?!”

“Well, sir. It’s because you are the man.”

“ME!!! Haven’t you read what the scriptures say? The scriptures say that Satan is a fallen angel. He rebelled against God and then enticed Adam and Eve into sinning.”

“So Satan fell before Adam did? How then can it be said that Adam introduced sin into the world?”

“Never mind that. Anyway, Satan took a third of the angels with him in his great rebellion, and these angels married the daughters of men, producing giants upon the earth.”

“So am I to understand that when these angels sinned like this, God became enraged with mankind and destroyed THEM? Is that fair?”

“Look, I’ll concede that God punished mankind in the flood, but don’t forget that he took those angels and confined them in chains of darkness, reserved for judgment.”

“So,” the officer again replied, “you say the rebellious angels were confined like that. How then did the giants live on the earth after the flood. Did some survive the flood, or were there more rebellious angels? Or were the angels who sinned and were confined in chains able to repeat their earlier sin? And if rebellious angels repeated this earlier sin, how come they later stopped? Why aren’t they doing the same thing today?”

“Well, I don’t know, but I do know that Satan himself approached God and was granted permission to strike at Job in a variety of ways. How could that possibly be me? ‘You are the man.’ What a ridiculous statement!”

“Sir, have you considered the logic of your own words? You are suggesting that Satan has openly led the world’s first and greatest rebellion against God, and yet he is still allowed to come into God’s presence and be granted explicit permission by God to inflict calamity upon others. Would you allow your number one enemy, who was rebellious against you, to come into your presence and ask for things from you? You wouldn’t even let him ask, and even if you did you certainly wouldn’t grant him his request! What king in his right mind would do that?”

“You know, maybe it does seem a little strange that God, whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and who cannot tolerate wrong, would allow Satan to come into His very presence like that. Regardless, it does not change the fact that I didn’t enter Judas, and I didn’t suggest to Jesus that he turn stones into bread. That wasn’t me, and so for you to say that I am Satan is just plain wrong. Was it me who hindered Paul from seeing the brethren in Thessalonica? The scriptures that speak about Satan make it very clear that we are dealing with an actual supernatural being.”

“Sir, please hear me out. Do you remember when the prophet Nathan confronted David regarding David’s sins following the murder of Uriah [2Sa 12:1-8]?”

“Yes, of course I remember what happened.”

“Nathan told David about a rich man, a poor man, and a traveler who stayed with the rich man. These people were not real. The story was a parable — keeping the true identity of the evil rich man hidden from David while he rendered judgment was necessary so that David would be unbiased in the judgment he rendered. Having rendered the proper judgment, then and only then was it appropriate for Nathan to confront David by saying, ‘You are the man.’ Had Nathan begun by talking point-blank about what David had done, David would have cut him off very quickly. Nathan’s method had a purpose. It allowed David to be confronted with the enormity of his sin, so that he might be motivated to repent. God in the Scriptures uses the same method with His descriptions concerning Satan. Nobody who reads about Satan would think for a second that he belongs in God’s kingdom. WE ARE EACH THE MAN! This is why ‘Satan’ is described as the result of human thinking both when Jesus rebuked Peter, and when Peter in turn some time later rebuked Ananias [Mat 16:23 = Mark 8:33; Acts 5:3,4]. ‘Human thinking’ and ‘conceiving this in your heart’ is where Satan is. But at the same time, Satan can be anything that is our adversary. This is why the Satan who hindered Paul from returning to Thessalonica [1Th 2:18] refers to the Jewish leaders of Thessalonica who persecuted him both in Thessalonica and also in Berea [Acts 17:5-9,13], why the Angel of Yahweh was Satan to Balaam’s donkey [Num 22:22], and Yahweh Himself was described as Satan to David at one point [1Ch 21:1; cf 2Sa 24:1]. And I’m not denying that there can be external tempters, even devious ones. But the root of the problem is within us. We are each Satan to ourselves — that is, we are each our own worst adversary.”

The king, now sitting on his throne deep in reflective thought, with his head resting upon his left hand, motioned with his right hand to the officer. “Go on.”

“The idea that Satan is a fallen angel is itself ludicrous. Angels cannot sin, and while we’re on the subject let me comment on two remarks the Lord Jesus Christ made. First, he said that in the days of Noah people were ‘marrying and being given in marriage’ [Mat 24:37-38 = Luke 17:26,27], which is an obvious reference to the sons of God who were marrying the daughters of men, as described in Gen 6. At the same point in his ministry, Jesus was stating that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage [Mat 22:30 = Mark 12:25 = Luke 20:34-36], which was his unequivocal comment about whether the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6 referred to angels. Your worst adversary is not someone else; it is your own proneness to sin. Jesus recognized this, and it is why he compared his own crucifixion to the serpent being raised up [John 3:14,15], and why Jesus in his death was able to destroy him who had the power of death over him, that is, the devil. Who was that devil? Who had the power of death over Jesus?”

“Continue,” the king said.

“It wasn’t Caiaphas or Pilate or any of the other leaders. They had no inherent power over Jesus, the only power they had was given them by God [John 19:10,11]. Besides, at most they could kill his body but they could not kill his soul [Matt 10:28].”

“Are you suggesting that God was the devil who had the power of death over Jesus? That because God alone is the one who can kill both body and soul in Gehenna, that God was him who had the power of death over Jesus? That in his death Jesus destroyed God??”

“No, your majesty. God raised Jesus up from death, since it was impossible that he should be held by its power [Acts 2:24]. That which had the power of death over Jesus was his own sin-prone nature. Even though he conquered sin, he was always mortal and thus was certain to die unless God miraculously intervened. And if he had given in to sin, then he was certain to die and to stay dead. Jesus’ sin-prone nature is what deserved death, and in his death and subsequent resurrection, he put to death that nature, which therefore no longer had power over him. Your majesty, as I said already, there are places in the Scriptures where the terms Devil or Satan refer to one person who is opposing or an adversary to someone else, in one way or another. But in many cases, The Devil or Satan is used to refer to someone’s own sin-prone thinking, acting as an adversary against them because it is enticing them away from God. In no case does either name refer to a rebellious fallen angel. When I came before you and described the wickedness of Satan and asked you what he deserved, you answered rightly. Then I pointed out that YOU ARE THAT MAN.’ When Jesus asked the Jews about where the authority for John’s baptism came from, they wouldn’t give him a straight answer, and we all know why [Matt 21:23-27 = Mark 11:27-33 = Luke 20:1-8]. Had I approached you directly about confronting your own sin-prone nature, you would just as surely have altered your answer.”

“That was a very wise thing you did. I would daresay that you are as wise as Solomon was. He couldn’t get a straight answer out of the mother of the dead baby, and so in his God-given wisdom he phrased the issue in such a way as to draw out from both women sincere expressions about whether they wanted the remaining baby to live or die. Their expressions clearly revealed who the real mother of the remaining child was. In like manner, you are to be commended for drawing out from me an untainted judgment against Satan, and then clearly revealing to me who that Satan really is. Indeed I am the man. And you are to be commended for following the example of using Nathan’s inspired teaching method in this instance.”

“Sir, may I be allowed one more comment?” the officer asked humbly.

“By all means, go ahead.”

“Nathan was not the first to use such a technique. Tamar used it also when she confronted Judah. Judah, upon hearing that Tamar was illicitly pregnant, ordered her to be put to death by burning. However, upon being confronted by her with irrefutable evidence that he was the man involved, he admitted that she was more righteous than he [Gen 38:26]. She had concealed his own identity from him, got him to admit the judgment that was necessary, and then revealed that he was the man. Later, Judah was in the same kind of situation again. When he and his brothers came before Joseph, son of Jacob by Rachel, Joseph was able to draw out from Judah an expression that he himself was willing to die so as to save the other son of Jacob by Rachel. Only then did Joseph reveal that he was the man they had earlier mistreated. So you see that Nathan was not the first one to use this technique. God uses this same technique throughout Scripture with regard to Satan’s identity. He isn’t trying to ultimately mislead us about who Satan is any more than Tamar or Joseph or Nathan was ultimately trying to mislead Judah or David. The answer is before us all the time if we are willing to think about it and receive it. Think about the case I brought before you today. Render honest judgment about what Satan deserves. And then recognize that ‘you are the man.’ It’s not an easy thing to do. Look at how hard it was for Job. But in the end, he recognized his true place before God, and despised himself and so he repented in dust and ashes [Job 42:6]. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful [James 5:11].”

The king was very pleased. “Now I see,” he said. “Whenever I look in the mirror, or whenever I examine my own mind and my own thinking, I must realize that I am looking at ‘Satan’. And I must be on guard, and careful to resist this great enemy — who is actually not outside, but inside my own ‘camp’. Thank you, trusted friend; you have taught me a valuable lesson!”

(DB).

Dew and the fleece, the

It would seem that Gideon was justified in asking a visible sign of God’s favor, as were such men as Abraham (Gen 15:8), Moses (Exo 33:16-18), and Hezekiah (2Ki 20:8). Such requests do not indicate a lack of faith, but a strong faith; we have only to contrast the requests of the righteous men just mentioned with the indifferent and sarcastic rejection by Ahaz of a similar opportunity (Isa 7:11-13).

Such signs given to righteous men did more than demonstrate the great power of God; they also appealed to faith in the significance of the miracles. In the same manner Christ’s miracles of healing were not just to show his physical power; they also manifested his moral excellence and the spiritual power of Deity to heal those who are “blind” to truth and “lame” because of sin.

Does the extraordinary miracle, or rather miracles, of Gideon’s fleece have a similar spiritual or prophetic meaning? I believe that it does, and offer here the outline of an interpretation.

***

“And Gideon said unto God, ‘If Thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as Thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and dry upon all the earth, then shall I know that Thou wilt save Israel…’ ” (Jdg 6:36,37).

Dew symbolizes the favor of the king, softly descending from the “heavens” upon the “earth” beneath (Pro 19:12). It is contrasted with the king’s wrath, which is as the roaring of a lion. Dew is associated with the manna (Num 11:9), by which God brought the blessing of life to the wilderness wanderers. Like the dew, and like the mercies of God, the manna was new and fresh every morning (Lam 3:22,23). Dew is silent but irresistible, like the angelic army of Yahweh; the whole host of Midian could stand on the hills of Israel, their swords drawn and their shields raised, but the dew of heaven would descend just the same. Finally, and most important, the dew portrays the beauty and joy of resurrection:

“Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of lights” (Isa 26:19).

“In the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy birth” (Psa 110:3).

Fleece is the “fruit” of the sheep, or typically the perfect works of Christ, the lamb of God. The wool or fleece of the sheep becomes a garment for others, even as the righteousness of God in Christ becomes a covering for our “nakedness”. This was prefigured in Yahweh’s provision of garments for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21); quite possibly the coats were of a lamb and included the fleece also. “As a sheep before her shearers” (Isa 53:7) was Christ before Pilate and the centurions — perfectly silent and submissive to the Father’s will in an unpleasant process.

“And it was so; for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water” (v 38).

Christ’s rising up early in the morning produced the water of life, wrung out of his sacrificial experience as a “sheep before her shearers”. Christ was from the beginning the manna that came down from heaven with the divine favor upon it. This divine favor was further intensified when God raised him from the dead with the dew of a renewed life, after a sacrificial submission to the shearing process.

The water was stored in a bowl. This is very similar to the storing of the manna in a vessel in the ark (Exo 16:33; Heb 9:4; cp Rev 2:17), a visible proof of the divine favor and deliverance. Perhaps Gideon used the water thus preserved as a tangible demonstration of God’s promised blessing of the 300 warriors as they prepared for the ensuing battle.

“And Gideon said unto God, ‘Let not Thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once; let me prove, I pray Thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.’ And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground” (vv 39,40).

The first miracle saw the dew of divine favor and resurrection upon the “fleece” (Christ) only, for he was the firstfruits of them that sleep. But the second miracle finds the dew on all the ground, symbolic of the saints. The symbolism here is comparable to the blood sprinkled upon the altar (Christ — Heb 13:10) and upon the ground round about (Lev 4:7; 5:9; etc), which represented the saints (Rev 6:9).

Since the ground upon which Gideon placed the fleece was the threshing-floor converted from a winepress (Jdg 6:11, RSV; Jdg 6:37), then there might still have been grain upon it; the dew upon the grain thus signifying the favorable ingathering of the harvest. (Both threshing and wine-pressing are figures of judgment.) The winepress/threshing-floor was a place of hiding from the Gentile armies (v 11), as will be the scene of resurrectional judgment in the future.

The two signs of the fleece and the dew are a logical part of the prophetic development of Gideon’s career. These signs of resurrection are followed in Judges 7 by a “judgment” parable (with the selection of the 300 who lapped rather than bowing down), and at last by the typical overthrow of Midian the enemy of Israel.

The Fleece of Psalm 72:6

The word translated “fleece” (Hebrew “gizzah”) is literally “that which is cut” — whether it be wool, grass, or hair (from the root “gahzaz” = to cut or shear). The identical word appears in Psa 72:6, where it is translated “mown grass”, but might just as well be “fleece”. This brings us to consider this Messianic psalm of the kingdom as in some way related to the time of Gideon. Consider the following parallels:

Psa 72 Christ the true “One man”, ruling in strength and wisdom, his saints with him as “one man” (1Co 12:12) in spirit and purpose, the anti-typical Gideon and his 300. Jdg 6-8 “As one man” (6:16) — the man of Yahweh, a man of valor (v 12): Gideon and his divinely-chosen army.
1 “Unto the king’s son” 8:18 8:19 “As thou art… the children of a king”
2 “He shall judge” Gideon was a judge
3 “Mountains shall bring peace” 6:2 Dwelling in mountains and dens
4 “The poor and needy” (cp vv 12-14) 6:15 “My family is poor”
4 “Break in pieces the oppressor” 7:13 etc The Midianite oppressors
6 Rain (not just dew) on the fleece and then on the earth (note the order). 6:36-40 Gideon’s two miracles
9 “Bow… lick the dust…” 8:28 “…Subdued… lift up heads no more…”
10,15 Gold, presents of Sheba 8:24 Gold earrings of Ishmaelites
16 Handfuls of grain 6:11 Gideon threshing grain
16 “The fruit thereof shall shake like (the cedars of) Lebanon.” 7:9-14 The meager “barley-cake” of Gideon and his 300 would multiply greatly in strength, (and other factors) to rout the Midianites.

Considering the epilogue of v 20 (and other factors), Psa 72 seems to be from David’s last days. It might thus have been composed shortly after the incident recorded in 2Sa 24, where David numbered Israel — possibly for military purposes. For this presumption David was punished, or more precisely the nation was punished severely. As He had done with Gideon’s 32,000 (Jdg 7), so God did again, thinning the proud ranks of Israel’s army. (In the latter-day campaigns of Israel, particularly the “Yom Kippur” War, might we not be seeing the same judgment a third time?) Thus God teaches us that He needs not man’s numbers to effect deliverance, but can act as “One Man” (or with one man) when the occasion arises.

In 2Sa 24, an angel met David on Mount Moriah in a threshing-floor (just as an angel had met Gideon). And David (just as Gideon) built an altar and the threat against Israel was turned aside. We see then the parallel lesson in these two periods of history: we are never to trust in numbers, but rather in the “One Man”, the mighty Yahweh, a majority of one! For the God of Israel can save by many or by few, or even by one — the one man Christ: Christ was the preeminent lamb of God, the sheep before its shearers. Other men in the face of suffering either confessed their guilt (as David) or complained (as Job). Christ was the only man who remained perfectly silent at the prospect of “shearing” (Isa 53:7), leaving us an example (1Pe 2:21-23), and thereby providing a covering for all men.

And so David looked past his son Solomon to his greater son — who will bring peace at last to a troubled world, peace and blessing as the abundant dew upon the fleece and upon the threshing-floor.

The Shearers

“A sheep before her (or his) shearers (or shearer)”? The perceptive reader will have noticed definite differences between the original statement in Isa 53:7 and its citation in Acts 8:32:

Reference Animal Pronoun Antagonist
Isa 53:7 Sheep (Heb “rachel” = ewe) Her (its: RSV) Shearers (plural)
Isa 53:7 (LXX) Lamb (Gr “amnos”) The Shearer (singular)
Acts 8:32 Lamb (Gr “amnos”) His (its: RSV) Shearer (singular)

The Old Testament prophecy definitely has the female gender: “Rachel” can mean only a ewe (cp Isa 53:7, NEB). Perhaps the female aspect simply stresses the passive nature of submission. Or perhaps a clue to its usage is in the sacrificial difference: The sin-offering for a ruler was a male kid, but the sin-offering for commoners was a female kid or lamb (Lev 4:23,32). The rulers of Israel were not to benefit from the humiliation and suffering they inflicted upon Christ, but the common people, who had heard him gladly (Mark 12:37), were to be cleansed by his offering for sin.

The Greek word “amnos” may refer either to male or female. In keeping with Isaiah’s obvious intent, however, the female figure should predominate; as for pronouns, “her” or even “the” or “its” would be preferable to “his”.

It appears also that “shearers” (plural) has a significance that the singular word does not, as we shall see. If so, then why are the Septuagint and the New Testament translations (AV, RSV, NEB) singular? Maybe it is only in a general sense, without regard to who or how many are performing the shearing. Therefore a better translation might be “a sheep before (in the face of) shearing” or “a sheep to be sheared”.

The use of the plural — “shearers” — seems relevant when the other instances of the word are considered: Only four men in the Bible are said to have employed shearers. They are:

  1. Laban (Gen 31:19);
  2. Judah (Gen 38:12,13);
  3. Nabal (1Sa 25:2,4,7,11); and

  4. Absalom (2Sa 13:23,24).

Not one of the four was spoken of as a shearer personally, but each had shearers working for him. (The Jewish elite class was the “shearer” of Christ, but the actual operation was performed by the “employed” Romans.)

Not one of the four mentioned above was a righteous man. In fact, in each case the employer of the shearers had at the time of shearing some evil intention toward a protagonist: respectively, Jacob, Tamar, David, and Amnon. These malevolent designs never worked out quite as intended:

  1. Laban intended to cheat the promised seed of his rightful property, but Jacob finally left him, taking great wealth and Laban’s two daughters.

  2. Judah sought only to satisfy his lusts with a harlot, but inadvertently fulfilled the Levirate function and fathered a son in the Messianic line.

  3. Nabal boldly and contemptuously denied the rightfully anointed king. For his arrogance, however, he lost his life, his wife, and his property.

  4. Absalom clothed his royal ambitions in the cloak of righteous vengeance, but the outcome of Amnon’s murder was Absalom’s own loss of favor and exile.

All of this reminds us very much of the antitypical “shearing” of Christ: Sheep-shearing was generally performed in the spring, at Passover time; it was a season of great rejoicing (1Sa 25:2-13; 2Sa 13:23-29).

But for a certain sort of man it was also the time for theft, lust, greed, and murder. And so the leaders of Israel, at the last true Passover of their nation, blindly plotted to fulfill this unnoticed Scriptural type of “shearing”; to steal from the Anointed One his rightful title, to fulfill the lusts of their flesh in attaining political supremacy, to protect their treasured gains, and to murder the supposed rival for the Father’s affections. “Now shall the inheritance be ours!” But it could not be, and in the denouement of the tragedy and subsequent triumph, men like Peter and Stephen and Paul confronted the Jews with the foreordained outcome of their evil intentions:

“Him… ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain… (but now) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:23,36).

“The Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers… (but now) I see… the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:52,56).

“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead” (Acts 13:29,30).

The words of Joseph to his brethren might well have been those of Christ to his brethren: the lamb “sheared” by wicked hands, but upon whose “fleece” descended the “dew” of divine favor and resurrection:

“As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good… to save much people alive” (Gen 50:20).

Did Jesus fellowship Judas?

The answer to this question is unprovable, if by “fellowship” is meant merely the technical participation in the “Last Supper”. A reasonable reading of the four gospel narratives leads to the conclusion that Jesus did indeed break bread with Judas, knowing full well his traitorous intentions. Brothers Thomas and Roberts both subscribed to this view, as their writings show. But nowhere do the records specifically spell this out.

The partaking of the emblems, however, is not the actual issue. We know that Jesus would have broken bread with Judas, even if it is felt that Judas in fact excused himself and went out before that point in the evening’s activities. We know this because Jesus did wash the feet of Judas, as well as the other eleven. We know that because Jesus offered the sop to Judas. (This was traditionally a mark of great love and esteem, for the host to give the choicest morsel in the common bowl to a special guest.) Indeed, we know this by the simple observation that for more than three years Judas ate and slept and traveled with Jesus and the other apostles, and never once did Jesus do or say anything that might have led the others to suspect that Judas was the one who would betray him. These were all instances of “fellowship” just as much as the symbolic common partaking of bread and wine; all together, they show that Jesus had admitted a man whom he knew to be a hypocrite into the innermost circle of his companionship for an extended time.

In 1847, after learning the Truth and being baptized, Brother John Thomas was the subject of certain charges made by the hierarchy of the Campbellite (“Church of Christ”) congregations. They demanded that Brother Thomas leave the “fellowship” of their congregations, because his “Confession and Abjuration” (written March 3, 1847) implied that many members of those congregations did not believe the full gospel. At such a demand Brother Thomas became highly indignant and fired off the following reply:

“Without comparing you [some of the Campbellite “brethren”] to Judas, I would inquire, Was not he in his sins when Jesus broke the loaf with him as well as the rest of the twelve? This will be a sufficient quid for your quo, that I necessarily abjure churches, because there are those among them who on my principles are in their sins… There are many in the American reform-churches who believe in… the ‘immortality of the soul’. We have learned, however, the important lesson of bearing and forbearing with one another, in hope that all will come to see the real truth….But your dogma is that I ought to reject them… We, however, do not think so” (From a personal letter, quoted by Robert Roberts in “Dr Thomas: His Life and Work”, p 168).

We must not, of course, suppose that Brother Thomas retained such a “liberal” view of “fellowship” for the rest of his days. There did come a time when it was desirable from his viewpoint, as well as those who made him their enemy, that he no longer be affiliated in any sense with the “reform” churches. But we might note with care that this was at least two years after his true immersion into the hope of Israel. And at any rate his point about Judas may be well taken, as far as it goes, even by us today. We see Brother Thomas as a man much like the apostle Paul, willing to recognize holders of false doctrine as “brethren”, so long as there was reasonable expectation of their further enlightenment and reform.

Robert Roberts, in his “True Principles and Uncertain Details”, says:

“Judas was a thief and Jesus knew it, but tolerated him till he manifested himself. Was Jesus responsible [i.e. for Judas’ sins] while he fellowshipped him? Certainly not” (Xd 92:417).

Difficult Bible words

Words have their histories, like men. Like them they live and die. A word that meant one thing may mean another hundreds of years afterwards, and may at last cease to be used at all. In our English translation (the Authorized Version of King James in the year 1611) there are many words found that are now, after the lapse of almost 400 years, obsolete (that is, gone out of use) or obsolescent (that is, going out of use). Others have somewhat changed their meanings. The following are some hard, and old-fashioned, words to be found in the King James Version, with their present-day meaning:

Abomination An object that fills us with disgust, particularly an idol.
Ambassage The same word is translated “message” in Luke 19:14.
Asswaged Sank down, subsided.
Astonied Astonished.
Audience The Hebrew word means the ear. Abraham spoke in the ear of the children of Heth; we say “in the hearing of”. To give audience means to listen.
Barbarian An alien or foreigner.
Barbarous Foreign.
Baser “Certain lewd fellows of the baser sort”; that is, wicked men who hung about the market place; vile men of the rabble.
Bewrayeth Betrays.
Carriage That which is carried, baggage. We now say luggage.
Charger Dish in the Old Testament (Num 7), where silver chargers are spoken of. But in the New Testament (Mat 14) the Greek word “pinax” means a wooden drinking cup.
To be at charges To discharge the cost of, to bear the expense of.
Convert To turn again.
Fain Gladly.
Garner Granary (barn).
Jot, Yod The smallest Hebrew letter. “Iota” is the Greek. Both correspond to the English letter “I” but it is often transliterated “J” in our Bible. The names Jerusalem, Jesus, Isaac, Isaiah, Judah, Israel, John, James, Jacob, etc., all begin with this letter.
Knop An old way of writing “knob”. In connection with the tabernacle, the knops were carved imitations of the buds of flowers.
Latchet The thong by which the sandal was attached to the foot.
Let In a few passages only, ‘let’ means ‘hindered’ (Exo 5:4; Isa 43:13; Rom 1:13; 2 Thes. 2:7).
Liketh Pleases.
Lively Living.
Maul A heavy hammer.
Meat Food of any kind. In the RV the words “meal offering” have been substituted for meat offering. This expresses the sense better.
Mete To measure.
Meteyard The English means to measure by the yard, or a yard measure. The Hebrew (Lev19:35) is best translated by the word “measure” only.
Minish Diminish.
Minister A servant.
Mite A very small coin.
Mote A minute particle of dust; a speck (Mat 7:3).
Neesing Sneezing.
Nether Lower.
Nethermost Lowest.
Occupy To do business; to trade.
Occupier Trader.
Offence In many places, a stumbling block, “skandalon”, the original of our word “scandal”.
Ouches Sockets.
Overlived Outlived.
Peradventure Perhaps; it may be.
Pottage That which is prepared in a pot.
Presently In the present moment; now.
Printed Engraved; “inscribed” (RV).
Proper Goodly, comely.
Proselyte “One who has come to”, therefore a convert to Judaism.
Provoked Stirred up, stimulated.
Quick Living.
Quicken To make alive.
Quit Behave, or, as we now say, acquit.
Ranges Ranks in 2Ki 11:8.
Ravin Plunder.
Reins The kidneys, regarded as the seat of joy, pain, etc.
Reprobate Refuse.
Ringstraked Streaked with rings.
Riotous Gluttonous.
Scall An eruption on the head or face.
Scrabbled Scrawled, or scratched.
Scrip A small bag or wallet.
Seethe To boil.
Sherd A sherd, potsherd, a broken piece of pottery.
Silverlings Pieces of silver.
Sith Since.
Sod, Sodden Boil, Boiled.
Sottish Foolish.
Staggered “Wavered” (RV)
Strawed Strewed, scattered.
Tables Writing tablets covered with wax.
Tabret A kind of small tambourine.
Tell To number or count.
Temperance Self-control.
Tempt To test, try, put to the proof.
Tetrarch Ruler over a fourth part.
Thought “Anxiety” in Matthew 6:25.
Tired Adorned with a tire or head dress; attired.
Tittle The minute point added to one Hebrew letter to distinguish it from another.
Tormentors Torturers.
Trow To think, imagine.
Twain An old form from the Anglo-Saxon “twegen” — two; hence the Scotch “twa”, and the English “twainty” or twenty.
Unperfect Imperfect.
Untoward Not toward; ie, inclined in the opposite direction.
Utter Sometimes means outer.
Vagabond A wanderer.
Vile Worthless.
Ware Aware.
Whit A bit, atom; every whit, wholly; not a whit, not at all.
Wilily Craftily.
Wise Way. On this wise, in this way.
Wist Knew.
Wit To wit, to know.
With Young twig of willow.
Wot Knew.
Yokefellow Fellow-laborer.

Dionysus (Eph 5/18)

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be ye filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18).

Possibly Paul is referring to something quite explicit rather than merely warning against drunkenness, necessary as such warning may have been. Considering the cultural background of first-century Ephesus, it may well be that Paul has in mind the wild, drunken practices connected with the worship of Dionysus or Bacchus, the god of wine.

Dionysus was not an invention of the Greeks, but probably had his origins in Thracia, Lydia, or Phrygia. (The equivalent Lydian name is “Bacchus”.)

The name “Dionysus” signifies “son of Zeus”. The worship of Dionysus spread throughout Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and even remote India (Cleon L. Rogers, Jr, “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18”, Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1979, pp 250,251).

The city of Ephesus itself was filled with the worship, not only of Diana (or Artemis), but also of Dionysus — according to the ancient historian Plutarch.

The cult of Dionysus was so widespread and common that anything having to do with grapes or wine was at once connected in the popular mind with the worship of the wine-god. To talk of wine and drinking immediately brought Dionysian expressions into the conversation, and to live a riotous, wanton, debauched life was characterized as being a “Dionysian” (Ibid, p 253). Witness also the English “bacchanalian”, from Bacchus. JB Norris speaks of the social gatherings of the heathen, “where idolatrous rites were practised and the singing waxed merry and lewd” (FCE 123,124).

As with the worship of Diana, that of Dionysus was heavily sexual. This worship, like. the nature religions of the Canaanites, with emphasis on pornographic images and vulgar songs, was supposed to please the god so that he would grant to his devotees the gifts of health and fertility (Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees, The Anchor Bible, p 133).

Another feature of the festivals was wild, frenzied dancing and uncontrolled ravings, in connection with wine drinking and heated music. This activity was expected to induce Dionysus to enter the body of the worshipper and fill him with his “spirit”, so that he would partake of the god’s strength, wisdom, and abilities. The person so affected would be able to speak inspired prophecy, with poetic genius (CEph 115). One result of such a “service” was the feeling of release from the pressures and stresses of the drudgery of daily life (Rogers, p 255).

If this is indeed the cultural background of Eph 5:18, then the inclusion of this verse in Paul’s letter is not as sudden or incidental as it might first appear. Rather, the entire context now takes on a new light: “Excess” refers to the dissipation of a life habitually given over to drink. The word “asotia” literally means “without salvation”, or “incurable” — a fit description for the behavior of the follower of Dionysus: “an abandoned, dissolute life” (EM Spongberg, Ephesians, p 99).

The idolater believed that, by drink and wanton behavior, he could be filled with Dionysus, thereby being “inspired” to poetic or artistic heights and forgetting the ordinariness of daily life. But Paul says, the true believer should be “filled with the Spirit”, so as to know true wisdom and true fellowship with God, being “lifted up to heaven”, not literally but in spirit (Eph 1:3,20; 2:6). [There is a sense in which even twentieth-century believers may be “filled with the Spirit”, and that is, as Paul elsewhere tells the Ephesians: “the eyes of your understanding being enlightened” (1:18); “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (3:17); that you will be “renewed in the spirit of your mind” (4:23); etc.]

Instead of the “sexy” drinking songs of Dionysus, the true believer must sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19).

Immorality, either in thought or deed, is not the way of approach to the true God. Rather, the marriage relationship is the gift of God for the realization of righteous joy (Eph 5:22-33).

***

It should be easy to see that what has been discussed here is not mere first-century history. Take only a passing glance at the “entertainment” of our western world — its inordinate consumption of alcohol and drugs; its “rock music” and accompanying lewd posturings (euphemistically called “dance”); 2nd its deification of the naked body, and of sexual attraction and prowess! Truly Dionysus is “alive and well” today; he just goes by other names! Should we, who are called to be “children of light” (5:8), “walk” even for a moment in such debauched company?

“Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be ye filled with the Spirit.”

Diotrephes

During the last generation of the first century, the “fellowship situation” can best be described as chaotic. Paul’s last writings are far from optimistic, and John’s letters show an elderly apostle — the last of his generation — contending against the practices of men who scarcely if at all deserve the name ‘brother’ (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210).

Such a man was Diotrephes — characteristic of a certain spirit within the ecclesias. Diotrephes was domineering, self-assertive, and arrogant. Defying the loving authority of the aged John, he could — so it seems — “cast out” of fellowship (ct Joh 6:37) with impunity those associating with the apostles, or, for that matter, anyone of whom he disapproved. Like some modern brethren of the same stamp, he also “cast out” those who failed to “cast out” the brethren he had “cast out” — in the ultimate extension of the “guilt-by-association” syndrome.

AE in his article points out that, with ease of communication in the Roman Empire, it was common for preachers to travel from ecclesia to ecclesia on lengthy missionary journeys. Such activities posed problems of fellowship then as now. Wherever the ecclesia was to which Diotrephes belonged, it included as members both those who rejected these preacher brethren, and those who welcomed them. John appears, then, to be presuming on his almost universal standing in the brotherhood, when he “interferes” in a tricky internal affair of another ecclesia. Notice, however, that his “interference” — if it may be so termed — is not for the disfellowshiping of any individual, but rather is for the acceptance of “the brethren” (3Jo 1:5). And John does not even counsel the disfellowship of the despicable Diotrephes!

The phrase “casting out” (3Jo 1:10) is a very harsh and cruel term: “If the Master himself was able to conduct most of his preaching within the synagogue system, however grudgingly received by those in power, he had no illusions as to the long-term fate of the church following his ascension to the Father. ‘Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils (Greek Sanhedrins, ie local courts) and flog you in their synagogues’ (Mat 10:17, RSV)” (AE, ibid 16).

Examine closely and without prejudice this first-century picture of inter-ecclesial affairs. How similar it is to our own day: an imperfectly joined network of congregations, with no universally recognized leader (even the apostles met frequent opposition); an arrangement calling for forbearance and patience and tolerance, not to mention the occasional compromise! Certainly not the place for would-be leaders to issue “bulls” of excommunication either against or on behalf of uninformed brethren.

Notice that even the apostle John does not declare, ‘Disfellowship Diotrephes.’ Notice also the presumed “conflict”: Gaius will receive “the brethren”; Diotrephes will not receive them. And yet they are considered — by no less than an inspired apostle — to be “in fellowship” with one another. Sometimes inconsistencies and anomalies exist in our midst. Patience and love are required to “sort out” these issues, without destroying or driving away those who have not quite “got it right”!

“Wherever there is intolerance; wherever we find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian, or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from them, or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a portion of the spirit of Anti-christ, which has so long opposed itself to the benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of mischief, instead of benevolence… Alas, how much of this spirit remains amongst us all! How few have learned that, ‘In Christ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God’ ” (JT, Herald, 1850).