Category Archives: Bible Exposition

Describing the Blessed man

Posted on by
2

Psalm 1:1-6

1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, sick and in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers.
4 The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

We have all heard a preacher use Psalm 1 to say “Be like the blessed man who delights in the law of the LORD and not like the wicked who will perish.” Yet, when we actually examine the text, it is interesting to note that there is no prescriptive language whatsoever. Read the Psalm through again and you will discover that the text does not actually tell us to DO anything. There are no imperatives, no commands. Psalm 1 is entirely descriptive language.

Eric Costa is quite right when he asks, “What is being described here in Psalm 1? The life of those called “righteous” in contrast with those called “wicked.” What is the main difference between the righteous and the wicked? Is it the object of their delight? Is it the fruit of their labors? Is it the eternal destiny of their souls? No, the first thing that makes the righteous differ from the wicked is that the righteous are “blessed.” The starting point of the “way of the righteous” is the blessing of God.”

As in the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, the book of Psalms opens with a blessing.

Blessed means supremely happy or fulfilled – Dr. James Montgomery Boice states that the Hebrew word for blessed here is actually plural, which “denotes either a multiplicity of blessings or an intensification of them. The verse might be correctly translated, “O the blessednesses of the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked.”

The blessed man does not do certain things (negative) (v. 1) but takes his delight in God’s word (positive) (v. 2).

1) He does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly – he receives wiser counsel.
2) He does not stand in the path of sinners. His company is more select – he does not fellowship with evil (2 Cor. 6:14).
3) He does not sit in the seat of the scornful – he does not listen to the scoffing and mockery of others

Positively, his delight is in the law of the Lord. This is what he thinks about. His mind is focused on scripture, day and night.

John Stott – this delight “is an indication of the new birth for ‘… the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so’ (Rom. 8:7). As a result of the inward, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, however, the godly find that they love the law of God simply because it conveys to them the will of their God. They do not rebel against its exacting demands; their whole being approves and endorses it… Delighting in it, the godly will meditate in it, or pore over it, constantly, day and night.”

This Psalm contrasts those who are in love with sin and those who love God.

The law of the Lord, in David’s time, only referred to a few books, but now encompasses the entirety of the 66 book canon of the Bible. (2 Tim 3:16, 17)

v. 3 – This blessed man is likened to a tree planted – A tree does not plant itself. Someone else does the planting. It is the Father who plants….

Matthew 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” 13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.” Continue reading →

Jesus is knocking

Posted on by
Reply

Revelation 3:20. Its a verse many of us not only know but can quote by heart. Its also a verse that is almost always used out of context.

For some time I have been thinking of writing a short article on the context and meaning of the verse, not only for the good of my own soul (my own thoughts tend to become much clearer when I write them down) but hopefully, for the benefit of others too. Yet today, as I made my morning venture out into the blogosphere, I came across an article that said all I ever wished to say about the verse and said it very well. So, I thought to myself, “Self… rather than taking the time to try to say the same thing using different words (to avoid plagiarism), why not simply quote the article and let all be blessed by it, the same way you were?” So, that is what I do here. I found the article to be a real blessing and pass it on, trusting it will be the same for you.

The Thirsty Theologian writes:

On the wall of one of the churches I attended as a child hung a picture of a fair-haired gentile knocking on a door. We all knew it was Jesus, seeking entrance at our heart’s door, as in Revelation 3:20.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Time and time again, we were taught that Jesus was standing, waiting, knocking, waiting, knocking, just hoping to be invited into our hearts.

Time after time He has waited before
And now He is waiting again
To see if you are willing to open the door
Oh, how He wants to come in.

This image of the pathetic, pleading Jesus has no doubt coaxed multitudes down aisles to dubious conversions. But what if it’s all fiction? What if Jesus is not standing at some door to our hearts? Rather than pulling one verse out of context because it looks so nice on a tract, let’s examine the entire passage.

14 To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Revelation 3

The church at Laodicea was very much like a great many churches today. It was an apostate body, unregenerate, no true church at all. The Lord points to their deeds, observing that they “are neither cold nor hot.” This figure is a metaphor for water, which, when hot or cold, has many uses, but when lukewarm is not good for much. He wishes they were one or the other, because that would indicate the good fruit of a good tree (Matthew 7:16–20). But they are, figuratively, lukewarm — not good for washing, not good for drinking — so Christ will spit them out like warm, stagnant water. Bad trees get cut down, bad water gets spit out on the ground. This was the Laodicean church.

To make matters worse, they were self-righteous. They thought themselves rich when they were, in fact, spiritually “poor and blind and naked.” This is the state of the unregenerate. They are naked, and blind to their nakedness. This, again, was the Laodicean church. They were spiritually naked, but they thought they were dressed in rich robes of their own making.

At this point, Jesus could have simply passed judgment. If the Laodiceans didn’t deserve to be cut down and burned, no one ever would. But Christ extended grace, delayed the day of judgment, and called them to repentance. Notice now that this is no pleading Savior. His knock is a command, and spare me the “Jesus is a gentleman” nonsense. This is a take-it-or-leave-it command to turn to him in repentance and faith. Notice also that this is not the door to any individual’s heart.

Though this verse has been used in countless tracts and evangelistic messages to depict Christ’s knocking on the door of the sinner’s heart, it is broader than that. The door on which Christ is knocking is not the door to a single human heart, but to the Laodicean church. Christ was outside this apostate church and wanted to come in—something that could only happen if the people repented.

The invitation is, first of all, a personal one, since salvation is individual. But He is knocking on the door of the church, calling the many to saving faith, so that He may enter the church. If one person (anyone) opened the door by repentance and faith, Christ would enter that church through that individual. The picture of Christ outside the Laodicean church strongly implies that, unlike the Sardis, there were no believers there at all.

Christ’s offer to dine with the repentant church speaks of fellowship, communion, and intimacy. Sharing a meal in ancient times symbolized the union of the people in loving fellowship. Believers will dine with Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb (19:9), and in the millennial kingdom (Luke 22:16, 29-30). Dine is from deipneo, which refers to the evening meal, the last meal of the day (cf. Luke 7:8; 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25, where the underlying Greek is rendered “sup,” “supper,” and “supped,” respectively). The Lord Jesus Christ urged them to repent and have fellowship with Him before the night of judgment fell and it was too late forever.

—John MacArthur, MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Revelation 1–21 (Moody, 1999), 140.

I thank God that Jesus was never waiting for me to let him in, for if he had been, he still would be. I would never have let him in. And this is should be an obvious tip-off to the error of the popular interpretation of verse 20: nowhere in Scripture is there any hint that Christ needs our acceptance. No, it is we who need to be made acceptable to God. My salvation was never dependent on me accepting him, but on him making me acceptable to the Father. That is what the gospel is all about. It is what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Abusing Matthew 18

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew 18: 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

D. A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. Concerning this passage he writes:

Several years ago I wrote a fairly restrained critique of the emerging church movement as it then existed, before it morphed into its present diverse configurations.(1) That little book earned me some of the angriest, bitterness-laced emails I have ever received—to say nothing, of course, of the blog posts. There were other responses, of course—some approving and grateful, some thoughtful and wanting to dialogue. But the ones that displayed the greatest intensity were those whose indignation was white hot because I had not first approached privately those whose positions I had criticized in the book. What a hypocrite I was—criticizing my brothers on ostensible biblical grounds when I myself was not following the Bible’s mandate to observe a certain procedure nicely laid out in Matt 18:15–17.

Doubtless this sort of charge is becoming more common. It is regularly linked to the “Gotcha!” mentality that many bloggers and their respondents seem to foster. Person A writes a book criticizing some element or other of historic Christian confessionalism. A few bloggers respond with more heat than light. Person B writes a blog with some substance, responding to Person A. The blogosphere lights up with attacks on Person B, many of them asking Person B rather accusingly, “Did you communicate with Person A in private first? If not, aren’t you guilty of violating what Jesus taught us in Matthew 18?” This pattern of counter-attack, with minor variations, is flourishing.

To which at least three things must be said: Continue reading →