notes on Ps 91

Psalm 91:1–16

Scripture Outline

Confession: God’s Protection (91:1–2)

Confidence for Deliverance (91:3–13)

God’s Word of Salvation (91:14–16)

This is both a triumphant and a troubling psalm. It is triumphant because it guarantees that God will be our guard and guide through the evils of this life. It is troubling because it seems to be based on an unworkable theology: a theology of glory. What about suffering? What about the martyrs? What about the Cross? What about children with Down’s syndrome? What about Christians who pray for healing only to hear silence?

As a pastor I have had to deal with the whole range of human experience. On the streets of Hollywood in the 1960s I found prostitutes, drag-queens, runaways, drug addicts, and every conceivable diagnostic disorder. Trying to minister to these people brought me a combination of joy and sorrow both then and now. Some of the converts from that time have become mature in their faith, but many others are far from Christ today.

To change the scene, as a pastor, I have married hundreds of couples over the years. They come, in most part, smiling to the altar, faces glowing, reflecting their love and hope for the future. Few of these many marriages, however, have survived unscathed. Many have ended in divorce with children torn between their parents’ conflicts. Some barely survive. Others have gone through deep waters, later to emerge with health and vitality. But how can this psalm of triumph be applied to all of these people equally?

The fact that our victory in this world is so partial forces us to look more deeply at Psalm 91. We must also remember that Satan distorted this very text by using verses 11–12 to tempt Jesus to destroy Himself by leaping from the temple (Matt. 4:5–7). One irony, as we shall see, is that this psalm is directed against demonic assault.

If Psalm 91 is unqualified in its application to all believers, then it seems contradicted by much of our experience. It is not unqualified, however. It is addressed only to those who dwell “in the secret place of the Most High” and confess God as their “refuge and fortress” (v. 1). It is these who will be protected in the midst of the battle. Neither “the terror by night” nor “the arrow that flies by day” will touch them (v. 5). God’s angels will be their guards (v. 11), and even wild beasts will be under their command (v. 13). Prayers will be answered by God’s presence and protection (v. 15), and the result will be salvation in all of its fullness (v. 16). The issue of this psalm becomes then, “How may we journey into these promises and see them fulfilled in our experience?”

There is no tradition of authorship associated with Psalm 91. Commentators describe its mixed form as a wisdom poem (vv. 1–13) followed by a word from God (vv. 14–16). It may be associated with the temple liturgy, where instruction in divine protection leads to God’s personal response in the form of an oracle. The thought moves from the confession of God’s protection (vv. 1–2) to confidence in deliverance (vv. 3–13) and concludes with God’s word of salvation (vv. 14–16).

Confession: God’s Protection

91:1 He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High

Shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

² I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress;

My God, in Him I will trust.”

—Psalm 91:1–2

Verse 1 answers the question, “To whom does this psalm apply?” The promise of victory, which is its theme, is for the person who “dwells in the secret place of the Most High” (see Gen. 14:19–20 for this name of God). It is for no one else. The verb to dwell means “to remain, stay, tarry, endure, have one’s abode.” It suggests continuance and permanence.

Jesus identifies His disciples as those who “abide” or “dwell” in Him through eating His flesh and drinking His blood (John 6:56). They also dwell in His Word (John 8:31). Above all else, they dwell in Him as branches dwell or abide in the vine (John 15:7–8). This abiding life, to live and remain in Jesus, is the New Testament counterpart to “dwelling in the secret place of the Most High.” But what is that “secret place?” It is a “covering,” a “hiding-place,” a “shelter.” It can refer to the temple (Ps. 27:5), but only because God’s presence is there (Ps. 31:20).

This secret place is the intimacy of God’s presence; it is our secure communion with Him. By dwelling or living in the surrender of un ceasing worship and prayer (see 1 Thess. 5:16–17), we are like Moses, who was put in the cleft of the rock and covered with God’s hand while His glory passed by (Ex. 33:22).

God’s presence in verse 1 leads to His protection. The person who dwells in the secret place “shall abide [“lodge”) under the shadow of the Almighty.” The metaphor is that of a mother hen who gathers her chicks under her feathers. David prays, “Hide me under the shadow of Your wings, from the wicked who oppress me” (Ps. 17:8–9).

In response to God’s promise in verse 1, the psalmist now gives his confession in verse 2. He will say to Yahweh, “He is my refuge and my fortress,” or, better, in direct address: “God, my refuge and my fortress.” The imagery here is military; God is his defensive position against all enemies. Moreover, He is personal, My God. The psalmist concludes, “in Him I will trust” (“feel secure, be unconcerned”).

The theme of this psalm is now clearly established; God will give complete security and victory to the person who dwells in Him and puts his trust in Him. Intimacy and faith will bear this fruit in our lives.

Confidence for Deliverance

³ Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler

And from the perilous pestilence.

⁴ He shall cover you with His feathers,

And under His wings you shall take refuge;

His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

⁵ You shall not be afraid of the terror by night,

Nor of the arrow that flies by day,

⁶ Nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness,

Nor of the destruction that lays waste at noonday.

⁷ A thousand may fall at your side,

And ten thousand at your right hand;

But it shall not come near you.

⁸ Only with your eyes shall you look,

And see the reward of the wicked.

⁹ Because you have made the Lord, who is my refuge,

Even the Most High, your dwelling place,

¹⁰ No evil shall befall you,

Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling;

¹¹ For He shall give His angels charge over you,

To keep you in all your ways.

¹² In their hands they shall bear you up,

Lest you dash your foot against a stone.

¹³ You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra,

The young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot.

—Psalm 91:3–13

In verses 3–13, we have an extended exposition of what God will do for the person dwelling in Him. While he will experience suffering and evil in this fallen world, he will also know divine protection and deliverance.

In verse 3 the psalmist asserts, “Surely He shall deliver [“snatch or tear away”) you from the snare [trap or net] of the fowler.” The person dwelling in God will never be a caged or eaten bird. Furthermore, God will deliver him “from the perilous pestilence.” (The noun pestilence means a lethal disease; Ex. 9:15; Num. 14:12.) As we have seen, God will cover the psalmist with His “feathers,” hiding him “under His wings” (see v. 1; Ps. 61:4). Here he will “take refuge.”

On the surface, the psalmist may be describing deliverance from human adversity. But in light of verses 5–6 (see comments below), it is probable that he has a darker enemy in mind. The fowler and the “perilous pestilence” become demonic agents of spiritual and physical assault. Paul warns new converts about falling “into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7). Behind much disease stands supernatural evil. So Jesus heals a bent woman whom Satan bound for eighteen years (Luke 13:16).

In the midst of verse 4 the metaphor shifts to military equipment. The person dwelling in God’s “secret place” will have “His truth” as a “shield” and “buckler.” This shield is large, protecting the whole body. The word rendered buckler appears only here in the Old Testament. It probably means a round shield. The two pieces of armor illustrate the full (and double) protection offered by God’s truth. In the New Testament truth is a weapon against the devil. Jesus ex poses Satan with His word as He declares Himself to be the light of the World (John 8:l2ff.), and Paul instructs us to wear the “whole armor of God,” which includes the truth of the gospel in several aspects, “that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11).

The results of this protection are sketched in verses 5–6. The per son dwelling in God’s secret place will not be afraid of “the terror [“dread”] by night” (v. 5). While this could refer to a surprise military attack, it probably indicates demonic assault. (A psychologist friend of mine experienced such an attack when she awakened from a nap after midnight in a room where several clients involved in the occult had been counseled. After rebuking the demons in Jesus’ name, she was able to go back to sleep.) Furthermore, the person dwelling in God’s secret place will not fear the “arrow that flies by day.” While this may have a human context, it may also be a metaphor for demonic assault coming like fiery darts (see Eph. 6:16).

In verse 6 the person hidden in God need not fear “the pestilence that walks in darkness.” Here, in contrast to verse 3, the pestilence is qualified. It stalks at night, having a demonic character. Finally, this person is free from “the destruction that lays waste at noonday,” which may well represent supernatural assaults in broad daylight. From all of this human and demonic activity, the person “dwelling in the secret place of the Most High” is protected.

The promise of God’s care is expressed physically in verses 7–8. While vast numbers of people are falling all around, a “thousand … at your side, / And ten thousand at your right hand, it [the plague, battle casualties, demonic conquest?] shall not come near you” (v. 7). The protected person walks through this holocaust of evil un touched. Moreover, he will also see the “wicked” (“hostile enemies,” “lawbreakers”) get their just reward (v. 8). In the New Testament Jesus and the early church saw God’s power overcoming the works of Satan; demons were cast out as the authority of God’s kingdom was manifest. When the seventy returned to Jesus from their mission, they reported, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He responded, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:17–18).

Why this victory over evil? The answer is given in verses 9–13. The foundation is laid in verse 9, which repeats the promise and confession of verses 1–2. The protected person prospers because the Lord is his “refuge” (see v. 2) and the “Most High” (see v. 1) his “habitation” (“lair,” “dwelling place”). There, living in God’s presence (v. 10), “No evil [‘distress’, calamity’] shall befall you.” More over, no “plague” (“scourge”) will “come near your dwelling” (“tent”). His family and possessions will be safe as well. By dwelling in the Lord, armed with His truth, we cannot be touched by Satan or his minions of evil. He cannot penetrate that secret place, near to God’s heart. He cannot gain an advantage over those of us who are now held in Jesus’ hand.

To be under God’s shadow (v. 1), covered with His feathers (v. 4), means also to have angelic aid. God sends His supernatural messengers to have “charge over you, / To keep [“guard,” “preserve”] you in all your ways” (v. 11). These angels are Elisha’s chariots of fire filling the mountains around us with protection against our enemies (see 2 Kin. 6:17). More than once, close personal friends of mine, whose mature Christian walk I respect, have reported to me that as I have gotten up to preach the platform is filled with angels.

This angelic care is complete. These guardians bear up the protected person “in their hands” so that he will not even “dash” his “foot against a stone” (v. 12). Moreover, he will experience victory over all evil: treading upon “the lion and the cobra,” and (in parallel) trampling “the young lion” and “the serpent” (v. 13).

In the disputed ending to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus promises His evangelists, “They will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them” (Mark 16:18). Paul also promises, “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16:20). As we indicated above, the fact that the devil took these verses in this psalm and used them to tempt Jesus is ironic since this same psalm promises complete protection from malignant, supernatural evil. At the same time, that Jesus refuted the temptation and walked through untouched proves that the promises of verses 3–4 for deliverance and protection are true (see Matt. 4:1–11).¹

91:1, 2 in the secret place: The person who trusts in God is the one who lives close to Him. The title Most High emphasizes God’s majesty (92:1) and is parallel to the term Almighty, a translation of the divine title Shaddai. Together the terms Most High and Shaddai speak of God as a mountain-like majesty, in whose presence there is a “secret place” or a shadow. My refuge and my fortress may be rephrased as “my secure fortress.”²

Healed by God’s Touch

Although anonymous, there are good reasons for attributing this psalm also to Moses. The Rabbis did so, although on the doubtful principle that no other author is stipulated until 101, which means that 92–100 are also from Moses! The Septuagint and Vulgate ascribe it to David on the occasion of his numbering the people (2 Sam. 24). However, the atmosphere of the psalm is that of a nomadic life rather than the more settled times of David’s kingdom.

The most likely occasion is the ending of the plague of venomous snakes, which occasioned Psalm 90. The spirit of murmuring had been put away and God was again leading them on their journey (Num. 21:10–15). Eventually they arrived at the well ‘Beer’ (Num. 21:16–18) where Moses composed an ode. There is good evidence for believing he wrote this psalm at that time:

• The spirit of murmuring had given way to the spirit of faith (vv. 1–2); Moses had prayed they would look to God as their refuge and … fortress and now they were doing so.

• The memory of the pestilence was still vivid (vv. 3, 6) and possibly they feared its recurrence.

• They were exposed to the dangers of that area: fierce desert tribes like Amalek, Moab and Midian, who might raid by night or fire arrows from behind rocks by day (v.5).

• They had seen thousands of their friends fall prey to the plague (v. 7).

• Other rigours of the nomadic life were continuing: snares and traps (v. 3), disease (v. 6), disaster (v. 10), boulders and rough ground (v. 12) and wild beasts (v. 13).

As well as these incidentals there is the lesson Moses is trying to instill into them from their recent experience: to repent of their discontent and replace it with a spirit of confidence in God as the one who protects his people from all dangers—the note he strikes at the very outset (vv. 1–2).

Verses 1–2: Words of encouragement

These verses take up the words of 90:1, which he there had addressed to God, and turns them into an encouragement to the people, now that the judgment has passed. Rather than inflict trouble on us, God wants to protect us from it (v. 1). But we must trust him ourselves (v. 2): I will say … he is my refuge … my fortress … my God. While we are complaining about the way he treats us we cannot feel relaxed with him—at peace and in safety. We move out of his shadow and are exposed to dangers. If we swallow our pride and rebelliousness and trust him, we will enjoy this relationship.

Verses 3–13: Promises of protection

These verses spell out the particular dangers which God’s promise of protection covers. They read like an insurance policy! It covers snares (v. 3a), pestilence (v. 3b), violent attacks from enemies (vv. 5–8), safety both for your person and your home (vv. 9–10) and angelic protection from the rigours of the journey and from wild beasts (vv. 11–13). We Christians with our relatively settled life in peaceful communities may not find some of these particularly relevant, but our Christian pathway through the world is beset with difficulties: from the people of the world, from false teachers, from the devil and from our own sinful natures. God’s protection covers these equally and verse 4 certainly applies directly to us.

Verses 14–16: Means of enjoying these promises

These verses summarize all this by returning to generalities, in which he balances God’s promises along with our use of the means of enjoying them.

His promises are:

1. To rescue us from danger (v. 14) by ‘setting us on high’ (as the kjv correctly translates the word rendered protect in the niv)—that is, by putting us above and beyond the reach of trouble.

2. To answer our cries for help (v. 15), which might not mean instant deliverance, but a period in which he will share our trouble with us until the time for deliverance and restoration comes.

3. To give us a fulfilled life (satisfy, v. 16), which under the old covenant meant length of days (Prov. 3:1, 2, 16) and under the new covenant the ‘full life’ Jesus promised (John 10:10)—life in him and the Spirit.

4. To give us continual proofs of his power and willingness to save (v. 1).

Our means are:

1. Loving him (v. 14), that is, deliberately choosing and cleaving to him.

2. Acknowledging his name (v. 14), that is, his attributes and person, so that, when we do not understand what is happening, we still believe it is consistent with God’s character.

3. Calling on him in prayer (v. 15), which is the outward expression of our inward feeling of trust in him. Prayer brings specific situations to him and expects him to fulfill his promises (cf. John 14:12–14).³

1 Williams, D., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1989). Psalms 73–150 (Vol. 14, pp. 156–161). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

2 Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Ps 91:1–2). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

3 Lane, E. (2006). Psalms 90-150: the lord reigns (pp. 13–15). Scotland: Christian Focus Publications.

truth on the gay issue

With this issue we bid farewell to Steven Singleton, who, as RTSF Secretary, has been industrious ex officio for a number of years as Consultant Editor to Themelios. We are most grateful for his dedication and work. We warmly welcome Tony Gray as his successor in this position.









The Bible and Homosexuality

J. Glen Taylor

J. Glen Taylor is an Associate Professor of OT at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.


Preamble

The role of the Bible in addressing the modern question of the place of the homosexual in the church is complex. The nature of a biblical perspective will invariably be affected by the questions posed of the Bible, by the particular hermeneutic employed, and by the unavoidable perspective which every student (or scholar) brings to his or her reading of the Bible. In writing this essay, I hope to ask some of the right questions and to be fair to the views of others concerning this important issue which is pressing hard on the church and on the consciences of Christian people in various parts of the world.


Clarifications

First, the term ‘homosexuality’ (and also the term ‘homosexual’) will be avoided in the biblical portion of this essay in preference for a more awkward cluster of words like ‘homosexual relations’. This odd change in terminology is necessary because, as P.D.M. Turner notes, the term ‘homosexuality’ does not match well with the way in which the Bible itself addresses the issue. Turner’s point is that ‘homosexuality’ can refer to a condition or inclination apart from the acting-out of sexual relations, whereas the Bible does not recognize this distinction but normally speaks rather in terms of actual same-sex sexual relations.2
Second, in view of the danger to which the church has often succumbed, that of showing insensitivity towards chaste persons of homosexual orientation, it is important to clarify that the issue for the Christian is not whether persons with homosexual orientation should be welcomed into the fellowship of the church—let us never forget that Christ died for all—but whether sexual relations between homosexuals are ever appropriate and, if so, on what terms. Because conduct and not orientation is the real issue, the purpose of this essay is to ask whether the Bible considers homosexual relations to be sinful. If the answer suggested by biblical reflection is ‘yes’, even when the case of covenanted Christians of homosexual orientation is considered, then the homosexual person accepted by God in Christ could no more engage in this activity than any other faithful Christian could in other forms of sin. The perspective of the Bible—indisputably authoritative in matters of Christian faith and practice—is thus crucial; it plays a primary role in determining the context and terms within which Christ is calling the church to minister faithfully to persons of homosexual orientation.
Because the Bible nowhere directly answers the question concerning the modern phenomenon of a person with homosexual orientation seeking to be involved in a covenanted relationship, we must first ask what the Bible says in response to questions raised about homosexual relations in ancient times, and then we must ask how what the Bible says may be applied to the modern situation. We begin, however, with a brief consideration of the background against which these questions must be raised, the general tenor of Scripture as a whole.


The general tenor of Scripture

The issue of homosexual relations and the Bible cannot simply be addressed with reference to the half-dozen or so passages that have at least traditionally been understood as condemning homosexual intercourse; otherwise, we might be guilty of ‘proof texting’. Rather, we must ask: In which direction on the whole do the biblical winds blow with respect to appropriate sexual expression between persons? By virtually any notion of the ‘literal sense’ of the Bible, these winds blow in the direction of heterosexual marriage, with affirmation being given to celibacy alone as an alternative. This is so from Genesis to Song of Songs to Revelation, through well over a millennium of Scripture writing and in both the OT and the NT. The rapidly evolving dominance of heterosexual relations within the context of a monogamous nuclear family is unmistakable; quite simply, heterosexual relations (or, in their place, celibacy) are the only options which appear to receive approval in the Bible. Thus, unlike the ministry of women or the notion of freedom from slavery, no biblical winds blow in the direction of same-sex relations that similarly invite re-evaluation of passages traditionally considered a problem for such a view. (It is nonetheless important to re-examine the traditional passages to see if they are indeed condemnatory of homosexual relations as has traditionally been thought, a point to which we shall return.)
The account of creation is a prime example of the predominant biblical affirmation of heterosexual marriage. In Genesis 1:27–28, humanity in the form of both male and female is created in the ‘image of God’. In Genesis 2 the Lord creates woman, God’s specially selected emotional and physical counterpart to the man, and the two—the ’is̆ and the ’is̆s̆â—become ‘one flesh’. Within the canonical context of the preceding chapter, this ‘wedding’ is not just a union, but a reunion of humanity created in the image of God. Just as Genesis 1 ends with a declaration that the order of creation involving the creation of man and woman is ‘very good’, Genesis 2 ends with the climactic statement that the woman is the reason why a man leaves his own father and mother, to become ‘one flesh’ with his wife (Gn. 2:24). If the powerful affirmation of heterosexual relations as the carefully planned order of creation in these two introductory chapters of the Bible is not striking to the modern Christian reader, it certainly was to the writer(s) of the Holiness Code and to St Paul (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27); indeed, the doctrine of creation articulated in these early chapters of Genesis seems to be at the heart of the Bible’s uniformly negative attitude towards same-sex sexual relations.
Some scholars have suggested that a few passages in Scripture constitute an important exception to the idea that heterosexual relations alone are appropriate in the Bible. For example, Tom Horner maintains that David and Jonathan and Naomi and Ruth respectively had possible homosexual relations, and he even goes so far as to suggest that Jesus and Paul had homosexual traits. Leaving aside the Christological issue that the suggested case of Christ would present, V.P. Furnish is almost certainly correct that ‘our sources simply do not provide the data to support such ideas’.6 Similarly, the relative infrequency with which the Bible mentions homosexual relationships, and the possible silence of Jesus on the issue, do not suggest that these relationships were relatively unimportant to biblical writers or to Jesus, as is sometimes maintained.8 Rather, the phenomenon of relative silence probably reflects the fact that homosexual relations were not a major issue in the early church, most likely because it shared the perspective of Hellenistic Judaism that sexual relations of this kind were sinful. In sum, one searches the Bible in vain for the suggestion that homosexual relations were a viable option for the faithful.
With this general perspective in mind, we now turn to consider the passages which specifically make reference or allusion to homosexual sex. Our approach will be to survey a range of exegetical options (both traditional and revisionist), and to assess the feasibility of the various options offered.


Passages traditionally considered to condemn homosexual relationships

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 19, Judges 19
These well-known stories recount incidents in which the male citizenry of a town (Sodom and Gibeah respectively) proposes to have intercourse with a male visitor (or, in Gn. 19, visitors).
D.S. Bailey’s attempt to interpret the verb ‘know’ in Genesis 19:5 as meaning something other than sexual knowledge is untenable in light of verse 7, in which Lot’s daughters are offered as an alternative to the men. Homosexual relations are clearly in view here and they are almost certainly construed negatively. The type of homosexual union negatively construed, however, is far from what is typical today (it is homosexual gang rape, which is no less abhorrent to most modern-day homosexuals than to heterosexuals), and the broader context which concerns a breach of Eastern hospitality is at least partly involved in the negative construal.
A few considerations from the broader context are also relevant. Because Genesis 19 has parallels with Genesis 6:1–4, which concerns ‘unnatural’ relations between angels and humans, it is probably important for the story that the sexual sins of Sodom also be understood as unnatural; they are, in fact, doubly so, since the sexual relations proposed are with visitors who are both men and angels. Moreover, as Gordon Wenham notes, just as the story of unnatural relations between angels and humans in Genesis 6 is followed by a judgment involving destruction (the flood), so too the unnatural relations proposed in Genesis 19 are followed by a parallel judgment involving destruction (the downpouring of fire and brimstone). In sum, although set within a particularly abhorrent context, the homosexual nature of the relations proposed forms part of the basis upon which the judgment is made that the people of Sodom were ‘wicked, great sinners before the Lord’ (Gn. 13:13), and thus deserving of destruction.
As an important corrective to those who might judge the sin of Sodom to be homosexual relations alone, Bailey and others rightly point out that the Bible on the whole interprets the sin of Sodom very broadly to include things other than homosexual intercourse, such as pride and insensitivity to the poor (Ezk. 16:49–50; cf. Is. 3:9). This does not mean, however, that the sexual dimension (i.e. involving unnatural relations) is ignored in the biblical witness; important here is Jude 7, which refers to Sodom’s indulgence in ‘unnatural lusts’, and 2 Peter 2:6 which mentions Lot’s oppression by the ‘sensual conduct of unprincipled men’. Of course, only at a later period does Sodom become a byword specifically for homosexual (or bestial) relations.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
As Wenham notes, because Leviticus 18:22 uses the very general term zǎkǎr, ‘male’, the passage clearly prohibits every kind of male—male intercourse (were the word na’ar, ‘youth’, used instead, presumably only pederasty would be condemned). These homosexual relations are further described by the very strong word tô’ebâ, ‘abomination’. In Leviticus 20:13 the penalty for offenders is death, putting the offence on a par with adultery (20:10) or the worst cases of incest (20:11, 12). Moreover, three factors make it clear that the sexual relationship here condemned involved mutual consent between two males: (1) both parties are punished; (2) the verb used is simply ‘lie’ (as opposed to, say, ‘seize and lie’ which would imply rape); and (3) the further comment is made, ‘their blood be upon their own heads’, which suggests an awareness of the action and its consequences.17 Thus, unlike Egypt where only pederasty was condemned or Mesopotamia where apparently only forcible homosexual relations were forbidden, OT law appears to forbid all forms of homosexual relations. Wenham’s explanation is probably correct that ‘it therefore seems most likely that Israel’s repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation’.19
Some scholars cast these passages from Leviticus in a very different light, however. For example, it is sometimes maintained that the context for the homosexuality referred to in Leviticus is cultic prostitution within a pagan Canaanite shrine and that the biblical writer is thus concerned more with idolatry than with homosexuality. In support of this view it is sometimes claimed that the term to’ebâ, ‘abomination’, is a highly specific word that points toward a religious concern for cultic purity in relation to the other nations and their gods. What is in view, so the argument goes, is cultic prostitution in which the participants attempt to procure fertility and fecundity by sympathetic magic through ritual sex acts, as is thought to have taken place in Canaanite culture. In short, the problem is not homosexual relations but their pagan, often idolatrous context(s).22 Which of these perspectives is correct?
The weight of evidence at present seems clearly to favour the former construal. Recent OT scholarship questions seriously the extent to which the traditional model for understanding cultic prostitution was in evidence at all either in Canaan or in Israel. Moreover, it is clear from the use of the term ‘abomination’ elsewhere in the Bible and in other literature that an abomination could refer generally to various things abhorrent to God and that it could even refer to practices of the Gentiles, in which case the word cannot be limited to a specific concern within Hebrew religion for purity in relation to other nations.24 Thus, given the uncertainties concerning this narrower understanding of the context and the clear generality of the condemnation of men lying with men, the view of Wenham that all forms of homosexual relations are condemned seems preferable.
A problem still possibly remains with these passages, namely their applicability to a setting in the NT and beyond to our own day. For example, on what grounds should the law concerning homosexuality be upheld and the law concerning intercourse with a woman during menstruation, mentioned in the same context, be dismissed? Though alien to the OT itself and difficult to sustain, the theological distinction between moral laws which are binding and ceremonial, ritual, and civil laws which are not, has long been upheld in Christian tradition (note for example Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion). The problem in the present case is nonetheless mitigated significantly by the fact that the OT attitude to homosexuality is picked up and carried into the NT, which clearly has binding authority for Christians.27 Certainly, early Christian writers considered the levitical laws concerning homosexual intercourse to be relevant to the issue of sexual behaviour in their own day, a point denied by Boswell but convincingly reaffirmed by Wright.

Summary
To summarize, the attitude towards male homosexual relations in the OT is uniformly negative. Contrary to some current thinking, the relevant passages in Leviticus do not appear to condemn homosexual relations for their associations with prostitution within the context of an idolatrous heathen cult. Thus, unlike other societies in the Ancient Near East, this negative construal within Hebrew society seems to apply to all forms of homosexual intercourse. Homosexual sex between men was termed an ‘abomination’ (something abhorrent to God), for which the prescribed legal penalty was so severe as to function as a strong deterrent. The explanation for this apparently blanket condemnation of homosexual unions is almost certainly to be found in the Hebrew understanding of creation, according to which the divinely ordained context for human sexuality takes place between a man and his wife. Together, the male and the female reflect the image of God, and their union, alone deemed natural in the created order, ensures procreation and the formation of a nuclear family.


THE NEW TESTAMENT

Romans 1:26–27
Romans 1:26–27 is clearly the most important passage on homosexual intercourse in the NT. The broad context is summarized succinctly by Robin Scroggs: ‘Since the entire world, both Jew and Gentile, is guilty of sin, grace (salvation) is entirely God’s gift and extends equally to Jew and Gentile.’
The more immediate context is Paul’s story of how the world came to be guilty of sin; it is Paul’s ‘story of the universal fall’. Paul argues that humanity committed the primal sin of rebellion against God by failing to acknowledge God as creator and instead turned to idolatry, the worship of created things. As a consequence or punishment for the sin of abandoning the worship of God in favour of the worship of things in nature, ‘God handed them [humanity] over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves …’ (Rom. 1:24–25).
How do the depravities in verses 24–31, including specific mention of homosexual relations in verses 26–27, contribute to Paul’s argument? According to the exhaustive treatment of Hays, the depravities function in two ways: (a) ‘First of all, when the text is read with literal precision, these various forms of “base mind” and “improper conduct” are seen to be manifestations (not provocations) of the wrath of God, punishments inflicted upon rebellious humanity … rather like the plagues visited upon the Egyptians in Exodus’; and (b) ‘At the same time, the heaping-up of depravities also serves to warrant Paul’s evaluation of humanity as deeply implicated in “ungodliness and wickedness” (1:18b)’. The depravities point to the conclusion that ‘the refusal to acknowledge God as creator ends in blind distortion of the creation’.33
It is probably safe to say that no NT scholar denies that the passage presents homosexual relations as an obvious sinful distortion of God’s original intention for creation. Moreover, a majority of these scholars maintain that the reference to homosexual relations in Romans 1:26–27 is not to homosexual cultic prostitution, but rather to homosexual (including lesbian) sex in general; as even Boswell admits at one point, ‘it is clear that the sexual behavior itself is objectionable to Paul, not merely its [cultic] associations’. However, as Hays has conclusively demonstrated in his lengthy rebuttal of the late Yale historian, Boswell is far from correct in going on to conclude, (a) that Paul’s words are not applicable to persons of homosexual orientation (Boswell, McNeill, and others maintain that Paul refers to heterosexual people unnaturally ‘exchanging’ heterosexual36 for homosexual unions), and (b) that ‘contrary to nature’ means not immoral but merely ‘unexpected, unusual, or different from what would occur in the normal order of things’. Contrary to Boswell, the ‘exchange’, for Paul, is between the natural course of things such as worshipping God instead of idols, and heterosexual union instead of homosexual union, and para physin means not simply ‘unusual’, but ‘contrary to nature’. Hays puts Paul’s concept bluntly: ‘those who indulge in sexual practices para physin are defying the creator and demonstrating their own alienation from him’.
Nevertheless, in much contemporary reflection upon Romans 1, scholars differ about the abiding hermeneutical significance of Paul’s argument that homosexual acts are ‘contrary to nature’. For example, because Paul’s argument is not original, but is in fact closely paralleled in the Graeco-Roman philosophers and in literary texts, Furnish seems to imply that Paul’s assumption that homosexual relations are ‘contrary to nature’ is not of abiding significance but reflects simply the common (Stoic) wisdom of the day which is subject to reinterpretation in our own day. However, although Furnish is right that Paul’s teaching here has clear parallels, Furnish does not emphasize sufficiently well an important aspect of the discussion, namely that Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus—and, significantly, Paul—recognized a parallel between the secular Hellenistic notion that what was ‘unnatural’ was wrong and the OT teaching of the Law of Moses in which all forms of intercourse between males were ‘unnatural’ because they were contrary to the order of the world as designed by God the creator (see the discussion of Lev. 20:13; 18:22 above). Significantly then, only when the reference to God as creator and the clear allusions to the creation story in Genesis 1–3 are ignored or significantly downplayed (as in the works of William Countryman, Scroggs and Furnish for example) can Paul’s clear teaching that homosexual union is ‘unnatural’ plausibly be regarded as culturally conditioned and thus of very limited (or no) relevance for the modern issue of homosexual relations and the church.
A few additional points about Romans 1 ought to be made in order to avoid misunderstanding Paul. None of what Paul states in this passage offers support of any kind for singling out homosexual intercourse as if this alone constituted a perversion of God’s natural order. Nor is Paul’s primary intention here to offer Christians instruction on ethical matters (although his teaching has ethical implications). Moreover, Paul’s discussion of homosexual intercourse, though poignant and important, plays a fairly modest role as illustrating one of the vices that is both the consequence and evidence of humanity’s rebellion against God. In light of Romans 2:1, from which it is clear that all of humankind stands without excuse before God, it would be inappropriately self-righteous for anyone to condemn homosexual relations as if these relations were not evidence of a sinful rebellion in which all persons participate. To miss this would be to miss Paul’s point entirely.

1 Corinthians 6:9
In this passage, Paul considers taking another person to court to be appropriate only for ‘the unrighteous’ (i.e. unbelievers), which the Corinthian Christians once were but no longer are. To highlight the inconsistency of their present behaviour and to remind them that unbelievers have no share in God’s kingdom, Paul recalls the unbelieving past of the Corinthians, rooted in the paganism of being, among other things, malakoi and arsenokoitai. Wrongly translated together in the RSV as ‘homosexuals’, how should these words be translated? The word malakos means literally ‘soft’ but is used here substantivally in the sense of ‘a male performing the female role in homosexual relations’.
There is more confusion concerning the meaning of arsenokoitēs than in the case of malakos. Scroggs states that the first word-element, arsen, means ‘men’, and the second, koitai, means ‘bed’, so ‘marriage-bed’, then sexual intercourse in general. He suggests that the second component likely has a verbal force and that the first is an objective noun.44 He translates arsenokoitēs as ‘lying (with) a male’, or ‘one who lies with a male’, translations which Turner similarly advocates. According to Boswell, however, the first word-element is subjective (i.e. ‘male’ describes the gender of the one engaged in the sexual activity and not the object of it), and the second word-element is a coarse term for ‘a person who, by insertion, takes the “active” role in intercourse’. In other words, according to Boswell, in using the term arsenokoitēs, Paul is not referring to a ‘ “homosexual” or even a “sodomite” ’ but to ‘male sexual agents, i.e., active male prostitutes’.
Boswell’s view that arsenokoitēs refers to a male prostitute has been convincingly refuted by Wright who demonstrates that the term means ‘a man who lies (with a man)’. In fact, according to Wright and others (Turner, for example, and to a certain extent Scroggs as well), the real inspiration for arsenokoitai appears to come directly from the LXX version of the laws concerning homosexual expression in Leviticus 18 and 20 in which the words arsēn and koitē both occur. Turner draws the following conclusions:

  Probably, then, the compound, whether chosen or coined in I Cor., is intended to evoke the Holiness Code with its emphasis on male penetration of the male. Actually as a Biblical Hellenist and Hebraist I should put it more strongly; in the absence of earlier attestation, a deliberate, conscious back-reference by the Apostle is as certain as philology can make it. (He may or may not have known that he was dropping into ‘translationese’.) Fascinatingly, by avoiding the available paiderastēs, he [Paul] sees to it that ‘loving, consensual, adult relations’ are fully covered.

Significantly, then, arsenokoitai appears to be a Pauline invention, a direct allusion in the NT to the ‘all-inclusive’ condemnation of homosexual relations found in the laws of Leviticus.
As with the passages concerning homosexual relations in Leviticus, it has been argued that Paul’s condemnation of homosexual relations both here and in 1 Timothy 1:10 refers only to pagan ritual practice. In response to this, it must be noted that there is nothing in the context that requires (or even strongly suggests) so specific an application. Certainly the background in the Greek text of Leviticus for arsenokoitai offers no support for this. Moreover, based on his judgment that pornoi must mean ‘at least male prostitutes’ in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, Turner states:

  The clinching refutation of the argument that Paul’s condemnation of both kinds of male homosexual act[s] refers only to heathen ritual practice is that, in both N.T. passages, precisely the ‘prostitute-inclusive’ word52 is listed separately, as we have seen. As for the idea that the Fathers condemned only the identical heathen cult-prostitution, as there were no other people who performed such acts, there is no evidence for it. Even if there was evidence, the Greek Fathers would still have called the activity itself sinful.

The broader context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 offers two important additional points of relevance to the issue of homosexual relations. First, through Christ’s justification and washing, the lifestyles of unbelief cited earlier in the passage must no longer characterize the Christian (v. 11). Second, Paul goes on to argue that a Christian’s body, now part of Christ’s own body and a temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit, should not be united with a prostitute, since intercourse involves becoming ‘one flesh’ with the other person. My point is that there is an operating principle here that is relevant to homosexual relations as well as to inappropriate heterosexual relations: since part of the body of Christ himself is united with another in a Christian’s sexual union, that union must be holy, which homosexual intercourse evidently is not.
To summarize the discussion of 1 Corinthians 6:9: malakos, ‘catamite’, refers to the man who plays the passive (female) role in homosexual intercourse, and arsenokoitēs, ‘sodomite’, which invokes the language of the laws against homosexual relations in the LXX of Leviticus, refers to a man who lies with another man. By referring to the passive role as well as to the more general arsenokoitēs, by referring earlier to pornoi which likely already covered the case of male prostitution, and by not using more confining terms such as the term for pederasty (paiderastēs), Paul seems to be offering a comprehensive (i.e. non-context-specific) condemnation of homosexual intercourse. Moreover there is nothing to suggest that Paul’s condemnation of homosexual relations is based on cultic or ritual connections with these relations. The broader context helps to make it clear that relations of this kind are incompatible with membership in the body of Christ.

1 Timothy 1:10
In 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitēs appears again, this time in a list that describes the kind of people for whom the law is useful in offering correction. The logic is that the law addresses issues of relevance primarily for the sinner, an example being the murderer who is thus told, ‘thou shalt not commit murder’, etc.
Scroggs suggests that groups of words in this list of vices belong together and that the words pornos, arsenokoitēs and andrapodistēs seem to be a grouping. When seen in relation to each other, the best translation, according to Scroggs, is ‘male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them]’. On this view, then, we have the same situation here as in 1 Corinthians 6:9 where another word or series of words affects the meaning of the more general term arsenokoitēs such that it becomes linked specifically with homosexual prostitution.
To evaluate: at least some of the words that describe similar sorts of sins are indeed grouped together in this list, but on what basis? Scroggs argues that the law of verse 8 is possibly civil and that the words in verses 9–10 are grouped together according to the categories of crimes against civil government (‘lawless’, ‘rebellious’); then against religious law (‘impious’, ‘sinner’, ‘unholy’, ‘profane’); then against various forms of murder (‘patricide’, ‘matricide’, ‘murder’), etc. But commentators more often argue that the law in verse 8 is the law of Moses, and that at least the words in the latter part of the list—including those relevant to our discussion—are grouped in relation to the Ten Commandments. On this understanding, the list beginning with ‘patricide’ and ‘matricide’ refers to extreme violations against the fifth commandment (to honour one’s parents); ‘murder’ applies to the sixth commandment; ‘fornicators’56 and ‘sodomites’ refers to the seventh commandment concerning adultery; ‘kidnappers’ refers to the eighth commandment concerning stealing, and ‘liars’ and ‘perjurers’ refers to the ninth commandment concerning bearing false witness.
What are the implications of this for the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy 1:10? Given the meaning of the word as applicable to homosexual relations in general (and not male prostitution in particular, as argued earlier), its occurrence together with the general term pornoi (which quite possibly already covers the case of male prostitution), and its function together with pornoi as illustrative of breaches of the seventh commandment, arsenokoitai appears again not to be linked in its context to homosexual prostitution or pederasty, but to homosexual relations in general. For these and other reasons, the view of Scroggs that the writer likely refers to something like a group of co-conspirators in a same-sex ring is clearly less likely than the view that the words reflect their more natural meanings of ‘fornicators’, ‘men who lie with men’, and ‘slave dealers’ respectively.


The applicability of the biblical witness

Up to this point, we have been concerned with what the Bible states concerning homosexual relations. It remains to be asked: how does what the Bible says apply in our own day? As noted earlier, the question is particularly important since the Bible nowhere deals directly with the issue of a Christian of homosexual orientation seeking to be united sexually in a covenant relationship with a partner of the same sex.
Evidence adduced in this paper suggests that one must differ with those who argue that there is little or no impediment in the way of condoning covenanted homosexual Christian unions on the ground that the Bible condemns only exploitative or idolatrous forms of homosexual relations such as pederasty or male cultic prostitution. There is no clear evidence for this view. Homosexual intercourse itself is condemned in the OT primarily on the basis of the doctrine of creation and this view is upheld in the NT within the theologically substantive discussion of what is ‘contrary to nature’ in Romans 1. Most likely, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 similarly refer to homosexual relations in general (i.e. they do not allude only to a specific type of homosexual relationship such as homosexual prostitution or pederasty).
How does this apply to the modern situation involving homosexual relations between committed partners? Since the condemnation of homosexual relations in the Bible can nowhere necessarily be identified with or limited to the particularly heinous moral or ritual contexts in which these relations allegedly occurred, the fact that the modern-day context is different (i.e. non-exploitative, non-ritualistic, etc.) is not directly relevant, since the Bible seems to condemn the act of homosexual intercourse itself as inherently sinful.
The issue of homosexual relations within the modern church may be addressed further in relation to the church’s traditional forms of authority: Scripture, tradition, reason and (according to some) experience. Concerning Scripture, an avenue of recourse yet unexplored in this paper is the invocation of general principles (such as ‘all our actions should be guided by love’), or analogy (such as ‘just as the early church accepted Gentiles, so we should accept [sexually active] homosexuals’).61 Those who argue along these lines are often at odds with those who invoke specific biblical laws (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) or who appeal to Paul’s authoritative and unambiguous depiction of the human condition in Romans 1. In this regard, Hays’ response is apt: ‘Whatever one may decide about the weight of the appeal to the love-principle … the fact remains that no biblical text directly contradicts the authority of Paul’s teaching on this matter.’ It could of course be added that other passages seem in fact to support it, and that providing a sanctioned context in which an inherently sinful act may be given free rein cannot ultimately be considered an act of love.
Concerning tradition, there can be no question that the ethical instruction of the Christian church throughout its history has been consistently opposed to homosexual intercourse.
Concerning reason, as Hays observes, statistical and scientific data describe what is, but cannot alone make moral judgments about what ought to be. Thus for example, were studies to show that sexual preference is not a matter of choice, as Paul probably thought, but a matter of orientation, Paul could theoretically reply to the effect that this simply supports his understanding that all of humanity is under the ‘power of sin’. (To Paul, ‘sin’ is so fundamental to the human condition that it leads one to involuntary acts of disobedience for which one still remains culpable.64) Hays elaborates as follows: ‘The gulf is wide between Paul’s viewpoint and the modern habit of assigning culpability only for actions assumed to be under free control of the agent.… Scientific investigations cannot provide a refutation of Paul’s statements; nevertheless it is clear that “reason”, in contrast to Scripture and tradition, does provide arguments that may be counterposed to the authority of Paul’s judgment.’
Finally, concerning experience, certainly this is the most subjective (and debated) category from which to draw authoritative conclusions. Whose experience counts above that of another and how may this experience be assessed? When individuals claim to be in a supportive homosexual relationship in which the grace of God is experienced, how is this to be measured in the light of Scripture? Was Paul wrong? Has the creator suddenly ordained a new order by which such experiences are now right and valid? Could not the opinion of a person who claims to be in a fulfilling homosexual union not simply be a manifestation of humanity’s self-deception and confusion as Paul describes it in Romans 1? How could one determine whether or not this is so without reference to a norm such as Scripture? Even if one’s ‘story’ could be assessed in such a way that it functioned authoritatively for the church, would this story stand alongside or eclipse the old scriptural norm? And if Scripture can be eclipsed, on what basis will the church evaluate other people’s experiences in the future?
The weight of the fourfold bases for authority in relation to the issue of homosexual relations has been summarized cogently by Hays:

  Arguments in favor of acceptance of homosexual relations find their strongest warrants in empirical investigations and in contemporary experience. Those who defend the morality of homosexual relationships within the church may do so only by conferring upon these warrants an authority greater than the direct authority of Scripture and tradition, at least with respect to this question.


Williams, S. (1995). Editorial: Why Our Evangelism Must Be Trinitarian. Themelios: Volume 21, No. 1, October 1995, 3–8.

repent Jesus begins his ministry

REPENTANCE — a turning away from sin, disobedience, or rebellion and a turning back to God (Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32). In a more general sense, repentance means a change of mind (Gen. 6:6–7) or a feeling of remorse or regret for past conduct (Matt. 27:3). True repentance is a “godly sorrow” for sin, an act of turning around and going in the opposite direction. This type of repentance leads to a fundamental change in a person’s relationship to God.
In the Old Testament the classic case of repentance is that of King David, after Nathan the prophet accused him of killing Uriah the Hittite and committing adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. David’s prayer of repentance for this sin is found in Psalm 51.
In the New Testament the keynote of John the Baptist’s preaching was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). To the multitudes he declared, “Bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). When Jesus began His ministry, He took up John’s preaching of the message of repentance, expanding the message to include the good news of salvation: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel” (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15).
In Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God is seen the truth that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin: by repentance, one turns away from sin; by faith, one turns toward God in accepting the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a twofold turning, or conversion, is necessary for entrance into the kingdom (Matt. 18:3). “Unless you repent,” said Jesus, “you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). This is the negative, or judgmental, side of Jesus’ message. The positive, or merciful, side is seen in these words: “There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).
After Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, His disciples continued His message of repentance and faith (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 20:21; 26:20). Repentance is a turning from wickedness and dead works (Acts 8:22; Heb. 6:1) toward God and His glory (Acts 20:21; Rev. 16:9), eternal life (Acts 11:18), and a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).
Repentance is associated with prayer (1 Kin. 8:47), belief (Mark 1:15), baptism (Acts 2:38), and conversion (Acts 3:19) and is accompanied by humility (Matt. 11:21). Repentance is God’s will and pleasure (Luke 15:7–10; 2 Pet. 3:9), as well as His command (Mark 6:12; Acts 17:30). It is a gift of His sovereign love (Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25), without which we cannot be saved (Luke 13:3).


Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., & Harrison, R. K., Thomas Nelson Publishers (Eds.). (1995). In Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

jesus and devil 3

8

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS, PART 2

Matthew 4:1–11

¹

Matthew 4:1–11

And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread” (vv. 2–3). The One being tempted here is the God-Man, who possesses a perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature. He is, as the Council of Chalcedon declared, vera homo, vera Deus, truly man and truly God. The text tells us that after the forty-day fast Jesus suffered from hunger, which manifests the humanity of our Lord. He experienced severe pangs of hunger, as anyone would who went without food for forty days and forty nights.

During this time of vulnerability Satan came to tempt Jesus, not to commit some blatant evil but simply to satisfy a natural inclination and desire for food. Satan comes saying, “If You are the Son of God …” Satan is seeking to plant the suggestion that if Jesus were really the Son of God, He shouldn’t have to endure such hunger but should use His divine authority to get food from the stones.

Every Word

Jesus responds to Satan, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ ” (v. 4). Jesus was not referencing something contained in a book from the library of Alexandria or in the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks or Romans. “It is written” was shorthand that every Jew understood. Jesus was referencing sacred Scripture. Jesus responds to the temptation by citing the Bible.

Jesus does not despise our human need for food. In the Lord’s Prayer He instructs us to pray for our daily bread. We need the nutrients that food provides to sustain human life. His point here is that life requires more than physical nutrients. We cannot live by bread alone; we need bread and something else. Notice that Jesus did not say that man needs bread and also the word of God. He said “every word.” We do not live that way, which distances us immediately from Jesus. We think that the Bible is like a smorgasbord so that we can choose a bit of Matthew and Luke and some of Romans but leave behind Leviticus.

Centuries before, God had led His people to the Promised Land and told them to drive out the Canaanites from that land so that His people would not become defiled by mixing with those of pagan religions. But they did not, and the Old Testament spells out the consequences of what happens to God’s people when they fail to listen to every word that proceeds from His mouth. That’s why, when the Scriptures sound difficult to our ears, we simply need to increase our attention and understand that it is the Word of God. The Word of God in Judges is no more or no less true than the Word of God in the book of Romans. Jesus’ meat and drink was to do the will of the Father. He had a zeal that consumed Him. He understood that God had never uttered a desultory word. There is no such thing as an insignificant statement from the lips of God, and Jesus understood that. John Calvin called the Bible the vox Dei, the voice of God, and said that we should receive this word as if hearing it audibly from the lips of God Himself.

When Satan came to destroy Jesus, the defense of the Savior was the Word of God. At that point of the temptation, Satan realized that he had lost. Jesus may have had the authority to turn the stones into bread, but He was committed to fast for the sake of His Father’s will. The word that came from His Father was more important to Him than His bread.

Jesus’ Use of Scripture

Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw yourself down” (vv. 5–6). Since Jesus had cited the Word of God, Satan decided to do likewise, saying, “For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone’ ” (v. 6). In other words, “Isn’t that the word of God, Jesus? Isn’t that what the Bible says? Well, let’s see if the Bible is true. Jump and see if the angels catch you”

Jesus replied again with the Word of God: “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ ” (v. 7). Satan’s hermeneutics were wrong. Hermeneutics has to do with the laws that govern the interpretation of Scripture. People say that the Bible is the Word of God but still take that Word and twist it to support what they want to do, and this violates the principles for interpreting Scripture. The first principle of interpretation we call “the analogy of faith,” which means that Scripture is its own interpreter; in other words, we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture. God never speaks a lie, and His Word is coherent and unified. God never contradicts Himself. Therefore, what He says in the book of Judges can never contradict what He says in Ephesians. If we set one part of Scripture against another part of Scripture, we violate the most fundamental principle of biblical interpretation, and that is exactly what Satan was doing.

Jesus tells Satan that if He were to jump off the temple to prove that the Scripture is true, He would be violating the very Scripture that forbids Him from doing it. Besides that, Jesus knew who He was. He did not have to jump from some great height to know that the angels had been given charge over Him, nor did He have to worry about dashing His foot against a rock, because He knew that angels were protecting Him.

Again, the devil took him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me” (vv. 8–9). Adolf Hitler said to his henchmen, “We can lie to the people now, but after we have victory no one will remember.” He meant that no one would later care about his lies because he would bring glory to Germany, a new kingdom that would encompass Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, Poland, the low countries, Belgium, Netherlands, France, England, and then the world. Hitler made a notation in his diary that said, “Today I have made a covenant with Satan for all the kingdoms of the world and for all their glory.”

Have you ever considered your personal point of vulnerability if Satan were to come to you with a test? What would he put in front of you: glory, a kingdom, riches, or power? He offered all these things to Jesus in exchange for one thing—worship. The offer that Satan presented to Jesus was not his to give. Satan has no glory to give anyone.

Perhaps you have heard the story of a congressman from Tennessee who, after serving his first term in Washington, was seeking reelection. He returned to his home state of Tennessee to seek support for reelection, and in those efforts he went to the home of a wealthy farmer who had been a key supporter in his first election. The congressman said to the farmer, “I’m running for a second term. Will you support me again?” The farmer shook his head no and said, “No, I’m sorry, Mr. Crockett. I’m not going to support you again.” He continued, “Do you remember what happened last year when there was a fire in Washington that displaced people from their home? You voted to give the displaced people the money they needed to build a new house. You didn’t take that money from your own pocket, but you voted to take it from mine.” In other words, the money distributed by the congressman had not been his to give.

The Father has set before His Son all the kingdoms of the world and promised Him the glory that had been His from the beginning. Jesus did not need to get it from Satan. At stake here was the cost of getting it. The price of His inheritance was Calvary. Satan was offering glory without that necessary suffering and humiliation.

How do you respond to Satan’s temptations when you are alone and no one can see what you do? Here is how Jesus responded: “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’ ” (v. 10). Jesus refused to give Satan even the slightest genuflection, because the only One worthy of that is the Father. We are to serve Him and Him alone. We are snared more by that word, alone, than by any other word in Scripture, but that is how Jesus silenced the devil.

Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him (v. 11). The other Gospel narratives give us a bit more information here, saying that the devil left Him for a season. This was not the end of the battle. Satan watched the ministry of Jesus every single day, always looking for a way to trap Him.

The most glorious moment in Jesus earthly ministry was at the Mount of Transfiguration. Shortly after that Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and Simon gave the great confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13, 16). Peter did not say, “If you are the Son” but “You are the Son.” At that time Jesus looked at Simon and said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (vv. 17–18). Before hardly any time had passed, Jesus foretold that He would be delivered to His enemies, and in his boldness Peter said, “This shall not happen to You!” to which Jesus replied, “Get behind Me, Satan!” (vv. 22–23). Right before Jesus went to Jerusalem, Satan showed up in the lips of his most trusted disciple.

It is almost always our closest friends and relatives who seek to dissuade us from our duty, if that duty promises suffering.

Jesus’ test in the wilderness concludes with exquisite irony. As soon as Satan left, the angels appeared and ministered to Him. They were there all the time. The fast was over. The Bible does not say this, but I believe the angels set before Jesus the most incredible breakfast that had ever been served to any human being. It was a gourmet feast. The angels that were not present there but were up in heaven surely noted what an honor it was for those angels who were there to minister to Him, because He is the Son of God in whom God is well pleased.

Christianity is the true worship and service of the true God, mankind’s Creator and Redeemer. It is a religion that rests on revelation: nobody would know the truth about God, nor be able to relate to Him in a personal way, had God not first acted to make Himself known. But God has so acted, and the sixty-six books of the Bible, thirty-nine written before Christ came and twenty-seven after, are together the record, interpretation, and expression of His self-disclosure. God and godliness are the Bible’s uniting themes.

From one standpoint, the Scriptures (“scripture” means “writing”) are the faithful testimony of the godly to the God whom they loved and served; from another standpoint, because they were composed through a unique exercise of divine superintendence, called “inspiration,” they are God’s own testimony and teaching in human language. The church calls these writings the Word of God because their authorship and contents are both of divine origin.

Decisive assurance that Scripture is from God and consists entirely of His wisdom and truth comes from Jesus Christ and His apostles, who taught in His name. Jesus, God incarnate, viewed His Bible (our Old Testament) as His heavenly Father’s written instruction, which He no less than others must obey (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:17–20; 19:4–6; 26:31, 52–54; Luke 4:16–21; 16:17; 18:31–33; 22:37; 24:25–27, 45–47; John 10:35), and which He came to fulfill (Matt. 26:24; John 5:46). Paul described the Old Testament as entirely inspired or “God-breathed”—a product of God’s Spirit, as is the whole creation also (Ps. 33:6; Gen. 1:2)—and written for our instruction (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:15–17). Peter affirms the divine origin of biblical teaching in 2 Pet. 1:21 and 1 Pet. 1:10–12, and so also by his manner of quoting does the writer to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:5–13; 3:7; 4:3; 10:5–7, 15–17; cf. Acts 4:25; 28:25–27).

Since the apostles’ teaching about Christ is itself revealed truth in God-taught words (1 Cor. 2:12, 13), the church regards the New Testament, which records the apostolic witness, as completing the Scriptures. During the New Testament period itself Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15, 16), and Paul apparently calls Luke’s Gospel Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7).

The idea of written directives from God Himself as a basis for godly living goes back to God’s inscribing the Ten Commandments on stone tablets and prompting Moses to write His laws and the history of His dealings with His people (Ex. 32:15, 16; 34:1, 27, 28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9). Digesting and living by this material was always central to true devotion for both leaders and others in Israel (Josh. 1:7, 8; 2 Kin. 17:13; 22:8–13; 1 Chr. 22:12, 13; Neh. 8; Ps. 119), and the principle that all must be governed by the Scriptures has passed into Christianity.

What Scripture says, God says; for, in a manner comparable only to the deeper mystery of the Incarnation, the Bible is both fully human and fully divine. So all its manifold contents—histories, prophecies, poems, songs, wisdom writings, sermons, statistics, letters, and whatever else—should be received as from God, and all that biblical writers teach should be revered as God’s authoritative instruction. Christians should be grateful to God for the gift of His written Word, and conscientious in basing their faith and life entirely and exclusively upon it.²

1 Sproul, R. C. (2013). Matthew (p. 55). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

2 Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (p. 141). Orlando, FL; Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries.

Jesus vs devil 2

5. The second temptation is the third in Luke, and there are considerable differences. In this opening up to and says to him Matthew has seventeen words of which only nine are in Luke, who has twelve words. Thus Matthew has most of what is in Luke, together with matter of his own. For then see on 2:7; it brings us to the next in Matthew’s sequence. Jesus had rejected the first temptation because he trusted God to supply his need; now he is tempted through that very assurance. Matthew reverts to the devil as his name for the evil one and says that he now takes (the present tense gives greater vividness) Jesus along into the holy city (i.e., Jerusalem; this term occurs again in 27:53 and 4 times in Revelation only in the New Testament). Neither Matthew nor Luke makes it clear whether this is a physical removal of Jesus from the wilderness or whether it means a vivid suggestion to the mind such that he saw himself in the position mentioned. But in any case we should remember that the essence of temptation is inward: it does not depend on the physical location of the person tempted. The devil stood him on the wing of the temple. The word translated wing seems to have been used for the extremity of anything; it is used of the fins of a fish, the tail flaps of a lobster, and the tip of a rudder (LSJ). It seems that here it means the peak, the point of a roof, or, as some think, a battlement or turret (“parapet,” JB, REB). But there is a problem in that we do not know what roof. The definite article shows that it was a well-known place, but we can scarcely do more than say that it was obviously something at a great height, so that a leap from it would be spectacular.

6. As in the first temptation, the devil begins with If you are the Son of God, and this time follows it with throw yourself down; he implies that Jesus can do this quite safely. It does not need to be said that this would be a spectacular miracle; the evil one simply suggests the leap. In the first temptation he had been repelled by the quotation of Scripture, but this time he does some quoting of his own, appealing to Psalm 91:11–12 with the strong formula of quotation it stands written accompanied by for, which gives the reason: Jesus should do this, Satan suggests, because the angels are there to help him. For the most part Matthew records the quotation as in LXX. The words in the Psalm, “to guard you in all your ways,” are omitted, but we should not see something sinister in that. It may well have been done to concentrate attention on the bearing up in the hands of the angels: it is safe descent from a height that is in mind, not angelic protection through the varied vicissitudes of every day. For angel see on 1:20. None less than the angels have received a command from the Father; the implication is that a command emanating from such a quarter and addressed to such agents will surely be carried out. Holding him on their hands means that he will be given close protection and that in the case of a fall from a height he will come to no harm. This will be done, the Psalm says, lest you strike your foot against a stone. Satan is suggesting that the care of the angels will be such that the smallest mishap is quite impossible. There would not even be a stubbed toe!

7. Jesus’ reply begins with Again, and once more it features it stands written. Jesus had defeated the first temptation by citing Scripture, and he uses the same method this time. He raises no objection to Satan’s quoting from the Psalm, but simply goes on to another passage that shows that the application the evil one has made of the Scripture he cites is faulty. Jesus draws attention to Deuteronomy 6:16 (Matthew has it exactly as LXX), “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” In Deuteronomy the words refer to the incident at Massah, where the Israelites were short of water and complained about Moses. That patriarch asked the grumblers, “Why do you put the Lord to the proof?” (Exod. 17:2), which is further explained in the question they had asked, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exod. 17:7). On that occasion God ordered Moses to strike the rock with his rod. When he did so, water came out and the people’s need was fully met. But the way the incident is reported makes it clear that a demand for the miraculous, such as the one the Israelites made, is not acceptable. The servants of God cannot demand that God should keep on intervening with miraculous provision for their needs. To jump from a height and then look to God to avert the natural consequences of such an act is just such an offense. Furthermore, it is worse than what happened at Massah, for at least the people there were in real need of water. What Satan is suggesting is that Jesus should needlessly thrust himself into danger; he would be creating a hazard where none previously existed. And for what? To compel God to save him miraculously. It is a temptation to manipulate God, to create a situation not of God’s choosing in which God would be required to act as Jesus dictated. Jesus rejects the suggestion with decision. He prefers the way of quiet trust in the heavenly Father, a trust that needs no test, and a ready acceptance of his will. He refuses to demand a miracle even if from the perspective of someone on earth that might seem desirable, even compelling.

8. Again together with the following verb repeats an expression from verse 5: once more Satan takes Jesus along, but this time to a very high mountain. There are frequent references to mountains in the Gospels (as also in the Apocalypses). This one was very high. From this standpoint the devil shows²⁸ Jesus all earth’s kingdoms. The word means territory ruled over by a king, but here the emphasis is on the territory rather than the method of government. The world makes the expression as extensive as it can possibly be, and splendor brings out the attractiveness of those kingdoms at their best. The fact that there is no mountain from which all the world may be seen literally favors the view that the tempter brings all this before the mind of Jesus. Satan holds out before him the prospect of a mighty empire, one that would embrace the whole world. When we contemplate the evils that flourish in even the best states we know and the wickedness that abounds in high places, we can see that to establish a worldwide empire that would be ruled with perfect justice was a real temptation, not a sham parade. Nor should we dismiss the whole episode as something that happened to Jesus but has no relevance to anyone else. Many who profess to follow the Christ have purchased their own “empires” at the cost of the acceptance of evil.¹

Or, to illustrate another way, suppose one of us got into the boxing ring with Muhammad Ali and in a few seconds were flat on the mat, out for the count. After coming to in the locker room (if we did!), we might look up and say, “That fellow can really punch.” But we would not really know. If one of us should walk into the boxing ring with Muhammad Ali and stand our ground for fifteen rounds and walk off on our own feet and then say, “That fellow can really punch,” obviously we would know the full meaning of what we were saying. When we walked into the ring, so to speak, with Satan, in short order we had surrendered to his temptation and sinned. But Jesus Christ stepped into that ring and took everything Satan could hurl into Him, all the way to the Cross, and even in death Jesus never cracked once. Jesus alone knows the full weight of temptation! Thus the writer to the Hebrews can say, “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15, kjv).²

The second temptation was to make Jesus a wonder-worker and thereby attract people to follow Him. The tempter projected Him into a vision of standing atop the temple on Mount Zion. At the corner where the Royal Porch and Solomon’s Porch met was a drop of 450 feet into the valley of the brook Kidron. A rabbinical tradition reads, “When the King Messiah reveals Himself, then He comes and stands on the roof of the Holy Place.” This means to appear from above, miraculously introducing His national leadership. Satan’s temptation suggested that Jesus stand atop that pinnacle and leap down and, by landing unharmed, present Himself to the multitudes as a wonder-worker. To support his temptation, Satan quoted from the Old Testament, “He shall give His angels charge over you, in their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone” (Ps. 91:11–12).

The tempter used Scripture, but took it out of context and bent it to his own advantage. Unless one is honest with the Bible, interpreting it in its context and historic meaning, an application can be a perversion of the Scripture. Christians sometimes fall prey to seeking proof-texts to back up an idea of their own rather than to be honest with the Holy Scripture. But Jesus knew the Scripture well, and said, “It is written again,” with a direct answer to Satan’s temptation, “you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Jesus understood the Word and, discerning the devil’s misquote, was true to the meaning of God’s Word.

Jesus’ quote from Deuteronomy 6:16 makes clear that faith is not attempting to see how far one can go in pushing God to answer our wishes. Faith is an attitude that opens one’s will to God, that allows God to fulfill His own will through one’s life. Faith that can respond more to signs and wonders than to the Word of God is not authentic faith. Jesus refused the way of becoming a wonder-worker to gain national leadership. He was not cultivating people’s faith in wonders but faith in God Himself. Jesus’ miracles were unselfish expressions which served the good of others and glorified God rather than miracles for His own self-interest.

The third temptation focused directly on Jesus’ ultimate mission. He had come to seek and to save the lost, to reconcile men to God. The vision of the world that He came to save moved before Him, and the voice of the tempter said, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” The tempter was suggesting that Jesus take another route to win the world than the way of the Cross. But Jesus knew that He could not defeat evil by compromising with evil. Jesus’ decision was to be faithful to God and His calling, to follow the way which inevitably led to the Cross. Jesus’ response to this temptation was abrupt and pointed: “Away with you Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”³

The second temptation (vv. 5–7). The second temptation was even more subtle. This time Satan also used the Word of God. “So You intend to live by the Scriptures,” he implied. “Then let me quote You a verse of Scripture and see if You will obey it!” Satan took the Lord Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, probably 500 feet above the Kidron Valley. Satan then quoted from Psalm 91:11–12 where God promised to care for His own. “If You really believe the Scriptures, then jump! Let’s see if the Father cares for You!”

Note carefully our Lord’s reply: “It is written AGAIN” (Matt. 4:7, emphasis mine). We must never divorce one part of Scripture from another, but we must always “compare spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). We can prove almost anything by the Bible if we isolate texts from the contexts and turn them into pretexts. Satan had cleverly omitted the phrase “in all Thy ways” when he quoted from Psalm 91. When the child of God is in the will of God, the Father will protect him. He watches over those who are “in His ways.”

Jesus replied with Deuteronomy 6:16: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” We tempt God when we put ourselves into circumstances that force Him to work miracles on our behalf. The diabetic who refuses to take insulin and argues, “Jesus will take care of me,” may be tempting the Lord. We tempt God when we try to force Him to contradict His own Word. It is important for us as believers to read all Scripture, and study all God has to say, for all of it is profitable for daily life (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

The third temptation (vv. 8–11). The devil offered Jesus a shortcut to His kingdom. Jesus knew that He would suffer and die before He entered into His glory (Luke 24:26; 1 Peter 1:11; 5:1). If He bowed down and worshiped Satan just once (this is the force of the Greek verb), He could enjoy all the glory without enduring the suffering. Satan has always wanted worship, because Satan has always wanted to be God (Isa. 14:12–14). Worshiping the creature instead of the Creator is the lie that rules our world today (Rom. 1:24–25).

There are no shortcuts to the will of God. If we want to share in the glory, we must also share in the suffering (1 Peter 5:10). As the prince of this world, Satan could offer these kingdoms to Christ (John 12:31; 14:30). But Jesus did not need Satan’s offer. The Father had already promised Jesus the kingdom! “Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen [nations] for Thine inheritance” (Ps. 2:8). You find the same promise in Psalm 22:22–31, and this is the psalm of the cross.

Our Lord replied with Deuteronomy 6:13: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” Satan had said nothing about service, but Jesus knew that whatever we worship, we will serve. Worship and service must go together.

Satan slunk away, a defeated foe; but he did not cease to tempt Jesus. We could translate Luke 4:13, “And when the devil had ended every possible kind of temptation, he stood off from Him until a suitable season.” Through Peter, Satan again tempted Jesus to abandon the cross (Matt. 16:21–23); and through the crowd that had been fed, Satan tempted Jesus to an “easy kingdom” (John 6:15). One victory never guarantees freedom from further temptation. If anything, each victory we experience only makes Satan try harder.

Notice that Luke’s account reverses the order of the second and third temptations as recorded in Matthew. The word “then” in Matthew 4:5 seems to indicate sequence. Luke only uses the simple conjunction “and” and does not say he is following a sequence. Our Lord’s command at the end of the third temptation (“Get thee hence, Satan!”) is proof that Matthew followed the historical order. There is no contradiction since Luke did not claim to follow the actual sequence.

After Jesus Christ had defeated Satan, He was ready to begin His ministry. No man has a right to call others to obey who has not obeyed himself. Our Lord proved Himself to be the perfect King whose sovereignty is worthy of our respect and obedience. But, true to his purpose, Matthew had one more witness to call to prove the kingship of Jesus Christ.⁴

1 Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (pp. 75–77). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

2 Augsburger, M. S., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1982). Matthew (Vol. 24, p. 18). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

3 Augsburger, M. S., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1982). Matthew (Vol. 24, p. 18). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

4 Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 18–19). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.