Since September 11, 2001, Americans have had to live under the threat of terrorist attacks. It has changed many aspects of the way we live. We face increased security checks at airports and international borders. We hear of possible attacks at shopping malls and sporting events, although I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do about it, other than report suspicious looking characters or abandoned packages.
It is difficult and frustrating for our government to fight this enemy, because it is often not visible as other enemy armies have been. This enemy hides and uses surprise attacks to achieve its evil goals.
The threat of terrorist attacks should not be anything new for Christians. Centuries ago, the apostle Paul warned, “Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). Our enemy has used deception, trickery, and other schemes to try to destroy or at least neutralize God’s people from doing what He has called them to do. If we want to finish our course and accomplish His purpose for our lives, we must learn how to resist Satan’s schemes.
In his goal of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah had to stand up to the violent threats of the enemy (chapter 4). He had to deal with internal conflict between the wealthy and poor Jews (chapter 5). He is almost done now. The breaches in the wall have been repaired, and the wall is complete except for the doors in the gates. But the enemy has not given up. In chapter 6, he hits again with four schemes: intrigue (6:1–4); innuendo (6:5–9); intimidation (6:10–14); and, infiltration (6:15–19). (The first three headings are from Cyril Barber, cited by Edwin Yamauchi, Expositor’s Bible Commentary 4:712.)
In the first three schemes, Satan moved first and Nehemiah had to respond. In the last situation, Nehemiah won the victory of the completed wall, but Satan responded with his scheme of infiltration. We learn that …
To complete the work God has given us to do, we must discern and resist Satan’s many schemes.
Under Nehemiah’s gifted leadership, the people completed the rebuilding of the walls. Now all that remained to do was the restoration of the gates and the strengthening of the community within the walls. Since Sanballat and his friends had failed miserably in their attempts to stop the people from working, they decided to concentrate their attacks on Nehemiah. If they could eliminate him, or even discredit him, they could mobilize their allies living in Jerusalem (Neh. 6:17-18) and take over the city.
The average person doesn’t realize the tremendous pressures and testings that people experience day after day in places of leadership. Leaders are often blamed for things they didn’t do and criticized for things they tried to do. They are misquoted and misunderstood and rarely given the opportunity to set the record straight. If they act quickly, they are reckless; if they bide their time, they are cowardly or unconcerned.
Referring to the pressures of leadership, President Harry Truman wrote in Mr. Citizen, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!”
People in places of spiritual leadership not only have the pressures that all leaders face, but they must also battle an infernal enemy who is a master deceiver and a murderer. Satan comes either as a serpent who deceives or a lion who devours (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Peter 5:8), and Christian leaders must be alert and spiritually equipped to oppose him. It behooves God’s people to pray earnestly, not only for those in civil authority (1 Tim. 2:1-3), but also for those in places of spiritual authority. If Satan can defeat a Christian leader, he can cripple a whole ministry and discredit the cause of Christ.
The enemy’s main purpose was to generate fear in the heart of Nehemiah and his workers (Neh. 6:9, 13-14, 19), knowing that fear destroys faith and paralyzes life. Adolph Hitler wrote, “Mental confusion, contradiction of feeling, indecisiveness, panic; these are our weapons.” Both Jesus (Luke 13:31-35) and Paul (Acts 21:10-14) had to face the specter of fear, and both overcame it by faith.
Nehemiah didn’t listen to the enemy’s lies. He and the people completed the wall and hung the gates in only fifty-two days, much to the chagrin of their adversaries (Neh. 6:15-16). Satan used four strategies in attacking Nehemiah, strategies that he still uses against spiritual leaders today.
COMPROMISE: “WE WILL HELP YOU WORK” (NEH. 6:1-4)
(Nehemiah 6:1-4) “When word came to Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall and not a gap was left in it–though up to that time I had not set the doors in the gates– {2} Sanballat and Geshem sent me this message: “Come, let us meet together in one of the villages on the plain of Ono.” But they were scheming to harm me; {3} so I sent messengers to them with this reply: “I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?” {4} Four times they sent me the same message, and each time I gave them the same answer.”
Up to this point in the building program, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem (Gashmu, v. 6) opposed everything that the Jews did; but now they offered to cooperate and help the Jews build the wall. They offered to meet Nehemiah in a village halfway between Jerusalem and Samaria, a quiet place where they could make plans on how to work together. “We’re willing to meet you halfway,” was their approach. “Now, don’t be an unfriendly neighbor!”
Of course, the enemy’s strategy was, “If you can’t whip ’em, join ’em—and then take over!” Once the enemy gets a foothold in a ministry, he starts to weaken the work from within; and ultimately, the work will fail. While cooperation in the Lord’s work is a noble thing, leaders must take care that they cooperate with the right people at the right time for the right purpose; otherwise they may end up cooperating with the enemy. Satan is a master deceiver and has his servants ready to join hands with God’s people so he can weaken their hands in the work (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
Loving compromise and cooperation can be good and useful things if there are no moral or spiritual issues involved. Happy compromise can invigorate a marriage or strengthen a ministry (Phil. 2:1-4), but this is compromise among people who love each other and have the same purposes in mind. When you invite the devil to join your team, expect him to change the rules and the goals; and expect to be defeated.
Nehemiah rejected their offer because of three convictions. First, he knew that they were lying and wanted to kill him (Neh. 6:2). Nehemiah had the kind of spiritual discernment that leaders must possess if they are going to detect the enemy’s strategy and defeat it. Second, he was convinced of the greatness of the work God had given him to do (v. 3). If Nehemiah allowed himself to be distracted and detoured from the work God had called him to do, where would his people go for leadership? A leaderless project is an aimless project and eventually falls apart. Leaders must be good examples and stay on the job.
During over forty years of ministry, as I have watched Christian leaders come and go, I have tried to take Paul’s admonition to heart: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12, NKJV). This is not to say that Christian leaders must never leave home to minister elsewhere, for they are a gift to the whole church and not just to one work (Eph. 4:11-12). But when “the wider ministry” is more exciting than the work at home, leaders must beware; for the enemy is at work. Dr. Oswald J. Smith used to say, “The light that shines the farthest will shine the brightest at home.”
Behind these two convictions was a third conviction: The Jews had nothing in common with Sanballat and his crowd, so there could be no basis for cooperation. Nehemiah had made that clear at the very outset of the project when he said to Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, “But as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it” (Neh. 2:20, NIV). God’s people are different from the people of the world and must maintain their separated position (2 Cor. 6:14–7:1). If Nehemiah had cooperated with Sanballat and his allies, how could he have led the nation to separate itself from the foreigners in the land? (Neh. 9:2; 10:28; 13:3) He would have been inconsistent.
Nehemiah had both discernment and determination: He refused to be influenced by their repeated offers (6:4; see 4:12). If their offer was wrong the first time, it would be wrong the fourth time or the fiftieth time; and there was no reason for him to reconsider. Decisions based only on opinions might be reconsidered, but decisions based on convictions must stand unless those convictions are changed. Otherwise, decision becomes indecision; and the leader who ought to be a guidepost becomes a weather vane.
SLANDER: “WE’LL TELL EVERYBODY ABOUT YOU” (NEH. 6:5-9)
(Nehemiah 6:5-9) “Then, the fifth time, Sanballat sent his aide to me with the same message, and in his hand was an unsealed letter {6} in which was written: “It is reported among the nations–and Geshem says it is true–that you and the Jews are plotting to revolt, and therefore you are building the wall. Moreover, according to these reports you are about to become their king {7} and have even appointed prophets to make this proclamation about you in Jerusalem: ‘There is a king in Judah!’ Now this report will get back to the king; so come, let us confer together.” {8} I sent him this reply: “Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up out of your head.” {9} They were all trying to frighten us, thinking, “Their hands will get too weak for the work, and it will not be completed.” But I prayed, “Now strengthen my hands.””
The fifth time the enemy approached Nehemiah, it was with an open letter accusing him of sedition. They had hinted at Jewish insurrection before the project had even begun (2:19), perhaps borrowing the idea from the people who had stopped the building of the temple years before (Ezra 4). Even our Lord was accused by His enemies of promoting sedition (Luke 23:1-5). It would be considered a serious charge in Nehemiah’s day, because Persian kings tolerated no resistance from their subjects. Any hint of rebellion was immediately and ruthlessly put down.
It’s interesting to see how often the enemy used letters in their attacks against the work (Neh. 6:5, 17, 19). An “open letter” to a royal governor would be both intimidating and insulting. Letters to officials were rolled up and secured with seals so that only those with authority could open and read them. Sanballat wanted the public to know the contents of the letter because he hoped to undermine Nehemiah’s reputation and authority. If some of the Jewish workers believed what was in the letter, Sanballat could organize them and create division within the ranks. It was a splendid opportunity for the enemy to divide and conquer.
Statements like “it’s been reported” and “they say” have caused trouble in many local churches and other ministries. In every organization, there are gossip-mongers, hovering like vultures, just waiting for tidbits of slander that they can chew, swallow, and then regurgitate. An anonymous wit has defined gossip as news you have to hurry and tell somebody else before you find out it isn’t true!
“I would rather play with forked lightning, or take in my hands living wires with their fiery current,” said A.B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, “than speak a reckless word against any servant of Christ, or idly repeat the slanderous darts which thousands of Christians are hurling on others, to the hurt of their own souls and bodies.”
Not only did his enemies falsely accuse Nehemiah of fomenting a rebellion, but they also said he was planning to make himself king and had prophets prepared to announce his coronation (v. 7). If this report got back to the Persian king, there would be immediate reprisal; and that would be the end of the Jerusalem project.
Christian leaders must know how to handle false accusations, vicious letters, unfounded press reports, and gossip. Otherwise, these devilish weapons will so upset them that they will lose their perspective and spend so much time defending themselves that they will neglect their work. Nehemiah didn’t make that mistake. He simply denied the reports, prayed to God for strength, and went back to work. He knew that his character was such that no honest person would believe the false reports. If we take care of our character, we can trust God to take care of our reputation.
On more than one occasion, Bible teacher G. Campbell Morgan was the target of savage gossip that accused him of unfaithfulness to the Christian faith. His usual approach was to say, “It will blow over. Meanwhile, I go quietly on with my work.” Nehemiah would have approved of his approach.
THREATS: “WE WILL PROTECT YOUR LIFE” (NEH. 6:10-14)
(Nehemiah 6:10-14) “One day I went to the house of Shemaiah son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabel, who was shut in at his home. He said, “Let us meet in the house of God, inside the temple, and let us close the temple doors, because men are coming to kill you–by night they are coming to kill you.” {11} But I said, “Should a man like me run away? Or should one like me go into the temple to save his life? I will not go!” {12} I realized that God had not sent him, but that he had prophesied against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. {13} He had been hired to intimidate me so that I would commit a sin by doing this, and then they would give me a bad name to discredit me. {14} Remember Tobiah and Sanballat, O my God, because of what they have done; remember also the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who have been trying to intimidate me.”
Shemaiah, a hireling prophet (v. 12), devised a clever plan for trapping Nehemiah. He shut himself up in his house and gave the impression that, like Nehemiah, his life was in danger. When Nehemiah came to see him, Shemaiah suggested that they both take refuge in the temple, where the enemy couldn’t reach them (Ex. 21:13-14; 1 Kings 1:50-53). His words were very threatening: “They are coming to kill you; indeed, at night they will come to kill you” (Neh. 6:10, NKJV).
Since he had access to the temple, it’s possible that Shemaiah was of priestly descent; but even this didn’t influence Nehemiah’s decision. He quickly detected the hoax and let it be known that he was not about to run away in the face of danger. In the first place, he was not that kind of a leader. “Should such a man as I flee?” he asked (v. 11). He had previously said, “I cannot come down!” (v. 3) and now he declared, “I will not go in!” (v. 11) Nehemiah was a true shepherd and not a hireling like Shemaiah (John 10:12-13). If he had run away and hidden in the temple, it would have ruined his reputation forever.
Nehemiah rejected Shemaiah’s proposal because it was contrary to the Law of Moses. It was forbidden for a layman to go beyond the altar of burnt offering at the temple. “The outsider who comes near shall be put to death” (Num. 18:7, NKJV). When King Uzziah tried to invade the holy precincts, God smote him with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16-21). Nehemiah knew that Shemaiah was a false prophet because the message he delivered was contradictory to the Word of God (Deut. 13:1-5 and 18:20-22). “What saith the Scripture?” (Rom. 4:3) must be the test of any message, even if that message comes from somebody who claims to be one of God’s servants. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20).
Nehemiah 6:14 indicates that there was a conspiracy against Nehemiah among the prophets, including a prophetess named Noadiah. This created a great deal of pressure for Nehemiah, for the Jews had great respect for their prophets. Nehemiah was outnumbered, yet he stood his ground. He was a layman opposed by a body of “professionals,” yet he refused to give in. He prayed about them and left the matter with the Lord. In verses 9 and 14, we have the fifth and sixth of Nehemiah’s “telegraph prayers” that he sent to the Lord in times of crisis. Of course, behind these brief intermittent prayers was a life of prayer that gave them strength.
INTRIGUE: “WE WILL NOT GIVE UP” (NEH. 6:15-19)
(Nehemiah 6:15-19) “So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul, in fifty-two days. {16} When all our enemies heard about this, all the surrounding nations were afraid and lost their self-confidence, because they realized that this work had been done with the help of our God. {17} Also, in those days the nobles of Judah were sending many letters to Tobiah, and replies from Tobiah kept coming to them. {18} For many in Judah were under oath to him, since he was son-in-law to Shecaniah son of Arah, and his son Jehohanan had married the daughter of Meshullam son of Berekiah. {19} Moreover, they kept reporting to me his good deeds and then telling him what I said. And Tobiah sent letters to intimidate me.”
The completion of the walls “in troublous times” (Dan. 9:25) was an embarrassment to the enemy, but they did not give up. Satan is not a quitter but stays on the field even after it looks as if he has lost the battle. Many a careless Christian has won the war but afterward lost the victory. Satan is always looking for “an opportune time” (Luke 4:13, NIV) to attack the victors and turn them into victims. We need to heed the counsel of that saintly Scottish minister Andrew A. Bonar, who said, “Let us be as watchful after the victory as before the battle.”
If you can’t see Satan working, it’s probably because he has gone underground. Actually, we are safer when we can see him at work than when his agents are concealed. Open opposition is good for God’s work and God’s workers because it keeps us alert and trusting the Lord. “Watch and pray!” was certainly one of Nehemiah’s chief admonitions to his people (Neh. 4:9).
It seems incredible that any Jew would secretly cooperate with the enemy, let alone Jews who were nobles from the royal tribe of Judah! If any tribe had a stake in the future of “the city of David,” it was the tribe of Judah; for God promised that a Savior and King would come from their tribe (Gen. 49:10; 2 Sam. 7). When these nobles cooperated with Tobiah, they were resisting the Lord, disobeying the Word, and jeopardizing their own future.
Why would they do such a treacherous thing? For one thing, Tobiah wrote them letters and influenced their thinking. Instead of seeking the truth, the nobles believed the enemy’s lies and became traitors to their own people. Because they believed he was right, some of the men of Judah even took an oath of loyalty to Tobiah! In his letters, Tobiah no doubt flattered them and made promises to them; and they foolishly believed him. The nobles secretly shared the letters with others, and thus the conspiracy grew.
Don’t believe everything you read or hear about Christian leaders. Consider the source and firmly refuse to accept as truth anything that can’t be documented. Especially be wary of what the news media say about evangelical leaders; most media people are not too sympathetic with the Gospel. Looking for exciting stories, some reporters will magnify the insignificant into the sensational, while others will lift statements completely out of context. Sad to say, even the religious press is sometimes guilty of this kind of misrepresentation, including some militant publications that have forgotten how to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). There are times when you wonder if perhaps we have reached the sad place that Jeremiah wrote about: “Beware of your friends; do not trust your brothers. For every brother is a deceiver, and every friend a slanderer” (Jer. 9:4, NIV).
How could these Jews turn their backs on their own heritage, their own brothers and sisters, and their own God? The bonds of human connection were stronger than the bonds of spiritual affection. Because Tobiah was tied to the tribe of Judah through marriage, the nobles of Judah gave the loyalty to him that they should have given to God (Neh. 6:18). The men of Judah forgot that they were “married” to Jehovah God and owed Him their love and loyalty.
But before we criticize these Jewish nobles, let’s examine our own lives. Are we totally yielded to the Lord and fully obedient to Him? Do we ever permit human relationships to influence our decisions so much that we deliberately disobey the Word of God? In twenty-five years of ministeral ministry, I have seen more than one professed Christian leave a church fellowship because of something that was done to a relative in the church.
Commodore Josiah Tatnall is an almost forgotten name in American naval history. During the anti-European uprisings in China in 1859, Tatnall came to the aid of a British squadron in the Pei-Ho River and was criticized for it. In his dispatch to the U.S. Secretary of Navy, his defense was simply, “Blood is thicker than water.”
That familiar statement was recorded by John Ray in his English Proverbs published in 1670; so it’s been around for a long time. The meaning is obvious: Humanly speaking, you have greater obligation to a relative than you do to a stranger. But Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:37, NKJV). The “blood bond” that unites us to Christ is the strongest bond of all, and our loyalty to Him must come first.
The nobles of Judah weren’t satisfied just to get their information and directions from Tobiah, but they felt it necessary to tell Tobiah everything Nehemiah said! No doubt they were hoping to win Tobiah’s favor and thus earn a greater reward when Tobiah and his friends took over Jerusalem. In every sense, they were traitors to the nation and to the Lord. Meshullam was one of the workers on the wall (Neh. 3:4, 30), and yet his family was undermining the very work he was doing.
But these traitors went even further: They repeatedly told Nehemiah what a fine man Tobiah really was! “They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4). Had the nobles of Judah been studying and meditating on the Word of God, they would have had discernment and not been walking “in the counsel of the ungodly” (Ps. 1:1). They were blinded by lies and flattery and completely out of touch with reality. There was no light in them (Isa. 8:20).
But is the situation much different in churches today? It alarms me the way professed Christians, who claim to be “Bible taught,” give their endorsement and support to people who are nothing but religious hucksters. You would think that the recent media scandals would wake people up, but such is not the case. “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way,” wrote Jeremiah; and then he asked, “But what will you do in the end?” (Jer. 5:30-31, NIV) Indeed, we are facing a day of reckoning. Then what?
Tobiah kept sending letters to his informers, and they in turn kept telling people to change their allegiance before Jerusalem was taken by the Gentiles. Nehemiah ignored the letters and threats and kept on working until the job was completed. After all, his work was “wrought of our God” (Neh. 6:16); and when God begins a work, He completes it (Phil. 1:6).
The story began with “So I prayed” (Neh. 2:4). Then we read, “So I came to Jerusalem” (v. 11). “So they strengthened their hands for this good work” is the next link in the chain (v. 18), followed by, “So built we the wall” (4:6) and, “So we labored” (v. 21).
Now we reach the end of this part of the story: “So the wall was finished” (6:15). But this marks a new beginning, for now Nehemiah must protect what he has accomplished. How he does this is the theme of the rest of the book.
Steven J. Cole, “Lesson 6: Resisting Satan’s Schemes (Nehemiah 6:1–19),” in Nehemiah, Steven J. Cole Commentary Series (Dallas: Galaxie Software, 2017), Ne 6:1–19.
A man heard his daughter and some of her friends arguing loudly in the back yard. He went out and reprimanded her. “But Daddy,” she protested, “we were just playing church.”
Ouch! It’s sad, but true, that the church of Jesus Christ has often been marked more by factions than by fellowship. There is even a book titled Great Church Fights. I haven’t read it, but it sounds interesting. J. Vernon McGee (Ezra, Nehemiah, & Esther [Thru the Bible Books], p. 117) observes, “In the history of the church we have seen that when the devil could not destroy the church by persecution, the next thing he did was to join it!” If you have been a Christian for very long, you have probably been in a church that went through a split.
In this fallen world, some splits are inevitable if we are committed to sound doctrine and godly standards. There have always been and always will be those who bring in destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1) and/or evil behavior (2 Pet. 2:13–14, 18–19). If church leaders are obedient to God, they must confront serious error and sinful behavior (Titus 1:9–16). But when they do so, even if they follow Scripture and act in love, there are always some who will react negatively and leave.
No matter what the cause of the disunity, we should work at resolving conflicts in the church in a biblical manner. Paul exhorts us to be diligent “to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). We should “pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (Rom. 14:19). If we want God’s blessing, Peter says that we “must seek peace and pursue it” (1 Pet. 3:11b). Passivity is not adequate. We must pursue peace in a godly manner without compromising truth or holiness.
As we saw last week, Nehemiah did not have smooth sailing in trying to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, as chapter 3 by itself might lead us to believe. Chapters 4 & 6 show how he had to face opposition from without. Chapter 5 shows how he had to deal with conflict from within. Some scholars argue that these events must have taken place after the wall was completed, since Nehemiah would not have taken the time for an assembly of the whole populace (5:7) in the middle of the project. But my understanding is that he did have to take the time in the middle of the project to deal with this internal problem that threatened to sabotage the work.
The problem (5:1–5) centered on the complaints of the poorer Jews against the wealthy Jews who were either ignoring their desperate needs or were actually making those needs worse through exploiting them. Things were made worse by a famine, so that those who owned property were forced to mortgage their fields, vineyards, and houses in order to get food. Others had to borrow in order to pay the king’s tax on their lands. Some were even forced to sell their children into slavery to their fellow Jews in order to pay their bills.
In disregard of the Mosaic law that forbade a Jew from loaning money at interest to a fellow Jew in need (Exod. 22:25; Deut. 23:19), the wealthier Jews were not only charging interest (“the hundredth part” [5:11] means 1% per month, or 12% per year), but also they were taking Jewish children as slaves as collateral for the loans.
They were operating as heartless businessmen, putting their own financial gain as foremost, without regard for how it hurt their poorer brethren and their families. Nehemiah saw these problems as serious enough to stop the work on the wall long enough to get them resolved. The way he dealt with things and the people’s response show us some biblical principles for resolving conflicts in the church.
In order to do the Lord’s work, we must resolve conflicts in the church in a biblical manner.
The opening chapters of the book of Nehemiah are about the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. It had lain in ruins for more than two generations of exiles who had returned from captivity. They were a beaten lot, and their city was broken because their hearts were broken. They had stopped believing that God could change anything of significance. If they could survive in quiet desperation, that seemed about all that anyone could hope.
The Lord stirred Nehemiah, a man of leadership and vision and godliness, (AN OUTSIDER) to go to Jerusalem from the capital of Persia and speak to his people again of what God could do. The project of rebuilding the walls began. In Nehemiah 4:6, the walls were described as halfway built. In 6:15, the project was completed: So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul, in fifty-two days.
One of the reasons to study this ancient city’s restoration is that restoration and new construction are what God is doing in every generation. Many of us know what it’s like to live with a broken life that has a great deal of rubble from the past. It is good to remember that God can bring restoration from wreckage or build something beautiful and substantial where nothing existed before.
Again, by analogy, we might note that Jerusalem was built on a hill to be sought out by those who had needs. Remember Jesus’ words about our responsibility to reach out to those who don’t know the truth. He said, “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” (Matthew 5:14.) A city built on a hill, its lights beaming to the countryside around, attracts the lonely and vulnerable. Christian communities are cities set on a hill, places where unbelievers can find their way home.
In the last message we noted a well-organized and intrepid opposition. On all sides were gathered those who opposed the success of the Hebrews in rebuilding their city. They harassed, threatened, and ridiculed. Time and again they tried to intimidate the people who were doing the work. Nehemiah and the others who gave leadership, as we discovered in the last message, had to draw the people together in order to deal with the threat. None of us can deal with threats by ourselves. We need each other. When one is standing guard, the other can sleep, and when one holds a weapon, the other can hold a tool.
In chapters 4 and 5, the problems concerned external enemies. The next set of problems that Nehemiah and others in the project encounter is inflicted from within the community itself-squabbling and difficulty, hurt and accusation.
When the enemy fails in his attacks from the outside, he then begins to attack from within; and one of his favorite weapons is selfishness. If he can get us thinking only about ourselves and what we want, then he will win the victory before we realize that he is even at work.
Selfishness means putting myself at the center of everything and insisting on getting what I want when I want it. It means exploiting others so I can be happy and taking advantage of them just so I can have my own way. It is not only wanting my own way but expecting everybody else to want my way too. Why are selfish people so miserable? I think Thomas Merton said it best: “To consider persons and events and situations only in the light of their effect upon myself is to live on the doorstep of hell.”
This chapter reveals to us the depths of sin in the human heart and how each of us must learn to love our neighbors as ourselves. This moving drama has three acts.
A great cry (Neh. 5:1-5)
(Nehemiah 5:1-5) “Now the men and their wives raised a great outcry against their Jewish brothers. {2} Some were saying, “We and our sons and daughters are numerous; in order for us to eat and stay alive, we must get grain.” {3} Others were saying, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain during the famine.” {4} Still others were saying, “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. {5} Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others.””
There are some interpretive uncertainties with this passage, but the general thrust is clear. The building of the wall took most of two months. Many involved had to leave their homes and their farms and other labor to go work on the wall. They had to contribute whatever money was needed to get the necessary materials. All of that had worsened an already difficult economic situation. Apparently there was a local famine. And always there were taxes from the world empire that controlled the region. So now people who were previously near the edge financially felt overwhelmed.
In the midst of a “great work” (4:19) for a “great God” (1:5), a “great cry” (5:1) was heard among the Jews. They were not crying out against the Samaritans, the Ammonites, or the Arabs, but against their own people! Jew was exploiting Jew, and the economic situation had become so desperate that even the wives (who usually kept silent) were joining in the protest.
Verse 2 alludes to another problem: “We and our sons and daughters are numerous; in order for us to eat and stay alive, we must get grain.” There was no such thing as family planning in the ancient world, or inclination toward it. The larger the family, the better. So whether rich or poor, families would have been roughly the same size. Those whose children were numerous, I think, were those whose families were young. The younger parents who still had many dependents at home, whose children were not grown and on their own, were saying to the older generation, “We’re still responsible for many mouths to feed. Those of you who no longer have children at home aren’t concerned about how hard it is for us to make it.”
That ought to sound familiar in our time and place. Those who have owned property a long time or who have raised their families or who have investments that are maturing and so on, live a very different life from the young families in this area who are trying to raise children and make ends meet. How much should they work to survive in this culture? And if both husband and wife work to gain enough income, then what about the quality of their lives and the kind of parenting they’re providing?
In Nehemiah’s day, those on the edge of economic difficulty were crying out for help. The wealthy people of Jerusalem, on the other hand, could get through the rebuilding project fairly easily. It would be bad enough if it were just that some had wealth and some didn’t. But it was much worse than that. Those who were wealthy were taking advantage of and preying on those who weren’t.
Four different groups of people were involved in this crisis. First, there were the people who owned no land but who needed food (v. 2). The population was increasing; there was a famine (v. 3); and the people were hungry. These people could not help themselves so they cried out to Nehemiah for help.
The second group was composed of landowners who had mortgaged their property in order to buy food (v. 3). Apparently inflation was on the rise, and prices were going higher. The combination of debt and inflation is enough to wipe out a person’s equity very quickly.
The third group complained because the taxes were too high, and they were forced to borrow money to pay them (v. 4). In order to borrow the money, they had to give security; and this meant eventually losing their property. The Persian king received a fortune in annual tribute, very little of which ever benefited the local provinces. Unlike our situation today, the taxes did not support local services; they only supported the king.
The fourth group was made up of wealthy Jews who were exploiting their own brothers and sisters by loaning them money and taking their lands and their children for collateral (Leviticus 25:39-40)
“”‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. {40} He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.”
Jewish boys and girls had to choose between starvation or servitude!
Let me quickly review economic responsibility as provided for in the law.
First, Hebrews were allowed to make financial arrangements with Gentiles in which there was an expected return.
Everybody, both Jew and Gentile, had a tribe to which they belonged. If there was some leftover capital, it could be invested with hope of return. If, however, family members were in extremity, if they got sick and couldn’t plant their crops, or if some other tragedy occurred, it was the responsibility of their tribe to rally around and take care of them.
What was not allowed was for an Israelite to charge interest on a loan to fellow Israelites. The law strictly forbade it:
(Exodus 22:25) “”If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”
(Deuteronomy 23:19-20) “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. {20} You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”
They couldn’t use the knowledge of someone else’s hard times as a way of making a profit.
Imagine yourself in a similar situation. Your great-aunt, let’s say, is newly widowed. She’s too old to work and she’s frightened, yet she has some property. So she is vulnerable. It is wrong to take economic advantage of the vulnerable, especially family members who are likely to be trusting.
Second, there was an arrangement whereby the Hebrews could indenture themselves. That is the reference to slavery in Nehemiah 5:5. It wasn’t racially based slavery of the type we’ve been used to in our country. It was indentured servitude.
(Exodus 21:1-3) “”These are the laws you are to set before them: {2} “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. {3} If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.”
The law (Exodus 21:1-3) provided for seven-year cycles, and at the end of every seventh year, all contracts of indenture had to end. Suppose a family fell into hard times, and they had strong sons and energetic daughters. They might go to someone and say, “My son will come to work for you. It’s the third of the seven years, so my son will be indentured to work for you for four years.”
However, the arrangement wasn’t open-ended. Within the tribe no one was permitted to use other people’s struggles to permanently create an underclass.
There is great wisdom in this. Modern economics operate with different premises, of course. But the wisdom does overlap. If we’re going to protect each other, if we’re going to answer the call when someone is hurt, if we’re going to build a wall or do anything else that’s worth doing together, it will require vulnerability. I have to tell you what I’m afraid of. I have to alert you when I’m hurt. And I have to be willing to hear what’s hard for you. But we won’t create those kind of relationships if we think we’re going to be taken advantage of. If vulnerability leads to being used, then it will always break down.
It was not unlawful for Jews to loan money to one another, but they were not to act like money lenders and charge interest:
(Deuteronomy 23:19-20) “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. {20} You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”
They were to treat one another with love even in the matter of taking security (24:10-13; Ex. 22:25-27) or making a brother a servant (Lev. 25:35-46). Both the people and the land belonged to the Lord, and He would not have anybody using either one for personal gain.
One reason for the “Year of Jubilee” (Lev. 25) was to balance the economic system in Israel so that the rich could not get richer as the poor became poorer. All debts had to be forgiven in the fiftieth year, all land restored to its original owners, and all servants set free.
These wealthy businessmen were selfishly exploiting the poor in order to make themselves rich. They were using their power to rob some and to put others into bondage. Greed was one of the sins the prophets had denounced before the Babylonian Captivity (Isa. 56:9-12; Jer. 22:13-19; Amos 2:6-7; 5:11-12). God has a special concern for the poor and will not hold those guiltless who take advantage of them.
A great assembly (Neh. 5:6-13)
(Nehemiah 5:6-13) “When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry. {7} I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!” So I called together a large meeting to deal with them {8} and said: “As far as possible, we have bought back our Jewish brothers who were sold to the Gentiles. Now you are selling your brothers, only for them to be sold back to us!” They kept quiet, because they could find nothing to say. {9} So I continued, “What you are doing is not right. Shouldn’t you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? {10} I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let the exacting of usury stop! {11} Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the usury you are charging them–the hundredth part of the money, grain, new wine and oil.” {12} “We will give it back,” they said. “And we will not demand anything more from them. We will do as you say.”
Then I summoned the priests and made the nobles and officials take an oath to do what they had promised. {13} I also shook out the folds of my robe and said, “In this way may God shake out of his house and possessions every man who does not keep this promise. So may such a man be shaken out and emptied!” At this the whole assembly said, “Amen,” and praised the LORD. And the people did as they had promised.”
It is one thing to confront foreign enemies and quite something else to deal with your own people when they fight one another. Young Moses learned that it was easier to dispose of an Egyptian master than to reconcile two Jewish brothers (Ex. 2:11-15). Nehemiah showed true leadership in his responses to the problem.
Anger (Neh. 5:6).
“When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry.
This was not the flaring up of a sinful temper but the expression of righteous indignation at the way the businessmen were oppressing their brothers and sisters. “In your anger do not sin” (Eph. 4:26, niv; see Ps. 4:4). Nehemiah was not a politician who asked, “What is popular?” or a diplomat who asked, “What is safe?” but a true leader who asked, “What is right?” His was a holy anger against sin, and he knew he had the Law of God behind him. Moses expressed this kind of holy anger when he broke the stone tables of Law (Ex. 32), and so did Jesus when He saw the hardening of the Pharisees’ hearts (Mark 3:5).
Why didn’t Nehemiah know about this scandalous economic problem sooner? Probably because he was so immersed in the one thing he came to do—the rebuilding of the walls—that he had no time to get involved in the internal affairs of the community. His commission as governor was to repair the walls and restore the gates, not to reform the community. Furthermore, Nehemiah had not been in the city long enough to learn all that was going on.
It is important to note that the building of the wall did not create these problems; it revealed them. Often when a church enters into a building program, all sorts of problems start to surface that people didn’t even know were there. A building program is a demanding thing that tests our faith, our patience, and our priorities; and while it brings out the best in some people, it can often bring out the worst in others.
Consultation (Neh. 5:7).
I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!”
“I consulted with myself” means literally “My heart consulted within me.” A friend of mine calls this “putting my heads together.” Actually, Nehemiah put his heart and his head together as he pondered the problem and sought God’s direction. He got control of his feelings and his thoughts so that he could give constructive leadership to the people. “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city” (Prov. 16:32, nkjv). If a leader can’t control himself, he will never be successful in controlling others.
assembly (Neh. 5:7) and publicly confront the people whose selfishness had created this difficult and painful situation. Theirs was a grievous public sin, involving the whole nation; and it demanded public rebuke and repentance.
Rebuke (Neh. 5:7-11).
I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!” So I called together a large meeting to deal with them {8} and said: “As far as possible, we have bought back our Jewish brothers who were sold to the Gentiles. Now you are selling your brothers, only for them to be sold back to us!” They kept quiet, because they could find nothing to say. {9} So I continued, “What you are doing is not right. Shouldn’t you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? {10} I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let the exacting of usury stop! {11} Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the usury you are charging them–the hundredth part of the money, grain, new wine and oil.”
That’s why Nehemiah was so outraged. They couldn’t ever be anything God intended them to be if they were going to abuse one another economically. Money is a subtle and powerful siren song for many, and unless we pay close attention, very often greed can get in the way of what God wants in relationships.
Look at verses 7-8 quickly. “When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry.” Then he got the nobles and officials together, the people who were taking advantage (a private talk first). “You are exacting usury from your own countrymen!” he accused. Probably the interest was so high that it would be impossible to ever pay back the loan. It undermined their ability to work together, and it was forbidden by God.
Verse 8 is more difficult to understand. The poorest people had had to indenture themselves and sell their property. Nehemiah said, “When we came back from exile, we went out and bought our brothers back from their slavery to the Gentiles. But look at what you’re doing now: You’re arranging for them to be sold again to the Gentiles, who can ignore the Jewish cycles of seven years. Then you’re buying the contracts back again as a way of avoiding the legal requirement to keep periods of indentured service short.”
Jesus similarly challenged the Pharisees who tried to get around the responsibility of caring for their parents. Recall the Pharisees’ Corban tradition in the New Testament. Jesus told them, “But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God)….” (Mark 7:11). It was a loophole, a way around God’s command to take care of one’s family. God was getting in the way of their using their assets the way they wanted to.
Nehemiah’s rebuke of the exploiters consisted of six different appeals. First, he appealed to theirlove by reminding them that they were robbing their own fellow Jews, not the Gentiles (v. 7).
The word “brother” is used four times in this speech. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1) “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me,” Abraham said to Lot, “for we are brothers” (Gen. 13:8, niv).
His appeal was based solidly on theWordofGod, for the Law of Moses forbade Jews to exact interest from one another.
The Jewish nation went into Babylonian Captivity an agricultural people, but some of them came out a mercantile people, having learned how to use money to make money. There is certainly nothing wrong with lending money (Matt. 25:27), providing you don’t violate God’s Word and exploit those who are helpless.
It is remarkable how much the Bible has to say about the right and wrong use of money. It is also remarkable how many professed believers ignore these truths and use their resources without consulting the Lord. They think that because they tithe, or give offerings to the Lord, they can do what they please with the rest of their income. They forget that we are stewards of all that God gives us, not just of what we give Him; and that He will hold us accountable for our stewardship.
In his third appeal, Nehemiah reminded them of God’sredemptivepurposeforIsrael (Neh. 5:8).
In the past, God redeemed Israel from Egypt; and more recently, He had redeemed them from Captivity in Babylon. But this verse informs us that Nehemiah and others of the leading Jews had helped redeem some of their people, and now their fellow Jews were putting people into bondage just to make money. These selfish money lenders were tearing down everything that God and Nehemiah were trying to build up.
What is freedom? It is life governed by truth and motivated by love. But the Jewish brokers were motivated by greed and ignoring the truth of God’s Word. Their selfishness put both themselves and their creditors into bondage.
Israel’switnesstotheirGentileneighbors (v. 9) was the fourth appeal Nehemiah presented to the guilty money lenders.
God called Israel to be a “light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), but their conduct was certainly anything but a witness to their pagan neighbors. How could some of the Jewish citizens build the city wall on the one hand but enslave their neighbors on the other hand? If we truly fear the Lord, then we will want to honor Him before those who don’t believe in Him.
Paul used a similar approach when he censured the Corinthian Christians for taking one another to court. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? … But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!” (1 Cor. 6:1, 6, nkjv) Far better to lose money than lose the privilege of your witness to the lost. You can always earn more money, but how do you restore a damaged testimony?
“The fear of our God” is not the servile dread of a slave toward a master but the loving respect of a child toward a parent. To fear the Lord means to seek to glorify God in everything we do. It means listening to His Word, honoring it, and obeying it. “The remarkable thing about fearing God,” wrote Oswald Chambers, “is that when you fear God, you fear nothing else, whereas if you do not fear God, you fear everything else.” Because Nehemiah’s life was motivated by the fear of the Lord (Neh. 5:15), he did not fear what the enemy might do (vv. 14, 19). The fear of the Lord moved Nehemiah to be a faithful servant of the Lord.
To walk in the fear of God, of course, means to walk by faith, trusting God to deal with your enemies and one day balance the accounts. It means claiming Matthew 6:33 and having the right priorities in life. “The fear of the Lord leads to life, and he who has it will abide in satisfaction; he will not be visited with evil” (Prov. 19:23, nkjv).
In Nehemiah 5:10-11, Nehemiah appealed to hisownpersonalpractice. He was lending money to the needy, but he was not charging interest or robbing them of their security (Ex. 22:25). Unlike some leaders, Nehemiah was not saying, “Do what I say, not what I do!” He was not a hypocrite; he practiced what he preached. In fact, this chapter will conclude with Nehemiah pointing out all that God had enabled him to do for his people (Neh. 5:14-19). He was a good example as a believer and as a leader.
“The hundredth part” in verse 11 was the interest charged for the money, probably applied monthly, making a total of 12 percent interest a year. This practice had been going on before Nehemiah arrived on the scene and now the people were in despair as they tried to balance the family budget.
A man of action, Nehemiah told the brokers to restore both the interest and the security they had taken from their fellow Jews, as well as the property they had claimed in foreclosure. This drastic step of faith and love would not immediately solve all the economic problems of the people, but it would at least keep the problems from getting worse. It would also give the suffering people opportunity to make a fresh new start.
Nehemiah’s sixth appeal was to remind them of thejudgmentoftheLord (vv. 12-13). The brokers promised to obey, so Nehemiah had them take an oath in the presence of the priests and the other officers of the city. This meant that their promise was not only between them and their neighbors, but between them and the Lord; and this was a serious thing. “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it” (Ecc. 5:4-5, niv).
When he challenged them about their usury and wrongful use of the labor of others, his specific challenge was, “Shouldn’t you fear God more than you love the short-term benefit? Shouldn’t you want rewards that come from God, not from money? Aren’t you concerned about the reputation of our God and his law and his presence in the eyes of other people? For some greedy, short-term advantage, why are you denying all that?”
And in verse 12, the nobles who had been doing these inappropriate things responded, saying in effect, “It’s terrible what we’ve done. But we’re going to quit right now. We’re sorry. We agree with you that we shouldn’t have done what we did.”
But Nehemiah was wise enough to know that the seductiveness of the power that comes with money is so great that it wasn’t enough to just feel bad about what they had done and determine on their own to change. So he called the priests in, and the nobles and officials were made to swear, in the presence of the priests, that they would act on their oaths.
Then even that wasn’t enough. Nehemiah took off his coat and shook it and said, “This is what God is going to do to you if you fail to keep your oath. God will shake you in this way.”
The great assembly was concluded with three actions that emphasized the seriousness of the occasion. First, Nehemiah shook out the folds of his robe, symbolic of what God would do with the money lenders if they didn’t fulfill their vow. Shaking your robe or the dust off your feet was a typically Jewish act of condemnation (Acts 13:51; 18:6; Matt. 10:14).
Then the congregation responded with a collective “Amen,” which was much more than a Jewish ritual. It was their solemn assent to what had been said and done at the assembly (see Neh. 8:6 and Deut. 27:14ff). The word amen means “so be it”; in other words, “May the Lord do all that you said!” It was an act of worship that made the entire assembly a part of the decisions that were made.
Then the congregation unitedly praised the Lord. Why? Because God had enabled Nehemiah to help them begin to solve their problems, and he had directed the money lenders to acknowledge their sins and make restitution. This great assembly was not an “economic summit”; it was a worship service where Nehemiah had lifted a financial problem to the highest possible level. God’s people need to follow his example and deal with every problem in the light of the will of God as declared in the Word of God.
A great example (Neh. 5:14-19)
(Nehemiah 5:14-19) “Moreover, from the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, until his thirty-second year–twelve years–neither I nor my brothers ate the food allotted to the governor. {15} But the earlier governors–those preceding me–placed a heavy burden on the people and took forty shekels of silver from them in addition to food and wine. Their assistants also lorded it over the people. But out of reverence for God I did not act like that. {16} Instead, I devoted myself to the work on this wall. All my men were assembled there for the work; we did not acquire any land. {17} Furthermore, a hundred and fifty Jews and officials ate at my table, as well as those who came to us from the surrounding nations. {18} Each day one ox, six choice sheep and some poultry were prepared for me, and every ten days an abundant supply of wine of all kinds. In spite of all this, I never demanded the food allotted to the governor, because the demands were heavy on these people. {19} Remember me with favor, O my God, for all I have done for these people.”
Nehemiah had a right as the governor to exact his own tax to provide for himself and his retinue. He not only refused to do so, but he didn’t acquire land or speculate during all this change that was going on in Jerusalem. Moreover, he fed at least 150 people a day. The implication here is that he paid for these things out of his own pocket. Verse 18a goes on to tell how many oxen and sheep and poultry and so on had to be prepared to do this.
Remember, when Nehemiah accused these unrighteous men of charging usury for loans, he said, “I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain.” Making loans was legitimate; in fact it was expected that those who had something should go to the poor and say, “You’re having hard times. You’re a hard worker, and a good person, and I know you’re going to get back on your feet someday. Here’s a loan to tide you over. When you get back on your feet and have the money, pay me back. No interest is required.” That was what Nehemiah did.
But in addition, he was generous. He not only did the proper thing, but he paid for the expenses of the governing that he had to do there. He went beyond what was required of him and did more. He essentially gave them a great gift by running the government at his own expense.
Nehemiah concludes with another of the short prayers with which the book is filled: “Remember me with favor, O my God, for all I have done for these people.” He wanted a reward from God, not some short-term benefit that would burn up someday.
“Shouldn’t you fear God?” Nehemiah asked. He himself did what he advocated for others, and that’s what made him such a powerful leader. That’s one of the most important lessons to take from this. That was the reason he could go to the nobles, propelled by righteous anger, and say, “Stop exacting usury. Stop taking advantage of people. Stop making it impossible for us to love each other because of the fear that we’ll get hurt if we do. Give back what you’ve stolen to the hundredth part [the final cent]. Take an oath, and God is going to hold you to the oath that you’ve taken.” The reason he could say all that was that he was willing to do right in God’s sight himself. He wasn’t calling for them to act in ways that he wouldn’t act.
We’re living through a terrible experiment in this country concerning whether leaders who have a significant commitment to immorality can call on the people in the country to live sacrificially, to live to high purpose, to live lives that are contributory and honorable. Can leaders who are compromised in their honesty ask the citizenry to live differently? It ultimately doesn’t work.
That’s an important lesson for parents, for those who have a management position at work, for those who have any other position of responsibility-elders in the church, heads of home groups, Sunday School teachers. They need to be able to say what others should know and think and do because it’s an experience they have had themselves, because they have been willing to trust God themselves.
D.L. Moody said, “A holy life will produce the deepest impression. Lighthouses blow no horns; they only shine.” In our day of public scandals in almost every area of life, especially the political, how refreshing it is to meet a man like Nehemiah who put serving the people ahead of getting gain for himself.
Nehemiah never read Philippians 2:1-13, but he certainly practiced it. During his first term of twelve years as governor, and then during his second term of office (Neh. 13:6-7), he used his privileges for helping the people; he did not use the people to build a kingdom for himself.
In that day, most officials exercised their authority in order to promote themselves and protect their personal interests. They had very little concern for the needs of the people. As children of God, our example is Jesus Christ and not the leaders of this world (Luke 22:23-30). “A cross stands in the way of spiritual leadership,” writes J. Oswald Sanders, “a cross upon which the leader must consent to be impaled” (SpiritualLeadership, Moody Press, 1976; p. 105).
In what ways are these men examples to us? To begin with, Nehemiah and his assistants did not use the official expense account for their household expenses, nor did they tax the people in order to have something to eat.
They paid their expenses out of their own pockets and didn’t ask to be reimbursed.
The Apostle Paul followed a similar policy with the church at Corinth. He could have accepted support from them, as he did from other churches; but he chose to work with his own hands and preach the Gospel to them “without cost” (1 Cor. 9). Paul did not say that every Christian worker should do this, for “the laborer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:14). But every Christian should follow Paul’s example in having a balanced spiritual attitude toward wealth and ministry. We must be willing to sacrifice personal gain for the spiritual good of others (see Acts 20:33-35 and 1 Sam. 12:3).
It has been said that leaders are people who accept more of the blame and less of the credit, but they are also people who quietly sacrifice so that others might have more.
Nehemiah and his associates not only paid their own bills, but they were also careful not to exploit the people in any way (Neh. 5:15).
The servants of previous governors had used their positions for personal gain, perhaps taking bribes from the people and promising to represent them before the governor. For people in places of authority, the temptation to increase wealth and power is always present; but Nehemiah and his friends walked in the fear of the Lord and served honestly.
They were examples in a third way: They all participated in the rebuilding of the wall (v. 16).
They were not advisors who occasionally emerged from their ivory towers, but workers who stood with the people in the construction and defense of the city. Jesus said, “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27, niv); and Nehemiah and his aides had that same attitude.
Nehemiah was an example in another way: He not only paid for his own food, but he shared what he had with others (Neh. 5:17-18).
He regularly fed over 150 guests, both residents and visitors, and he gave them a marvelous meal! (See 1 Kings 4:22-23 for Solomon’s daily fare.) It is estimated that this amount of food would meet the needs of over 500 guests, so Nehemiah must have kept “open house” constantly. Or perhaps he shared what was left with the people working on the wall. At any rate, he was generous to others and asked for no reward.
Nehemiah 5:19 indicates perhaps the greatest thing about Nehemiah’s service: He did what he did only to please the Lord. This is the fourth of his prayers (1:5ff; 2:5; 4:4), a wonderful expression of worship and humility. He didn’t want praise or reward from the people; he wanted only the reward God would give him for his sacrificial service (see 13:14). Some of the people may not have appreciated their leaders as they should, but that didn’t upset Nehemiah. He knew that the final assessment would come from the Lord, and he was willing to wait (1 Cor. 4:1-5).
If you are in a position of spiritual leadership, this chapter has some important lessons for you.
To begin with, expectproblemstoariseamongyourpeople. Wherever you have people, you have the potential for problems. Whenever God’s work is prospering, the enemy sees to it that trouble begins. Don’t be surprised when your people can’t always get along with each other.
Second, confronttheproblemscourageously. “There is no problem so great that you can’t ignore it” might be a good philosophy for a character in a comic strip, but it won’t work in the Lord’s service. Every problem that you ignore will only go underground, grow deeper roots, and bear bitter fruits. Pray for God’s help and tackle the problem as soon as possible.
Third, besurethatyourownintegrityisintact. A guilty conscience will rob you of the spiritual authority you need to give proper leadership, but every sacrifice you have made will give you the extra strength you need to defeat the enemy.
Finally, seeineveryproblemanopportunityfortheLordtowork. Solving problems in ministry is not an intellectual exercise but a spiritual experience. If we depend on the wisdom of the world, we will get what the world can do; but if we depend on the wisdom of God, we will get what God can do. All that we say and do must be motivated by love, controlled by truth, and done to the glory of God.
The work had been interrupted by the calling of the assembly and the solving of the economic problems, and now it was time for everybody to get back to his or her place on the wall. But Nehemiah’s enemies would also be busy. This time they would aim their ammunition especially at Nehemiah and try to defeat him with four devilish devices.
House, H. W. 1999. Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary . T. Nelson Publishers: Nashville
When Igor Sikorsky was 12, his parents told him that competent authorities had already proved human flight impossible. He went on to build the first helicopter. In his American plant, he posted this sign: According to recognized aerotechnical tests, the bumblebee cannot fly because of the shape and weight of his body in relation to the total wing area. The bumblebee does not know this, so he goes ahead and flies anyway (Encyclopedia of 7,700 Illustrations, by Paul Lee Tan [Assurance Publishers], p. 945).
Nehemiah would have loved that sign! His story shows that whenever you try to accomplish anything significant for the Lord, you will face strong opposition. Satan never bothers with half-hearted people who are content with a ho-hum spiritual existence. But if you come on fire for Christ, look out! The name “Satan” means “adversary”; he is committed to opposing God and His people, especially when they are zealous to exalt God’s glory.
This is true on the personal level. As long as you live with one foot in the world, living according to the world’s values and for the world’s goals, Satan won’t trouble you. You can go to church and even pray and read your Bible, and he won’t mind. But the minute you wake up from your spiritual lethargy, shake off the worldly mindset, and commit yourself to radical obedience to Jesus Christ, you will encounter spiritual opposition!
This also applies to churches and church leaders: Whenever godly leaders attempt to rally God’s people to advance His kingdom, opposition will hit. Satan doesn’t mind when churches gather to sing and to hear soothing sermons about how to use the Bible to achieve personal success. Those churches are no threat to his domain of darkness. But when a minister preaches the gospel that convicts sinners of their sin in the presence of a holy God and points them to the cross of Jesus Christ, look out!
When a minister calls the flock to obedient, holy living in this wicked world, look out! When a minister directs the vision of the flock toward the unreached nations who are waiting to hear the gospel, look out! The enemy is committed to opposing that kind of work. We need to be ready for such opposition and know how to respond to it. Nehemiah 4 teaches us that …
When the enemy opposes us as he surely will, we should respond with prayer, work, vigilance, and focus on the Lord.
“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.”
Those words from Gilbert Keith Chesterton were certainly true in Nehemiah’s situation. His arrival in Jerusalem was a threat to Sanballat and his associates (2:10), who wanted to keep the Jews weak and dependent. A strong Jerusalem would endanger the balance of power in the region, and it would also rob Sanballat and his friends of influence and wealth.
When things are going well, get ready for trouble, because the enemy doesn’t want to see the work of the Lord make progress. As long as the people in Jerusalem were content with their sad lot, the enemy left them alone; but, when the Jews began to serve the Lord and bring glory to God’s name, the enemy became active.
Opposition is not only an evidence that God is blessing, but it is also an opportunity for us to grow. The difficulties that came to the work brought out the best in Nehemiah and his people. Satan wanted to use these problems as weapons to destroy the work, but God used them as tools to build His people. “God had one Son without sin,” said Charles Spurgeon, “but He never had a son without trial.”
When Sir James Thornhill was painting the inside of the cupola of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, at one point he finished an area and stepped back to view it. Had he gone back one step more, he would have fallen from the scaffolding and perhaps killed himself. Seeing the situation, a friend seized one of the brushes and rubbed paint over a part of the picture. The artist rushed forward to protect his work, and at the same time, his life was saved. When the picture of our life or ministry is not all we think it ought to be, perhaps the Master Artist is rescuing us from something far worse and preparing us for something far better.
Chapters 4 to 6 describe at least nine different tactics that the enemy used to try to stop the work on the walls. First, they attacked the Jewish people with ridicule (4:1-6) and plots of war (vv. 7-9). This resulted in difficulties within the Jewish ranks: discouragement (v. 10), fear (vv. 11-23), and selfishness (5:1-19). When attacks on the people failed to stop the work, the enemy then started to attack their leader, Nehemiah. They tried compromise (6:1-4), slander (vv. 5-9), threats (vv. 10-14) and intrigue (vv. 17-19); but none of these devices worked either. Nehemiah was “steadfast and unmovable” and led his people to finish the work in fifty-two days!
Referring to Satan, Paul wrote, “For we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). This chapter presents four of Satan’s devices for opposing the Lord’s work, and it also tells us how God’s people can be steadfast and defeat the enemy. If you start building, you will soon be battling; so, be prepared!
1. RIDICULE (NEH. 4:1-6)
British critic and author Thomas Carlyle called ridicule “the language of the devil.” Some people who can stand bravely when they are shot at will collapse when they are laughed at. Shakespeare called ridicule “paper bullets of the brain,” but those bullets have slain many a warrior.
It is not unusual for the enemy to insult the servants of God. Goliath ridiculed David when the shepherd boy met the giant with only a sling in his hand (1 Sam. 17:41-47). Jesus was mocked by the soldiers during His trial (Luke 22:63-65) and by the rabble while He was hanging on the cross (23:35-37); and some of the heroes of the faith had to endure mocking (Heb. 11:36). When the enemy laughs at what God’s people are doing, it is usually a sign that God is going to bless His people in a wonderful way. When the enemy rages on earth, God laughs in heaven (Ps. 2:4).
Sanballat and his friends had begun to ridicule the Jews even before the work on the wall had begun. “They laughed us to scorn,” wrote Nehemiah, “and despised us” (Neh. 2:19). What special relationship Sanballat had with the army of Samaria is not explained to us. Perhaps he had the army assembled as a show of strength to frighten the Jews. By making his initial speech before the army, Sanballat intensified the power of his ridicule as he made some important people laugh at the Jews.
First, Sanballat ridiculed the workers by calling them “feeble Jews” (4:2). The word feeble means “withered, miserable.” The people were like cut flowers that were fading away. They had no human resources that people could see, but the enemy could not see their great spiritual resources. The people of the world don’t understand that God delights in using feeble instruments to get His work accomplished (1 Cor. 1:18-31). The world glories in its wealth and power, but God’s people glory in their poverty and weakness. When we are weak, then we are strong (2 Cor. 12:1-10).
Then Sanballat ridiculed the work itself by asking three taunting questions. “Will they fortify themselves?” must have evoked gales of laughter from the Samaritan army. How could a remnant of feeble Jews hope to build a wall strong enough to protect the city from the army? “Will they sacrifice?” implies, “It will take more than prayer and worship to rebuild the city!” This question was blasphemy against Jehovah God, for Sanballat was denying that God would help His people. “Will they finish in a day?” suggests that the Jews didn’t know how difficult the task was and would soon call it quits.
In his final question, Sanballat ridiculed the materials they were using. The stones were taken out of the rubbish heaps and probably were so old and damaged that they would never last when set into the wall. While it is true that limestone is softened by fire, it is also true that the walls were “broken down,” while the gates were “consumed with fire” (Neh. 2:13). In spite of what Sanballat said, there was still plenty of good material for the builders to use.
Tobiah the Ammonite was one of the visiting dignitaries at the Samaritan army inspection; and when it was his turn to make a speech, he ridiculed the finished product (4:3). You wouldn’t need an army to knock down the wall; a solitary fox could do it! Of course, much that Sanballat and Tobiah said was true from a human point of view; for the Jewish remnant was weak and poor, and the work was too great for them. But they had great faith in a great God, and that’s what made the difference.
How did Nehemiah respond to this ridicule? He prayed and asked God to fight the enemy for him. This is the third time you find Nehemiah praying (1:4-11; 2:4), and it will not be the last time. Nehemiah didn’t allow himself to get detoured from his work by taking time to reply to their words. The Lord had heard the sneering taunts of Sanballat and Tobiah, and He would deal with them in His own way and His own time.
Nehemiah’s prayer resembles the “imprecatory psalms,” such as Psalms 69; 79; and 139:19-22. We must remember that Nehemiah was praying as a servant of God concerned for the glory of God. He was not requesting personal vengeance but official vindication for God’s people. The enemy had blasphemously provoked God before the builders, and this was a terrible sin. The opposition of Sanballat and Tobiah against the Jews was in reality opposition against God.
The things people say may hurt us, but they can never harm us, unless we let them get into our system and poison us. If we spend time pondering the enemy’s words, we will give Satan a foothold from which he can launch another attack closer to home. The best thing to do is to pray and commit the whole thing to the Lord; and then get back to your work! Anything that keeps you from doing what God has called you to do will only help the enemy.
2. INTIMIDATING PLOTS (NEH. 4:7-9)
A common enemy and a common cause brought four different groups together to stop the work on the walls of Jerusalem. The city was now completely surrounded by enemies! To the north were Sanballat and the Samaritans; to the east, Tobiah and the Ammonites; to the south, Geshem and the Arabs; and to the west, the Ashdodites. Ashdod was perhaps the most important city in Philistia at that time, and the Philistines did not want to see a strong community in Jerusalem.
God’s people sometimes have difficulty working together, but the people of the world have no problem uniting in opposition to the work of the Lord (Ps. 2:1-2; Acts 4:23-30; Luke 23:12). As the enemy saw the work progressing, they became angry and decided to plan a secret attack against Jerusalem. Satan hates the Jews and has used one nation after another to try to destroy them (see Ps. 85 and Rev. 12). God chose the Jews to be His vehicle for giving the world the knowledge of the true God, the Scriptures, and the Savior (Rom. 9:1-5). “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), and Satan wanted to prevent the Savior from coming into the world. If he could destroy the nation, he would frustrate God’s plan.
Nehemiah suspected that his enemies would launch an attack, so he posted a guard and encouraged the people to pray. The workers held both tools and weapons (Neh. 4:17) and were prepared to fight when the signal was given. “Watch and pray” combines faith and works and is a good example for us to follow in our work and our warfare (see Mark 13:33; 14:38; Eph. 6:18; Col. 4:2-4).
The Christian’s battle is not against flesh and blood, but against Satan and his demonic forces that use flesh and blood to oppose the Lord’s work. If we hope to win the war and finish the work, we must use the spiritual equipment God has provided (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 10:1-6). If we focus on the visible enemy alone and forget the invisible enemy, we are sure to start trusting our own resources; and this will lead to defeat.
3. DISCOURAGEMENT (NEH. 4:10)
Pressures from without often create problems from within. It isn’t easy to carry on your work when you are surrounded by danger and daily face the demands of a task that seems impossible. If the Jews became discouraged, they would defeat themselves; and Sanballat and his allies would never have to wage war.
Discouragement is a key weapon in Satan’s arsenal. It was discouragement that kept Israel from entering the Promised Land at Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 13). “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we” (v. 31). The ten unbelieving spies “discouraged the heart of the children of Israel” (32:9); and as a result, the nation wandered in the wilderness forty years until the new generation was ready to conquer the land.
“We are not able!” is the rallying cry of all who take their eyes off the Lord and start looking at themselves and their problems. These discouraged Jewish workers were actually agreeing with the enemy who said they were feeble! (Neh. 2:19; 4:1-3) Sanballat had openly declared that the work would stop, and it almost did.
Why did this discouragement arise from the royal tribe of Judah? (See Gen. 49:8-12.) They had David’s blood in their veins, and you would think they would be men and women of great faith and courage. The answer is found in Nehemiah 6:17-19: Some people in the tribe of Judah were secretly cooperating with the enemy. The ties of marriage were stronger than the bonds of commitment to the Lord. According to 13:15-22, some of the leaders of Judah were not wholly devoted to the Lord, but were more interested in making money. The combination of marriage and money divided their loyalties, and they became the cause of discouragement.
In over forty years of ministry, I have learned that, in the Lord’s work, discouragers are often doubters and compromisers. There is usually something wrong in their spiritual walk. They frequently lack faith in God’s Word, for one thing; and they are primarily interested in their own plans and pursuits. A double-minded person is unbelieving and unstable (James 1:5-8) and hinders the work of the Lord.
Nehemiah didn’t pay much attention to these complainers but went right on with the work. That’s the best thing to do. If you take time away from your work to listen to everybody who wants your attention, you will never get anything done. Nehemiah got his encouragement from prayer and the promises of God, and the occasional complaints of some of the people didn’t upset him.
4. FEAR (NEH. 4:11-23)
The Jews who lived in the outlying villages (3:2, 5, 7, 13) kept bringing a report to the city that the enemy was planning another surprise attack. Whether these Jews were merely spreading rumors or helping to promote a conspiracy, we don’t know; but they told the story repeatedly. (“Ten times” is a Hebrew phrase meaning “many times.” See Gen. 31:41 and Num. 14:22.) Nehemiah didn’t respond immediately and probably was praying for God’s guidance. He himself was not afraid of the enemy; but when he saw that his people were starting to become afraid, he began to act.
In his First Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to a nation in the grip of an economic depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” He may have borrowed the thought from Henry David Thoreau, American naturalist, who wrote in his journal on September 7, 1851, “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear.” Why? Because fear paralyzes you, and fear is contagious and paralyzes others. Fear and faith cannot live together in the same heart. “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matt. 8:26) Frightened people discourage others and help bring defeat (Deut. 20:8).
Nehemiah’s first step was to post guards at the most conspicuous and vulnerable places on the wall. The enemy could then see that the Jews were prepared to fight. He armed entire families, knowing that they would stand together and encourage one another. The Jews not only repaired the walls near their own houses (Neh. 3:28-30), but they stood with their families to protect their homes and their city.
After looking the situation over, Nehemiah then encouraged the people not to be afraid but to look to the Lord for help. If we fear the Lord, we need not fear the enemy. Nehemiah’s heart was captivated by the “great and terrible” God of Israel (4:14; see 1:5), and he knew that God was strong enough to meet the challenge. He also reminded the people that they were fighting for their nation, their city, and their families. If the nation was destroyed, what would become of God’s great promises to Israel and His plan of redemption?
When we face a situation that creates fear in our hearts, we must remind ourselves of the greatness of God. If we walk by sight and view God through the problems, we will fail, as did the Jews at Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 13:26-33). But if we look at the problem through the greatness of God, we will have confidence and succeed. That was the approach David took when he faced Goliath (1 Sam. 17:45-47).
When the enemy learned that Jerusalem was armed and ready, they backed off (Neh. 4:15). God had frustrated their plot. “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:10-11, NKJV). It is good to remind ourselves that the will of God comes from the heart of God and that we need not be afraid.
Nehemiah knew that he couldn’t interrupt the work every time he heard a new rumor, so he set up a defense plan that solved the problem: Half of the men worked on the wall while the other half stood guard. He saw to it that the people carrying materials also carried weapons and that the workers on the walls carried swords. In this way, the work would not be interrupted, and the workers would be ready in case of an alarm. The man with the trumpet stayed close to Nehemiah so the alarm could be given immediately. The people were prepared to fight (Neh. 4:14), but they realized that it was God who fought with them and He alone could give the victory.
When Charles Spurgeon started his church magazine in 1865, he borrowed the title from Nehemiah and called the publication The Sword and Trowel. He said it was “a record of combat with sin and labor for the Lord.” It is not enough to build the wall; we must also be on guard lest the enemy take it from us. Building and battling are both a normal part of the Christian life if we are faithful disciples (Luke 14:28-33).
Again, Nehemiah spoke words of encouragement to the people (Neh. 4:19-20). He reminded them that they were involved in a great work. After all, they were serving a great God and rebuilding the walls of a great city. He also reminded them that they were not working alone, even though they couldn’t see all of their fellow workers on the wall. God was with all of them and would come to their defense.
No matter what the workers were doing, or where they labored on the wall, they all kept an ear open for the sound of the trumpet. What an example for us to follow as we await the return of the Lord! “For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God” (1 Thes. 4:16).
Nehemiah also instituted a “second shift” and required the workers from the other towns to stay in Jerusalem at night and help guard the city. It is often while we sleep that the enemy does his most insidious work (Matt. 13:25), and we must be on guard.
Nehemiah not only organized the workers and guards and encouraged them to trust the Lord, but he also set the right kind of example before them (Neh. 4:23). He was a leader who served and a servant who led. He stayed on the job and was alert at all times. He inspected the city’s defenses every night and made sure that the guards were on duty.
The late Dr. Alan Redpath explained why the Jews succeeded in getting their work done and keeping the enemy at bay: The people had a mind to work (v. 6), a heart to pray (v. 9), an eye to watch (v. 9), and an ear to hear (v. 20); and this gave them the victory (Victorious Christian Service, Revell, 1958; pp. 76—79).
They also had a godly leader with the faith to stand.
“Therefore . . . be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58, NKJV).
Historian Will Durant observed, “Rome remained great as long as she had enemies who forced her to unity, vision and heroism. When she had overcome all her enemies, she flourished for a moment and then began to die” (cited in “Bits & Pieces,” 9/87). Opposition kept Rome strong.
If you know Christ and try to accomplish anything for Him, you will experience opposition, especially if you are in leadership. Respond as Nehemiah did, with prayer, keeping on with the work, vigilance against the enemy, and keeping your focus on the great and awesome God whom we serve.
—- Steven J. Cole, “Lesson 4: Responding to Opposition (Nehemiah 4:1–23),” in Nehemiah, Steven J. Cole Commentary Series (Dallas: Galaxie Software, 2017), Ne 4:1–23.
You are famished. You haven’t eaten for several days, but you have been invited to a banquet. You arrive and are seated with the other guests as huge platters of delicious smelling food are served. But then you discover that you have a rather serious problem: your arms will not bend at the elbow! You can’t get the food from your plate to your mouth! Then you learn that everyone else at the banquet has the same problem! No one can taste this feast unless he decides to go for it face first, like a pig.
But then one guy gets an idea. He reaches down with his fork and gets a mouthful of food. With his stiff arm, he swings it over into his neighbor’s mouth. His neighbor reciprocates and soon everyone is feeding one another and enjoying the banquet.
That’s a rough picture of how God’s people should function. God made us as individuals and we should not deny it. But at the same time, He has made us as interdependent individuals. We are many members, but one body in Christ. He wants us to learn to work together. God Himself is a Trinity. He is one God consisting of three persons, each of which is fully God. The three persons are in perfect unity of being and harmony in working together. God wants His people to reflect His image by working together in unity and harmony.
But that’s easier said than done. How do we do it? Nehemiah 3 provides us with an illustrative answer. It’s an account of the division of labor in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s leadership. At first glance (and perhaps at second and third glance), it is not an easy passage to preach. One well-known Bible teacher allegorizes the gates in the chapter, assigning a spiritual meaning to each one. The Sheep Gate refers to Christ, the Good Shepherd, where the Christian life must begin. The Fish Gate refers to Christ’s calling us to be fishers of men. The Old Gate means that we should reject all the modern, newfangled ideas and get back to the old paths. Etc.!
Another usually profitable author launches off the verses that mention men working by their houses to deal with the importance of the Christian family. A third mentions the chapter in one sentence and moves on to chapter four. Even C. H. Spurgeon takes the reference to the Broad Wall (3:8) to springboard into a sermon on the need for the church to be separate from the world. While I agree with his point, I fail to see that as the meaning of this text.
Why did God include Nehemiah 3 in Scripture? What does He want us to learn from it? I believe that it’s here to show us the importance of working together to accomplish God’s purpose.
To accomplish God’s purpose, we need a common vision, dedicated leaders, and willing workers who do their part.
These three elements are either explicit or implicit in our text: the common vision to rebuild the wall; Nehemiah as the leader who had instilled that vision; and, all the people who got involved.
1. To accomplish God’s purpose, we need a common vision for the task.
You can’t work together if everyone has a different notion of what you’re trying to accomplish. If one man had thought that the purpose was to construct a decorative fence, but the next guy envisioned a fortress, chaos would have reigned! If they had gotten very far, it would have looked ridiculous. They needed to agree on a common vision so they could work together harmoniously.
Their task was specific and measurable: to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem to provide a defense against their enemies. I envy them in that the project could be completed fairly quickly and everyone could say, “We did it!”
But the church’s task is not so easily attained. Our task is to see the Great Commission fulfilled by proclaiming the gospel to every people group on earth. But more than just evangelism, that task requires raising up churches in every people group that teach their people to obey all that Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20). And the supreme goal of God’s purpose through His church is that He would be glorified, that His name would be hallowed on earth as it is in heaven.
As we saw in chapter 1, that will happen as His people find their sufficiency and joy in Jesus Christ. As John Piper says, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” And so our goal is to spread a passion for God’s glory among the nations by proclaiming the gospel and by helping all His saints to savor Jesus Christ as their greatest joy and treasure. That’s our vision.
Everything we do for the Lord should have that vision in mind, even though it’s not as immediately obvious how every task contributes to the vision. For example, if you get an opportunity to talk to someone about Jesus Christ and he responds to the gospel, that is obviously related to the vision!
But what about cleaning up the kitchen after a church social? Helping with that task probably won’t directly result in many souls being added to the kingdom. But even so, it is a vital task that contributes to the overall cause. If no one chose to do it, it could seriously hinder the well-being of the church! Or, someone could do it with a grumbling spirit, complaining about how insensitive others are who don’t get involved. Or, you can do it with joy in your heart because God has saved you and made you a part of His church. He gets the glory and your life radiates the joy of knowing Jesus Christ.
Again, our overall vision is to spread a passion for God’s glory among the nations by proclaiming the gospel and by helping all of His saints to savor Jesus Christ as their greatest joy and treasure.
2. To accomplish God’s purpose, we need dedicated leaders who can help everyone work toward the common vision.
God accomplishes His purpose through people, but people need leaders to motivate and organize them for the cause. The people listed in Nehemiah 3 had been living there for years. But the wall didn’t get built until God raised up Nehemiah to lead the charge. It’s interesting that Nehemiah is never mentioned in chapter 3 (3:16 refers to a different man), but his labor is behind the whole chapter.
He did at least seven things that good leaders do:
(1) A leader must not mind if the credit goes to others.
Nehemiah didn’t want a huge sign over the main gate or a bronze plaque reading: THE NEHEMIAH MEMORIAL WALL. Rather, Nehemiah was committed to the task. He wanted the wall to be built so that God’s name would be exalted in Jerusalem and His people would no longer be a reproach. Nehemiah knew that God would recognize his efforts. He was laboring to hear “well done” from the Lord (13:31).
(2) A leader must motivate people.
The Jews had been back in the land for 90 years, but the wall hadn’t been built. But then Nehemiah came along and got everyone excited about the idea. They went to work and put up the wall in record time, in spite of opposition.
Motivation is a key to productivity. You’ve experienced this. You’ve had a project that didn’t get done for a long time. You procrastinated because you just were not motivated to do it. Then something inside you changed. Maybe it was a deadline: Clean the house before the relatives arrived for a visit. Maybe you saw the value of getting it done. You thought, “I’m tired of looking at a weed-overgrown back yard. I’m going to landscape it.” You got motivated and finished the project rather quickly.
The difficult thing about motivating a group of people is that what motivates some turns off others. Even Nehemiah couldn’t get the nobles of Tekoa to join the project (3:5). One wise way that Nehemiah motivated the people was to assign many of them to work on the portion of the wall that they had particular interest in. The priests worked on the Sheep Gate (3:1), where the people would bring sacrifices to the temple. Others repaired the wall in front of their own homes (3:10, 23, 28–30). They had a personal incentive to do a good job!
(3) A leader must plan and organize.
It is obvious from the smooth operation outlined in chapter 3 that Nehemiah had done some extensive planning and organizing. He had figured out in advance how to go about this huge task. He broke the project down into manageable units. He assigned the available workers to the various units and worked to coordinate them so that everything fit together. As we saw last week, planning and prayer are not opposed to one another, as long as we don’t rely on our plans.
And there is nothing wrong with organization, as long as we are flexible enough to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals involved. Sometimes people emphasize that the body of Christ is a living organism, not an organization. While that is true and must not be forgotten, we also should remember that every living organism is highly organized. There is nothing wrong and everything right with organization as long as it furthers the efficient functioning of the organism.
(4) A leader must delegate.
Nehemiah couldn’t possibly have done all this work by himself. He had to entrust it to the workers and give them the authority to get the job done. Sometimes, to be honest, it is easier to do the job myself rather than to delegate it. But as the job grows in size, the necessity of delegation grows.
Some pastors/ministers keep their hand on every aspect of the ministry, and they often burn out. I sometimes baffle people because I don’t have a clue about what is going on in some aspects of the ministry here. I don’t see that as my job. God has given gifts to His people and they are competent to carry on His work. I’m available as a resource if there is a problem. But I do not need to have my hand on everything. I couldn’t do that and get done what God has given me to do. If God has called you to lead, always ask yourself, “Can someone else do this as effectively or more effectively than I can?” By delegating, you involve more workers and you get more done.
(5) A leader must oversee.
Delegating does not mean dumping or dictating! To dump something on someone and walk away from it is not effective leadership. To dictate every detail is not to delegate with proper freedom. While Nehemiah delegated the work, you can be sure that he went around inspecting the progress, talking to his leaders, helping them keep things moving toward the goal. In 3:20, he notes that Baruch zealously repaired a section of the wall. Apparently, Nehemiah knew not only who was doing what, but also how they were doing it. Baruch did an exceptional job.
The elders are to give oversight to the flock. That involves the balance between giving guidance and counsel as needed, but also giving the freedom to workers to carry out their ministries in accordance with their own gifts and ideas, in line with Scripture and the overall vision.
(6) A leader must give proper recognition.
Apparently Nehemiah wrote down in detail who was doing what on this project (I can’t imagine him remembering all these names without writing them down!). Some are mentioned as completing more than one section of the wall (3:4 & 21; 5 & 27). But the important thing was not that Nehemiah recognized every worker, but that God recognized them by including their names here. I’ll be honest that I’m always a little nervous to give recognition by name for fear that I’ll forget someone who will get his feelings hurt. But in spite of that, it is proper to give recognition for a job well done.
(7) A leader must not get distracted by those who are not cooperative.
Nehemiah 3:5 mentions in passing the nobles of Tekoa who refused to join the project, perhaps out of petty pride. To the nobles’ shame, the people of Tekoa built two sections of the wall, and some nobles from other towns rolled up their sleeves and went to work (3:9, 12). But Nehemiah didn’t expend any energy on the nobles of Tekoa. Rather, he worked with the many willing workers. Those who didn’t get involved were the losers in the long run.
To accomplish God’s purpose, we need a common vision and dedicated leaders. Finally,
3. To accomplish God’s purpose, we need willing workers who do their part.
The people heard Nehemiah’s vision and they responded, “Let’s arise and build” (2:18). Working together they accomplished what no one could have accomplished individually.
Four things:
(1) The workers were willing to cooperate and coordinate with one another for the overall cause.
While some worked in front of their own homes (as already noted), many others came from outlying cities to help (3:2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17). After the project was through, they returned home without any daily personal benefit. Perhaps they could dwell more securely in their villages with a strong capital in Jerusalem. They would have enjoyed knowing that the temple was secure behind the wall, so that they could go there for the annual feasts. But beyond any personal benefits, they were willing to work for the overall cause, that the name of the Lord and His people would no longer be a reproach among the nations.
Also, they coordinated the project so that all the parts fit together. Each person knew what his task was and did it, but he did it in harmony and conjunction with others. It would not have worked if one guy built his section but didn’t interlock it with the section of the guy next to him. If you’ve ever played with your kids’ interlocking building blocks, you know that each section of a wall must be locked into the next section, or it will fall over. The guys building the gates had to coordinate with the guys building the walls around the gates. In the church, it is not enough to have a bunch of independent ministries alongside each other. We all should work together in supporting the overall cause of Christ.
(2) The workers were willing to complement each other for the overall cause.
Everyone couldn’t do the same job. Some worked on the walls. Others worked on the gates. Hanging a large gate is not an easy task! Some were strong enough to carry heavy stones or bricks. Others had to do lighter work. But each worker was important to the cause. As Paul tells us (1 Cor. 12:12–30), the body is not one member, but many. The foot dare not think that it is not a vital part of the body because it is not a hand. And the hand would be foolish to despise the foot. Each part has a specific and important function to fulfill. Each part depends on the other parts in order for the whole body to function properly.
(3) Some workers were willing to work outside of their areas of strength.
The priests (including the high priest) got involved building the Sheep Gate and a portion of the wall (3:1). They didn’t learn how to do that in seminary! Maybe they had to get some pointers on how to build and hang a gate from some of the men who were experienced in that sort of thing. Some of the city officials rolled up their sleeves and joined their people in the work (3:9, 12). They didn’t view manual labor as beneath their dignity. Some of the workers were goldsmiths and perfume makers by trade (3:8). They weren’t used to this kind of rugged labor. They probably had aches in muscles they never knew that they had before this, but they joined in the work. One man made repairs with his daughters (3:12)! Apparently they did more than made lunch and lemonade!
Sometimes people will say, “I’m not going to work on a cleanup crew because that’s not my spiritual gift.” Your spiritual gift should help you know where to concentrate your efforts, but there are many jobs where we’re all called to pitch in, whether it’s our gift or not. The point of Nehemiah 3 is that everyone got involved. The New Testament is clear that if you’re a Christian, you are in the ministry (service) and you will give an account of your ministry to the Master someday (Matt. 25:14–30). The danger is that the “one-talent” Christian will think that his part is insignificant and he won’t use it for the Master. But the Master expects every servant to use what He has entrusted to him.
(4) Some workers were willing to do the less glamorous or desirable jobs.
Malchijah (3:14) repaired the Refuse (or Dung) Gate. It was at the south of the city, and opened to the Kidron Valley where the people brought all their trash to burn. If he is the same Malchijah mentioned in 3:31, he was a goldsmith by trade, and he also helped out with repairs on another part of the wall. There were probably a lot more volunteers to repair the Fountain Gate than there were for the Refuse Gate! But Malchijah realized that the job needed to get done, and he was willing to do it for the cause.
Conclusion
Years ago I heard a story that I’ve never forgotten because it challenged my cultural mindset with what I believe is a more biblical point-of-view. I’ve shared it with you before, but I tell it again because it illustrates our text so well. Some Western missionaries in a remote area of the Philippine Islands set up a croquet game in their front yard. Several of their Agta Negrito neighbors became interested, and so the missionary explained the rules, gave each one a mallet and ball, and got them going.
As the game progressed, opportunity came for one of the players to take advantage of another by knocking that person’s ball out of the court. The missionary explained the procedure, but his advice puzzled his Negrito friend. “Why would I want to knock his ball out of the court?” he asked. “So you will win!” the missionary explained. The short native, clad only in a loincloth, shook his head in bewilderment. In that hunting and gathering society, people survive not by competing, but by sharing equally in every activity.
The game continued, but no one followed the missionary’s advice. When a player successfully got through all the wickets, the game was not over for him. He went back and gave aid and advice to his fellow players. As the final player moved toward the last wicket, the game was still very much a team effort. Finally, when the last wicket was played, the whole group shouted happily, “We won! We won!”
That’s how the church should function. We should work together cooperatively, not competitively. When one member scores a point, it’s a point for the whole team.
Studying this chapter reminded me of several things at our church. One was the two work days we had to demolish the old facility so that we could remodel. It was a real joy to see all the men working together for a common goal, and we got a lot done. It also brought to mind what happened again just this week, as the ladies came together to orchestrate the annual Craft Sale for missions. Their efforts combine to raise thousands of dollars to further the cause of Christ around the globe. I could also mention AWANA or Sunday School, but I’m likely to leave a worthy ministry out! We all should see these things and shout, “We won!”
But some of you attend services here, but you aren’t serving in any part of the cause. I’m so glad that you come, and I hope that you’re learning and growing. Maybe you’re just taking a much-needed rest, and that’s okay. But if you know Christ, you’re a vital part of the body. At some point, the Lord wants you to get involved in the cause. Here’s how 1 Peter 4:10–11 puts it:
“As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Nehemiah faced a great challenge and had great faith in a great God, but he would have accomplished very little had there not been great dedication on the part of the people who helped him rebuild the wall. With the kind of humility that befits a godly leader, Nehemiah gave all the credit to the people when he wrote, “So built we the wall … for the people had a mind to work” (Neh. 4:6).
British humorist Jerome K. Jerome said, “I like work, it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours.” When it comes to the work of the Lord, there is no place for spectators or self-appointed advisors and critics; but there is always room for workers. As you study this chapter, you will discover principles that apply to all human labor, especially the work of building the church.
The purpose of the work
Nehemiah was concerned about only one thing, the glory of God. “Let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach” (2:17; and see 1:3; 4:4; 5:9). The Gentiles delighted in mocking their Jewish neighbors by pointing out the dilapidated condition of Jerusalem. After all, the Jews claimed that their capital city was “beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth” (Ps. 48:2). They said that God loved “the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob” (87:2). If God loved Jerusalem so much, why were the walls in ruin and the gates burned? Why was the “holy city” a reproach? Why didn’t the Jews do something?
For the most part, the world today ignores the church. If it does pay any attention to the church, it is usually to condemn or mock. “If you are the people of God,” unbelievers ask, “why are there so many scandals in the church? If God is so powerful, why is the church so weak?” Whether Christians like it or not, we are living in a day of reproach when “the glory has departed” (1 Sam. 4:21).
The purpose of all ministry is the glory of God and not the aggrandizement of religious leaders or organizations (1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 4:5). The words of Jesus in His high priestly prayer ought to be the motivating force in all Christian ministry: “I have glorified Thee on the earth; I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do” (John 17:4). God has a special task for each of His children (Eph. 2:10); and in the humble, faithful doing of that task, we glorify His name.
Of course, the rebuilding of the walls and the setting of the gates also meant protection and security for the people. Jerusalem was surrounded by enemies, and it seemed foolish for the residents to improve their property when nothing was safe from invasion and plunder. Over the years, the citizens had become accustomed to their plight. Like too many believers in the church today, they were content to live with the status quo. Then Nehemiah arrived on the scene and challenged them to rebuild the city to the glory of God.
The pattern of the work
Nehemiah was a leader who planned his work and worked his plan, and the way he did it is an example for us to follow. Thirty-eight individual workers are named in this chapter, and forty-two different groups are identified. There were also many workers whom Nehemiah did not name whose labors were important; and each worker—named and anonymous—was assigned a place and a task.
“A great many people have got a false idea about the church,” said evangelist D.L. Moody. “They have got an idea that the church is a place to rest in … to get into a nicely cushioned pew, and contribute to the charities, listen to the minister, and do their share to keep the church out of bankruptcy, is all they want. The idea of work for them—actual work in the church—never enters their minds.”
In 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, Paul compared individual Christians to members of the human body: Each member is important, and each has a special function to perform. I recall the relief that came to my own heart when I realized that God didn’t expect me to do everything in the church, but rather to use the gifts He gave me in the tasks that He assigned. When I started doing that, I discovered I was helping others discover and develop their own gifts; and all of us accomplished more for the Lord.
The people finished this difficult task because they obeyed the same leader, kept their eyes on the same goal, and worked together for the glory of God. Neither the enemy outside the city nor the difficulties inside the city distracted them from their God-given task. Like Paul, they said, “This one thing I do” (Phil. 3:13).
The word built is used six times in Nehemiah 3 and means “rebuilt.” George Morrison reminds us “that for this restoration no new material was needed. In the debris of the ruined masonry lay all the material required … and it seems to me that is always so when the walls of Zion are rebuilt” (MorningSermons, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931, p. 249). It is not by inventing clever new things that we take away the church’s reproach, but by going back to the old truths that made the church great in ages past. They lie like stones in the dust, waiting for some burdened Nehemiah to recover them and use them.
The word repair is used thirty-five times; it means “to make strong and firm.” Nehemiah wasn’t interested in a “quick fix,” a whitewashed wall that would soon crumble (Ezek. 13:1-16; 22:28). They were building to the glory of God, and therefore they did their best.
The gates of Jerusalem had been destroyed by fire (Neh. 1:3; Jer. 17:27; Lam. 1:4), so Nehemiah requisitioned timber from the king’s forest and had new gates constructed (Neh. 2:8) and put into place (6:1; 7:1). The gates were important to the safety of the people and the control of who went in and out of the city (7:3; 13:15-22). If the Lord loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2), then His people ought to love them too.
Locksandbars are mentioned five times (Neh. 3:3, 6, 13-15). Locks refer to the sockets into which the bars were fitted, thus making it difficult for anyone outside to open the gates. It isn’t enough that we simply do the work of God; we must also make sure that what we do is protected from the enemy. “Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully” (2 John 8, niv).
The people in the work
The more I’ve read this chapter, the more I’ve found it a very helpful description of life in a community. It’s a great picture of what life in the church ought to be. As you get acquainted with the various people mentioned in Nehemiah 3, you will find yourself saying, “This is just like the church today!” Circumstances change but human nature remains pretty much the same.
What we find in this chapter are more than thirty households mentioned by their family names, and a number of places that people came from. Some lived in the city of Jerusalem, but some were from Jericho (verse 2), and some from Tekoa (verse 5). The regions of Gibeon and Meronoth are both mentioned (verse 7). Folks came from different places and joined together to be part of this work.
God uses all kinds of people.
The chapter mentions rulers and priests (vv. 1, 12-19), men and women (v. 12), professional craftsmen (vv. 8, 32), and even people from outside the city (vv. 2, 5, 7). There was a place for everyone, and a job for everyone to do.
Leaders must set the example (Neh. 3:1-2).
(Nehemiah 3) “Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests went to work and rebuilt the Sheep Gate. They dedicated it and set its doors in place, building as far as the Tower of the Hundred, which they dedicated, and as far as the Tower of Hananel. {2} The men of Jericho built the adjoining section, and Zaccur son of Imri built next to them.
If anybody in the city should have been busy in the work, it was the priests, for the glory of the Lord was involved in the project. That the high priest used his consecrated hands to do manual labor shows that he considered the work on the wall to be a ministry to the Lord. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31, nkjv). Eliashib enlisted the other priests to work at the sheep gate in the northeast corner of the city. Since the sacrifices came into the city that way, the priests would be especially interested in that part of the project.
Sad to say, Eliashib did not remain true to his calling; for later he allied with the enemy and created serious problems for Nehemiah (Neh. 13:4-9). Some people who enthusiastically begin their work may drop out or turn against it for one reason or another. Eliashib’s grandson married a daughter of Sanballat (v. 28), and this alliance no doubt influenced the high priest.
Some people will not work (Neh. 3:5).
{5} The next section was repaired by the men of Tekoa, but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work under their supervisors.
Tekoa was a town about eleven miles from Jerusalem, and some of their people traveled to Jerusalem to assist in the work. What a contrast between these people and their nobles! The Tekoites built in two places on the wall (vv. 5 and 27), while their nobles refused to bend the neck and work in even one place. Were these “aristocrats” so important in their own eyes that they could not perform manual labor? Yet Paul was a tentmaker (Acts 18:3), and Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
The Tekoites were not the only “outsiders” to go to Jerusalem to work on the wall; for men also came from Jericho (Neh. 3:2), Gibeon, and Mizpah (v. 7). Their loyalty to their nation and their Lord was greater than their local interests. They were certainly safer back in their own communities, but they risked their lives to do the work of the Lord (Acts 15:25-26).
Some people do more work than others (Neh. 3:11, 19, 21, 24, 27, 30).
{11} Malkijah son of Harim and Hasshub son of Pahath-Moab repaired another section and the Tower of the Ovens.
{19} Next to him, Ezer son of Jeshua, ruler of Mizpah, repaired another section, from a point facing the ascent to the armory as far as the angle.
{21} Next to him, Meremoth son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz, repaired another section, from the entrance of Eliashib’s house to the end of it.
{24} Next to him, Binnui son of Henadad repaired another section, from Azariah’s house to the angle and the corner,
{27} Next to them the men of Tekoa repaired another section, from the great projecting tower to the wall of Ophel.
{30} Next to him, Hananiah son of Shelemiah, and Hanun, the sixth son of Zalaph, repaired another section. Next to them, Meshullam son of Berekiah made repairs opposite his living quarters.
Most workers are glad to lay down their tools when their job is finished, but these people asked for additional assignments. It isn’t enough for us to say that we have done as much as others; we must do as muchaswecan as long as the Lord enables us. Jesus asked, “What do you do more than others? (Matt. 5:47, nkjv)
Some do their work at home (Neh. 3:10, 23, 28-30).
{10} Adjoining this, Jedaiah son of Harumaph made repairs opposite his house, and Hattush son of Hashabneiah made repairs next to him.
{23} Beyond them, Benjamin and Hasshub made repairs in front of their house; and next to them, Azariah son of Maaseiah, the son of Ananiah, made repairs beside his house.
{28} Above the Horse Gate, the priests made repairs, each in front of his own house. {29} Next to them, Zadok son of Immer made repairs opposite his house. Next to him, Shemaiah son of Shecaniah, the guard at the East Gate, made repairs.
At least six different workers, plus an unknown number of priests, repaired the portions of the wall that were nearest to their own houses. If all of us would follow this example, our neighborhoods and cities would be in much better shape! Of course, there is a spiritual lesson here: Christian service begins at home. A Chinese proverb says, “Better to be kind at home than to burn incense in a far place”; and Paul wrote, “Let them learn first to shew piety at home” (1 Tim. 5:4).
Some people work harder than others (Neh. 3:20).
{20} Next to him, Baruch son of Zabbai zealously repaired another section, from the angle to the entrance of the house of Eliashib the high priest.
Baruch is the only worker of whom it is said that the work was done “earnestly” (“zealously,” niv). The Hebrew word means “to burn or glow” and suggests that Baruch burned a lot of energy! “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Ecc. 9:10, niv). Paul admonished the slaves to work hard for their masters because they were really working for Christ (Eph. 6:5-8). Lazy workers not only rob themselves and the Lord, but they also rob their fellow workers. “He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster” (Prov. 18:9).
The places of the work
Nehemiah began his list of the “work stations” with the Sheep Gate in the northeast corner of the city (Neh. 3:1). Then he moved counterclockwise around the walls to the Gate Hammiphkad (“the Muster Gate”), which was adjacent to the Sheep Gate and just above the East Gate (v. 29). In his record, he names ten gates and several towers and other landmarks. He describes the work on the north wall first (vv. 1-7), then the western wall (vv. 8-13), then the southern point of the city (v. 14), and finally the eastern wall (vv. 15-32).
His primary purpose was to document for posterity and the official records the names and accomplishments of the people who worked on the wall. Without straining the text, however, we can glean from this chapter some spiritual illustrations to encourage us in our own personal lives and ministries.
The Sheep Gate (Neh. 3:1, 32).
(Nehemiah 3:1) “Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests went to work and rebuilt the Sheep Gate. They dedicated it and set its doors in place, building as far as the Tower of the Hundred, which they dedicated, and as far as the Tower of Hananel.”
(Nehemiah 3:32) “and between the room above the corner and the Sheep Gate the goldsmiths and merchants made repairs.”
This was the gate through which the animals were brought into the city, including the temple sacrifices. The gate was near the temple area, so it was logical that the priests make this their special project. This is the only gate of which it is recorded that it was “sanctified,” that is, dedicated to God in a special way.
This gate reminds us of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who died for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 5:2). Nehemiah could have begun his record with any of the gates, but he chose to start and end the report with the Sheep Gate. Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending” (Rev. 1:8). Apart from Him and His sacrifice, we would have nothing eternal and satisfying. Nothing is said about the gate’s “locks and bars,” for the way is never closed to the lost sinner who wants to come to the Savior.
The Fish Gate (Neh. 3:3).
(Nehemiah 3:3) “The Fish Gate was rebuilt by the sons of Hassenaah. They laid its beams and put its doors and bolts and bars in place.”
This was located to the west of the Sheep Gate, and between the two stood the Tower of Hammeah (“the hundred”) and the Tower of Hananeel (v. 1). These two towers were a part of the city’s defense system and were close to the citadel, where the soldiers guarded the temple and protected the northern approach to the city which was especially vulnerable. Merchants used this gate when they brought fish from the Mediterranean Sea, and there may have been a fish market near the gate. In any event, it was a key entrance to the city.
The Old Gate (Neh. 3:6)
(Nehemiah 3:6) “The Jeshanah Gate was repaired by Joiada son of Paseah and Meshullam son of Besodeiah. They laid its beams and put its doors and bolts and bars in place.”
This is probably the Corner Gate (2 Kings 14:13; Jer. 31:38), located at the northwest corner of the city. Some students identify this with the “Mishneh Gate”; the Hebrew word means “second quarter” or “new quarter” (Zeph. 1:10, niv). In Nehemiah’s day, the northwest section of the city was “the mishneh” or “new quarter”; and this gate led into it. What a paradox: the old gate leads into the new quarter! But it is from the old that we derive the new; and if we abandon the old, there can be nothing new (see Jer. 6:16 and Matt. 13:52).
The Valley Gate (Neh. 3:13)
(Nehemiah 3:13) “The Valley Gate was repaired by Hanun and the residents of Zanoah. They rebuilt it and put its doors and bolts and bars in place. They also repaired five hundred yards of the wall as far as the Dung Gate.”
This is where Nehemiah began his nocturnal investigation of the ruins of the city (2:13). It was located at the southwest corner of the city walls, about 500 yards from the Dung Gate; and both opened into the Valley of Hinnom. The workers here not only restored the gate, but they also repaired the section of the wall between the two gates. It is likely that this long section of the wall—over 1,700 feet—was not as severely damaged as the other sections.
Every Christian needs a “valley gate,” for God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5-6). It is only as we yield to Christ and serve others that we can truly enter into the fullness of the life He has for us (Phil. 2:1-11).
The Dung Gate (Neh. 3:14)
(Nehemiah 3:14) “The Dung Gate was repaired by Malkijah son of Recab, ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem. He rebuilt it and put its doors and bolts and bars in place.”
This was located at the southernmost tip of the city, near the Pool of Siloam. It was a main exit to the Valley of Hinnom, where the city disposed of its garbage. The word gehenna means “valley of Hinnom” and identified this area that Jesus used as a picture of hell, “where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44). King Manasseh had sacrificed children to idols in that valley (2 Chron. 33:6), and King Josiah had desecrated the place by turning it into a rubbish heap (2 Kings 23:10).
The sanitary disposal of waste materials is essential to the health of a city. This gate did not have a beautiful name, but it did perform an important service! It reminds us that, like the city, each of us individually must get rid of whatever defiles us, or it may destroy us (2 Cor. 7:1; 1 John 1:9).
The Fountain Gate (Neh. 3:15)
(Nehemiah 3:15) “The Fountain Gate was repaired by Shallun son of Col-Hozeh, ruler of the district of Mizpah. He rebuilt it, roofing it over and putting its doors and bolts and bars in place. He also repaired the wall of the Pool of Siloam, by the King’s Garden, as far as the steps going down from the City of David.”
This was on the east wall, just north of the Dung Gate, in a very strategic location near the Pool of Siloam, the old City of David and the water tunnel built by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:20). The Gihon Spring that fed the water system was an important source of water in the city.
In the Bible, water for drinking is a picture of the Holy Spirit of God (John 7:37-39), while water for washing is a picture of the Word of God (Eph. 5:26; John 15:3). Spiritually speaking, we have moved from the Valley Gate (humility) to the Dung Gate (cleansing) to the Fountain Gate (fullness of the Spirit).
The Water Gate (Neh. 3:26)
(Nehemiah 3:26) “and the temple servants living on the hill of Ophel made repairs up to a point opposite the Water Gate toward the east and the projecting tower.”
Led from the old City of David to the Gihon Spring, located adjacent to the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem was one of the few great cities of antiquity that was not built near a great river, and the city depended on reservoirs and springs for its water. The text does not say that this gate was repaired, but only that the workers repaired the walls adjacent to it. The “Nethinims” (“those who are given”) were probably temple servants, descendants of the Gibeonites who were made drawers of water (Josh. 9:23). They would naturally want to live near the most important source of water for the city.
If the Fountain Gate reminds us of the Spirit of God, the Water Gate reminds us of the Word of God. In fact, it was at the Water Gate that Ezra and the priests conducted a great “Bible conference” and explained the Scriptures to the people (8:1ff). That this gate is not said to have been repaired, as were the others, suggests that the Word of God stands forever and will not fail (Ps. 119:89; Matt. 24:35). The Bible does not need to be repaired or improved.
“The Ophel” (Neh. 3:26-27)
(Nehemiah 3:26-27) “and the temple servants living on the hill of Ophel made repairs up to a point opposite the Water Gate toward the east and the projecting tower. {27} Next to them, the men of Tekoa repaired another section, from the great projecting tower to the wall of Ophel.”
It was a hill south of the temple area, between the Horse Gate and the Water Gate. It was especially fortified and had a tower. The temple servants lived in that area because it was close to the water supply.
The Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28)
(Nehemiah 3:28) “Above the Horse Gate, the priests made repairs, each in front of his own house.”
It stood north of the Water Gate, adjacent to the temple area. It was here that wicked Athaliah was executed (2 Chron. 23:15). God warned His people not to trust in horses and chariots (Deut. 17:14-20), but Solomon imported them from Egypt (1 Kings 10:26-29), and they became an important part of the nation’s defense system (Isa. 2:7). The Horse Gate reminds us that there is warfare in the Christian life (2 Tim. 2:1-4) and that we must always be ready to do battle (Eph. 6:10-18). It is significant that the priests repaired this gate as well as the Sheep Gate. Both were near the temple area.
The East Gate (Neh. 3:29)
(Nehemiah 3:29) “Next to them, Zadok son of Immer made repairs opposite his house. Next to him, Shemaiah son of Shecaniah, the guard at the East Gate, made repairs.”
It led directly to the temple and is probably what we know today as the Golden Gate. Tradition says that Jesus entered the temple on Palm Sunday through this gate. In the sixteenth century, the gate was sealed up with blocks of stone by the Turkish sultan, Sulayman the Magnificent. Jewish and Christian tradition both connect the Golden Gate with the coming of the Messiah to Jerusalem, and Muslims associate it with the future judgment.
Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord depart from the temple at the East Gate (Ezek. 10:16-22; 11:22-25), and the Lord will return to the city the same way (43:1-5). So, we have every reason to associate this gate with the coming of the Lord and to remind ourselves to “abide in Him; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming” (1 John 2:28).
The Gate Hammiphkad (Neh. 3:31)
(Nehemiah 3:31) “Next to him, Malkijah, one of the goldsmiths, made repairs as far as the house of the temple servants and the merchants, opposite the Inspection Gate, and as far as the room above the corner;”
It was located at the northeast corner of the city. The Hebrew word has a military connotation and refers to the mustering of the troops for numbering and inspection. The niv and nasb both translate it “the Inspection Gate.” This is where the army was reviewed and registered. The north side of Jerusalem was the most vulnerable to attack, so this was a logical place to locate the army. When our Lord returns, He will gather His people together and review their works in preparation for giving out rewards for faithful service (1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:9-10; Rom. 14:10-12).
In this report, Nehemiah does not mention the Gate of Ephraim (Neh. 8:16; 12:39) or the Gate of the Guard (12:39). The former may have been on the north wall, looking toward the area of Ephraim; and the latter may have been associated in some way with “The Inspection Gate.” Some translate it “The Prison Gate.” It may have been the “court of the guard” named in 3:25.
Nehemiah’s record ends with the Sheep Gate (v. 32), the place where he began (v. 1). Because they have rejected their Messiah, the people of Israel today have no sacrifice, no temple, and no priesthood (Hosea 3:4). Thank the Lord, here and there, individual Jews are trusting Christ; but the nation as a whole is blinded in unbelief (Rom. 11:25ff). When they see their Messiah, they will believe and be saved (Zech. 12:10-13:1).
No one person could have accomplished the work of repairing the walls and restoring the gates. It took leadership on Nehemiah’s part and cooperation on the part of the people. Each had a place to fill and a job to do. So it is with the church today: We must work together if we are to finish the work to the glory of God.
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58, nkjv).
Steven J. Cole, “Lesson 3: We Won! (Nehemiah 3:1–32),” in Nehemiah, Steven J. Cole Commentary Series (Dallas: Galaxie Software, 2017), Ne 3:1–32.The Book of Nehemiah
Commentary by Robert Jamieson
One of the refreshing marks of young people is their idealism. Even if you know from years of experience that a young person’s ideals are not practical, his zest can inspire faith and hope in those of us who may have lost our vision somewhere in the many battles of life. Someone has said, “Ideals are like the stars. We never reach them but, like the mariners on the sea, we chart our course by them” (Carl Schurz, Reader’s Digest [5/84], p. 66).
But as you mature, you learn that the real world isn’t quite as perfect as you had once envisioned. We’ve all heard of Murphy’s Law: “If anything can go wrong, it will.” There are many variations of it:
“The other line moves faster. This applies to all lines: bank, supermarket, tollbooth, customs. If you change lines, then the line that you were originally in moves faster!”
“All papers that you save will never be needed until such time as they are disposed of, when they become essential.”
“When you’re working on your car, any tool dropped will roll under the car to the car’s geographic center.”
Or, as one wag summed up, “Murphy was an optimist!”
All of these statements are exaggerations, of course. But they make us chuckle because they resemble somewhat the real world we live in. Things don’t always go smoothly, even when we have prayed about it beforehand. Following Jesus does not guarantee a trouble-free life. In fact, it often gets us into deeper trouble. But, part of maturity is learning to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
That applies in the realm of Christian service. It’s easy for a young person or a new Christian to become very idealistic about serving the Lord. Whether it is an opportunity to teach Sunday School, to serve on a church committee, to work with the youth group, to go on a short-term mission trip, or to go into some kind of full-time Christian work, it’s easy to get stars in your eyes. “It will be wonderful to serve the Lord! I’ll be working with other Christians who also love the Lord. It will be so different from my job in the world working with all those worldly pagans!” And so we jump in, only to find out that the water isn’t just warm; sometimes it is scalding hot! Not anticipating the realities, many grow disillusioned and quit. One of the main reasons missionaries return from the mission field is conflicts with their fellow workers.
Nehemiah 2 has some helpful insights on the realities of serving God. Even though Nehemiah was doing God’s will, it wasn’t all smooth and rosy. Studying his life will help us, on the one hand, not to be overly idealistic and thus vulnerable to disillusionment; and, on the other hand, to be realistic while not giving in to cynicism and dropping out. Nehemiah faced real problems, but he moved through them to great accomplishments.
Our chapter shows us three things: To serve God realistically, we must learn to wait on Him, to work with people, and to wrestle wisely with problems.
Waiting on God, working with people of all sorts, and wrestling wisely with a steady stream of problems are essentials of finishing the course that God has set before us.
1. To serve God realistically, we must learn to wait on Him.
The chapter begins with a chronological note that, compared with 1:1, shows us that four months elapsed between the time that Nehemiah heard the report of Jerusalem until his opportunity to speak to the king. During that time, Nehemiah was so burdened by the news that he wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed for God to do something about the grievous situation in Jerusalem.
Compared to other men in the Bible whom God used, four months was a pretty short wait.
Abraham waited over 25 years for God to give him Isaac.
Joseph spent time as Potiphar’s slave and then two years in prison before God elevated him to second beneath Pharaoh.
Israel was enslaved for 400+ years in Egypt.
Moses spent 40 years in the desert before God used him to bring Israel out of Egypt. Then the nation spent 40 more years in the wilderness.
David spent his twenties running from King Saul.
The apostle Paul spent three years alone in Arabia and more years in obscurity in Tarsus before the Lord began to use him in a more significant manner. Those whom God uses must learn to wait on Him.
Waiting is hard! It seems like life is too short, anyway. Time’s a wasting! And then, God puts you on hold. What do you do while you wait?
This was a crisis moment. He was before the king, and he took an enormous risk. But he did so with the deep wisdom of someone who had been with God and had thought long and hard about what to say and how to say it. The great ministry of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and its preparation for the coming of the Messiah finally, was advanced because Nehemiah had been prepared by God for the moment when the Spirit would give him words to say.
He had the faith to wait…and he prayed (Neh. 2:1-3)
(Nehemiah 2:1-3) “In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before; {2} so the king asked me, “Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart.” I was very much afraid, {3} but I said to the king, “May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?”
Since the Jewish month of Nisan would be our mid-March to mid-April, it would indicate that four months have passed since Nehemiah received the bad news about the plight of Jerusalem. As every believer should, Nehemiah patiently waited on the Lord for directions; because it is “through faith and patience” that we inherit the promises (Heb. 6:12). “He that believeth shall not make haste” (Isa. 28:16).
True faith in God brings a calmness to the heart that keeps us from rushing about and trying to do in our own strength what only God can do. We must know not only how to weepandpray, but also how to waitandpray.
Throughout the book, we find Nehemiah praying no less than 11 times in 13 chapters (1:5-11; 2:4; 4:4, 9; 5:19; 6:9, 14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31).
By way of review, we observed in chapter 1 that Nehemiah had wrestled with God for four months over the tension between his high station in the Persian empire and his brotherly connection to the exiles who had returned to Judah. He wondered what God would require of him, so he spent a long time weeping, mourning, praying, confessing, wrestling with God. At the end of that process, in verse 11, Nehemiah said to the Lord, “Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of this man.” This day he would go into the presence of the king differently than he had before. His prayers and his walk with the Lord had made clear to him that he was going to have to put himself on the line. He was going to ask for permission himself to go where the need was.
Unknown to him, Nehemiah was about to join the glorious ranks of the “champions of faith”; and in the centuries to follow, his name would be included with heroes like Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Esther, Deborah, and David. One person can make a big difference in this world, if that person knows God and really trusts in Him. Because faith makes a difference, we can make a difference in our world to the glory of God.
“Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace,” said Martin Luther. “It is so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times.” The promise is that “all things are possible to him who believes” (Mark 9:23, nkjv). Jesus said living faith can move mountains! (Matt. 17:20)
Many of these are just sentence prayers, like the one in our text (2:4), but they reflect the fact that in any and every situation, Nehemiah looked to God in prayer. He is an example of a man who prayed without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17). The Greek word translated “without ceasing” does not mean without any break, which would be impossible. It means that prayer should be something we return to again and again until we obtain an answer.
Three statements in Scripture have a calming effect on me whenever I get nervous and want to rush ahead of the Lord: “Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord” (Ex. 14:13); “Sit still … until you know how the matter will turn out” (Ruth 3:18, nkjv); “Be still, and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10). When you wait on the Lord in prayer, you are not wasting your time; you are investing it. God is preparing both you and your circumstances so that His purposes will be accomplished. However, when the right time arrives for us to act by faith, we dare not delay.
Eastern monarchs were sheltered from anything that might bring them unhappiness (Est. 4:1-2); but on that particular day, Nehemiah could not hide his sorrow. “By sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken” (Prov. 15:13), and Psalm 102 certainly describes Nehemiah’s feelings about Jerusalem. Perhaps each morning, Nehemiah prayed, “Lord, if today is the day I speak to the king about our plans, then open the way for me.”
The king noticed that his cupbearer was carrying a burden. Had Artaxerxes been in a bad mood, he might have banished Nehemiah or even ordered him killed; but instead, the king inquired why his servant was so sad. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21:1). World leaders are only God’s servants, whether they know it or not. “O Lord God of our fathers, are You not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in Your hand, and no one can withstand You” (2 Chron. 20:6, niv).
There are wonderful subtleties in this, and I want to point out some of them. This frightening moment when Nehemiah stood before the king began when he decided to be honest. For four months he had been weeping in the presence of God, mourning the sorrows of his people. God had seen his tears, but the king had never seen them. Like most individuals who have absolute authority in the world in which they live, the king never permitted anyone to bring their difficulties into his presence. If the king were to have a moment’s indigestion, everybody in the room ought to feel the indigestion. If the king were to have concern about new gray along his temples, then everybody should be concerned about it. If there was a chill in the air, then all should rush to meet the needs of the king. He shouldn’t be uncomfortable for even a moment. But no one was allowed to walk into the king’s presence with their own heartache, their own need, their own weakness. Why should the king care about anyone else? He was the sun in the sky, the only personality that mattered. So it was a breach of convention to go to the king with a puffy face and red eyes, obviously having been crying.
This is true, I think, for powerful people everywhere. Prima donna athletes and performers are used to having everyone jump and cater to their whims, and are astonished when anybody else has concerns or problems or needs. It’s true of self-impressed, powerful corporate executives, political leaders, and every other sort of person who imagines himself or herself to be at the center of everything. Probably the literary figure who best makes the point is the Queen of Hearts in the story Alice in Wonderland. When she didn’t get what she wanted, her cry was, “Off with their heads!”
King Artaxerxes, an absolute despot, had things exactly his way. But on this day Nehemiah walked into the king’s presence, and he hadn’t used a cool cloth to reduce the puffiness of his cheeks and hadn’t wiped away his tears. He went in with his broken heart obvious on his face. He was very frightened. Nehemiah was a sheep in the presence of a wolf, a dove that couldn’t defend itself. All he had were the words of God, if the Spirit would give him words to say. He had nothing else to protect him.
The king notices that Nehemiah is sad in his presence, which was a breach of protocol. Kings liked to be surrounded by happy people. This could have caused Nehemiah to lose his job or even his life. Some think that he deliberately staged this sadness, in light of his prayer in 1:11. Or, I think that his request in 1:11 was a daily prayer for four months, but on this particular day, Nehemiah inadvertently let his sorrow over Jerusalem show on his face, leading to this encounter. The gravity of his situation is seen in that he was “very much afraid” (2:2). It was the opportunity that he had been waiting for, but when it actually came, he was terrified. How did he handle it?
3 I said to the king, “Let the king live forever! Why should not my face be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ graves, lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?” 4 Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?” So I prayed to the God of heaven. 5 And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ graves, that I may rebuild it.” 6 And the king said to me (the queen sitting beside him), “How long will you be gone, and when will you return?” So it pleased the king to send me when I had given him a time. This quick sentence prayer rested on four months of extended praying. It shows that Nehemiah depended on the Lord in every situation. As 2:8 shows, Nehemiah didn’t attribute the king’s favorable response to good luck. Rather, “the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me.”
One reason God makes us wait on Him is to teach us to depend on Him in prayer. If He immediately granted everything we ask for, we’d grab the goodies and forget God. But when we wait on God in prayer, we learn to seek God Himself and to depend upon Him in ways that we never would learn any other way. And, when the answer finally comes, we realize that it is because of one reason: “the good hand of our God was upon us.” Thus we give Him all the glory He deserves.
B. While waiting, Nehemiah developed patience.
Waiting reveals our impatience and teaches us to be patient. Patience is a fruit of the Spirit that God wants to develop in all of His children, but especially in leaders. An impatient leader can cause a lot of problems if he reacts impetuously in a crisis.
Derek Kidner (Ezra & Nehemiah Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [IVP], p. 78) observes that Nehemiah’s waiting on God in prayer in chapter 1 was remarkable in light of his natural bent for swift, decisive action, and “it shows where his priorities lay.” He didn’t hear about the scene in Jerusalem and immediately rush into the king’s presence asking for a year’s leave of absence because God had called him to Jerusalem. For four months he concealed this heavy burden from the king and presented it to God in private, until God finally opened the opportunity to talk with the king. Only then did Nehemiah move ahead.
His patience is also seen when he arrived in Jerusalem. He could have ridden into town with his retinue of soldiers and announced, “I have come to help you rebuild the wall! We’ll have a meeting in one hour to disclose my plan!” But he waited three days before doing anything, and even then he moved cautiously, keeping his purpose concealed until the right moment.
Many leaders are bursting with great ideas for reforming the church, move too quickly and meet resistance. The metaphor of sowing and reaping should teach us that we need patiently to sow God’s Word into lives, and that change takes time. Nehemiah prayed and he was patient as he waited on God to work.
C. While waiting, Nehemiah planned.
7 And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, let letters be given me to the governors of the province Beyond the River, that they may let me pass through until I come to Judah, 8 and a letter to Asaph, the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress of the temple, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall occupy.” And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me.
The chapter shows that Nehemiah had been doing a lot of advance thinking and planning. When the king asked how long he would be gone, Nehemiah didn’t vaguely say, “Well, that’s up to the Lord!” He gave him a definite time. While we later learn (5:14) that he was in Jerusalem for 12 years, probably he finished the wall, then returned to report to Artaxerxes, and then came back to serve as governor.
Not only did Nehemiah give the king a definite time, he also laid out some definite requests that show that he had been doing some careful planning (2:7-8). He requested letters from the king to the governors of the provinces to allow him to pass through their territory. He asked for a letter to the keeper of the king’s forest, to get timber for making repairs to the walls and gates, and for a house for himself. When he got to Jerusalem, he assessed the situation firsthand and obviously did some thoughtful planning as to how to approach the project.
Prayer and planning are not at odds with each other. Many Christians think that it’s unspiritual to plan. They will say, “Let’s just trust the Lord,” which being interpreted means, “I don’t have a clue about how we’re going to move from here to there!” It’s true that we can go to the other extreme of being so elaborate in our plans that we trust the plans, not the Lord. But Nehemiah shows the biblical balance of waiting on God in prayer, but also thinking and planning about what he would do when God opened the door.
Thus while you wait on the Lord, you pray, you develop patience, and you plan.
2. To serve God realistically, we must learn to work with people.
It’s easy to be idealistic about serving God until you meet the actual people that you have to work with! Suddenly you realize the truth that Linus shouted, “I love mankind; it’s people I can’t stand!” I often joke that the ministry would be great if it weren’t for the people! Sometimes I envy those guys with a radio ministry. They just talk into a microphone in a quiet studio and never have to relate to all the cranky people in their radio audience!
But the ministry involves people. Many leaders bomb out of ministry because they’ve never learned how to work with people. They’re abrasive or insensitive and when people react against them, they develop a persecution complex. But Nehemiah was sensitive to people and he responded with tact. But when needed, he confronted with uncompromising strength. There are three types of people he dealt with in our chapter:
First, Nehemiah knew how to work with an unbelieving king. This was an especially difficult situation in that the king was Nehemiah’s boss who literally had the power to make Nehemiah’s head roll! That’s why Nehemiah was very much afraid when the king asked him why he was sad in his presence. You didn’t rain on this man’s parade without sometimes severe consequences! Also, the king had previously stopped the work on the wall in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:21). The decrees of the kings of the Medes and Persians were proverbial about being unchangeable. Now Nehemiah wants to convince this Persian king to reverse his policy about Jerusalem! It was no easy task!
How did Nehemiah do it? As we’ve seen, he moved the king through private prayer. It is amazing how God can soften the hearts of the most difficult people if we will spend time asking Him to do so! Talk to God before you go to talk to a difficult person.
Also, Nehemiah had gained the king’s respect through his competence on the job. The king’s inquiry about how soon Nehemiah could return shows that he wanted him to come back! Nehemiah’s trustworthy character and his loyalty to the king had been obvious over the time that he had worked for the king. Every Christian should be a witness on the job first by godly character and competence, and only second by verbal witness.
Also, Nehemiah was tactful and sensitive in how he spoke to the king. He never mentions Jerusalem by name—that would have been a sore spot with the king! He refers to it in personal terms, as the place of his fathers’ tombs, a point that this pagan king could relate to. If you have to speak to an unbelieving boss about a difficult subject, think about how he will receive it and speak in a manner that he is certain to identify with.
Also, Nehemiah knew how to relate to demoralized believers. The Jews in Jerusalem believed in God and His covenant promises, at least intellectually. But they had lost hope. They had tried to rebuild the wall, but had been shot down. They were likely to resist this outsider coming in and telling them to try something that they knew could not be done. Some may not even have seen the need. Others would warn that if you tried to rebuild the wall, you’re only going to stir up the opposition of the surrounding governors.
9 Then I came to the governors of the province Beyond the River and gave them the king’s letters. Now the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen. 10 But when Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite servant heard this, it displeased them greatly that someone had come to seek the welfare of the people of Israel. 11 So I went to Jerusalem and was there three days. 12 Then I arose in the night, I and a few men with me. And I told no one what my God had put into my heart to do for Jerusalem. There was no animal with me but the one on which I rode. 13 I went out by night by the Valley Gate to the Dragon Spring and to the Dung Gate, and I inspected the walls of Jerusalem that were broken down and its gates that had been destroyed by fire. 14 Then I went on to the Fountain Gate and to the King’s Pool, but there was no room for the animal that was under me to pass. 15 Then I went up in the night by the valley and inspected the wall, and I turned back and entered by the Valley Gate, and so returned. 16 And the officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, and I had not yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials, and the rest who were to do the work.
Nehemiah’s careful, secretive preparations once he got to Jerusalem show that he anticipated some resistance to his proposal. So he spent three days doing his homework and thinking about how to present this in a way that would overcome the objections. After that he called the Jewish leaders and people together and began by stating the problem very plainly (2:17): 17 Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer suffer derision.” 18 And I told them of the hand of my God that had been upon me for good, and also of the words that the king had spoken to me. And they said, “Let us rise up and build.” So they strengthened their hands for the good work.
He also identified himself with them in the problem. It wasn’t their problem; it was our problem. He didn’t blame them for things but neither did he gloss over the fact that we have a problem.
Then, he appealed to a need that they all felt, “that we may no longer be a reproach.” They all knew that a defenseless Jerusalem was a joke to the surrounding neighbors. They sensed that Nehemiah had come to seek their welfare (2:10). Finally, he told them how God already had been favorable as seen in the king’s favorable response. Perhaps he showed them the letters from the king and the requisition for the timber. Their instant response was that of hope: “Let us arise and build!”
There’s an art to working with people and learning to motivate them to accomplish great things for God. Some leaders err by becoming people-pleasing politicians. They want everyone’s approval, so they tell people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. But they erode trust because people quickly realize that they are manipulative and do not speak the truth.
Other leaders err by telling it like it is, but without sensitivity and tact. They don’t take the time to listen to people and understand where they’re at and how they feel about things. When people react against their leadership, they label them as disobedient and move on. Nehemiah should teach us to combine wisdom and tact with plain truth.
19 But when Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite servant and Geshem the Arab heard of it, they jeered at us and despised us and said, “What is this thing that you are doing? Are you rebelling against the king?” 20 Then I replied to them, “The God of heaven will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise and build, but you have no portion or right or claim in Jerusalem.”
The third group of people that Nehemiah had to work with was the enemies. Sanballat was the governor of Samaria to the north. Tobiah, whose name is Jewish (“Yah is good”), ruled the Ammonites to the east. Geshem was the leader of the Arabs to the south. They all opposed a fortified Jerusalem because it threatened their political positions. They didn’t care at all about the plight of the Jews, much less about the name of the Lord being exalted in Jerusalem. So they were very displeased (2:10) and joined together to ridicule the project and accuse the people of rebellion against the king (2:19).
Nehemiah demonstrates both wisdom and courage in dealing with these enemies. He was wise in that he sensed, “This is no time for diplomacy. I need to meet these enemies head-on.” Any meeting to hear their concerns or to work out a compromise would have been a mistake. So Nehemiah courageously confronted them and drew the line between them and God’s people so that they could not join the project with the goal of sabotaging it. He didn’t use the clout of the king’s letters, but rather spiritual clout: “The God of heaven will make us prosper (2:20).
Any time God’s people say, “Let’s arise and build,” the enemy will say, “Let’s arise and stop them.” J. Sidlow Baxter writes, “There is no winning without working and warring. There is no opportunity without opposition” (Explore the Book, Six Volumes in One [Zondervan], 2:230). A godly leader must have the discernment to know when to work with people and when to confront and oppose them. Early in my ministry, a veteran pastor, Ray Ortlund, told me, “You’ve got to decide where you want to give blood.” It is good counsel!
Thus to serve God realistically, you must learn to wait on Him and to work with people. Finally,
3. To serve God realistically, we must learn to wrestle with problems.
Any time you try to do anything significant for God, there will be problems. The enemy will see to that! We’ve already seen how Nehemiah dealt with the problem of the enemies. But also, he had to face the problem of the destroyed wall.
He began with a realistic firsthand appraisal of the situation. In one place, the rubble was so bad that he couldn’t ride his horse or mule through the debris. As the leader, he needed to know exactly how bad things were so that he could develop a realistic, practical plan of action. Nehemiah didn’t gloss over the problems. He describes it to the people as “a bad situation.”
Again, we need balance here. Some leaders are so sanguine that they refuse to acknowledge how bad things are. People in the trenches feel that he’s out of touch and it undermines his leadership. Other leaders are so engulfed by the problems that they lose hope. Nehemiah realistically saw the problem and, as we will see, broke it down into manageable units in order to get the job done.
Conclusion
So to serve God realistically, we must wait on Him for His timing, work with different sorts of people, and wrestle with problems. Just because it is the Lord’s work and He is on our side does not mean that everything will work out smoothly and effortlessly. We need both the idealism of what God wants to do and the realism that there will be major hurdles to overcome. But it’s worth all the hassles. My parents used to have the little plaque on the wall by the door that said, “Only one life, ’twill soon be past; only what’s done for Christ will last.” I hope that all of you will know the joy of serving Him in spite of the inevitable difficulties.
================
He had the faith to ask (Neh. 2:4-8)
{4} The king said to me, “What is it you want?” Then I prayed to the God of heaven, {5} and I answered the king, “If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it.” {6} Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, “How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?” It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time. {7} I also said to him, “If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah? {8} And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?” And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests.”
The king asked him, “What is it you want?” What an opportunity for Nehemiah! All the power and wealth of the kingdom were wrapped up in that question!
Verse 4 offers a good pattern to follow: “I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king.” Nehemiah must have prayed, “O Lord, I’m jumping off the cliff. Help me!” He didn’t say it out loud, but he spoke with an attitude of prayer underlying what he would say to the king. And as Jesus promised, the Spirit gave him words to say.
I’m impressed by another example Nehemiah set for us. Through the four months in which he wrestled with God, he did not conclude that someone else should go. God did not permit him to. It’s often the case that someone else should go, that you or I should stay put, that the place we occupy is the right place, that our energies are being focused on the right things, and that the jobs and families and neighborhoods and responsibilities we have are the right ones. But sometimes it’s time for you or me to go. The conclusion of four months of wrestling with and seeking God was, “Send me.” The Lord wanted this man, with all his gifts, capabilities, and background, to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall. And Nehemiah didn’t back away from the responsibility.
Furthermore, he had thought through what would be needed. He needed letters of permission for the governors of Trans-Euphrates. That is, he needed the authority to quell the political storms that would surely arise. He needed a letter to the keeper of the forest to get timber. He was organized, decisive. And once again we see the Spirit give him words, but the Spirit was also drawing on strengths that had been there all along. This was a man who knew how to lead, and God had put him in the right place. At great danger to himself he exercised his gifts at the right moment.
I’m convinced the Lord will do the same thing for us. All through our lives he will make us the right person for the critical time to say what will serve his purposes. So here are some important questions to ask: What is God doing right now? What struggle are you going through now? What study of the Bible should you be making now? Are you learning how God thinks? What lesson can you learn from the things that are going wrong? Should you be learning something about when to speak and when not to speak? Have you been in settings of counsel and personal renewal in which you figured out why you struggle the way you do, what it is about your interior life that makes you prone to certain problems; and have you let God minister to you there? Could you explain to someone else someday what you’ve been through, how your suffering has led to something good, so you can comfort them with the comfort that you’ve received? If so, you’ll know what to say because the Lord has taught you lessons throughout a lifetime. The Spirit is doing the teaching and giving you the words for the moment. He gets the credit.
As he was accustomed to do, Nehemiah sent one of his quick “telegraph prayers” to the Lord (4:4; 5:9; 6:9, 14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31). But keep in mind that these “emergency prayers” were backed up by four months of fasting and praying. If Nehemiah had not been diligent to pray in private, his “telegraph prayers” might have gone unanswered. “He had only an instant for that prayer,” wrote George Morrison. “Silence would have been misinterpreted. Had he closed his eyes and lingered in devotion, the king immediately would have suspected treason.”2-1
It encourages my prayer life when I contrast the earthly throne of Artaxerxes with the throne of grace in heaven. Nehemiah had to wait for an invitation before he could share his burden with the king, but we can come to the throne of grace at any time with any need (Heb. 4:14-16). Artaxerxes saw the sorrow on Nehemiah’s face, but our Lord sees our hearts and not only knows our sorrows but also feels them with us. People approaching the throne of Persia had to be very careful what they said, lest they anger the king; but God’s people can tell Him whatever burdens them. (The word boldly in Heb. 4:16 means “freedom of speech.”) You are never sure of the mood of a human leader, but you can always be sure of God’s loving welcome.
Jewish rabbis often answer a question with a question, and Nehemiah followed that example. Instead of telling the king what he planned to do, he aroused the king’s sympathy and interest with a question regarding how he should feel about the sad plight of his ancestral city and the graves of his forefathers. It was good psychology, and God used Nehemiah’s reply to get the king’s sympathetic attention (Luke 21:14-15). A pagan monarch would probably not sorrow over the ruins of Jerusalem, but he would certainly show respect for the dead.
Nehemiah was a true patriot whose dreams for the future were motivated by the values of the past. He did not try to duplicate the past, for that was impossible; rather, he built on the past so that Israel would have a future. To Nehemiah, the past was a rudder to guide him and not an anchor to hold him back. When Samuel Johnson called patriotism “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” he was referring to that temporary zeal that uses “love of country” as propaganda for selfish purposes. United States Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson said that patriotism was not “a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” That certainly describes Nehemiah’s kind of patriotism.
Not only had Nehemiah prayed for this opportunity, but he had also planned for it and had his answer ready. During those four months of waiting, he had thought the matter through and knew exactly how he would approach the project. His reply to the king can be summarized in two requests: “Send me!” (Neh. 2:4-6) and “Give me!” (vv. 7-10)
Nehemiah could not leave his post without the approval of the king, nor could he work in Jerusalem without the authority of the king. Pressure from local officials had stopped the work once before (Ezra 4), and Nehemiah didn’t want history to repeat itself. He asked Artaxerxes to appoint him governor of Judah and to give him the authority he needed to rebuild the city walls. He told the king when he expected to return, but we don’t know what that date was. According to Nehemiah 5:14, Nehemiah spent twelve years as governor. He went back to Persia briefly to report to the king, but then returned to Jerusalem to correct the abuses that appeared during his absence (13:6-7).
But Nehemiah asked for even more. He needed letters of introduction that would guarantee safe travel and hospitality between Susa and Jerusalem. He also requested letters of authority that would provide the materials needed for the construction of buildings and walls. (Nehemiah had done his research well. He even knew the name of the keeper of the king’s forest!) Artaxerxes gave him what he asked, but it was the good hand of God that made the king so cooperative (see 2:18; and Ezra 7:6, 9, 28).
When Jesus sent His disciples out to minister, He first gave them the authority they needed to do the job; and He promised to meet their every need (Matt. 10:1-15). As we go forth to serve the Lord, we have behind us all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18); so we don’t have to be afraid. The important thing is that we go where He sends us and that we do the work He has called us to do.
Nehemiah is a good example of how believers should relate to unsaved officials as they seek to do the work of God. Nehemiah respected the king and sought to work within the lines of authority that existed in the empire. He didn’t say, “I have a commission from the Lord to go to Jerusalem, and I’m going whether you like it or not!” When it comes to matters of conscience, we must always obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29); but even then, we must show respect for authority (see Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2:11-25). Daniel and his friends took the same approach as did Nehemiah, and God honored them as well (Dan. 1).
The king’s response is evidence of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of nations. We expect God to be able to work through a dedicated believer like Nehemiah, but we forget that God can also work through unbelievers to accomplish His will. He used Pharaoh to display His power in Egypt (Ex. 9:16; Rom. 9:17) and Cyrus to deliver His people from Babylon (Isa. 44:28; 45:1; Ezra 1:1-2). Caesar issued the decree that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-7), and two different Roman centurions—Claudius Lysias and Julius—saved Paul’s life (Acts 21:26-40; 23:25-30; 27:1, 42-44). While it may be helpful to have believing officials like Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah, we must remember that God is not required to use only believers.
Moses and Nehemiah made similar decisions of faith and similar sacrifices (Heb. 11:24-26). As the representative of the deliverer of the Jews, would he be welcomed by the Gentile officials? Nehemiah performed no signs or wonders, nor did he deliver any prophecies; but he faithfully did his work and prepared a city for the coming Messiah (Dan. 9:24-27).
Traveling (Neh. 2:9-10).
(Nehemiah 2:9-10) “So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me. {10} When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about this, they were very much disturbed that someone had come to promote the welfare of the Israelites.”
No description is given of the trip from Susa to Jerusalem, a journey of at least two months’ time. As a testimony to the faithfulness of God, Ezra had refused military protection for his journey (Ezra 8:21-23); but since Nehemiah was a governor on official business, he had a military escort. Nehemiah had just as much faith as Ezra; but as the king’s officer, he could not travel without his retinue. For one thing, he would not oppose the will of the king; and he could not force his faith upon others.
When the official caravan arrived, it was bound to attract attention, particularly among those who hated the Jews and wanted to keep them from fortifying their city. Three special enemies are named: Sanballat, from Beth Horan, about twelve miles from Jerusalem; Tobiah, an Ammonite; and Geshem, an Arabian (Neh. 2:19), also called “Gashmu” (6:6). Sanballat was Nehemiah’s chief enemy, and the fact that he had some kind of official position in Samaria only made him that much more dangerous (4:1-3).
Being an Ammonite, Tobiah was an avowed enemy of the Jews (Deut. 23:3-4). He was related by marriage to some of Nehemiah’s co-laborers and had many friends among the Jews (Neh. 6:17-19). In fact, he was “near of kin” (“allied”) to Eliashib the priest (13:4-7). If Sanballat was in charge of the army, then Tobiah was director of the intelligence division of their operation. It was he who gathered “inside information” from his Jewish friends and passed it along to Sanballat and Geshem. Nehemiah would soon discover that his biggest problem was not the enemy on the outside but the compromisers on the inside, a problem the church still faces today.
He had the faith to challenge others (Neh. 2:11-18a)
(Nehemiah 2:11-18) “I went to Jerusalem, and after staying there three days {12} I set out during the night with a few men. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on. {13} By night I went out through the Valley Gate toward the Jackal Well and the Dung Gate, examining the walls of Jerusalem, which had been broken down, and its gates, which had been destroyed by fire. {14} Then I moved on toward the Fountain Gate and the King’s Pool, but there was not enough room for my mount to get through; {15} so I went up the valley by night, examining the wall. Finally, I turned back and reentered through the Valley Gate. {16} The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, because as yet I had said nothing to the Jews or the priests or nobles or officials or any others who would be doing the work. {17} Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” {18} I also told them about the gracious hand of my God upon me and what the king had said to me. They replied, “Let us start rebuilding.” So they began this good work.”
This scene is also visually impressive. Presumably it was a moonlit night. Nehemiah was examining the situation in detail, circling the walls on horseback in the middle of the night, looking at great mounds of broken stones and mortar and burned gates. No one living could remember Jerusalem in any other condition. The Jews didn’t have the heart to build the wall again, and most of their neighbors had strong interest in seeing them not succeed in getting the job done.
Investigating (Neh. 2:11-16).
(Nehemiah 2:11-16) “I went to Jerusalem, and after staying there three days {12} I set out during the night with a few men. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on. {13} By night I went out through the Valley Gate toward the Jackal Well and the Dung Gate, examining the walls of Jerusalem, which had been broken down, and its gates, which had been destroyed by fire. {14} Then I moved on toward the Fountain Gate and the King’s Pool, but there was not enough room for my mount to get through; {15} so I went up the valley by night, examining the wall. Finally, I turned back and reentered through the Valley Gate. {16} The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, because as yet I had said nothing to the Jews or the priests or nobles or officials or any others who would be doing the work.”
After his long difficult journey, Nehemiah took time to rest; for leaders must take care of themselves if they are going to be able to serve the Lord (Mark 6:31). He also took time to get “the lay of the land” without arousing the concern of the enemy. A good leader doesn’t rush into his work but patiently gathers the facts firsthand and then plans his strategy (Prov. 18:13). We must be “wise as serpents” because the enemy is always watching and waiting to attack.
Leaders are often awake when others are asleep, and working when others are resting. Nehemiah didn’t want the enemy to know what he was doing, so he investigated the ruins by night. By keeping his counsel to himself, Nehemiah prevented Tobiah’s friends from getting information they could pass along to Sanballat. A wise leader knows when to plan, when to speak, and when to work.
As he surveyed the situation, he moved from west to south to east, concentrating on the southern section of the city. It was just as his brother had reported: The walls were broken down and the gates were burned (Neh. 2:13; 1:3). Leaders must not live in a dream world. They must face facts honestly and accept the bad news as well as the good news. Nehemiah saw more at night than the residents saw in the daylight, for he saw the potential as well as the problems. That’s what makes a leader!
Challenging (Neh. 2:17-20).
(Nehemiah 2:17-20) “Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” {18} I also told them about the gracious hand of my God upon me and what the king had said to me. They replied, “Let us start rebuilding.” So they began this good work. {19} But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab heard about it, they mocked and ridiculed us. “What is this you are doing?” they asked. “Are you rebelling against the king?” {20} I answered them by saying, “The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, but as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it.””
Nehemiah’s appeal was positive; he focused on the glory and greatness of the Lord. He had been in the city only a few days, but he spoke of “we” and “us” and not “you” and “them.” As he did in his prayer (1:6-7), he identified with the people and their needs. The city was a reproach to the Lord (1:3; 4:4; 5:9), but the hand of the Lord was with them; and He would enable them to do the work. God had already proved His power by working in the heart of the king, and the king had promised to meet the needs. It was Nehemiah’s personal burden for Jerusalem and his experience with the Lord that convinced the Jews that the time was right to build.
It is to the credit of the Jewish nobles that they accepted the challenge immediately and said, “Let us rise up and build!” They were not so accustomed to their situation that they took it for granted and decided that nothing could be changed. Nor did they remind Nehemiah that the Jews had once tried to repair the walls and were stopped (Ezra 4). “We tried that once and it didn’t work. Why try again?”
Christian leaders today face these same two obstacles as they seek to lead God’s people into new conquests for the Lord. How often we hear, “We’re content the way things are; don’t rock the boat by trying to change things.” Or, “We tried that before and it didn’t work!”
It is worth noting that God sent the Jews a leaderfromtheoutside. Nehemiah came into the community with a new perspective on the problems and a new vision for the work. Too often in a local church, new members have a hard time “breaking into the system” because the veterans are afraid of new ideas that might lead to change. Since most of their leadership comes up through the ranks, parachurch ministries must also beware of the “closed corporation” attitude. New workers from outside the organization might open the windows and let in some fresh air.
The good hand of God was upon the leader, and the followers “strengthened their hands” for the work (Neh. 2:8, 18). It takes both the hands of leadership and the hands of partnership to accomplish the work of the Lord. Leaders can’t do the job by themselves, and workers can’t accomplish much without leadership. Vincent de Paul said, “If in order to succeed in an enterprise, I were obliged to choose between fifty deer commanded by a lion, and fifty lions commanded by a deer, I should consider myself more certain of success with the first group than with the second.”
Someone has defined leadership as “the art of getting people to do what they ought to do because they want to do it.” If that definition is true, then Nehemiah certainly was a leader! Most of the people united behind him and risked their lives to get the work done.
Nehemiah was not only able to challenge his own people, but he was also able to stand up against the enemy and deal effectively with their opposition. Just as soon as God’s people step out by faith to do His will, the enemy shows up and tries to discourage them. Sanballat and Tobiah heard about the enterprise (v. 10) and enlisted Geshem to join them in opposing the Jews. In chapters 4-7, Nehemiah will describe the different weapons the enemy used and how the Lord enabled him to defeat them.
They started off with ridicule, a device somebody has called “the weapon of those who have no other.” They laughed at the Jews and belittled both their resources and their plans. They even suggested that the Jews were rebelling against the king. That weapon had worked once before (see Ezra 4).
Whether in the area of science, exploration, invention, business, government, or Christian ministry, just about everyone who has ever accomplished anything has faced ridicule. Our Lord was ridiculed during His life and mocked while He was hanging on the cross. He was “despised and rejected of men” (Isa. 53:3). On the Day of Pentecost, some of the Jews in the crowd said that the Christians were drunk (Acts 2:13). The Greek philosophers called Paul a “babbler” (17:18, niv), and Festus told Paul he was out of his mind (26:24).
Nehemiah could have dealt with their ridicule in several ways. He might have ignored it, and sometimes that’s the wisest thing to do (Prov. 26:4). But at the beginning of an enterprise, it’s important that leaders encourage their people and let them know that God has everything in control. Had Nehemiah ignored these three men who were important in the community, he might have weakened his own position among the Jews. After all, he was the official governor, and he was doing official business.
Or, Nehemiah might have debated with the three enemy leaders and tried to convince them that their position was false. But that approach would only have given “official promotion” to the three men along with opportunity for them to say more. Why should Nehemiah give the enemy opportunity to make speeches against the God whom he served?
Of course, Nehemiah would not ask them to join the project and work with the Jews, although Sanballat and his friends would have welcomed the invitation (Neh. 6:1-4). In his reply, Nehemiah made three things clear: Rebuilding the wall was God’s work; the Jews were God’s servants; and Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem had no part in the matter. Sometimes leaders have to negotiate, but there are times when leaders must draw a line and defend it. Unfortunately, not everybody in Jerusalem agreed with their leader; for some of them cooperated with Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem and added to Nehemiah’s burdens.
The stage is now set and the drama is about to begin.
But before we join the workers on the wall, let’s ask ourselves whether we are the kind of leaders and followers God wants us to be. Like Nehemiah, do we have a burden in our hearts for the work God has called us to do? (2:12) Are we willing to sacrifice to see His will accomplished? Are we patient in gathering facts and in planning our work? Do we enlist the help of others or try to do everything ourselves? Do we motivate people on the basis of the spiritual—what God is doing—or simply on the basis of the personal? Are they following us or the Lord as He leads us?
As followers, do we listen to what our leaders say as they share their burdens? Do we cling to the past or desire to see God do something new? Do we put our hands and necks to the work? (v. 18; 3:5) Are we cooperating in any way with the enemy and thus weakening the work? Have we found the job God wants us to complete?
Anyone can go through life as a destroyer; God has called His people to be builders. What an example Nehemiah is to us! Trace his “so” statements and see how God used him: “So I prayed” (2:4); “So I came to Jerusalem” (v. 11); “So they strengthened their hands for this good work” (v. 18); “So built we the wall” (4:6); “So we labored in the work” (v. 21); “So the wall was finished” (6:15).
Were it not for the dedication and determination that came from his faith in a great God, Nehemiah would never have accepted the challenge or finished the work. He had never seen the verse, but what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:58 was what kept him going: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (nkjv).
No matter how difficult the task, or how strong the opposition, BE DETERMINED! As Dr. V. Raymond Edman used to say, “It is always too soon to quit.”
I’m convinced that Jesus meant what he said. There’s going to come a time when we, as his disciples, will face problems and opposition, when we’re called to be like doves or sheep, having nothing but God’s words as our defense and as our advance. We’re called on to hear what the Spirit has taught us over a lifetime, and at the moment we have to speak, we’ll know what to say and how to say it, what influence to bring to bear. Rather than observing the world’s power and authority and ways, we will use God’s words, and everything will change. The God of heaven will give us success.
So it’s really worthwhile learning the lessons God is teaching us, inviting God’s insight into the things that are going on in our lives right now, learning the Bible, embracing fellowship that’s real and interactive and life-changing. God will use all the means by which he is carving and changing and strengthening us in ways that we can’t predict now. And we’ll thank him for that in the end.
The Book of Nehemiah
Commentary by Robert Jamieson
Nehemiah 2
Nehemiah 2:1-20. Artaxerxes, understanding the cause of Nehemiah’s sadness, sends him with letters and a commission to build again the walls of Jerusalem.
Verse 1. it came to pass in the month Nisan—This was nearly four months after he had learned the desolate and ruinous state of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:1). The reasons for so long a delay cannot be ascertained.
I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king—Xenophon has particularly remarked about the polished and graceful manner in which the cupbearers of the Median, and consequently the Persian, monarchs performed their duty of presenting the wine to their royal master. Having washed the cup in the king’s presence and poured into their left hand a little of the wine, which they drank in his presence, they then handed the cup to him, not grasped, but lightly held with the tips of their thumb and fingers. This description has received some curious illustrations from the monuments of Assyria and Persia, on which the cupbearers are frequently represented in the act of handing wine to the king.
Verses 2-5. the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad?—It was deemed highly unbecoming to appear in the royal presence with any weeds or signs of sorrow (Esther 4:2); and hence it was no wonder that the king was struck with the dejected air of his cupbearer, while that attendant, on his part, felt his agitation increased by his deep anxiety about the issue of the conversation so abruptly begun. But the piety and intense earnestness of the man immediately restored [Nehemiah] to calm self-possession and enabled him to communicate, first, the cause of his sadness (Nehemiah 2:3), and next, the patriotic wish of his heart to be the honored instrument of reviving the ancient glory of the city of his fathers.
Verses 6-9. the queen also sitting by him—As the Persian monarchs did not admit their wives to be present at their state festivals, this must have been a private occasion. The queen referred to was probably Esther, whose presence would tend greatly to embolden Nehemiah in stating his request; and through her influence, powerfully exerted it may be supposed, also by her sympathy with the patriotic design, his petition was granted, to go as deputy governor of Judea, accompanied by a military guard, and invested with full powers to obtain materials for the building in Jerusalem, as well as to get all requisite aid in promoting his enterprise.
I set him a time—Considering the great dispatch made in raising the walls, it is probable that this leave of absence was limited at first to a year or six months, after which he returned to his duties in Shushan. The circumstance of fixing a set time for his return, as well as entrusting so important a work as the refortification of Jerusalem to his care, proves the high favor and confidence Nehemiah enjoyed at the Persian court, and the great estimation in which his services were held. At a later period he received a new commission for the better settlement of the affairs of Judea and remained governor of that province for twelve years (Nehemiah 5:14).
Verse 7. letters be given me to the governors beyond the river—The Persian empire at this time was of vast extent, reaching from the Indus to the Mediterranean. The Euphrates was considered as naturally dividing it into two parts, eastern and western (see on Ezra 5:3).
Verse 8. according to the good hand of my God upon me—The piety of Nehemiah appears in every circumstance. The conception of his patriotic design, the favorable disposition of the king, and the success of the undertaking are all ascribed to God.
Verse 10. Sanballat the Horonite—Horonaim being a town in Moab, this person, it is probable, was a Moabite.
Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite—The term used indicates him to have been a freed slave, elevated to some official dignity. These were district magistrates under the government of the satrap of Syria; and they seem to have been leaders of the Samaritan faction.
Verses 11, 12. So I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days—Deeply affected with the desolations of Jerusalem, and uncertain what course to follow, he remained three days before informing any one of the object of his mission [Nehemiah 2:17, 18]. At the end of the third day, accompanied with a few attendants, he made, under covert of night, a secret survey of the walls and gates [Nehemiah 2:13-15].
Verses 13-15. I went out by night by the gate of the valley—that is, the Jaffa gate, near the tower of Hippicus.
even before the dragon well—that is, fountain on the opposite side of the valley.
and to the dung port—the gate on the east of the city, through which there ran a common sewer to the brook Kedron and the valley of Hinnom.
Verse 14. Then—that is, after having passed through the gate of the Essenes.
I went on to the gate of the fountain—that is, Siloah, from which turning round the fount of Ophel.
to the king’s pool: but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass—that is, by the sides of this pool (Solomon’s) there being water in the pool, and too much rubbish about it to permit the passage of the beast.
Verse 15. Then went I up … by the brook—that is, Kedron.
and entered by the gate of the valley, and so returned—the gate leading to the valley of Jehoshaphat, east of the city. He went out by this gate, and having made the circuit of the city, went in by it again [Barclay, City of the Great King].
Verses 16-18. the rulers knew not—The following day, having assembled the elders, Nehemiah produced his commission and exhorted them to assist in the work. The sight of his credentials, and the animating strain of his address and example, so revived their drooping spirits that they resolved immediately to commence the building, which they did, despite the bitter taunts and scoffing ridicule of some influential men.
nelson’s new illustrated bible commentary
2:1Nisan corresponds to March-April. sad in his presence: Four months after hearing the report from his brother concerning Jerusalem, Nehemiah was still grieving over the conditions in Jerusalem.
2:2The king noticed Nehemiah’s sad expression and concluded that it was caused by sorrow of heart rather than physical illness. I became dreadfully afraid: Persian monarchs believed that just being in their presence would make any person happy. Yet, Nehemiah was about to request the emperor’s permission to go to Jerusalem, suggesting that he would rather be somewhere other than in the emperor’s presence. On top of that, it was Artaxerxes himself who had ordered the work on the wall to be stopped (Ezra 4:21–23). Nehemiah had reason to be afraid.
2:3live forever: Addressing the king with proper respect, Nehemiah related the burden of his heart. the place of my fathers’ tombs: It is possible that this phrase was designed to catch the king’s attention. In many Asian cultures, a connection with the burial places of one’s ancestors was a matter of great importance.
2:4I prayed: Even though Nehemiah had come into the presence of the king, he had never left the presence of the true King of kings.
2:5 After his silent prayer (v. 4), Nehemiah spoke boldly, asking for permission to leave the king’s palace to travel to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall. Again Nehemiah spoke of his fathers’ tombs (v. 3). Though this was not his principal concern, it must have been something he thought would be important to the king.
2:6the queen: It is possible that Nehemiah implied by this parenthetical phrase that her presence influenced the king’s decision. She may have looked on Nehemiah with a special grace. It is also possible that he had waited for a time when she would be present (v. 1). How long will your journey be … when will you return: In responding to Nehemiah’s request (v. 5), the king might have had Nehemiah executed on the spot; or he might have dismissed Nehemiah with a laugh. However, his questions implied that the request was already granted. I set him a time: The fact that Nehemiah responded quickly to the king’s request for specific details indicates that he had been planning the trip. it pleased the king to send me: The king not only sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem, he made him governor (5:14). With the possibility of unrest in Egypt and in Cyprus, the king might have decided that Jerusalem needed a wall after all (Ezra 4:21).
2:7 Nehemiah knew that he needed safe passage for his journey to Judah, so he requested letters from the king to show to the governors of the region beyond the Euphrates River.
2:8 Nehemiah’s plans were detailed. He asked the king for permission to go to Jerusalem (v. 5), for letters to ensure safe passage (v. 7), and also for provisions. Nehemiah requested a letter addressed to Asaph, the man in charge of the king’s forest, to enable him to obtain supplies of lumber for three projects: (1) the gates of the citadel, (2) the city wall, and (3) his personal house. Jerusalem had plenty of limestone for building projects. But timber, necessary for making roofs and other parts of large building projects, was scarce. The citadel was a fortress situated just northwest of the temple. It overlooked and protected the temple area. according to the good hand of my God: The king graciously granted Nehemiah all that he had requested, but Nehemiah knew that the ultimate source of his provisions was God.
2:9captains of the army and horsemen: Nehemiah had a military escort to Jerusalem. In 458 b.c. Ezra had journeyed to Jerusalem with 1,800 people carrying valuable treasures, and had refused a military escort (Ezra 8:22). Fourteen years later, Nehemiah made the same trip with a smaller company and no valuables, but the king sent an escort with him.
2:10, 11 Some have suggested that since he traveled lighter than Ezra had, Nehemiah may have taken the shorter route from Shushan to Tadmor through Damascus, thus following the Jordan Valley to Jericho. He and his party would therefore avoid the Samaritan community and arrive in Jerusalem with no opposition. If that was their intention, it did not work. Sanballat was the governor of Samaria. Horonite refers to Sanballat’s city Beth-Horon. Tobiah was probably Sanballat’s secretary and confidential advisor. Ammonite: At the time of Nehemiah, the Ammonites (Gen. 19:38) had pushed west into the land vacated by Judah. The prospect of a strong Jewish community in newly fortified Jerusalem would have seemed threatening to the Ammonite power.
2:12–15 Since Nehemiah had arrived in Jerusalem from the north, he would have seen that side of the wall as he approached the city. If he lived in the southwestern part of the city, he would have had ample time for viewing the western wall. Nehemiah seems to have been concerned with inspecting the southern and eastern walls of Jerusalem. With a few servants, he passed through the Valley Gate into the Valley of Hinnom. He then traveled along the south wall. When the piles of stone and heaps of rubble obstructed his passage, he dismounted his animal and continued on foot up the Kidron valley in order to view the eastern wall.
2:16the officials did not know: The only people who knew Nehemiah’s plans were the few men who had made the secret night ride with him (v. 12).
2:17we: Nehemiah encouraged all of the people to assist in rebuilding the city’s walls.
2:18 Nehemiah emphasized that it was not just his idea to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Rather, the idea had come to him from the Lord (vv. 8, 12). In response to Nehemiah’s challenge, the people replied, Let us rise up and build.
LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES FROM NEHEMIAH (PART 2)
Leaders Leverage Their Power (2:5)
Management has been defined as the ability to get things done through other people. However, that can happen only if the people involved are in a position to get things done. Thus leaders must use their influence to get people of means participating in their efforts.
Nehemiah followed this principle in his plan to rebuild Jerusalem. He was in a key position of influence as the cupbearer to Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1). He had the king’s ear, and he leveraged his proximity to power for the advantage of his people. He requested and was granted a leave of absence (2:5, 6), letters of reference (2:7), and a government grant for building materials (2:8).
Today, the ability to leverage power is an indispensable requirement of leadership, especially for those who work in community development and urban ministry. There are plenty of resources to help the poor, for example, but it takes wise and disciplined leaders to align themselves with the powerful on behalf of the powerless. Tasks such as grant-writing, resource development, and asset distribution require careful cultivation of relationships with those in the networks of power.
Leaders Conduct Research (2:12)
A missile without a guidance system is a dangerous thing—all power and no direction. In the same way, leaders who don’t know where they are going can wreak havoc. That’s why it pays for people in leadership positions to gather the right kind of information, so that they can make wise choices about which path to pursue.
Before he launched his plan to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah conducted careful research about the task at hand. He quietly walked around the city by night, without fanfare, surveying the extent of the problem and perhaps formulating some tentative strategies (2:11–15). Nehemiah’s low profile was especially appropriate given that he was a new member of the community. As a representative of the king, he could have come in with trumpets blaring and declared what his expectations were. Instead, he kept his thoughts to himself and avoided attracting attention until he had formulated a plan.
Leaders Build Community (2:17, 18)
In many Western countries of the twentieth century, the labor force often has been sharply divided between management and labor. One problem of this rigid distinction is that it tends to create a mentality of “us” versus “them.” History shows that most of the greatest achievements of humanity have been accomplished by teams and communities of people working together toward common ends.
Nehemiah understood the power of community as he undertook the task of rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls. After surveying the situation, he gathered the people and gave a speech in which he mobilized the community around the rebuilding project. First he raised their awareness that something should be done, then he instilled confidence in them that something could be done—by them (2:17, 18).
It is interesting to notice that Nehemiah spoke in terms of “we” and “us,” even though in his written account he used “they” and “them.” Clearly he saw himself as a participant in the dire circumstances, even though he had just arrived from the royal palace. In fact, he bridged the class division between himself and his people by sharing the discussion he had had with the king, thereby showing that the people had a friend in the emperor’s court.
2:19 In v. 10, Nehemiah here mentioned two men who were unhappy about his coming—Sanballat and Tobiah. Here the opposition grows to three. Geshem was the leader of a company of Arab troops maintained by Sanballat. In v. 10, Nehemiah’s opponents were grieved; here they laughed. They accused Nehemiah of false motives, of plotting rebellion against the king. The same charge had been directed against the Jewish people in Zerubbabel’s time (Ezra 4).
2:20 Nehemiah ignored his opponents’ accusation that he was rebelling against the king. He asserted that God was involved in what he was doing. Nehemiah’s motive was not rebellion against the king, but submission to God. you have no heritage: Nehemiah indicated that Samaritans and foreign people had no place in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:3).[1]
[1]Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. 1999. Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary . T. Nelson Publishers: Nashville
“The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.”
George Bernard Shaw put those words into the mouth of the Rev. Anthony Anderson in the second act of his play TheDevil’sDisciple. The statement certainly summarizes what Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37); and it rebukes all those who fold their arms complacently, smile benignly, and say somewhat sarcastically, “Ask me if I care!”
Nehemiah was the kind of person who cared. He cared about the traditions of the past and the needs of the present. He cared about the hopes for the future. He cared about his heritage, his ancestral city, and the glory of his God.
People who care are also sometimes people who cry about a lot of things. They cry at weddings. Parents cry when their children leave home. Sometimes they cry at the birth of their children and grandchildren. They cry at sad movies. Today we’re going to look at a man who cried about a broken wall.
But there’s much more to serving God than just talking about it. God wants to use each one of us, but He also wants to develop us into people who are more usable to Him. As we look at the life of Nehemiah, we will learn many qualities of service and leadership. The book falls into two broad sections: Rebuilding the Wall (chapters 1-7); and, Rebuilding the People (chapters 8-13).
God’s work has never been easy, and in these last days it is getting more and more difficult to serve. The enemy is hurling his ammunition at us as never before and is setting his subtle traps where we least expect them.
Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem in 444 B.C., about 13 years after Ezra had returned there. He was a great leader whom God used to pull off a phenomenal feat: he instilled a vision in God’s remnant in Jerusalem to rebuild the walls of the city. In spite of much opposition and numerous hurdles, they accomplished the task in just 52 days. The temple had been rebuilt for about 70 years, but the walls that Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed in 586 B.C. were still in ruins, leaving the city defenseless against enemy attacks. As we saw in Ezra 4:11-23, an attempt at rebuilding the walls had been made a few years before. But when some Samaritans and other pagan residents of the land had complained, Artaxerxes issued a decree to stop the project, which these enemies had done with force of arms.
In November/December, 444 B.C., Nehemiah was serving as cupbearer to this same Artaxerxes at his winter capital in Susa when he had a life-changing conversation with his brother, Hanani, and some other men who had just come from Jerusalem. Nehemiah inquired about the condition of the city and the people. They responded, “The remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire” (1:3).
Nehemiah knew most of these facts before this. The wall and gates had been destroyed over 140 years before. But this graphic firsthand description of the scene by Nehemiah’s brother, including the news of things after the ban by Artaxerxes, devastated Nehemiah. He wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed for days, entreating God to do something about these deplorable conditions. God responded by doing something—through Nehemiah! We’re beginning a series of messages studying through the book of Nehemiah in the Old Testament. It is a wonderful source for instruction about the nature of leadership and the qualities that make a good leader.
The world in which today’s young men and women take their turn at the helm will be different from the world we live in now. Some eras require strong, even authoritarian leadership, a firm and powerful voice. Other eras require leaders whose strengths are more in community-building, communication, and articulating a common vision.
We don’t know what the world will be like ten or fifteen years from now, what skill set will be required, what issues leaders will face. What we do know, though, is that at the core, effective leadership has qualities that don’t change from one time to another: wisdom, honesty, character, courage, and most important of all, godliness: a humble heart before God that will receive truth and direction and insight from him and dispense them to others.
Moses was the right man to lead the exodus and command a nation in the wilderness. Joshua was the right man to lead the conquest of the promised land. David was the right man to establish a monarchy. And in his time and place, Nehemiah was the right man to build a wall around a broken city.
We learn that …
The person God uses has a burden for His people, a vision for His purpose, and a commitment to His purpose.
First, Nehemiah saw the great need, which burdened his heart. He also saw what God wanted to accomplish. And, he committed himself to see it through in spite of the many difficulties.
1. The person God uses has a burden for His people.
When God wants to use you in some capacity, the first thing He does is to burden your heart with the situation. Perhaps, like Nehemiah, you will have known in general about the need for a long time. But then you hear about the specifics of it or you see it firsthand and you can’t put it out of your mind. When you compare the date of 1:1 with the date of 2:1, you discover that Nehemiah did not hear about this need and immediately rush in before the king with his request to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the wall. Rather, he waited on God in prayer for four months before the opportunity arose to talk with the king.
Let’s read the opening three verses of this book as an introduction to the whole:
(Nehemiah 1:1-3) “The words of Nehemiah son of Hacaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa, {2} Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other men, and I questioned them about the Jewish remnant that survived the exile, and also about Jerusalem. {3} They said to me, “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.””
He cared enough to ask (Neh. 1:1-3)
There are two pictures I want to draw for us from these three verses. One is of Nehemiah himself, and we’ll come back to that in a bit. The picture I’d like to speak of first grows out of Hanani’s words (verse 3): They said to me, “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.””
Living in a city with no walls
Hanani is a close relative (perhaps the full brother) of Nehemiah. When he comes to Susa, Nehemiah asks him about the condition of the people who have returned to Judah from exile, and he receives the grave report.
Note three things about Nehemiah’s burden
Nehemiah’s burden stemmed from feeling the people’s great need.
Other Jews in Babylon had probably heard about the conditions in Jerusalem, shaken their heads and said, “My, my! That’s too bad!” They went back to their work in Babylon thinking, “What a tragedy!” But they were not burdened by the need of God’s people in the land.
But the man that God used to do something about it not only heard about the need. He felt their need. He wept, mourned, fasted and prayed for days about what he had heard. He just couldn’t put it out of his mind. God used that burden as the basis for action.
Maybe you’re wondering, “The needs are so many and so great! I can’t possibly respond to them all. How do I discern which particular need God wants me to get involved with?
Two thoughts: First, don’t let the immensity of the needs paralyze you so that you don’t do anything. Sometimes you hear about the overwhelming needs around the world and run for cover because there is no way to respond to them all. Out of emotional survival, we throw up a barricade around our hearts that blocks all of the needs from moving us. We end up engrossed in our own pursuit of pleasure and ignore the needs of others.
Matthew 9:36-38 says, “Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.’”
So we need to pray, “Lord, give me the eyes of Jesus to see the needs of people. Give me the heart of Jesus to feel compassion for them. And raise up workers for the harvest to meet these overwhelming needs!”
Second, don’t commit yourself impetuously to something just because the need is there. The needs are simply endless. You don’t have to respond to all of the world’s needs. Nobody could do that. Rather, wait on God in prayer until He burdens your heart with a particular need that you can do something about.
Alan Redpath wrote, “Recognition of need must be followed by earnest, persistent waiting upon God until the overwhelming sense of world need becomes a specific burden in my soul for one particular piece of work which God would have me do” (Victorious Christian Service [Revell], p. 31). So we need to pray continually that God would give us a heart to feel the burden of hurting people’s needs and the willingness to get involved where we can offer some help.
Nehemiah was a layman, cupbearer to the great “Artaxerxes Longimanus,” who ruled Persia from 464 to 423 b.c. He is identified as the son of Hachaliah to distinguish him from other Jews of the same name (Neh. 3:16; Ezra 2:2). Nehemiah means “The Lord has comforted.”
A cupbearer was much more than our modern “butler” (see Gen. 40). It was a position of great responsibility and privilege. At each meal, he tested the king’s wine to make sure it wasn’t poisoned. A man who stood that close to the king in public had to be handsome, cultured, knowledgeable in court procedures, and able to converse with the king and advise him if asked (see 41:1-13). Because he had access to the king, the cupbearer was a man of great influence, which he could use for good or for evil.
That Nehemiah, a Jew, held such an important position in the palace speaks well of his character and ability (Dan. 1:1-4). For nearly a century, the Jewish remnant had been back in their own land, and Nehemiah could have joined them; but he chose to remain in the palace. It turned out that God had a work for him to do there that he could not have accomplished elsewhere. God put Nehemiah in Susa just as He had put Esther there a generation before, and just as He had put Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon. When God wants to accomplish a work, He always prepares His workers and puts them in the right places at the right time.
The Hebrew month of Chislev runs from mid-November to mid-December on our calendar; and the twentieth year of Artaxerxes was the year 444 b.c. Shushan (or Susa) was the capital city of the Persian Empire and the site of the king’s winter palace. No doubt it was just another routine day when Nehemiah met his brother Hanani (see Neh. 7:2), who had just returned from a visit to Jerusalem, but it turned out to be a turning point in Nehemiah’s life.
Like large doors, great life-changing events can swing on very small hinges. It was just another day when Moses went out to care for his sheep, but on that day he heard the Lord’s call and became a prophet (Ex. 3). It was an ordinary day when David was called home from shepherding his flock; but on that day, he was anointed king (1 Sam. 16). It was an ordinary day when Peter, Andrew, James, and John were mending their nets after a night of failure; but that was the day Jesus called them to become fishers of men (Luke 5:1-11). You never know what God has in store, even in a commonplace conversation with a friend or relative; so keep your heart open to God’s providential leading. I attended a birthday party one evening when I was nineteen years old, and a statement made to me there by a friend helped direct my life into the plans God had for me; and I will be forever grateful.
Why would Nehemiah inquire about a struggling remnant of people who lived hundreds of miles away? After all, he was the king’s cupbearer and he was successfully secure in his own life. Certainly it wasn’t his fault that his ancestors had sinned against the Lord and brought judgment to the city of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. A century and a half before, the Prophet Jeremiah had given this word from the Lord: “For who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem? Or who will bemoan you? Or who will turn aside to ask how you are doing?” (Jer. 15:5, nkjv) NehemiahwasthemanGodhadchosentodothoseverythings!
Some people prefer not to know what’s going on, because information might bring obligation. “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” says the old adage; but is it true? In a letter to a Mrs. Foote, Mark Twain wrote, “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.” But what we don’t know could hurt us a great deal! There are people in the cemetery who chose not to know the truth. The slogan for the 1987 AIDS publicity campaign was “Don’t die of ignorance”; and that slogan can be applied to many areas of life besides health.
Nehemiah asked about Jerusalem and the Jews living there because he had a caring heart. When we truly care about people, we want the facts, no matter how painful they may be. “Practical politics consists in ignoring facts,” American historian Henry Adams said; but Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Closing our eyes and ears to the truth could be the first step toward tragedy for ourselves as well as for others.
What did Nehemiah learn about Jerusalem and the Jews? Three words summarize the bad news: remnant, ruin, and reproach. Instead of a land inhabited by a great nation, only a remnant of people lived there; and they were in great affliction and struggling to survive. Instead of a magnificent city, Jerusalem was in shambles; and where there had once been great glory, there was now nothing but great reproach.
Of course, Nehemiah had known all his life that the city of his fathers was in ruins, because the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem’s walls, gates, and temple in 586 b.c. (2 Kings 25:1-21). Fifty years later, a group of 50,000 Jews had returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and the city. Since the Gentiles had hindered their work, however, the temple was not completed for twenty years (Ezra 1–6), and the gates and walls never were repaired. Perhaps Nehemiah had hoped that the work on the walls had begun again and that the city was now restored. Without walls and gates, the city was open to ridicule and attack. See Psalms 48, 79, 84, and 87 to see how much loyal Jews loved their city.
Are we like Nehemiah, anxious to know the truth even about the worst situations? Is our interest born of concern or idle curiosity? When we read missionary prayer letters, the news in religious periodicals, or even our church’s ministry reports, do we want the facts, and do the facts burden us? Are we the kind of people who care enough to ask?
Now let’s look again at the word of Hanani: “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.”
A city with no wall around it is vulnerable and disgraced. By analogy, we might say that a vulnerable heart is one in which invasion and seduction can happen at any time. Whether it’s a physical city that is in danger or a faith that lacks conviction, in which everything is true and nothing is true, the dangers are similar.
We live in a world that is very much without boundaries, one in which the difference between truth and lies, holy and profane, substance and image, deep and shallow, lasting and momentary, divine and human, is regularly muddied. We ought to acknowledge and defend what we stand for. If we can’t tell the difference anymore between righteousness and unrighteousness, between godliness and rebellion, then we live in a place without walls. Part of the sorrow and anxiety of the Jews who were living in Jerusalem was that they had lost their identity as God’s beloved ones. They didn’t know who they were or what they stood for anymore, and their broken walls were very much like their spiritually undefended hearts.
The other thing I would say by way of analogy is that while it’s hard to live under the iron rule of an enemy, it’s also hard to live in a multicultural, highly tolerant set of circumstances in which you can have your private religion as long as you never rock the boat. So the rule of Persia was a welcome replacement for the rule of Babylon, but it carried with it its own difficulties.
Living in two worlds
Now let’s look at the other picture we can draw from these verses. Who is Nehemiah? What does he tell us of himself? He is the son of Hacaliah, a man unknown to us anywhere else in Scripture. He is the kinsman of Hanani. In saying that, he declares that he is a member of the Jewish race, an exile himself. The other thing he tells us in these verses is that he’s now living in the citadel of Susa, the fortress of the Persian emperor.
Finally, in the last sentence of chapter 1, which we’re going to get to in the next message, is almost a throw-away line: “I was cupbearer to the king.” As it turns out, over the course of exile he had become educated, grown in stature, and moved up through the ranks. He was a man who tasted the king’s wine before the king drank it to make sure it wasn’t poisoned. He therefore had intimate access to the royal person. He almost certainly had political standing, a portfolio, a position of state of some kind; the cupbearer typically did. He was a man high in the ranks of influence in government, and he presumably had the wealth and stature that went with the title.
Note the humble way Nehemiah introduces himself. He tells us of his unknown father. He tells us of his commitment to the exiled people. He tells us where he lives. He even recalls his prayer. It’s a wonderful prayer, which we’re going to look at in the next message. He says all that before he gets around to telling us that he’s cupbearer to the king.
How do you introduce yourself? What things about you are the most important to tell someone first? Do people know about your prayer life before they get your business card? Do they know of your passion for the things of God? Do you regard these as more important than where you work and for whom you work and what status in society you occupy?
In introducing himself the way he does, Nehemiah is also identifying the great tension of his life in these opening two verses. He lives in Susa, and he’s a kinsman of the exiles. How is that tension going to get resolved? He is cupbearer to the king, a man of station and influence, living in the capital, near to the king. It must have occurred to him that he could well serve God in that position. Daniel served foreign kings all his life and never returned to Jerusalem. We can imagine Nehemiah asking, “Should I be like that? Should I use the status I have to steer the emperor toward good policies?”
But the tension remains: “My brother has come and said the people are in disgrace. Their hearts are sick. The walls are broken. The gates are burned. On the front lines people are risking much to be faithful to God. They might have stayed abroad, made their living in exile, succeeded in having some kind of worldly stature, kept their religion as a kind of important compartment at home. But they didn’t, and now they’re under tremendous pressure.”
I think most of us live in two worlds exactly as Nehemiah did. Most of us in a sense are cupbearer to the king. We have risen to some level of status in this world. It’s paying off. We’re making a living. We’re in secure surroundings. Careers have a predictable trajectory. Yet some have been called into front-line service of God. Some experience major changes in occupation, residence, language, and culture. Some put lives and fortunes at risk to serve the Lord. How do we determine what place of discipleship God intends for us?
The text before us can help answer this question. It’s significant that Nehemiah asked his brother Hanani about the remnant in Jerusalem. He could have insulated himself from the visitors if he chose to. Yet he sought them out and heard first-hand of the hardships and sorrows of his people.
This is an important starting point. It’s easy to stay unaware. Do you care enough to want to find out what’s happening with kids and youth, with foreign missions and care of the poor? Where is the word of God changing hearts? Where are people coming to Christ? I don’t want the difficulties of discipleship to be reduced because I am too busy to be informed.
This introductory message will end without a resolution to Nehemiah’s dilemma. Learning to hear God as he directs our lives is not a quick or easy process. It requires honesty about ourselves.
The musical Fiddler on the Roof[1]is a sweet story of Jews in exile. It’s especially the story of a milkman named Tevye who loved God and wanted to live a life that pleased him. My favorite song in that musical is If I Were a Rich Man. In it Tevye lists all the things that would happen if he were a rich man: He’d have chickens and geese, and his wife would have a proper double chin. She’d have servants she could order around. They’d have one long staircase going up and a longer one coming down. And more. The singing grows quiet toward the end, and you hear the heart of the man. He says, “You know what I’d really do if I were a rich man? I’d have a seat by the eastern wall in the synagogue (nearest to Jerusalem), and I’d discuss the holy books seven hours every day, and that would be the sweetest thing of all.”(1) He was saying, “If I were rich, if I had everything I really wanted in life, what I’d really want is to be where people care about God. That’s what I’d use my riches for.”
That’s the tension that Nehemiah faces. I pray it’s ours as well. If I could do whatever I wanted, if I could somehow figure out how to steer my way through the responsibilities and the dreams I have and get to be more where I want to be, where I’d want to be is where God is, with the people who love him the most. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
He cared enough to weep (Neh. 1:4)
This is the time of year for blockbuster adventure movies filled with dangers and rescues, heroes and villains. The book we’re studying in this series, Nehemiah, is similar. It’s a story of struggles between good and evil, heroic deeds, and tensions that need resolution.
We ended the last message with our hero, Nehemiah, caught in a conflict, realizing that he needed an answer from God as to how to resolve the dilemma. Information was brought to him in the Persian citadel of Susa, from Jerusalem and its environs, a thousand miles away. It concerned the exiles who had returned there over the course of three generations. Chapter 1 verse 3 describes their difficult circumstances. “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.” Nehemiah’s brothers and sisters in the exile were in anguish. Their city was a place of sorrow.
The end of chapter 1 records the other horn of the dilemma. Nehemiah tells us he was cupbearer to the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes, the most powerful man in the world. Cupbearer was a very high station, an influential political position. Nehemiah had regular access to the king and would have been counted on to give advice. He surely had the status and wealth that went along with having such a position. His two identities pulled at him: brother to the exiles and cupbearer to the king.
Many of us are familiar with this tension. The world has paid off for us. We have found a place of security and status and comfort and wealth. And we know that on the front lines of the work of God people are caring for the poor and the sick, doing evangelism in areas where they are unwelcome and threatened, putting their lives on the line, risking all they are and have.
There are certainly other kinds of tensions as well. It may be that you’re overcoming some pattern in your life that has ruined and hurt you, and this struggle is the pattern of stress you’re called to live with. Or it may be that there is some other pressure upon you’a family crisis or medical emergency. Nehemiah’s prayers and growing faith can be an encouragement in these circumstances as well. But those who have dual identities as Nehemiah did will find this chapter especially helpful.
We might note that others in the Bible faced the same problem Nehemiah did:
Joseph had risen to the highest station of the land in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh, and he had to resolve the question of his identity as a Jew and his identity as an Egyptian, how he would serve God having the place and opportunity that he did.
David had the same problem when he was running for his life from Saul. He lived for a time among the Philistines, and was accorded a position of respect among them.
Daniel was Nebuchadnezzar’s most important advisor.
Esther served as queen in a Persian court. Her uncle Mordecai spoke to her at a crisis moment and said, “…Who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14.) She was a Jewish believer, and she was queen in Persia. How would she resolve the dual responsibilities?
There are a couple of ways that most of us tend to react when we feel this sort of tension. Some of us, and I think this would have been Nehemiah’s natural response, tend to fire off in all directions at once. If there are people suffering, somebody ought to do something about it. “I’m going to make some phone calls, issue a series of edicts, plan some strategies, and make something happen!” A lot of activity is generated, but nothing gets changed. The other natural inclination when we feel this vise of conflicting pressures is to look at how hard it will be to do anything. It’s such a long way from Susa to Jerusalem. The people have been there a long time, and they’ve got it tough, but what can be done? There’s so much inertia to overcome, so many complexities and questions that need to be answered. So we decide to start a committee to do a study and issue a report. And in the end, we conclude that probably somebody else ought to do it anyway. It’s easy to be impressed with how difficult the problem is and just give up.
But Nehemiah didn’t choose either of those natural options. He didn’t fire off in all directions at once, and he didn’t do nothing. What he did was enter into the presence of God in a profound way, and that’s what we want to consider in this message.
(Nehemiah 1:4) “When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.”
What makes people laugh or weep is often an indication of character. People who laugh at others’ mistakes or misfortunes, or who weep over trivial personal disappointments, are lacking either in culture or character, and possibly both. Sometimes weeping is a sign of weakness; but with Nehemiah, it was a sign of strength, as it was with Jeremiah (Jer. 9:1), Paul (Acts 20:19), and the Lord Jesus (Luke 19:41). In fact, Nehemiah was like the Lord Jesus in that he willingly shared the burden that was crushing others. “The reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me” (Ps. 69:9; Rom. 15:3).
Nehemiah didn’t know what to do. The answer was not obvious to him. God had put him where he was. He was cupbearer to the king, not for bad reasons but for good reasons. There was no sinful process that had led to his success in the empire. His family had been taken there as exiles and slaves. They had no choice in the matter. He was raised there under circumstances that were dealt to him. And he had succeeded. The problem was, now he knew there were people to whom his heart was knit, with whom his destiny was cast, who were beaten down by the circumstances in Jerusalem. After he was made aware of their suffering, then he knew that the report had come to him for reasons that his heavenly Father had chosen as well. And he didn’t know how to proceed. “For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.”
That period of “some days” is probably four months. In 1:1 he says, “In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year….” In 2:1, when he begins to take action, he refers to the month of Nisan, four months later. In a moment we’re going to read a prayer that is probably a distillation of what took place in the four months he wept and mourned and fasted and prayed. He went back time and again to be with God. He didn’t understand and he wanted answers. He didn’t take the easy way out. As Jacob wrestled with the angel and said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me” (Genesis 32:26), Nehemiah wrestled with God and said, “I need some answers from you. The burden is heavy. The direction is not obvious.” For four months he spent time with the Lord in this way. Verse 6 says he prayed “day and night.”
When God puts a burden on your heart, don’t try to escape it; for if you do, you may miss the blessing He has planned for you. The Book of Nehemiah begins with “great affliction” (Neh. 1:3), but before it closes, there is great joy (8:12, 17). “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning” (Ps. 30:5). Our tears water the “seeds of providence” that God has planted on our path; and without our tears, those seeds could never grow and produce fruit.
It was customary for the Jews to sit down when they mourned (Ezra 9:1-4; 2:13). Unconsciously, Nehemiah was imitating the grieving Jewish captives who had been exiled in Babylon years before (Ps. 137:1). Like Daniel, Nehemiah probably had a private room where he prayed to God with his face toward Jerusalem (Dan. 6:10; 1 Kings 8:28-30). Fasting was required of the Jews only once a year, on the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29); but Nehemiah spent several days fasting, weeping, and praying. He knew that somebody had to do something to rescue Jerusalem, and he was willing to go.
Four verbs are used in verse 4 that may help us see Nehemiah in God’s presence. It says, first of all, “…I sat down and wept.” When it matters to you that someone else’s experience is difficult, when you love somebody, you make yourself vulnerable to their pain. Paul clearly describes the church that way in the New Testament: “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:26.) We’re part of each other too much to not feel others’ pain. I much prefer to let layers of distance exist between myself and other people so that I can know of their circumstance and maybe even wish them well, but not have the hardship of whatever it is they’re dealing with enter my heart. But I’m not successful at keeping the wall up, and God won’t let any of us be. There are times when somebody else’s misery or sorrow descends on you, and your body reacts. Tears fall, sobs break loose, your shoulders sag. That’s the first thing that happened to Nehemiah. He let himself emotionally be part of what his people were going through.
The second thing we’re told in verse 4 is that he mourned. Mourning is a thoughtful response to the hard circumstances. Weeping is emotional, often involuntary. But mourning is a deliberate, thoughtful entering into the problem. It includes taking off the masks, if you will. It acknowledges that there is not only pain but guilt, that things are not only hurtful but wrong. We’ll see in a bit his acknowledgment in this prayer: “We did this to ourselves. The reason life is so hard is that we resisted God.” There’s an awful sense in which we are reaping what we sowed.
The third thing Nehemiah refers to in this process is fasting. Now, that certainly includes choices to restrict one’s diet for the purpose of paying attention to God. But in the ancient world meals were not like ours. We can have a sandwich with us or quickly grab something to eat and be talking on the phone and typing while we eat it, so that the experience of eating happens almost without our knowing it. In the ancient world meals were communal events. The whole family would be together. It took a long time to prepare. It was expected that you would enter into extended conversation and be part of the social network. So fasting was a deliberate attempt not only to keep from eating but to withdraw from the whole network, to stop listening to all the voices, to not attend to all the responsibilities. Fasting was stepping away from the world and all its entanglements in order to spend time with God.
It was more than just not eating food. He was saying, “I’m stepping back. God will have space in my life; no intruders are allowed.”
If that was the way it was in the ancient world, think of how much more difficult it is in the modern world to make time for God. Think of how many ways we can be contacted and demands can be made on us for response: meetings, phones, message machines, mail, e-mail, aggressive advertising and promotion.
The fourth thing mentioned in verse 4 is prayer before the God of heaven. That’s a broad, inclusive term for communication with God. Knowing he had a problem, he spoke with and listened to the God of heaven, the Lord of all. His heart would not let him rest. He didn’t know what to do, and so he spent these four months wrestling with God, calling on God, appealing, listening, returning, not settling for easy, obvious answers, but wanting to know what his Lord would do with his life, what his future should be.
He cared enough to pray (Neh. 1:5-10)
(Nehemiah 1:5-10) “Then I said: “O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, {6} let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father’s house, have committed against you. {7} We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses. {8} “Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, {9} but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.’ {10} “They are your servants and your people, whom you redeemed by your great strength and your mighty hand.”
This prayer is the first of twelve instances of prayer recorded in this book. (See 2:4; 4:4, 9; 5:19; 6:9, 14; 9:5ff; 13:14, 22, 29, 31.) The Book of Nehemiah opens and closes with prayer. It is obvious that Nehemiah was a man of faith who depended wholly on the Lord to help him accomplish the work He had called him to do. The Scottish novelist George MacDonald said, “In whatever man does without God, he must fail miserably, or succeed more miserably.” Nehemiah succeeded because he depended on God. Speaking about the church’s ministry today, the late Alan Redpath said, “There is too much working before men and too little waiting before God.”
Let me make some observations about this prayer. It’s one of the great prayers of the Bible, and there are more to come. This is a great book to read if you want to learn to pray or to grow as a man or woman of prayer.
Verse 5 begins as the majority of the prayers recorded in the Bible do, by speaking to God of himself. It doesn’t start with Nehemiah’s problems, hopes and dreams, or concerns. As Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Our Father in heaven,” so Nehemiah starts out, “O Lord, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love….”
The insistence that begins this prayer is that events are going to have their outcome not based on the armies of earth, the wealth of individuals, or the great social currents that roil against one another, raising up some and putting down others. Events in history are going to have their outcome based on what God decides. “You are the God of heaven and you keep your promises.”
Of course, it didn’t look that way to Nehemiah, and it doesn’t look that way to us. No measurement of current events is going to suggest to you that God is in charge. It’s not apparent that the Lord is bringing glory to himself and mercy to people, or that he is working out history so that it will have the glorious ending that he has promised it will have. It doesn’t often seem as if God is doing what he ought to do in our lives. It seems as if everybody else is in charge of our lives, and where is he? Ray Stedman used to quote a limerick:
Humankind had a lovely beginning, but we ruined our chances by sinning.
We know that the story will end to God’s glory, but at present, the other side’s winning.
That’s the way the world looks: We started well, and it’s supposed to come out well, but right now the bad guys are in charge. But it’s not true. God keeps his promises, and that’s how Nehemiah starts his prayer.
This prayer begins with ascriptionofpraisetoGod (1:5). “God of heaven” is the title Cyrus used for the Lord when he announced that the Jews could return to their land (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-2). The heathen gods were but idols on the earth, but the God of the Jews was Lord in heaven.
Ezra often used this divine title (5:11-12; 6:9; 7:12, 21, 23), and it is found four times in Nehemiah (1:4-5; 2:4, 20) and three times in Daniel (2:18-19, 44). Nehemiah began his prayer as we should begin our prayers: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name” (Matt. 6:9).
C. Nehemiah’s burden was lightened by seeing the people’s great God. He begins his prayer addressing God: “I beseech You, O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who preserves the covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments” (1:5).
Toward the conclusion he reminds God (and himself) of God’s promise to gather His people from the most remote parts where He has scattered them for their disobedience. Then he prays (1:10), “They are Your servants and Your people whom You redeemed by Your great power and by Your strong hand.” Five times in that verse he repeats “you” and “your” as if to say, “These aren’t my people, God; they’re Your people.” God wants us to feel the burden for others, but then He wants us to roll that burden back on Him, remembering that it is not our power, but His power, that redeems them.
What if you honestly don’t have a burden for God’s people or for lost people? What does that mean? What should you do? It could mean that you are not born again, because you are not concerned about the things that God is concerned about. If that is your condition, you need to repent of your sins and trust in Christ to save you.
If you are born again but do not feel burdened for the lost or for God’s people, it probably means that you have become so caught up with seeking the things that the world seeks that you are not seeking first God’s kingdom and righteousness (Matt. 6:33). You need to go before God and get your priorities in line with His priorities. He does not save us so that we can live happy lives pursuing the American dream. He saves us so that He can use us to further His purpose.
To what kind of a God do we pray when we lift our prayers to “the God of heaven”? We pray to a “great and awesome God” (Neh. 1:5, nkjv; and see 4:14, 8:6, and 9:32), who is worthy of our praise and worship. If you are experiencing great affliction (v. 3) and are about to undertake a great work (4:19; 6:3), then you need the great power (1:10), great goodness (9:25, 35), and great mercy (v. 31) of a great God. Is the God you worship big enough to handle the challenges that you face?
He is also a God who keeps His Word (1:5). The Lord had made a covenant with His people Israel, promising to bless them richly if they obeyed His Word, but warning that He would chasten them if they disobeyed (Lev. 26; Deut. 27–30). The city of Jerusalem was in ruins, and the nation was feeble because the people had sinned against the Lord. (See Ezra’s prayer of confession in Ezra 9 and the prayer of the nation in Neh. 9.)
The greater part of Nehemiah’s prayer was devoted to confessionofsin (1:6-9).
B. Nehemiah’s burden was focused by seeing the people’s great sin.
Nehemiah was realistic in assessing the problem. He quickly realized that at the heart of things was not a lack of organization, although they desperately needed someone to organize things, which Nehemiah subsequently did. The root problem was not a lack of resources, although the project required resources. The root problem was sin. So he prayed, “confessing the sins of the sons of Israel which we have sinned against You; I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly against You and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the ordinances which You commanded Your servant Moses” (1:6b-7).
The Bible is clear that at the root of all our global and personal problems is sin. Why are there wars and terrorist attacks? Sin. Why are there famine and disease? Sin. Why are governments and businesses riddled with greed and corruption? Sin. Why is the mission task of the church not fulfilled? Sin. On the personal level, why do couples argue and have problems communicating? Sin. Why do kids from Christian homes rebel against God and their parents? Sin. Whatever the problem, you can trace its roots back to sin, either to the original sin of Adam and Eve, or directly to the sins of the people with the problems. If God is going to use us to help alleviate any great need, we need to keep clear in our focus, that at the root of the problem is human sin.
But it’s not just the sins of others that we need to be aware of. We also need to be aware of and confess our own sins. Nehemiah included himself with the sins of the people. Staying aware of our own sins keeps us humbled before God and others so that we don’t sit in judgment on them. We are sinners who have been shown mercy. We go to other sinners and offer God’s mercy.
But we dare not get distracted from the root problem. If we start thinking that the real need is better organization or more funds or better methods, we’ll start at the wrong place. The root need is for repentance on the part of God’s people, who have forgotten His purpose and are living for their own purpose. And lost people need repentance so that they can be reconciled to God. Nehemiah’s burden stemmed from feeling the people’s great need. It was focused by seeing the people’s and his own great sin.
The God who promised blessing and chastening also promised forgiveness if His people would repent and turn back to Him (Deut. 30; 1 Kings 8:31-53). It was this promise that Nehemiah was claiming as he prayed for himself and the nation. God’s eyes are upon His people and His ears are open to their prayers (1 Kings 8:29; 2 Chron. 7:14). The word remember is a key word in this book (Neh. 1:8; 4:14; 5:19; 6:14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31).
Further, he declares that God can hear and see and remember. The prophets castigated worship of idols, saying, “They’re deaf and dumb! Why would you put your trust in blocks of wood made by human hands?” But this God to whom Nehemiah prays has ears that hear and eyes that see and a heart that remembers.
We hear Nehemiah’s honesty about the problem: “We are guilty as charged. We have deliberately and knowingly trampled on the word of God. We have rebelled against you, and we are getting only what we deserve. You are entirely right.” He doesn’t imagine extenuating circumstances or plead special cases.
“My father’s house is rebellious, and so am I.” He is willing to join his people in their sins. Many of us are willing to admit the minor faults that we think we have, but we don’t like to think of ourselves as part of the greater human race that is capable of all the terrible things that have been done. Yet Nehemiah doesn’t shy away from that. However, he doesn’t dwell on recognition of sinfulness, nor does he end with it.
Note that Nehemiah used the pronoun “we” and not “they,” identifying himself with the sins of a generation he didn’t even know. It would have been easy to look back and blame his ancestors for the reproach of Jerusalem, but Nehemiah looked within and blamed himself! “We have sinned! We have dealt very corruptly!”
When one Jewish soldier, Achan, sinned at Jericho, God said that “the children of Israel committed a trespass” and that “Israel” sinned and transgressed the covenant (Josh. 7:1, 11). Since the sin of one man was the sin of the whole nation, it brought shame and defeat to the whole nation. Once that sin had been dealt with, God could again bless His people with victory.
How do we know that God forgives our sins when we repent and confess to Him? HehassopromisedinHisWord. Nehemiah’s prayer is saturated with quotations from and allusions to the covenants of God found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. He certainly knew the Old Testament Law! In Nehemiah 1:8-9, he reminded God of His words found in Deuteronomy 28:63-67 and 30:1-10, just as we remind the Lord of His promise in 1 John 1:9. Nehemiah asked God to forgive His people, regather them to their land, and restore them to His favor and blessing.
2. The person God uses has a vision for His purpose.
If Nehemiah had lacked a vision of God’s purpose, when he heard about the conditions in Jerusalem he would have said, “Why be bothered about Jerusalem? We live in Babylon and have lived here for over 100 years. What’s the big deal about Jerusalem anyway? Why not just settle down and worship God here?”
But Nehemiah knew something about what God wanted to do with His people (1:9): “I … will bring them to the place where I have chosen to cause My name to dwell.” Babylon would not do. God’s purpose involved His name or His glory being made known in Jerusalem.
God’s purpose in this age involves the church. Jesus said, “I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18). Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus purchased for God with His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. But why does He want to save people from around the globe? Be careful how you answer! We live in such a man-centered age that we easily can fall into the error of thinking that God’s purpose is to save people because He loves them and wants them to be happy. But that is a man-centered goal. God’s purpose is not man-centered; it is God-centered. God does love people and He wants them to be happy, but not as the final end in itself. Saving people is a means toward God’s purpose, but it is not the end of God’s purpose.
As Paul makes clear in Ephesians 1-3, God’s purpose involves building His church for the sake of His name or His glory. He wants to display the riches of His glorious grace and His manifold wisdom through the church to all of the angelic hosts (Eph. 1:6, 10-12, 14; 3:8-11). God’s chief purpose is to further His own glory through the joy of salvation that His people experience in Him.
One of the most profound, life-changing books that you could ever read is John Piper’s God’s Passion for His Glory [Crossway Books], which is built around and includes the full text of Jonathan Edwards’ The End for Which God Created the World. I will warn you: it is not easy, light reading! Grappling with the truths that Edwards presents makes your brain ache! He argues that the end for which God created the world is, “first, that the glory of God might be magnified in the universe, and, second, that Christ’s ransomed people from all times and all nations would rejoice in God above all things” (Piper, p. 31).
The life-transforming truth is that God’s glory and His people’s joy in Him fit together. As Piper puts it, “The further up you go in the revealed thoughts of God, the clearer you see that God’s aim in creating the world was to display the value of His glory, and that this aim is no other than the endless, ever-increasing joy of his people in that glory” (p. 32). He goes on to show how the Great Commission fits with God’s purpose: “If the exhibition of God’s glory and the deepest joy of human souls are one thing, then world missions is a declaration of the glories of God among all the unreached peoples, with a view to gathering worshippers who magnify God through the gladness of radically obedient lives” (p. 42, italics his). He sums up, “In other words, rejoicing in God and glorifying God are one, and that one thing is the aim of world missions” (p. 43).
When God’s people are in great distress and reproach and the wall between them and the pagan world is broken down, God is not glorified through His people because His people are not living any differently than the world lives. The wall symbolizes the distinctive difference between God’s people and worldly people in the way we think, the values we hold, and the way we relate to God and to one another (see 1 Pet. 2:9-12).
Thus God’s purpose is to magnify His name or His glory through His people. He does that when His people not only know and dutifully obey Him, but when they joyfully know and obey Him (Piper, p. 75). As John Piper often states, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” If you want God to use you, ask Him to give you a burden for His people and a vision for His purpose.
This humble prayer closed with anexpressionofconfidence (Neh. 1:10-11). To begin with, he had confidence in the power of God. When the Bible speaks of the eyes, ears, and hands of the Lord, it is using only human language to describe divine activity. God is spirit, and therefore does not have a body such as humans have; but He is able to see His people’s needs, hear their prayers, and work on their behalf with His mighty hand. Nehemiah knew that he was too weak to rebuild Jerusalem, but he had faith that God would work on his behalf.
He also had confidence in God’s faithfulness. “Now these are Thy servants and Thy people” (v. 10). In bringing Babylon to destroy Jerusalem and take the people captive, God chastened the Jews sorely; but He did not forsake them! They were still His people and His servants. He had redeemed them from Egypt by His great power (Ex. 14:13-31) and had also set them free from bondage in Babylon. Would He not, in His faithfulness, help them rebuild the city?
Unlike Elijah, who thought he was the only faithful Jew left (1 Kings 19:10), Nehemiah had confidence that God would raise up other people to help him in his work. He was sure that many other Jews were also praying and that they would rally to the cause once they heard that God was at work. Great leaders are not only believing people who obey the Lord and courageously move ahead, but they also challenge others to go with them. You can’t be a true leader unless you have followers, and Nehemiah was able to enlist others to help him do the work.
Finally, Nehemiah was confident that God would work in the heart of Artaxerxes and secure for the project the official support that it needed (Neh. 1:10). Nehemiah couldn’t simply quit his job and move to Jerusalem. He was an appointee of the king, and he needed the king’s permission for everything he did. Furthermore, he needed the king’s provision and protection so he could travel to Jerusalem and remain away from his post until the work was completed. Without official authority to govern, an official guard for the journey, and the right to use materials from the king’s forest, the entire project was destined to fail. Eastern monarchs were absolute despots, and it was not easy to approach them or convince them. But “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases” (Prov. 21:2, niv).
Too often, we plan our projects and then ask God to bless them; but Nehemiah didn’t make that mistake. He sat down and wept (Neh. 1:4), knelt down and prayed, and then stood up and worked because he knew he had the blessing of the Lord on what he was doing.
This is very much a Scripture-based prayer. When Nehemiah prays, he prays with the Bible in his mind and perhaps open before him. He is praying the words of Moses. He is referring to the prayers of Daniel and probably others here. This is a prayer that is deeply informed by what God has already said about himself. So Nehemiah says, “You promised us that if we rebelled we would be punished, and we did and we are. But you also promised that if we turned back, however far we had been scattered, you would bring us home.” And he refers to the people now as those whose hearts are broken, who revere the name of God. He calls on God to act as he promised he would. This is a prayer that speaks back to God his own words. Sin doesn’t have the final authority. The punishment is not the end; the return of God’s people is the end of the story.
The last observation I would make about this prayer is about the very simple request that comes at the end. Nehemiah has prayed about the greatness of God, the failure of the people, the promise of God to bring about their return. He has cast back to the time of Moses, saying, “God, our world is going to turn on whether you keep thousand-year-old promises. Artaxerxes and his armies and the greatness of this empire are nothing compared to the word you gave to your servant Moses, and we’re claiming that now. In view of this, the personal request he makes at the end of verse 11 is actually surprisingly small: “Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of this man.” Now, Nehemiah knows that God rules the emperor, that the response he will get from Artaxerxes is the response that God will call for. I think the success he hopes for is that he will have the courage to follow through. “Will I be able to do what it is in my heart to do? Will I have the courage to speak up?” The success may for him depend more on whether he speaks up than whether Artaxerxes gives the right answer or not.
3. The person God uses has a commitment to His purpose.
Nehemiah didn’t hear about the sad conditions in Jerusalem and say, “That’s too bad! I hope that somebody does something about it.” Rather, he was willing to commit himself to the task and to stick with it in spite of numerous difficulties. Note two things about Nehemiah’s commitment:
A. He was willing to count the world as loss for the sake of God’s purpose.
Nehemiah notes that he was cupbearer to the king (1:11). The cupbearer was a high position in the court. His responsibility was to choose and taste the wine before it was served to the king to make sure that it was not poisoned. He would have been a handsome man, well-trained in court etiquette. He would have to be a friendly companion, willing to lend an ear and even to give advice to the king. Since he enjoyed closest access to the king, he was a highly trusted man. Early documents also reveal that the cupbearer could be the keeper of the royal signet, be in charge of administration of the accounts, and even serve as second to the king (see Edwin Yamauchi, Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan], 4:683).
Nehemiah lived in the palace at Susa with the king. Excavations have shown that it was built with cedar, gold, silver, and ivory. The walls were decorated with artistically colored glazed bricks and relief designs of winged bulls (Donald K. Campbell, Nehemiah: Man in Charge [Victor Books], pp. 7-8). Nehemiah would have eaten the best food, worn the best clothes, and lived in very comfortable quarters. It was a cushy job! We do not know why he had not returned with the remnant with Ezra 13 years before. Perhaps, like Daniel and his friends, he had been conscripted into the king’s service as a young man and was not free to leave.
But now when he hears about the distress of God’s people and the dishonor to God’s name, he cannot be happy in this great job and these luxurious surroundings. He was willing to give it all up, make the difficult journey to Jerusalem, and to set about the stressful job of mobilizing the people to rebuild the walls so that God’s name would be honored among His people.
Was it a costly sacrifice? Yes and no. Yes, he had to give up all of the comforts that he enjoyed and endure a lot of hardship. But, no, in that he could no longer be happy doing what he had been doing. He found great joy in doing what God wanted him to do. Like Paul, he counted it all rubbish so that he might gain Christ.
John Paton and his wife gave up the comforts of their Scottish homes and the relationships with their loved ones to take the gospel to the cannibals of the New Hebrides Islands in the South Seas. When she lay there dying after complications of childbirth, her last words were, “Oh that my dear mother were here! She is a good woman, my mother, a jewel of a woman.” Then she saw that another missionary was standing nearby. She exclaimed, “Oh, Mr. Copeland, I did not know that you were there! You must not think that I regret coming here, and leaving my mother. If I had the same thing to do over again, I would do it with far more pleasure, yes, with all my heart. Oh, no! I do not regret leaving home and friends, though at the time I felt it keenly” (John G. Paton Autobiography [Banner of Truth], pp. 84-85).
B. He was willing to overcome the obstacles for the sake of God’s purpose.
The rest of the book of Nehemiah is an account of how he overcame one obstacle after another. There was overt and covert opposition from enemies. There were problems within the ranks that could have stopped the work. But Nehemiah persisted and the wall was completed in 52 days!
If you try to do anything in service for the Lord, you will face obstacles and opposition. Some of it will come from the world, but the most difficult opposition often comes from within the church. You have to realize up front that you will encounter problems and commit yourself to God and His purpose to endure.
Notice that by verse 11 the tension has been resolved. Nehemiah no longer questions how he should handle the dilemma of being brother to the exiles and cupbearer to the king. As we will see in chapter 2, he asks permission to go himself. The answer God gave him in this four months of prayer was, “Nehemiah, you go.” He could have continued to pray, “Lord, bless the exiles, bring them relief, raise up leadership, provide money, change the hearts of the enemy.” He could have prayed for all of that to happen while he stayed in Susa, and it might have been God’s choice for him to pray and stay. But it wasn’t. In this case, he knew by now that he must ask permission of the king to go himself. “Lord, send me.” That was the answer that had come about after he had spent this time wrestling and fasting and mourning.
I want to urge upon us that we can know what the Lord wants from us. When things seem confusing, when pressures pull us in more than one direction regarding where we should be and who we should be and how we should use our gifts and what ministry we should have and how and when the way to find out answers to these questions is the pattern of Nehemiah: to spend this focused, honest, lengthy, serious time with God. His choice was to say, “Lord, direct me. Make of me what you want. I’m willing to invest myself in pursuing you to find out.” If you’re experiencing the same longing to know what God would make of your life, are you willing to do what Nehemiah did? Are you willing to spend this kind of time with God with this level of passion, this level of love and expectancy?
He cared enough to volunteer (Neh. 1:11)
It has well been said that prayer is not getting man’s will done in heaven but getting God’s will done on earth. However, for God’s will to be done on earth, He needs people to be available for Him to use. God does “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works inus (Eph. 3:20, nkjv, italics mine). If God is going to answer prayer, He must start by working in the one doing the praying! He works in us and through us to help us see our prayers answered.
While Nehemiah was praying, his burden for Jerusalem became greater and his vision of what needed to be done became clearer. Real prayer keeps your heart and your head in balance so your burden doesn’t make you impatient to run ahead of the Lord and ruin everything. As we pray, God tells us what to do, when to do it, and how to do it; and all are important to the accomplishing of the will of God. Some Christian workers are like Lord Ronald in one of Stephen Leacock’s short stories who “flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.”
Nehemiah planned to volunteer to go to Jerusalem to supervise the rebuilding of the walls. He didn’t pray for God to send somebody else, nor did he argue that he was ill-equipped for such a difficult task. He simply said, “Here am I—send me!” He knew that he would have to approach the king and request a leave of absence. Eastern kings’ word meant life or death. What would happen to Nehemiah’s plans if he approached Artaxerxes on the wrong day, when the king was ill or displeased with something or someone in the palace? No matter how you look at it, Nehemiah was facing a test of faith; but he knew that his God was a great God and would see him through.
The king’s cupbearer would have to sacrifice the comfort and security of the palace for the rigors and dangers of life in a ruined city. Luxury would be replaced by ruins, and prestige by ridicule and slander. Instead of sharing the king’s bounties, Nehemiah would personally pay for the upkeep of scores of people who would eat at his table. He would leave behind the ease of the palace and take up the toils of encouraging a beaten people and finishing an almost impossible task.
And with the help of God, hedidit! In fifty-two days, the walls were rebuilt, the gates were restored, and the people were rejoicing! And it all started with a man who cared.
Abraham cared and rescued Lot from Sodom (Gen. 18–19). Moses cared and delivered the Israelites from Egypt. David cared and brought the nation and the kingdom back to the Lord. Esther cared and risked her life to save her nation from genocide. Paul cared and took the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. Jesus cared and died on the cross for a lost world.
God is still looking for people who care, people like Nehemiah, who cared enough to ask for the facts, weep over the needs, pray for God’s help, and then volunteer to get the job done.
The number of the Lord’s appearances during the forty days following the resurrection, before His ascension, is generally said to be nine.
Of these, five were on the day of the resurrection, one on the Sunday following, two at some later period, and one when He ascended. As to place, five were in Jerusalem, one in Emmaus, two in Calilee, and one perhaps on the Mount of Olives.
If to these we add the appearance to James (mentioned only by the apostle Paul in I Cor. 15:7), which probably was at Jerusalem; then add also the appearance to Paul mentioned in I Cor. 15:8, we have eleven appearances. Most writers come to this conclusion, differing only on some fine points concerning some of the appearances.
However, we do not need to say that these recorded and stated appearances were the only actual ones. Acts 1:3 “To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs; appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.”
It is quite possible thiat there were other unrecorded appearances during this period of fifty days.
I. The appearances on the day of the resurrection. (5) A. To Mary Magdalene, at the Tomb, just outside Jerusalem.
1. Problem of when was this, at what time in the
morning?
a. How to harmonize Mart. 28:1 with Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1 and John 20:l. The first part of the verse must be interpreted by the added specification of what is added in the last part of the verse.
b. When did the women arrive at the tomb!
1. Luke says, “Very early in the maming.”
2. John says, “early, while it was yet dark.”
3. Mark says, “and very early on the Erst day ofthe week”
4. Matt. says, “as it began to dawn, toward the first day of the week.”
c. We must consider where they came from. Probably from Bethany about two miles away.
d. The time was probably about 5 A.M. for at this time of the year the sun would rise about 5:30 A.M. Objects would be discernible one-half hour before sunrise very hkely.
3. Wieand Harmony places the appearance to Peter first.
4. Lightfoot supposes one of the two at Emmaus to have been Peter.
a. Since there are not actual details given, it is hard to harmonize the accounts.
b. From Luke 24:34, it seems as if Jesus did appear to Simon (ifthe Simon talked of is Peter) before He did to the two disciples at Emmaus. McGarvey harmonized this verse with I Cor. 15:5.
D. Jesus appears to the two Disciples going to Emmaus. Mark 16:12, 13; Luke 24:13-35.
1. Who were these two disciples! One was Cleopas, of whom nothing further is known. Luke 24:18)
a. Some say the other was Luke, for he writes almost like one that might have been present during this errperience.
b. Lightfoot (mentioned above) supposes him to be Peter.
2. About Earmaus and its location from Jerusalem.
a. Luke 24:13, “village named Emmaus which was three score furlongs from Jerusalem.”
1. How far is this! If the ruins called el Kukeibeh is the ancient city of Emmaus, then it would be a distance of seven and thirteen-sixteenths of a mile fiom Jerusalem. The village has not yet been identified beyond dispute.
3. Time of this meeting. Probably leaving Jerusalem about noon, and allowing for a slow walk, they would arrive in Emmaus a good while before sundawn.
4. Although the Lord met these two while on their way, their eyes were holden until the meal was being eaten. Luke gives the cause in Luke 24:31, “And their eyes were opened and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.” Mark gives the affect or their reaction in Mark 16:13, “And they went away and told it unto the rest; neither believed they them.”
E. Jesus appears to the ten. Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25.
1. Thomas is absent at this time.
2. Place and time!
a. Place- In Jerusalem. In all probability, they were gathered in the same room in which they had eaten the paschal supper.
3. Problem: did Mary come alone or with others and perhaps run on ahead so that she was first at the tomb! She undoubtedly came with the rest. Then, seeing the stone rolled away, she ran immediately to tell John and Peter before even going to the tomb.
a. When telling Peter and John, Mary used the pronoun we signifying that she was not alone.
b. After telling Peter and John she returned to the tomb, probably following Peter and John. Then while she was alone outside the tomb the Lord appeared to her.
4. John writes of this appearance in detail, Jolm 20:11-18.
a. The account is personal to Mary.
b. She alone acknowledged the questions of Jesus.
c. Jesus addressed her in the singular.
B. The other women soon after appearing to Mary; while they are on their way to tell the message of the angels. (Matt. 28:9, 10)
1. Who were these other women! How many were there! (Lk. 24:9-11)
a. Mark 15:41, saysthatmzmyotherwame~ came up to Jerusalenn.
b. These names are motioned: Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James, Salorne, Joanna, Susanna imd “many others.
1. John mentions only Mary Magdalene.
2. Matt. mentions Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.” Matt. 28.1.
3. Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
4. Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of lames, and the “other women.” Thus we see there are five, and possible others.
2. Many variations of order are given for this account, due to our not being able to tell whether these women arrived at the tomb in one or two groups.
C. Jesus appears to Peter. (I Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:33, 34)
1. McGarvey places this before the appearances to the two disciples on the road to Emunaus and at Emmaus.
2. R. C. Foster writing in Standard Bible Tearhev, Vol. 38, No. 2; Apr.-May-June 1936, article “The Risen Christ in Galilee” places this appearance after the Emmaus appearance.
a. Time — In the evening, fbr the two disciples who went to Emmaus arrived back in time to tell them of their experience.
3. The actual appearance of Jesus in the room.
a. John writes that when they saw Jesus they were glad.
b. Luke writes that they were terrified and frightened.
c. Why the apparent difference!
1. Luke tells the immediate reaction as Jesus stands in the midst of them. How did he get here! They knew nothing of the possibilities of a resurrected body.
2. John tells their attitude after they had been satisfied this was not a ghost, but their Lord!
II. Jesus appears to the eleven, Thomas being present this time. Mark 16:14; John 20:26-31; I Cor. 15:5,
A. When and Where! In Jerusalem, probably the same as where Jesus appeared to the to. When! The first day of die week. (Jn. 20.26).
B. Main object ofthought. Getting Thomas to believe
1. While so doing, this was also reassuring proof the others.
2. Thomas asked to place his hand into Jesus’ side.
a. Thomas’ answer, “My Lord and my God !” (Jn. 20:28).
III. Jesus appears to the Seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee. John 21:1-25. Only John records this incident.
A. Time – Some suggest the next Lord’s Day
B. The seven disciples: Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, and two other disciples.
C. Order of events that happened:
1. Peter and the others probably gathered in Peter’s home in Capernawn.
2. This waiting made then impatient. Thinking of an honest means of getting food, Peter said “I am off to fish tonight.” The rest join in, ‘We are going with you.”
3. With all the old enthusiasm they go fishing, but luck was against them that night, remindfUl of an experience three years earlier.
4. At early moming someone appeared on the beach and asked, “Lads, have you anything to eat!” Their answer was, “No!”
a. Advice from the man on the shore. “Cast on the right side of the boat.”
b. The results: 153 fishes were caught in the net.
c. John at this, turned to Peter and said, “it’s the Lord.”
d. Peter immediately started swimming for the shore.
e. They all had fish forbreakfast.
5. Jesus turned to Simon Peter and probed the recesses of Peter’s heart to secure for him the humility necessary for service.
6. Peter asks about John.
a. Jesus’ answer: John 21:221 “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee! Follow thou me.
IV. Jesus appears to the five hundred in Galilee. Matt. 28:16-20; I Cor. 15:6.
A. Problem: Some would separate this appearance, and make two appearances here, one to the eleven separately, then to the eleven as counted with the five hundred.
a. If Jesus gave the Great Commission at this time, would he give it to the eleven gathered together with so large a group!
b. But in Matt. 28:17, “some doubted,” could be evidence that the groups were together.
c. Solution, if we separate these two appearances it eliminates this problem.
B. Where is this mountain that is spoken of in Matt. 28:16!
1. Some possible places: The Place of the Sermon on the Mount; The Mount of Transfiguration; The place where He choose the twelve, The place on the east side of the lake where Jesus fed the 5.000.
V. Jesus appears to James. I Cor. 15:7.
A. No details given of this appearance.
B. Who is this James!
1 . Possibly one of Jesus’ half-brothers, who had been converted after the resurrection.
2. Later served as minister of the Church at Jerusalem.
VI. Jesus appears to the eleven in Jerusalem and leads them to the place of Ascension. Mark 16:19, 20; Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:2-12.
A. Luke, who also wrote Acts, gives us the account of this in both of his writings, one a continuation of the other.
B. What Jesus told them at this time.
1. Charged them not to depart from Jerusalem.
For continuity and the progressive nature of the Lord’s redemption work (Not only in seeing the Lord in His resurrected body, but most important, hearing what He taught after His resurrection.
JOHN 21 in review
The final chapter shows Christ as the Master of our service and the Friend of sinners. Were it not for this chapter, we would wonder what happened between Peter and the Lord and whether or not his disobedience was really dealt with.
I. A Night of Defeat (21:1-3)
Some make the strong suggestion that Peter acted without orders in returning to his fishing, that he had forsaken all to follow Christ (Luke 5:1-11), and now he was turning back to the old life. This is not certain, though Peter is definitely called back into service to His Lord.
Everything about this scene speaks of defeat: (1) it is dark, indicating that they are not walking in the light; (2) they had no direct word from the Lord; (3) their efforts met with failure; (4) they did not recognize Christ when He did appear, showing that their spiritual vision was dim.
How tragic is a bad influence! We need to keep in mind that God blesses us only when we abide in Christ and obey the Word. “Without Me you can do nothing” (15:5). Too many Christians enter into well-meaning but unscriptural activities, only to waste time, money, and energy for nothing. Let us beware of impatience. It is better to wait on the Lord for directions, and then let Him bless, than to involve ourselves in useless activities.
II. A Morning of Decision (21:4-17)
When Christ appears on the scene, then the light begins to shine. He instructs them from the shore, and they catch a great host of fish! A few minutes’ labor with Christ in control will accomplish more than a whole night of carnal efforts! It is interesting to compare this miracle with the one at the beginning of Peter’s career in Luke 5:
Luke 5
John 21
1. Followed a night of failure
1. Followed a night of failure
2. No exact number of fish given
2. 153 fish (v. 11)
3. The nets began to break
3. The net did not break
4. Christ instructed from the boat
4. Christ instructed from the shore
Some see in these scenes a picture of the church today (Luke 5) and of the church at the end of the age when Christ returns (John 21). Today we are casting out the Gospel net, but often the nets break, there is seeming failure, and we do not know how many souls are really won. But when Christ returns the exact number will be known, and none will be lost. Today there are many boats and fishermen at work, but when Christ returns, we will see the one church and all the redeemed in the one Gospel net.
There are actually several miracles in this chapter, besides the catch of fish. Peter is given miraculous strength to draw up a net that seven men were not able to draw together (v. 6 and v. 11).
The fact that the net did not break is amazing. The fire of coals and the cooked breakfast were certainly supplied miraculously. The entire scene was designed to awaken Peter’s conscience and open his eyes. The catch of fish reminded him of his past decision to forsake all and follow Christ. The fire of coals would take him back to his denial (John 18:18). The location—the Sea of Galilee—reminded him of several past experiences with Christ: feeding the 5,000, walking on the water, catching the fish with the coin, stilling the storm, etc.
Because Peter had denied Christ three times publicly, he had to make it right publicly. Note that Christ fed Peter before He dealt with his sins. How like the Lord to bless us first, then deal with us! The issue was Peter’s love for Christ.
If a man really loves Christ, his life will be devoted and dedicated. Note that Christ gives Peter a new commission: he is now a shepherd (minister) besides being a fisher of men. (See 1 Peter 5.) He is now to shepherd the lambs and sheep and feed them the Word of God. All Christians are expected to be fishers of men (soul-winners), but some have been called into the special ministry of shepherding the flock. What good is it to win the lost if there is no church where they might be fed and cared for?
Bibliography of Cited Sources
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 1. Chicago: Moody, 1958.
Ash, Anthony L. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 Vols. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1972.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 Vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1987.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. Vol 22: The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Ed. by David S. Dockery, et al. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Brooks, James A. The New American Commentary: Mark. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John XII-XXI. New York: Doubleday, 1970.
Bruce, F.F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983.
Butler, Paul T. The Gospel of John, Vol. 1. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.
Carson, D.A. Matthew. Vol. 8: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
__________. Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5-7. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.
Crowther, Duane S. Atlas and Outline of the Life of Christ. Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers & Distributors, 1982.
Dodd, C.H. Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1955.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Foreman, Dale. Crucify Him: A Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995.
Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary. Ed. by David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D.W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Ed. by Daniel J. Harrington. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lewis, Jack P. The Gospel According to Matthew. 2 Vols. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1976.
Liefeld, Walter L. Luke. Vol. 8: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.
Longenecker, Richard N. Acts. Vol. 9: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
The Lost Books of the Bible. New York: Bell Publishing, 1979.
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23. Chicago: Moody, 1988.
Matthew-Mark. Vol. 8. The Broadman Bible Commentary. Ed. by Clifton J. Allen, et al. Nashville: Broadman, 1969.
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel: Or A Harmony of the Four Gospels. Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.
Meserve, Albert D. The Olivet Discourse: A Study of Matthew 24. San Jose, CA: San Jose Bible College, 1970.
Morris, Leon. Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Mounce, Robert H. New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Nolland, John. Luke 1-9:20. Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary. Ed. by David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D.W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word, 1989.
____________. Luke 18:35-24:53. Vol. 35C: Word Biblical Commentary. Ed. by David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barder, John D.W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. The Topical Josephus: Historical Accounts that Shed Light on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Ryle, John C. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. Matthew. Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1974.
Stott, John R.W. Christian Counter-Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978.
Tenney, Merrill C. John. Vol. 9: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Walvoord, John F. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody, 1974.
Wenham, John. Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Wessel, Walter W. Mark. Vol. 8: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel According to St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.
Wiersbe, Warren, Be Series, Victor Books, A Division of Scripture Press Publications.
How many times have you wanted to hang that sign on your door? Maybe when there’s a lull in business. Maybe when job pressures hem you in and you feel trapped.
Maybe those were some of the disciples’ thoughts after Jesus died. Perhaps that’s why they took the day off and went fishing. The ministry, fbr all practical purposes, had shut down.
For three years these fishermen learned from Jesus, observing how He calmed storms, how He walked on water, how He cast His saving net into humanity’s sea.
But now, in the wake of death, all was calm, and the disciples returned to their old vocation — back to Galilee and their nets.
The purpose of this epilogue is to show how the belief which the disciples had achieved should be applied. The witness of the risen Lord to His followers had been completed, and they were ready to undertake the responsibilities of discipleship.
Consequently, the last chapter of the gospel opens the door to the future and shows how belief should be translated into terms of daily activity.
It seems also apparent that John did not want to end his gospel without telling his readers that Peter was restored to his apostleship. He also wanted to refute the foolish rumor that had spread among the people that Peter would live until the return of the Lord (21:23).
The average reader would conclude that John completed his book with the dramatic testimony of Thomas (John 20:28-31), and the reader would wonder why John added another chapter.
The main reason is the Apostle Peter, John’s close associate in ministry (Acts 3:1). Apart from the information in this chapter, we would wonder why Peter was so prominent in the first twelve chapters of the Book of Acts.
I think John may have had another purpose in mind: he wanted to teach us how to relate to the risen Christ. During the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, our Lord appeared and disappeared at will, visiting with the disciples and preparing them for the coming of the Spirit and their future ministries (Acts 1:1-9).
They never knew when He would appear, so they had to stay alert! The fact that He may return for His people today ought to keep us on our toes! It was an important time for the disciples because they were about to take His place in the world and begin to carry the message to others.
Besides, Jesus had trained these men for something besides fishing. The manifestation of Jesus was, then, a call to a new reality.
* We are fishers of men—obey Him (20:1-8)
“Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias[1]. It happened this way: {2} Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. {3} “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. {4} Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. {5} He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” “No,” they answered. {6} He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. {7} Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. {8} The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards[2].”
It was certainly someone who knew the fishermen of the Sea of Galilee who wrote this story. Night-time was the best for fishing. W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Book describes night fishing: “There are certain kinds of fishing always carried on at night. It is a beautiful sight. With blazing torch, the boat glides over the flashing sea, and the men stand gazing keenly into it until their prey is sighted, when, quick as lightning, they fling their net or fly their spear; and often you see the tired fishermen come sullenly into harbour in the morning, having toiled all night in vain.”
The catch here is not described as a miracle, and it is not meant to be taken as one. The description is of something which still frequently happens on the lake. Remember that the boat was only about a hundred yards from land. H. V. Morton describes how he saw two men fishing on the shores of the lake. One had waded out from the shore and was casting a bell net into the water. “But time after time the net came up empty. It was a beautiful sight to see him casting. Each time the neatly folded net belled out in the air and fell so precisely on the water that the small lead weights hit the lake at the same moment making a thin circular splash. While he was waiting for another cast, Abdul shouted to him from the bank to fling to the left, which he instantly did. This time he was successful…. The he drew up the net and we could see the fish struggling in it….It happens very often that the man with the hand-net must rely on the advice of someone on shore, who tells him to cast either to the left or the right, because in the clear water he can often see a shoal of fish invisible to the man in the water.” Jesus was acting as guide to his fishermen friends, just as people still do today.
It may be that it was because it was the grey dark that they did not recognize Jesus. But the eyes of the disciple whom Jesus loved were sharp. He knew it was the Lord; and when Peter realized who it was he leaped into the water. He was not actually naked. He was girt with a loin cloth as the fisher always was when he plied his trade. Not it was the Jewish law that to offer greeting was a religious act, and to carry out a religious act a man must be clothed; so Peter, before he set out to come to Jesus, put on his fisherman’s tunic, for he wished to be the first to greet his Lord.
Now we come to the first great reason why this strange chapter was added to the already finished gospel. It was to demonstrate once and for all the reality of the Resurrection. There were many who said that the appearances of the Risen Christ were nothing more than visions which the disciples had. Many would admit the reality of the visions but insist that they were still only visions. Some would go further and say that they were not visions but hallucinations. The gospels go far out of their way to insist that the Risen Christ was not a vision, not an hallucination, not even a spirit, but a real person. They insist that the tomb was empty and that the Risen Christ had a real body which still bore the marks of the nails and the spear thrust in his side.
But this story goes a step further. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to point out a shoal of fish to a party of fishermen. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to kindle a charcoal fire on the seashore. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to cook a meal and to share it out. And yet, as this story has it, the Risen Christ did all these things. When John tells how Jesus came back to his disciples when the doors were shut, he says: “He showed them his hands and his side” (John 20:20).
Ignatius, when writing to the Church at Smyrna, relates an even more definite tradition about that. He says: “I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection, and when he came to Peter and his company, he said to them: ‘Take, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.’ And straightway they touched him, and they believed, for they were firmly convinced of his flesh and blood. . . . And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them as one in the flesh.”
The first and simplest aim of this story is to make quite clear the reality of the resurrection. The Risen Lord was not a vision, nor the figment of someone’s excited imagination, nor the appearance of a spirit or a ghost; it was Jesus who had conquered death and come back.
There is a second great truth symbolized here. In the Fourth Gospel everything is meaningful, and it is therefore hardly possible that John gives the definite number one hundred and fifty-three for the fishes without meaning something by it. It has indeed been suggested that the fishes were counted simply because the catch had to be shared out between the various partners and the crew of the boat, and that the number was recorded simply because it was so exceptionally large. But when we remember John’s way of putting hidden meanings in his gospel for those who have eyes to see, we must think that there is more to it than that.
Many ingenious suggestions have been made.
(i) Cyril of Alexandria said that the number 153 is made up of three things. First, there is 100; and that represents “the fullness of the Gentiles.” 100, he says, is the fullest number. The shepherd’s full flock is 100 (Matthew 18:12). The seed’s full fertility is 100-fold. So the 100 stands for the fullness of the Gentiles who will be gathered in to Christ. Second, there is the 50; and the 50 stands for the remnant of Israel who will be gathered in. Third, there is the 3; and the 3 stands for the Trinity to whose glory all things are done.
(ii) Augustine has another ingenious explanation. he says that 10 is the number of the Law, for there are ten commandments; 7 is the number of grace, for the gifts of the Spirit are sevenfold.
“Thou the anointing Spirit art, Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart.”
Now 7+10 makes 17; and 153 is the sum of all the figures, 1+2+3+4 . . ., up to 17. Thus 153 stands for all those who either by Law or by grace have been moved to come to Jesus Christ.
(iii) The simplest of the explanations is that given by Jerome. He said that in the sea there are 153 different kinds of fishes; and that the catch is one which includes every kind of fish; and that therefore the number symbolizes the fact that some day all men of all nations will be gathered together to Jesus Christ.
We may note a further point. This great catch of fishes was gathered into the net, and the net held them all and was not broken. The net stands for the Church; and there is room in the Church for all men of all nations. Even if they all come in, she is big enough to hold them all.
Here John is telling us in his own vivid yet subtle way of the universality of the Church. There is no kind of exclusiveness in her, no kind of colour bar or selectiveness. The embrace of the Church is as universal as the love of God in Jesus Christ. It will lead us on the next great reason why this chapter was added to the gospel if we note that it was Peter who drew the net to land (John 21:11).
It is interesting that at least seven of the 12 disciples were probably fishermen. Why did Jesus call so many fishermen to follow Him? For one thing, fishermen are courageous, and Jesus needs brave people to follow Him. They are also dedicated to one thing and cannot easily be distracted. Fishermen do not quit! (We are thinking, of course, of professional fishermen, not idle people on vacation!) They know how to take orders, and they know how to work together.
The Lord had instructed His disciples to meet Him in Galilee, which helps to explain why they were at the Sea of Galilee, or Sea of Tiberias (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7-10; Mark 16:7).
After His resurrection, our Lord was sometimes not recognized (John 20:14; Luke 24:16); so it was that His disciples did not recognize Him when, at dawning, He appeared on the shore.
They toiled all night and caught nothing, and certainly Peter must have remembered a similar occasion two years earlier when Jesus had called him into full-time discipleship (Luke 5:1-11).
It was time for Jesus to take over the situation, just as He did when He called Peter into discipleship. He told them where to cast the net; they obeyed, and they caught 153 fish! The diference between success and failure was the width of the ship! We are never that from success when we permit Jesus to give the orders, and we are usually closer to success than we realize.
In spite of his faults and failures, Peter did indeed love the Lord, and he was not ashamed to admit it.
While Peter must have rejoiced in his restoration and apostleship, realize how shocking it must have been for this open discussion of his coming death to have come out!
The day would come when another would take charge of Peter — and kill him. Tradition tells us that Peter was indeed crucified, but that he asked to be crucified upside-down, because he was not worthy to die exactly as his Master had died.
Jesus “showed himself alive aflcer his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things conceming the kingdom of God” according to Acts 1.3.
Here in Galilee is one of those occasions. He had commanded the disciples through the women (Matt. 28:7, ]0; Mk. 16:7), to go into Galilee. They did not go immediately and Jesus appears to them in company twice in Jerusalem over a seven day period (cf. Jn. 20). Now they have arrived in Galilee and have resumed their former occupations as they wait for the Lord’s promised appearance here.
John’s use of the name “sea of Tiberias” is another indication that he intended his gospel account to be read by readers all over the Roman world. “Tiberias” is the Roman name for the sea of Galilee.
Why did Peter and these other six disciples go fishing! Some say they had lost faith and interest in continuing as disciples of jesus and simply had returned to their former occupations. Those who make this interpretation generally base it on a questionable exegesis of the question Jesus asked Peter, “Lovest thou me more than these. “‘ (Jn. 21:15).
I prefer the view that the disciples were merely occupying the time while they waited for the Lord in plying their trade as fishermen. Some of them (Peter at least) would need to provide some sort of financial support for their families. Men of the sea, active, hardworking, industrious men could not remain inactive while they waited for Jesus to come.
R. C. Foster said: “Jesus did not condemn them for going fishing, but directed them to a miraculous catch. Peter is no more to be condemned for seeking food by this accustomed trade than Paul for supporting himself by tentmaking while he preached as opportunity offered. Peter and the rest were here in Galilee in obedience to the express, repeated command of Jesus. Having come to Galiiee, they could do nathing for their Master except wait His coming and further commands. To supply themselves with food by a means that was honorable and available was simple common-sense.”
Fishermen had an honorable place in society. They supplied one of the most important items in the ordinary diet. They also had the teputation of being unusually pious. There were those who used hooks I to fish in the days of Jesus for archeologists have B found copper, brass and iron hooks df that period. But mast of the commercial fishing was done with nets. The first type of net was the “throwing” type, a round one of perhaps twelve feet in diameter, with leads all around the edge, and it was designed to catch fish by dropping over them.
The second type was the “seine” type which was bringing in their catch. The disciples probably used both types of nets. But it would seem they were using the seine type net this night.
The fishing trade required large investments to commence. The nets were expensive and needed a great deal of maintenance. The boats would be even 1 more expensive and need even more maintenance.
When the fish were caught they had to be separated. Some fish were worth more than others on the market. Also for the Jewish fishermen there would be the unclean fish they were not allowed to sell-those without scales and fins.
“The fisherman’s life strengthens his character: it is work that insists upon courage and firmness, as well as patience; and it is clear that those freshwater sailors, the fishermen of the Sea of Galilee stodd out from all the other workers who are mentioned in the Gospel. They seem to have been men of strong and ardent minds, open, hearty, enthusiastic in spirits–‘Sons of thunder, as Christ called two of them … Even today one may see the Galilean fishermen skipping for joy at a good catch; and under the fierce sun they may be heard chanting at the top of their voices.
“It is understandable that for the work He meant to undertake, Christ should have called upon these strong, brave, spirited men and their loyalty. He said to them, ‘Come and follow me; I will make you into fishers of men.’ And Simon and Andrew and then James and John, left their nets on the ground.”
They fished all flight and caught nothing. It was a big sea. They had probably put their net into the sea over and over again in many different places. They were tired and they had spent a frustrating day and night. in the darkness of the early dawn they looked toward the shore and saw a man standing there. The darkness, the distance and a probable mist arising from the surface of the sea kept them from recognizing Jesus.
Jesus then called out from the shore, “Lads, you don’t have anything to eat do you!” The Greek word paidia may be translated “lads, boys, children.” Jesus stated the question as if He expected a “No” answer. He wanted to focus their attention on the fruitlessness of their night’s labor in order to emphasize the more the rmraculous nature of what was about to happen. This He did to build their faith in Him and to demonstrate the divine assistance they would have during their labors in His name.
So Jesus instructed them, “Cast your net on the right side of the boat and you will catch fish.” Still not recognizing Him as their Master, thinking perhaps He was one of the local fishermen with a knowledge of where the fishing was currently the best, they followed His instruaions. To their wonderment the net became so full of fish they were unable to haul it into the boat and eventually the net, which seemed ready to burst at any moment, was towed to shore behind the boat.
What examples for us to follow as we seek to “catch fish” for Jesus Christ!
We are indeed “fishers of men,” and there are “fish” all around us. If we obey His directions, we will catch the fish.
John, the beloved disciple (cf. 13:23), then recognized Jesus and told Peter, “It is the Lord!” Perhaps John began to recognize Him when He called out from the shore and then at the miraculous draught of fishes could restrain himself no longer and forgot the fish and pointed toward shore and cried out to Peter.
It was John who first realized that the stranger on the shore was their own Lord and Master. It was John who leaned on the Lord’s breast at the table (John 13:23) and who stood by the cross when his Lord suffered and died (John 19:26). It is love that recognizes the Lord and shares that good news with others: “it is the Lord!”
Impetuous Peter was not about to wait until the boat reached the shore. He grabbed his outer tunic (he had probably taken off all his clothing but his undergarments), wrapped it around himself and jumped into the sea and started making for the shore.
Whether he swam or whether it was shallow enough for him to wade ashore we do not know. The disciples were only about 100 yards off shore m the boat.
R. C. Foster notes that the Greek language here indicates Peter fastened the girdle” and tucked the tunic up into his girdle before leaping into the water.
This may indicate he was intending to wade ashore without getting all his clothing wet. Peter may have been impetuous but his impetuosity at this particular instance is an example we all might well follow. Would that all His disciples were so eager to be near Him and to come to Him.
This may indicate he was intending to wade ashore without getting all his clothing wet. Peter may have been impetuous but his impetuosity at this particular instance is an example we all might well follow. Would that all His disciples were so eager to be near Him and to come to Him.
Practically all the commentators show the interesting parallels between this experience on the sea of Galilee and the one some three years before as recorded in Matt. 4:18-22; Mk. 1:16-20; Lk. 5:1-11.
In both instances they toiled all night and caught nothing; in each case they had gone fishing of their own volition; in both they were commanded by Jesus to make another effort; in the first the nets broke; in this one the net seemed ready to break momentarily; in both Peter exexhibited his impetuosity; m both Jesus gives them a solemn commission to evangelite.
Why did Peter act so impulsively! Who knows! It was just his nature, it seems, to act this way. What would you have done considering all his recent experiences if you had been Peter!
Perhaps you too would have leaped into the water and hurried to meet the resurrected Lord. These disciples were real men–not robots or the idealistic characters of fiction. Some of them were as different in personality and temperament as some of us today!
Now in verse eight we find an example of the Greek idiom which is not altogether familiar to the English language. We find John shifting from the regular noun to the diminutive form using both forms to describe the same thing. In 21.6 he speaks of the ploion (boat) and in 21.8 he speaks of the same boat only this time it is ploiarion (little boat). John does the same thing in 6: 17-20 and 6:22.
Peter went wading on ahead. The other disciples came slowly in the boat hauling the catch of fish which were still very precariously enclosed within the overtaxed net.
To their amazement, when they stepped out on shore they found the Master had a fire going, was broiling fish and preparing bread for a morning meal.
* We are Shepherds—Love Him (John 21:9-18)
“When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. {10} Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” {11} Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. {12} Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. {13} Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. {14} This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. {15} When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” {16} Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” {17} The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. {18} I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.””
Jesus met His disciples on the beach where He had already prepared breakfast for them. This entire scene must have stirred Peter’s memory and touched his conscience.
Surely he was recalling that first catch of fish (Luke 5:1-11)and perhaps even the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish (John 6). It was at the close of the latter event that Peter had given his clear-cut witness of faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:66-71). The “fire of coals” would certainly remind him of the fire at which he denied the Lord (John 18:18). It is good for us to remember the past; we may have something to confess.
Three “invitations” stand out in John’s Gospel: (‘Come and see ” (John 1:39); ‘Come and drink” (John 7:37); and “Come and dine ” (John 21:12). How loving of Jesus to feed Peter before He dealt with his spiritual needs. He gave Peter opportunity to dry off, get warm, satisfy his hunger, and enjoy personal fellowship.
This is a good example for us to follow as we care for God’s people. Certainly the spiritual is more important than the physical, but caring for the physical can prepare the way for spiritual ministry. Our Lord does not so emphasize “the soul” that He neglects the body.
Some suggest that Peter and his Lord had already met privately and taken care of Peter’s sins (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), but since Peter had denied the Lord publicly, it was important that there be a public restoration.
We do not know that for certain, but sin should be dealt with only to the extent that it is known. Private sins should be confessed in private, public sins in public. Since Peter had denied his Lord three times, Jesus asked him three personal questions. He also encouraged him by giving a threefold commission that restored Peter to his ministry.
The key issue is Peter’s love for the Lord Jesus, and that should be a key matter with us today. But what did the Lord mean by “more than these”? Was He asking, “Do you love Me more than you love these other men?” Not likely, because this had never been a problem among the disciples .
They all loved the Lord Jesus supremely, even though they did not always obey Him completely. Perhaps Jesus meant, “Do you love Me more than you love these boats and nets and fish?” Again, this is not likely, for there is no evidence that Peter ever desired to go back permanently into the fishing business. Fishing did not seem to compete with the Saviour’s love.
The question probably meant, “Do you love Me–as you claimed–more than these other disciples love Me?” Peter had boasted of his love for Christ and had even contrasted it with that of the other men. “I will lay down my life for Thy sake! ” (John 13:37) “Though all men shall be offended because of` Thee, yet will I never be offended!” (Matt. 26:33).
There is more than a hint in these boastful statements that Peter believed that he loved the Lord more than did the other disciples.
Foster lists three reasons why he believes Jesus means “do you love Me mote than these other disciples,” instead of “things–i.e., things representing your worldly vocation such as nets and boats and fish.” (a) There was nothing wrong with fishing per se, that is, Jesus did not condemn Peter for fishing and accuse him of loving Him less’ for fishing; (b) The three-fold question parallels the three-fold denial; (c) If Peter had understood Jesus to mean he was questioning whether he planned to desert his Master and go back to his old fishing trade, it seems incredible that Peter would not have answered immediately and precisely, “You know that I love you more than these things.
It is more in keeping with the humility Peter must have felt when asked that he did not even so much as say,”You know that I love you more than these other men.” He had fallen into that prideful trap before.
Two Greek verbs are used in an interesting interplay upon the word love in this section. Jesus uses the verb agapao in His first two inquiries and the verb phileo in the third question. Peter replies with phileo in all three answers.
There are some commentators who are dogmatic in their assertions that agapao always means the “higher, spiritual devotion, not an impulse from the feelings, but more intellectually oriented love” while phileo always refers to the lower type of love “intimate, personal affection among human beings, brotherly love.
This is not borne out by the New Testament usage of the two words, a. Both words are used of God’s love for man (agapao: Jn. 3:16; 14:23; 17:23; I Jn. 14:10-19) (phileo: Jn. 16:27; Rev. 3:19) b. Both words are used of God’s love for the Son (agapao: Jn. 3:35; 10:17; 15:3; 17:23-26) (phileo: Jn. 5:20). c.
Both verbs are used of the love of men for Jesus (agapao: Jn. 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15-16) (phileo: Jn. 16:27; 21:15-16; Matt. 10:37; ICor. 16:22). d. Both verbs are used of the love of men for other men (dgapao: Jn. 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; I Jn. 2:10; 3:10; 4:7, 20) phileo: John 15:19).
The text now under consideration seems to indicate that the words were, as the Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon says, “used interchangeably.”
R. C. Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament puts it this way: “…there is often a difference between them, well worthy to have noted and reproduced, if this had lain within the compass of our language, being very nearly equivalent to that between ‘diligo’ and amo’ in the Latin … In that threefold ‘Lovest thou Me!’ which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, agapas me; at this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection toward his Lord, this word on that Lord’s lips sounds far too cold…He therefore in his answer substitutes for the agapas of Christ the word of a more personal love, philo se.
Foster says “it is clear there is some difference and the use of both words in John 21 would indicate there is some different shade of meaning indicated. The fact that when we are commanded to love our enemies agapao is used, suggests the shade of meaning that we are not commanded to make a confidants or an intimate personal friend of an enemy–this might not be possible. But we are to treat all, even our enemies, with kindness and generous regard.”
We will make Peter say something he certainly did not intend to say if we insist on a decisive and immutable distinction between the two words. We would have Peter replying to the Lord, “You know I love you Lord, but I do not love you with the highest devotion which man should have toward God (agapao); I only love you as a close personal friend (phileo), with a lower type of love.
For Peter this was the right word. It expressed the deep, warm, heartfelt affection of this impetuous man. There does seem to be a decisive difference in the two words, but not as pronounced a difference as some commentators insist upon.”
Why did Jesus use agapao when asking the first two questions, “Lovest thou me!” and then use phileo when He asked the third time? Most commentators believe Jesus was mildly rebuking Peter by questioning whether Peter even had the lowest type of love for Him. But Peter, by using phileo in each of his answers was using a word by which he meant to affirm both his lofty devotion toward God whom he revered but had never seen, and his personal love for Jesus whom he has seen and recognizes as God’s Son, just as Thomas had (Jn. 20:28).
As we quoted Dr. Trench above, for Peter the word agapaojust did not fully describe his feelings so he used phileo and the Master simply used Peter’s own word of feeling as the basis for His final challenge.
We believe there is some relationship between the charge Jesus made to Peter (“Feed my sheep”) and the question He asked (“Lovest thou me!”).
If Peter loves the Master, Peter will feed the Master’s lambs. Whatever is done for the lambs is done for the Master (cf Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 9:1-6). Is this not why Jesus used the word agapaoas if to say, “Peter, do you love me!” “You say you love me, then love my lambs and feed them.”
Peter’s personal, warm and affectionate love for Jesus is well and good, but this love for Jesus must be directed toward His flock “at large” as well or it isn’t even phileo love for Jesus (and this is why Jesus changed to Peter’s terminology in the last challenge.
Jesus did not doubt Peter’s love for Him–He was challenging, preparing and commissioning Peter to go and love the Master’s lambs. This was not simply a reconciliation between Master and disciple for this had already occurred in the first appearance of Jesus to Peter in Luke 24:34.
It was not to restore Peter to his apostleship among the select eleven for as Foster says, “the angel made it plain in the first message after the resurrection that Jesus did not consider that Peter had forfeited his apostleship (Mark 16:7).
It was to challenge Peter, to strengthen him (to make him firmer in his love by reminding him of the humiliation of denial three times), to instruct him that lovmg Christ means to feed His sheep, and to confirm his place of leadership among the eleven. Jesus also elicited these confessions of love from Peter to prepare him for the prophecy of his death about to be made.
There certainly are great principles for all followers of Christ to learn from this private intercourse between Jesus and Peter. Those who have dedicated themselves to “feed the flock” (whether evangelists or elders) must love Christ above all else and before all others. Love for Christ, deep, personal affection is the only force that will motivate and fortify His servants against the many disappointments and dangers in “feeding the flock.”
We may also learn that love is expressed by obedient service (cf. II Cor. 8:5-8; 8:24; 9:13). Love is notjust desire; love is the desire to give–to spend and be spent for another.
There is an interesting play of synonyms for “feed” in this context. In verses 15 and 17 Jesus used the word base which means “feed; do the part of a herdsman and provide the flock food.” In verse 16 He used the word pojmaine which means “shepherd the flock, protect, care for, lead the flock. “
This is the commission of the Chief Shepherd to the under-shepherds to give themselves to the ministry of feeding, Protecting, guiding and leading the flock of God (6: Jn. to; Ads 20:18-38; I Pet. 5:1-11, etc.). The important food for the nock is the spiritual food. Peter was called and charged to carry out this great task and he eventually laid down his life for the sheep.
It is also interesting to note the way Jesus used synonyms for sheep and lambs. In verse 16 and 17 the word plobatia (sheep) is used. In verse 15 He used the word arnia which is a diminutive meaning “little lambs.” The “little lambs” are mentioned first. The unsophisticated ones, the weak ones, the young ones must be tenderly nurtured.
The older ones, even the experienced ones, must also be cared for and fed. We must all grow up together in stature into the full measure of godliness in Christ (cf Eph. 4:11-17).
In verse 18 Jesus culminates his charge to Peter to “feed the lambs” with the revelation that Peter shall lay down his life for the flock. The figure of speech used by Jesus was vivid. The Jews, in walking or running, gathered up (girded) the long folds of their outer garments and fashioned them about their waists like belts, that their progress might not be impeded. The figure then expresses the freedom to go as one pleases unimpeded and unfettered.
In fact Peter had just so “girded” himself and made his way to Jesus on the shore unfettered and unrestramed. But m his later years it shall not be so. Solemnly Jesus told him that he would stretch forth his hands to be fettered and bound and he would be led according to the will of another.
Most commentators believe this “stretchmg forth of the hands” indicates Peter was told he would die by crucifixion. This is highly probable since Peter’s Master was put to death in this way and it was a common form of Roman execution administered upon non-citizen “malefactors.
Works by Eusebius and Tertullian relate the traditional manner of Peter’s death to be crucifixion head downward. Whatever the manner of death it was to glorify God. Peter was to be among the first martyrs (from the Greek maturos). Marturia means to “testify or bear witness.”
Peter’s life and death in faith bore witness to the glory of God. Just as the death of the first recorded Christian martyr, Stephen (Acts 7.54n), glorified God and was instrumental to some degree in the conversion of the great apostle Paul, the death of Peter for the sake of Christ and the church was undoubtedly a great testimony to the power of the word of God and instrumental in the conversion of many other people. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Rev. 14:13).
Now after speaking this Jesus admonished again, “Follow me.” One commentator thinks Jesus began after this admonition to draw apart from the discipies to vanish from their company until His next appearance, and that Peter may have taken Jesus literally and began to withdraw from the group and walk after Jesus. This seems the most explanation for Peter turning to see another disciple “following.
There can be no doubt that this other disciple who followed was John the beloved (cf our notes on John 13:23). Both Peter and John (and James) were of the mner circle” three, and Peter was involved in the incident at the supper where the “other” disciple is described in the same way.
Foster says, “Follow me in the light of the preceding context seems to mean ‘follow me in my example of dying on a cross.’ But the succeeding context seems to indicate that Jesus was leading Peter off to a little distance from the group and that John followed–or perhaps He was leading all of the disciples hence.
It may be that both the spintual and the literal are meant to be understood by the apostles.
The main point is Peter’s question about the “other” disciple and the Lord’s answer to Peter. Peter, having been challenged, commissioned and having had his destiny revealed to him, said, “Lord what about him! ” Peter had missed the mark again!
He had allowed his natural mind to take over again. He was out of focus. He was not focused on what Jesus had sought to emphasize. He was worrying about “times and seasons.
Jesus replied, as He had before to His own mother, and as He would to the disciples later, “It is none of your business to know this …. if it is My will that John remain alive even until I come again in contrast to your death before I come, it is My affair and nor yours. The destiny of this other disciple is minor; the major raskfor you is to follow me. “ (cf, our notes on Jn. 2:1-5; also cf. Acts 1:6-8).
If a man is going to be a soldier, he must have a soldier’s training. Sighing after happiness; brooding over the life we’ve missed–these are all out of place with the the Christian soldier.
Men are not coddled and indulged when they are trained as soliders. Orders are given and no questions are solicited. Immediate and implicit obedience is called for.
The Lord will tell us all we have need to lo know. We are His friends. What would be detrimental to us He will withhold (cf. our notes on Jn. 15:1216). We are not to know times or seasons, but to go to the ends of the earth witnessing.
Some disciples misunderstood the point of Jesus’ reply to Peter. The word was spread among the brethren that Jesus had said John would not die.
Barnes points out that first, the words of Jesus might easily be misunderstood and second, the false ‘rumor might gain credence when it was seen that John survived all the other apostles. So John, writing this gospel record in the twilight of life, deemed it this rumor and so said simply, “Jesus did not say that the other disciple would not die-Jesus said,’If it is my will that the other disciple remain until I come, it is none of your affair, Peter.
We believe it is significant that John repeated precisely what Jesus said and offered no interpretation. John learned the lesson Jesus intended. His disciples need not know all-but all they need to know is revealed.
The primary thing the disciples of Jesus need to do is to love and live the revealed teachings of their Master, leaving times and seasons to the wisdom and will ofa loving Father.
There are many Christians who need to be, as Hendriksen says, turned from curiosity to their calling. It seems there were many brethren in John’s day in the same curious frame of mind. They are majoring in miners.
We like the condusion given by Mr. Barclay: “Some would say that John was the great one, for his flights of thought went higher than those of any either man. Some would say that Paul was the great one for he fared to the ends of the earth for Christ. But this chapter says that Peter, too, had his place…to each Jesus had given his function. It was Peter’s function to shepherd the sheep of Christ, and in the end to die for Christ It was John’s fUnction to witness to the story of Christ, and to live to a great old age and to come to the end in peace.
That did not make them rivals and competitors in honor and prestige; that did not make the one greater or less than the other; it made them both servants of Christ. Let a man serve Christ where Christ has set him. As Jesus said to Peter, “Never mind the task that is given to someone else. Your job is to follow me.
And that is what He still says to each of us. Our glory is never in comparison with men; our glory is the service of Christ in whatever capacity has been allotted to us.
In spite of his faults and failures, Peter did indeed love the Lord, and he was not ashamed to admit it. The other men were certainly listening “over Peter’s shoulder” and benefiting from the conversation, for they too had failed the Lord after boasting of their devotion. Peter had already confessed his sin and been forgiven. Now he was being restored to apostleship and leadership.
The image, however, changes from that of the fisherman to that of the shepherd. Peter was to minister both as an evangelist (catching the fish) and a minister (shepherding the flock). It is unfortunate when we divorce these two because they should go together. Ministers ought to evangelize (2 Tim. 4:5) and then shepherd the people they have won so that they mature in the Lord.
Jesus gave three admonitions to Peter: “Feed My lambs,” “Shepherd My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.” Both the lambs and the more mature sheep need feeding and leading, and that is the task of the spiritual shepherd.
It is an awesome responsibility to be a shepherd of God’s flock! (I Peter 5:2) There are enemies that want to destroy the flock, and the shepherd must be alert and courageous (Acts 20:28-35). By nature, sheep are ignorant and defenseless, and they need the protection and guidance ofthe shepherd.
While it is true that the Holy Spirit equips people to serve as shepherds, and gives these people to churches (Eph. 4: 1 Iff), it is also true that each individual Christian must help to care for the flock. Each of us has a gift or gifts from the Lord, and we should use what He has given us to help protect and perfect the flock. Sheep are prone to wander, and we must look after each other and encourage each other.
Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), the Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20-21), and the Chief Shepherd (I Peter 5:4). Ministers are ”under-shepherds” who must obey Him as they minister to the flock. The most important thing we can do is to love Jesus Christ. If he truly loves Jesus Christ, the minister will also love His sheep and tenderly care for them.
The Greek word for “sheep” at the end of John 21:17 means “dear sheep.” Our Lord’s sheep are dear to Him and He wants His ministers to love them and care for them personally and lovingly. (See Ezek. 34 for God’s indictment of unfaithful shepherds, the leaders of Judah.)
A person who loves the flock will serve it faithfully, no matter what the cost.
How the fish were obtained by Jesus we are not told. We are neither told that He obtained them in a supernatural way or a natural way. Most commentators believe He supplied them supernaturally. The recent events and the excitement of the present hour would lead one to think this also must have come about in some supernatural way.
In their excitement and haste to meet the Lord they had forgotten their net full of fish strainmg on the tow rope still tied to the side of the boat and being lashed about by the waves of the surf. Jesus directed them, Bring of the fish which you have now taken. Perhaps Jesus had another reason for such directions than His concern that the miraculous catch might be lost by neglect.
Perhaps He wanted to re-emphasize the magnitude of the miracle. This we believe is all the significance there is to the number–153 of fish caught. The number is given simply to signify the marvelousness of it all.
They had fished all night and caught nothing. Jesus merely said, Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and in one cast they caught one hundred fifty-three large fish. So many the net was about to break.
Many commentators, both ancient and modem, are, we believe, too taken up with allegorizing, symbolizing and spiritualizing numbers.
For example Cyril of Alexandria said the 100 represents the “fulness of the Gentiles”; the 50 stands for the remnant of Israel which will be saved: 3 stands for the Trinity to whose glory all things are done.
Augustine, according to Barclay, explains it this way: 10 is the number for the Law (10 commandments); 7 is the number of grace (7 gifts of the Spirit); 7 plus 10 equals 17, 153 is the sum of all the figures, I plus 2 plus 3 plus 3 … and up to 17. Thus 153 stands for all those who either by Law or by grace have been moved to come to Jesus Christ.”
Whether the number has a mystical meaing or not, it most certainly points out that the one who wrote the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness for he knew every detail even to the number and size of the fish that morning.
The amazing thing to the fishermen was that such an enonnous catch could be contained in the net without the net breaking.
Jesus bids them, “Come, have breakfast.” So overwhelmed with His majesty and awed with His omnipotence now not one of them dared interrogate Him. They all knew! There were no doubts, no questionings in their minds and hearts now. Perhaps the events of the night had so awed them that they stood off in reverential fear. None dared to say, Is it really you, Lord!
In fact, the indication is that they did not even dare to come close to the fire and feed themselves at His invitation. It seems that Jesus had to take the bread and the fish and “come” toward them and give it to them.
The main point to get from this section is exactly the point the disciples got and the one Jesus intended: a dramatic and awe-inspiring demonstration of the omnipotence and omniscience of Jesus Christ, the resurrected Lord of heaven and earth.
Verse 14 must, of course, be understood as denominating the third appearance to the disciples (apostles) being gathered together in a body. He appeared at least a third time to other disciples (both women and men) before this but this is His third appearance to His specially called disciples-apostles.
We Are Disciples–Follow Him (John 21:19-25)
“Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” {20} Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) {21} When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” {22} Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” {23} Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” {24} This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. {25} Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
Jesus had just spoken about Peter’s life and ministry, and now He talks about Peter’s death. This must have been a shock to Peter, to have the Lord discuss his death in such an open manner.
No doubt Peter was rejoicing that he had been restored to fellowship and apostleship. Why bring up martyrdom?
The first time Jesus spoke about His own death, Peter had opposed it (Matt. 16:2 Iff). Peter had even used his sword in the Garden in a futile attempt to protect his Lord. Yet Peter had boasted he would die for the Lord Jesus! But when the pressure was on, Peter failed miserably. (You and I probably would have done worse!) Anyone who yields himself to serve the Lord must honestly confront this matter of death.
When a person has settled the matter of death, then he is ready to live and to serve! Our Lord’s own death is a repeated theme in John’s Gospel: He knew that His “hour” would come, and He was prepared to obey the Father’s will. We as His followers must yield ourselves–just as He yielded Himself for us–and be “livmg sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1-2) who are “ready to be offered” (2 Tim. 4:6-8) if it is the will of God.
Earlier that morning, Peter had “girded himself’ and hurried to shore to meet Jesus (John 21:7). The day would come when another would take charge of Peter–and kill him (see 2 Peter 1:13-14).
Tradition tells us that Peter was indeed crucified, but that he asked to be crucified upside down, because he was not worthy to die exactly as his Master had died.
But Peter’s death would not be a tragedy, it would glorifl God! The death of Lazants glorified God (John 11:4, 40) and so did the death of Jesus (John 12:23ff). Paul’s great concern was that he glorify God, whether by life or by death (Phil 1:20-21). This should be our desire as well.
Our Lord’s words, “Follow Me!” must have brought new joy and love to Peter’s heart. Literally, Jesus said, “Keep on following Me.” Immediately, Peter began to follow Jesus, just as he had done before his great denial.
However, for a moment Peter took his eyes off the Lord Jesus, a mistake he had made at least two other times. After that first great catch of fish, Peter took his eyes off his Lord and looked at himself: “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8)
When he was walking an the stormy sea with Jesus, Peter looked away from the Lord and began to look at the wind and waves; and immediately he began to sink (Matt. 14:30). It is dangerous to look at the circumstances instead of looking to the Lord.
Why did Peter look away from his Lord and start to look back? He heard somebody walking behind him. It was the Apostle John who was also following Jesus Christ.
Peter did a foolish thing and asked Jesus, “What shall this man do?” In other words, “Lord, you just told me what will happen to me; now, what will happen to John? “
The Lord rebuked Peter and reminded him that his job was to follow, not to meddle into the lives of other believers. Beware when you get your eyes off the Lord and start to look at other Christians! “Looking unto Jesus” should be the aim and practice of every believer (Heb. 12:1-2). To be distracted by ourselves, our circumstances, or by other Christians, is to disobey the Lord and possibly get detoured out of the will of God. Keep your eyes of faith on Him and on Him alone.
This does not mean that we ignore others, because we do have the responsibility of caring for one another (Phil. 2:1-4).
Rather, it means that we must not permit our curiosity about others to distract us from following the Lord. God has His plan for us; He also has plans for our Christian friends and associates. How He works in their lives is His business. Our business is to follow Him as He leads us (see Rom. 14:1-13).
Jesus did not say that John would live until His return, but that is the way some of the misguided believers understood it. More problems are caused by confused saints than by lost sinners! Misinterpreting the Word of God only creates misunderstanding about God’s people and God’s plans for His people.
However, there is a somewhat enigmatic quality to what the Lord said about John. Jesus did not say that John would live until He retwned, nor did He say that John would die before He returned. As it was, John lived the longest of all the disciples and did witness the Lord’s retum when he saw the visions that he recorded in the Book of Revelation.
As John came to the close of his book, he affirmed again the credibility of his witness. (Remember, witness is a key theme in the Gospel of John. The word is used forty-seven times.) John witnessed these events himself and wrote them for us as he was led by the Holy Spirit. He could have included so much more, but he wrote only what the Spirit told him to write.
The book ends with Peter and John together following Jesus, and He led them right into the Book of Acts!
What an exciting thing it was to receive the power of the Spirit and to bear witness of Jesus Christ! Had they not trusted Him, been transformed by Him, and followed Him, they would have remained successful fishermen on the Sea of Galilee; and the world would never have heard ofthem.
Jesus Christ is transforming lives today. Wherever He finds a believer who is willing to yield to His will, listen to His Word, and follow His way, He begins to transform that believer and accomplish remarkable things in that life. He also begins to do wonderful things through that life.
Peter and John have been off the scene (except for their books) for centuries, but you and I are still here. We are taking His place and taking their place. What a responsibility! What a privilege!
We can succeed only as we permit Him to transform us.
This passage makes it quite clear that John must have lived to a very old age; he must have lived on until the report went round that he was going to go on living until Jesus came again. Now, just as the previous passage assigned to Peter his place in the scheme of things, this one assigns to John his place. It was his function to be pre-eminently the witness to Christ. Again, people in the early Church must have made their comparisons. They must have pointed out how Paul went away to the ends of the earth. They must have pointed out how Peter went here and there shepherding his people. And then they may have wondered what was the function of John who had lived on in Ephesus until he was so old that he was past all activity. Here is the answer: Paul might be the pioneer of Christ, Peter might be the shepherd of Christ, but John was the witness of Christ. He was the man who was able to say: “I saw these things, and I know that they are true.”
To this day the final argument for Christianity is Christian experience. To this day the Christian is the man who can say: “I know Jesus Christ, and I know that these things are true.”
So, at the end, this gospel takes two of the great figures of the Church, Peter and John. To each Jesus had given his function. It was Peter’s to shepherd the sheep of Christ, and in the end to die for him. It was John’s to witness to the story of Christ, and to live to a great old age and to come to the end in peace. That did not make them rivals in honour and prestige, nor make the one greater or less than the other; it made them both servants of Christ.
Let a man serve Christ where Christ has set him. As Jesus said to Peter: “Never mind the task that is given to someone else. Your job is to follow me.” That is what he still says to each one of us. Our glory is never in comparison with other men; our glory is the service of Christ in whatever capacity he has allotted to us.
In this last chapter the writer of the Fourth Gospel has set before the Church for whom he wrote certain great truths. He has reminded them of the reality of the Resurrection; he has reminded them of the universality of the Church; he has reminded them that Peter and John are not competitors in honour, but that Peter is the great shepherd and John the great witness. Now he comes to the end; and he comes there thinking once again of the splendour of Jesus Christ. Whatever we know of Christ, we have only grasped a fragment of him. Whatever the wonders we have experienced, they are as nothing to the wonders which we may yet experience. Human categories are powerless to describe Christ, and human books are inadequate to hold him. And so John ends with the innumerable triumphs the inexhaustible power, and the limitless grace of Jesus Christ.
———————————————————
We hesitate to comment on these last two verses inasmuch as there is good manuscript evidence to show that it was not a part of the onginal.
The Sinaiticus manuscript (350 A.D.-othenwise known as Aleph), gives evidence that verses 24 and 25 were added and the original Aleph manuscript was subjected to inspection by ultra-violet process and it was found that these verses were not included in the Sinaiticus coder when it was first written but were added later.
The Bodmer II Papyrus (P66) omits these two verses (Bodmer II dates about 250 A.D.). It is reported that one of the best manuscripts of John found just recently, designated (P75), also omits these two verses (this manuscript also dates sometime between 200-300 A.D.)
The latest revision of the Greek text by Nestle in its critical apparatus notes that Aleph omits verse 25. Perhaps more manuscript evidence will be forthcoming soon to establish either the omission or the inclusion of these verses. Until then, we will make comments, with the reservatons stated above, on these two verses.
Foster thinks that the elders of the church at Ephesus, where John probably resided when he wrote the Fourth Gospel, added verses 24 and 25.
Hendricksen is of the same opinion and so is Westcott. Their argument is based upon the change of person which they say indicates a change of authorship.
Macknight, however, in his “Harmony of The Gospels, ” says it is agreeable to John’s manner (cf Jn. 19:-5) to speak of himself in the third person (cf also I Jn. 5:18 and III Jn. 12). Macknight then believes John himself to be the author of these two concluding verses.
Whoever authored them they are a strong affirmation of the reliability of his record. If it is by the Ephesian elders they probably were endowed with the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit to “discern the spirits” and were adding their verification to the record for the benefit of the churches in which the record would be read.
Verse 25 is hyperbolic. It is a common figure of speech of the people of that area. One has only to read the Prophets to see this. This exaggeration serves to express the great magnitude and importance of the words and deeds of Jesus which were recorded.
Scripture itself testifies that there were things said and done by Jesus not recorded in the books about His life (the Gospels). In Acts 1:1-4 we are told that Jesus appeared to the disciples and spoke concerning the kingdom of God over a period of 40 days. Some of these things are recorded, some are not.
In Acts 20:35 we have recorded a statement of Jesus not to be found in any of the Gospel accounts.
There are many spurious apocryphal gospels and other accounts which purport to be records of deeds and sayings of Jesus. They are so utterly out of harmony with the tenor of the inspired accounts and the historical evidence is so definitely against their canonicity that they are completely unreliable.
The main point is that John has recorded enough that men might come to believe and love Jesus Christ and become heirs of salvation in His name (Jn. 20:30-31).
If men will not believe on the basis of what has been written, they will not believe even if someone would rise from the dead (ci. Lk. 16:31).
John has written enough. The omnipotence, omniscience, compassion, love and glory of Jesus Christ has been recounted with factuality, emotion and a moral penetration that is able to capture the volition of man.
Anything less would be insufficient-anything more would be redundant. Let us remember the admonition of this same apostle when he wrote the Revelation he received on Patmos (Rev. 22:18-20).
We say, “Amen” to Lenski when he closes his commentary with, “Soli Deo Gloria”–Glory to God alone” is our prayer for this commentary.
Turn right now, without letting another moment go by, and reread the Prologue, John 1:1-18. After these hours of soul-gripping study of John’s Gospel can you not say with all that is in you, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth!”
NOTE ON THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION
There is one great problem in the fourth gospel which we did not take note of at all when we were studying it. Here we can note it only very briefly, for it is really an unsolved problem on which the literature is immense.
It is quite certain that the fourth gospel and the other three give different dates for the Crucifixion, and take different views of what the last meal together was.
In the Synoptic gospels it is clear that the Last Supper was the Passover and that Jesus was crucified on Passover Day. It must be remembered that the Jewish day began at 6 p.m. on what to us is the day before. The Passover fell on 15th Nisan; but 15th Nisan began on what to us is 14th Nisan at 6 p.m. Mark seems to be quite clear; he says: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?” Jesus gives them instructions. Then Mark goes on: “And they prepared the passover, and when it was evening he came with the twelve.” (Mark 14:12-17.) Undoubtedly Mark wished to show the Last Supper as a Passover meal and that Jesus was crucified on Passover day; and Matthew and Luke follow Mark.
On the other hand John is quite clear that Jesus was crucified on the day before the passover. He begins his story of the last meal: “Now before the feast of the Passover . . .” (John 13:1). When Judas left the upper room, they thought he had gone to prepare for the Passover (John 13:29). The Jews would not enter the judgment hall lest they should become unclean and be prevented from eating the Passover (John 18:28). The judgment is during the preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).
There is here a contradiction for which there is no compromise solution. Either the Synoptic gospels are correct or John is. Scholars are much divided. But it seems most likely that the Synoptics are correct. John was always looking for hidden meanings. In his story Jesus is crucified as somewhere near the sixth hour (John 19:14). It was just then that in the Temple the Passover lambs were being killed. By far the likeliest thing is that John dated things in order that Jesus would be crucified at exactly the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed, so that he might be seen as the great Passover Lamb who saved his people and took away the sins of the world. It seems that the Synoptic gospels are right in fact, while John is right in truth; and John was always more interested in eternal truth than in mere historic fact. There is no full explanation of this obvious discrepancy; but this seems to us the best.
“Transformed To A New Life” John 21:1-25
Gone fishing.
How many times have you wanted to hang that sign on your door? Maybe when there’s a lull in business. Maybe when job pressures hem you in and you feel trapped.
Maybe those were some of the disciples’ thoughts after Jesus died. Perhaps that’s why they took the day off and went fishing. The ministry, fbr all practical purposes, had shut down.
For three years these fishermen learned from Jesus, observing how He calmed storms, how He walked on water, how He cast His saving net into humanity’s sea.
But now, in the wake of death, all was calm, and the disciples returned to their old vocation — back to Galilee and their nets.
The purpose of this epilogue is to show how the belief which the disciples had achieved should be applied. The witness of the risen Lord to His followers had been completed, and they were ready to undertake the responsibilities of discipleship.
Consequently, the last chapter of the gospel opens the door to the future and shows how belief should be translated into terms of daily activity.
It seems also apparent that John did not want to end his gospel without telling his readers that Peter was restored to his apostleship. He also wanted to refute the foolish rumor that had spread among the people that Peter would live until the return of the Lord (21:23).
The average reader would conclude that John completed his book with the dramatic testimony of Thomas (John 20:28-31), and the reader would wonder why John added another chapter.
The main reason is the Apostle Peter, John’s close associate in ministry (Acts 3:1). Apart from the information in this chapter, we would wonder why Peter was so prominent in the first twelve chapters of the Book of Acts.
I think John may have had another purpose in mind: he wanted to teach us how to relate to the risen Christ. During the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, our Lord appeared and disappeared at will, visiting with the disciples and preparing them for the coming of the Spirit and their future ministries (Acts 1:1-9).
They never knew when He would appear, so they had to stay alert! The fact that He may return for His people today ought to keep us on our toes! It was an important time for the disciples because they were about to take His place in the world and begin to carry the message to others.
Besides, Jesus had trained these men for something besides fishing. The manifestation of Jesus was, then, a call to a new reality.
* We are fishers of men—obey Him (20:1-8)
“Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias[1]. It happened this way: {2} Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. {3} “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. {4} Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. {5} He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” “No,” they answered. {6} He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. {7} Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. {8} The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards[2].”
It was certainly someone who knew the fishermen of the Sea of Galilee who wrote this story. Night-time was the best for fishing. W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Book describes night fishing: “There are certain kinds of fishing always carried on at night. It is a beautiful sight. With blazing torch, the boat glides over the flashing sea, and the men stand gazing keenly into it until their prey is sighted, when, quick as lightning, they fling their net or fly their spear; and often you see the tired fishermen come sullenly into harbour in the morning, having toiled all night in vain.”
The catch here is not described as a miracle, and it is not meant to be taken as one. The description is of something which still frequently happens on the lake. Remember that the boat was only about a hundred yards from land. H. V. Morton describes how he saw two men fishing on the shores of the lake. One had waded out from the shore and was casting a bell net into the water. “But time after time the net came up empty. It was a beautiful sight to see him casting. Each time the neatly folded net belled out in the air and fell so precisely on the water that the small lead weights hit the lake at the same moment making a thin circular splash. While he was waiting for another cast, Abdul shouted to him from the bank to fling to the left, which he instantly did. This time he was successful…. The he drew up the net and we could see the fish struggling in it….It happens very often that the man with the hand-net must rely on the advice of someone on shore, who tells him to cast either to the left or the right, because in the clear water he can often see a shoal of fish invisible to the man in the water.” Jesus was acting as guide to his fishermen friends, just as people still do today.
It may be that it was because it was the grey dark that they did not recognize Jesus. But the eyes of the disciple whom Jesus loved were sharp. He knew it was the Lord; and when Peter realized who it was he leaped into the water. He was not actually naked. He was girt with a loin cloth as the fisher always was when he plied his trade. Not it was the Jewish law that to offer greeting was a religious act, and to carry out a religious act a man must be clothed; so Peter, before he set out to come to Jesus, put on his fisherman’s tunic, for he wished to be the first to greet his Lord.
Now we come to the first great reason why this strange chapter was added to the already finished gospel. It was to demonstrate once and for all the reality of the Resurrection. There were many who said that the appearances of the Risen Christ were nothing more than visions which the disciples had. Many would admit the reality of the visions but insist that they were still only visions. Some would go further and say that they were not visions but hallucinations. The gospels go far out of their way to insist that the Risen Christ was not a vision, not an hallucination, not even a spirit, but a real person. They insist that the tomb was empty and that the Risen Christ had a real body which still bore the marks of the nails and the spear thrust in his side.
But this story goes a step further. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to point out a shoal of fish to a party of fishermen. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to kindle a charcoal fire on the seashore. A vision or a spirit would not be likely to cook a meal and to share it out. And yet, as this story has it, the Risen Christ did all these things. When John tells how Jesus came back to his disciples when the doors were shut, he says: “He showed them his hands and his side” (John 20:20).
Ignatius, when writing to the Church at Smyrna, relates an even more definite tradition about that. He says: “I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection, and when he came to Peter and his company, he said to them: ‘Take, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.’ And straightway they touched him, and they believed, for they were firmly convinced of his flesh and blood. . . . And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them as one in the flesh.”
The first and simplest aim of this story is to make quite clear the reality of the resurrection. The Risen Lord was not a vision, nor the figment of someone’s excited imagination, nor the appearance of a spirit or a ghost; it was Jesus who had conquered death and come back.
There is a second great truth symbolized here. In the Fourth Gospel everything is meaningful, and it is therefore hardly possible that John gives the definite number one hundred and fifty-three for the fishes without meaning something by it. It has indeed been suggested that the fishes were counted simply because the catch had to be shared out between the various partners and the crew of the boat, and that the number was recorded simply because it was so exceptionally large. But when we remember John’s way of putting hidden meanings in his gospel for those who have eyes to see, we must think that there is more to it than that.
Many ingenious suggestions have been made.
(i) Cyril of Alexandria said that the number 153 is made up of three things. First, there is 100; and that represents “the fullness of the Gentiles.” 100, he says, is the fullest number. The shepherd’s full flock is 100 (Matthew 18:12). The seed’s full fertility is 100-fold. So the 100 stands for the fullness of the Gentiles who will be gathered in to Christ. Second, there is the 50; and the 50 stands for the remnant of Israel who will be gathered in. Third, there is the 3; and the 3 stands for the Trinity to whose glory all things are done.
(ii) Augustine has another ingenious explanation. he says that 10 is the number of the Law, for there are ten commandments; 7 is the number of grace, for the gifts of the Spirit are sevenfold.
“Thou the anointing Spirit art, Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart.”
Now 7+10 makes 17; and 153 is the sum of all the figures, 1+2+3+4 . . ., up to 17. Thus 153 stands for all those who either by Law or by grace have been moved to come to Jesus Christ.
(iii) The simplest of the explanations is that given by Jerome. He said that in the sea there are 153 different kinds of fishes; and that the catch is one which includes every kind of fish; and that therefore the number symbolizes the fact that some day all men of all nations will be gathered together to Jesus Christ.
We may note a further point. This great catch of fishes was gathered into the net, and the net held them all and was not broken. The net stands for the Church; and there is room in the Church for all men of all nations. Even if they all come in, she is big enough to hold them all.
Here John is telling us in his own vivid yet subtle way of the universality of the Church. There is no kind of exclusiveness in her, no kind of colour bar or selectiveness. The embrace of the Church is as universal as the love of God in Jesus Christ. It will lead us on the next great reason why this chapter was added to the gospel if we note that it was Peter who drew the net to land (John 21:11).
It is interesting that at least seven of the 12 disciples were probably fishermen. Why did Jesus call so many fishermen to follow Him? For one thing, fishermen are courageous, and Jesus needs brave people to follow Him. They are also dedicated to one thing and cannot easily be distracted. Fishermen do not quit! (We are thinking, of course, of professional fishermen, not idle people on vacation!) They know how to take orders, and they know how to work together.
The Lord had instructed His disciples to meet Him in Galilee, which helps to explain why they were at the Sea of Galilee, or Sea of Tiberias (Matt. 26:32 and 28:7-10; Mark 16:7).
After His resurrection, our Lord was sometimes not recognized (John 20:14; Luke 24:16); so it was that His disciples did not recognize Him when, at dawning, He appeared on the shore.
They toiled all night and caught nothing, and certainly Peter must have remembered a similar occasion two years earlier when Jesus had called him into full-time discipleship (Luke 5:1-11).
It was time for Jesus to take over the situation, just as He did when He called Peter into discipleship. He told them where to cast the net; they obeyed, and they caught 153 fish! The diference between success and failure was the width of the ship! We are never that from success when we permit Jesus to give the orders, and we are usually closer to success than we realize.
In spite of his faults and failures, Peter did indeed love the Lord, and he was not ashamed to admit it.
While Peter must have rejoiced in his restoration and apostleship, realize how shocking it must have been for this open discussion of his coming death to have come out!
The day would come when another would take charge of Peter — and kill him. Tradition tells us that Peter was indeed crucified, but that he asked to be crucified upside-down, because he was not worthy to die exactly as his Master had died.
Jesus “showed himself alive aflcer his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things conceming the kingdom of God” according to Acts 1.3.
Here in Galilee is one of those occasions. He had commanded the disciples through the women (Matt. 28:7, ]0; Mk. 16:7), to go into Galilee. They did not go immediately and Jesus appears to them in company twice in Jerusalem over a seven day period (cf. Jn. 20). Now they have arrived in Galilee and have resumed their former occupations as they wait for the Lord’s promised appearance here.
John’s use of the name “sea of Tiberias” is another indication that he intended his gospel account to be read by readers all over the Roman world. “Tiberias” is the Roman name for the sea of Galilee.
Why did Peter and these other six disciples go fishing! Some say they had lost faith and interest in continuing as disciples of jesus and simply had returned to their former occupations. Those who make this interpretation generally base it on a questionable exegesis of the question Jesus asked Peter, “Lovest thou me more than these. “‘ (Jn. 21:15).
I prefer the view that the disciples were merely occupying the time while they waited for the Lord in plying their trade as fishermen. Some of them (Peter at least) would need to provide some sort of financial support for their families. Men of the sea, active, hardworking, industrious men could not remain inactive while they waited for Jesus to come.
R. C. Foster said: “Jesus did not condemn them for going fishing, but directed them to a miraculous catch. Peter is no more to be condemned for seeking food by this accustomed trade than Paul for supporting himself by tentmaking while he preached as opportunity offered. Peter and the rest were here in Galilee in obedience to the express, repeated command of Jesus. Having come to Galiiee, they could do nathing for their Master except wait His coming and further commands. To supply themselves with food by a means that was honorable and available was simple common-sense.”
Fishermen had an honorable place in society. They supplied one of the most important items in the ordinary diet. They also had the teputation of being unusually pious. There were those who used hooks I to fish in the days of Jesus for archeologists have B found copper, brass and iron hooks df that period. But mast of the commercial fishing was done with nets. The first type of net was the “throwing” type, a round one of perhaps twelve feet in diameter, with leads all around the edge, and it was designed to catch fish by dropping over them.
The second type was the “seine” type which was bringing in their catch. The disciples probably used both types of nets. But it would seem they were using the seine type net this night.
The fishing trade required large investments to commence. The nets were expensive and needed a great deal of maintenance. The boats would be even 1 more expensive and need even more maintenance.
When the fish were caught they had to be separated. Some fish were worth more than others on the market. Also for the Jewish fishermen there would be the unclean fish they were not allowed to sell-those without scales and fins.
“The fisherman’s life strengthens his character: it is work that insists upon courage and firmness, as well as patience; and it is clear that those freshwater sailors, the fishermen of the Sea of Galilee stodd out from all the other workers who are mentioned in the Gospel. They seem to have been men of strong and ardent minds, open, hearty, enthusiastic in spirits–‘Sons of thunder, as Christ called two of them … Even today one may see the Galilean fishermen skipping for joy at a good catch; and under the fierce sun they may be heard chanting at the top of their voices.
“It is understandable that for the work He meant to undertake, Christ should have called upon these strong, brave, spirited men and their loyalty. He said to them, ‘Come and follow me; I will make you into fishers of men.’ And Simon and Andrew and then James and John, left their nets on the ground.”
They fished all flight and caught nothing. It was a big sea. They had probably put their net into the sea over and over again in many different places. They were tired and they had spent a frustrating day and night. in the darkness of the early dawn they looked toward the shore and saw a man standing there. The darkness, the distance and a probable mist arising from the surface of the sea kept them from recognizing Jesus.
Jesus then called out from the shore, “Lads, you don’t have anything to eat do you!” The Greek word paidia may be translated “lads, boys, children.” Jesus stated the question as if He expected a “No” answer. He wanted to focus their attention on the fruitlessness of their night’s labor in order to emphasize the more the rmraculous nature of what was about to happen. This He did to build their faith in Him and to demonstrate the divine assistance they would have during their labors in His name.
So Jesus instructed them, “Cast your net on the right side of the boat and you will catch fish.” Still not recognizing Him as their Master, thinking perhaps He was one of the local fishermen with a knowledge of where the fishing was currently the best, they followed His instruaions. To their wonderment the net became so full of fish they were unable to haul it into the boat and eventually the net, which seemed ready to burst at any moment, was towed to shore behind the boat.
What examples for us to follow as we seek to “catch fish” for Jesus Christ!
We are indeed “fishers of men,” and there are “fish” all around us. If we obey His directions, we will catch the fish.
John, the beloved disciple (cf. 13:23), then recognized Jesus and told Peter, “It is the Lord!” Perhaps John began to recognize Him when He called out from the shore and then at the miraculous draught of fishes could restrain himself no longer and forgot the fish and pointed toward shore and cried out to Peter.
It was John who first realized that the stranger on the shore was their own Lord and Master. It was John who leaned on the Lord’s breast at the table (John 13:23) and who stood by the cross when his Lord suffered and died (John 19:26). It is love that recognizes the Lord and shares that good news with others: “it is the Lord!”
Impetuous Peter was not about to wait until the boat reached the shore. He grabbed his outer tunic (he had probably taken off all his clothing but his undergarments), wrapped it around himself and jumped into the sea and started making for the shore.
Whether he swam or whether it was shallow enough for him to wade ashore we do not know. The disciples were only about 100 yards off shore m the boat.
R. C. Foster notes that the Greek language here indicates Peter fastened the girdle” and tucked the tunic up into his girdle before leaping into the water.
This may indicate he was intending to wade ashore without getting all his clothing wet. Peter may have been impetuous but his impetuosity at this particular instance is an example we all might well follow. Would that all His disciples were so eager to be near Him and to come to Him.
This may indicate he was intending to wade ashore without getting all his clothing wet. Peter may have been impetuous but his impetuosity at this particular instance is an example we all might well follow. Would that all His disciples were so eager to be near Him and to come to Him.
Practically all the commentators show the interesting parallels between this experience on the sea of Galilee and the one some three years before as recorded in Matt. 4:18-22; Mk. 1:16-20; Lk. 5:1-11.
In both instances they toiled all night and caught nothing; in each case they had gone fishing of their own volition; in both they were commanded by Jesus to make another effort; in the first the nets broke; in this one the net seemed ready to break momentarily; in both Peter exexhibited his impetuosity; m both Jesus gives them a solemn commission to evangelite.
Why did Peter act so impulsively! Who knows! It was just his nature, it seems, to act this way. What would you have done considering all his recent experiences if you had been Peter!
Perhaps you too would have leaped into the water and hurried to meet the resurrected Lord. These disciples were real men–not robots or the idealistic characters of fiction. Some of them were as different in personality and temperament as some of us today!
Now in verse eight we find an example of the Greek idiom which is not altogether familiar to the English language. We find John shifting from the regular noun to the diminutive form using both forms to describe the same thing. In 21.6 he speaks of the ploion (boat) and in 21.8 he speaks of the same boat only this time it is ploiarion (little boat). John does the same thing in 6: 17-20 and 6:22.
Peter went wading on ahead. The other disciples came slowly in the boat hauling the catch of fish which were still very precariously enclosed within the overtaxed net.
To their amazement, when they stepped out on shore they found the Master had a fire going, was broiling fish and preparing bread for a morning meal.
* We are Shepherds—Love Him (John 21:9-18)
“When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. {10} Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” {11} Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. {12} Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. {13} Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. {14} This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. {15} When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” {16} Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” {17} The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. {18} I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.””
Jesus met His disciples on the beach where He had already prepared breakfast for them. This entire scene must have stirred Peter’s memory and touched his conscience.
Surely he was recalling that first catch of fish (Luke 5:1-11)and perhaps even the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish (John 6). It was at the close of the latter event that Peter had given his clear-cut witness of faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:66-71). The “fire of coals” would certainly remind him of the fire at which he denied the Lord (John 18:18). It is good for us to remember the past; we may have something to confess.
Three “invitations” stand out in John’s Gospel: (‘Come and see ” (John 1:39); ‘Come and drink” (John 7:37); and “Come and dine ” (John 21:12). How loving of Jesus to feed Peter before He dealt with his spiritual needs. He gave Peter opportunity to dry off, get warm, satisfy his hunger, and enjoy personal fellowship.
This is a good example for us to follow as we care for God’s people. Certainly the spiritual is more important than the physical, but caring for the physical can prepare the way for spiritual ministry. Our Lord does not so emphasize “the soul” that He neglects the body.
Some suggest that Peter and his Lord had already met privately and taken care of Peter’s sins (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), but since Peter had denied the Lord publicly, it was important that there be a public restoration.
We do not know that for certain, but sin should be dealt with only to the extent that it is known. Private sins should be confessed in private, public sins in public. Since Peter had denied his Lord three times, Jesus asked him three personal questions. He also encouraged him by giving a threefold commission that restored Peter to his ministry.
The key issue is Peter’s love for the Lord Jesus, and that should be a key matter with us today. But what did the Lord mean by “more than these”? Was He asking, “Do you love Me more than you love these other men?” Not likely, because this had never been a problem among the disciples .
They all loved the Lord Jesus supremely, even though they did not always obey Him completely. Perhaps Jesus meant, “Do you love Me more than you love these boats and nets and fish?” Again, this is not likely, for there is no evidence that Peter ever desired to go back permanently into the fishing business. Fishing did not seem to compete with the Saviour’s love.
The question probably meant, “Do you love Me–as you claimed–more than these other disciples love Me?” Peter had boasted of his love for Christ and had even contrasted it with that of the other men. “I will lay down my life for Thy sake! ” (John 13:37) “Though all men shall be offended because of` Thee, yet will I never be offended!” (Matt. 26:33).
There is more than a hint in these boastful statements that Peter believed that he loved the Lord more than did the other disciples.
Foster lists three reasons why he believes Jesus means “do you love Me mote than these other disciples,” instead of “things–i.e., things representing your worldly vocation such as nets and boats and fish.” (a) There was nothing wrong with fishing per se, that is, Jesus did not condemn Peter for fishing and accuse him of loving Him less’ for fishing; (b) The three-fold question parallels the three-fold denial; (c) If Peter had understood Jesus to mean he was questioning whether he planned to desert his Master and go back to his old fishing trade, it seems incredible that Peter would not have answered immediately and precisely, “You know that I love you more than these things.
It is more in keeping with the humility Peter must have felt when asked that he did not even so much as say,”You know that I love you more than these other men.” He had fallen into that prideful trap before.
Two Greek verbs are used in an interesting interplay upon the word love in this section. Jesus uses the verb agapao in His first two inquiries and the verb phileo in the third question. Peter replies with phileo in all three answers.
There are some commentators who are dogmatic in their assertions that agapao always means the “higher, spiritual devotion, not an impulse from the feelings, but more intellectually oriented love” while phileo always refers to the lower type of love “intimate, personal affection among human beings, brotherly love.
This is not borne out by the New Testament usage of the two words, a. Both words are used of God’s love for man (agapao: Jn. 3:16; 14:23; 17:23; I Jn. 14:10-19) (phileo: Jn. 16:27; Rev. 3:19) b. Both words are used of God’s love for the Son (agapao: Jn. 3:35; 10:17; 15:3; 17:23-26) (phileo: Jn. 5:20). c.
Both verbs are used of the love of men for Jesus (agapao: Jn. 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15-16) (phileo: Jn. 16:27; 21:15-16; Matt. 10:37; ICor. 16:22). d. Both verbs are used of the love of men for other men (dgapao: Jn. 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; I Jn. 2:10; 3:10; 4:7, 20) phileo: John 15:19).
The text now under consideration seems to indicate that the words were, as the Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon says, “used interchangeably.”
R. C. Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament puts it this way: “…there is often a difference between them, well worthy to have noted and reproduced, if this had lain within the compass of our language, being very nearly equivalent to that between ‘diligo’ and amo’ in the Latin … In that threefold ‘Lovest thou Me!’ which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, agapas me; at this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection toward his Lord, this word on that Lord’s lips sounds far too cold…He therefore in his answer substitutes for the agapas of Christ the word of a more personal love, philo se.
Foster says “it is clear there is some difference and the use of both words in John 21 would indicate there is some different shade of meaning indicated. The fact that when we are commanded to love our enemies agapao is used, suggests the shade of meaning that we are not commanded to make a confidants or an intimate personal friend of an enemy–this might not be possible. But we are to treat all, even our enemies, with kindness and generous regard.”
We will make Peter say something he certainly did not intend to say if we insist on a decisive and immutable distinction between the two words. We would have Peter replying to the Lord, “You know I love you Lord, but I do not love you with the highest devotion which man should have toward God (agapao); I only love you as a close personal friend (phileo), with a lower type of love.
For Peter this was the right word. It expressed the deep, warm, heartfelt affection of this impetuous man. There does seem to be a decisive difference in the two words, but not as pronounced a difference as some commentators insist upon.”
Why did Jesus use agapao when asking the first two questions, “Lovest thou me!” and then use phileo when He asked the third time? Most commentators believe Jesus was mildly rebuking Peter by questioning whether Peter even had the lowest type of love for Him. But Peter, by using phileo in each of his answers was using a word by which he meant to affirm both his lofty devotion toward God whom he revered but had never seen, and his personal love for Jesus whom he has seen and recognizes as God’s Son, just as Thomas had (Jn. 20:28).
As we quoted Dr. Trench above, for Peter the word agapaojust did not fully describe his feelings so he used phileo and the Master simply used Peter’s own word of feeling as the basis for His final challenge.
We believe there is some relationship between the charge Jesus made to Peter (“Feed my sheep”) and the question He asked (“Lovest thou me!”).
If Peter loves the Master, Peter will feed the Master’s lambs. Whatever is done for the lambs is done for the Master (cf Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 9:1-6). Is this not why Jesus used the word agapaoas if to say, “Peter, do you love me!” “You say you love me, then love my lambs and feed them.”
Peter’s personal, warm and affectionate love for Jesus is well and good, but this love for Jesus must be directed toward His flock “at large” as well or it isn’t even phileo love for Jesus (and this is why Jesus changed to Peter’s terminology in the last challenge.
Jesus did not doubt Peter’s love for Him–He was challenging, preparing and commissioning Peter to go and love the Master’s lambs. This was not simply a reconciliation between Master and disciple for this had already occurred in the first appearance of Jesus to Peter in Luke 24:34.
It was not to restore Peter to his apostleship among the select eleven for as Foster says, “the angel made it plain in the first message after the resurrection that Jesus did not consider that Peter had forfeited his apostleship (Mark 16:7).
It was to challenge Peter, to strengthen him (to make him firmer in his love by reminding him of the humiliation of denial three times), to instruct him that lovmg Christ means to feed His sheep, and to confirm his place of leadership among the eleven. Jesus also elicited these confessions of love from Peter to prepare him for the prophecy of his death about to be made.
There certainly are great principles for all followers of Christ to learn from this private intercourse between Jesus and Peter. Those who have dedicated themselves to “feed the flock” (whether evangelists or elders) must love Christ above all else and before all others. Love for Christ, deep, personal affection is the only force that will motivate and fortify His servants against the many disappointments and dangers in “feeding the flock.”
We may also learn that love is expressed by obedient service (cf. II Cor. 8:5-8; 8:24; 9:13). Love is notjust desire; love is the desire to give–to spend and be spent for another.
There is an interesting play of synonyms for “feed” in this context. In verses 15 and 17 Jesus used the word base which means “feed; do the part of a herdsman and provide the flock food.” In verse 16 He used the word pojmaine which means “shepherd the flock, protect, care for, lead the flock. “
This is the commission of the Chief Shepherd to the under-shepherds to give themselves to the ministry of feeding, Protecting, guiding and leading the flock of God (6: Jn. to; Ads 20:18-38; I Pet. 5:1-11, etc.). The important food for the nock is the spiritual food. Peter was called and charged to carry out this great task and he eventually laid down his life for the sheep.
It is also interesting to note the way Jesus used synonyms for sheep and lambs. In verse 16 and 17 the word plobatia (sheep) is used. In verse 15 He used the word arnia which is a diminutive meaning “little lambs.” The “little lambs” are mentioned first. The unsophisticated ones, the weak ones, the young ones must be tenderly nurtured.
The older ones, even the experienced ones, must also be cared for and fed. We must all grow up together in stature into the full measure of godliness in Christ (cf Eph. 4:11-17).
In verse 18 Jesus culminates his charge to Peter to “feed the lambs” with the revelation that Peter shall lay down his life for the flock. The figure of speech used by Jesus was vivid. The Jews, in walking or running, gathered up (girded) the long folds of their outer garments and fashioned them about their waists like belts, that their progress might not be impeded. The figure then expresses the freedom to go as one pleases unimpeded and unfettered.
In fact Peter had just so “girded” himself and made his way to Jesus on the shore unfettered and unrestramed. But m his later years it shall not be so. Solemnly Jesus told him that he would stretch forth his hands to be fettered and bound and he would be led according to the will of another.
Most commentators believe this “stretchmg forth of the hands” indicates Peter was told he would die by crucifixion. This is highly probable since Peter’s Master was put to death in this way and it was a common form of Roman execution administered upon non-citizen “malefactors.
Works by Eusebius and Tertullian relate the traditional manner of Peter’s death to be crucifixion head downward. Whatever the manner of death it was to glorify God. Peter was to be among the first martyrs (from the Greek maturos). Marturia means to “testify or bear witness.”
Peter’s life and death in faith bore witness to the glory of God. Just as the death of the first recorded Christian martyr, Stephen (Acts 7.54n), glorified God and was instrumental to some degree in the conversion of the great apostle Paul, the death of Peter for the sake of Christ and the church was undoubtedly a great testimony to the power of the word of God and instrumental in the conversion of many other people. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Rev. 14:13).
Now after speaking this Jesus admonished again, “Follow me.” One commentator thinks Jesus began after this admonition to draw apart from the discipies to vanish from their company until His next appearance, and that Peter may have taken Jesus literally and began to withdraw from the group and walk after Jesus. This seems the most explanation for Peter turning to see another disciple “following.
There can be no doubt that this other disciple who followed was John the beloved (cf our notes on John 13:23). Both Peter and John (and James) were of the mner circle” three, and Peter was involved in the incident at the supper where the “other” disciple is described in the same way.
Foster says, “Follow me in the light of the preceding context seems to mean ‘follow me in my example of dying on a cross.’ But the succeeding context seems to indicate that Jesus was leading Peter off to a little distance from the group and that John followed–or perhaps He was leading all of the disciples hence.
It may be that both the spintual and the literal are meant to be understood by the apostles.
The main point is Peter’s question about the “other” disciple and the Lord’s answer to Peter. Peter, having been challenged, commissioned and having had his destiny revealed to him, said, “Lord what about him! ” Peter had missed the mark again!
He had allowed his natural mind to take over again. He was out of focus. He was not focused on what Jesus had sought to emphasize. He was worrying about “times and seasons.
Jesus replied, as He had before to His own mother, and as He would to the disciples later, “It is none of your business to know this …. if it is My will that John remain alive even until I come again in contrast to your death before I come, it is My affair and nor yours. The destiny of this other disciple is minor; the major raskfor you is to follow me. “ (cf, our notes on Jn. 2:1-5; also cf. Acts 1:6-8).
If a man is going to be a soldier, he must have a soldier’s training. Sighing after happiness; brooding over the life we’ve missed–these are all out of place with the the Christian soldier.
Men are not coddled and indulged when they are trained as soliders. Orders are given and no questions are solicited. Immediate and implicit obedience is called for.
The Lord will tell us all we have need to lo know. We are His friends. What would be detrimental to us He will withhold (cf. our notes on Jn. 15:1216). We are not to know times or seasons, but to go to the ends of the earth witnessing.
Some disciples misunderstood the point of Jesus’ reply to Peter. The word was spread among the brethren that Jesus had said John would not die.
Barnes points out that first, the words of Jesus might easily be misunderstood and second, the false ‘rumor might gain credence when it was seen that John survived all the other apostles. So John, writing this gospel record in the twilight of life, deemed it this rumor and so said simply, “Jesus did not say that the other disciple would not die-Jesus said,’If it is my will that the other disciple remain until I come, it is none of your affair, Peter.
We believe it is significant that John repeated precisely what Jesus said and offered no interpretation. John learned the lesson Jesus intended. His disciples need not know all-but all they need to know is revealed.
The primary thing the disciples of Jesus need to do is to love and live the revealed teachings of their Master, leaving times and seasons to the wisdom and will ofa loving Father.
There are many Christians who need to be, as Hendriksen says, turned from curiosity to their calling. It seems there were many brethren in John’s day in the same curious frame of mind. They are majoring in miners.
We like the condusion given by Mr. Barclay: “Some would say that John was the great one, for his flights of thought went higher than those of any either man. Some would say that Paul was the great one for he fared to the ends of the earth for Christ. But this chapter says that Peter, too, had his place…to each Jesus had given his function. It was Peter’s function to shepherd the sheep of Christ, and in the end to die for Christ It was John’s fUnction to witness to the story of Christ, and to live to a great old age and to come to the end in peace.
That did not make them rivals and competitors in honor and prestige; that did not make the one greater or less than the other; it made them both servants of Christ. Let a man serve Christ where Christ has set him. As Jesus said to Peter, “Never mind the task that is given to someone else. Your job is to follow me.
And that is what He still says to each of us. Our glory is never in comparison with men; our glory is the service of Christ in whatever capacity has been allotted to us.
In spite of his faults and failures, Peter did indeed love the Lord, and he was not ashamed to admit it. The other men were certainly listening “over Peter’s shoulder” and benefiting from the conversation, for they too had failed the Lord after boasting of their devotion. Peter had already confessed his sin and been forgiven. Now he was being restored to apostleship and leadership.
The image, however, changes from that of the fisherman to that of the shepherd. Peter was to minister both as an evangelist (catching the fish) and a minister (shepherding the flock). It is unfortunate when we divorce these two because they should go together. Ministers ought to evangelize (2 Tim. 4:5) and then shepherd the people they have won so that they mature in the Lord.
Jesus gave three admonitions to Peter: “Feed My lambs,” “Shepherd My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.” Both the lambs and the more mature sheep need feeding and leading, and that is the task of the spiritual shepherd.
It is an awesome responsibility to be a shepherd of God’s flock! (I Peter 5:2) There are enemies that want to destroy the flock, and the shepherd must be alert and courageous (Acts 20:28-35). By nature, sheep are ignorant and defenseless, and they need the protection and guidance ofthe shepherd.
While it is true that the Holy Spirit equips people to serve as shepherds, and gives these people to churches (Eph. 4: 1 Iff), it is also true that each individual Christian must help to care for the flock. Each of us has a gift or gifts from the Lord, and we should use what He has given us to help protect and perfect the flock. Sheep are prone to wander, and we must look after each other and encourage each other.
Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), the Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20-21), and the Chief Shepherd (I Peter 5:4). Ministers are ”under-shepherds” who must obey Him as they minister to the flock. The most important thing we can do is to love Jesus Christ. If he truly loves Jesus Christ, the minister will also love His sheep and tenderly care for them.
The Greek word for “sheep” at the end of John 21:17 means “dear sheep.” Our Lord’s sheep are dear to Him and He wants His ministers to love them and care for them personally and lovingly. (See Ezek. 34 for God’s indictment of unfaithful shepherds, the leaders of Judah.)
A person who loves the flock will serve it faithfully, no matter what the cost.
How the fish were obtained by Jesus we are not told. We are neither told that He obtained them in a supernatural way or a natural way. Most commentators believe He supplied them supernaturally. The recent events and the excitement of the present hour would lead one to think this also must have come about in some supernatural way.
In their excitement and haste to meet the Lord they had forgotten their net full of fish strainmg on the tow rope still tied to the side of the boat and being lashed about by the waves of the surf. Jesus directed them, Bring of the fish which you have now taken. Perhaps Jesus had another reason for such directions than His concern that the miraculous catch might be lost by neglect.
Perhaps He wanted to re-emphasize the magnitude of the miracle. This we believe is all the significance there is to the number–153 of fish caught. The number is given simply to signify the marvelousness of it all.
They had fished all night and caught nothing. Jesus merely said, Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and in one cast they caught one hundred fifty-three large fish. So many the net was about to break.
Many commentators, both ancient and modem, are, we believe, too taken up with allegorizing, symbolizing and spiritualizing numbers.
For example Cyril of Alexandria said the 100 represents the “fulness of the Gentiles”; the 50 stands for the remnant of Israel which will be saved: 3 stands for the Trinity to whose glory all things are done.
Augustine, according to Barclay, explains it this way: 10 is the number for the Law (10 commandments); 7 is the number of grace (7 gifts of the Spirit); 7 plus 10 equals 17, 153 is the sum of all the figures, I plus 2 plus 3 plus 3 … and up to 17. Thus 153 stands for all those who either by Law or by grace have been moved to come to Jesus Christ.”
Whether the number has a mystical meaing or not, it most certainly points out that the one who wrote the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness for he knew every detail even to the number and size of the fish that morning.
The amazing thing to the fishermen was that such an enonnous catch could be contained in the net without the net breaking.
Jesus bids them, “Come, have breakfast.” So overwhelmed with His majesty and awed with His omnipotence now not one of them dared interrogate Him. They all knew! There were no doubts, no questionings in their minds and hearts now. Perhaps the events of the night had so awed them that they stood off in reverential fear. None dared to say, Is it really you, Lord!
In fact, the indication is that they did not even dare to come close to the fire and feed themselves at His invitation. It seems that Jesus had to take the bread and the fish and “come” toward them and give it to them.
The main point to get from this section is exactly the point the disciples got and the one Jesus intended: a dramatic and awe-inspiring demonstration of the omnipotence and omniscience of Jesus Christ, the resurrected Lord of heaven and earth.
Verse 14 must, of course, be understood as denominating the third appearance to the disciples (apostles) being gathered together in a body. He appeared at least a third time to other disciples (both women and men) before this but this is His third appearance to His specially called disciples-apostles.
We Are Disciples–Follow Him (John 21:19-25)
“Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” {20} Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) {21} When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” {22} Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” {23} Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” {24} This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. {25} Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
Jesus had just spoken about Peter’s life and ministry, and now He talks about Peter’s death. This must have been a shock to Peter, to have the Lord discuss his death in such an open manner.
No doubt Peter was rejoicing that he had been restored to fellowship and apostleship. Why bring up martyrdom?
The first time Jesus spoke about His own death, Peter had opposed it (Matt. 16:2 Iff). Peter had even used his sword in the Garden in a futile attempt to protect his Lord. Yet Peter had boasted he would die for the Lord Jesus! But when the pressure was on, Peter failed miserably. (You and I probably would have done worse!) Anyone who yields himself to serve the Lord must honestly confront this matter of death.
When a person has settled the matter of death, then he is ready to live and to serve! Our Lord’s own death is a repeated theme in John’s Gospel: He knew that His “hour” would come, and He was prepared to obey the Father’s will. We as His followers must yield ourselves–just as He yielded Himself for us–and be “livmg sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1-2) who are “ready to be offered” (2 Tim. 4:6-8) if it is the will of God.
Earlier that morning, Peter had “girded himself’ and hurried to shore to meet Jesus (John 21:7). The day would come when another would take charge of Peter–and kill him (see 2 Peter 1:13-14).
Tradition tells us that Peter was indeed crucified, but that he asked to be crucified upside down, because he was not worthy to die exactly as his Master had died.
But Peter’s death would not be a tragedy, it would glorifl God! The death of Lazants glorified God (John 11:4, 40) and so did the death of Jesus (John 12:23ff). Paul’s great concern was that he glorify God, whether by life or by death (Phil 1:20-21). This should be our desire as well.
Our Lord’s words, “Follow Me!” must have brought new joy and love to Peter’s heart. Literally, Jesus said, “Keep on following Me.” Immediately, Peter began to follow Jesus, just as he had done before his great denial.
However, for a moment Peter took his eyes off the Lord Jesus, a mistake he had made at least two other times. After that first great catch of fish, Peter took his eyes off his Lord and looked at himself: “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8)
When he was walking an the stormy sea with Jesus, Peter looked away from the Lord and began to look at the wind and waves; and immediately he began to sink (Matt. 14:30). It is dangerous to look at the circumstances instead of looking to the Lord.
Why did Peter look away from his Lord and start to look back? He heard somebody walking behind him. It was the Apostle John who was also following Jesus Christ.
Peter did a foolish thing and asked Jesus, “What shall this man do?” In other words, “Lord, you just told me what will happen to me; now, what will happen to John? “
The Lord rebuked Peter and reminded him that his job was to follow, not to meddle into the lives of other believers. Beware when you get your eyes off the Lord and start to look at other Christians! “Looking unto Jesus” should be the aim and practice of every believer (Heb. 12:1-2). To be distracted by ourselves, our circumstances, or by other Christians, is to disobey the Lord and possibly get detoured out of the will of God. Keep your eyes of faith on Him and on Him alone.
This does not mean that we ignore others, because we do have the responsibility of caring for one another (Phil. 2:1-4).
Rather, it means that we must not permit our curiosity about others to distract us from following the Lord. God has His plan for us; He also has plans for our Christian friends and associates. How He works in their lives is His business. Our business is to follow Him as He leads us (see Rom. 14:1-13).
Jesus did not say that John would live until His return, but that is the way some of the misguided believers understood it. More problems are caused by confused saints than by lost sinners! Misinterpreting the Word of God only creates misunderstanding about God’s people and God’s plans for His people.
However, there is a somewhat enigmatic quality to what the Lord said about John. Jesus did not say that John would live until He retwned, nor did He say that John would die before He returned. As it was, John lived the longest of all the disciples and did witness the Lord’s retum when he saw the visions that he recorded in the Book of Revelation.
As John came to the close of his book, he affirmed again the credibility of his witness. (Remember, witness is a key theme in the Gospel of John. The word is used forty-seven times.) John witnessed these events himself and wrote them for us as he was led by the Holy Spirit. He could have included so much more, but he wrote only what the Spirit told him to write.
The book ends with Peter and John together following Jesus, and He led them right into the Book of Acts!
What an exciting thing it was to receive the power of the Spirit and to bear witness of Jesus Christ! Had they not trusted Him, been transformed by Him, and followed Him, they would have remained successful fishermen on the Sea of Galilee; and the world would never have heard ofthem.
Jesus Christ is transforming lives today. Wherever He finds a believer who is willing to yield to His will, listen to His Word, and follow His way, He begins to transform that believer and accomplish remarkable things in that life. He also begins to do wonderful things through that life.
Peter and John have been off the scene (except for their books) for centuries, but you and I are still here. We are taking His place and taking their place. What a responsibility! What a privilege!
We can succeed only as we permit Him to transform us.
This passage makes it quite clear that John must have lived to a very old age; he must have lived on until the report went round that he was going to go on living until Jesus came again. Now, just as the previous passage assigned to Peter his place in the scheme of things, this one assigns to John his place. It was his function to be pre-eminently the witness to Christ. Again, people in the early Church must have made their comparisons. They must have pointed out how Paul went away to the ends of the earth. They must have pointed out how Peter went here and there shepherding his people. And then they may have wondered what was the function of John who had lived on in Ephesus until he was so old that he was past all activity. Here is the answer: Paul might be the pioneer of Christ, Peter might be the shepherd of Christ, but John was the witness of Christ. He was the man who was able to say: “I saw these things, and I know that they are true.”
To this day the final argument for Christianity is Christian experience. To this day the Christian is the man who can say: “I know Jesus Christ, and I know that these things are true.”
So, at the end, this gospel takes two of the great figures of the Church, Peter and John. To each Jesus had given his function. It was Peter’s to shepherd the sheep of Christ, and in the end to die for him. It was John’s to witness to the story of Christ, and to live to a great old age and to come to the end in peace. That did not make them rivals in honour and prestige, nor make the one greater or less than the other; it made them both servants of Christ.
Let a man serve Christ where Christ has set him. As Jesus said to Peter: “Never mind the task that is given to someone else. Your job is to follow me.” That is what he still says to each one of us. Our glory is never in comparison with other men; our glory is the service of Christ in whatever capacity he has allotted to us.
In this last chapter the writer of the Fourth Gospel has set before the Church for whom he wrote certain great truths. He has reminded them of the reality of the Resurrection; he has reminded them of the universality of the Church; he has reminded them that Peter and John are not competitors in honour, but that Peter is the great shepherd and John the great witness. Now he comes to the end; and he comes there thinking once again of the splendour of Jesus Christ. Whatever we know of Christ, we have only grasped a fragment of him. Whatever the wonders we have experienced, they are as nothing to the wonders which we may yet experience. Human categories are powerless to describe Christ, and human books are inadequate to hold him. And so John ends with the innumerable triumphs the inexhaustible power, and the limitless grace of Jesus Christ.
———————————————————
We hesitate to comment on these last two verses inasmuch as there is good manuscript evidence to show that it was not a part of the onginal.
The Sinaiticus manuscript (350 A.D.-othenwise known as Aleph), gives evidence that verses 24 and 25 were added and the original Aleph manuscript was subjected to inspection by ultra-violet process and it was found that these verses were not included in the Sinaiticus coder when it was first written but were added later.
The Bodmer II Papyrus (P66) omits these two verses (Bodmer II dates about 250 A.D.). It is reported that one of the best manuscripts of John found just recently, designated (P75), also omits these two verses (this manuscript also dates sometime between 200-300 A.D.)
The latest revision of the Greek text by Nestle in its critical apparatus notes that Aleph omits verse 25. Perhaps more manuscript evidence will be forthcoming soon to establish either the omission or the inclusion of these verses. Until then, we will make comments, with the reservatons stated above, on these two verses.
Foster thinks that the elders of the church at Ephesus, where John probably resided when he wrote the Fourth Gospel, added verses 24 and 25.
Hendricksen is of the same opinion and so is Westcott. Their argument is based upon the change of person which they say indicates a change of authorship.
Macknight, however, in his “Harmony of The Gospels, ” says it is agreeable to John’s manner (cf Jn. 19:-5) to speak of himself in the third person (cf also I Jn. 5:18 and III Jn. 12). Macknight then believes John himself to be the author of these two concluding verses.
Whoever authored them they are a strong affirmation of the reliability of his record. If it is by the Ephesian elders they probably were endowed with the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit to “discern the spirits” and were adding their verification to the record for the benefit of the churches in which the record would be read.
Verse 25 is hyperbolic. It is a common figure of speech of the people of that area. One has only to read the Prophets to see this. This exaggeration serves to express the great magnitude and importance of the words and deeds of Jesus which were recorded.
Scripture itself testifies that there were things said and done by Jesus not recorded in the books about His life (the Gospels). In Acts 1:1-4 we are told that Jesus appeared to the disciples and spoke concerning the kingdom of God over a period of 40 days. Some of these things are recorded, some are not.
In Acts 20:35 we have recorded a statement of Jesus not to be found in any of the Gospel accounts.
There are many spurious apocryphal gospels and other accounts which purport to be records of deeds and sayings of Jesus. They are so utterly out of harmony with the tenor of the inspired accounts and the historical evidence is so definitely against their canonicity that they are completely unreliable.
The main point is that John has recorded enough that men might come to believe and love Jesus Christ and become heirs of salvation in His name (Jn. 20:30-31).
If men will not believe on the basis of what has been written, they will not believe even if someone would rise from the dead (ci. Lk. 16:31).
John has written enough. The omnipotence, omniscience, compassion, love and glory of Jesus Christ has been recounted with factuality, emotion and a moral penetration that is able to capture the volition of man.
Anything less would be insufficient-anything more would be redundant. Let us remember the admonition of this same apostle when he wrote the Revelation he received on Patmos (Rev. 22:18-20).
We say, “Amen” to Lenski when he closes his commentary with, “Soli Deo Gloria”–Glory to God alone” is our prayer for this commentary.
Turn right now, without letting another moment go by, and reread the Prologue, John 1:1-18. After these hours of soul-gripping study of John’s Gospel can you not say with all that is in you, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth!”
NOTE ON THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION
There is one great problem in the fourth gospel which we did not take note of at all when we were studying it. Here we can note it only very briefly, for it is really an unsolved problem on which the literature is immense.
It is quite certain that the fourth gospel and the other three give different dates for the Crucifixion, and take different views of what the last meal together was.
In the Synoptic gospels it is clear that the Last Supper was the Passover and that Jesus was crucified on Passover Day. It must be remembered that the Jewish day began at 6 p.m. on what to us is the day before. The Passover fell on 15th Nisan; but 15th Nisan began on what to us is 14th Nisan at 6 p.m. Mark seems to be quite clear; he says: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?” Jesus gives them instructions. Then Mark goes on: “And they prepared the passover, and when it was evening he came with the twelve.” (Mark 14:12-17.) Undoubtedly Mark wished to show the Last Supper as a Passover meal and that Jesus was crucified on Passover day; and Matthew and Luke follow Mark.
On the other hand John is quite clear that Jesus was crucified on the day before the passover. He begins his story of the last meal: “Now before the feast of the Passover . . .” (John 13:1). When Judas left the upper room, they thought he had gone to prepare for the Passover (John 13:29). The Jews would not enter the judgment hall lest they should become unclean and be prevented from eating the Passover (John 18:28). The judgment is during the preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).
There is here a contradiction for which there is no compromise solution. Either the Synoptic gospels are correct or John is. Scholars are much divided. But it seems most likely that the Synoptics are correct. John was always looking for hidden meanings. In his story Jesus is crucified as somewhere near the sixth hour (John 19:14). It was just then that in the Temple the Passover lambs were being killed. By far the likeliest thing is that John dated things in order that Jesus would be crucified at exactly the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed, so that he might be seen as the great Passover Lamb who saved his people and took away the sins of the world. It seems that the Synoptic gospels are right in fact, while John is right in truth; and John was always more interested in eternal truth than in mere historic fact. There is no full explanation of this obvious discrepancy; but this seems to us the best.
“My Lord and my God!” This might well be the theme of this chapter. It records the climactic “sign” of a book filled with records of lesser “signs.” And, as John adds in his postscript, Jesus did many other “signs” in the presence of His followers but John and the other gospel writers have witnessed and recorded enough supernatural signs to lead men to believe in His diety (cf Jn. 20:30–1).
The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as He Himself foretold, was the apex of all His signs. This is the one event in the life of Jesus Christ which gives credence, meaning anh relevance to all else He said or did!
One is tempted to wax eloquent for page upon page concerning this event but we believe Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, has summarized it so well we prefer to quote from his book, “The Reality of the Resurrection” here:
“… the resurrection of Christ… marks the intersection of the temporal and eternal worlds,
of material existence and spiritual life. Because the event is supernatural, it expresses the essence
of God’s revelation, because it is historical it is a genuine part of human experience. The resurrection
is a permanent witness to the love, power holiness, and redemptive purpose of God and is also a fact
which must be accepted as art of history. It cannot be dismissed as a speculative venture of the intellect
which is possibly, but not necessarily, true. For this reason the resurrection is perpetually relevant to the intellectual and spiritual problems of the would. The eventprovides afoundationfor faith; its imagery
contains the framework for a new life … By this one great fact all theology can he integrated.
Revelation, incarnation, redemption, sanctification, and eschatology teach their fullest development
in the demonstration of the divine triumph over death.”
We feel compelled to repeat here some quotations by famous men showing their convictions conceming the resurrection of Jesus.
— Warfield said, “The resurrection of Christ is a fact, an external occurence within within the cognitance of man, to be established by other testimonies and yet which is the cardinal doctrine of our system: on it all other doctrines hang.”
— Lyndhurst (famous British jurist) said, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and, I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”
— William Lyon Phelps (Yale) said, “Our faith in God, in Christ, in life itself, is based on the resurrection; for as Paul said, if Christ be not risen from the dead then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
— Theodosus Harnack said, “Where you stand with regard to the fact of the Resurrection is in my eyes no longer Christian theology. To me Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection.”
— Tenney said, “The resurrection demands the attention of those who contemplate the basic problems of death and life, for it has thrust into them a new factor which must be included in evaluating the whole of human exrperience. Any attempt to explain the process of history will be incomplete without it. The resurrection is permanently relevant to any scheme of thought.
John omits some of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus. Even the Synoptics do not include them all. Acts and the epistles (esp. I Corinthians 15) include a few of the appearances omitted by the gospels.
In fact, Acts 1:3 informs us that He “also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God” by which we realize many of the appearances Jesus made to His disciples may not be recorded at all!
Generally speaking the Gospels record the facts of His resurrection; the Epistles show the theological and experiential implications of it; and Acts records the results or fruits of it.
When I was in college I once traveled with a group of students to work in a youth meeting in another state. As we drove through the night to reach our destination, we passed the long hours by taking turns telling about our own journeys of faith.
Some in the car had grown up in Christian homes, while others were the only Christians in their families. Some had struggled long with doubt, and others had not. Some had only recently made the commitment to trust Jesus Christ with their lives, and others had been Christians for more than ten years.
As we shared our stories, the one statement which made the greatest impression on me was made by a girl who had lost her faith in a high school biology class. Intimidated by a teacher who ridiculed her faith in God, she had decided to reread the Gospels to give faith one more opportunity. She wondered, “Is this real, or is this just a nice story someone made up? Did a man named Jesus ever live? If He did, was He really the Son of God?”
For long months she wrestled with these questions. Finally, she arrived at a simple yet profound conclusion. The validity of the gospel message hinges, she realized, on the Resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, then it is all true: He did perform miracles, and He is the Son of God. If He did not rise from the dead, then it is only a myth or a terrible fraud.
My friend was right. The claims of the Gospels (in our case the Gospel of John) stand or fall based on the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul said it this way: … “[God] promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord”(Romans 1:2-4).
Now, as we come to the climax of John–this Gospel of belief–we face the story of Jesus’ resurrection. This is no small issue, for everything is at stake!
The presentation of the Resurrection in John is straightforward and is organized around four different appearances of the risen Lord:
The resurrection and Magdalene (1-18)
The resurrection and the disciples in the upper room (19-24)
The resurrection and Thomas (24-29)
The resurrection and us (30-31)
Each one introduces something new into the picture. At the beginning of chapter 20 we may think of ourselves as spectators watching others handle the questions concerning the Resurrection. By the end of the chapter, however, we will find that we ourselves are at the center of the picture, having to decide what we will do with Jesus!
——————————————————
If the gospel of John were an ordinary biography, there would be no chapter 20. Most biographies end with the death and burial of a subject.
The time is Sunday morning, and we’re at the tomb the Pharisees went to such lengths to secure. This is where we’ll begin dusting for fingerprints, because something is awry: the seal is broken … the stone is rolled away.
The tomb is empty!
The resurrection is an essential part of the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-8) and a key doctrine in the Christian faith. It proves that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 2:32-36) and that His atoning work on the cross has been completed and is effective (Rom. 4:24-25).
The empty cross and the empty tomb are God’s “receipts” telling us that the debt has been paid!
From the very beginning, the enemies of the Lord tried to deny the historic fact of the Resurrection:
– the Jewish leaders claimed that the Lord’s body had been stolen
– yet, it had been sealed by an official Roman seal and guarded by Roman soldiers
– His disciples did not believe that He was to be raised from the dead…it was His enemies who remembered His words (Matt. 27:62-66)
– perhaps the disciples had “visions” of the risen Lord and interpreted them as evidences for the Resurrection
– did they go to the wrong tomb?
But wherever people were confronted with the reality of His resurrection, their lives were transformed!
“Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.”
Our Lord rested in the tomb on the Sabbath and arose from the dead on the first day of the week. Many people sincerely call Sunday “the Christian Sabbath,” but Sunday is not the Sabbath Day.
There were at least five resurrection appearances of our Lord on that first day of the week:
– Mary Magdalene
– the other women (Matt. 28)
– Peter (1 Cor. 15:5)
– Luke (Luke 24)
– two Emmaus disciples (Luke 24)
– other disciples, Thomas (John 20)
The Sabbath was over when Jesus arose from the dead (Mark 16:1). He arose on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1).
The change from the seventh day to the first day was not effected by some church decree; it was brought about from the beginning by the faith and witness of the first believers. Besides, there is no evidence in Scripture that God ever gave the original Sabbath command to the Gentiles, or that it was repeated for the first century church to obey.
Some women had come to the tomb to finish what Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had hastily begun. Mary Magdalene had gone ahead, it seems, and noticed that the stone had been moved.
“So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
Her use of the pronoun “we” showed that the other women had also come to see the situation. It is significant that the first witnesses of the resurrection of Christ were believing women; among the Jews of that day, the testimony of women was not held in high regard.
Mary Magdalene either did not hear the angel’s message or she did not even stay to enter the tomb with the other women but ran to tell Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away.
Mary sobs out the dread picture as she surmised it from just seeing the tomb’s entrance violated: — “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have hid him.”
“So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. {4} Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. {5} He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. {6} Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, {7} as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. {8} Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. {9} (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)”
This text has long been used for fun to show that John was a faster runner than Peter, but Peter, so impetuous, went into the tomb first. John did bend over and peer inside, to see the empty tomb and the strips of linen still there.
For certain, grave robbers would not have carefully unwrapped the corpse and then left the graveclothes neatly behind. Note: John did see and believe!
Why the women do not meet Peter and John we are not told. McGarvey harmonizes: ‘They have scarcely left the spot, when the swiftfooted John bounds up to the open door, stoops down and looks with eagerness into the vacant tomb.
The impetuous Peter follows hard after rushes put his companion into the sepulchre, and gazes around. They both for a moment look thoughtfully at the napkin lying here and the linen clothes lying yonder, then they solemnly walk away.
Mary evidently did not hear what the other women heard from the angels. Considering the hateful viciousness of the enemies of Jesus she may have surmized that these enemies had stolen the body in order to desecrate it even more or to use it to capture His followers.
The fact that the grave clothes were so orderly laid aside was a sign of lack of haste. The very fact that the linen bandages were there at all infers that the body was not taken by grave robbers in haste for they would have little need to lay aside the cloths in such a manner.
What did the disciple John believe after entering the tomb and observing the neatly placed grave cloths? Did what he saw there satisfy him entirely! Was he so credulous a person that in this moment he wanted so desperately to believe he was able from the empty tomb and the linen cloths to come to a “resurrection faith” without any further evidence!
We know this is not so for the disciples were incredulous-they would not believe at brst. They were hard-headed men who refused to believe that He was raised from the dead, except on more evidence than the report of the women (cf Luke 24:11,
Thomas was more stubborn than all the rest requiring to see the nail prints in the Master’s hands before believing. There does seem, however, to be a spark of faith ignited in the heart of John here. Westcott puts it this way, “The use of the word (believed) … points to the calm patient acceptance of a mystery as yet in part inexplicable with full confidence in the divine love … indicating something still to be more fully shown, and the apostle waited in trustful expectation for the interpretation.”
Whatever the faint glimmer of hope within the apostle’s breast it was not built upon any knowledge of the Old Testament prophecies and promises con- ceming the resurrection of the Messiah (20:9) or any no reason for stealing the body. It seems strange that the disciples did not remember all the many prophecies Jesus Himself had made concerning His resurrection!
The women believed on this basis (cf Luke 24:1- 11). Perhaps the disciples were too busy with seek- ing places in the kingdom when Jesus made His prophecies to remember them or their Jewish preju- dices as to the nature of the Messiah caused them to misunderstand or count His prophecies of no signifi- cance.
There may have been hope (cf Luke 24:19-21) but they would not believe until they had actual concrete. The talk of the women seemed to them an “idle tale” (Lk. 24:11). So, with the body of the Master gone they could hope but they could do little else by remaining at the empty tomb so they returned to their dwelling in Jerusalem.
While we are thinking about the empty tomb let us consider some of the attempts of the skeptics to supply an answer to the fact of the empty tomb. One thing is certain, the tomb was empty. The record states that even the enemies of Jesus testified to His certain death and the empty tomb.
As Wilbur Smith puts it, “Something happened to the body of Jesus when it was taken down from the cross. The New Testament testifies that it was in a tomb … On Sunday morning, for one reason or another, that tomb was empty, as everyone admits–Christian, unbeliever, disciple, scoffer, Jew and Gentile, conservative, and modemist.” Notice which here what the historical record witnesses as to the empty tomb: (a) The women testify to it being empty; (b) Peter and John found the tomb empty; (c) The guards appointed to watch the tomb came and reported the tomb was empty; (d) The Sanhedrin did not even so much as question the story of the soldiers or go and see for themselves but concocted a lie that the soldiers were to repet in order to offer an explanation for the empty tomb!
Consider this first attempt by the enemies of Christ to explain the absence of His body from the tomb: (a) It was a story spread by bribery; (b) It was ridiculous–how could the soldiers know what happened to the body if they were asleep! (c) The disciples would not steal the body–they would not want to risk further antagonism of the Roman soldiers and other authorities and they had absolutely no reason for stealing the body and furthermore their subsequent lives makes such an allegedly diabolical plot unthinkable!
In considering the other attempts to explain the empty tomb we have borrowed from both A. Dale Crain’s essay and “Therefore Stand” by Wilbur Smith.
There is a theory that the body of Jesus was stolen by His friends (Joseph, Nicodemus and the disciples). There is positively no evidence that this was done. If His friends did remove the body, why did the Sanhedrin have to bribe the soldiers to tell it.
Another skeptical theory is that the enemies of Jesus stole the body. But what is the motive for this!! Certainly there could be no greater help to the cause of His enemies than to keep the body in the tomb! Furthermore, if they had removed it and hidden it, why did they not produce His body when the apostles began to preach His resurrection in the very courts of the temple!! That would have stopped Christianity for good!
There is a theory that the women went to the wrong tomb. Could anyone forget within a few short hours where a precious loved one had been buried! If the women went to the wrong tomb then the angels were in the wrong tomb and Peter and John went to the wrong tomb!
Furthermore, this was not one tomb among many in a public burial ground but was in a garden, belonging to a rich man, hewn out of solid rock, near the place of His crucifixion, with guards and a Roman seal upon it! And the women didn’t know which one it was–or forgot” This is so ridiculous a theory that even many skeptics ridicule it!
Another theory is called the “Swoon Theory. According to this theory Jesus did not actually die, but merely fainted away and was revived by the coolness of the damp tomb and rose up and rolled away the stone Himself. How could anyone who had endured physically what Jesus had endured revive Himself in some seventy-two hours enough to roll away a stone which possibly five women could not
move! !
He had been beaten to he point of fainting with the Roman scourge; He had not had rest for two nights; He had been crucified and left to hang for six hours; His side had been pierced and a great amount of His blood had flowed from the gaping wound; He had been wrapped and bound in grave cloths.
This theory makes the record a complete and deliberate contradiction and lie for the record says that even Pilate was satisfied that Jesus was dead. If Christ did merely swoon then the apostles are liars and Christ is the greatest fraud the world has, ever known.
There is a theory called the “Vision Theory” which explains the resurrection as a supernatural but ephemeral vision given to the apostles and women and others.
If the appearances of Christ were not bodily appearances why do the gospel writers make it so plain that Christ showed the nail prints in His hands and the wound in His side –why did He eat with the disciples!!
There is the “Optical Illusion” theory which says that a ghost-like appearance of Jesus was produced in some natural way. This would not explain the empty tomb at all. Futhermore, Jesus made enough appearances, both night and day, to enough people, in such dose proximity to the subjects that it would be impossible to defraud all those to whom He appeared!
Finally, there is the “Hallucination” theory which relegates the claimed appearances to the realm of subjective apparitions of the imagination. Still, we have the record of the empty tomb-was that a hailucmation, too!!
Paul claims that He appeared to over five hundred people at once-are we then to suppose over five hundred identical, individual, subjective hallucinations!
Besides the Lord made varied appearances over a period of forty days in many widely separated places to all types of people (even to one of His enemies, Saul of Tarsus). The empty tomb makes the hallucination theory an absurdity.
The factual and historical evidence for the empty tomb is so overwhelming that skeptical scholars are baffled as to how to explain this phenomenon.
One skeptic has said, “The empty tomb must be thought out on doctrinal, not historical or critical grounds. The relevance of the resurrection and its meaning may be theological, but the facts surrounding the resurrection such as the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus are strictly historical matters. The people are real people; the places are geographically definite, the enemies were not mythical beings.
John used three different Greek words for “seeing” in these verses:
– in verse 5 the verb simply means “to glance in, to look in”
– in verse 6, the word means “to look carefully, to observe”
– in verse 8 it means “to perceive with intelligent comprehension”
It seems incredible that the followers of Jesus did not expect Him to come out of the tomb alive. After all, He had told them many times that He would be raised from the dead.
While all the pieces of this puzzling event hadn’t fallen into place yet, these two disciples saw enough to get a clear picture:
– the missing piece was the resurrected Christ
– the first sighting of Him occurred early Sunday moning(vs. 11-17)
– the second, that evening (vs. 19-23)
– the third, eight days later (vs. 26-29)
– the people who saw Him were Mary Magdalene (vs. 11,18)
– the disciples (vs. 19, 26)
– and Thomas (vs. 26-28)
“Then the disciples went back to their homes, {11} but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb {12} and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. {13} They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” {14} At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. {15} “Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” {16} Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). {17} Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
Peter and John have left the garden. Mary Magdalene has returned to the garden tomb alone. She evidently did not meet the other women and hear from them what the angels have said concerning His resurrection.
Now that she has time to contemplate the awfulness of her suspicions she bursts into tears. “They” have taken his body. Just who she suspects we do not know—perhaps she thinks the Jews have taken His body. She stoops and looks in the tomb to confirm her suspicions.
For the first time she sees the angels and they begin to converse with her about her sorrow. Mary is still persuaded that the body of Jesus has been taken. As she is answering the angels there is perhaps a sound in the garden which causes her to turn and see the figure of a man approaching.
The light was still dim and there may have been an early morning fog and Mary’s eyes were blurred with tears. She did not recognite the man. He began to ask her her reason for being in the garden. He wanted to know the reason for her sorrow.
What other man would be there at that hour and be questioning her as to her presence except the gardener. Supposing him to be the gardener she assumed he would know if the body had been removed and so she questions him.
Jesus must have deliberately concealed Himself from her initially, as He would later do when He walked with the Emmaus disciples in Luke 24:1332. All He had to do was to speak her name, and she immediately recognized Him.
Jesus spoke her name. It would be in that gentle but firm tone which she knew so well. Startled and surprised with joy and relief, she immediately recognizes Him and cries out, “Rabboni!” The word means “Teacher,” or “Great Teacher.” It is a title of profund respect among the Hebrews.
Only seven great leaders of the Jews have ever been given the title.(among whom were Gamaliel I and Gamaliel II). As she cried out “Great Teacher,’ she made a movement as if to fall at His feet and cling to Him. The Greek word hapfesthai is used of that clinging to the knees or feet which was adopted by suppliants.
Jesus forbade her doing so saying, “Do not hold to me.” Why did Jesus forbid her to do so! Not because it was indecent; nor because she wanted to test the reality of His resurrection for He did not forbid Thomas such a test; nor because her doing so would in some mystic way disturb the process of glorifica-lion, but because He wanted Mary (and the other disciples later) to understand that this was not His permanent return to visible fellowship with His disciples.
He had promised His disciples to “return in a little while” (Jn. 16:16) and perhaps Mary felt that the little while was over and He was now to be visibly with them forevermore. Hendriksen paraphrases thusly, “Do not think, Mary, that by grasping hold of me so firmly you can keep me always with you. That uninterruptible fellowship for which you yearn must wait until I have ascended to be forever with the Father.
Before the visible fellowship is restored Jesus must ascend to the Father for His High priestly work (“the little while”) (6. also Acts 3:19-26).
Then Jesus commissions Mary Magdalene to go and tell the disciples, not specifically of His resurrection as the angels commissioned the other women, but Mary is to tell them that Jesus is ascending (present tense) unto the Father. Although He will yet appear for forty days He is in the act of ascending to the Father.
Jesus now calls the disciples by a new name. He has called them “children,” “sheep,” “disciples, “friends,” “branches,” and other names but now He calls them “brothers!”
This new relationship has a significant bearing on His commission to Mary. She is to tellthe “brothers” that Jesus, the elder brather, is going up to be with Hir Father and their Father, His God and their God! (cf Heb. 2:5-18).
And so Mary, went with all speed, to tell the disciples as they mourned and wept (cf Mk. 16:10-11) just what Jesus had told her to tell. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her they would not believe it. The words seemed as an idle tale to them (cf. Lk. 24:9-11).
Mary loved her Lord and had come early to the garden to express that love. When she looked into the tomb and saw two men in white, she was not disturbed. She was, however, determined to find the body of Jesus.
But Jesus gave her clear instructions, which she observed: “Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
We are likely to seek and find, when we seek with affection, and seek in tears. But many believers complain of the clouds and darkness they are under, which are methods of grace for humbling their souls, mortifying their sins, and endearing Christ to them.
See how Mary’s heart was in earnest to find Jesus. Christ’s way of making himself known to his people is by his word; his word applied to their souls, speaking to them in particular. It might be read, Is it my Master? See with what pleasure those who love Jesus speak of his authority over them. He forbids her to expect that his bodily presence look further, than the present state of things.
Observe the relation to God, from union with Christ. We, partaking of a Divine nature, Christ’s Father is our Father; and he, partaking of the human nature, our God is his God. Christ’s ascension into heaven, there to plead for us, is likewise an unspeakable comfort.
Let them not think this earth is to be their home and rest; their eye and aim, and earnest desires, must be upon another world, and this ever upon their hearts, I ascend, therefore I must seek the things which are above. And let those who know the word of Christ, endeavour that others should get good from their knowledge.
Mark 16:9-11 gives us some added information about the disciples: “…Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared firstto Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. {10} She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning andweeping. {11} When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.”
* THE POWER OF THE RESURRECTION (20:19-31)
Between the appearance to the women and the appearance to the ten disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem, Jesus appeared to two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus. These two disciples were despondent at the death of Jesus because all their glorious Messianic hopes had died, they thought, with Him there on Golgotha’s brow.
They had heard rumors that He was alive–His tomb was empty–but they had not seen Him. Perhaps these disciples were going to Emmaus to rest, get away from all the uproar in Jerusalem and to think over the events of the last few days.
Emmaus was probably only 7 or 8 miles from Jerusalem. Jesus met them or overtook them and walked on with them to Emmaus but they did not recognize Him … “their eyes were hidden.”
Barnes notes that it was not some miraculous veiling of their own eyes that occurred but that He appeared to them in a form they were not used to seeing (cf Mark 16:12) and they were not expecting to see Him anyway and they simply did not recognite Him as He walked and talked with them.
As He began to remind them of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies and apply them to Himself, their hearts began to “burn within them.” And then, as they were eating with Him, the familiarity of it all opened their eyes and they recognized Him. And they arose that very hour and hurried back to Jerusalem to report to the rest of that little band of despondent disciples.
Just who these two disciples are we are not certain. One was Cleopas and the other sems to be most probably, Peter. There are some commentators who believe the second disciple was Luke because of the fact that only Luke records the event and his record has the flavor of that of an eyewitness.
Just how Jesus vanished out of their sight is not certain either. The account seems to indicate that it was a miraculous “vanishing.” This would be in keeping with His miraculous entrance into a room which had the doors shut to outsiders.
In John 20:19 we notice a special emphasis on “the first day of the week.” The first day of the week, being the day of Christ’s resurrection, is the chief of days, the day of Christian worship (cf Matt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10).
Abruptly, John cuts to another scene: (John 20:19-21) “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” {20} After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. {21} Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.””
Luke 24:37 tells us that “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.”
Yet, as He spoke to them, they became calm and responded with a familiar reaction: they saw and believed.
The appearance of Jesus in their midst where they were gathered on that evening that must have been beyond natural for the disciples were “terrified and frightened.”
John seems to record that the doors were “fastened” to show some significant difference regarding the properties of the risen body of Jesus. The idiom of the Greek indicates that the Lord’s appearance in their midst was with breath taking suddenness and completely unexpected.
They had “fastened’. the doors on account of their fear of the Jews.Their Master had been slain and there may have been word rumored that the Sanhedrin was looking now for the disciples of the Nazarene to condemn them also.
Jesus was suddenly in their midst, speaking in a calm and soothing manner, “Peace be unto you.’ It was a familiar phrase for He had used it often in addressing His disciples.
The disciples were terrified believing they were beholding one who had retumed from the unseen realm of the dead–a spirit, Luke tells us. But immediately Jesus held forth His hands and showed His feet which were pierced with the prints of the nails. He commands, “handle me, and see!”
To dispel their doubts and fears He bids them prove to themselves beyond any doubt that the One in their midst is the same One with whom they walked and talked the last three years.
This is one of the unique features of the revelation of Jehovah-God, whether that revelation be in the Old Testamemt, in the Incarnate Word, or in that revelation given by the apostles-the invitation, yea, the command, to test and prove the credibility and authenticity and divine nature of such a revelation.
No other religion has ever been so insistent, that its claims be tested and verified and none has ever offered such undisputable evidence, for such verification. The disciples were not asked to place their trust in some mystic philosophy, nor in imaginative man-made gods–they were given evidence for d~e supematurnalness of Christ. The resurrection of Christ was not only His spirit but His body also.
But how, if Christ was resurrected in a body, was He able to be suddenly in their midst if the doors were “fastened.” We like the conclusion given by Hendriksen, “Scripture gives no answer. Some day we will understand.”
Our test here in John does not say whether they ‘handled’ Him or not. Luke (Luke 24:41) seems to indicate that they did not but ‘still disbelieved for joy and wondered’ until He ate the broiled fish with them. then they were glad and rejoiced.
How did our Lord transform His disciples’ fear into courage? For one thing, He came to them. It is remarkable that these men were actually afraid. The women had reported to them that Jesus was alive, and the two Emmaus disciples had added their personal witness.
But His first word to them was the traditional greeting “Shalom — peace. And not only did Jesus come to them, but He reassured them. He showed them His wounded hands and side and gave them opportunity to discover that it was indeed their Master, and that He was not a phantom.
But the wounds meant more than identification; they also were evidence that the price for salvation had been paid and man indeed could have “peace with God.”
There is more than a command here—there is also a warnaing and a promise. Jesus as the Great Apostle, was sent to preach the will of God and to be persecuted and suffer for His glory, even so the apostles were sent to preach and be persecuted for His glory. they were to “fellowship His sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). There is also the promise of victory. they would also know “the power of His resurrection” (Phil. 3:10). they were to receive a divine commission and they were to be given divine credentials through the power to work miracles (Heb. 2:4).
And verse 21 tells us also that He commissioned them: “As my Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” It must have given the men great joy to realize that, in spite of their many failures, their Lord was entrusting them with His Word and His work! He also enabled them with the Holy Spirit: “And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. {23} If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.””
This was the first day of the week, and this day is afterwards often mentioned by the sacred writers; for it was evidently set apart as the Christian sabbath, in remembrance of Christ’s resurrection.
The disciples had shut the doors for fear of the Jews; and when they had no such expectation, Jesus himself came and stood in the midst of them, having miraculously, though silently, opened the doors.
It is a comfort to Christ’s disciples, when their assemblies can only be held in private, that no doors can shut out Christ’s presence. When He manifests his love to believers by the comforts of his Spirit, he assures them that because he lives, they shall live also. A sight of Christ will gladden the heart of a disciple at any time; and the more we see of Jesus, the more we shall rejoice.
After this, Christ directed the apostles to declare the only method by which sin would be forgiven. This power did not exist at all in the apostles as a power to give judgment, but only as a power to declare the character of those whom God would accept or reject in the day of judgment.
They have clearly laid down the marks whereby a child of God may be discerned and be distinguished from a false professor; and according to what they have declared shall every case be decided in the day of judgment. When we assemble in Christ’s name, especially on his holy day, he will meet with us, and speak peace to us.
The disciples of Christ should endeavour to build up one another in their most holy faith, both by repeating what they have heard to those that were absent, and by making known what they have experienced.
Verse 23 has long been a problem. The Roman Catholic Church has used this verse to teach that the so-called successors of the apostles (the popes and priests) have the authority to forgive men of their sins. Such a doctrine is technically called “absolution.”
Not even the apostles themselves had any authority of their own to gtant absolution-the forgiveness of sins. One need only to turn to Acts 8:14-24 to find one example of an apostle being asked to grant absolution in the case of a man confessing his ‘sin. The answer of the apostle Peter is, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.”
This passage in John 20:23 does not grant the apostles the power of absolution. The verbs apheontai (they are forgiven) and kekratentai (they are retained) of this verse are in the perfect tense in the Creek. Now the perfect tease means “an action having been completed in past time with a cantinuing result.”
Literally translated verse 23 would read, “whosoever sins ye forgive, they have already been forgiven them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they have already been retained.”
It is very interesting indeed that in the other two instances where Jesus similarly commissioned the disciples (Matt. 16:19; Mart. 18:18) the verbs are also in the perfect tense! There the verbs are dedemena (has already been bound) and lelumena (has already been loosed).
In founding the church, declaring the will of God and preaching the gospel of repentance and remission of sins by the blood of Christ and men’s obedience to the gospel, the apostles merely declared on what terms, and to what people God extended fargiveness of sins.
Whatever they preached on earth had already been decided in heaven. Only God can forgive sins. The apostles and all who have preached since are merely heralds of the covenant which has already been ratified, once for all, in heaven.
The apostles were given here by Jesus a symbolic prophecy of the special baptism of the Holy Spirit when He “breathed.”
The literal baptism of the Spirit would come upon them on the day of Pentecost and would empower them with miraculous power in order to confirm the already-ratified message which they were to preach afterward. The Holy Spirit did not give them any inherent authority to grant absolution of sin.
By his statement, Thomas limited the Holy One of Israel, when he would be convinced by his own method or not at all. He might justly have been left in his unbelief, after rejecting such abundant proofs. The fears and sorrows of the disciples are often lengthened, to punish their negligence.
Before discussing Thomas’ doubt, we need to realize that Jesus never rebuked him for his doubt; He rebuked him for unbelief. The verb in verse 25 means that the disciples “kept saying to him” that they had seen the Lord Jesus Christ alive.
“Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. {25} So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” {26} A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” {27} Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” {28} Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” {29} Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.””
Thomas has been tagged the rationalist of the apostles. Also called Didymus (which means “twin”) he has been tagged with the surname “doubting.” I prefer to call him the “Palestinian Missourian. While doubt can be harmful and even sinful, Thomas can also be admired for wanting some facts before belief.
Thomas was absent at the first meeting together of the disciples. Why he was absent we are not told. Perhaps he was inveseigating further the reports of the women about the empty tomb. Immediately after the Lord’s appearance to the “Twelve” (ten disciples in all) that first Sunday night, they went as a body and found Thomas and told him excitedly, ‘We have seen the Lord!” (v. 24). But for some reason, known only to Thomas, he could not satisfy the despondent longing of his own heart with just their testimony-he had to see for himself.
If it is fair to characterize Thomas from two previous statements of his (Jn. 11:16; 14:5), we may think of him as one who tends to be pessimistic-to see the dark side. It was not that Thomas was a confirmed agnostic or skeptic–he believed readily enough when there was enough evidence to sweep away his natural inclination to despondency.
Actually, Thomas was no more a “doubter” than the other ten disciples-he was just not at the right place at the right time. The other ten disciples were filled with the same despondent doubt (even though they had the testimony of the women and the two back from Emmaus) until Jesus appeared to them that hrst Sunday evening. Thomas simply demands the same evidence which was necessary for the other ten to overcome their doubts.
Foster says, “The gradual development of their faith and the fact that fear, doubt, misunderstanding and the obstinate insistence upon absolutely indubitable evidence caused them to be slow to believe but it adds to the power of their testimony as witnesses.
The disciples have not left Jerusalem and gone into Galilee as the resurrected Lord has commanded them through the women (6. Lk. 24:3-8; Mark 16:2-8). and another week has elapsed according to 20:26. As Hendriksen points out John a employing the inclusive method of time-computation.” Thus “after eight days” would be the next Sunday evening when the disciples had gathered together again-probably in the same place as on the previous Sunday evening. Again the doors were “fastened.” But again Jesus appeared suddenly and stood in the midst ofthem. Again He calmed their beating hearts with, “Peace be unto you.”
It is worthy of note that Jesus has, in all His appearances at this time, appeared only on the first day of the week. There can be little doubt that He did it: to especially consecrate and dedicate this day in the minds of the apostles. We notice also that the disciples have not yet come to that boldness and courageousness of faith which they later knew (Acts 4:13; 4:19-20; 5:29). They still have the doors “shut” for fear ofthe Jews.
Jesus does not waste any time but gets immediately to the point of this appearance. He commands Thomas to come forward and “touch and see and believe.”
The question is always asked, “Did Thomas actually touch His hands!” In all probability he did, but we simply do not know, though verse 29 givesusahint. (cf. Lk. 24:39; I Jn. 1:1-4). Jesus’ response of verse 29 is profound, however. Jesus wants us to rely on Him –~ithout having to feel, see, or prove anything. Thomas’ belief came about not from touching but from seeing!
There is no possibility of hallucination or extreme ciedulity here! Either Thomas actually saw and “handled” the resurrected body of the crucified Jesus of Natareth (as well as the women and the other disciples) or the writers of the gospel accounts are the most dastardly deceivers and frauds the world has ever known.
There are just two attematives. either the evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient to call forth faith and surrender to the divine, omnipotent, omniscient, resurrected Lord Jesus–or-the gospel writers deliberately lied and duped millions of their contemporaries and the gospels then are not morally worthy of consideration for they are lies.
Only two alternatives are worthy of honest men: let us hear no more that the gospels are untrustworthy historically speaking but may form the basis for morality and social action —this is neither reasonable nor morally upright.
There was no question lingering in the mind of Thomas. He was of an “honest and good heart.” Once the evidence was sufficient he surrendered his mind and heart to the demands of the fact.
It is as AIexander Campbdl has written, facts are moral, they demand a decision. Facts are the basis of faith and faith is the motivating force of feeling. The facts caused Thomas to trust (and have faith) and thus leading to the emotion of his heart and soul poured out in “My Lord and My God!”
There must be no doubters among the men upon whom Jesus is to thrust the responsibility of establishing the church and preaching the gospel in the face of the whole world against it! There must not be the slightest hesitancy, question, or problem about His victory over death and Satan.
There must be absolute and abiding conviction on the part of each one commissioned to this great task.
Furthermore, Jesus appeared to Thomas out of His love for Thomas. God desires to give every man enough opportunity to know of Christ’s victory over death and Satan, but now the responsibility to present the facts to every man is upon those who are His disciples.
Jesus will not appear to men again until He comes to judge the world. Then those who pierced Him will see Him–but then it will be too late !
R. C. Foster notes, “John opens his gospel with a profound statement concerning Jesus as the incamation of God. He closes his gospel with this great declaration of Thomas which is a result of actual experience and association. Thomas sums up in one dramatic explanation the message of the entire gospel. The disciple who doubted the most gives at last the final statement of his faith. Thomas hails Jesus as God and Jesus accepts the identification as Thomas worshipped Him.”
Why does Jesus pronounce this last “beatitude” of blessing upon those who believe without having seen! Faith which results from seeing is good; but faith which results from hearing is more excellent. If men had to verify every basis of life or every statement of history to their own senses before they acted, virtually nothing would ever be accomplished!
We could not all personally and minutely verify everything we accept as fact and allow as motivating principles in our lives. The faith of multitudes through the centuries has ested, not upon their own personal sensory perceptions, but upon the testimony of competent witnesses.
We do not accept the fact that Washington was the first President of the United States of America on the basis of our own sight, but of the testimony of accredited witnesses.
Another matter to be considered here is the weight of the accumulation of testimony over against the possibilities of our own senses being deceived. It is no wonder Jesus said, “blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing.”
Doubt says “I cannot believe There are too many problems.” Unbelief says, “I will not believe unless you give me evidence I ask for.”
Jesus’ response of verse 29 is profound, however. Jesus wants us to rely on Him –without having to feel, see, or prove anything. Thomas’ belief came about not from touching but from seeing!
“My Lord and My God” is the last of the testimonies that John records to the deity of Jesus Christ. The others are:
– John the Baptist (1:34)
– Nathanael (1:49)
– Jesus Himself (5:25 & 10:36)
– Peter (6:69)
– healed blind man (9:35)
– Martha (11:27)
– John himself (20:30-31)
That one day in seven should be religiously observed, was an appointment from the beginning. And that, in the kingdom of the Messiah, the first day of the week should be that solemn day, was pointed out, in that Christ on that day once and again met his disciples in a religious assembly.
The religious observance of that day has come down to us through every age of the church. There is not an unbelieving word in our tongues, nor thought in our minds, but it is known to the Lord Jesus; and he was pleased to accommodate himself even to Thomas, rather than leave him in his unbelief.
We ought thus to bear with the weak, Romans 15:1,2. This warning is given to all. If we are faithless, we are Christless and graceless, hopeless and joyless. Thomas was ashamed of his unbelief, and cried out, My Lord and my God. He spoke with affection, as one that took hold of Christ with all his might; “My Lord and my God.”
Sound and sincere believers, though slow and weak, shall be graciously accepted of the Lord Jesus. It is the duty of those who read and hear the gospel, to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record concerning him, 1 John 5:11.
This leads to the two reasons for John’s gospel: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. {31} But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
This is the climax of the Fourth Gospel–not the conclusion, but the climax. Chapter Twenty-one is the conclusion in the form of an epilogue.
It is quite dear from John’s statement here in vv. 30-31 and from just a cursory reading of the other gospel accounts that none of the gospels ever set out to give, nor claimed to give, a full account of the life of Jesus. What they have recorded, however, is historically and factually accurate. The brevity of the accounts in no way denies their historicity !
But why are the gospel records so brief! Would it not be to our advantage to know every detail of Jesus’ life as a youngster and a growing man! It is also quite clear that the gospels are not intended to be complete biographies of Jesus’ life.
I like the statement of R. C. Foster in his Life of Christ Syllabus: ‘”The narratives of the life of Christ are condensed in order to be the more effective. They are sufficient for the purpose of presenting adequate evidence, extensive enough to challenge a life-time of study, and yet not so voluminous as to overwheln the reader with a mass of unnecessary records. The brevity of the scriptures is one of the foremost proofs of their divine inspiration. Contrast the gospel narratives with any biography in print, whether of Napoleon, Lincaln, or any other famous person!”
The purpose of John has been all along to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnate Word–the Very Son of God, co-equal with the Father–indeed Immanuel, God with us! This was John’s stated purpose in his Prologue (1:1-18).
These climactic verses show us that from start to finish the Fourth Gospel is a book of signs that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the first purpose of the book.
If the deity of Christ be established and told in a vivid and captivating way then men will be led to believe in Him and gain eternal life. This is the stated second purpose of the gospel record: to bring men to faith and salvation in obedience to the will of Christ.
The purpose of the gospel record has just been vividly betrayed in the experience of Thomas: he has been brought to a complete faith in the deity of Jesus and commits his life unto Him.
The Fourth Gospel began with the unfolding of the mystery of life which has its source in the Word. It closes with the offer of life to all who will accept Jesus. It is worthy of note that John uses the present tense of the verb pisteuo (believe) and so literally it means to “believe and eep.on believing.
Hendriksen says, “Note: continue to believe. Remember Cerinthus, who was trymg to undermine the faith of the Church in the deity of Christ! That faith must be strengthened. The enemy must be reputed.”
It may be that John had m mind, writing his gospel toward the end of the first century, a refirtatian and defense against Gnosticism. But the use of pisteuo in the present tense is so common an idiom of the New Testament writers simply to state the nature of saving faith that it seems beside the point to connect it with a refirtation of Gnosticism.
Whatever the case, John climaxes his gospel with his version of the good confession. But, as Foster suggests, it now includes the profounder meaning of the crucified and risen Christ, and of the Son of God who has given final proof of His claims.
There were other signs and proofs of our Lord’s resurrection, but these were committed to writing, that all might believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Saviour of sinners, and the Son of God; that, by this faith, they might obtain eternal life, by his mercy, truth, and power. May we believe that Jesus is the Christ, and believing may we have life through his name.
The signs that John selected are described in this book are proof of the deity of Christ. They are important. Sinners are not saved today by seeing miracles but by believing that Jesus performed miracles. There was no need for John to describe every miracle that our Lord performed; in fact, he supposed that a complete record could never be recorded. Either Jesus was a madman, or He was deluded, or He was all that He claimed to be. He claimed to be God come in the flesh, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. That is what He is!
No one of the gospels deals at length with the crucifixion of Christ, and no two of them coincide exactly in the narration of detail. The greatest number of variants from the common tradition occur in this gospel, but the distinctive element is not an accident.
The aspects which John contain were selected carefully for the purpose of concluding the main theme: belief versus unbelief. What happened is important, certainly, but also why it happened is vital, if we hope to go to heaven.
In their accounts of our Lord’s crucifixion and death, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the so-called Synoptic Gospels), all mention Simon of Cyrene. They describe the mockery of Jesus by the crowd, by the Jewish religious leaders, and by the two robbers who were crucified beside our Lord. They tell us about the three hours of darkness, and Matthew and Mark record the cry of our Lord, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?” The Synoptic Gospels refer to the women who kept their vigil at the cross, as close to their Lord as they could get. In the Synoptics, we read of the curtain of the temple being torn in two, from top to bottom, and of the soldiers casting lots for our Lord’s garments.
Each Gospel has its own unique contribution to the overall picture of what took place when our Lord suffered and died on the cross of Calvary. Matthew gets our attention with his account of the earthquake, which followed our Lord’s death, so that the tombs of some in the vicinity of Jerusalem were opened, and these resurrected folks made appearances in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-54). Mark informs us that Simon of Cyrene is the father of Alexander and Rufus (15:21). Luke has his own story to tell of Jesus on the road to Calvary, of His prayer that God forgive those who were crucifying Him (23:34), of the Lord’s conversation with one of the two thieves who believed, and a record of the Lord’s words, “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit!” (23:46). Perhaps Luke’s most unique contribution is his account of the people leaving the scene of our Lord’s execution, “beating their breasts” (23:48).
John’s Gospel is truly unique in its portrayal of our Lord’s death. John may have been the only Gospel writer to have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion (see 19:35). John omits much that is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, including:
Any reference to Simon of Cyrene Everything but a brief reference to the two others being crucified beside Jesus The mockery of the crowd, the Jewish religious leaders, and the two thieves The cry, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?” The three hours of darkness The torn veil of the temple The testimony of the centurion
John’s material in our text can be summarized in this way:
Verses 17-22: Yet another “sign” in John: The “King of the Jews” Verses 23-27 Lottery and loyalty: four men and four women, at the foot of the cross Verses 28-30 Two statements: “I thirst.”; “It is finished!” Verses 31-37 No bones broken, but a pierced side
The narrative of the crucifixion may be divided into six paragraphs, each of which contains a unit of action taken from the scene as a whole:
* THE ACT OF THE CRUCIFIXION (19:17-18)
“Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). {18} Here they crucified him, and with him two others–one on each side and Jesus in the middle.”
The crucifixion was mentioned in the fewest possible words. John, who alone of all the disciples witnessed it, said the least about it. The paragraph merely states the act, the place, and the fact that two others shared the same fate as Jesus.
The reticence of the writer indicates that he did not lay great value upon stressing the physical suffering. Besides, in a day when crucifixion was still a current method of execution, it would have been too familiar to need description and too horrible a thought to deserve elaboration.
Cicero said of crucifixion: “It was the most cruel and shameful of all punishments. Let it never come near the body of a Roman citizen; nay, not even near his thoughts or ears, and ears.”
It was reserved for the lowest kind of criminals, particularly those who promoted insurrection. It had its origin among the Persians and Phoenicians, but it was the Romans who made special use of it.
It was the custom for the condemned man to carry at least part of the cross, usually the crossbeam, and sometimes the whole cross. There’s a savage irony in making a man carry the implement on which he was to suffer and die, but think of the example given to us today (Luke 9:23). The walk was about a mile long.
John’s statement that Jesus “went out, carrying His own cross” (verse 17) does not contradict the account of the Synoptics, which inform us that Simon of Cyrene[1] carried our Lord’s cross to Calvary. Jesus must have taken up His cross in Jerusalem and carried it as far as outside the city. Then, at some stage of the journey to Golgotha, it must have become evident that Jesus could no longer bear the weight of His cross. He appears to have been beaten more than the two others who were crucified. It may also have been a matter of time. Time was now short, and there was pressure to get on quickly with the crucifixion. If someone were to carry our Lord’s cross for Him, they would get to Golgotha more quickly. Simon of Cyrene was on his way to Jerusalem from out in the country and was drafted to carry our Lord’s cross for Him. One cannot help but wonder what impact his encounter with Jesus made on Simon’s life. The fact that Mark mentions that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus (15:21) makes one wonder if he and his sons did not come to faith, so that those who read Mark’s Gospel would recognize these two sons as fellow-saints.
In one verse (17), John takes us from the judgment seat of Pilate to the “Place of the Skull.” John does not belabor the process of crucifixion, though we know it was the most cruel form of execution devised by man.[2] The two robbers (whom Luke calls “criminals”) are crucified with our Lord, one on His left, and the other to His right. It seems significant that Jesus was placed in the center. Surely He was the focus of this event, as everyone seemed to know, and as those who passed by could figure out for themselves.
John chooses to expand his account concerning the written notice that was attached to the cross above the head of our Lord. The other Gospels mention it, but it is John who gives us the most detail and the greatest insight here. Indicating the charges for which the condemned was crucified was common practice. In this way, those who witnessed the crucifixion would be warned by seeing that Rome took this particular offense seriously. We do not know whether the two men beside Jesus had notices above their heads, but we are told by every Gospel that the charges against Jesus (with slight variations) were written out: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
The place where Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem was not far from the city and was close to the road. Many Jews—a number of whom were pilgrims—were on their way to or from Jerusalem and therefore passed by the cross of our Lord. Messianic hopes ran high, especially at Passover, and so the words written above the head of Jesus caught the attention of those passing by. The words were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jews of Palestine, Latin, the language of the Romans, and Greek, the common language of the day in that part of the world. It would have been difficult to pass by that way and not look upon Jesus, and to read the notice above His head. Many of those who saw the sign paused to ponder its meaning, making Jesus the center of attention.
This notoriety and publicity upset the Jewish religious leaders. They did not wish for Jesus’ claims to be advertised publicly. They especially did not like the inference of Pilate’s wording, which may have been intended as a barb for those who wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate’s words almost implied that Jesus’ claim to be the “King of the Jews” was true. Seeking to remedy the situation, the Jews appealed to Pilate, urging him to modify the words posted on the cross of Jesus. They wanted the notice to indicate only that Jesus claimed to be “King of the Jews,” the inference being that His claim was false. These Jews were highly skilled in debating over words and their meaning,[3] but they did not win this battle of the wills. Pilate had had just about enough of them for one day; he was not going to let them tell him what to do this time. Pilate’s words would stand as they were written. And that was the end of this discussion.
Is it not interesting that both Caiaphas and Pilate find themselves unwittingly bearing witness to the fact that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the King of Israel? Not long before, Caiaphas, as the high priest, spoke prophetically about our Lord’s substitutionary death (John 11:47-52). And now, here in our text, Pilate refers to Jesus as “the King of the Jews.” Neither of these powerful men had any intention of giving glory to God, but both of them spoke (or wrote, in Pilate’s case) of Jesus in a way that was prophetic. If God can speak through a dumb animal (i.e., Balaam’s donkey, Numbers 22:28-30), He can surely speak through men who do not even believe in Him. It may have been out of spite for the Jews that Pilate wrote what he did, but what he wrote was true, and in so doing, Pilate called attention to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, the “King of the Jews.”
For the wrath of man shall praise You; With a remnant of wrath You will gird Yourself (Psalm 76:10, NASB).
Golgotha: a Hebrew or Aramaic word meaning “skull.” Calvaria (Calvary) was the Latin word, which also meant “skull.” That He was crucified with two notorious thieves only added to the shame, and it also fulfilled Isaiah 53:12: “He was numbered with the transgressors.” He was treated like a common criminal.
* THE PLACING OF THE TITLE ON THE CROSS (19:19-22)
“Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. {20} Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. {21} The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.” {22} Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.””
Here are some remarkable circumstances of Jesus’ death, more fully related than before. Pilate would not gratify the chief priests by allowing the writing to be altered; which was doubtless owing to a secret power of God upon his heart, that this statement of our Lord’s character and authority might continue. Many things done by the Roman soldiers were fulfilments of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
The title had a two-fold significance: First, an inscription was usually hung over the crucified criminals in order to inform the public of the reason for their execution. In this instance, it was used by Pilate as the vehicle for a sarcastic thrust at the Jews. He was exhibiting this man, condemned to a criminal’s death at the demand of His own national rulers, as their king.
Second, it was an ironic statement of truth. Though the concept of the kingdom of God is much less prominent in John than in Matthew, the author put himself on record concerning the nature of the kingdom by quoting Jesus’ own words.
The fact that it was written in three languages shows that our Lord was crucified in a place where many people and nations met, a cosmopolitan place.
It was in:
– Greek: read in all cultured circles in the world since it was the language of literature and culture
– Latin: for the Roman soldiers, the language of law and power
– Hebrew: the language of the Jews, the language of rebellion
* THE DIVISION OF GARMENTS (19:23-24)
“When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. {24} “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” So this is what the soldiers did.”
It is John’s Gospel which most emphatically underscores the fulfillment of prophecy in the events surrounding our Lord’s death. Three times in our text John specifically informs his readers that prophecy has been fulfilled (verses 24, 36 and 37). When our Lord’s garments are divided according to lot, John informs us that this fulfills the prophecy of Psalm 22:18: “They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots” (NKJV).
Translators have a choice to make at verse 25. They must decide just how many women John is referring to here. As you can see, the translators of the NET Bible (like most others) have opted to identify four women, though the mere movement of a comma could reduce this number to three. I believe that John does mean to specify four women here. There are a number of reasons for doing so, which we shall not belabor at this point. I am inclined to read verses 23-27 in a way that contrasts the four soldiers at the foot of the cross with the four saintly women who are also standing by their Lord.
The four men John focuses on are all Roman soldiers. It has fallen to their lot to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus and the two robbers. They appear to be oblivious to the suffering of the three men hanging on their crosses. According to Luke (23:36), the soldiers joined in with the others who mocked Jesus, virtually daring Him to come down from the cross to save Himself. John characterizes these four soldiers using this one scene. As Jesus hung there, beaten and bleeding, the solders were down on their knees. They weren’t praying; they were casting lots. They were, so to speak, rolling the dice to see which one of them would get the one-piece tunic. I can almost see one of the men shaking the dice in the palm of his hand, saying, “Com’ on, snake eyes …Yes! It’s mine!”
It almost sounds as if these soldiers were bored. Perhaps they had carried out this duty so many times they were just mechanically doing their job. There was nothing new or unexpected here, not yet, that is.[4] From experience, these soldiers must have felt they knew almost exactly what would happen over the next few hours. Their ears very likely tuned out every moan and cry. They may have learned not to even look at their victims. If there is going to be any excitement for them at all, it will be in the casting of lots to see who wins the garments the dying men will leave behind. I cannot think of any way John could have better captured the cold-heartedness of these four men than by seizing upon this moment in time as they huddle together on the ground, casting lots for our Lord’s garments. They see nothing to gain from Jesus but some item of clothing. In today’s terms, they would look upon Jesus as the source of a baseball cap, an Izod shirt, a pair of Haggar slacks, or maybe—if they are lucky—a pair of Nike shoes. That’s all Jesus was to them—a chance to win a piece of clothing. As He hung there on that cross, shedding His precious blood for guilty sinners, all they could think about was our Lord’s tunic. When Jesus was “rolling away the burden of our sins” (as the hymn celebrates), they were rolling the dice.
Yet, let us not be too quick to judge these soldiers. They are no different, in heart, than many today. They ignore the atoning work of Jesus and look to Him only to meet their material needs—not the need for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life—but for their physical needs. Even we who name the name of Christ as Savior and Lord all too often only look to Him to care for our material needs. Our prayers sound more like shopping lists than serious petitions for our spiritual needs and those of others.
In stark contrast to the four male dice-rolling soldiers are the four dedicated women John identifies by name. The soldiers seem to have no appreciation for who Jesus is. They may never have seen Him before. They have no compassion on Him, even though He is suffering beyond words. These four women linger as close to the cross as they can get. They are among those women who followed Jesus, supporting Him from their own means (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3). They did not look upon His death as a means of gaining some of His possessions (as was the case with the soldiers), but as the greatest loss they had ever suffered. Was it one of these women who gave Jesus the seamless garment for which the soldiers gambled?
Recently, I had to go to the doctor for my annual physical examination. You all know what that is like. They hand you something that seems little bigger, and probably thinner, than a paper towel. You sort of wrap it around yourself, and then desperately attempt to hold the thing together, struggling to preserve what little dignity remains. My experience at the doctor’s office helped me appreciate something I had not thought of before, which William Hendriksen called to my attention in his commentary on John:
“The clear implication of the passage which we are studying must not escape us. It is this: Jesus bore for us the curse of nakedness in order to deliver us from it! Cf. Gen. 3:9-11, 21; then II Cor. 5:4; Rev. 7:12, 13. Surely if what Ham did to his father Noah is singled out for special mention because of its reprehensible character, what the soldiers did when they disrobed Jesus and then divided his garments among themselves, casting lots, should cause us to pause with horror.”[5]
Hanging upon that cross, our Lord was almost naked as He bore our punishment for sin. After man first sinned, nakedness became shameful (see Genesis 9:20-27; 2 Samuel 10:1-5; Isaiah 20:4). Can you imagine the humiliation our Lord endured as He hung upon that cross, half-naked, with hundreds of people looking on? It is no wonder that David wrote of our Lord: “For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me” (Psalm 22:16-17, NKJV, emphasis mine). Our Lord bore the curse of nakedness for us, so that we might be clothed in His righteousness.
It was as Jesus was hanging there, half-naked, on that cross that He made arrangements for the care of His mother: “So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, look, here is your son!’ He then said to his disciple, ‘Look, here is your mother!’ From that very time the disciple took her into his own home” (John 19:26-27).
Once again we come upon “the other disciple,” whom we can reasonably assume to be John. Much is made of this text, too much by some. As D. A. Carson notes, Roman Catholicism seeks to find here a mandate for the veneration of Mary. This is a view which Carson rejects as contrary to the text and to the tenor of John’s Gospel:
Roman Catholic exegesis has tended not so much to see Mary coming under the care of the beloved disciple, as the reverse; and if the beloved disciple is also taken as an idealization of all true disciples, the way is cleared to think of Mary as the mother of the church.[6]
… the Fourth Gospel focuses on the exclusiveness of the Son, the finality of his cross-work, the promise of the Paraclete as the definitive aid to the believers after Jesus has been glorified, and correspondingly de-emphasizes Mary by giving her almost no part to play in the narrative, and by reporting a rebuke, however gentle, that Jesus administered to her (2:4). With such themes lying on the surface of the text, it is most natural to see in vv. 26-27 an expression of Jesus’ love and care for his mother, a thoughtful provision for her needs at the hour of supreme devastation. … To argue, then, that this scene is symbolic of a continuing role for Mary as the church comes under her care is without adequate contextual control. It is so anachronistic an interpretation that [it] is difficult to imagine how it could have gained such sway apart from the developments of centuries of later traditions.[7]
The common Protestant interpretation of this incident is that Jesus, knowing He was about to die and to return to the Father, made arrangements for the long-term care of His mother.[8] This “long-term” element does raise some questions in my mind. We are told in Scripture that it is the responsibility of the immediate family to look after their own:
3 Honor widows who are truly in need. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill their duty toward their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them. For this is what pleases God (1 Timothy 5:3-4).
Why, then, would Jesus assign the responsibility of caring for His mother to John, who is not one of her sons? The answer most would give is that none of her other sons were believers (see John 7:5). This is true, of course, but not for long. We know that within days or weeks, James, Jesus’ half-brother, will come to faith and eventually become a prominent leader in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19). Why would Jesus assign the long-term care of Mary to John, knowing that James, her son, will soon come to faith?
I would suggest that our problems are solved if we see Jesus providing here for Mary’s short-term care. Surely we would agree that Jesus knew James was one of the elect. If James is one of our Lord’s “sheep,” then Jesus would know it and would not act in a way that was contrary to this knowledge. I would suggest to you that Jesus was providing for the care of His mother for the next few days or weeks. We know that John immediately began to care for Mary, because he tells us so in verse 27 (“from that very time”—literally, “from that hour”). There are those who believe that John (or his family) may have actually owned a home in Jerusalem. This could explain why John (“the other disciple”) was known to the high priest and to the servant girl at the gate (18:16). Mary, like the disciples, could have been in danger and would certainly need to be looked after for a while. John would have been the one most able and willing to carry out this task.
The next few days were going to be pure agony. We do not know for certain that Mary’s other sons were present in Jerusalem (though we would expect so—see John 7:1-9), but if they were, can you imagine what kind of comfort these unbelieving sons would have been to their believing mother?[9] I can almost hear James trying to comfort Mary after the death of Jesus: “Mom, you know I told Jesus to give up His insane talk about being the Messiah. He must have been out of His mind. And now, all of this foolishness was for nothing, except to shame us.” I believe that Jesus assigned John to care for Mary because he was the one closest to the heart of our Lord, and because he was the first disciple to believe (see John 20:8). He also seems to have had the means to do so. Who better to look after Mary in the next dark and difficult days than John?
This was not an exceptional deed of brutality. In any case of crucifixion, the garments of the victim became the property of the soldiers detailed for execution.
The usual dress of a Jew consisted of five parts: the head dress, the shoes, the outer garment or toga, the girdle, and the chit on (or tunic here called “coat”), a kind of shirt which fit somewhat closely to the body, and reached from the neck to the ankles.
The importance of the incident was that the soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic just as the prophetic psalm (Psalms 22:18: “They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing”) had predicted. They did this in the presence of the greatest event in history to their day!
Three times in this narrative the fulfillment of scripture was mentioned, as if to make sure that the reader would understand that the event was connected with the Old Testament (vs. 24, 28, 36).
* THE PROVISION FOR JESUS’ MOTHER (19:25-27)
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. {26} When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” {27} and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.”
While we often overlook this group of women, and think only of Mary, the mother of Jesus, we needed to be reminded that it took courage to stand there in the midst of such hatred and ridicule…but their being there must have encouraged our Lord.
The two paragraphs concerning Jesus’ mother and the completion of His task contain all of the words that Jesus spoke from the cross as John reported them. They represent the thought and action of Jesus in the last hour of His earthly life. Each was significant because it denoted a different relation of Jesus to His work.
The utterance concerning His mother marked the discharge of His human obligations. Even at the cross, with the destiny of His person and calling at stake, He was not unmindful of His duty to His family.
All things therein written shall be fulfilled. Christ tenderly provided for his mother at his death. Sometimes, when God removes one comfort from us, he raises up another for us, where we looked not for it. Christ’s example teaches all men to honour their parents in life and death; to provide for their wants, and to promote their comfort by every means in their power.
* THE FINAL CRIES FROM THE CROSS (19:28-30)
“Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” {29} A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. {30} When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
I am amazed at the words of verse 28. Jesus knew that everything was completed. He was no helpless victim, powerless, and therefore subject to the whims of those who had arrested Him. Jesus was aware of every Scripture that spoke of His atoning death as the promised Messiah. In the last few weeks especially, Jesus has been orchestrating events so that His death would perfectly fulfill all these prophecies. In the final moments of His life, Jesus takes note of the fact that every prophetic detail has been arranged for so that He now may proceed to complete His mission, in a way that fulfills the remaining prophecies concerning His death.
Jesus utters the words, “I am thirsty,” which prompts one of those standing nearby to dip a sponge into sour wine and convey it to the lips of our Lord. This is not the same offer of wine that was made as the crucifixion began (Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23). The “wine” that Jesus refused at the outset of His crucifixion was mixed with a narcotic-like pain killer.[10] Jesus refused this because He insisted on drinking the “cup of God’s wrath” to the full (John 18:11). The “wine” Jesus now accepts is a cheap wine. It did not deaden any of His pain. Our Lord’s thirst and His partaking of this “wine” seems to have served a two-fold purpose. First, it fulfilled Scripture:
My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death (Psalm 22:15, NKJV).
I am weary with my crying; My throat is dry; My eyes fail while I wait for my God (Psalm 69:3, NKJV).
They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, NKJV).
While there is considerable discussion about John’s reference to the “branch of hyssop” that was used to lift the sponge to our Lord’s lips,[11] we can hardly fail to see the significance of the hyssop in relation to the blood of the Passover lamb: “And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning” (Exodus 12:22, NKJV).
Second, it would seem as though the vinegar-like wine served to help clear the throat of our Lord, so that He could end His life triumphantly, with a shout. So far as John informs us, the “shout” is not, “It is completed,” but rather as Luke informs us, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). These two statements must have come in close proximity to each other, however. The words that John records were no doubt spoken first, and then were followed by the words that Luke records. John simply tells us that Jesus “said,” “It is completed.” Jesus declares that His work is completed, and then He gives up His Spirit.
It really has been completed, hasn’t it? Everything for which John has been preparing us in this Gospel has now been accomplished by our Lord. John 1 declares that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, who called the world into being. He is the One sent to earth by the Father, in order to reveal Him to men. He is the One who “came unto His own place and to His own people,” and yet those who were “His own”—the Jews—rejected Him. He was “lifted up” so that He could draw all men unto Himself (3:13-18). He came to do His Father’s will (4:34) and has now completed it. He came to declare His Father’s Word, and He has proclaimed it (8:26-28, 38; 12:49-50; 14:10). He came to glorify the Father, and on the cross, He has done that (12:23, 28, 41; 13:32; 17:1, 4). It truly is finished; His task has been completed.
And because all of His prerequisite work has been completed, our Lord can now die. His life is not taken away from Him; He voluntarily gives it up, just as He had indicated earlier:
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This is the commandment I received from my Father” (John 10:14-18).
Jesus gave up His spirit; it was not taken from Him. In fact, Pilate will be surprised to hear that Jesus has died so soon (Mark 15:44). The soldiers had to hasten the death of the two thieves, but not that of our Lord. Even the timing of His death was indicative of His sovereign control over all things. Because Jesus died when He did, His legs would not be broken, thus fulfilling yet another prophecy as we shall see in the next verses.
Our Lord knew what was going on; He was fully in control as He obeyed the Father’s will. “I thirst” betokened Jesus’ deep participation in human suffering. He endured the terrible thirst that accompanied crucifixion as a token of His voluntary sharing in all human woe.
The vinegar which was given to Him was the cheap sour wine which the common soldiers drank, sharp in taste and astringent in quality. Paradoxical enough, He who had offered to all men the water of life died thirsting.
Especially observe the dying word wherewith Jesus breathed out his soul:
It is finished; that is, the counsels of the Father concerning his sufferings were now fulfilled.
It is finished; all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament, which pointed at the sufferings of the Messiah, were accomplished.
It is finished; the ceremonial law is abolished; the substance is now come, and all the shadows are done away.
It is finished; an end is made of transgression by bringing in an everlasting righteousness. His sufferings were now finished, both those of his soul, and those of his body.
It is finished; the work of man’s redemption and salvation is now completed. His life was not taken from him by force, but freely given up.
– We see the evidence of Christ’s humanity
Jesus was in every way God, but was also in every way man. He was not a Divine man, nor a humanized God; He was both God and man.
– We see the intensity of Christ’s sufferings
We need to remember Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, as He was in such prayerful agony that His sweat was like great drops of blood.
Myrrh was given at the time when one was nailed to the cross as a mild analgesic, and it’s felt that Jesus refused it (though, remember, it was one of the three gifts at His birth!)
– We see our Lord’s deep reverence for the scriptures
Jesus knew His scripture, and He knew Psalm 69 had talked of His thirst on the cross.
– We see the Savior’s submission to the Father’s will
Jesus had the power to do whatever He wanted on this earth … He’d turned water to wine; He’d healed the disease and demon possessed; He’d even raised some from the dead! But He never once performed a miracle for His own benefit, or comfort. When He was hungry, His disciples went and found food for themselves.
He made seven statements while He was on the cross; they are known as the “seven sayings from the cross.”
First, He thought of others: those who crucified Him (Luke 23:34), the believing thief (Luke 23:39-43), and His mother (here).
The central word had to do with His relationship with the Father ..Matthew 27:45-49.
The last three statements focused on Himself: His body (John 19:28- 29), His soul (John 19:30), and His spirit (Luke 23:46).
“It is finished” marked the achievement of perfection. Jesus died with a consciousness that His work was done, and that there was nothing left for Him to accomplish. The cry should not be interpreted as the last gasp of a defeated martyr, but as a shout of triumphant victory!
The Greek word was “tetestai” and means “it is finished, it stands finished, and it always will be finished!”
Jesus had spoken often of finishing the work God had sent Him to do: John 4:34: “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
What was finished?
– God’s will concerning atonement:
Hebrews 10:5-10: “Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me….”First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). {9} Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. {10} And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
– God’s will concerning the scriptures
At the moment these words were uttered, anyone could have dug deeply into the Old Testament scrolls, made an exhaustive search into all prophecies, and all would have been found fulfilled!
– God’s will concerning the law
Those under the law could be “redeemed” only by another fulfilling its requirements and suffering its curse. Our sins could be taken away only by their being blotted out by the precious blood of Christ. The demands of justice must be met.
The requirements of God’s holiness must be satisfied. The awful debt we incurred must be paid.
Galatians 4:4-5: “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, {5} to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.”
Romans 7:12 (“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good”) tells us the law was holy, just, and good. The problem did not rest with the law, but with man.
– God’s will concerning the devil
Christ defeated Satan at the cross. He destroyed “him that had the power of death…” (Heb. 2:14).
1 Corinthians 2:8 (“None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”) is a vital verse here. The devil did not understand what he was doing in crucifying Christ. Think of the effect the resurrection had on the apostles and first century Christians!
* THE LEGS BROKEN AND THE PIERCING WITH THE SPEAR (19:31-37)
Two groups of people were involved in our Lord’s burial: the Roman soldiers and the Jewish believers.
“Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. {32} The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. {33} But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. {34} Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. {35} The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. {36} These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” {37} and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.””
John chooses not to repeat much of what the other Gospels have recorded. Verses 31-37 are unique to John’s Gospel. They describe what football fans know as the “two-minute offense.” This is the offensive plan implemented by the team which is behind when there are two minutes or less left on the clock. Everything is hurried up, or designed to stop the clock. The quarterback may call the next two plays so that they can skip the huddle. The quarterback throws the ball rather than runs it so the clock will stop if it is an incomplete pass. The team will also use its time-outs strategically. All of this is done because there is little time left in the game.
The Jews were now in their “two-minute offense.” Time was running out for them. They had been forced to go through the formalities of a trial and to obtain Pilate’s cooperation in the crucifixion of Jesus. They were still under great time constraints because this was the day of preparation; they must be done with this crucifixion by evening so they could begin to observe the Sabbath by evening. Normally, death by crucifixion would take much longer, and this was no problem to Rome. While the Romans liked to leave the bodies of those crucified exposed for some time, to serve as a warning to all, the Jews could not allow these bodies to remain exposed after nightfall. The men would have to die more quickly than normal so that their bodies could be taken down.[12]
Rome had a solution for this situation.[13] A heavy hammer was used to crush the bones of the victims’ legs. This would make it impossible for those being crucified to push up with their legs in order to facilitate the breathing process. Once their leg bones were broken, the victims died within a short time. The soldiers therefore set out to break the legs of all three. For some reason, they started on the outside, waiting to deal with Jesus last. (Is it possible that having seen and heard the events of that day—such as the three hours of darkness—they were now reluctant to do further bodily harm to Jesus?) When they came to Him, it was apparent that He was already dead. There was no need to break His legs.
One of the soldiers must have wanted to make absolutely sure that Jesus was dead, so he thrust his spear into our Lord’s side. Immediately, both blood and water gushed out, a fact to which John gives special significance. There have been many interesting attempts to explain the spiritual significance of this fact. For example, some have seen the “water” to be a symbol of Christian baptism, while the “blood” is said to symbolize communion. This is a very difficult connection to prove, and it seems forced to me.
Others have gone to considerable effort to show that this was a natural phenomena,[14] as though it were necessary to prove that what happened to Jesus happens to others as well. In other words, they wish to show that this is humanly possible. I remember when I was studying the Book of Jonah, several commentators referred to other historical accounts of men being swallowed by fish and surviving. That such things could, in fact, happen was construed as proof that, in Jonah’s case, it did happen. I would have been content to believe in Jonah’s miraculous rescue, whether or not it had ever happened to anyone else before. Why do we work so hard to prove that things which are supernatural are natural?
Perhaps the “water and blood” that poured from our Lord’s wound was a normal phenomena, something that one should expect in a death such as our Lord’s. But I am perfectly content for this phenomena to be absolutely unique. Was His birth not unique? Why should His death not be unique in some respects as well? As I read John’s words in verse 35, he seems to make a point of the fact that “blood and water” came from the wound that was inflicted by the thrust of the soldier’s spear. Might John not have been referring to this as something unique, and therefore most noteworthy? Does he not seem to employ this as yet another “sign” that points to the deity of our Lord and the truth of the Gospel? “And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe” (verse 35). May this not have been one of the factors that the centurion took into account, which contributed to his astonishment at the way Jesus died? “When the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw that he breathed no more, he said, ‘Truly, this man was God’s Son!’” (Mark 15:39).
Already in John’s day, there were those seeking sophisticated alternative explanations for the death and resurrection of our Lord. One of these was known as docetism, the view that Jesus did not come in “flesh and blood,” but as some kind of spirit being. John’s description of our Lord’s death, especially of the “blood and water,” shows the folly of denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (see 1 John 4:2). There were also those who contended that, although Jesus was truly “flesh and blood,” He did not actually die; He just “swooned” and was revived by the cool temperature in the tomb. This account of the spear thrust into the side of our Lord deals a death blow to swoon theories and to docetism.
Once again, John wishes us to see that the things which took place at Calvary were the very things God had prophesied.[15] Jesus, by giving up His life earlier than expected, was spared from having His legs broken. John sees in this a fulfillment of prophecy. Though the Old Testament text that is fulfilled is not indicated, very likely it comes from Exodus 12 or Psalm 34:20, or both:
43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones” (Exodus 12:43-46, NKJV; see also Numbers 9:12).
He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken (Psalm 34:20, NKJV).
The other fulfilled prophecy, referred to by John in verse 37, is from Zechariah 12:10:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10, NKJV).
The piercing of the side of our Lord was prophetically necessary, since Zechariah 12:10 refers to the Messiah. And so what John describes is what Zechariah foretold. Everything was truly going according to God’s plan. Not one prophecy failed to be fulfilled.
All of this, mind you, happened in spite of the norm, and in spite of the Jews’ request. The Jews, alarmed by how long the execution was taking, were desperate to get this over with so that they could get on with “worshipping God.” They requested of Pilate that he have the legs of all three men broken, which was a common practice. Had things gone as everyone expected, the legs of our Lord would have been broken as well. But the Jews did not get their way. The soldiers broke the legs of the other two, but seeing that Jesus was already dead (because, we are told, Jesus gave up His spirit—verse 30) they chose not to go to the trouble of breaking the legs of a dead man. Instead, perhaps at a whim, one soldier thrusts his spear into the Savior’s side. The result is that two prophecies are fulfilled in one stroke. The legs of Jesus are not broken, and the side of Jesus is pierced. Even in death, our Lord perfectly fulfilled the Scriptures.
John is the only gospel who includes these two events. The removal of the body from the cross was requested by the Jews, since leaving the bodies publicly suspended would be a breach of the Mosaic Law and would defile the Passover.
In accordance with the Roman custom, the executioners broke the legs of the victims prior to their removal from the cross.
The purpose of this cruel deed was twofold: 1. The shock and the pain would hasten death 2. If the victim survived, he would be crippled permanently and would be unable to engage in any further activities against the government
This episode was mentioned due to its importance as evidence for the actuality of Jesus’ death. These Roman soldiers were experts in this deed and could tell the difference between death and a coma induced by pain and exhaustion.
It is remarkable that they did not do what they were commanded to do: break His legs — and they did do what they were not supposed to do: pierce His side. In both matters, they fulfilled the very Word of God!
Also, the piercing of His side with the resulting flow of blood (crassamentum) and water (serum) is certain proof that death had already taken place, since only blood would flow from a living body.
If Jesus had not really died, it could not be said that He had risen from the dead; and if He were a phantom (as some by this time believed), then death and resurrection would both be meaningless.
A trial was made whether Jesus was dead. He died in less time than persons crucified commonly did. It showed that he had laid down his life of himself. The spear broke up the very fountains of life; no human body could survive such a wound. But its being so solemnly attested, shows there was something peculiar in it.
The blood and water that flowed out, signified those two great benefits which all believers partake of through Christ, justification and sanctification; blood for atonement, water for purification. They both flow from the pierced side of our Redeemer. To Christ crucified we owe merit for our justification, and Spirit and grace for our sanctification.
Let this silence the fears of weak Christians, and encourage their hopes; there came both water and blood out of Jesus’ pierced side, both to justify and sanctify them. The Scripture was fulfilled, in Pilate’s not allowing his legs to be broken, Psalms 34:20. There was a type of this in the paschal lamb, Exodus 12:46.
May we ever look to Him, whom, by our sins, we have ignorantly and heedlessly pierced, nay, sometimes against convictions and mercies; and who shed from his wounded side both water and blood, that we might be justified and sanctified in his name.
“Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. {39} He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. {40} Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. {41} At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. {42} Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.”
Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Christ in secret. Disciples should openly own themselves; yet some, who in lesser trials have been fearful, in greater have been courageous.
When God has work to do, he can find out such as are proper to do it. The embalming was done by Nicodemus, a secret friend to Christ, though not his constant follower.
That grace which at first is like a bruised reed, may afterward resemble a strong cedar. Hereby these two rich men showed the value they had for Christ’s person and doctrine, and that it was not lessened by the reproach of the cross.
We must do our duty as the present day and opportunity are, and leave it to God to fulfil his promises in his own way and his own time.
The grave of Jesus was appointed with the wicked, as was the case of those who suffered as criminals; but he was with the rich in his death, as prophesied, Isaiah 53:9; these two circumstances it was very unlikely should ever be united in the same person.
He was buried in a new sepulchre; therefore it could not be said that it was not he, but some other that rose. We also are here taught not to be particular as to the place of our burial. He was buried in the sepulchre next at hand. Here is the Sun of Righteousness set for a while, to rise again in greater glory, and then to set no more.
The eagerness of these men to claim the body of Jesus is little short of surprising since by so doing they openly declared themselves as sympathizers with His cause.
The burial itself is important to the argument of John since it added one more witness to the reality of Jesus’ death.
The Jews did not embalm as the Egyptians did, by removing the soft organs of the body, and by drying the muscular tissues with preservatives.
The corpse was washed (Acts 9:37), and swathed in bandage-like wrappings from armpits to feet, in the folds of which spices were placed (Matt. 27:59, Luke 23:53), and a cloth was wound around the head.
* BELIEF VS. UNBELIEF
A careful consideration of the groups of people present at the crucifixion shows that the cross became the dividing line between belief and unbelief.
– Unbelief was at its height, since it had achieved its objective in destroying Jesus
On this were the Jewish high priests and rulers, Pilate, and the soldiers of the execution squad. Each represented some class of person:
– Chief priests and Jews
They possessed the bitter and implacable unbelief of organized religionists who were actuated by jealousy, prejudice, and self-interest. Their religion had lost its spontaneity and had become ritual which was defended rather than lived.
– Pilate
Embodied the unbelief of political expediency which was accompanied by no particular religious convictions, or by no convictions at all.
He might have listened to Jesus more carefully had not his standing with Caesar been at stake, for he held no malicious grudge against Him. He might even have released Him if it had been expedient for his own interests.
– The soldiers
They were a picture of callousness and indifference of unbelief. Jesus meant less to them than He did to Pilate; He was only an incident in a day’s work, and a rather unimportant one at that. His sufferings and death evoked no interest from them.
* Belief was at its lowest ebb, for it had been unable to stem the hostile tide that swept Jesus to His death
On this side were the women, including Jesus’ mother, the beloved disciple, and possibly Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who appeared later at the burial.
CONCLUSION
The story of Jesus is not told to provide entertainment. It is told to create a living, life-chanigng faith in the hearts of those who hear it. It requires a response.
John’s question is unescapable: will you step out in faith and be identified with the One who died for you? Jesus died for you. What are you going to do about it?
One of the most striking things about the accounts of our Lord’s death in the Gospels is the absence of sensationalism. The physical suffering of our Lord was designed to be as great as men could devise. Many are those who attempt to expand upon the New Testament’s account of our Lord’s death, so we can appreciate more fully the physical torture He endured for us.
I do not in any way desire to minimize the physical suffering of our Lord on the cross, but neither do I wish to make more of it than the Gospels do. Why isn’t there more emphasis on the physical pain that our Lord endured? I would suggest several answers. First, the physical suffering of our Lord was but a small part of what He endured at Calvary. To put it differently, our Lord’s physical pain was the suffering which men were able to impose upon Him. But the great suffering which our Lord endured at Calvary was the spiritual suffering our Lord experienced at the hand of God. Our Lord became sin for us, and He suffered in our place to save us from our sins. Our Lord suffered the eternal wrath of God. Compared to this suffering, our Lord’s physical suffering was but a drop in the bucket.
Second, there is really no way we can fathom God’s wrath. If you are like me, you have tried to imagine what heaven will be like. No matter how hard we try, no matter how far we let our imaginations go, our minds fall far short of grasping the wonders of heaven: “But just as it is written, ‘Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him’” (1 Corinthians 2:9).
If our minds cannot begin to fathom the good things God has in store for His children, why would we think that our minds would be able to comprehend the horror of God’s wrath, which will come upon those who have rebelled against Him? God has graciously kept us from understanding what would only horrify us. As Jesus Himself said, “So then, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:34).
Third—and here I can be justly criticized for speculation—I wonder if knowing how much our Lord suffered might cause us needless suffering. I am a husband, a father, and a grandfather. I must tell you that I don’t like to suffer, but it is even more painful for me to watch one of those close to me, one whom I dearly love, suffer. I think, at times, that my suffering—vicariously through the pain of a loved one—is greater than the actual suffering which is experienced. If the purpose of our Lord’s suffering was to suffer in our behalf, to suffer instead of us, then why would He graphically describe His own immense suffering for us? Would this not cause us great agony? What I am trying to say here is that God was gracious in not telling us any more than He did, because it would cause us to suffer. We need not suffer for those sins for which He suffered and died.
Perhaps this helps to explain the three hours of darkness, which John chooses not to mention. It is my opinion that God “turned out the lights” so that no one would be able to see the bulk of the spiritual suffering our Lord endured at the Father’s hand. Do you remember in the Book of Exodus, when Moses asked God to see His glory (Exodus 33:18)? God allowed Moses to see a portion of His glory, but not the totality of it. God covered Moses with His hand, so that he would not die beholding His unveiled glory. I wonder if God did not do something similar with the darkness, as our Lord suffered on the cross. Would men have survived if they beheld the wrath of God being poured out in full measure upon the Son? How good God is to keep us from knowing any more of the suffering of the Son than He has revealed, than He wants us to know.
The cross is a great revealer of truth. The cross is the measure of the magnitude of our sin. When we read of what took place at the cross, we almost tremble at the way men mocked God, knowing that had we been alive then, we would have joined them, apart from the grace of God. The cross reveals to us the dreadfulness of our sins. It is just such sin that required the cross to cure it. If the price of the cure is also the measure of the magnitude of the disease, sin is a horrible malady. The cross is the measure of God’s hatred of sin. The cross is also the measure of God’s love and grace, poured out upon those whom He saves.
The cross, as terrible as it is, is a wondrous and even beautiful thing, for the Christian. We sing that song, “The Old Rugged Cross,” with gratitude and wonder. We sing that we “love that old cross …”, and so we do, or rather, we love Him who died on it. And every week, in our church at least, we gather to celebrate, once again, the sacrifice which our Lord made on our behalf, through the shedding of His precious blood. No matter how many times I read the accounts of our Lord’s death, I am always struck with wonder, gratitude, and praise. I am reminded of the words of a hymn that is not in our hymnal, but should be, “Jesus, keep me near the cross …” So it should be.
I am sure that the events which occurred at the cross had a great impact on those who witnessed the death of our Lord. The centurion was convinced from what he saw that Jesus was the Son of God. Some of those who heard Peter preach at Pentecost may well have witnessed our Lord’s death at Calvary. Luke (23:48) tells us that the multitudes, when they beheld this sight, went away beating their breasts. It was a horrible day for those who thought it might be entertaining. I wonder how many of these folks were later saved.
If you are a Christian, you should be stirred in your soul every time you read of our Lord’s death. We should never tire of remembering Him and His death, as our Lord commanded (see Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23ff.). We should take every temptation to sin seriously, knowing what our sin cost Him at Calvary. We should never cease to preach Christ crucified, for this is what the gospel is all about.
Is it possible that someone is reading these words who has not yet grasped the fact that the death of Jesus Christ is no mere historical fact, unrelated to men and women today? The death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross was His full and final payment for the penalty of our sin. It is on the basis of His death and resurrection that the offer of salvation is made to all. Those who trust in the work of Jesus at Calvary are saved. Have you received the gift of salvation, which was purchased at Calvary? If not, I urge you to acknowledge your sin, and to own up to the fact that His suffering at Calvary is what you deserve. Receive the gift of the forgiveness of your sins, trusting that He has paid the penalty for your sin.
As I think of the picture of the cross which John has painted for us, I remember the crowds as they taunted and mocked the Lord Jesus Christ. I hear their words ringing in my ears, “We have no king, but Caesar!” (19:15), and “His blood be upon us and our children!” (Matthew 27:25). These are the most horrifying words imaginable. Not many years later, Jerusalem will pay a heavy price for the Jews’ part in the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Thirty years later, on this very spot, judgment was pronounced against some of the best citizens of Jerusalem. Of the 3,600 victims of the governor’s fury, not a few were scourged and crucified! Judas died in a loathsome suicide, the house of Annas was destroyed some years later, Caiaphas was deposed a year after the crucifixion, and Pilate was soon after banished to Gaul and there died in suicide. When Jerusalem fell, her wretched citizens were crucified around her walls until, in the historian’s grim language, ‘space was wanting for the crosses, and crosses for the bodies.’ The horrors of the siege of Jerusalem are unparalleled in history.[16]
As I have reflected on our text, I have asked myself this question: “What is the unique contribution which the Gospel of John makes to the description of our Lord’s death on the cross of Calvary?” In the Synoptic Gospels, we read a great deal concerning the mockery of the crowds, of the Jewish religious leaders, of the Roman soldiers, and even of the two thieves. But John passes these matters by. Why? I think there is a good reason, one that makes a lot of sense once you stop to think about it—John wants our Lord Jesus to be central and preeminent in his account of the death of the Savior at Calvary. Jesus is center stage in John, as He ought to be. Calvary is about a cross, the cross of Jesus Christ. It is He alone, through His cross, who saves sinners. Let us never lose this focus.
[1] “… the second-century gnostic heretic Basilides in his commentary on John argues that Simon the Cyrene took Jesus’ place and died on the cross in his stead—the common view of Muslims to this day.” D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 609.
[2] “Crucifixion was regarded as a very shameful thing, and the writers of antiquity apparently did not care to dwell on it; they certainly shrank from recording details. The words of Cicero are often quoted, when he spoke of crucifixion as ‘that most cruel and disgusting penalty.’ We should perhaps notice also the words of the Jewish writer Josephus who spoke of it as ‘the most wretched of deaths.’” Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), vol. 4, p. 655.
“And it was painful. The Roman philosopher Seneca speaks of the very slow and painful way the crucified died and asks whether anyone would willingly die in this way: ‘Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross’ (cited from Martin Hengel, Crucifixion [London, 1977], pp. 30-31.” Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John, IV, p. 655.
[3] Legalists (then or now) always seem inclined to haggle over words (see Acts 18:15; 1 Timothy 6:4). There are times when words and their technical meanings are important, but let us not forget that those who wish to debate the technical meaning of words sometimes do so to avoid or deny the clear meaning of these words (see, for example, Luke 10:29). Those of us who take pride in our ability to probe the “deep meanings” of words should be cautioned.
[4] Something changed all this, as we can see from the statement of the centurion (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39). The three hours of darkness must have had an impact on them all, not to mention the unusual way in which Jesus died, followed by the violent earthquake of Matthew 27:51ff.
[5] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-1954), vol. 2, p. 420.
[6] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 617.
[7] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp. 617-618.
[8] “As William Barclay says, ‘There is something infinitely moving in the fact that Jesus in the agony of the Cross, in the moment when the salvation of the world hung in the balance, thought of the loneliness of His mother in the days when He was taken away. Jesus never forgot the duties that lay to His hand.’ Earlier in this Gospel we are told that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him (7:5), and we may fairly infer that they were out of sympathy with Mary. So it was important that there should be somebody who would look after her when Jesus was no longer there.” Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), vol. 4, p. 665. Morris does not emphasize the “long-term” element here, but it seems to be implied.
[10] “It is good to know that it was customary for a drug to be offered to the crucified so that some of the pain was mitigated. We read of the custom in Sanh. 43a, ‘When one is led out to execution, he is given a goblet of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to benumb his senses, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul. And it has also been taught: The noble women in Jerusalem used to donate and bring it’ (Soncino edn., pp. 279ff.).” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 814, fn. 72.
[11] See Morris, The Gospel According to John, pp. 813-814, fn. 71.
[12] What irony we see here. The Jews zealously seek to keep the law regarding the defilement of the land through the exposure of dead bodies, and yet they are in the process of killing the Son of God. Is this not a case of “straining a gnat and swallowing a camel” (see Matthew 23:24)?
[13] “Stripped naked and beaten to pulpy weakness …, the victim could hang in the hot sun for hours, even days. To breathe, it was necessary to push with the legs and pull with the arms to keep the chest cavity open and functioning. Terrible muscle spasm wracked the entire body; but since collapse meant asphyxiation, the strain went on and on. This is also why the seducula … prolonged life and agony: it partially supported the body’s weight, and therefore encouraged the victim to fight on.” Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. 610.
[14] Morris, for example, includes this footnote in his commentary on John: “This was argued by William Stroud, M.D., in his book, Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ (London, 1847). He maintained that rupture of the heart may be caused by great mental agony and that it ‘is usually attended with immediate death, and with an effusion into the pericardium (the capsule containing the heart) of the blood previously circulating through that organ; which when thus extravasated, although scarcely in any other case, separates into its constitutent parts, so as to present the appearance commonly termed blood and water’ (op. cit., 2nd edn., 1871, pp. 74f.). This view was accepted by Sir Alexander Simpson (Expositor 8, xi, 1916, pp. 334ff.) who said that he had examined several cases ‘in which the pericardial bag was greatly distended and the blood had separated into clot and watery serum’ (op. cit., p. 336). It has been urged against it that John does not tell us whether it was the left or right side that was pierced. We cannot be certain that the spear was thrust into the region of the heart. Tasker cites a paper by a medical man, J. L. Cameron, arguing that the passage indicates a flow of blood from the heart and great blood vessels adjacent, and water from the acutely dilated stomach. Dodd refers us to a study by Raymond Schmittlein which sees traumatic shock as the fundamental cause of death (HTFG, p. 136).” Morris, The Gospel According to John, p. 819, fn. 88.
[15] “Dr. J. P. Free in his excellent book, Archaeology and Bible History, p. 284, calls attention to the fact that according to Canon Liddon there are three hundred thirty-two distinct prophecies in the Old Testament which have been literally fulfilled in Christ, …” William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-1954), vol. 2, p. 430.
[16] Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), p. 592.
Proud to be TJ's man 