“All you need is love, love, love is all you need, love is all you need …” – The Beetles.
It may have been a smash hit, but the Beetles’ 1967 song “All you need is love” is not exactly good theology! When we think of the biblical importance of love, many scriptures come to mind – ranging from “God so loved the world …” (John 3:16) to the apostle Paul’s great summary statement in 1 Corinthians 13:13 – “now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Love, of course, is of supreme importance because it is perhaps the central defining characteristic of the nature of God himself – “God is love” (1 John 4:7) – so its centrality in the Christian Faith cannot be argued.
But does the supreme importance of love mean that love is all the Christian needs? Many actually think this and go about their lives thinking that as long as they have love, they are “good Christians.” The Bible, however, shows that this is not really true at all. To imagine God as only as God of love is to limit his nature and to entirely miss the fact that the God of love is also, for example, the God of Justice (Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 33:4-6, Isaiah 61:8; etc.) as well as light or truth ( 1 John 1:5; etc.) and many other things. When we remember this, we can better understand what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Philippian church:
“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God (Philippians 1:9-11).
Paul had already told these Christians he knew they had love (verse 8), but then he emphasized the knowledge they needed. The word “knowledge” that Paul uses in this passage is not gnôsis which connotes simply “knowing” but epignôsis, which is used in the New Testament to connote full discernment and spiritual knowledge. Paul echoes the need for this kind of knowledge that guides love in his letter to the Colossians:
“we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:9-10).
These two passages both show that we need to grow in the knowledge of God and his will if we are to please him and bear the fruit of good works based in love. It is perfectly possible to have love in our lives – to be sincere, dedicated, loving – and still wrong. We can love mistakenly or unwisely and as Paul and many other biblical writers show, our love should be coupled with the spiritual knowledge that guides us in seeing how, when and where to show love.
If we were to believe the advertising of this world (especially around Valentine’s Day) we would believe that all a relationship needs is love (and perhaps expensive gifts to “demonstrate” that love). But any married couple can confirm that a healthy and strong relationship needs far more than just love. Our relationship with God is no different. We cannot be truly “one” with God by simply having love that we “demonstrate” through sacrifices, gifts, or other works. The Old Testament prophetic books are full of statements to this effect, and the principle is clear in the New Testament also.
When the Bible tells us that “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:5) it shows that we must come to know – and know deeply – how to love. Saying “all you need is love” is like saying “all you need is air.” Of course we need air, and of course we need love, but they are not the only things we need. As the apostle Peter summarized, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). We must have love, but to be effective Christians we must always remember that love is not all we need.
Around the turn of our present era – just before and during the life of Jesus – two Jewish rabbis lived and rose to considerable fame. Even if you have heard of one or both of these teachers of the law, you may not know much about them – despite the fact they both had considerable influence on what we read in the New Testament today.
The first of these teachers, Hillel the Elder, also known as Hillel the Great (c. 110 BC – AD 10), lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod and became the most famous Jewish scholar of that era. The second scholar was Shammai (50 BC – AD 30), who tradition says was a Pharisee who became a leading Jewish teacher and whose influence was also considerable in the development of Jewish thought.
Although their lives overlapped, Hillel was about sixty years old at the time of Shammai’s birth; but some of their interactions are recorded, and their teachings were completely different. Generally speaking, Hillel’s teachings were more lenient and compassionate, while those of Shammai were more strict and severe. A famous example is that Shammai said it was wrong to tell an ugly bride that she looked beautiful, while Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day. While Shammai and his followers believed only worthy students should be admitted to study the law of God, Hillel and his disciples stressed that the law may be taught to anyone, in the hope that the person would grow and become worthy.
Shammai’s strictness could be extreme. He and his followers said that if someone forgot to ask a blessing on a meal and had left the place where he ate, the person must return to that place to recite the blessing. Hillel said, however, that the person could recite a blessing in the place where they realized their omission. But While Shammai could be overly strict, sometimes Hillel could be overly lenient. For example, Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but Hillel allowed divorce for even such trivial offenses as burning a meal.
This is why Jesus said “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery” (Matthew 5:32) – clearly distancing himself from the teachings of Hillel on this point. Jesus also phrased the “Golden Rule” of “do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31) in a positive way, in contrast to Hillel’s famous but more negative expression of the same concept. But in other ways, Jesus sided with Hillel over Shammai. While Shammai stressed the importance of the Jewish people and their temple, Hillel – and Jesus after him – was more accepting of non-Jewish people and looked beyond the temple (John 4:21).
But Jesus did not follow either of the major rabbis’ teachings exclusively, and in a sense, his agreement with them was often coincidental. This is seen in the fact that the discussions of the two scholars and their followers contributed to the belief that the oral law – as expounded by Hillel and Shammai – was just as binding as the written law of God. Jesus firmly rejected this approach of many in his day by citing Scripture: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” (Matthew 15:9). Nevertheless, much of what we read in the Gospels is a result of Jesus rejecting or confirming what Hillel and Shammai taught on various points – the major theological views of his day.
The influence of these teachers on the apostle Paul was also extensive – especially because Paul had studied with the scholar Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the grandson of Hillel. The book of Acts relates that Gamaliel intervened on behalf of the apostles of Jesus when they were seized and brought before the Sanhedrin – doubtless because many of their teachings agreed with aspects of his own and that of his grandfather, Hillel. Nevertheless, we see many instances in the writings of Paul where the apostle disagreed as well as agreed with the views of his celebrated teacher, and the views of Hillel and Shammai before him.
Ultimately, we can study and understand the New Testament without the teachings of the great rabbinical thinkers of New Testament times, but knowing something of their views can sometimes help us better understand what Jesus and Paul had in mind when they gave examples of how and how not to interpret the law of God.
* For more information on the historical background of the New Testament, download our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels: Four Portraits, Many Lessonshere.
There is an interesting verse in the biblical book of Ezra that every Christian can profit from: “ForEzra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). This verse summarizes the attitude of the great leader who guided the Jewish people at the time of their return to Jerusalem from captivity in Babylon. It’s easy to read over the first word of the verse – “For” – but the preceding verse tells us how “the gracious hand of his God was on him” “for,” or because of, Ezra’s dedication to God – not as a reward for it, but because his dedication allowed God to use him fully.
The verse then tells us there were three specific parts to Ezra’s dedication: he devoted himself to studying God’s word, obeying God’s word, and teaching God’s word. This does not mean these were the only things he did, of course. Ezra was undoubtedly kept busy with the many problems and issues involved in relocating a large group of people in dangerous circumstances – but he had devoted himself to do these three things regardless of everything else going on in his life.
First, we are told that Ezra devoted himself to study of God’s law. Of course, “law” meant more than just the Ten Commandments and other actual laws – it included all of the Bible’s instruction. The Hebrew expression used of Ezra is that he devoted himself not just to read, but to “seek” the law of the Lord – to look for its guidance in an intense way. This is interesting because we find the same expression a number of times in the Old Testament where individuals were blessed when they were “seeking” God or his law.
Second, we are told that Ezra devoted himself to observance of the law. It is to the extent that we study the principles of God’s way of life with an intent to follow them that we seek God and follow him. That is why the Old Testament tells us that individuals like the godless king Rehoboam “did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the LORD” (2 Chronicles 12:14), and good kings like Asa “commanded Judah to seek the LORD, the God of their ancestors, and to obey his laws and commands” (2 Chronicles 14:4).
Third, Ezra’s devotion was not to some kind of spiritual self-improvement program where his own righteousness was his ultimate goal. We read that he was equally devoted to making God’s way of life available and understandable to others. Such an approach does not have to center on physical teaching as it may have done in his case, but can include helping others see God’s way through our own lives and actions – the keeping of God’s way – as well as through traditional teaching means where these are appropriate.
While it can be profitable to think about any of these areas of spiritual life individually, the biggest take-away from what we are told about Ezra’s dedication to God is that it involved all three. The lesson there may seem obvious, but we should not ignore it. It is not enough to simply study the Bible occasionally or even frequently. It is not enough to study and also to keep the Bible’s principles in our lives. Ezra’s example shows we only really fulfill God’s purpose in our lives when we do all three. It is only when we continually learn more of God’s way, continually apply it in our lives, and continually share it with others – in whatever way we have opportunity and ability – that God can use us to the full.
Without any one of these activities the others don’t really work. Study without application is meaningless. Application without sharing is limiting and self-centered. Application or sharing without study is limited and often superficial. It is only when all three aspects of learn it, live it, and give it, are present that the cycle of spiritual living operates as it should.
Finally, when we talk about Ezra’s study, application, and sharing of God’s way, we must realize that he by no means intended to do all this by his own power. It is perhaps significant that the book of Ezra shows this great leader – whose name is an abbreviation of the Hebrew Azaryahu “God helps” – contains a good number of instances of Ezra’s recognition of the need of God’s help in many aspects of life (Ezra 8:21; etc.). We too should seek God’s help in study, application, and sharing of the truth. Only then will we be spiritually successful, like Ezra, in learning, living, and giving, God’s way.
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
There have been endless arguments between Christians and non-Christians through history as to whether the Hebrew word betulah in this verse – translated “virgin” in most English Bibles – should actually be translated “virgin” or just “young woman.” Non-believers have also argued that the son promised by Isaiah was simply the Jewish king Hezekiah. Conservative Christians feel there is ample evidence to show that the translation “virgin” is correct, and that the meaning of Immanuel – “God with us” – as well as the context of the promise could hardly be applied to Hezekiah.
But in this blog post we will go beyond those questions to focus on what the verse says and to look at its wider setting in the book of Isaiah. When we read Isaiah’s prophecy of the Immanuel to come, we may focus on the virgin birth of the child or the meaning of his name – but that is only half of the significance of this great verse. The incredible promise of “God with us” made in Isaiah 7:14 is coupled, if we think about it, with the equally astounding prediction of Immanuel’s humanity. God could have dwelt with humanity in the form of some kind of spirit being – to teach his ways – but the words “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” show the humanity of the Immanuel as much as his name shows his divinity.
This duality of the fully human and fully divine Immanuel is stated again a few chapters later when Isaiah takes up the theme of the promised child once more:
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The promised One’s humanity is seen in “for to us a child is born” with the emphasis on his human birth contrasted with “to us a son is given” signifying a non-human origin that is made clear in the titles that follow. Interestingly, the four titles are equally indicative of the human and divine with “Wonderful Counselor” and “Prince of Peace” being essentially human titles and “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” being obviously titles that could only apply to God.
So, beyond its prediction of the virgin birth, the Immanuel promise of Isaiah stresses both the humanity and divinity of the One who was to come – a fact stressed equally in New Testament scriptures such as the opening verses of the Gospel of John:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14).
The statements that “the Word was God” and “the Word became flesh” are equally important in showing the Immanuel promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Luke’s Gospel confirms the duality in the same way:
“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:32–33). Once again, the words “Son of the Most High” and “his father David” proclaim the unique and unmistakable roles of the Immanuel – the promised one who would be born divine and human, equally God and man, and who would eternally bring the two together.
Among the band of heroes that the Bible tells us were King David’s leading warriors – his “special forces operatives” – one warrior is particularly interesting. David’s chief fighters were all noted for great exploits, but one who stands out even in that crowd is Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. We might well call this warrior “Benaiah the lion hearted,” considering what is said about him:
“Benaiah son of Jehoiada, a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, performed great exploits. He struck down Moab’s two mightiest warriors. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. And he struck down an Egyptian who was five cubits tall. Although the Egyptian had a spear like a weaver’s rod in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a staff. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty warriors. He was held in greater honor than any of the Thirty, but he was not included among the Three. And David put him in charge of his bodyguard” (1 Chronicles 11:22-25).
Take a minute to consider these exploits. The son of a famous warrior, Benaiah ended up excelling his father’s deeds. Living in a time when ancient Israel was frequently attacked by surrounding nations, he is first said to have killed the two greatest warriors of Israel’s arch-enemy Moab. We don’t know if he fought these enemies separately or together, but the Hebrew term used of them seems to imply that they were “lion-like.” Yet that is only the beginning of Benaiah’s reputation.
We are also told that Benaiah slew a giant Egyptian warrior who was doubtless part of an invading Egyptian force. This man is said to have been of great height – approximately the same as the famous giant Goliath that David himself had killed – but it seems that Benaiah was armed only with a stick or staff and that either through cunning or sheer strength snatched the Egyptian’s huge spear and killed him with his own weapon.
But the most notable of Benaiah’s feats is that he “went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion.” This is the deed we need to think about in order to truly appreciate its magnitude. We are not told why Benaiah slew this fierce animal, but at that time lions frequently preyed on flocks and herds (1 Samuel 17:36), and this predator may well have been endangering the people of the area where the incident took place.
Whatever the reason Benaiah ended up fighting this lion, the story gives us some important details about the contest. Military ground operations must always take three major factors into account: the strength of the enemy, the terrain – including options for mobility and withdrawal, and the ambient conditions (fog, smoke, bad weather, etc.). If any one of these factors is disadvantageous, military units must operate with great care. In Benaiah’s case, all three of these factors were against him. The simple statement “a lion in a pit on a snowy day” indicates an enemy of vastly superior strength, in very difficult terrain, and with very negative ambient conditions.
These combined conditions meant that on the snowy day visibility may have been limited by flying snow. Being in a pit meant that the sun would not melt ice on the ground making it easy to slip, plus the fact that the wind would likely have blown more snow into the pit where in could have become quite deep – making it hard to move. These are all very difficult conditions in which to find oneself: in a pit, facing a lion with no easy way of retreat. Keep in mind that a fully grown lion can smash a human skull with a swipe of one of its paws and can bite completely though a human body. The lion may have been trapped in the pit, but once Benaiah entered it, so was he. Any person with a tactical background knows that the simple biblical description of this contest indicates what a huge victory it was for Benaiah.
Even with these great exploits, Benaiah was not one of David’s three top generals at this time. However, he is said to have been greater than the king’s top 30 fighters and, perhaps not surprisingly, to have been made the commander of the king’s bodyguard. But there is one final detail that is often overlooked regarding the hero Benaiah. First Chronicles 27:5 tells us that “… Benaiah [was the] son of Jehoiada the priest. He was chief and there were 24,000 men in his division.” Both Benaiah and his warrior father were Levites and his father is actually said to have served as a priest.
Perhaps we might not expect an individual with this priestly background to have taken on the enemies he did – including lion-like warriors and an actual lion, but the story of Benaiah, like that of David and Goliath, is one of several accounts given in the Old Testament that show the connection between faith and fearlessness – of active, tactical involvement in life and the willingness to take on real problems and enemies. In that sense, Benaiah is the story of a religious man who was not afraid to fight to help others. Thankfully, in our own day we do not have to fight lions, but the battles of faith are out there for the warriors who are willing to fight them.
Recent Comments