A new, revised, and expanded edition of one of our more popular downloads – Spotlight on the Psalms: A Closer Look at One of the Bible’s Best-Loved Books – by R. Herbert, is now available for free download.
Psalms is the Old Testament book most often quoted in the New Testament and most frequently read today. The new second edition of Spotlight on the Psalms includes more biblical, cultural, and even archaeological background information to enrich this practical commentary that can help you to better understand the psalms and better apply their messages in your own life.
Download a free copy of this new edition in the format of your choice, from our sister-site, here.
“Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said … ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory’ ”(Mark 10:35-37). People will go to great lengths to get the best seats in a restaurant, a theater, or at some important public occasion, but James and John excelled themselves in their asking, through their mother (Matthew 20:20-21), for the seats at the right and left hand of Christ in his coming kingdom.
We should remember that this event took place shortly after Jesus had already promised his apostles that they should all “sit upon thrones” judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:28). Their request was not just for authority, but to be elevated to the highest positions at Christ’s right and left hand.
The audacity of these two men may seem remarkable in what they asked, but in reality, James and John were not the only disciples enamored by the thought of ruling with power. Mark shows that the other disciples were extremely angry once they realized the two brothers had made this bid for prominence in the group (Matthew 20:24). While the other disciples’ reaction may have been one of “righteous indignation,” it is probably more likely that they were simply angry at being almost outmaneuvered in regard to who would be the greatest among them.
Yet we should notice that Jesus did not rebuke the disciples regarding their desire for these elevated positions. Rather, he first asked James and John if they were able to “drink the cup” he was going to have to drink (Matthew 20:22).
Jesus then patiently explained to all the disciples that the greatest among them must be the greatest servant (Matthew 20:25-27) and tried to help them to understand that before any such elevated positions in his kingdom were assigned, he must suffer and die (vs. 28).
After this, Jesus continued on the way to Jerusalem where he knew his life would end. But we do not know if the disciples learned the lesson he had attempted to teach them. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates they did understand or apply the lesson at that time. We can almost see them jostling with each other to get to be closest to Jesus as he rode, humbly yet triumphantly, into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11). But the events that soon took place must surely have brought the lesson back in their memories.
After Jesus’ betrayal, when it came to the time of his death on the cross, the only ones who were lifted up at his right and left hand were the two condemned individuals who were crucified on either side of him (Matthew 27:38). We can only wonder if James and John realized the irony of that fact, and if they saw in it the lesson Christ had tried to teach them – that those who get to be elevated on the right and left hand of the Son of God are not the great of the world who rule by the world’s power, but those who symbolically, spiritually, are crucified with him (Galatians 2:19-20).
Sometimes a little biblical detective work can open new windows into our understanding of the stories of the New Testament.
The Priest
The Gospel of John tells us that when Jesus was betrayed: “They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year” (John 18:12-13). The apostle John apparently knew some of the high priest’s family and was able to provide this detail not found in the other Gospels.
Annas was the patriarch of a dynasty of priests. He had served as High Priest for ten years, from AD 6–15, and when he was deposed by the Roman procurator Gratus, Annas maintained a high degree of power through arranging the appointment of his five sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananus) and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, to succeed him.
The Jewish High Priest normally served for life (Numbers 35:25, 28), so the rapid-fire changes in succession after Annas suggest that he may have worked to ensure that he kept control of things as the real power behind the temple hierarchy. This maintaining power while technically deposed would explain why Annas was able to continue as head of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 4:6), and perhaps explains why, when Jesus was arrested, he was first taken not to “Caiaphas, the high priest that year,” but to Annas. In fact, so real was Annas’ behind-the-scenes power that Luke records the word of God came to John the Baptist “during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Luke 3:2).
The Plot
In his Gospel, the apostle John gives us another bit of information relative to the dealings of the chief priests. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave, John tells us that “a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him” (John 12:9). Again, John may have learned this perhaps because of his contacts in the high priestly households; but it is clear that this was a very real plot to get rid of not only Jesus himself, but also Lazarus as evidence of Christ’s miracle. Although Annas is not mentioned by name, it is inconceivable that such a plot would have been made without the knowledge of the chief priest and his sons – though it was more likely instigated by them as the “chief priests.” To understand the significance of this background, we must look at one of Jesus’ parables given at that time.
The Parable
In his parable ofLazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus told his listeners: “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus” (Luke 16:19-20). The parable continues to say that when he died, in the afterlife, the rich man implored the patriarch Abraham “I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment” (vss. 27-28). Notice that although the NIV says “to my family,” the Greek actually says “to my father’s house” (as translated in the ESV and almost all other versions). When Abraham replies that “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them,” the rich man responds “No, father Abraham … but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent” (vss. 9-30). To this Abraham states conclusively: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (vs. 31).
The cast of characters in this parable is unmistakable. Although “Lazarus” is not specified to be the Lazarus of Bethany Christ raised from the dead, the New Testament does not speak of any other Lazarus – had it been a different individual, John would surely have identified him as he does in other instances when multiple people shared the same name.
The “rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen” is surely the high priest Caiaphas whose robes were exactly as described. Conclusively, the rich man has a father and five brothers. In the close families of ancient Palestine, “brothers” could mean blood brothers or brothers-in-law. So the identity of these individuals is clear – they are none other than Caiaphas (the rich man), Annas (the father-in-law) and his five sons (the brothers-in-law). If this were not the case, there would have been no reason for Jesus to include five brothers in the parable – the rich man could just have pleaded for his family.
For Jesus’ original hearers it was doubtless clear that his parable made the point that just as the rich man’s father and brothers would not believe even after the return of the Lazarus of the parable from the dead, so the actual high priestly family had not believed when the real Lazarus had indeed been raised. Understood this way, the story of Lazarus and the rich man is paralleled by a number of other parables in which Jesus used actual historical situations of his day (for example, Luke 14:28-33; Luke 19:11-27).
A Lesson for Today
There is also perhaps a small practical lesson we can take from this understanding of Jesus’ parable: the unfailing discretion of Jesus. Although the characters of his parable may have been recognizable to his audience, Jesus did not go as far as identifying them by name. This fits the pattern we see throughout the New Testament in which Jesus never identifies and condemns individuals by name, only as groups: the Pharisees, scribes, tax collectors, or whatever. Although he could have publicly accused and discredited specific individuals on many occasions, Christ did not do so in his human life. In our own time – a time of heightened political invective – this is an example for every Christian to consider.
* Download a free copy of our e-book Lessons from the Life of Jesushere.
“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1). “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
These two scriptures – Job 1:1 and Romans 3:23 – are loved by skeptics as they feel the two verses provide a “perfect” example of biblical contradiction. How, they ask, could Job be “blameless” (NIV, ESV, etc.) or “perfect” (as translated in the King James Version) – in other words, sinless – if, as Paul affirms, all have sinned?
Many Christians realize that when the New Testament uses the word “perfect” (as when Jesus tells his followers to “be perfect” – Matthew 5:48), the Greek word used means “mature” or “complete” (see “Does God Expect You to Be Perfect?” here). In the Old Testament a similar situation occurs. The Hebrew word tam translated in Job 1:1 as “blameless” or “perfect” (and again in Job 1:8, 2:3) has several shades of meaning. It comes from a root word meaning to be complete or finished (Genesis 47:18, Deuteronomy 31:24) and in a secondary sense to be morally sound or upright (Job 22:3, Psalm 18:26). Tam itself can be translated “complete,” “finished,” “blameless,” “innocent,” or “having integrity.” In Proverbs 29:10, for example, the word is used in the phrase “a person of integrity.”
This meaning – of having moral integrity or “uprightness” – that lies at the heart of what we are told in Job does not imply perfection as we might think of the word in modern English usage. In fact, the respected Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1981) states categorically: “the words which are rendered in English by ‘perfect’ and ‘perfection’ [in the Hebrew Bible] denoted originally something other and less than ideal perfection.”
So although Job 1:1 records that Job was blameless, and in Job 1:8 and 2:3 God is said to have declared Job to be blameless, the Hebrew word translated “blameless” does not have to mean morally perfect and completely sinless. This can be seen in that the book itself shows Job’s failings. In 7:21 Job states “Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?” and in 42:6 Job confirms his own sinfulness when he says: “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” When we take these facts into account, it is clear that being “blameless” or “perfect” before God in Job – and elsewhere in the Old Testament – means being morally upright, but it does not have to refer to some kind of sinless perfection.
Putting the scriptures together, then, there is no contradiction between what the Book of Job tells us and what Paul affirms in Romans. All humans, including Job, have sinned, as Paul stresses; but Job had attained a level of integrity or moral uprightness that God himself acknowledged as being remarkable – just as the Book of Job states.
“Posture: Noun. A. The position of the body in movement or at rest. B. A mental or spiritual attitude.”
Ever hear the expression “watch your posture!”? Health care professionals (and parents) know that posture affects a person’s health in many ways.
The Bible also has something to say about posture in a spiritual sense. We see this in the opening of the book of Psalms where David uses metaphorical language for specific types of wrong behavior from the perspective of our posture (which, as the dictionary definition above shows, can reflect our spiritual attitude as well as the position of our body):
“Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked, or stand in the way that sinners take, or sit in the company of mockers” (Psalm 1:1).
It’s easy to read over these words without thinking about the analogy David was making, but we see in this verse three different ways we can err in our lives. First, David speaks of the person who walks “in step with the wicked” or “in the way of the wicked,” as other translations word it. When we read the entirety of Psalms we see that this isn’t just a poetic way to say “does wrong” – it is a specific comment regarding those who choose to actively move toward or with what is wrong. It’s an expression based on a Hebrew way of thought that is found not only in the Psalms, but also in many other biblical books: “They rush to commit evil deeds” (Proverbs 1:16); “Feet that run rapidly to evil” (Proverbs 6:18); “Their feet run to evil” (Isaiah 59:7); etc. This is ultimate wrongdoing in that it encompasses a deliberate desire for evil.
Next, David speaks of those who “Stand in the way that sinners take.” By contrast with those who “run to evil,” such people do not necessarily desire to go in a wrong way. This is evident in the fact that they are not “walking” or “running” with evil, but they “stand” in that way in the sense that they do not remove themselves from it. This can apply to those who know better, but do not choose to avoid evil, or even feel trapped in its hold through the force of habit, addiction, or lack of resolve. In Ecclesiastes 8:3 we are warned not to “stand” in an evil situation, or to “stand up” for evil by supporting those who further it.
Finally, in this analogy David speaks of those who “sit in the company of mockers.” Being a “mocker” in the Hebrew Scriptures is often synonymous with being someone in rebellion against the way of God (Proverbs 29:8; Isaiah 29:20; etc.). In this case, we are not told of those who actively seek evil or who do not remove themselves from it, but who, perhaps in weakness of character, “sit” with those who do wrong – they passively participate in what is not right, because of peer pressure, work pressure, or whatever.
It’s a simple analogy, but David’s three “postures” of sin should remind us all that it is possible to fail by degree. We may not actively be seeking evil by “walking” or “running” after it, but are we still allowing ourselves to stand or “stay put” in wrongdoing, or to be influenced by those around us so that we “sit” with and do not truly separate ourselves from those we know influence us to do wrong?
The word of God gives us alternatives to these failing behaviors. In 2 John 1:6 we are told that “And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands,” Philippians 4:1 tells us that we should “stand firm in the Lord in this way” and Revelation 3:21 states “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne.” The common denominator in all these positive spiritual “postures” is clearly that of obedience. Physical posture is important for physical health, but David’s point in laying out the three types of sin in his first psalm is that our spiritual posture is even more important for our spiritual health!
Recent Comments