Who is the worst enemy of God’s people?  Some American Christians may say “the Left”.  Others may point to unjust leaders who tried to prevent churches from meeting during the early days of the pandemic and imprisoned pastors for opposing them.  Some students could name their teachers or professors who have an intense determination to get them to deny their faith.  In other parts of the world, where Christians face real persecution, they could be tempted to name oppressive communist governments, Muslim or Hindu radicals, or others who vehemently oppose Christianity.  These could all be considered enemies.  I prefer to think of them as “opponents” rather than enemies.  It is not that we have enmity against them but by opposing Christ they are also opposing us.  But are they “the enemy”?  In the New Testament, “the enemy” is used referring to Satan (Matthew 13:39, Luke 10:19), but in the Old Testament it is much more generic.  However, there is one person in the entire Old Testament specifically given the title of “the enemy”.  By examining him, we learn who our worst enemy is.  Conversely, by studying his arch nemesis, we learn how to overcome our worst enemy.

The Enemy of the Jews

In the Old Testament, the Jews were God’s people, so it naturally follows that someone given the title of “the enemy of the Jews” would be by extension the enemy of God’s people in general.  This phrase is only used four times in Scripture, and all of them refer to the same man.  That man was Haman the Agagite.  Anyone familiar with the story of Esther will likely remember Haman as the man who plotted a genocide to exterminate all of the Jews throughout the Persian Empire.  This certainly made him an enemy of the Jews, but the Jews faced similar threats of annihilation before, so why does Haman get the exclusive title of “the enemy of the Jews”?  Perhaps his enmity went beyond his plot such that he can be considered the prototypical enemy of God’s people.

To understand this, we need to look at who Haman was and what prompted him to plot a genocide.  We first meet him in Esther 3 when he is promoted to be second in command to King Ahasuerus.  Climbing to this rank would have been no small feat in such a massive empire, so he must have been a man of considerable knowledge, skill, and connections.  It would have also meant he was one of the men the king trusted most in the entire empire.  He seemed to live up to his name, which literally meant “magnificent”.  By any standard, he had it all, so what was the problem that led him to plot to annihilate an entire race of people?

The problem began when one man repeatedly refused to pay homage to him after his promotion.  This man too was a man of influence, since he was regularly in the king’s gate.  The fact that throughout the book he is regularly found there suggests he was a senior official, as many men of prominence throughout Scripture can be found sitting in the gate.  Thus, his refusal to bow is reminiscent of how Daniel’s three friends refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in Daniel 2.  Regardless, he was of a high enough position and reputation that Haman didn’t dare openly oppose him.  Still the refusal of this one man to pay homage to him disturbed him greatly—so greatly that when he found out the man was a Jew, he began plotting to exterminate all the Jews.  This plot was not the result of a fit of rage but of prolonged and calculated scheming (Esther 3:7).  He got the king to agree to the plot by falsely accusing the Jews of being enemies of the king and even bribing the king with a large sum of money.  He was thus able to sway the king to authorize the murder of every Jewish man, woman, and child throughout the entire empire and the plundering of their property.  It is therefore fitting that he alone is given the title of “the enemy of the Jews”.

The Little Man

But who was this nemesis of Haman whose refusal to bow was enough to prompt Haman to plot genocide?  He was basically Haman’s exact opposite: Mordecai, which can be translated “little man”.  Up until his promotion at the end of the book, we know little about his role other than the fact that he was regularly in the king’s gate as already discussed.  Thus while Haman was the second most powerful man in the world, Mordecai was just another royal official quietly and honorably doing his job.  He was also the older cousin of Esther, whom he raised after her parents’ death.  When he overheard a plot to assassinate the king, he used his relationship with Esther to get word of the plot to the king.  There is no indication that he sought credit for himself in this situation, but was merely doing his job diligently.

While we don’t know the measure of Mordecai’s faith in God since the book of Esther does not once mention God, we know that he did have faith that deliverance would come to the Jews (presumably from God).  This is evident in his response to Esther’s fear to go before the king on behalf of the Jews without being summoned: “Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:13-14)  It is also quite possible that his reason for refusing to bow or pay homage to Haman came from his devotion to God—the same motivation as Daniel and his three friends.  Like them, his disobedience of sinful edicts was quiet and respectful.  There is no indication that in refusing to pay homage that Mordecai acted disrespectfully toward Haman, he merely continued to faithfully carry out his duties.  The reputation he developed as a result (and the unmentioned though obvious hand of God) eventually put Mordecai in Haman’s place as second in command.  The last verse of the book can be considered a summary of Mordecai’s career: “For Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Ahasuerus, and he was great among the Jews and popular with the multitude of his brothers, for he sought the welfare of his people and spoke peace to all his people.” (Esther 10:3).  From this, it is clear that Mordecai sought the welfare of the people in general and the Jews in particular rather than his own gain.  This was the exact opposite of Haman, which is what caused Haman to despise Mordecai so much that he plotted not only to kill him but his entire race.

The Real Enemy of the Jews

But how could Mordecai’s refusal to pay homage to Haman spark such rage in Haman that he would plot to exterminate the Jews?  To use modern terminology, Haman was “triggered”—and it was clearly Mordecai’s refusal to pay homage to him that triggered him.   While there is no evidence of malice or disrespect from Mordecai to Haman, his failure to pay homage threatened Haman in a very real way.  How?  The answer becomes obvious as we continue to read the book of Esther.  After attending the first of Esther’s feasts, which only he and the king attended, we see this:

And Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart. But when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he neither rose nor trembled before him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai. Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went home, and he sent and brought his friends and his wife Zeresh. And Haman recounted to them the splendor of his riches, the number of his sons, all the promotions with which the king had honored him, and how he had advanced him above the officials and the servants of the king. Then Haman said, “Even Queen Esther let no one but me come with the king to the feast she prepared. And tomorrow also I am invited by her together with the king. Yet all this is worth nothing to me, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.”

-Esther 5:9-13, ESV

Clearly, Haman was completely self-absorbed.  His mood was entirely dependent on what happened to him and how people treated him.  When he was invited to an exclusive feast he was happy, but when Mordecai refused to acknowledge him (again) he was angry.  He responded by stroking his ego, recounting his riches and accolades to anyone who would listen.  In Haman’s mind, the entire world revolved around him and should be ordered to his liking and advancement.  Thus when anything threatened his inflated view of himself, he became miserable.  By repeatedly refusing to pay homage to Haman, Mordecai was refusing to reinforce Haman’s image of himself.  This presented Haman with a choice: humble himself or eliminate the one who threatened his ego.  He obviously chose the latter.  But why was such an extreme measure necessary?  Because the self is fragile, so people go to extreme lengths to protect the self from shattering.  Therefore, we cannot place out trust in ourselves, for the self is far too fragile.  Haman had clearly trusted in himself, so when self failed him, he was ruined.

Haman’s self-absorption becomes even clearer the following day.  When the king couldn’t sleep and had his servants read to him of notable deeds, he learned that Mordecai had not been recognized for foiling an assassination attempt.  Since Haman happened to be in the court preparing to ask for approval to hang Mordecai, the king asked how to honor someone who pleased him.  Thinking of no one but himself, Haman concluded that the man to be honored had to be him (Esther 6:6), so he therefore launched into a detailed description of his idea of perfect recognition.  I imagine a broad smile on his face as he explained what he had likely daydreamed about for years.  Imagine his surprise when the king ordered him to perform this perfect idea of recognition on Mordecai, his nemesis!  In Haman’s defense, the king had given him no context, so he had no way of knowing that the king had Mordecai in mind.  Still, his constant focus on himself blinded him to the possibility of the king wanting to honor anyone else but him.  As a result, he sought to exalt himself but was humiliated by being forced to exalt humble Mordecai (Luke 14:11).  What he imagined as the perfect validation of his view of himself turned out to be a moment of such shame that he went home mourning (Esther 6:12).  Haman’s self-absorption therefore led him to plot genocide and ultimately became his downfall.  Thus, we can conclude that the real “enemy of the Jews” was not so much Haman himself, but what Haman represented: the one who puts himself or herself above anyone else.

The Real Enemy of Christians

Since Haman was the enemy of the Jews due to his self-absorption—and self-absorption is certainly not exclusive to ancient Persia—then it naturally follows that self-absorption is the enemy of Christians as well.  The New Testament repeatedly reinforces this:

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

-Mark 8:34-36, ESV

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26, ESV

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

-Romans 2:6-8, ESV

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

-Philippians 2:3-4, ESV

Scripture is clear: we should not focus on ourselves, serve ourselves, or even love ourselves.  Instead, we must seek above all things to serve and focus on God then serve and focus on others.  Some may argue that we must love ourselves in order to love others, since Jesus said (quoting Leviticus 19:18) that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  That argument goes that if you do not love yourself, you cannot love your neighbor, so the better you love yourself the better you will love your neighbor.  The problem with this logic is that it views this entire verse as a command.  Instead, the command is to love your neighbors just as we already love ourselves.  Self-love is not commanded here but assumed.  We need no command to love ourselves, because we naturally love ourselves too much as it is.  Instead, the command points us away from ourselves to focus on loving and serving others just as much as we love and serve ourselves naturally.  In essence, when combined with the other greatest command to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (leaving no more room to love ourselves), this command is telling us to essentially forget about ourselves.

This is the opposite of the modern understanding of self-esteem, which leads to self-absorption under the guise of preparing yourself to help others.  If we truly understood the ugliness of our sin, we would grimace every time we look at ourselves.  The Christian sees far more serious issues inside than out in the world.  It is rumored that in answer to the question of what was wrong with the world, G.K. Chesterton simply responded with “I am”.  Many hymn writers throughout the history of the Church have shared similar sentiment. Here are a few:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die!
Would he devote that sacred head
for sinners such as I?

“Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed”, Isaac Watts, 1707

Nothing have I, Lord, to pay,
Nor can thy grace procure;
Empty send me not away.
For I, thou know’st, am poor:
Dust and ashes is my name,
My all is sin and misery.

Friend of sinners, spotless Lamb,
Thy blood was shed for me.

“Thy Blood Was Shed for Me”, Charles Wesley, 1742

Amazing grace (how sweet the sound)
that saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
was blind, but now I see.

“Amazing Grace”, John Newton, 1779

When we truly grasp the magnitude of our sin, we would be wise to respond likewise.  The Christian life is not about looking inside ourselves but looking outside of ourselves to Christ.  Our true selves cannot be found within us by our own efforts (Jeremiah 17:9-10) but can only be found through the revelation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.  Therefore, Christians must constantly look away from themselves and towards Christ.  Scripturally, any focus on ourselves must be to identify and confess our sin, labor tirelessly in our cooperation with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, and cultivate a healthy body and mind to be of service to God and others.  This leaves no room for selfish ambition or seeking to please ourselves.

Does this mean we should hate ourselves?  In a sense, the answer is both yes and no.  We should certainly hate our sinful flesh (Romans 7), for if we do not hate it we cannot obey God’s command to do battle against it.  At the same time, in Christ we are no longer merely sinful people but are now people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are steadily being reshaped by Him into the image of Christ.  Jesus Christ is the perfect object of love, so as we are conformed to His image, we should love seeing more of His reflection when we look in the mirror.  Furthermore, since God showed so much love for us in that Christ died for us while we were dead in sin (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:4, etc.), it would be wrong of us to despise what God so dearly loves.  Therefore, while we should despise our sinful flesh, that is no longer our identity.  Our identity is found in Christ, meaning that we are united with Christ so inseparably that to hate ourselves in that new identity would be to hate Christ.  Therefore, the only part of ourselves that we should hate is the remnant of our sinful flesh that we are commanded to mortify.  But the key is that this love/hate relationship with self is the byproduct of a constant focus away from ourselves and onto Christ.  Both self-aggrandizement and self-hate find their root, focus, and hope in self and not God.  If we rely on self, we will be discouraged.  But if we rely on God, we actually have no basis for despair.[1]  So when we are tempted to fall into self-hate, we must say with the psalmist in the refrain of Psalm 42-43: “Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God” (Psalms 42:5-6, also 42:11 and 43:5).  This is certainly easier said than done—and can only be done in the power of the Holy Spirit. 

In addition to constantly shifting our focus away from ourselves, we must not feed self-centeredness in others.  This was the mistake that Haman’s wife and friends made at first.  After Haman stroked his ego following Esther’s first feast, his wife and friends fed it by suggesting that Haman hang Mordechai (Esther 5:14).  It was only after he was humiliated by having to honor Mordechai that his wife and friends gave him what he really needed: the truth.  They attempted to realign Haman’s ego with reality (Esther 6:13), but it was too little too late.  While Scripture doesn’t tell for sure what Haman was like normally, enough is revealed to suggest that his pride made him unbearable to live with such that the only way his wife and friends could stand him was to appease his ego, hence their accommodation of his self-aggrandizement.  But in the long run, their appeasement did more harm than good—a lesson we would be wise to heed.

The Cure: Humility Like Mordecai

Since pride and self-absorption like Haman are the enemy that Christians must fight, we should seek to emulate Mordecai in humility.  Mordecai built a reputation of consistently serving others without regard for recognition.  In contrast to Haman who thought of no one except himself, Mordecai thought little of himself.  It is quite likely that he had forgotten all about foiling the assassination attempt and would have therefore been just as surprised as Haman that he was being honored.  Then, his response shows true humility.  In contrast to Haman who went away sulking, Mordecai “returned to the king’s gate” (Esther 6:12).  In other words, after being publicly exalted, Mordecai went right back to work and went about his day as if nothing had happened.  This is in stark contrast to his very visible mourning at the edict that the Jews were to be exterminated (Esther 4:1-4).  His focus was on others rather than himself, so when he faced a disturbance (either negative or positive) he was unmoved except when others were impacted.  Whereas the increasing success and recognition ruined the self-centered Haman, it did not affect the humble Mordecai, who continued to serve others as he had before.  Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less, which Mordecai exemplifies.  In that way, Mordecai prefigures Christ:

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

-1 Peter 2:21-23, ESV

So rather than focusing on ourselves, in humility we must look away from ourselves to Christ.  If we focus on ourselves and lose sight of Christ, we will either become so lost in the love of ourselves that we will be blind to reality as Haman was, or we will be incessantly discouraged by our constant failures.  So let us fix our eyes on Christ (Hebrews 12:2) and away from ourselves.  Then we will be truly unshakeable because He is unshakeable.

Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.

-1 Peter 5:5-7, ESV

---

[1] William Bridge, A Lifting Up for the Downcast, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021 (orig. 1649)

As we think of the various people featured throughout the Bible, it can be tempting to divide them into categories of good and evil.  However, one does not have to read far into the lives of each of the so-called good people in the Old Testament to see that they were filled with flaws and sinned often, sometimes in ways that are clearly egregious even to nonbelievers.  This is certainly true of David, the man after God’s own heart.  Much is written about David in Scripture, so his life has been the topic of much theological study.  Yet we often overlook perhaps his most remarkable trait: repentance.  David’s repentance shows his faith in a way largely unparalleled in the Old Testament, so it is worthy of examination three thousand years later.  His understanding of his great sin and greater Savior displays a faith that all Christians should seek to emulate.

David’s Good Start

Of all Old Testament figures, few are greater than David.  Along with Abraham and Moses, David received a specific covenant from God.  Additionally, his Spirit-inspired songs include several prophecies fulfilled by Christ.  His very life foreshadows Christ, as David was the king chosen and raised up by God.  As the man after God’s own heart, David was faithful to follow both the letter and spirit of God’s commands.  From the first time we meet him in Scripture, he is held up as righteous in comparison to his unfaithful predecessor Saul.  While Saul started well, it was not long before the limits of his faith became evident.  Out of fear, he offered an unauthorized sacrifice before battle and later failed to wipe out the Amalekites as God had explicitly commanded, with resulted in God rejecting him as king.  After that, David was anointed king and began his slow and tumultuous rise from the sheepfold do the throne that ultimately took decades.  Even while David was on the run, God was increasing David’s strength, drawing many people to follow him—both Israelites and foreigners.  Many of these would ultimately become his Mighty Men.  He had initially run from Saul alone, but upon his return he had around six hundred men with him.  Despite numerous hardships, he showed incredible faith in God’s timing and methods, refusing to use his divine anointing as license to harm Saul.  Not until Saul died at the Battle of Mount Gilboa could David ascend to the throne—and even then he had to overcome Saul’s supporters.  But ultimately, David’s kingdom was established as a prototypical kingdom of righteousness.  After seven years in Hebron, he conquered Jerusalem and established it as his capital.  It would be known as the City of David from that point onward.  To top all of that, David received the covenant from God, who promised to establish David’s dynasty by saying his descendant would rule forever.  It appeared that the Israelites had finally entered God’s rest. 

David’s Great Sin

But then came David’s most famous sin: adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.  Even before that sin, we see evidence of moral compromise of David in this area with his embrace of polygamy, thus joining the myriad of Old Testament examples dissuading the practice (which I briefly addressed in a previous post).  That deviation from God’s design for marriage led to another much larger deviation from God’s Law.  David forsook his calling for comfort, succumbed to sexual temptation, and committed a string of sins to cover it up.  Like Adam’s sin at the Fall, it began with omission.  Perhaps more than any other king, David’s place was in the field leading his men in battle and experiencing adversity with them.  Instead, he neglected this calling and duty in favor of the comfort of his palace.  He then allowed power and lust to corrupt him into committing adultery with the wife of one of his elite and close-knit Mighty Men, which I discuss in more detail in my leadership paper.  When Uriah’s righteousness and devotion to duty thwarted David’s plan to cover up his own sin, David conspired to have him killed in battle.  When compared to the sins that led to Saul’s downfall, the monumental sin of David should not only have resulted in his rejection but also his death, since adultery was a capital offense in the Law (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).

Nevertheless, David still attempted to hide his sin until rebuked by God through the prophet Nathan.  After calling out David’s sin, Nathan prophesied the consequences of that sin.  He warned that because David had “utterly scorned the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:14) the son born from his adultery would die.  This was just the first consequence of David’s sin.  Instead of peace and rest, violence would now plague David for the rest of his life.  This would be most visible in Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Samuel 16.  Just as the first Adam had failed when tempted and had thus been banished from God’s rest and the first Moses had failed when tested and had thus been prevented from entering God’s rest, so the first David had failed when tempted and thus failed establish a kingdom in God’s rest.  So just as we need a second Adam to reverse the curse and a second Moses to perfectly fulfill the law, we need a second David to establish His everlasting kingdom.  God in his grace and mercy did not just spare the first David from the death he deserved but allowed him to glimpse His plan of salvation. As a result, in this dark hour when David’s kingdom seemed to be doomed to go the way of Saul’s, David’s faith shines forth brightest by how he responds to his sin and its consequences.

David’s Great Repentance

David’s response to Nathan (and thus to God) was repentance.  First, we must note that this repentance was empowered by God.  Since God’s covenant cannot be supplanted by man’s sin, the Holy Spirit prompted and enabled David to fully repent of his sin, which began the process of restoration.  Unlike Saul, God would restore David in such a way as to foreshadow the ultimate restoration He would bring through Christ.  Even as a prophet David understood this only in part, but through the lens of Messianic hindsight we can see it more clearly.  But we cannot forget that this restoration had to begin with repentance, which while it was enabled and prompted by God was still David’s responsibility.

This restoration began with immediate and complete repentance.  When Nathan rebuked David, he immediately responded with “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:13).  Thus David gives us a great example of how to confess sin.  He started by admitting his sin without reservation.  He didn’t make excuses by citing Bathsheba’s beauty or his status as king.  He didn’t use smooth rhetoric to avoid the issue or justify his actions.  He didn’t blame anyone else or his circumstances for his sin, and certainly didn’t claim that it was caused by some sickness.  He didn’t admit to some of his sins while not acknowledging others.  He simply acknowledged that he had sinned.  Just as important, he acknowledged that his sin was against God.  While some sin is against others (which was certainly true in this case), all sin is ultimately and primarily against God.  Therefore, David was right to say that he had sinned against God.  When we confess our sins, we must likewise avoid excuses, blame shifting, and partial confession while also acknowledging the ugliness of sin itself and how it is primarily against God. 

But confession is only the beginning of repentance.  We must not only acknowledge our sin but also turn away from it.  David displays this in what came after his confession, but those actions would make no sense without Nathan’s response to David’s confession.  Rather than issuing the sentence that would end David’s kingdom, Nathan responds with these remarkable words: “The LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Samuel 12:13).  This statement shows the incredible forgiveness of God, without which all of our repentance would be ultimately futile.  It was David’s confidence in God’s forgiveness that ultimately drove his response to the consequences of his sin.

David’s Greater Faith

The first consequence of David’s sin came quickly as the son born as a result of his adultery became sick.  David fasted and pleaded with God to spare the child, showing that he had accepted the consequences of his sin while also entrusting himself to God.  He was truly saddened by his sin and its consequences to others much more than its consequences to himself.  This is the major difference between godly grief that is sorrowful for sin itself and worldly grief that is sorrowful only about the consequences of sin (2 Corinthians 7:7-10).  In contrast to Cain, who was grieved about the consequences of his sin on himself rather than the fact that he had killed his brother, David mourned his sin itself and its impact on others.  This does not mean that we cannot grieve over the consequences of our sin on ourselves, but that grief should be overshadowed by our grief over the fact that we sinned against God as well as how our sin affects others.

David’s actions also show his reliance upon God based on an understanding of His character.  Though David knew Nathan’s prophecy, he also knew that God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 86:15, Psalm 103:8).  Thus, he thought that perhaps God would be gracious to him and let the child live (2 Samuel 12:22).  But when the child died, David ceased his fasting and instead worshipped God.  We can certainly relate to the confusion of his servants at this unusual turn of events.  David’s explanation does little to clear up that confusion:

“While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ​‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

-2 Samuel 12:22-23, ESV

David’s explanation may be sufficient to explain his fasting before the child died, but not his lack of mourning after the child died.  Though it is impossible to know exactly what was going on in David’s mind at that time, the psalms give us enough of a glimpse to allow us to at least speculate the reasons for his unusual actions.  After David was rebuked by Nathan, he wrote Psalm 51, displaying his understanding of his sin and God’s righteousness as well as his dependence on God to cleanse him.  There is a level of surety in his requests of God to blot out his transgressions and restore him to his former place as the man after God’s own heart.  The tone is even more positive in Psalm 32, proclaiming blessing on the one that God forgives and against whom God does not count sin.  The tone suggests that David experientially knew this blessing. 

But if David understood the weight of his sin, how could he experience God’s forgiveness?  Paul answers that question by quoting Psalm 32:1-2 in his argument that salvation is by faith in Romans: 

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin”

-Romans 4:5-8, ESV

But did David really understand that righteousness came through faith and not works?  In addition to the fact that New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages are inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore correct, the language of Psalm 32 certainly suggests that he did.  Additionally, David’s faith was not a general faith in God but faith in the salvation that God would bring through his descendent.  Psalm 22 speaks of Christ’s suffering while Psalm 110 speaks of Christ’s glory, both written by David.  In Matthew 22:41-45 (cf. Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44), Jesus suggested that David understood this by referring to his descendent as his lord in Psalm 110:1.  God revealed enough of His plan of salvation to David that he placed his hope in it.  To some extent, he understood that the Messiah would be his descendant, would suffer and die, and would be raised up by God to establish an everlasting kingdom.  He also understood how offerings worked and didn’t work, including the heart behind them (Psalm 51, 2 Samuel 24:24).  As a result, he knew that he could not atone for his own sin but had to rely on the substitute that God provided. 

A Shadow of David’s Greater Son

This is where the speculation begins.  Nathan prophesied that though David would not die for his sin, his son would die.  It is thus possible that David viewed his innocent son as taking the punishment that David deserved.  Though certainly sinful by nature, this unnamed son has no sins mentioned in Scripture and can thus be thought of as if he was sinless.  Regardless, he certainly didn’t deserve to die for David’s sin.  This may explain David’s fervent prayer on behalf of his son, perhaps asking to die in his place as he would later lament regarding Absalom (2 Samuel 18:33) and the Israelites dying of pestilence from David’s sinful census (2 Samuel 24:17).  But the child did die, which prompted David to worship God.  If he did view his son as a type of substitute dying in his place for his sins, then he would have viewed the child’s death as a sign that God’s wrath had been satisfied—at least temporarily.  Regardless, the death of David’s son was evidence that God keeps His promises, which included the Davidic Covenant and God’s promise through Nathan of God’s forgiveness for this particular sin, which would have been reason enough for David to worship.  David felt the weight of God’s judgement lifted from him, leading him to worship.  I wonder if that immediate worship included Psalm 32.

Though David certainly experienced the forgiveness of God and its resulting peace with the death of his son, he knew that peace was not to last.  Nathan had prophesied that his son’s death was only the beginning of the price David and the nation would pay for his sin.  Thus, David would continue to hope in the Messiah which his unnamed dead son prefigured—Jesus Christ, who would be the perfect substitute.  David must have known that his infant son could not actually take away his sins but that the Messiah would.  David was not justified by God because this son died in his place but because God’s Son died in his place.  David’s salvation came just like Abraham’s—through faith in the salvation God would provide later through Jesus Christ.  This means that David’s salvation is the same as ours: by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  So by faith David greeted Christ’s future yet sure coming from afar (Hebrews 11:13).  Unbound by sin nature, Christ lived a truly perfect life, earning a record of obedience that God imputes to both David and us.  In exchange, God imputed all the sins of all who would trust in Christ (including David) onto Christ, thus allowing God to be just and the justifier of all who are saved through faith (Romans 3:26).  This is why David could rejoice in his sin being forgiven and covered over as he trusted in the justifying and sanctifying work of God.  Such rejoicing is the appropriate response, which could explain why David was so quick to worship following his son’s death.  If David with his limited understanding of God’s coming salvation was able to rejoice in it, then we who have the advantage of a Messianic perspective should rejoice all the more at God’s salvation through Christ. 

David knew that even his sin could not thwart God’s plan of salvation.  Thus, 2 Samuel 12 continues with the birth of Solomon.  Though Solomon would begin to fulfill the Davidic covenant by building the temple, even he would fail, leading to the division and ultimate destruction of Israel.  Yet from him would eventually come Jesus.  Unlike the first David who gave into temptation, this second David would resist it.  Instead of lusting after power and pleasure, Jesus would serve and give his life as a ransom for many.  Instead of offering a sacrifice inadequate to remove sin, Jesus would offer Himself—the only adequate sacrifice to remove sin.  So instead of ruling a nation temporarily, Christ rules the universe eternally.  Therefore, like David we must set our hope firmly and solely in Jesus Christ.  And that faith should lead us to a repentance like David’s, including complete confession of sin, acknowledgement that all sin is ultimately against God, and godly grief over sin itself far above its consequences, all with hope in the sure forgiveness of God that comes only through the finished work of Christ. To paraphrase John Newton, David was a great sinner—and so are we—but Christ is a greater Savior!

“Has God rejected us?”   This question must have been asked by every Israelite as the defeated army returned to their camp at Gilgal.  God had promised them this land, exhorting them to “be strong and courageous” because He had already given the citizens of this land into their hands.  But the army had been defeated at Ai, leading many to wonder if God’s promise would indeed come to pass.  Even Joshua lost hope, saying, “Alas, O Lord God, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!” (Joshua 7:7). 

This sounds eerily familiar to the frequent complaint of the previous generation: “If we had only stayed in Egypt…”.  For Joshua, this defeat would have reminded him of a similar defeat forty years prior.  He had been one of the twelve spies sent to examine the land and give a report to Moses and the rest of Israel.  While the other ten spies had focused on the strength of the people and the fortifications of their cities, Joshua and Caleb had trusted in God and reported the goodness of the land.  Despite their best efforts, the people had fearfully sided with the ten and refused to enter the land.  As punishment for their lack of faith, God had declared that none of that generation would enter the land except Joshua and Caleb.  This consequence caused the Israelites to regret their decision and attempt to conquer the land anyway, with disastrous results.  Forty years later, a new generation of Israelites had maintained faith and seen God defeat two kingdoms before them, dry up the Jordan River for them to cross over, and deliver Jericho into their hands.  But with this setback at Ai, they all (Joshua included) had to wonder if God was untrue to His word.  He had promised to give the Israelites this land, so this defeat had the potential to cast doubt on the faithfulness of God.  Thus it was vital for Joshua and all of Israel to figure out what had gone wrong.

Israel Has Sinned

God’s answer immediately removes this doubt: “Get up…Israel has sinned” (Joshua 7:9).  The defeat at Ai was not because God was untrue to His word or would not keep His promises, but because the people of Israel had sinned and broken faith with God.  Their sin (like ours) in no way nullifies God’s faithfulness: “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:3-4).  Indeed much of the biblical narrative up to that point (and from that point on) could be summed up as “Israel has sinned” such that it is remarkable when the narrative says that Israel obeyed God.  Throughout their forty years of wandering in the wilderness, Israel had sinned in various ways and been judged by God in various ways as a result.  Most of these sins involved grumbling against God or committing idolatry and its associated immorality. 

But that didn’t seem to be the case this time, as the conquest of Jericho had gone quite well.  Several times in the early chapters of Joshua, the author notes that the Israelites did as God had commanded, yet the results at Ai were more akin to the times they had grumbled or committed idolatry than when they had obeyed. So they needed God to reveal their sin to them, so God continues: “they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them” (Joshua 7:10).  This covenant was the Mosaic Covenant, which consisted of the entire Mosaic Law.  Not long before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses had reiterated this law.  That essentially served as the farewell address for Moses and makes up basically all of Deuteronomy.  As I discussed in a previous post, Deuteronomy is filled with exhortations for Israel to be careful to obey it in its entirety.  Near the end, it gives blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28), so Israel should have immediately known that their failure must be due to sin.  Not long after those blessings and curses, Moses also issued a blessing for repentance (Deuteronomy 30).  Repeatedly throughout Scripture, we see that when God’s people sin, the difference between a minor setback and a slippery slope to destruction is repentance.  Therefore, when God told Joshua to get up, He was telling him (and all of Israel with him) to get to work repenting so that their minor setback would not become a slippery slope to destruction.

The Sin: Robbing God

The first step to repentance is identifying the sin and recognizing it as sin.  In the defeat at Ai, that sin was not immediately clear, so God had to reveal it to Joshua:  “Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings” (Joshua 7:9-11).  The specific sin was that a lone Israelite (Achan) had taken some silver, gold, and a cloak from Jericho.  For this sin, God had caused Israel to be defeated at Ai, resulting in the death of 36 Israelites.  Yet God says the entire nation had sinned, as if every Israelite had stolen and lied.  Why was the sin of one man attributed to the entire nation?  As foreign as it may seem to our individualistic society, we are not merely individuals but members of various communities, so even our private sins affect others.  Therefore, one man’s sin was attributed to an entire nation of well over a million people.  We don’t know whether anyone else collaborated with Achan, but it is unlikely since only Achan and his family were punished.  However, it is quite possible that others in Israel sinfully desired the plunder of Jericho but only Achan acted on that desire.  Since the items were buried under his tent, it is likely his family had knowledge of his sin and collaborated with him on it.  Thus, while the Mosaic Law forbid punishing children for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16), all of Achan’s family had participated in the sin and thus deserved punishment for it just as the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram had in the previous generation.  So in order to turn away God’s anger, the Israelites executed Achan and his entire family. 

Why did Achan’s sin warrant execution?  While it is clear that Achan lied by hiding his sin, it is not clear how taking the items was theft, especially since the Law permitted the taking of plunder in battle as part of God’s provision for them (Deuteronomy 20:14).  So why was plunder in this case stealing, and who was Achan stealing from?  God said that Achan had taken “some of the devoted things”.  This meant that what he had taken was considered devoted to God, so Achan had actually stolen from God.  In the Law, anything that was “devoted” to God was for Him alone and could not be used by the people.  In discussing vows, Leviticus 27 shows a difference between things that were dedicated to the Lord (which could be redeemed by their original owner) and things devoted to the Lord (which could not be redeemed).  The term is also used for people (including cities and nations) who are “devoted to the Lord” for destruction.  Such was the case for the people of the Promise Land in general and Jericho in particular.  Throughout the land, Israel was to devote to destruction all of the people, but the infrastructure could remain and the spoils were free to be taken.  However, Jericho was unique, where the entire city was to be destroyed and the plunder was to be devoted to the Lord.  Whereas the plunder of other cities—like the peace offering—was to be shared between God and the people, the plunder of Jericho—like the burnt offering—belonged solely to God, going into the “treasury of the Lord” (Joshua 6:17), so by taking some of it, Achan was claiming as his what was actually God’s. 

But why did God claim the plunder of Jericho but not the other cities in the Promised Land?  While we cannot know God’s complete reasoning, I think the concept of firstfruits is helpful to understand this.  The Law specified that the first of everything belonged to God—the first of their harvest each year, the first fruit from their trees, and the firstborn of their livestock.  All of their crops, fruit, and livestock were gifts from God, from which He required some in return.  By requiring the first of them, He was forcing the people to depend on Him to continue to provide for them.  If the first of everything belongs to God, then it naturally follows that the first city to be conquered in the Promised Land would also belong to God, and that city was Jericho.  Jericho can thus be viewed as the firstfruits of God’s gift of land to the Israelites, so God declared that it must be devoted to destruction.  Since it was devoted and not dedicated to God, it was never to be rebuilt (Joshua 6:26).  Therefore when Heil of Bethel (a city that was infamous for idolatry) rebuilt Jericho in the days of Ahab (a time known for wickedness and idolatry), both his firstborn and youngest sons died according to the curse of Joshua (1 Kings 16:34).  Like Achan centuries before, he had taken for himself what belonged to God.  Thus, by taking some of the “devoted things”, Achan and Heil after him were actually robbing God of what was rightfully His (Malachi 3:8).  More than mere theft, Achan’s actions reveal a lack of fear of the Lord.  By his own admission, he had coveted them, meaning in that moment he had viewed a bit of precious metal and a single piece of clothing as more valuable than God.  Thus, this seemingly minor sin was really idolatry at its core.  Since God is jealous for His glory and His people (Exodus 20:5; 34:14), He judged Israel for this one man’s sin. 

Faith in God’s Promises

There is more to Achan’s sin than covetousness and robbery.  His sin displays a lack of faith in God to keep his promises.  Throughout the Exodus, God promised to bring the Israelites to the Promised Land and give it to them.  Part of that promise was being able to live in houses they did not build.  This meant that once the Israelites took over various cities and towns, they were to live in them.  Therefore, the Israelites counted on these cities and the plunder within them in order to start their new lives in the Promised Land.  This was especially true since the manna that had sustained them for their entire journey to the Promised Land stopped just after their first Passover in the Promised Land, meaning that they now had to depend on the fruit of the land that God provided (Joshua 5:12).  But just as the firstfruits of the food grown on the land belonged to God, the firstfruits of land itself did too.  Israel thus would have to trust that God would continue to give them success in battle after Jericho.  Achan’s sin proved that some did not.  Just as the previous generation lacked faith that God would fulfill His promises and sustain them in the desert, some in Achan’s generation also doubted that God would provide for them as He had promised.  Though Achan was the only one who acted upon this unbelief—and was thus the only one called out by name—Israel’s history would suggest that there were likely others who shared his doubt.  Thus, Achan’s fate would have served as a warning to those who were wavering in faith to overcome such doubt and strengthen their faith that God would be true to His word. 

It was also a reminder that Israel’s success was from God and could not be accomplished apart from God.  In addition to Achan’s sin, the Israelites—emboldened by their success at Jericho—disobeyed God by bringing only a small army to Ai, thus trusting in their own strength.  These two sins—doubting God’s promises and trusting in human strength—would plague Israel throughout their history (and us today).  Still, Israel’s faithlessness did not nullify the faithfulness of God.  The omniscient Lord had certainly known of this faithlessness prior to making His covenants with Abraham and Moses.  In this instance, Israel rightly repented and the conquest of the Promised Land was back on track.  But even this conquest was not complete, as Israel’s history following this period was certainly tumultuous.  Thus, Israel was challenged to maintain faith in God’s promises (Hebrews 4).  Many did not keep faith, but God, against all odds, maintained a remnant who did.  Paul holds up this remnant as proof of God’s faithfulness (Romans 11).  Thus, God’s promises are just as sure today as they were for Joshua.

Firstfruits of Foreign Faith

Jericho also provided firstfruits of another kind: foreigners placing their faith in God in the Promised Land.  There had certainly been foreigners who had joined the Israelites before.  Those who left Egypt were mixed—suggesting that Egyptians and others joined the Israelites from the very beginning after seeing the awesome power of their God.  Among them was Caleb, who as previously mentioned was one of only two from that throng to actually make it to the Promised Land.  Moses’ Midianite father-in-law temporarily sojourned with them, Moses’ first wife was a Midianite, and his second wife was a Cushite.  Still, Jericho is the first time a named foreigner joins with the nation of Israel in the land of Israel and worships Israel’s God permanently.  Scripture is clear that God’s plan from the beginning was far greater than Israel.  The Abrahamic Covenant promises blessing to all nations through Israel.  Though this was ultimately fulfilled in Christ, it was certainly to occur to some extent with Israel itself.  The Law often refers to foreigners sojourning with Israelites, commanding that Israelites care for them in the same way He commanded them to care for widows and orphans.  Their very inclusion in the Law assumes that there would be foreigners who would believe in God living amongst Israelites.  God began to fulfill that at Jericho with Rahab. 

Just like the remnant, Rahab was chosen by God to believe.  As with many of the saints we meet in Scripture, Rahab is an unlikely choice.  This pagan prostitute was about as far from being a righteous Israelite as possible, likely without any knowledge of the true God outside of vague rumors.  Yet while the entire city was cowering in fear, the Holy Spirit opened Rahab’s eyes to view Israel’s God not as a coming terror but as the one true God to be believed and worshipped.  Her background makes her statement all the more remarkable.  She understood that God will give Israel the land, rightly attributed Israel’s defeat of Sihon and Og to God, and accurately proclaimed that God is the only God.  She then decided to abandon her former religion and culture to join herself to God and the Israelites, making the spies swear that they would spare both her and her family.  Like the first Passover four decades earlier, the salvation of Rahab’s family depended on remaining in a house marked with red (this time a red cord from the window rather than a lamb’s blood on the doorposts). 

Rahab had to trust that the spies would be true to their word, and her family had to trust that her crazy plan to save them would actually work.  It did, as the spies brought them out alive.  Since they were foreigners, so they were put “outside the camp”.  The writer of Joshua then states that Rahab “has lived in Israel to this day” (Joshua 6:25).  Since this verse does not mention the rest of her family, it is possible that they either left the Israelites later or dwelt among them while still holding onto their religion and culture.  But Rahab fully embraced Israel and the God of Israel, seemingly living faithfully before fading into history prior to resurfacing in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus.  The lesson of Rahab is the same as the lesson of Ruth, Ittai the Gittite, and countless other foreigners who attached themselves to Israel’s God: God’s heart has always been for the nations and Israel was to be a means towards that end.  God gave Israel the Promised Land so that their light could shine before the nations and cause them to glorify Him.  Israel failed at this, but Rahab and others like her stand as a testament that God will advance His purposes independent of human efforts, particularly as seen through her ultimate descendant, Jesus Christ. 

Greater Faith

Israel failed at Ai due to a lack of faith that God would be true to His word in contrast to Rahab’s faith in God.  Then, in contrast to Achan’s lack of faith, Caleb showed incredible faith as the conquest continued.  When Joshua asked him what land he would choose for his inheritance, this was his answer:

“And now, behold, the LORD has kept me alive, just as he said, these forty-five years since the time that the LORD spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. And now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old.  I am still as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me; my strength now is as my strength was then, for war and for going and coming. So now give me this hill country of which the LORD spoke on that day, for you heard on that day how the Anakim were there, with great fortified cities. It may be that the LORD will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the LORD said.”

-Joshua 14:10-12, ESV

The hill country to which Caleb referred was the well-fortified city of Hebron in which the Anakim (giants) lived, so by choosing Hebron Caleb was choosing the toughest land to conquer.  He was depending on God’s blessing when he could have chosen the comfort of land already conquered.  Thus in stark contrast to Achan who did not trust in God to do as He had promised, Caleb trusted his entire life and heritage to the promises of God.  He trusted that after living a life of faithfulness to God, when he went to battle against his mighty foe God would give him victory as He had promised.  Therefore, we should strive to imitate the faith of Caleb and not the disbelief of Achan.  Still, Caleb’s faith was ultimately the exception rather than the rule.  By the time of Joshua’s, death, much land remained to be conquered.  Joshua failed to give the Israelites true rest, as did the judges, Samuel, Saul, David, and all of their subsequent kings. 

Ultimate rest only comes through Christ, who as the greater Caleb lived a life of perfect faithfulness to God before going to battle against the enemies of Satan, sin, and death at the cross, trusting that God the Father would accept His work of atonement and give Him victory.  Just as God gave Caleb victory over the giants of Hebron, so Christ accomplished the greatest victory and sat down at the right hand of God the Father.  Therefore, in Christ victory is certain, whereas apart from Christ victory is impossible.  Like the Israelites, we can and will face setbacks, but the victory of God is inevitable since God has promised it.  He has also promised to give us everything we need (Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31 cf. Psalm 84:11), so if He hasn’t given something to us, that must mean that we don’t need it.  Thus, we must not hold too tightly to what we perceive as ours, instead trusting that the God who created us will be faithful to sustain us in this life and carry us into the life to come.  As I stated in a previous post, everything we have was given to us by God anyway.  That is what distinguished the commendable faith of Caleb and Rahab with the condemned lack of faith of Achan.  Therefore Achan perished while Caleb and Rahab stand in the Hall of Faith among the great cloud of witnesses.  Let their faith encourage us to similarly give our first and best to God in faith that He will provide all we need in this life and infinitely more in the next.

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies….And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

-Hebrews 11:30-31,39-12:2, ESV

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

-Exodus 20:8-11, ESV

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

-Mark 2:23-28, ESV

In the last post, I discussed the three types of laws in the Old Testament: moral laws that are binding on everyone across all of time, ceremonial laws that were fulfilled by Christ and are thus no longer binding, and civil laws that were specific to the theocratic nation of Israel and thus not binding on Christians.  I stated that all of the Ten Commandments were part of the moral law, which would include the Fourth Commandment to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.  If it is part of the moral law, then Christians must observe the Sabbath and therefore refrain from doing work.  But if that is the case, why was Jesus constantly pushing the boundaries of the Sabbath rules so much that the Jewish leaders accused Him of breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18)?  As I discussed in a previous post, if Jesus sinned it would completely undermine the Gospel, so His violation of Sabbath rules could not have been a violation of God’s Law regarding the Sabbath.  He obviously understood it properly, an it is of utmost importance that we do too.

What is the Sabbath?

The concept of the Sabbath is introduced in the creation narrative, which states that after creating the entire universe in six days, God rested on the seventh day, therefore blessing it and making it holy (Genesis 4:1-3).  Since the Fourth Commandment explicitly states its origin as God resting after Creation, it must be a moral law.[1]  The verbiage of Exodus 20 thus shows that the Sabbath was not instituted by the Mosaic Law but recognized and applied by the Mosaic Law, designating it as Saturday (but it would become Sunday after the resurrection of Jesus).  This command required Israelites to honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy because God had made it holy.  They were to do this by refraining from work.  But it is also clear throughout the Law that the Sabbath was not merely a day of rest, but a day in which people were to put aside their ordinary work in order to focus on God.  This is the most often emphasized command in the Mosaic Law and it is also referenced throughout the prophets, showing just how important it is to God.  Calvin noted that God required no other command to be as strictly obeyed as adherence to the Sabbath.[2]  So we should similarly take it very seriously.

But there are also ceremonial and civil aspects to the Sabbath.  It was considered one of the Jewish feasts—the most frequent feast.  In addition to Sabbath days, there were also Sabbath years, in which the land itself was to rest (with no crops being planted) and Jewish slaves were to be freed (Exodus 23:10-12, Leviticus 23 and 25).  The Jewish religion was thus set up around the proportion of sevenths.  Six days a week were for ordinary work while the seventh was the Sabbath for rest and the worship of God.  Six years in seven were for ordinary work in fields and by slaves, but the seventh was for the rest of the land and slaves.  This prohibition of work also meant that the Sabbath had civil aspects, with the penalty for breaking the Sabbath specified as death (Exodus 31:12-17 and 35:1-3).  As discussed last time, these aspects are no longer binding.

Since there are clearly moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects to the Sabbath, we must identify which parts of the Sabbath are moral vs. ceremonial and civil to determine which aspects of the Sabbath are still binding today.  Based on Genesis 2:1-3 and the Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath is a day that is blessed and holy (set apart) for rest from regular work in which all people and livestock are to rest.  It is also clear that the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath is part of the civil law and the Sabbath year is part of the ceremonial law, so those are no longer binding.  Paul refers to the Sabbath as a shadow, of which the substance was Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).  Since he lists it along with diet, festivals, and new moons, he is clearly referring to the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath.  Calvin explains:

“Now there is no doubt that the ceremonial content of this precept was abolished by Christ’s coming, for he is the truth who, by his presence, makes all these symbols disappear….Although the Sabbath has been revoked, it does not prevent the custom among us of having certain days when, first, we gather to hear sermons, to offer public prayer and to celebrate the sacraments, and, second, when some relief is given to servants and to manual workers.  There is no question that the lord intended both things when he issued the Sabbath injunction.”

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1541 edition), 142

So far, this means we can conclude that the moral aspect of the Sabbath that is still binding today is that God has set aside a day of rest for the purpose of both refreshing us and focusing on Him. 

The Sabbath is for Man, Not Vice Versa

Even so, there is much disagreement among Christians as to what it truly means to observe the Sabbath.  This can lead to one of two extremes.  The first is that of legalism, in which we strictly define what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath and thus make it more of a burden than a blessing.  This is clearly what the Jewish leaders were doing in Jesus’s day.  As with many aspects of the Mosaic Law, they had set up rules about the rules about the rules.  While there is wisdom in setting up prudent boundaries to prevent sin, the Jewish leaders had elevated these boundaries to the same authority as Scripture, which drew condemnation from Jesus (Matthew 15, Mark 7), especially about the Sabbath.  Thus they considered it breaking the Sabbath for Jesus to tell the paralytic at the Bethesda pool to pick his bed (John 5:1-17) as well as the very act of healing him (and the blind man in John 9 and the man with the withered hand in Matthew 12:1-8). They similarly chastised His disciples for picking grain in a field they were passing through (Matthew 12:9-15).  In doing so, they had missed the point of the Sabbath.  By making the Sabbath all about following a myriad of rules, they were actually preventing both themselves and others from both resting and focusing on God.  Rather than being refreshed (Exodus 23:12), people were burdened.  Thus in their attempt to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy, they were actually dishonoring the Sabbath, essentially preventing it from fulfilling its purpose for them.  Jesus explicitly stated that the Sabbath was created for man and not vice versa, which means that it was meant to serve us and not for us to serve it.  They had therefore strained out the gnat (the smallest unclean animal) of every possible way one could work on the Sabbath while swallowing the camel (the largest unclean animal) of dishonoring both the Sabbath and the God who created it (Matthew 23:24). If we become legalistic about specifically what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath, we risk making the same error the Jews did. 

Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath

There is another error that is just as dangerous and much more pernicious in the American church.  To most American Christians, the Sabbath is restricted to a couple hours on Sunday morning, with the rest of Sunday being normal.  This means that while God has required of us the entire day, many give Him only an hour or two before returning to their ordinary lives. This also overlooks the purpose of the Sabbath: to rest from our normal work in order to focus on Christ.  Right after saying that the Sabbath was created for man, Jesus declares that He is the Lord of the Sabbath.  Just as Jesus is Lord over all of space generally but the Temple (now the Church) specifically, so He is Lord over all time generally but the Sabbath specifically.[3]  So while the Sabbath was created for our benefit, it (like everything else) ultimately belongs to Jesus.  Just as God requires that we give back to Him the firstfruits of our labor and resources, He also requires we give the firstfruits of our time. But instead, we often fit church into our busy schedules such that even while we are at church, we are distracted by what we must do after church.  In doing this, we miss the point of the Sabbath just as much as the legalistic Jewish leaders of Christ’s day.  And since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, when we dishonor the Sabbath in this way, we dishonor Him. 

So how do we honor the Sabbath and thereby honor Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath?  The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith says it like this:

“As it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him….This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”

-Westminster Confession of Faith, Article 21, paragraphs 7-8

The 1689 London Baptist Confession contains very similar wording.  By this, we keep the Sabbath holy when we first prepare our hearts to focus the entire day on God, prepare our affairs beforehand such that they will not be a distraction to us, and refrain from not only common manual labor but also common labor of thoughts and words so that we can spend the day in both public and private worship, biblical instruction, prayer, and meditation on Scripture.  Since we live in a fallen and sinful world, emergencies will happen, so acts of necessity and mercy are allowed by both confessions.  After all, Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, so such acts of mercy must be not only allowed but necessary.  But the confessions explicitly discourage recreation, which is the main area in which Reformed Christians differ with regards to the Sabbath.  My current church takes exception to this portion of the confession, stating that since we are called to rest physically on the Sabbath, recreation is allowed—especially in the context of fellowship.  This also accords with Calvin, who emphasized resting from our work so that God could work on us, focus the day on worship, and not placing excessive burdens on those under our authority.[4]

What Should We Do on Sundays?

All of this leads to the question of what Christians really should do (and not do) on Sundays in order to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.  Whatever we do, we must avoid legalism that reduces the Sabbath to endless rules that distract us from God and prevent us from resting as He intended by giving us the Sabbath.  But we must also avoid minimizing it by simply fitting church into a busy day of otherwise normal activities that also distract us from God and prevent us from resting in Him and being nourished by His Word and the means of grace that He provides through proper use of the Sabbath. 

First of all, whatever we do on Sundays must be done in faith since whatever is not done in faith is sinful (Romans 14:23) and in honor of Christ, as Paul says clearly:

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.

-Romans 14:5-8, ESV

Since this comes in the context of a discussion on disagreements over matters of conscience, it is clear that not only would a list of do’s and don’ts for Sundays be unnecessary but it might actually cause a fellow believer to stumble (which is forbidden in Scripture).  Therefore, I will provide no such list but merely offer some thoughts from my current perspective for consideration.  Each person must search the Scriptures and be attentive to the conviction of the Holy Spirit as to what is appropriate to do and not do on Sundays.  This is especially important since Scripture emphasizes right attitudes and motives.  I will also offer some of my own practices, not to bind anyone’s conscience but as an example.

• Employment: Since the Sabbath from the beginning has been mainly about resting from our primary labor to focus on God, it is best to refrain from your occupation as much as practical.  For those of us who telework regularly, it may be tempting to log onto the work computer on Sunday, but we should resist this temptation as it can distract us from focusing on God and fellowship with His people.  Sometimes, it does make sense to do some work on Sunday evening to prepare for Monday morning.  If you must do this, I would recommend starting your Sabbath on Saturday evening so as to still spend a full day apart from your normal work focusing on God.  Starting Saturday night would also facilitate in preparing your mind for Sunday morning worship. 
• Household Chores: Normal chores around the house are part of normal work and should therefore be avoided on Sundays when possible.  Daily chores, such as making the bed, doing simple meal prep and cleanup, and doing things like shoveling snow after a Saturday night storm are necessary.  Obviously, childcare falls into the necessary category as well. The quicker and simpler these tasks are, the less likely they are to distract us from focusing on God.  I personally do simple meal prep and cleanup but avoid doing laundry, vacuuming, and errands on Sundays in most cases. Outdoor chores that are weather dependent may need to be done on Sundays, but the time spent on them can be redeemed for spiritual benefit by listening to Scripture, a Christian book, a good sermon, etc.
• Extracurricular Activities:  Sports and activities that conflict with church attendance should be avoided.  Not only do they prevent us from fellowshipping with the saints and partaking in the means of grace that God has chosen to impart through corporate worship, but they also communicate to both our families and those around us that Christ is not our top priority.  Even if these activities do not conflict regularly with church, they pose a significant risk of causing distraction during church, so they should only be undertaken after substantial prayer and counsel. 
• Fellowship and Hospitality: Fellowship with other believers after church, including inviting them over for a meal, is certainly in keeping with the purpose of the Sabbath and should therefore be encouraged.  This is especially important in churches like mine, where people are spread out geographically such that getting together during the week can be difficult.  As much as possible, preparations should be made beforehand so that as little work as possible remains to be done on Sunday.  As hard as it may be, cleanup should also be delayed so that everyone involved can enjoy fellowship.  And as important as this fellowship is, it does not supersede church, so no one should miss church in order to prepare for post-church get-togethers. 
• Eating Out: There are differing convictions as to whether we should eat at restaurants on Sundays.  Some would say that it forces other people to work, which would be against the spirit of the Sabbath.  They would further argue that if we would stop eating out on Sundays, it would reduce demand such that it would make sense for the restaurants to close on Sundays.  However, in our present context Christians are the minority, so our abstention from eating out on Sundays would likely not have that effect.  Eating out can also be an opportunity for fellowship with other believers, as it was for me in my previous church.  So in our present context, I do not see eating out on Sundays as a violation of the Sabbath, but that would likely need to change if Christians became a significant majority.  Regardless, when we do eat out, we should set an example of Christian behavior by being polite, patient, and good tippers so that the restaurant staff will look forward to Sundays with anticipation not dread.
• Recreation: We should be wise in which recreational activities we choose to engage in on Sundays.  Preference should be given to activities that help us to focus on God such as reading Christian books as well as activities of fellowship with other believers.  Since one purpose of the Sabbath is for us to be refreshed, we should also prioritize activities that help us to be refreshed.  For example, living in an area where the weather does not always cooperate (especially this time of year), I would not hesitate to go for a run on a Sunday afternoon if that was my best opportunity.  For me, theology is also a hobby, so I have no issues engaging in it on Sundays—after all, I wrote part of this post on a Sunday.  However, it is difficult to justify mindless activities.  I am not an NFL fan, but if I was I would be very hesitant to watch Sunday games, as that takes up 3-4 hours of the day, since there are probably better uses for that time.
• Travel: Sometimes, travel on Sundays is inevitable, but we should try to avoid it if possible.  I try to plan my personal trips such that I will not be gone on Sundays.  If I will be gone on a Sunday, I try to find a good church in the area.  This past summer, I had to take a work trip that would force me to travel on Sunday.  Instead, I went out the Friday before so that I was able to both go to my old church that Sunday and spend the weekend fellowshipping with believers there.  If I do have to fly Sunday, I try to fly in the evening so I can at least go to church.  Traveling time can also be redeemed to help focus on God through reading Christian books and listening to Christian teaching.

Again, this is not meant to be a restrictive list but a help in deciding how to use our Sundays to both honor Christ and facilitate our own rest and spiritual growth.  The general principle is that we must make the best use of our time (Ephesians 5:16, Colossians 4:5).  Whatever we do on Sundays, it must be to honor Christ and keep the day set apart for Him and for His Church.  As I said in my very first post, Jesus loves the Church so we should too (and by extension we should love the Sabbath). Just as the American church has devalued the physical gathering of the saints (as I discussed in a previous post), so we have devalued the concept of Sabbath.  We need to restore the emphasis on both, not merely out of obedience to God but also for our own benefit. By truly resting one day each week and using that time to privately and publicly focus on God, we not only take advantage of this gracious gift of God but also look forward to our future ultimate rest.

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

-Hebrews 4:6-13, ESV

---

[1] John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: 64-66.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 139.

[3] John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: 453.

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 144.

And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?

-Deuteronomy 10:12-13, ESV

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

-2 Timothy 3:14-17, ESV

Recently, I read through the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) in my morning quiet times.  This is the part of the Bible where reading plans often die.  While there are many fascinating stories throughout Genesis and the first half of Exodus, the majority of the rest of the Pentateuch lays out the Mosaic Law.  Following the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the rest of Exodus contains various laws that begin to establish the Jewish religious and civil code along with very specific instructions on how the Tabernacle and everything in it is to be made.  Leviticus then lays out the rest of the Jewish religious law.  Numbers gives the rest of the Jewish legal code amid various stories of Israel’s journey to the Promised Land. Deuteronomy retells the Law to a new generation as they prepare for their conquest of the land. If we are honest, we must admit that these laws can get a little bit tedious and not a little bit uncomfortable, leading us to all but avoid them. Even if we don’t avoid them, what do we do with them?

Of the numerous laws found in the Pentateuch, there are many that even the most devout Christians do not follow.  We eat bacon, wear blended fabrics, and lend money at interest.  We don’t observe the Passover, execute rebellious children, or sacrifice animals.  Yet we will point to parts of the Mosaic Law to argue against abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, extramarital sex, and various other topics, as I did in a previous post.  Are we arbitrarily picking and choosing which parts of the God’s Law we follow, as is so often charged against us? 

The Types of Laws

Clearly, there are some Old Testament laws that we follow and others that we do not.  But we are by no means arbitrary in how we determine which laws to follow.  Many Christians use the New Testament as the standard for identifying which laws are still binding.  They hold that if an Old Testament law is repeated in the New Testament, that means that it is still binding, while the laws that are not repeated are not binding on Christians.  While it is certainly true that the laws repeated in the New Testament are still binding, we cannot immediately conclude that a law is not binding just because it is not repeated in the New Testament.  Instead, we identify which laws are still binding by which type of laws we are dealing with.  As I discussed in a previous post, there are three types of laws: moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial.[1]

Moral laws are rooted in God’s unchanging nature and are thus binding on all people worldwide and across all of time.  All of the Ten Commandments are part of the moral law, as well as commands accompanied by statements like “I am the LORD” or that reference the prohibited activity as an abomination.  These moral laws are often not only repeated in the New Testament but actually expanded.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus extends the prohibition against murder to include hate and adultery to include lust, thus making the standard to which Christians are held even more stringent than the Mosaic Law.  This means that even some things that were allowed under the Mosaic Law are not allowed for Christians (more on that later).  Regardless, any moral law is still in effect regardless of whether it is repeated in the New Testament or not.  Therefore, prohibitions against abortion (a form of murder), homosexuality, extramarital sex, and identifying as a gender clearly inconsistent with biology are part of the moral law and therefore just as binding on Christians today as they were on Jews over three thousands of years ago. 

The ceremonial laws deal with the sacrifices, festivals, rituals, and cleanliness standards of the Jewish religion.  In addition to sacrifices and festivals, the restrictions on diet and clothing material are part of the ceremonial law.  The ceremonial law pointed to Christ and was thus fulfilled completely by His life, death, and resurrection such as to make them no longer binding on Christians.  Large sections of Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians as well as almost the entirety of Galatians and Hebrews are devoted to how Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4).  As discussed in the last post, Jesus explicitly did away with both the dietary laws (Mark 7:19) and the separation between Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 28:19, Acts 10:28) that were major topics in the ceremonial law.  When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was torn, signifying that the separation between God and His people had been removed by Christ’s perfect atonement, therefore eliminating the need for further sacrifices.  The Temple was ultimately destroyed in 70 A.D. in large part to show that the ceremonial law had been completely fulfilled by Christ and thus replaced by Him as the mediator between God and man.

Finally, civil laws apply the moral law to the specific context of theocratic Israel, so those specific laws have not been binding since Israel ceased to be a theocratic nation, even while the moral laws that undergird them are just as binding today as they were then.  The regulations on slavery, execution of rebellious children, and prohibition of charging interest (along with most of the other laws that we find uncomfortable) are all civil laws that are not binding on Christians.  These were specific to the context of ancient Israel and must be viewed with that context in mind.  Therefore, if Christians were to come to power in any nation today (much as the Puritans did for a short time in Mid-Seventeenth Century England), it would be improper for them to use the civil laws of the Mosaic Law as the law of the land.  Instead, they would be wise to examine how the civil laws of Israel applied the moral laws to Israel’s specific context and use that to inform how they might apply the moral laws to their own context.  Therefore, Christians are selective in obeying Old Testament laws, but not arbitrarily selective.  We follow moral laws (which are still applicable to everyone), do not follow ceremonial laws (which were completely fulfilled in Christ), and use the civil laws as an example of how to apply the moral laws to our specific context.

What of Difficult Laws?

Even if they are no longer binding, some of the civil laws have a tendency to make modern Western readers quite uncomfortable.  From our modern perspective, laws allowing slavery, forced marriage, and execution of rebellious children while banning interracial marriage certainly seem cruel and oppressive. This can lead us to question why a loving God would include them in His Law.  While it is impossible to fully know God’s reasoning for including such laws in Scripture—since the secret things belong to God (Deuteronomy 29:29)—there is still much that we can glean from Scripture to help us understand them.  These laws are difficult to understand, so it would be tempting to simply ignore them, but they are important to consider since these laws are often used by opponents of Christianity to make both the Bible and its divine Author seem cruel and oppressive.  This should not be surprising, as David says:

With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless; with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.  For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.

-Psalms 18:25-27, ESV

Peter would later say that wicked and unstable people twist such difficult passages to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).  For them, these laws are convenient evidence with which to undermine the authority of Scripture and charge God with being cruel and vindictive.  More concerning is that these laws can cause genuine Christians to doubt the goodness of God.  To address this, we must view these laws in their original context.  When we do, even people with no expertise in ancient legal codes (like me) can see that these laws are not cruel and oppressive. Let’s look briefly at a few of them:

• Slavery: The form of slavery allowed in the Mosaic Law is very different from the form of slavery practiced in the Americas.  It was heavily regulated, temporary, and ultimately a form of welfare (Exodus 21:1-27, Leviticus 25:39-40).  In fact, the slavery practiced in the Americas would have been slave trading, which was a capital offense in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:7).
• Executing Rebellious Sons: While we would consider it extreme to execute a rebellious child, we must remember that the ancient Near East had a much higher regard for elders in general and parents in particular than we do (to our detriment).  The Mosaic Law regarding rebellious sons in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 actually preserved the rights and dignity of the son by requiring parents to first exhaust all other forms of discipline and that the magistrates would have the final say whether execution was appropriate. 
• Interracial Marriage:  It is clear from context that the laws seeming to prohibit interracial marriage are not against mixing ethnicities but religions (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).  Foreigners who gave up their former religion to worship God could marry Israelites, which happened with Caleb, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah.  I talk about this in more detail in a previous post.  Furthermore, God strongly supported Moses for his interracial marriage with a Cushite—a black African from the region south of Egypt—by striking Miriam with leprosy when she opposed it (Numbers 12).[2] Essentially these laws are the same as the New Testament command to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14), not a ban on interracial marriage.
• Forced Marriage: Some of the most disturbing laws (and thus favorites of Scripture’s opponents) are laws that force women into marriage.  One of these is in the situation of sexual assault in Deuteronomy 22:25-29.  While assault of a married or betrothed woman was a capital offense, these verses suggest that a woman who was not married or betrothed would have to marry the man who assaulted her unless her father refused to allow it (Exodus 22:16-17). When we view this in context of the whole Law, we clearly see that heterosexual marriage is extremely important to God—so important that a less-than-ideal marriage is preferrable to sex outside of marriage.  Furthermore, the prohibition against divorce in this case underscores God’s requirement that physical intimacy come only in the context of the marriage covenant.  Thus the man would be forced to make and keep that marriage covenant.  This law would have therefore likely served as a deterrent against such assaults by removing the possibility of intimacy without long-term commitment and responsibility.  Another such law permits Israelite warriors to marry women captured in war.  This law shows how highly God values marriage while also maintaining the dignity of the woman by not only requiring intimacy to be within the context of marriage, but also preventing the man from consummating the marriage until after an entire month from the time they returned home from the campaign.  This law therefore prohibited the sexual assault of women in warfare which has been the ugly reality of war from ancient times to our own day.  Instead of devaluing women, when viewed in their historical context these laws actually recognize and uphold their dignity while also underscoring the importance of marriage.
• Polygamy:  The lack of an outright ban on polygamy in the Mosaic Law has often been taken as condoning the practice.  However, while stopping short of condemning it, the entire Old Testament does much to discourage it.  The first recorded polygamous man was Lamech (Genesis 4:18-24), who as I discussed in a previous post represents complete wickedness and is thus not to be emulated.  Every biographical example of polygamy that followed (including Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Elkanah, David, and Solomon) was fraught with trouble, showing how polygamy is a gross distortion of God’s design for marriage and should thus be avoided. While certain laws do allow for polygamy, nowhere in the Mosaic Law is it condoned.  In fact, Deuteronomy 17:17 all but prohibits kings from being polygamous.  So while the Mosaic Law does not condemn polygamy, it certainly does not condone it but in fact discourages it. 
• Genocide: Another favorite target of Scripture’s opponents is the presence of commands to wipe out entire nations.  In the Mosaic Law, God explicitly commands the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:17).  Rather than condoning genocide in general, these passages are declaring God’s judgment on specific nations. God is the creator and sustainer of all life, so God has the authority to end any life whenever and however He pleases.  Repeatedly throughout the Law, God states that He is the one wiping out the Canaanites for their depravity and idolatry.  When idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, necromancy, and other abominable practices are forbidden in the Law, the reason given is that the Canaanites practiced them and therefore God was driving them out. Thus as the Israelites wiped them out, it should have served as a reminder to them not to follow in their footsteps—otherwise God would likewise wipe them out. Therefore, the Israelites were God’s instruments of judgment against the Canaanites just as the Assyrians and Babylonians would later be instruments of God’s judgment against them for their wickedness.  Clearly, this was a very specific circumstance that in no way condones genocide.  Its presence in the Law should also remind us of just how serious our sin is, since we all deserve to be likewise wiped out.

So we see that when viewed in their proper historical context, these seemingly cruel and oppressive laws were actually progressive for their time.  The reason we can see them as cruel and oppressive is because Christianity has had such an impact on the world that what was once common is now abhorrent.  But that still does not answer the question of why these laws exist in the first place?  Since God is omniscient, He could have easily specified laws that prohibited slavery, polygamy, and forced marriage while making sexual assault a capital offense in all cases.  So why didn’t He? 

One possible answer is that these laws are meant to make people uncomfortable. While the Holy Spirit makes the entire Word of God beautiful to Christians, those same Scriptures are ugly and foolish to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18-25, 2 Corinthians 2:15-16). So just as many disciples left Jesus after He spoke figuratively of the need to consume His flesh and blood in John 6, these laws cause many to say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60). But to believers, difficult passages like this cause us to abandon our own understanding and cling to Christ all the more, saying with Peter: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69). Still, I think the best answer for this comes in the way Jesus addressed divorce in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  Like these difficult laws, the law on divorce in Deuteronomy 24 was part of the civil law. Jesus noted that Moses allowed for divorce because of the people’s hardness of heart, being careful to emphasize the way marriage was created to be: one man and one woman for life.  This means that while God designed lifelong monogamous marriage as the ideal, it was so distorted by sin that sometimes it was appropriate to end it.  But as part of His work of restoration, Jesus severely restricted the circumstances under which divorce was appropriate such that divorces that would have been allowed under the Mosaic Law were not allowed by Christ. 

These less-than-ideal laws therefore exist because we live in a less-than-ideal world.  The fallenness and depravity of mankind made these laws necessary, but as God is steadily restoring creation to its pre-Fall state, these laws are replaced by laws that better apply the moral law to cultures in which God’s transforming work is being applied.  As I mentioned earlier, the New Testament is much stricter than the Mosaic Law in some cases—and these laws are no exception.  What was once tolerable but regulated in the Mosaic Law becomes intolerable of the Kingdom of Christ. If we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11) and belong to God (1 Corinthians 7:3), slavery becomes no longer acceptable (which is exactly what led to its prohibition in the West).  If marriage represents the relationship between the One Christ and the One Church (Ephesians 5:22-33)—and all forms of sexual immorality must not even be named among God’s people (Ephesians 5:3)—any perversion of marriage (including polygamy and forced marriage) become unthinkable and absurd.  Since the Kingdom of God is not advanced in the same way as worldly powers (2 Corinthians 10:4), genocide that was directed in a specific circumstance becomes unthinkable in any other circumstance.  These laws should therefore not cause us to question God’s goodness but to recognize His plan of redemption that has already transformed society so much that these once progressive laws would now be regressive—and He will continue to transform society until all people have either bowed the knee to Him or been crushed under His feet.

The Uses of the Law

So if the ceremonial and civil/judicial laws are no longer binding, why are there so many in Scripture?  Paul makes clear that the entire Old Testament was written for our benefit (Romans 15:4).  In truth, these laws are useful to Christians because there are uses of the law other than obedience.  The Law restrains sin and promotes righteousness, brings about conviction of sin by showing us we cannot meet its requirements, and informs the way Christians are to live.[3]  This means that when we read the ceremonial and civil laws, we must see them as more than laws.  The entirety of the Law exists to teach us who God is and who we are as well as point us to Christ.  The myriad of ways one can become unclean in Leviticus should remind us of how both our perpetual sinning and sin nature stain us and everything around us so comprehensively that even our good deeds are filthy in God’s sight apart from Christ (Isaiah 64:6).  The constant sacrifices should remind us of just how serious our sin is and just how sufficient the atonement of Christ is.  The entirety of the Law should leave us awestruck by how holy God is and how far from that holiness we are, such that we cannot possibly be reconciled to God by our own efforts or merit.  All of this should lead to the utmost humility and gratitude for the amazing work of Christ on our behalf (Galatians 3).

During this time through the Pentateuch, I have also meditated on a few specific things.  First, all of the animals sacrificed had to be killed by the offeror and their blood poured out beside the alter.  This would have reminded the offeror that his or her sin required this innocent animal to die the brutal death that the offeror deserved.  The sheer number of sacrifices offered every day also meant that the ground around the alter would have been saturated with blood, which the priests would be standing and walking in throughout the day as a constant reminder of the pervasiveness of sin and the immense amount of blood needed to atone for it.  I also noted that both the materials and skilled craftsmen required to make the Tabernacle and its contents were provided by God, underscoring the fact that we can give nothing to God that He has not already given to us.  Additionally, the precise directions for how the priests were to perform their duties in the Tabernacle often included a caution that they take care to follow those directions precisely lest they die.  This shows how deeply God cares about the manner in which He is worshipped.  These directions would have caused the priests to go about their duties with a certain amount of fear.  While the work of Christ has opened the way such that as God’s adopted children we now have unfettered access to God, we must still approach Him with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:18-29), being careful to worship Him as He has commanded us to worship Him and not how we feel like worshipping Him. 

Furthermore, in Deuteronomy I noticed how often Moses tells Israel to be careful to obey the the entire Law while also emphasizing the importance of both fearing and loving God. As sinful humans we have a tendency to emphasize certain commands of God while ignoring those that conflict with our pet sins, so we must be reminded of the importance of keeping all of God’s commands, since sinning against God by breaking one of His commands is the same as breaking all of them (James 2:10). Finally, I was struck by how frequently a sacrifice was referred to as “a pleasing aroma to the LORD”.  While there was certainly some sweet-smelling incense involved, it would not have been sufficient to mask the stench of burning carcasses from the numerous sacrifices, so what was pleasing to God would have been very unpleasant for the people in and around the Tabernacle.  This grisly scene was pleasing to God not because the aroma was itself pleasant but because of the atonement for sin that was being accomplished, bridging the void between God and man.  Since it is impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6), what pleased God about these sacrifices was that they were offered in faith. Specifically, these sacrifices were a pleasing aroma to God only because they pointed to the only sacrifice that could please God: the atonement of Christ.  Ultimately, all of the Old Testament pointed to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Luke 24:44), so when we read the Law, we should see Christ. 

Conclusion: Love the Law

While the Law can be difficult, it is still the Word of God and therefore we should not skip over it, nor should we quickly skim through it to get to “the good stuff”.  No, we should actually love the Law.  David said that a righteous man delights in the Law and constantly meditates on it (Psalm 1:2).  This is the main theme of the longest chapter in the Bible.  Psalm 119 is an acrostic of 22 8-verse stanzas on the topic of delighting in and meditating on the Law.   The psalmist asks God to open his eyes to see “wondrous things out of your law” (verse 18).  The psalm is filled with references to loving the Law, longing after the Law, and desiring the Law, along with promises to keep the Law and requests that God would teach him the Law.  Even though the ceremonial and civil laws are no longer binding on us, their other uses should cause us to love similarly love and meditate on them. Since the Law points us to Christ, we should actually delight in it even more than the psalmists did.  So let us delve into the Law and there find not only who God is and who we are, but also it’s final unfolding in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, we can say with Moses:

For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?

-Deuteronomy 4:7-8, ESV

So let us pray that God will instill in us a love for the Law even greater than the psalmists, because when we read the Law we see Christ.

Your testimonies are wonderful; therefore my soul keeps them. The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple. I open my mouth and pant, because I long for your commandments. Turn to me and be gracious to me, as is your way with those who love your name. Keep steady my steps according to your promise, and let no iniquity get dominion over me. Redeem me from man’s oppression, that I may keep your precepts. Make your face shine upon your servant, and teach me your statutes. 

-Psalms 119:129-135, ESV

---

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 179-181, 453-460, 768-769.

[2] John Piper, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2011: 203-215.

[3] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 641.

When we read of the various miracles in Scripture, the faith of the people involved is at the forefront of the narrative in many cases, which can lead us to think that not only miracles but all of the blessings of God are somehow dependent on the faith of the recipient.  This has led to some gross misapplications of these miracles to say that if we exhibit enough faith, God is somehow compelled to bless us.  The obvious counterpart to this would be to say that if God does not bless us, it can only be because we lack the appropriate level of faith.  This distortion is most clearly seen in the prosperity gospel that exhorts people to display their faith by “planting seeds” in the form of monetary donations, thus compelling God to bless them with health, wealth, and happiness.  However, it is not only the false teachers of the prosperity gospel that hold this view.  In a more subtle form, it dwells in many American Christians, particularly in how they approach suffering.  This view is so prevalent in large part because the miracles of Jesus seem to support it.  However, as we examine a few of His miracles, we will see folly of this view.

Faith as the Key (But Not Magical) Ingredient

Jesus healed many people, drove out many demons, and even raised three people from the dead.  These people were both male and female of various ages and from various ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.  But a common trait is seen in many of them: faith.  When He healed a woman while enroute to raise the daughter of Jairus, He told her that her faith had healed her (Matthew 9:22).  He said the same to blind Bartimaeus as He restored his sight (Mark 10:52) and to ten lepers as He healed them (Luke 17:19).  At other times, faith seemed to move Jesus to heal people, such as when the paralytic was lowered into the room through a hole in the roof that his faithful friends had made (Luke 5:20).  Similarly, Paul observed that the crippled man in Lystra “had the faith to be made well” before healing him (Acts 14:9).  These incidents seem to suggest that the faith of these people caused them to be healed, especially since Jesus told His disciples that if they prayed in faith, they would receive what they asked for (Matthew 21:22).  But is faith really the stimulus to which Jesus responded by healing these people?  Is it our faith that causes God to answer our prayers and work on our behalf?

To answer this, let’s look at a couple of Christ’s more spectacular healings.  Of all of the people Jesus healed, only three were healed without interacting with Him at all.  Interestingly, two of these three involved Gentiles.  A centurion’s slave, a Gentile woman’s daughter, and a Capernaum official’s son were all healed by Jesus without ever meeting Him.  We will look at the first two in some detail and contrast the third with the first to see the role faith played in these incidents. 

The Centurion’s Faith

The first of these involved the Roman centurion in Capernaum.  Not long after the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus entered Capernaum and had a remarkable encounter with the centurion there that resulted in Jesus healing the centurion’s slave, recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.  A centurion was an officer in charge of one hundred Roman soldiers.  At one point, I was an officer in charge of about one hundred enlisted personnel, so I can relate.  This particular centurion also has the distinction of causing Jesus to marvel at him.  When we consider that Jesus, being fully divine, was omniscient, it is remarkable that anything or anyone could cause Him to marvel, but one thing did: faith (both its abundance and its lack).  Jesus was astonished at the incredible faith of this centurion, but was equally astonished by the lack of faith in His own hometown of Nazareth (Mark 6:6).  In contrast to Christ’s friends and relatives who should have known who He really was, this centurion had remarkable insight into His true identity that no one else had at the time.   But he was also remarkable in his character and reputation.  Despite being a Gentile in general and a Roman occupier in particular, he was highly regarded by the Jews in Capernaum.  Local Jewish leaders described him to Jesus as one who loved their nation and who had built their synagogue.  Therefore, when his slave was seriously ill, he did not hesitate to ask the local Jewish leaders to go to Jesus on his behalf and ask him to heal his slave, and those leaders emphatically and wholeheartedly fulfilled that request. They even went as far as to say that this centurion deserved Jesus to heal his slave because of his righteousness in their eyes.  You would he hard pressed to find a Roman official in all of Judea or Galilee at the time with such a reputation among the Jews. 

But it was not this centurion’s upstanding reputation that amazed Jesus.  Instead it was his faith, both understanding who Jesus is and who he was.  This began with a proper understanding of who Jesus is.  While Jesus was on His way, the centurion sent friends to tell Jesus that he was unworthy of Jesus even coming into his house.  This stands in stark contrast to the Jews telling Jesus that he was worthy of not only a visit from Jesus but also a miracle.  He knew that regardless of how righteous and upstanding he was, he did not deserve for Jesus to do anything for him, especially not for Jesus to make Himself ceremonially unclean by entering a Gentile’s house.  So the centurion asks Jesus to heal his slave without entering the house but merely speaking the words.  This reveals his unparalleled understanding of who Jesus was.  The Jews debated over who Jesus was, with many seeing Him as some form of prophet.  As such, they would have had certain expectations as to what Jesus could and could not do as a prophet.  There were various stories of prophets healing people in the Old Testament, but in all of them the prophet was present with the person either before or during the healing.  Instead, this centurion realized that such proximity was not required because Jesus had authority, which is something he as a military officer understood well regardless of his knowledge of Israel’s past prophets.  To him, it was incredibly simple for Jesus to heal his slave.  He was used to both giving and receiving orders, knowing that the power of any order comes from the authority behind it rather than in the manner in which it is given.  He therefore heard about the previous miracles of Jesus and deduced that Jesus had authority to command nature just as he had authority to command his soldiers.  Therefore, Jesus didn’t need to by physically present to heal his slave but merely had to give the order and nature would obey just as his soldiers obeyed him.  When I was in charge of a hundred personnel, they obeyed my orders because I had the appropriate authority from my rank and position, just as I obeyed my commander I because he had been appointed over me and thus had the appropriate authority.  He could be on the other side of the country or the world, but if he gave me an order, it was just as valid as if he gave it to me personally.  That is how this centurion understood the authority of Jesus over nature. So to him, healing his slave was as simple as Jesus giving the order, regardless of His location.

Contrast this with the account of Jesus healing the official’s son in John 4:46-54, in which the official asked for Jesus to travel with him from Cana to Capernaum and heal his son there, leading Jesus to lament the general lack of faith of the Jews who required signs in order to believe.  Conversely, this centurion believed before witnessing a miracle, realizing that Jesus had authority over nature and was therefore divine.  Not even His disciples understood this yet, as evidenced by their bewilderment when He calmed the storm later in His ministry (Matthew 8:27, Luke 8:25).  That was something no prophet was able to do.  The closest was Elijah who prayed for a drought and then prayed for it to cease.  It was understood that only God controlled the weather, so the disciples were shocked when Jesus didn’t pray to God to calm the storm but simply commanded the storm to cease.  Had this Gentile centurion been in that boat, his faith would have kept him from being startled as they were.  Of course Jesus could calm the storm, just like He could heal over vast distances, because He has authority.  What was illogical to the disciples by faith was obvious to this centurion.  It is this faith that astonished Jesus, leading Him to proclaim that this centurion’s faith was unparalleled among the Jews.  He then granted his request and spoke the words, at which point the centurion’s slave was instantly healed.

The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

Another remarkable incident of remote healing happened later in his ministry to another Gentile, this time a woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon with a demon-possessed daughter recorded in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30.  Mark refers to this woman as a Gentile in general and a Syrophoenician in particular, while Matthew refers to her as a Canaanite.  For Matthew’s Jewish audience, this implied that she was not only a Gentile but also under the special curse of the Canaanites that dates all the way back to Noah, which I discussed in a previous post.  In their understanding this woman was especially cut off from the blessings of God.  Therefore she, like the centurion, knew that she did not deserve for Jesus to perform a miracle for her.  Referring to Jesus as the Son of David, she asks Him to have mercy on her just as blind Bartimaeus would later do (Mark 10:48, Luke 18:38-39).  Christ’s response is puzzling, first silence before a cryptic response that many have taken as an insult.  Jesus seems to indicate that he will not heal her daughter by saying that He was sent to Israel, of which she was not a part.  He then says it is wrong to give the children’s bread to dogs.  This has often been misunderstood as Jesus calling her a dog, which has led some to even accuse Jesus of sin.  Such an interpretation would undermine the entire Gospel, as a sinful Jesus could not rescue sinners from God’s wrath.  Therefore, that interpretation cannot be true.  Instead, Jesus is clearly speaking metaphorically, which we will discuss shortly.  Why did He speak metaphorically to her rather than simply healing her daughter as he healed the centurion’s slave?  Some have postulated that Jesus was testing the woman’s faith.  This is possible as He similarly delayed before healing Bartimaeus.  Regardless, both this woman and Bartimaeus demonstrated faith and were subsequently granted their requests.  But did Jesus do miracles for them because of their faith or for another reason?  The answer to this question helps us see the true role faith plays in all of Christ’s miracles.

The Purpose of Miracles

While we often focus on the miracles of Jesus as being central to His ministry, all of His miracles were actually secondary to His primary purpose of revealing who He is and ushering in the Kingdom of God.  All of His miracles prove His divinity, but the three miracles He performed on people who were not present showed His authority over all of nature and even the demonic realm.  But Jesus also used miracles to support His teaching.  Whether public or private, the miracles of Jesus always have the purpose of teaching someone, usually the disciples.  His miracles often accompanied His teachings, and even when they didn’t someone was observing them.  Driving the demon out of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter was no exception.  Therefore, it was quite possible that Jesus interacted with the woman as He did in order to teach His disciples.  In responding to the woman, He refers to Israelites as lost sheep before likening then to children who have first priority to receive His blessings.  She correctly understands this metaphor and responds with an extension of it, pointing out that the dogs still get fed by what falls from the table.  In other words, the blessings of God cannot be contained to Israel so this Gentile could still be blessed by the natural overflow of God’s blessings even without the direct access to God that the Jews enjoyed.  Therefore, she—like the centurion at Capernaum—understood who Jesus was and trusted in His plan of salvation that could not be contained to ethnic Israel but was destined to extend to all the nations. 

This dialog essentially created a parable that the disciples would see played out. He was about to break down the barrier that stood between Gentiles and God, but the Gentiles were already beginning to experience the blessings of God.  Eventually, the Church—comprised of Jews and Gentiles—would replace ethnic Israel as the chosen people of God, which was a difficult lesson for the disciples to learn.  As a result, both the teachings of Jesus and people’s response to Him slowly taught that lesson.  The Jews generally rejected Jesus despite numerous signs, thus leading to the steady replacement of ethnic Israel with the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles as the true people of God.  The disciples had undoubtedly noticed this and were puzzled by it.  The exchange between Jesus and the woman essentially put this response into a parable by likening the Jewish response to Jesus to children dropping crumbs on the floor which the dogs were eager to enjoy.  So she was merely asking for the blessings that the children had refused.  After admiring her faith, Jesus heals her daughter instantly showing that while He came first to the Jews, He would not exclude the Gentiles from His blessings. 

The gradual exclusion of ethnic Israel and inclusion of the Gentiles is a major theme of this section.  Before this, Jesus had pointed out the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders who defied God’s commands through their traditions, teaching that people are defiled by the evil that comes from their evil hearts rather than anything external (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23).  Not long after this encounter, Jesus fed the four thousand in another Gentile area (Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-10) as the Jews continued to reject Him.  Thus, in healing the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, Jesus was showing His disciples that this transition of God’s blessings from the Jews to the Gentiles was beginning.  The disciples who had originally asked Jesus to send this Gentile woman away would later see her metaphor fulfilled with the inclusion of the Gentiles beginning during His ministry but especially in the early days of the Church.  Jesus was teaching His disciples to have a heart for the nations as God does, a lesson that lasted long after His death and resurrection.  Before Peter was sent to share the Gospel with the centurion Cornelius in the same region as the Canaanite woman, God gave him a vision to drive that lesson home to Peter in Acts 10.  Before healing the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter Jesus had declared all foods clean, and the encounter with the woman should have taught Peter that Jesus was about to declare all ethnicities clean through His blood, even the remnant of the cursed Canaanites, if they place their faith in Him.  In Acts 10, God uses the analogy of food again to teach Peter that Christ had removed the distinction between Jew and Gentile.  It was only after that vision that Peter truly understood the lesson Jesus had been teaching since His encounter with the Syrophoenician woman.  Therefore, it is safe to say that at least one reason that Jesus caused the demon to leave her daughter—and by extension why He healed the centurion’s slave—was to change His disciples’ paradigm of who the true people of God were, teaching them not to make distinctions based on ethnicity.

The Role of Faith

But what about the role of faith in these miracles?  First, the fact that Jesus was using these miracles to teach His disciples a particular lesson means that it was His Will and not their faith that caused Jesus to perform those miracles.  Scripture is clear in many places that God does whatever He pleases regardless of the action or even faith of anyone.  It is absurd for us to think that the omnipotent God is somehow dependent on the amount of our faith, as if He must wait until our faith reaches a certain level before He is able to act.  He has mercy and compassion on whoever He wills, and we can by no means restrain Him—not even by our faith.  This leads to a second reason that faith did not cause Jesus to perform miracles.  If faith was required in order for Jesus to perform miracles, we cannot account for the people He healed who did not exhibit faith.  While the centurion and Syrophoenician woman both exhibited extraordinary faith, the Capernaum official did not, yet all three saw Jesus perform miracles remotely on their behalf.  Similarly, Jesus pointed out how the many widows and lepers in Israel did not receive miracles from God through Elijah and Elisha, but only the widow of Zarephath (in the same region as the Syrophoenician woman) and Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-27).  Doubtless some of the Israelite widows and lepers had more faith than they did.  This is especially true of Naaman, who exhibited no signs of faith. 

So why do the Gospels emphasize faith in so many of Christ’s miracles?  If all of His miracles were to prove His divinity and usher in His Kingdom, it naturally follows that the prominence of faith surrounding these miracles demonstrates its centrality in His Kingdom.  In this new Kingdom of God, faith would be the primary distinguishing factor of its citizens—not heredity, gender, social status, upbringing, good works, or any other human factor.  Faith is so important that it is impossible to please God without it (Hebrews 11:6) and any thought, motive, word, or deed that is not rooted in faith is actually sinful, no matter how good it may appear (Romans 14:23).  But this faith was not general faith in God but specific faith in Jesus Christ, both who He is and what He has done.  It was this specific faith in God and His promises that was counted to Abraham as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), to which Paul refers when explaining that salvation is by faith and not works (Romans 4, Galatians 3) and James cites when explaining that saving faith produces good works and is not mere intellectual ascent (James 2:21-24).  I explain this faith in more detail in a previous post and on my theology page, but for now it will suffice to say that saving faith is a complete dependence on God such that if He does not fulfill His promises to us we are doomed.  God has chosen that such faith is the means through which He gives us salvation.  It is not that such faith itself saves us—Jesus Christ alone saves us—but that Christ’s saving work comes to us and is made effective in us through the medium of faith.  And even that faith is itself a gift of God (Romans 12:3, Ephesians 2:8-9).  Therefore, we do not earn salvation—or any of the blessings of God for that matter—from our faith, but God has chosen that we receive His blessings through the faith that He freely gives according to His Will. 

Conclusion

After looking at a few of Christ’s miracles, it is clear that the faith of the recipients did not compel or even encourage Jesus to perform those miracles.  Jesus performed miracles for who He willed according to His own purposes that are largely beyond our understanding.  Instead, when the faith of the recipients is noted, Jesus was showing the centrality of faith in the new Kingdom He was inaugurating.  By healing the centurion’s son and the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter at a distance, He was both proving His supremacy over all of nature and teaching His disciples that faith in Him by Jews and Gentiles alike was replacing ethnicity as the marker of the people of God—although as Paul points out in Romans 9-11 faith has always been the marker of the true people of God anyway.  This faith is not some currency that we deposit to God as if He was a cosmic vending machine that is therefore somehow compelled to bless us.  Instead, that faith is a complete dependence on God, trusting that whatever He does to us and for us is under His sovereign control and ultimately for His glory and our own good, whether we recognize it or not.  Christians must understand this to avoid being led astray by both prosperity gospel preachers and the more subtle man-centered view of faith that is much more common in our churches.  The miracles of Jesus show that faith is not a human product that moves mountains or moves the heart of God but a dependence on the God who moves mountains and has set His heart toward His people.