01.03 & 04-Whole-Book Context

Chapters 3 & 4 Whole-Book Context

While it is important to read each passage in the context that immediately surrounds it, it is also important to read it in the context of the entire book in which it appears-whether John or Judges or James or other books of the Bible. This is the way God gave us most of the Bible, inspiring particular authors to write books, which the first readers received one book at a time.

Often the particular passage we are studying fits into an argument that runs through that entire book of the Bible. Often points in our passage develop themes that run through that book; viewed in light of how the book treats that theme elsewhere, the points in our passage become much clearer. In some cases, the story runs over several books in our Bible that were once connected as extended narratives (for instance, the Moses story in Exodus carries over from the Joseph story in Genesis, and 1 Samuel through 2 Kings are one long story; so also is Luke plus Acts). A concordance can help you see how given words are used elsewhere in the same book; you can practice this by tracing the word “law” or “Spirit” through Galatians. If you want to develop this skill more fully, instead of using a concordance, simply read through Galatians and make your own list of some themes, and references of the verses where each theme appears.

Following are some examples of how reading a passage in light of the book where it occurs enriches our understanding of the passage.

1. Jewish-Gentile Reconciliation in Romans

We often urge people to be converted by believing in Jesus’ resurrection with their heart and confessing with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. This summary of how to respond to the gospel is based on Romans 10:9-10, which does in fact discuss salvation. But it is helpful to examine why Paul specifically mentions the mouth and heart here (rather than in some other passages which emphasize different aspects of salvation). Certainly Paul would not deny that a deaf mute could be saved simply because they could not confess with their mouth. He chooses the particular words "heart" and "mouth" for specific reasons evident in the context.

We look first at the immediate context, as we did in passages above. Paul believes that we are saved by God’s grace, not by our works. Contrary to the means of justification proposed by Paul’s opponents (Romans 10:1-5), Paul demonstrates from the law of Moses itself that the message of faith is the saving word (Romans 10:6-7). As Moses said, “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Romans 10:8); Moses was referring to the law (Deuteronomy 30:10-11; Deuteronomy 30:14), but the principle was also applicable to the gospel, which was also God’s word. In Moses’ day one could not ascend to heaven to bring the law down from above; God in his mercy already gave it to Israel on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 30:12). Nor was it necessary to descend again into the sea (Deuteronomy 30:13); God had already redeemed his people and brought them through the sea. They could not save themselves; they had to depend on God’s mighty grace (cf. Exodus 20:2). In the same way, Paul says, we don’t bring Christ up from the dead, or send him down from the Father; like the law and Israel’s redemption, Christ’s salvation is God’s gift to us (Romans 10:6-7). Moses declared that this message was "in your mouth and in your heart" (Deuteronomy 30:14), i.e., already given to Israel by God’s grace. Paul explains that likewise God’s message was in your mouth when you confessed Christ with your mouth and in your heart when you believed in Him in your heart (Romans 10:9-10). Faith could come only from hearing this word, the gospel of Christ (Romans 10:17), as we noted above.

The immediate context explains why Paul mentions the "mouth" and the "heart" in this specific passage, but it also raises a new question. Why did Paul have to make an argument from the Old Testament that salvation was by grace through faith? Was there anyone who doubted this? Reading Romans as an entire book explains the reason for each passage within that book. Paul is addressing a controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul begins Romans by emphasizing that the Gentiles are lost (Romans 1:18-32); just as the Jewish Christian readers are applauding, Paul points out that religious people are also lost (Rom 2), and summarizes that everyone is lost (Rom 3). Paul establishes that all humanity is equally lost to remind us that all of us have to come to God on the same terms; none of us can boast against others. But most Jewish people believed that they were chosen for salvation in Abraham; therefore Paul reminds his fellow Jewish Christians that it is spiritual rather than ethnic descent from Abraham that matters for salvation (Rom 4). Lest any of his Jewish readers continue to stress their genetic descent, he reminds them that all people--including themselves--descend from sinful Adam (Romans 5:12-21). Jewish people believed that most Jews kept all 613 commandments in the law (at least most of the time), whereas most Gentiles did not even keep the seven commandments many Jews believed God gave to Noah. So Paul argues that while the law is good, it never saved its practitioners, including Paul (Rom 7); only Jesus Christ could do that! And lest the Jewish Christians continue to insist on their chosenness in Abraham, Paul reminds them that not all Abraham’s physical descendants were chosen, even in the first two generations (Romans 9:6-13). God was so sovereign, he was not bound to choosing people on the basis of their ethnicity (Romans 9:18-24); he could choose people on the basis of their faith in Christ. But lest the Gentile Christians look down on the Jewish Christians, Paul also reminds them that the heritage into which they had been grafted was, after all, Israel’s (Rom 11). God had a Jewish remnant, and would one day turn the majority of Jewish people to faith in Christ (Romans 11:25-26). And at this point Paul gets very practical. Christians must serve one another (Rom 12); the heart of God’s law is actually loving one another (Romans 13:8-10). Ancient literature shows that Roman Gentiles made fun of Roman Jews especially for their food laws and holy days; Paul argues that we should not look down on one another because of such minor differences of practice (Rom 14). He then provides examples of ethnic reconciliation: Jesus though Jewish ministered to the Gentiles (Romans 15:7-12) and Paul was bringing an offering from Gentile churches for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-31). In the midst of his closing greetings, he offers one final exhortation: Beware of those who cause division (Romans 16:17). Getting the whole picture of Romans provides us a clearer understanding of the function of each particular passage in the work as a whole. It also suggests the sort of situation which the letter addresses. What we know of the "background" sheds more light on this situation: Rome earlier expelled the Jewish Christians (Acts 18:1-3), but now they have returned (Romans 16:3). This means that the Roman house churches, which had consisted completely of Gentiles for many years, now face conflict with Jewish Christians who had different cultural ways of doing things. Paul’s letter to the Romans summons Christians to ethnic, cultural, tribal reconciliation with one another by reminding us that all of us came to God on the same terms, through Jesus Christ alone. (But we will turn to the issue of background more fully later.)

2. Justice for the Poor in James

Some people, reading the letter of James, have thought that the letter collects miscellaneous exhortations that do not fit together very well. But their view is unlikely: when one examines James carefully, most of the book actually fits together quite well. In the "immediate context" section above, we asked how James expected us to resist the devil (James 4:7), and argued that he referred to resisting the world’s values. This is a valid general principle, but were there any specific values that James was especially concerned about among his readers? Most likely, there were. In the introduction to James’ letter he introduces several themes which recur through the rest of the letter. By tracing these themes, we get a simple outline of the basic issues the letter addresses. (When I preach on James, I often like to preach from the introduction of the letter, which allows me to actually preach most of the letter using just one or two paragraphs as my outline.) First of all, we see the problem James confronts: his readers encounter various trials (James 1:2). As one reads through the letter, one gathers that many of his readers are poor people who are being oppressed by the rich (James 1:9-11; James 2:2-6; James 5:1-6). (Background sheds even more light on this situation, which was very common in James’s day. But for now we will continue to focus on whole-book context, since we will do more with background later.) Some of James’ readers appear tempted to deal with their problem of various trials in the wrong way: with a violent (whether verbally or physically) response (James 1:19-20; James 2:11; James 3:9; James 4:2). So James offers a solution demanding from them three virtues: endurance (James 1:3-4), wisdom (James 1:5), and faith (James 1:6-8). They need God’s wisdom to properly endure, and they need faith when they pray to God for this wisdom. James returns to each of these virtues later in his letter, explaining them in further detail. Thus he deals with endurance more fully near the end of his letter, using Job and the prophets as biblical examples of such endurance (James 5:7-11). He also demands sincere rather than merely passing faith (James 2:14-26). What he says about faith here is instructive. Some of the poor were tempted to lash out and kill their oppressors, and might think God would still be on their side so long as they had not committed sins like adultery. But James reminds them that murder is sin even if they do not commit adultery (James 2:11). The basic confession of Jewish faith was the oneness of God, but James reminds his friends that even the devil had “faith” that God was one, but this knowledge did not save the devil (James 2:19). Genuine faith means faith that is demonstrated by obedience (James 2:14-18). Thus if we pray "in faith" for wisdom, we must pray in the genuine faith that is willing to obey whatever wisdom God gives us! We must not be "double-minded" (James 1:8), which means trying to embrace both the world’s perspective and God’s at the same time (James 4:8). James especially treats in more detail the matter of wisdom. He is concerned about inflammatory rhetoric--the sort of speech that stirs people to anger against others (James 1:19-20; James 3:1-12). This does not mean that he remains silent toward rich oppressors; he prophesies God’s judgment against them (James 5:1-6)! But he does not approve of stirring people to violence against them. James notes that there are two kinds of wisdom. One kind involves strife and selfishness and is worldly and demonic (James 3:14); this is the sort of view and attitude which tempts his readers. James instead advocates God’s way of wisdom, which is gentle (James 3:13); it is pure--unmixed with other kinds of wisdom--and peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of mercy and the fruit of righteousness which is sown in peace (James 3:17-18). His readers were tempted to use violence (James 4:2) and desire the world’s way of doing things (James 4:4). But rather than taking matters into their own hands, they should submit to God (James 4:7). James is calling us to keep peace with one another. And if he calls the oppressed not to seek to kill their oppressors, how much more does he summon all of us to love and remain gentle toward those closest to us, even those who are unkind to us? "Resisting the devil" may involve more work than some people think!

3. David’s Judgment in 2 Samuel 12:11

Sometimes we think that David’s punishment ended with his son’s death (2 Samuel 12:18). But because David was a leader in God’s household, his behavior affected many others and required strict judgment (2 Samuel 12:14); God takes sin very seriously, especially when it leads others to misunderstand his holiness. In 2 Samuel 12:11, Nathan prophesies against David judgment from within his household, including the rape of some his wives (as he committed immorality with another man’s wife) by a friend of his, in public. This prophecy provides almost an outline for the rest of 2 Samuel! In chapter 13, David’s son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar. Tamar’s full brother Absalom avenges his sister’s honor by killing Amnon--who also happens to be the brother immediately his elder, meaning that--if Chileab is uninvolved in politics (he is nowhere mentioned)--Absalom is also next in line for the throne by birthright (2 Samuel 3:2-3). Absalom returns from exile (ch. 14), and then leads a revolt that nearly destroyed David and his allies (chs. 15-18)--and broke his father’s heart. Absalom slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of Israel (2 Samuel 16:21), despite the fact that this was against the law (Leviticus 20:11). Once this revolt was quelled and David returned to Jerusalem in peace (ch. 19), he had to deal with another revolt in the wake of the previous one, by a Benjamite usurper (ch. 20). By the opening of 1 Kings, the son immediately younger than Absalom is plotting to seize the throne (1 Kgs 1). Though forgiven by God and restored to his throne, David suffered the consequences of his pattern of sin for the rest of his life. This story provides a harsh warning for spiritual leaders today who forget their responsibility to live holy lives.

4. The "least of these" in Matthew 25:40

Many people today emphasize the importance of caring for the poor by reminding us that Jesus warned us we would be judged by how we treat "the least of these" Jesus’ brothers (Matthew 25:40; Matthew 25:45). While it is true that God will judge us according to how we treat the poor, is the "poor" what Jesus means here by his "brothers"? Will the nations be judged (Matthew 25:32) only for this? The immediate context does not settle the issue, but the broader context of the Gospel tradition may help more. What does Jesus mean elsewhere by "brothers" and by the "least"? Because ancient readers would unwind a scroll from the beginning, the first readers would have already read the preceding chapters before coming to Matthew 25. Thus they would know that Jesus’ brothers and sisters included all those who did his will (Matthew 12:48-50), that all Jesus’ disciples are brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and, before they finished the Gospel, would know that Jesus’ disciples remained his brothers after his resurrection (Matthew 28:10). (Because of the way the Greek language works, "brothers" often can include "sisters" as well, but in Matthew 28:10 the women disciples are addressing specifically the men disciples.) When Jesus speaks of the "least" in the kingdom, he sometimes also refers to some disciples (Matthew 11:11). Who then are the least of these disciples of Jesus that the nations accepted or rejected? It is at least possible that these are messengers of the gospel, "missionaries," who bring the gospel to all unreached people groups before the day of judgment; certainly the message about the kingdom would be spread among all those people groups before the kingdom would come (Matthew 24:14). These messengers might be hungry and thirsty because of the comforts they sacrificed to bring others the gospel; they might be imprisoned because of persecution; they might even be worn down to sickness by their efforts (like Epaphroditus in Php 2:27-30). But those who received such messengers would receive Jesus who sent them, even if all they had to give them was a cup of cold water to drink--as Jesus had taught earlier (Matthew 10:11-14; Matthew 10:40-42). It is possible, then, in light of the entire Gospel of Matthew, that these "least brothers and sisters" are the lowliest of the missionaries sent to the nations; the nations will be judged according to how they respond to Jesus’ emissaries.

5. What it means to Believe in John 3:16

John 3:16 does refer to salvation from sin through faith in Jesus, as we usually expect. But we do not catch the full meaning of this verse unless we read the Gospel of John the whole way through. The rest of the Gospel sheds light on what this verse means about the "world" (for instance, it includes Samaritans--see John 4:42 in context), on how God expressed his love (by describing the cross), and other issues. We focus here on what John 3:16 means by saving faith. Someone may say he believes in Jesus, yet this person may attend church once a year and continue to live in unrepentant sin (let us say this person murders people every other weekend). Is this person really a Christian? What does it really mean to "believe" in Jesus? The rest of the Gospel of John clarifies what Jesus means here by saving faith. Just before the conversation in which Jesus speaks 3:16, John tells us about some inadequate believers. Many people were impressed with Jesus’ miracles and "believed" in him, but Jesus refused to put his faith in them because he knew what was really inside them (John 2:23-25). They had some sort of faith, but it was not saving faith. What would happen if someone professed faith in Christ, then later renounced Christ and became a Muslim or worshiped old Yoruba gods? Would their earlier profession of faith be enough to save them in the end? The question is not hard to answer in light of the rest of John’s Gospel, though some of us may not like the answer. Later in the Gospel of John, some of Jesus’ hearers "believed" in him, but he warned them that they must continue in his word, so proving to be his disciples and learning the truth which would free them (John 8:30-32). By the end of the chapter, however, these hearers have already proved unfaithful: they actually want to kill Jesus (John 8:59). Jesus later warns that those who fail to continue in him will be cast away (John 15:4; John 15:6). In John’s Gospel, genuine saving faith is the kind of faith that perseveres to the end. The purpose of John’s Gospel was to record some of his signs for Christian readers who had never seen Jesus in person, that they might come to a deeper level of faith, the kind of faith that would be strong enough to persevere in following Jesus to the end (John 20:30-31). John makes this comment right after narrating the climactic confession of faith in this Gospel. Jesus summons Thomas to "believe," and Thomas expresses his faith by calling Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:27-28). Jesus’ deity is an emphasis in John’s Gospel (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 8:58), so of all the other confessions about Jesus’ identity in this Gospel (John 1:29; John 1:36; John 1:49; John 6:69), this is the climactic one: He is God. The content of Thomas’s faith is correct, but John wants more from his own readers. Correct information about Jesus is necessary, but by itself correct information is not necessarily strong faith. Thomas believed because he saw, but Jesus says that he wants greater faith that can believe even before it sees (John 20:29). John’s readers believe because he narrates his eyewitness testimony to them (John 20:30-31), confirmed by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26-27; John 16:1-15). In John 3:16, saving faith is not just praying a single prayer, then going on our way and forgetting about Jesus for the rest of our lives. Saving faith is embracing Jesus with such radical dependence on his work for us that we stake our lives on the truth of his claims.

6. Under the Law in Romans 7

Earlier we noted the importance of the entire structure of Romans, which teaches us about ethnic reconciliation. In this context, the specific function of Romans 7 is significant: Paul notes that believers are no longer "under the law" (Romans 7:1-6). But he also notes that the problem is not with the law itself (Romans 7:7; Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14), but with humans as creatures of "flesh." Many people take this chapter as also depicting Paul’s present enslavement to sin, and some even use it to justify living sinfully, saying, "If Paul could not keep from living in sin, how can we?" Is that really Paul’s point? In Romans 7:14, Paul declares that he is "fleshly, sold into slavery to sin." In surrounding chapters, however, he declares that all believers in Jesus have been freed from sin and made slaves to God and righteousness (Romans 6:18-22). In Romans 7:18, Paul complains that "nothing good dwells" in him, but in Romans 8:9 he explains that the Spirit of Christ dwells in all true believers. In Romans 7:25 he confesses that he serves with his body the "law of sin"; but in Romans 8:2 he declares that Jesus has freed believers from "the law of sin and death." Why this apparent confusion? Probably only because we have missed the primary issue. Although Paul speaks graphically about life under the law in Romans 7, he is not implying that this is his typical daily Christian life. He says that when believers "were" in the flesh (probably meaning, ruled by their own desires), their sinful passions stirred by the law were producing death in them. By contrast, Paul says, "But now" believers have been "freed from the law," serving instead by the Spirit (Romans 7:5-6). That is, most of Romans 7 depicts the frustration of trying to achieve righteousness by the works of the law, that is, by human effort (Rom 7 speaks of "I," "me," "my" and "mine" over forty times). When we accept the righteousness of God as a free gift in Jesus Christ, however, we become able to walk in newness of life, and the rest of the Christian life is daring to trust the finished work of Christ enough to live like it is so (Romans 6:11). To the extent that our lives resemble Romans 7 at all, it is because we are trying to make ourselves good enough for God instead of accepting His gracious love for us.

7. Reproving Loveless Christians in 1 Corinthians 13

We often quote 1 Corinthians 13 as if it is an all-purpose description of love, for weddings, marriage counseling, friendships, and so forth. The principles in this chapter are in fact universal enough to apply to those situations, but Paul originally wrote them to address a specific situation which many of us today miss. Paul was addressing the appropriate use of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church was divided over a variety of issues. One such issue, addressed in chapters 12-14, was the use of some spiritual gifts. Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that the purpose of all publicly used gifts is to build up the body of Christ. In chapter 14, he emphasizes that prophecy is more important in public worship than tongues, because it builds up the church better (unless the tongues is interpreted). Between these two chapters is chapter 13, revealing love as the key virtue that moves us to use all our gifts to build up Christ’s church. Paul emphasizes that even if we have the greatest gifts, we are nothing without love (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). He points out that the gifts are temporary, due to pass away at Christ’s return when we see him face to face (1 Corinthians 13:8-10); love, however, is eternal (1 Corinthians 13:11-13). Between these two points he describes the characteristics of love--characteristics which, in the context of the entire book, directly address what the Corinthian Christians lack (1 Corinthians 13:4-8). Love is not jealous or arrogant or boastful (1 Corinthians 13:4), but the Corinthian Christians certainly were jealous (1 Corinthians 3:3) and arrogant (1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 4:18-19; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 8:1) and boastful (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:29; 1 Corinthians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Corinthians 5:6). In short, everything Paul says love is, he has already told the Corinthians they are not! Paul’s praise of love is simultaneously a gentle rebuke! But just as love is our first priority, love tells us which gifts to seek most for the building up of Christ’s body. The verses immediately surrounding 1 Corinthians 13 remind us that we should seek from God for public worship especially the "greater" gifts, those like prophecy which build up others (1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1).

8. The Spirit-baptized life in Mark 1:8-13

The Gospel of Mark explicitly mentions God’s Spirit only six times, but half of them appear in his introduction (Mark 1:8-13), where he introduces several of his central themes for his audience. His other uses emphasize the Spirit’s work in empowering Jesus for exorcism (Mark 3:29-30), Old Testament prophets to speak God’s message (Mark 12:26) or Jesus’ witnesses to speak his message (Mark 13:11). In the introduction, John the Baptist announces the mighty one who will baptize others in the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8); this Spirit-baptizer is Jesus of Nazareth. Immediately after this announcement, we see Jesus baptized and the Spirit coming on him (Mark 1:9-10). The Spirit-baptizer thus gives us a model of what the Spirit-baptized life will look like, for he himself receives the Spirit first. That is why what the Spirit does next appears all the more stunning: the Spirit thrusts Jesus into the wilderness for conflict with the devil (Mark 1:12-13). The Spirit-filled life is not a life of ease and comfort, but of conflict with the devil’s forces! The rest of the Gospel of Mark continues this pattern. Shortly after Jesus emerges from the wilderness, he must confront an evil spirit in a religious gathering (Mark 1:21-27). Throughout the rest of the Gospel, Jesus continues to defeat the devil by healing the sick and driving out demons (cf. Mark 3:27), while the devil continues to strike at Jesus through the devil’s religious and political agents. In the end, the devil manages to get Jesus killed--but Jesus triumphs by rising from the dead. In the same way, Jesus expects his disciples to heal the sick and drive out demons (Mark 3:14-15; Mark 4:40; Mark 6:13; Mark 9:19; Mark 9:28-29; Mark 11:22-24), and also to join him in suffering (Mark 8:34-38; Mark 10:29-31; Mark 10:38-40; Mark 13:9-13). His disciples seemed more happy to share his triumphs than his sufferings, but the Gospel of Mark emphasizes that we cannot share his glory without also sharing his suffering. That lesson remains as relevant for modern disciples as for ancient ones!

9. How to Make Disciples in Matthew 28:18-20

The immediate context of Matthew 28:18-20 provides us examples for how to testify about Christ (Matthew 28:1-10) and how not to testify about Christ (Matthew 28:11-15). But the context of the whole Gospel of Matthew further informs how we should read this passage, especially because it is the conclusion of the Gospel and readers would have finished the rest of this Gospel by the time they reach it. The command to "make disciples" of all nations (KJV has "teach" them) is surrounded by three clauses in Greek that describe how we make disciples of the nations: by "going," "baptizing," and "teaching." Jesus had spoken of "going" when he had sent his disciples out even within Galilee (Matthew 10:7), but here disciples must go to other cultures and peoples because they will make disciples of the "nations." Making disciples of the "nations" fits an emphasis developed throughout this Gospel. The four women specifically mentioned in Jesus’ ancestry (Matthew 1:2-17) appear to be Gentiles: Tamar the Canaanite, Rahab the Jerichoite, Ruth the Moabitess, and the "widow of Uriah" the Hittite (Matthew 1:3; Matthew 1:5-6). Ancient Jewish genealogies normally emphasized the purity of one’s Israelite lineage, but this genealogy deliberately underlines the mixed-race heritage of the Messiah who will save Gentiles as well as Jews. When many of his own people ignored or persecuted him, pagan astrologers from the East came to worship him (Matthew 2:1-12). God and his Son could raise up Abraham’s children even from stones (Matthew 3:9), work in "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15), bless the faith of a Roman military officer (Matthew 8:5-13), deliver demoniacs in Gentile territory (Matthew 8:28-34), compare Israelite cities unfavorably with Sodom (Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:23-24), reward the persistent faith of a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28), allow the first apostolic confession of Jesus’ Messiahship in pagan territory (Matthew 16:13), promise that all nations would hear the gospel (Matthew 24:14), and allow the first confession of Jesus as God’s Son after the cross to come from a Roman execution squad (Matthew 27:54). Matthew probably wrote to encourage his fellow Jewish Christians to evangelize the Gentiles, so the Gospel fittingly closes on this command. "Baptizing" recalls the mission of John the Baptist, who baptized people for repentance (Matthew 3:1-2; Matthew 3:6; Matthew 3:11). Baptism in Jewish culture represented an act of conversion, so as "going" may represent cross cultural ministry, we may describe Jesus’ command to "baptize" as evangelism. But evangelism is not sufficient to make full disciples; we also need Christian education. "Teaching" them all that Jesus commanded is made easier by the fact that Matthew has provided us Jesus’ teachings conveniently in five major discourse sections: Jesus’ teachings about the ethics of the kingdom (chs. 5-7); proclaiming the kingdom (ch. 10); parables about the present state of the kingdom (ch. 13); relationships in the kingdom (ch. 18); and the future of the kingdom and judgment on the religious establishment (chs. 23-25). But in Matthew’s Gospel, we do not make disciples the way most Jewish teachers in his day made disciples. We make disciples not for ourselves but for our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:8). This final paragraph of Matthew’s Gospel fittingly concludes various themes about Jesus’ identity in this Gospel as well. John (Matthew 3:2), Jesus (Matthew 4:17), and his followers (Matthew 10:7) announced God’s kingdom, his reign; now Jesus reigns with all authority in all creation (Matthew 28:18). Further, we baptize not only in the name of God and his Spirit, but in the name of Jesus (Matthew 28:19), thereby ranking Jesus as deity alongside the Father and the Spirit. And finally, Jesus’ promise to be with us always as we preach the kingdom until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20) recalls earlier promises in the Gospel. Jesus himself is "Immanuel," "God with us" (Matthew 1:23), and wherever two or three gather in his name he will be among them (Matthew 18:20). To any ancient Jewish reader, these statements would imply that Jesus was God. Does the promise that Jesus will be with us "till the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20) imply that once the age ends he will no longer be with us? Such an idea would miss entirely the point of the text. Jesus is promising to be with us in carrying out his commission (Matthew 28:19); that must be accomplished before the age ends (Matthew 24:14), so the nations can be judged according to how they have responded to this message (Matthew 25:31-32). Taking this passage in the context of the entire Gospel provides us plenty of preaching material without even stepping outside Matthew!

10. Loyalty to the Death in John 13:34-35

When Jesus commands us to love one another as he has loved us, why does he call this a "new" commandment (John 13:34)? Did not God command all believers to love one another even in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18). What makes this commandment a new commandment is the new example set by the Lord Jesus. The immediate context makes this example clearer. Jesus takes the role of a humble servant by washing his disciples’ feet (John 13:1-11); he also calls on his disciples to imitate his servanthood (John 13:12-17). In the same context, we understand the degree to which he became a servant for us by noting what he would suffer: Jesus and the narrator keep talking about Jesus’ impending betrayal (John 13:11; John 13:18-30). Jesus explains that he is being "glorified" (John 13:31-32), i.e., killed (John 12:23-24); he is about to leave the disciples (John 13:33), and Peter is not yet spiritually prepared to follow Jesus in martyrdom (John 13:36-38). This is the context of loving one another "as" Jesus loved us. We are called to sacrifice even our lives for one another! The rest of the Gospel of John illustrates more fully Jesus’ example of love and servanthood which culminates in the cross.

11. Judah’s Punishment in Genesis 38

In his attacks on Christianity, South African writer Ahmed Deedat complains that the Bible is full of pornography and that Genesis 38, the story of Judah and Tamar, is a "filthy, dirty story." Did the Bible include this story simply to satisfy base interests of ungodly readers? Or have Deedat and others missed the entire point of the story? The story can be summarized briefly, after which we will quickly see a moral lesson in it. Judah has three sons, Er (Genesis 38:3), Onan (Genesis 38:4), and Shelah (Genesis 38:5). When God killed Er for sinful behavior (Genesis 38:7), his younger brother Onan automatically inherited Er’s responsibility to raise up offspring for his brother’s name. Some cultures where women cannot earn money practice widow inheritance, where another brother takes over the deceased brother’s wife. In the cultures around this family, however, normally a brother would simply get the widow pregnant, so that she could have a son who would receive her first husband’s share of the inheritance; this son would in turn support her in her old age. But Onan spills his seed on the ground, and God angrily strikes him dead (Genesis 38:9-10), as he had struck his brother before him. Why did Onan "spill his seed"? And what was so sinful about him doing so? The firstborn (in this case Er) normally received twice as much inheritance as any other brother; if Onan raised up a son for his brother, that son would be counted as his brother’s son and would receive half the inheritance, leaving only a quarter for Onan and a quarter for Shelah. But if Tamar could not become pregnant, Onan would receive two-thirds of the inheritance and Shelah one-third. Onan was greedy, and cared more about the extra inheritance than about honoring his brother and providing for Tamar. God defended Tamar’s honor, because he cared about Tamar. The text teaches us about justice. But the story goes on. Judah, fearing that allowing his sons to sleep with Tamar is leading to their deaths, refuses to give his final son to Tamar. In some of the surrounding cultures (though never in later Israelite law), if a brother were unavailable, a father was considered acceptable; so Tamar takes matters into her own hands. She disguises herself as a prostitute, knowing what kind of person Judah is; then she allows him to impregnate her, but keeps his signet ring so she can later prove that he is the father (Genesis 38:18). When Judah learns that Tamar is pregnant, he orders her to be executed. This reflects a double standard practiced in many cultures: the idea that a man can have sex with anyone (as Judah slept with what he thought was a prostitute) but a woman cannot. But God has no double standard: sin is as wrong for a man as it is for a woman. Tamar sent him the signet ring, forcing Judah to release her and admit, "She is more righteous than I" (Genesis 38:26). That was the moral of the story: Judah was immoral and raised two immoral sons, and now is caught in his guilt. By challenging the double standard of his culture, the writer argues against sin. This is not a "dirty story" at all! But whole-book context shows us more. The chapter directly before chapter 38 is chapter 37, where Judah takes the lead in selling his brother Joseph into slavery. In chapter 38, Judah’s lifestyle of sin finally catches up with him, and he suffers for it! He sold his father’s son into slavery; now he loses two of his own sons to death. The chapter after 38 is chapter 39, where Joseph resists the sexual advances of Potipher’s wife, despite the penalty he faces for doing so. Joseph does not practice a double standard: he lives holy no matter what the cost. And a few chapters later, God rewards Joseph for his obedience; he becomes Pharaoh’s vizier, and the agent through whom God can actually rescue the very brothers who sold him into slavery. And when Joseph is exalted, Pharaoh gives Joseph his signet-ring (Genesis 41:42)--inviting us to remember Judah who lent his to what he thought was a prostitute (Genesis 38:11). The larger story has a moral: those who live sinful lifestyles may prosper in the short run, but eventually they suffer; by contrast, those who remain faithful to God may suffer at first, but in the end they will be blessed. This, however, is not the end of the story. Although Judah took the lead in selling his half-brother Joseph into slavery, Judah learned from his mistakes. Later he takes responsibility for Joseph’s full brother Benjamin before their father Jacob (Genesis 43:8-9), and for his father’s sake takes responsibility for Benjamin before Joseph (Genesis 44:16-34). Judah is ready to become a slave himself to keep Benjamin from becoming one--and this is what convinces Joseph that his brothers finally have changed. The final moral of the story, then, is one of forgiveness and reconciliation, and the faithfulness of God who arranged events to bring it all about. Ahmed Deedat did not read far enough to understand the story! l2. Rivers of Living Water in John 7:37-38

Jesus’ promise of rivers of living water in John 7:37-38, referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit (John 7:39), is exciting in any case. But it is especially exciting if one traces through the rest of the Gospel the contrast between the true water of the Spirit and merely ritual uses of water by Jesus’ contemporaries. John’s baptism in water was good, but Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit was better (John 1:26; John 1:33). Strict Jewish ritual required the waterpots in Cana to be used only for ritual waters to purify, but when Jesus turned the water into wine he showed that he valued his friend’s honor more than ritual and tradition (John 2:6). A Samaritan woman abandons her waterpot used to draw water from the sacred ancestral well when she realizes that Jesus offers new water that brings eternal life (John 4:13-14). A sick man unable to be healed by water that supposedly brought healing (John 5:7) finds healing instead in Jesus (John 5:8-9); a blind man is healed by water in some sense but only because Jesus "sends" him there (John 9:7). The function of this water is suggested more fully in John 3:5. Here Jesus explains that Nicodemus cannot understand God’s kingdom without being born "from above" (John 3:3, literally), i.e., from God. Some Jewish teachers spoke of Gentiles being "reborn" in a sense when they converted to Judaism, but Nicodemus cannot conceive of himself as a Gentile, a pagan, so he assumes Jesus speaks instead of reentering his mother’s womb (John 3:4). So Jesus clarifies his statement. Jewish people believed that Gentiles converted to Judaism through circumcision and baptism, so Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he must be reborn "from water." In other words, Nicodemus must come to God on the same terms that Gentiles do! But if Jesus means by "water" here what he means in John 7:37-38, he may mean water as a symbol for the Spirit, in which case he is saying, "You must be born of water, i.e., the Spirit" (a legitimate way to read the Greek). If so, Jesus may be using Jewish conversion baptism merely to symbolize the greater baptism in the Spirit that he brings to those who trust in him. The water may also symbolize Jesus’ sacrificial servanthood for his disciples (John 13:5). So what does Jesus mean by the rivers of living water in John 7:37-38? Even though we will deal with background and translations more fully later, we need to use them at least briefly here to catch the full impact of this passage. First, in most current translations, at least a footnote points out an alternate way to punctuate John 7:37-38 (the earliest Greek texts lacked punctuation, and the early church fathers divided over which interpretation to take). In this other way to read the verses, it is not clear that the water flows from the believer; it may flow instead from Christ. Since believers "receive" rather than give the water (John 7:39), and since they elsewhere have a "well" rather than a "river" (John 4:14), Christ may well be the source of water in these verses. (This is not to deny the possibility that believers may experience deeper empowerments of the Spirit after their conversion.) Jewish tradition suggests that on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, priests read to the people from Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47, which talk of rivers of living water flowing forth from the Temple in the end time. Jesus is now speaking on the last day of that feast (John 7:2; John 7:37), probably alluding to the very Scriptures from which they had read ("as the Scripture said," John 7:38). Jewish people thought of the Temple as the "navel" or "belly" of the earth. So Jesus may be declaring, "I am the foundation stone of the new temple of God. From me flows the water of the river of life; let the one who wills come and drink freely!" Normally (as we will point out below) one should not read symbolism into biblical narratives, but the end of John’s Gospel may be an exception, a symbol God provided those who watched the crucifixion. (John uses symbolism a little more than narratives normally do.) When a soldier pierced Jesus’ side, water as well as blood flowed forth (John 19:34). Literally, a spear thrust near the heart could release a watery fluid around the heart as well as blood. But John is the only writer among the four Gospel writers to emphasize the water, and he probably mentions it to make a point: once Jesus was lifted up on the cross and glorified (John 7:39), the new life of the Spirit became available to his people. Let us come and drink freely.

13. Moses’ Character in Exodus 6:10-30

Most of us do not preach from genealogies; most individual genealogies were probably not designed exactly for preaching anyway. But one must ask why God suddenly interrupts the story of Moses with a genealogy in Exodus 6:14-25. God commands Moses to tell Pharaoh to release his people, but Moses protests that his own people have not heeded him, so how would Pharaoh listen to him (Exodus 6:10-13)? After the genealogy, the narrative repeats the point: God commands Moses to confront Pharaoh, and Moses protests that Pharaoh will not listen to him. What is the point of interrupting this narrative with a genealogy? The genealogy itself lists three tribes, the three oldest tribes, which sages who remembered the story might have called out until getting to Moses’ tribe. But the fact that the genealogy occurs at this point in the narrative may indicate more than that. The list reminds us that Moses was descended from Levi, and related to Reuben and Simeon. Reuben slept with his father’s concubine and Simeon and Levi massacred all the men in Shechem. By placing the genealogy here, Exodus may be commenting on why Moses was so uncomfortable with confronting Pharaoh. If he was descended from such people as Levi, Reuben and Simeon, is it any wonder that Moses would act like this? With the exception of Jesus, all the people God chose in the Bible were people with weaknesses rather than those who might think they "deserved" to be called. God chose broken people whose triumphs would bring glory to him rather than to themselves.

14. Rebekah’s Deceit (Genesis 27:5-10)

Some readers have accused both Isaac and Rebekah of equal fault in favoring their sons (Esau and Jacob respectively; Genesis 27:1-10). But in context of the entire book of Genesis, the motives of the two parents are quite different. Isaac favors the elder son (Genesis 25:25; Genesis 27:4), but the whole patriarchal line suggests that God does not always choose the elder son (Genesis 21:12; Genesis 49:3-4), and paternal favoritism produces problems (Genesis 37:4); Jacob himself finally learns and practices this in his old age (Genesis 48:14-20). What are Rebekah’s motives? The clearest clue the text itself provides is in Genesis 25:22-23 : she had sought God, and God had told her that the younger would prevail. In contrast to Isaac, Rebekah acts on the basis of a word from God. Further, Esau had married pagan wives and sold his birthright, with apparently no sense of responsibility for the call on this family to be God’s blessing to the earth (Genesis 25:31-34; Genesis 26:34-35). In a culture where the husband’s will was law and Isaac was blind to God’s choice, Rebekah took the only route she knew to secure God’s promise. Genesis is full of accounts that underline for Israel the miracle of their blessing and existence--three barren matriarchs (Genesis 18:11; Genesis 25:21; Genesis 30:22), royal abduction or threatening of matriarchs (Genesis 12:13; Genesis 20:2; Isaac repeated his father’s example-- Genesis 26:7), and so on. Elsewhere in Genesis someone other than the patriarch makes a choice, nevertheless leaving the right land to the patriarch (Genesis 13:9-13; Genesis 36:6-8). In the context of the themes the entire book emphasizes, it is consistent to believe that God worked through Rebekah’s deception, as he worked through a variety of other means, to protect his chosen line. This is not to say that the deception was God’s preferred means to accomplish this, though he sometimes blessed deception when it would save human life from unjust oppressors (Exodus 1:18-21; Joshua 2:5-6; 1 Samuel 16:1-3; 2 Samuel 17:19-20; 2 Kings 8:10; Jeremiah 38:24-27). As Jacob stole his brother’s birthright through deception, so he is deceived through two sisters. When Isaac asked Jacob his name, he lied to get the blessing (Genesis 27:18-19), hence incurring his brother’s murderous anger (Genesis 27:41). His mother promised to send for him when it proved safe to return (Genesis 27:45), but apparently she died in the meantime hence could not send for him, so when he is returning he expects that Esau still desires to kill him (Genesis 32:11). Thus he struggles all night with the Lord or his agent, and he is confronted with his past. This time, before he can receive the blessing from God, he is asked his name and must tell the truth (Genesis 32:26-27; and then gets a new name-- Genesis 32:28), in contrast to the time he sought his father’s blessing (Genesis 27:18-19). But God was with Jacob even in spite of himself; he met angels both going from (Genesis 28:12) and returning to (Genesis 32:2) the land. In this story, though Isaac outlives Rebekah, she was the one with the greater perception of God’s purposes for their descendants.

15. Casting Lots in Acts 1:26

Some interpreters today suggest that the apostles made a mistake in casting lots for a twelfth apostle, even though it was before the day of Pentecost. The immediate context, however, suggests something positive; the believers were in prayerful unity (Acts 1:12-14; Acts 2:1), and now Peter has exhorted them to replace the lost apostle (Acts 1:15-26). Would Luke spend so much space to describe a practice he disagreed with, and then fail to offer any word of correction? Whole-book context in Acts actually invites us to read Luke and Acts together, for they were two volumes of one work (Acts 1:1-2; cf. Luke 1:1-4). When we read them together we see that Luke’s Gospel also opens with a casting of lots, in this case, one used to select which priest would serve in the temple (Luke 1:9). In that case, God certainly controlled the lot, for by it Zechariah was chosen to serve in the temple, and subsequently received a divine promise specifically designed for himself and Elizabeth, the promise of a son, John the Baptist (Luke 1:13). If God controlled the lot in the opening story of volume one, why not in the opening story (after repeating the ascension) in volume 2? The background would help us further: if God controlled the lot throughout the Old Testament, including for selection of levitical ministries, why should we doubt that he used this method on this one occasion in Acts, before the Spirit’s special guidance inaugurated with Pentecost (Acts 2:17).

16. Some Closing Observations on “Biblical Theology”

Sometimes today we start with specific doctrinal assumptions and read them into the Bible. The danger with this method is that it keeps us from ever learning anything new--if we read the Bible only as a textbook of what we already believe, we are likely to miss anything it has to teach and correct us. Thus it is important to learn the Bible’s perspectives as they are written. But while we affirm that the Bible is correct and does not contradict itself, we recognize that some books of the Bible emphasize some themes more than other books do. Thus, for example, if one reads the Book of Revelation, one is more likely to find an emphasis on Jesus’ second coming than in the Gospel of John; in the Gospel of John, there is a heavier emphasis on eternal life available in the present. In the same way, when Paul writes to the Corinthians about speaking in tongues, he emphasizes its use as prayer; when Luke describes tongues in Acts, it functions as a demonstration that God transcends all linguistic barriers, fitting Luke’s theme that the Spirit empowers God’s people to cross cultural barriers. Different writers and books often have different emphases; these differences do noy contradict one another, but we must study them respectfully on their own terms before we try to put them together. This principle is important in whole-book (or sometimes whole-author) context. When a specific passage seems obscure to us and we cannot tell which way the author meant it, it helps to look at the rest of the book to see what the author emphasizes. Thus, for example, the fact that the Gospel of John so often stresses that future hopes like “eternal life” are present realities (e.g., John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24-25; John 11:24-26) may help shed light on how we approach John 14:2-3, as noted above. At the same time, we should never forget that each New Testament writing, however distinctive, is also part of a larger context of the teaching of apostolic Christianity, which had some common features. Thus, though the Gospel of John emphasizes the presence of the future, it in no way minimizes the fact that Jesus will return someday future as well (John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40).

Whole book interpretation principles:

Before we close this chapter, we should summarize some whole book interpretation principles. Most of the chapter has been illustrating these principles.

•We must be careful never to "miss the forest for the trees," as the saying goes: We must not focus so much on difficult details at the beginning that we miss the larger picture of what the book of the Bible is trying to say. (One can work on more details later.) •We should look for the themes that follow through any particular book in the Bible.

•    We should get the flow of argument in any book of the Bible where that is relevant.

•    It is often helpful to trace various themes where they occur in a book of the Bible, taking notes on them, or outline the flow of argument.