Tag Archives: The Bible Knowledge Commentary

Commentary on Job 21

In the previous 20 chapters of the book of Job, Job’s three friends have argued that Job is being punished for sins he has committed. Their theology is simple: God always and immediately punishes the wicked and always and immediately blesses the righteous.

In chapter 20, Zophar summarizes this theology: “Surely you know how it has been from of old, ever since mankind was placed on the earth, that the mirth of the wicked is brief, the joy of the godless lasts but a moment.”

In chapter 21, Job answers Zophar. He starts in verses 1-3 by begging his “friends” to listen to him. Job requests that they stop mocking him for a moment and pay attention to what he has to say.

In verses 4-16, Job reminds his friends, first, of the horrible condition he is in. Then he begins to dismantle their faulty theology.  Job points out several facts about the wicked.  The wicked live to a ripe old age with their children. Their houses are secure, seemingly with no judgment from God.  The livestock of the wicked prosper, the wicked enjoy music, and the wicked even die in comfort. To top it off, they tell God to leave them alone! Contrary to Zophar’s theology, justice is not always and immediately meted out. Often the godless prosper and the godly perish.

On to verses 17-21. To Bildad’s claim that “the lamp of the wicked is snuffed out” (18:5) in death and that calamity and disaster are ready to overtake him (18:12), Job asks how often (three times in 21:17–18) do these things really happen? Theologian Roy Zuck, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, notes, “This so-called fate allotted by God’s anger to the wicked hardly fits the facts. Sinners are seldom blown away suddenly and easily like straw or chaff.”

In verses 22-26, Job reminds us that one man dies having lived a full and vigorous life, while another man dies having lived a life of bitterness and deprivation. Yet both men end up in the same place after they die. Zuck reminds us,

Wealth or health are not ways by which to judge a person’s character. One may be wicked, and die either young or old; or he may be godly, and die either young or old. These facts obviously conform more to reality than did the rigid view of Job’s three prattling prosecutors.

In verses 27-34, Job wonders how it is that his friends are unaware of these facts. Do they not speak to travelers who can tell them numerous stories about how the wicked never face justice for their crimes? No, the wicked are often carried to their grave by a massive funeral procession, and given great honor, because no one dare challenge them while they are alive. Job’s friends are fools and their theology is bogus.

Commentary on Genesis 37 (Joseph Sold into Slavery)

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Background

As Jacob grew into adulthood, God re-confirmed to Jacob the covenant promises made to Abraham and then Isaac. Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel.  He had originally intended to only marry Rachel, but was tricked into marrying Leah by their father. Jacob also took on their maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, as wives. Through these four women, Jacob fathered 12 sons. The sons that each wife bears are summarized in Genesis 36 as follows:

The sons of Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.

The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.

The sons of Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali.

The sons of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah: Gad and Asher.

The descendants of these sons of Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel, would form the 12 tribes of Israel.

When chapter 37 begins, Jacob (Israel) has settled in Canaan where Abraham and Isaac had lived. Joseph, one of his two sons from Rachel, is seventeen years old. This places the date at roughly 1898 BC.

Commentary

Although verses 1 and 2 announce the account of Jacob, the primary actors of the following chapters are Jacob’s sons, especially Joseph. Recall that Joseph was the firstborn son of Jacob and Rachel, and that Rachel was Jacob’s most favored wife. These facts will play out in chapter 37.

In verses 2-10, we discover several reasons why Joseph’s half brothers would come to hate him. First, Joseph brings bad reports about his brothers to his father. We can imagine that Joseph was obedient and well-behaved, and did not excuse the behavior of his disobedient brothers.

Second, in verses 3-4, we learn that Jacob (Israel) openly favored Joseph over his brothers, and this fact was brought home when Israel gave Joseph, and not his brothers, a richly ornamented robe. This robe indicated that Joseph was to be given the double inheritance and receive the rights of the firstborn, even though he was not actually the firstborn son of Israel (that was Reuben).

Third, Joseph reports two dreams to his brothers. In the first dream, his brothers’ sheaves of grain bow down to his sheaf of grain. In the second dream, the sun, moon, and 11 stars bow down to him. The sun and moon represent his father and mother, and the 11 stars his 11 brothers. According to verse 8, his brothers “hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.”

These dreams indicated that Israel’s choice of Joseph as receiving the rights of the firstborn was confirmed by God. According to Allen P. Ross in The Bible Knowledge Commentary , “God’s sovereign choice of a leader often brings out the jealousy of those who must submit. Rather than recognize God’s choice, his brothers set on a course to destroy him. Their actions, though prompted by the belief that they should lead, shows why they should not have led.”

The story is now set up for what happens next. In verses 12-17, Jacob’s older sons leave to graze their flocks in a distant place called Dothan. Joseph is sent by Israel to find his brothers and report back to his father.

In verses 18-20, his brothers see him coming in the distance and plot against him. Their plan is to kill him, throw him in an empty cistern, and tell their father that he was killed by a wild animal. The oldest son, Reuben, however, steps in and convinces the brothers to throw him in the cistern and not kill him. Reuben’s plan is to come back later and get Joseph out of the cistern and save him.

At this point, it appears that Reuben leaves the brothers for a short time. When Joseph finally arrives, they strip him of his cloak and throw him into the cistern and sit to eat a meal. As they sit down to eat their meal, they see a caravan of Ishmaelite traders coming toward them; they are headed toward Egypt. Remember that Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham who was replaced by Isaac in the covenant promise.

Judah, Reuben’s younger brother, proposes that they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites instead of killing him. The other brothers, except Reuben, agree and sell him. When Reuben returns, he sees what his brothers have done, and tears his clothes in sorrow. The brothers all agree to dip Joseph’s robe in goat’s blood, take it back to Jacob, and let their father believe that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.

At the end of the chapter, we see that Jacob is inconsolable for his loss, and we learn that Joseph has been sold by the Midianites (Ishmaelite and Midianite are used as synonyms) to “Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard.”

Allen P. Ross concludes:

This is a story of hatred and deception. The brothers tried to improve their lot with their father by wicked means. Jacob himself had attempted something similar with his father. The brothers would have to learn, however, as did Jacob, that God does not continue to give His blessings to those who do such things. Their use of goat’s blood is ironic, for the skins of a goat were used by Jacob to deceive his father (27:16). Jacob’s sin of years before had come back to haunt him. The brothers’ attitude would also have to be changed by God, or there would be no nation. Here then is the beginning of the suffering of Joseph, the obedient servant. God would test his character through the things he suffered, so that he could then be exalted.

Why Are Old Testament Sacrifices Incapable of Completely Dealing with Sin? Part 2

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

In part 1, we started to look at why animal sacrifices of the kind specified in the Old Testament Law are incapable of completely dealing with human sin once and for all. First, the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy, and second, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins.

Biblical scholar Duane Lindsey, in The Bible Knowledge Commentaryprovides three more reasons why they weren’t completely effective.

Third, the sacrifices were limited in purpose to the covenant preservation and renewal of a redeemed people. The Levitical sacrifices were a part of the worship of a redeemed people in covenant relationship with their God. Corporately, and perhaps for the most part individually, the occasion of the slaying of the Passover lamb and the application of its blood to the doorposts in Egypt were outward expressions of inward faith that signaled the regeneration and justification of individual Israelites.

The subsequent sacrificial system dealt ideally with worship and covenant renewal, not initial salvation. It was comparable to the New Testament believer’s experience of 1 John 1:9, not to the sinner’s experience of John 3:16. . . .

Fourth, except for the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope and duration to one sin per sacrifice. The forgiveness granted was real though temporary (in the sense that each sin required another sacrifice). Thus while God accepted the sacrifices for the removal of guilt in the case of the sin being dealt with, such temporary stays of divine wrath did not result in the permanent purging of a person’s conscience (Heb. 10:2).

Fifth, the efficacy of sacrifice was not inherent in the animals sacrificed or in any or all parts of the sacrificial ritual. God provided atonement and forgiveness in view of the all-sufficient sacrifice that Jesus Christ would offer on the cross. Christ’s death was “a sacrifice of atonement” by which God paid in full for the forgiveness which He had extended before the Cross (Rom. 3:25).

In other words, the Levitical sacrifices were validated in the mind of God on the basis of Christ’s death as the one truly efficacious Sacrifice for all sin, the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; cf. 1 Peter 1:19–20). The efficacious value of the sacrifices was therefore derivative rather than original. It is in this sense that the author of Hebrews asserts, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Nevertheless the benefits experienced by the Old Testament believers were just as real as the clothing which is worn by a 20th-century credit-card purchaser whose account has not yet been paid in full.

Lindsey summarizes, “The Levitical sacrifices were efficacious both for restoring the covenant relationship and (when offered in faith) for the actual forgiveness of particular sins, but this efficacy was derivative, needing to be validated by the one all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” Once Christ’s sacrifice occurred, the animal sacrifices were no longer needed.

Why Are Old Testament Sacrifices Incapable of Completely Dealing with Sin? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Although virtually no Christians advocate a return to the sacrifices enumerated in the Law, especially in the Book of Leviticus, we should still ask ourselves why this system was not sufficient to completely deal with the sins of mankind.

Duane Lindsey provides a very helpful explanation of the issues in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Lindsey first notes that the sacrifices did accomplish something. Atonement for sins is mentioned several times in Leviticus. According to Lindsey,

[S]acrificial atonement involved the actual removal of the guilt and punishment for the particular sin(s) involved. The broad scope of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement . . . extended this principle to include “all the people” (Lev 16:33) and “all their sins” (v. 22), that is, “all the sins of the Israelites” (v. 34). The complete forgiveness of the Israelites’ sins for the past year is further described in terms of cleansing from sin in verse 30.

But Lindsey notes that there were several limitations of these sacrifices that made them unable to finally and completely deal with mankind’s sin problem.

First, the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy. Since empty ritualism was never an acceptable option to God, a truly acceptable sacrifice must have been prompted by genuine faith and moral obedience to the revealed will of God (26:14–45, esp. v. 31; Pss. 40:6–8; 51:16–17; Prov. 21:27; Amos 5:21–24; Heb. 10:5–10; 11:4, 6).

Sacrifices that were not brought in faith were perhaps sufficient at times for restoring ceremonial cleanness and meeting civil requirements (e.g., the restitution connected with the guilt offering), but did not really please God because they were empty formality. . . .

Second, with the possible exception of the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins. Theologically they did not atone for the sin nature, or for the imputed sin of Adam. Nor did they even include willful acts of sin which were committed in defiance of God (cf. Num. 15:30–31, and comments on Lev. 4:1–2). Therefore Levitical sacrifice was not a complete and final scheme whereby all forms of sin could be removed.

It was mainly concerned with sins of ignorance, accident, carelessness, and omission, including sins of ritual defilement and misdemeanors that violated property rights. Sins for which there was no individual sacrifice were those done in defiance of the Lord and His commands—willful violations of the Ten Commandments (except minor violations of the eighth and ninth commands), willful disregard for ceremonial regulations, and any other violations of covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord. Such sins could be immediately forgiven only on the basis of unqualified grace in response to faith and repentance (cf. Pss. 32; 51). Otherwise they awaited the cleansing of the Day of Atonement ritual.

We’ll look at three more limitations of the Levitical sacrifices in part 2.

Can We Judge God’s Intentions When People Suffer?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Bad things happen to people all the time.  They happen to you and to me, in places nearby and in places far away.  Sometimes when we see a person or persons suffering, and we don’t like their worldview, their moral beliefs, or lifestyle, we Christians do something that we need to stop doing.  We look at the people suffering and we think to ourselves, or even say out loud, “God is punishing them because they are unrighteous.”

There are infamous examples of Christians proclaiming judgment after hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes kill multitudes of people.  Those examples are bad enough, but I want to also call attention to the daily judgments we sometimes make about people who are suffering – people who we confidently believe are being punished by God because of their immoral actions.

Why should we stop judging God’s intentions in this manner?  Because we don’t know, in a given situation, what God’s intentions are.  He simply does not tell us and we need to stop acting like he does.  In addition, and more importantly, Jesus himself denies that we should judge those who suffer or die as more sinful than we are.

In Luke 13:1-5, Luke records the following conversation:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.  Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?  I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?  I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus first refers to some Galileans who were killed by Pilate as they sacrificed.  He flatly rejects the idea that these Galileans are worse sinners than others because they were killed.  Jesus then refers to eighteen people who died when a tower collapsed on them.  Again Jesus denies that these eighteen were more guilty than everyone else.

John Martin, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, explains these verses:

Jesus taught the crowds that calamity can happen to anyone because all are human. Jesus cited two common instances about destruction. The first concerned some Galileans who were killed by Pilate while they were offering sacrifices. The second concerned 18 seemingly innocent bystanders in Siloam who were killed when a tower … fell on them. Jesus’ point was that being killed or not being killed is no measure of a person’s unrighteousness or righteousness. Anyone can be killed. Only God’s grace causes any to live. This point is brought out in verses 3 and 5—unless you repent, you too will all perish. Death is the common denominator for everyone. Only repentance can bring life as people prepare to enter the kingdom.

Next time you think you can judge God’s intentions when people suffer, think again.  Remember that even Jesus refused to make these kinds of judgments.