Sunday, January 8, 2012

Not for Kings! (Prov. 31:1–9)

Not for Kings


An Exposition of Proverbs 31:1–9

by L. A. Mott

January 2012














Not for Kings


The words of king Lemuel; the oracle [Or, burden] which his mother taught him.  [Alternate Reading in Margin:  The words of Lemuel king of Massa, which & c.  See 30:1, margin.]


2 What, my son? and what, O son of my womb?

And what, O son of my vows?


3 Give not thy strength unto women,

Nor thy ways to that which destroys kings.


4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine;

Nor for princes to say, Where is strong drink?  [Another reading is, to desire strong drink.]


5 Lest they drink, and forget the law [Heb. that which is decreed],

And pervert the justice due to any that is afflicted [Heb. all the sons of affliction].


6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,

And wine unto the bitter in soul:


7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty,

And remember his misery no more.


8 Open your mouth for the dumb,

In the cause of all such as are left desolate [Or, ready to pass away:  Heb. the sons of passing away].


9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,

And minister justice to the poor and needy.


Proverbs 31:1–9, American Standard Version





If I were to announce a lesson on Proverbs 31, I imagine most knowledgeable Bible students would expect to hear something on the worthy woman.  The passage on the worthy woman is certainly the most familiar part of this chapter, and the one most Bible students would know. But a less familiar passage is found in the first nine verses, containing advice given to a king by his mother.  

I most definitely remember the time when Proverbs 31:1–9 first gripped my attention.  I am sure I had read this  passage by the time I arrived at Florida College in the mid-fifties of the last century, for I had read the whole Bible through at least once.  But somehow this passage had not captured my attention until Florida College days.  Nor was it in the halls of Biblical learning that attention was focused upon it, but in the college dormitory.

I had a friend whose efforts at Biblical exegesis tended toward the lighthearted, I would say.  I do remember his name, but refrain from revealing it, since after the half century that has passed he probably has become a deep and serious student of scripture.  Back in those days he claimed that Proverbs 21:9 was his favorite scripture:  “It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman in a wide house.”  I think that was it.  But it could have been verse 19, which has a similar sentiment:  “It is better to dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and fretful woman.” This schoolmate of mine would cite one or the other of these verses, and then affirm with all solemnity:  “Yep!  That’s my favorite verse.”

He would also draw attention to Proverbs 31:6, which says:  “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul.”  He would then favor his comrades with his conclusion and application.  “See there!  The Bible not only does not forbid drinking, but actually commands that strong drink or wine be given at least to certain persons.”

What is to be made of such exegesis?  Most Florida College students had grown up with the understanding that strong drink was something to be avoided by Christians. Were these verses really recommending strong drink for some? It certainly seemed so, and I did not know how to reply in my late teens. But we young Christians were not paying attention to the context and setting of these verses; and now I would say that it has never been more important to give attention to context than in dealing with this passage. These verses illustrate the importance of context to the understanding of a Biblical statement as much or more than any other verse I can recall. Due attention to the context of these verses demands an interpretation the direct opposite of what verse 6 might seem to suggest when lifted out of context and considered in isolation from its setting. Verses 6 and 7 have to be understood in connection with the advice Lemuel’s mother gave her son. They look altogether different when they are seen in contrast to both the previous (vv. 3–5) and the succeeding verses (vv. 8–9).

But first we must ask why this mother’s advice to her son is even preserved in scripture. Is it merely a piece of ancient history? And why should we devote any time to it? Is it just a message for kings? The answer is No! In fact this passage is a powerful message not only for kings, but for anyone whose life is important and who has important business that requires the best thinking that can be brought to it. It certainly suggests a challenging lesson for disciples of Christ, for no one has more important business than a disciple of Christ.  A disciple’s life is every bit as significant as that of a king. So let us plunge in and consider this counsel given to Lemuel.


Counsel to King Lemuel from his Mother (1)


The first verse supplies the subject of the passage:  “The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him.”  It consists of advice given to a king named Lemuel by his mother, apparently upon the occasion of his taking office.

To be sure, we do not know who King Lemuel was.  He was probably not a king of Israel or Judah. None of these kings had this name.  Some may speculate that one of these kings had a second name which is not recorded in the historical books.  But we cannot be sure, and another view is more likely.  The word for oracle (or burden) is the Hebrew massa, which does indeed have the meaning oracle, or more likely burden (so the margin). It is often used for a weighty prophecy of judgment to come upon some city or nation.  But the word appears in Genesis 25:14 and First Chronicles 1:30 as a proper name, that of the seventh of the twelve princes of Ishmael, and I am inclined to believe it is used that way here.  It could possibly be the proper name of a country in Proverbs 31:1 (so also 30:1); and that is the way the word is understood in the ASV (1901) margin, which reads: “The words of Lemuel king of Massa, which his mother taught him.” That rendering would seem to solve a problem about the identity of Lemuel, and in fact it is of no significance that he may be king of some nation other than Israel or Judah.  The words Lemuel’s mother taught him would be good advice for any king, or as we shall soon see, any person in an important position with heavy responsibilities.


Son of His Mother’s Vows (2)


At first Lemuel’s mother seems to be pondering what advice she should give her royal son as he faces the burden of responsibility which falls upon a king. The question “What ...?” is explained by what follows and seems to imply:  What shall I say? What counsel can I give my son as he enters upon this important office? She addresses him three times, somewhat in the manner of a soliloquy, first calling him “my son,” then “O son of my womb,” and finally “O son of my vows.” This son was the subject of a vow and clearly, extremely important to his mother.

Recall that the mother of Samuel had taken such a vow about her son.  The story is found in First Samuel Chapter One. Hannah was one of two wives of a man named Elkanah. The other wife, Peninnah, “had children, but Hannah had no children” (vv. 1–2). Elkanah seemed to love Hannah best, though she had no children. When the family went up to sacrifice at Shiloh where the tabernacle was at that time, he gave Peninnah and her children portions, but he gave Hannah a double portion (vv. 3–5). Perhaps especially because of the repeated favoritism shown to Hannah, Peninnah became a rival who badly provoked Hannah because of her childlessness. Hannah became fretful and sad, so “she wept, and did not eat.” The favored treatment given her could not take away her sadness (vv. 6–8). 

Finally, “in bitterness of soul” the long barren woman “prayed unto Jehovah and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, and said, O Jehovah of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget your handmaid, but will give unto your handmaid a man-child, than I will give him unto Jehovah all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head” (1 Sam.1:11). The “razor” part seems to suggest that he would be a Nazirite, specially devoted to Jehovah (Num. 6).

Jehovah heard her prayer and gave her a son, whom she named Samuel because he had been asked of Jehovah (vv. 19–20). After the child was weaned she brought him to the high priest Eli and turned him over to Eli for supervision, saying:  “For this child I prayed; and Jehovah has given me my petition which I asked of him: therefore also I have granted him to Jehovah; as long as he lives he is granted to Jehovah” (vv. 21–27). So Samuel was a special child in Hannah’s eyes, and he was to become one of the greatest of the prophets, and the head of a school of prophets, “the sons of the prophets.”

So also with Lemuel.  His mother considered him to be a special son and had committed him to important service. He was no ordinary boy in her eyes, and like Samuel he was the subject of her vows.  I once had a meal with a young couple, who told me they had played classical music to their infant son when he was still in his mother’s womb. This couple also had high hopes for their son.

Lemuel’s mother had raised a son she considered to be special, and as the time approached that he was about to enter into his office and to fulfill his destiny, she considers what she wishes to say to him as he faces the weighty responsibilities of kingship. We see what her deliberations came to in the verses that follow.  She had decided she needed to warn her son about things that destroy kings.


Things That Destroy Kings (3–5)


Lemuel’s mother saw two things in particular that have the power to destroy kings and to frustrate the high purposes to which their lives should be devoted.  One of these is women, i. e. womanizing.  So she warns him:  “Give not your strength to women, nor your ways to that which destroys kings” (3).  She does not speak of a good wife who would actually be able to help him fulfill his destiny (cf. vv. 10–31), but uses the plural “women.” A king would certainly have no trouble getting women, as many as he wanted. Lemuel’s mother knew that “womanizing” was one of the things that could bring a king down, or at the least, neutralize and frustrate his appointed mission. I once attended the funeral of a woman whose husband mourned loudly, and cried out about how much he had loved her. It sounded overdone and unreal to me, and later he told me the truth. He said he had not been able to keep his hands off of women. He was always chasing loose women. We have certainly seen in our own times the way “womanizing” can ruin a man and prevent him from fulfilling his destiny.

Kings are not the only ones subject to such dangers.  But they are especially vulnerable. Their power attracts women to them. Yet they have an important mission in life,  a mission that could be frustrated if they devote themselves to the pursuit of women instead of to the important mission they have to fulfill.  Kings, of course, are not the only ones with important positions that must not be compromised by womanizing.  It seems our news media are nearly always carrying some story about a president, a senator or some other high official who could not resist this temptation, and was ruined thereby, so that he failed to fulfill the important destiny to which he had been called.  Many have failed to practice discipline, and consequently, failed to fulfill their appointed destiny. Lemuel’s mother recognized the potential, and warned him not to let his strength be sapped by such womanizing. Furthermore she continues: Do not give “your ways to that which destroys kings.” She is warning her son about things that destroy men in high office; that frustrate the high purposes of one’s life. But womanizing is not the only thing that could ruin a king and prevent him from fulfilling his destiny. That is the context in which she gives her advice about strong drink.


Wine and Strong Drink Not for Kings (4–5)


“It is not for kings, O Lemuel,” she continues; “it is not for kings to drink wine.” It is not for princes always to be pursuing strong drink, asking: Where is strong drink?” or as the alternate reading puts it, “to desire strong drink.” 

Wine and strong drink can be a dangerous thing of which kings and other leading people, no matter of what nation, need to be very careful.  It is certainly something that affected the rulers of Israel for evil and this is not the only place in scripture that the sacred writers have given attention to the influence of liquor upon rulers.  So among the “woes” pronounced upon the leaders of Judah one relates to such misuse of wine and strong drink:  “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that tarry late into the night, till wine inflame them!” (Is. 5:11).  The next verse connects wine with music as these were used in the feasts.  Such “partying” messed up the minds of people, so that they had no regard for the providential work of Jehovah. Another of these “woes” also deals with the influence of wine and strong drink on the judges:  “Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink; that justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!” (vv. 22f). 

The judgment is upon judges who should be champions of the poor and the oppressed.  But these judges were only champion drink mixers and drinkers.  And these habits affected their minds when they sat to judge cases.  So instead of justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked (Deut. 25:1), strong drink took away their inhibitions and made them vulnerable to a bribe. The result was that the wicked person, who should have been found in the wrong, was able to bribe the judge to settle the case in his favor; and the person who should have been found in the right had his righteous verdict taken away from him.  Judges dare not try to practice justice while under the influence of wine.  “Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the understanding” (Hos. 4:11).  One needs a clear head to be able to apply the law and do the right thing.  But under the influence of wine a judge is not likely to have the understanding necessary to do his duty.

Other passages speak of the bad effects of wine on rulers.  The pursuit of strong drink was a great failing of Israelite rulers.  The Preacher writes:  “Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, and your princes eat in the morning! Happy are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles, and your princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness” (Eccl. 10:16f). The lines seem proverbial, and certainly would be true of any land. The word drunkenness shows that the eating refers to partying and banqueting with heavy emphasis on the drinking of liquor.  Ordinarily it is as Paul writes:  “They that sleep sleep in the night; and they that are drunken are drunken in the night” (1 Thess. 5:7). Peter reasons that the apostles were not likely to be drunk, as some supposed, on the day of Pentecost; for it was too early in the day for that (Acts 2:15; cf. 13). But Isaiah knew of those who arose early in the morning to go after strong drink (28:7f), and Ecclesiastes speaks of those who banquet and carry on in the morning, the kind of eating that was accompanied by strong drink and the consequent drunkenness.


These passages are consistent with what is said in our primary text with regard to why wine and strong drink are “not for kings.” It is one of the things that destroys kings and prevents them from fulfilling their proper destiny. Why is it “not for kings to drink wine” and to pursue strong drink?  Lemuel’s mother explains it:  “lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the justice due to any who are afflicted” (5)  His mother knew that as a king he would have many important issues brought before him for judgment. She knew he would need a clear head to understand and apply the law to these cases, and under the influence of strong drink would be apt to pervert the justice that was due to the people who appealed cases to him. Liquor would take away the reasoning power and the ability to apply the law. You have important duties, she tells her son; and you must avoid things that will keep you from fulfilling your responsibilities. In particular, you must be sober; you must steer clear of wine and strong drink.


Strong Drink for the Hopeless (6–7)


Wine and strong drink are not for kings. The next verses (6 & 7) continue the line of thought.  Let strong drink be reserved for those whose lives do not matter; who do not have such weighty responsibilities; people in despair, who are useless and ready to perish. Listen to Lemuel’s mother:  “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul: Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”  This exhortation is comparable to the view taken by a doctor, who permits his patient in the last stages of cancer to continue smoking cigarettes.  What is the use of forbidding them now?  It is too late.  His patient is too far gone.  He might as well get what comfort he can from his cigarettes.  

In effect Lemuel’s mother is saying that wine and strong drink should be left to the perishing, the helpless, whose lives are hopeless and meaningless. These things can do no harm to one whose life is useless, who has no important role to play or duty to perform; no mission to fulfill; no destiny to attain.  Wine and strong drink will not ruin the life of such a person. He is not going to do anything significant with his life anyway. He is “ready to perish” and “bitter in soul.” Strong drink will at least anesthetize him against the pain. He can drink himself drunk and deaden himself against his pain and misery. He can forget his poverty and misery ... at least till he sleeps it off and sobers up. Does that sound to you like an encouragement to drink?


But Not for Kings (8–9)


But strong drink is not for kings! They have important business to attend to, and it requires that they keep their mental faculties sharp and alert, so that they will not fail to do their duty.  Lemuel is told that he is a king!  He is not like these perishing, hopeless ones, who have no high purpose to achieve. “Open your mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are left desolate.  Open your mouth, judge righteously, and minister justice to the poor and needy.”   

A king has to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.  He has to make sure that justice is done in matters of controversy, and to protect the poor and needy against the rich and powerful who are out to take advantage of them. He must issue righteous judgments and administer justice to those who are so much in need of having someone to stand up for them. Wine and strong drink can be disabling. A king will not be able to discharge such weighty responsibilities if his mind is under the influence of alcohol. Such things are not for kings.


Not Just Kings 


But it is not just kings who need to avoid the things that will mess up their lives and keep them from functioning at full capacity. It is not only kings who can be destroyed by womanizing and liquor.  Anyone who has important work to do or a significant mission in life needs to beware of things that could frustrate that mission and keep him from fulfilling the important role he has been given. One of the passages already cited (Is. 5:22f) refers to judges who are champions in bouts of drinking, but not at protecting the poor and needy from rich and powerful oppressors. So they “justify the wicked for a bribe” and take away from the righteous person the verdict that should be decided in his favor. Judges under the influence of strong drink cannot properly champion the cause of those who need justice.  And how many times in our own country have we witnessed the destruction of congressmen and other important officials through drink and womanizing.  

Consider the counsel Jehovah gave to Aaron, the first high priest of Israel, after the death of his two sons Nadab and Abihu:  “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, that you die not:  it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:  and that you may make a distinction between the holy and the common, and between the clean and the unclean; and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah has spoken to them by Moses” (Lev. 10:8–11).

Aaron and his sons had important business to accomplish in their role as priests. They had important distinctions to make. They could even lose their lives if they touched certain holy things in the tabernacle. So they were counseled not to drink wine or strong drink when they went about their priestly duties in the tabernacle. They would not be able to make the important distinctions “between the holy and the common, and between the clean and the unclean,” which were so much a part of the job,  if the powers of their mind were weakened under the influence of liquor. Nor would they be able to teach the Israelites the statutes Jehovah spoke through Moses.   

So we see that the advice Lemuel’s mother gave him is not just for kings.  Wine and strong drink are not for kings, and they are not for judges or for priests either. All such officials have important duties to perform, and they need to avoid anything that would weaken their faculties and keep them from fulfilling their responsibilities. In fact, it applies in principle to anyone whose life is important, who has important work to do, an important mission to accomplish.  

What about Christians?  Are our lives important?  Do we have significant work to accomplish, important responsibilities to fulfill?   Are we a people of mission and destiny?  Indeed we are!


The Significant Mission Assigned to Disciples of Christ


The fact is, no one has more important business than a disciple of Christ. A disciple’s life is every bit as significant and important as the role of a king. Consider the way Jesus defined the position of his disciples in the world:    


You are the salt of the earth:  but if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.  You are the light of the world.  A city set on a hill cannot be hid.  Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shines to all that are in the house.  Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:13–16).


Socrates, Aristotle and Plato had all lived and died at the time Jesus spoke these words.  Alexander the Great had conquered the world and carried with him scientists and other men of learning so that the Greek culture, language and learning could be spread throughout the world.   Not these, but you, says Jesus to his simple disciples, are the light of the world.  You are to be like a city set on a hill that cannot be hid. They would provide the light that would illuminate a dark world.  They were to let their light shine before men and bring glory to their Father in heaven. They would provide flavor in a bland world; or perhaps, alluding to another function of salt, they would act as a preservative against decay, saving a world that without them was headed for certain doom, just as the righteous Noah, with his family, had saved the world from total destruction, and as ten righteous souls could have saved Sodom from destruction. None would have a more important mission than they.


The Dignity of a Christian’s Position


Then consider Paul’s challenge in Ephesians. The entire second half of Ephesians reflects on the important calling of a disciple.  After setting forth the dignity of the position to which Christians have been elevated in Christ Jesus (e. g. 1:3–14, 17–12; 2:5–7, 10, 19–22; 3:8–12, 19, 20–21) Paul challenges his readers:  “I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, ...” (4:1).  No longer to walk in the manner of the pagan population from which they had been drawn (4:17), they had been taught a way of life that was a world apart, in fact to live a life that was God-like (4:20–5:2).  The filthiness and foolishness of the past was not so much as to be named among them, “as becomes saints”; these things were “not befitting” (5:3–4).  Be not partakers with the sons of disobedience, Paul writes, and then gives the grounds of his appeal in what follows: “for you were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord,” and so should  “walk as children of light” (5:8).

Paul’s appeal is like the challenge a king might issue to his son:  “You are no peasant!  You are the son of a king.  You must conduct yourself accordingly.”  Likewise a Christian has been elevated by the grace of God to a position of exalted dignity, and is challenged to conduct himself in accord with the dignity of the position to which he has been elevated.  

Then in Colossians 1:10 we are challenged “to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing,” i. e., so as to please him in everything, with the following verses providing some elaboration and then a description of the position occupied by the Lord, which shows us what a tall order that is.

Then consider Colossians 3:1f. “If then we were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.  Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth. ...”



Luminaries in a Dark World (Phil. 2:14–16a)


Consider Paul’s appeal to the Philippians:  “So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling:  for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.  Do all things without murmurings and questionings; that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you are seen as lights [Gr. luminaries] in the world, holding to the word of life; ...”

The way of life to which Paul challenges them is a matter of cooperation with the work God himself is doing in them.


A People of Purpose and Mission


Peter describes the people who had come to Christ in terms that had been used for God’s chosen people Israel in the Old Testament.  Such language is sprinkled throughout from the very first verses (First Peter 1:1–2), but consider especially First Peter 2:9–10.  In contrast with those who stumbled at the word, being disobedient, he writes concerning the people who have come to Christ (v. 4):  “But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” The disciples of Christ were a new Israel, specially chosen by God for a mission to the world.

So Christians are not like cows, grazing in the pasture all day long, storing food in one stomach only to cough it up and chew the cud, on and on till they die.  (Of course cows have a purpose, as one listener reminded me.  But do they have any understanding of it?) Christians should not just live till they die. They are a people of purpose and mission, and must live with an understanding of their position in the world.

Royalty! A royal priesthood!  Indeed! “For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17).  Reign?  That’s what kings do!

As children of God we are also “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Rom. 8:16f).

Mankind was created in the beginning to be lords of the creation, with dominion over all creation (Gen. 1:26–28). This lordship is celebrated poetically in the eighth psalm.  Mankind, it is said, was made “but little lower than the angels,” crowned “with glory and honor,” and appointed “to have dominion over the works of God’s hands,” with all creation put under his feet.  The author of Hebrews points out that “the world to come” was not subjected to angels, but to mankind, finding this concept in Psalm 8 (Heb. 2:5–8).  True, this position to which man has been appointed and destined has not been realized as yet, for man fell into sin, and consequently in many ways appears more like a slave than a lord (v. 8c). But Jesus has become a man, and he has been “crowned with glory and honor,” so that finally in him mankind attains the destiny to which he was originally appointed. Furthermore, the death by which he rose to such glory was for every man, so that many sons are brought to glory in him who is the author (captain, leader, trailblazer, pioneer) of their salvation (vv. 9–10).

Paul endured all things “for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” And indeed this salvation in Christ is “with eternal glory.”  Paul continues the thought thus:  “Faithful is the saying:  For if we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; ...” (2 Tim. 2:10–12a).


Not for Kings and Not for You! Special Measures Called for by the Significant Life We Have in Christ


Young Christians, do you have trouble resisting the pressure of your peers when they urge you to go along with things that you are not comfortable with?  Here is the strongest answer to peer pressure, and it is an answer that rises above just keeping the rules.

When it comes to promiscuity, looseness and sleeping around, girls must think more of themselves than to go that way.  Boys too. Think of your calling in Christ Jesus and draw the right conclusion.  These things are for people whose lives are not important. They are not for kings and they are not for us.

What about drugs, drinking and the like? These things are for those whose lives are meaningless and hopeless; those “ready to perish.” But we have important business to take care of. We are on a mission. We have a destiny to attain. We can’t fool around with things that will frustrate the high purpose of our lives.  These things are not for kings and they are not for us.

The same is true of just wasting life away on trivialities; a life devoted to money or pleasure. Or just sleeping life away. Staying up too late at night and then sleeping late into the day. Too much TV, movies, pleasure, video games, emphasis on sports, which can become a kind of religion. (If you don’t believe it, listen to the sports talk shows on radio. People actually call in and berate those who don’t go to games, perhaps especially those who hold season tickets, but then don’t go to every game. It’s your duty to be there, some of these numbskulls will say.)  Too many other activities, clubs, recreation and the like.

Leave such stuff to those who have nothing better to do. It is not that all these things are wrong in themselves, but our mission and our work is too important to let the trivial or the unimportant frustrate our real business in the world.


A Worthy Woman


It is interesting that the passage about the worthy woman follows right on the heels of the advice to Lemuel.  Some even think it continues his mother’s advice.  It begins: “A worthy woman who can find? For her price is far above rubies. ...”, then goes on to describe her characteristics. It is not all that easy to find a mate for one with such a high calling in life.  A king would certainly want a mate who would not frustrate the important business that he has to tend to. And a Christian man should certainly look for more than the pretty face and figure of someone who may push you so hard to make money that that’s all your life will be about.  You have more important business than that. That kind of life may be enough for a man of the world, but not for you (cf. Ps. 17:13–15).

This point is no less true for a Christian woman, who certainly should look for something more than an athlete with the body of a Greek god, but only empty space in his head.

The point is, a Christian needs a mate that is not ordinary, but one that is special. You have important business.  You have a high destiny to attain.  You certainly do not want to link up with someone who may frustrate what you can be in Christ Jesus. 


Older Christians 


Many working people are heard expressing their dreams for retirement.  They want to play golf or tennis.  They want to fish. They want to travel and see the world.  They want to spend their senior years relaxing after working so hard for so long.

None of these activities are bad. But are these the dreams of a “king”? Former presidents could do just about anything they want to do. But many of them do not just spend their time relaxing. Their real mission in life could first be activated when they leave office.  So it could be with retired Christians, especially those who have resources to do good things.  They find opportunities to travel, all right, but not just to see the world. They find opportunities to teach the lost at a higher level than ever before. Sometimes they are able to raise money for good work in needy areas. Doctors may be able to use their skills in places where folk are not able to obtain as good care as in our own country, always keeping the higher spiritual needs of people in mind.

Play golf?  Fish?  Travel? Perhaps a little more of such activity may be good. But to give one’s entire life over to such “fun” things?  Maybe that is a life for the worldly, whose destiny does not rise above this world. But it is not for kings!  And it is not for “an elect race” or “a royal priesthood” either. We are a people of higher calling, and we must not forget it.


David understood what I am talking about, even in Old Testament times:


“Arise, O Jehovah, Confront him, cast him down:  Deliver my soul from the wicked by thy sword; from men of the world, whose portion is in this life, and whose belly you fill with your treasure:  They are satisfied with children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes. As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake, with beholding your form” (Ps. 17:13–15).


Businessmen and Young Professionals


I have known young men whose mission in life was to become a millionaire by the time they were thirty years old. Or to be able to afford all the season tickets, the nice houses, the boats, the cruises, the fancy cars and other gadgets. Our Christian young men (and women) need to be reminded that they are more than that; they are a people of destiny and mission; and their lives are much more important than the worldly success that satisfies “men whose portion in life is of the world” (Ps. 17:14).


Debbie’s Poem


My daughter Deborah wrote a poem many years ago that captures the essence of the point I am laboring to make. She asks: “Who am I?” and then answers:


I am the one chosen to hold the secrets of all life in my scrawny hand.

Plato, Aristotle, you say?

Beggars of wisdom, they were not worthy of it.

But I—I am the daughter of the King.

And I am worthy!


Not bad for a very young woman. But along with it we must constantly bear in mind Paul’s explanation of his elevated position in Christ:  “But by the grace of God I am what I am, ...” (1 Cor. 15:10). And so it is with all Christians. We have been elevated to a position of the highest order, beyond anything we could have thought to ask for or even conceived in our minds (cf. Eph. 3:20f). But it is not a personal achievement, and we have no grounds for boasting.  By the grace of God we are what we are; and we must not forget it. We are sinners saved by grace and elevated to heavenly places ... also by grace (Eph. 2:4–6).






Thursday, October 6, 2011

James 2:26 in Context

Faith Without Works

James 2:14–26


L. A. Mott (lamottjax@comcast.net

or www.thinkingthrough.com


Through most of 2011 I have been reading and refining a manuscript on James. It took me a while to realize that James 2:26 does not just repeat verse 14. I will return to this point at the end.

James is not answering or even complementing Paul. He wrote earlier, when the church was mostly if not altogether Jewish, and before the influx of Gentiles became the occasion of Paul’s controversy with Judaizers over justification by works of law. James deals with the same problem addressed by Jesus, the failure to apply profession to life (e. g. Matt. 7:21–23, 23:1–4, and Luke 6:46). James first addressed the problem in Chapter One. He returns to it in James 2:14–26.

Consider the power that is felt when we study verses in context rather than treating them as isolated statements.


Issue Raised (14)


The question raised is:  What is the use of a faith that does not have the works that faith would seem to call for? In particular:  Can that faith save him? Faith in the question is preceded by the definite article. So the question is not whether there is a faith that can save him, but whether the particular faith described here can save.


Faith Without Works Powerless to Save (15–17)


James’ first response is a hypothetical illustration of something that is entirely useless, wishing a needy person well, but without doing anything to supply his need. Such behavior is useless. And so it is with faith that is not matched by appropriate behavior. It cannot save. It is dead, and so entirely without power. Verse 26 returns to the thought and illuminates the meaning of “dead,” as if to say: I meant what I said.


The Existence of Faith Not Demonstrable Without Works (18)


Commentaries have introduced unnecessary difficulty by debating the identity of the two persons. James’ point is: The man who claims to have faith, but who does not manifest the behavior consistent with what he believes cannot even prove he has faith. He is vulnerable to a challenge from anyone who demands that he prove his claim.  He cannot. He appears like someone who makes empty claims without substance.


The Faith of Demons (19)


James is willing to credit the man’s claim.  You have faith. Great! But if faith does not affect the way one lives his life, it is no more than the faith of demons. It certainly has no power to save.


Works Necessary to Justification as Proved by the Case of Abraham (20–24)


“But wilt thou know?” James asks. Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? If so, James can help him, and does so by pointing to the example of Abraham. He clearly was justified by works, as Genesis 22 proves (esp. vv. 12 and 15–18). His was a faith that cooperated with works, and so was rendered complete by works, “lacking in nothing” (1:4). Without the obedience faith  would have been missing something, incomplete. The conclusion is plain to see:  “You see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (24). 

In fact, even without Genesis 22, the context of Genesis 15:6 proves that Abraham’s faith required action. Abraham certainly would not have descendants like the stars, or even one, without taking action.


Rahab Also Justified by Works (25–26)


After adding the confirming example of Rahab, James concludes the argument the way it began (v. 17), but with an additional clause that leaves no room for doubt about the meaning of “dead.” Faith without works is like a body without the spirit. Dead means dead!








Tuesday, August 30, 2011

James' Conclusion (5:19–20)

I recently completed my latest book Thinking Through James. The final word (James 5:19–20) sets forth the great accomplishment of one who succeeds in turning a straying brother back to the truth. I am always excited about gaining an insight that had previously escaped me, and I was delighted finally to realize that the end of this epistle had not been merely "chopped off" without an appropriate conclusion. In fact it does have a conclusion that could hardly be improved. The following excerpt from Thinking Through James provides my thought about James' conclusion.  (LAM)


I think I have tended to see James as sort of “chopped off” at the end without any concern for a suitable conclusion; the letter presenting one exhortation after another, and when the last one has been given a period is simply put at the end without rounding off the letter with an appropriate conclusion or application. Suffice it to say, however, that all the reading and reflection on the letter I have done in the last few months is bringing me to a change of view. Perhaps all the elements are beginning to stick together in my mind. I think I had not previously perceived the significance of the last passage, and the way it relates to the whole.

In fact time and again throughout the epistle we see how anxious James has been either to prevent his beloved brothers from being misled by false reasoning or, in case some may already have been victimized, to turn them back to the truth of the gospel. The wise man started out wanting them to understand their troubles in the light of divine wisdom rather than misinterpreting them (1:2–4). He did not want them to think that a person of divided mind, without wholehearted faith, could expect to receive anything from the Lord (1:5–8). He did not want them to be deceived about the sources of temptation (1:13–18, esp. 16). Nor did he want them to delude themselves about the value of hearing the word without the appropriate response (1:19–25); or deceived about the sort of religion that has value (1:26–27).

James did not want them to think the faith of the Lord of glory could be coupled with favoritism toward the rich (2:1–7), deceiving themselves into thinking they were keeping the law by their treatment of the rich (2:8–13). He did not want them to imagine that faith without the behavior that completes it is of any value at all (2:14–26). He did not want them to think the talkers among them were necessarily the “wise and understanding” (3:1–18). He wanted to disabuse their minds if they did not understand “that the friendship of the world is enmity with God” (4:1–10). He did not want them to think more of themselves than they ought to, and thus usurp the role of God by judging their brothers (4:11–12); or by means of an independent spirit that did not consider God and divine providence with regard to business plans (4:13–17). He did not want them to make too much of earthly wealth, but rather to behave appropriately in view of the judgment soon to fall upon the ungodly rich (ch. 5).


In every single one of these units we see James either trying to prevent incorrect thinking or to rescue those who may already have fallen victim to it. How could James have concluded an epistle in which he has been out to turn people from self-deception and incorrect thinking any better than to try to persuade his readers to join him in this great work? And how could he have offered greater motivation to them than simply to point out just how great that work is, what a great accomplishment they will have if they succeed in turning an erring brother back to the way of truth? 


So I am changing my mind about James’ conclusion. I do not see how he could have written a more effective conclusion than he did.


Friday, April 1, 2011

The Eight Cow Wife (1 Pet. 3:7)

The Eight Cow Wife


I first saw this story, a longer version, in the Reader’s Digest many years ago. I was impressed by it and would have used it many times in lessons on family life, but I misplaced my copy and did not see it again till this condensed version was seen in a church bulletin.  It seems to have been copied from one bulletin to another many times and and attributed to no special author.  As I recall, the principals in the Reader’s Digest version were Korean.    LAM


The custom on an isolated Pacific island was for a young man to announce his intention of marriage to the entire village.  After the announcement the young man and the whole community went to the young woman’s home.  Her father would come outside and then the father and the suitor would barter, the whole community acting as witnesses.  

The main item of value on the island was the cow. Therefore a suitor would offer the father a certain number of cows for his daughter. The average bride was worth two cows, perhaps three if she was unusually bright or attractive. The all-time record was four cows. 

The most eligible bachelor on the island was Johnny Lingo, who was both handsome and wealthy. The women of the island were extremely excited when Johnny announced that he had selected a wife. But everyone was shocked when he announced that his choice was a girl named Lisa. Not even in the top ten of young women who might have been selected, Lisa was regarded as plain and frightfully shy. Jokers in the crowd suggested that Lisa’s father might offer Johnny a cow or two to take her.

But when the community gathered at Lisa’s house for the bartering an even greater shock came over the crowd when they heard Johnny’s opening bid for Lisa. Eight cows! Her father almost fainted, but managed to accept. That evening Johnny and Lisa were married, and then departed for their home on an adjacent island.

No one saw the couple for a full year. On their first anniversary Johnny and Lisa returned to visit their parents. From the moment they arrived at the dock, the news spread. “Come and see Johnny and Lisa!” someone exclaimed. “You won’t believe it!”

Everyone came, but no one noticed Johnny. All eyes were on Lisa. She had been transformed! She was poised, warm, friendly, and confident. When someone inquired of Johnny with regard to the amazing transformation in Lisa, Johnny had a ready answer: “I will explain it. From the time Lisa was born she had been treated as though she was not worth much. She had begun to believe it about herself. But I announced to the community that she was an eight cow wife, and I have treated her that way ever since. She has become that vision of herself that she sees in my eyes every day.”

The moral of the story is:  If you want an eight cow wife, treat your wife like one. Give it a year and see what happens.


“Husbands, ... giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being joint heirs of he grace of life ...” (First Peter 3:7).

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Book of Job, Issues and Analysis

Thinking Through Job


Will a person serve Jehovah without reward? when afflicted so severely that nothing worse could be done and even death to be preferred? That is the issue raised in the first three chapters of Job. Is Jehovah that great?


This book provides the answer. Not that of “everyman,” but that of the best man on earth according to Jehovah’s own testimony.


The patience of Job did not preserve him from all sin, but Job did hold on to God through all his trials. His friends and their ignorant attempts at comfort are dismissed, but God never is.


In the debate, however, which concludes with an evaluation, judging man a failure in the search for wisdom (ch. 28), Job committed terrible sins, accusing God of injustice. Job defended his own integrity, but felt God was treating him as a sinner, manifesting hostility toward him. Thus the trial did not lead Job to abandon God, but it did uncover defects of character that needed to be dealt with in order that Job might be even better.


Job had to be humbled and put in his place. But more was required than a show of superior power to bully him into silence, perhaps with resentment at not having a fair chance to make his case. The resolution has two essential parts. Elihu, a man of clay like Job himself, answers Job’s charges against God, particularly presenting a different view of the suffering in which God is seen not as an enemy, but as a friend. The reasoning of an equal satisfies Job’s mind and prepares him to be put in his place by God, howbeit without the resentment he might have felt had he merely been forced into silence by superior power.


Thinking Through Job guides a student through the complexities of Job’s case to a final resolution which makes us shout Hallelujah! to a God worthy to be worshipped even without reward and despite undeserved suffering. Satan is exposed as a slanderer and the magnificence of Jehovah declared. The suffering of Job provided him with his best opportunity to bring glory to God; and so with many another sufferer whose faithfulness manifests just how great Jehovah is.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

The Great Debate

The Great Debate

Job 3–28


The release date of Thinking Through Job is now set for January, 2011.  The following is a brief summary of the debate between Job and his friends.  Get the book for the detailed exposition.


The First Round of Speeches (Job 4–14)


The friends came to comfort Job in his affliction (2:11).  They sat there for a week without saying a word (2:13), perhaps thinking any words from them would only make matters worse.  But when Job cried out that he had better never been born, wishing for a speedy death, and questioning why his life was being prolonged (ch. 3), the challenge to divine providence was too much for Eliphaz.  He could not let it pass (chs. 4–5).  At first he was gentle in his comfort, considering Job a pious man who was simply being chastised by God.  But he needed to be careful about speech that seemed to imply that man was more righteous than God.  He warned against “vexation,” complaint against what one regarded as unfair treatment.  He counseled Job to yield to divine correction and he would soon be restored to a state of blessedness.  God is the subject of the first round of speeches (chs. 4–14).  The friends saw Job’s complaint as an indication that he needed to be taught respect for God.


Job felt he had good reason for vexation (6:1–7), and refuses to be silenced (6:8–13); he expresses disappointment in his friends, who had failed to provide any real comfort (6:14–23); he challenges them to point out the sins for which he was being chastised (6:24–30).  He renews his complaint in Chapter 7, first with regard to the sad plight of man in general and then with special regard to his own situation.  So he was determined to continue to complain of treatment that made no sense at all.


Bildad’s first speech (ch. 8) is in the same vein, contending that God will never be unjust, as Job seemed to suggest, and so would always punish the godless and reward the pious.  Job replies:  Of course, but suppose one has a complaint against God; how could he argue his case and get a just verdict.  He complains that there is no umpire to mediate the case (ch. 9).  So Job was determined to continue his complaint (ch. 10).


Zophar’s first speech (ch. 11) was harshest of all.  If the whole truth were known, says he, it would be plain that you deserve worse than you deserve.  Zophar is not just being mean.  His words are a conclusion from what he has heard from Job.  But Job is outraged and answers sarcastically:  No doubt you three have cornered the market on wisdom; when you die wisdom will die with you (12:2).  But the fact is, I know as much as you do, and in fact you are just speaking commonplaces that even the lower animals could teach (7–12).  He has no use for these “friends,” who are “physicians of no value” (13:4) whose best chance to show wisdom would be to shut their mouths (5).  He threatens the friends (6–12).  They have shown partiality toward God in this case, and God will not let them get away with it (8–11).  That is an important expression of faith.  Job has no use for these foolish friends, but has confidence in divine justice.  God would not take partiality lightly, even if shown toward himself.

So Job brushes the friends aside, but not God!  In fact he wanted to take his case before God, confident that he would get justice if he could (13–19).  Ch. 14 is a low point in Job’s trial.  He complains about man’s sad lot in life.  He does not even have the hope of a tree, which might sprout again after being chopped down.  But not man.  He dies and that is all there is to it.  But he has no more reached that depth of despair than he begins to climb out of it, expressing the wish that it might be otherwise:  If only God would keep a man in Sheol till his wrath was past and then at some future time remember him and set things right (13–15).  At verse 14a it is as though Job suddenly realized what he was saying:  “If a man die, shall he live?”  If only!


Second Round (Job 15–21)


If God was the subject of Round One, man is the subject of the second round, and especially the sinful man and what is known about the end he faces.  All of these speeches about the destiny of the wicked man are intended as a warning against Job.  After Job’s answers in Round One, the friends thought this is what he needed to hear, and each of them does his best.  See Thinking Through Job for the details, and also for Job’s answers.

“Miserable comforters are ye all,” Job answers (16:2).  I could do better, were our positions reversed.  There seemed to be no way to shut them up, so he challenges them:  Come on again with these stupid speeches “and I shall not find a wise man among you” (17:10).  Job continues to complain at the treatment he is receiving from God.  It was not fair.  He knew himself to be a good man, but was being treated as one would expect a sinful man to be treated.  So it gave the friends plausible reason for treating him as a sinful man.

Job continues to express some hopelessness in this round, but he tries desperately to hold on to his faith in God.  See 16:18–17:5; 19:23–29 for good illustrations of the latter.  Job finally tells the friends:  I know what you are doing.  You speak of the destiny of the wicked man, but you are really talking about me (21:27–34).  His answer to their points about the bad end of a wicked man is a challenge:  It is not always true that they end up as you contend (21:17–34).  So how are these speeches supposed to provide any comfort?  They are full of lies (21:34).  


Third Round of Speeches (Job 22–28)


The friends are left with only one option, and that was to directly accuse Job of being guilty of great sins.  Eliphaz starts it (ch. 22).  He thinks he can even enumerate the sins of which Job was guilty (1–11).  But he is only guessing.  He has no knowledge of any real guilt on Job’s part.  But the points enumerated are common sins of a rich and powerful man.  He has not been able to wring a confession out of Job, but only expressions of outrage.  So he thinks Job must be guilty of great sins, and that the ones listed are probably the sins he is guilty of.

Have you ever been treated like that?  Have you ever had someone make accusations against you without evidence, but simply on the ground of assumption and guesswork, perhaps hearsay?  If you have, then you will understand Job’s outrage, and you will also be able to draw some comfort from this part of the book of Job.


Job continues to protest his innocence, to complain of unfair treatment, and to wish for an opportunity to go before God and make his case (chs. 23–24).  In ch. 24 he sets forth the need for a day in which cases could be heard and decided, for the wicked often seem to escape any justice.  Thus he deplores the absence of moral government in the world.  It is a low point for Job’s faith.


Bildad’s last speech (ch. 25) is short, with nothing new added.  Zophar does not even come forth for a last speech.  Plainly, there is nothing more to say.  The friends have done their best, but have not been able to convict Job.  So Job answers Bildad (ch. 26), but when Zophar does not come forth, Job simply continues (ch. 27).  Job’s words in Ch. 27 sound like something the friends might have said about a wicked man.  But the fact is, Job held the same view they did, but was puzzled that the destiny one might expect to see for a wicked man was not always realized.  So that brings us to Chapter 28.


Job’s Evaluation of the Debate (Job 28)


I think that is the way Job 28 should be explained.  It is Job’s assessment of the debate.  Man has been able to dig into the depths of the earth and to bring forth every kind of precious metal and stone (1–11).  But he has not been able to attain to wisdom (12–22).  Only God, who planned and created the universe, knows the way to wisdom; but as for man, the only wisdom accessible to him is a moral wisdom, the right way to live (23–23).  He will have to be content with that.


Good students of Job will realize that my analysis of the speeches is incomplete.  You will have to buy my book to get the rest.  I wanted only in this blog to indicate something about the structure of the book, and perhaps to create an appetite for the full meal.  Another blog or two will discuss the twofold resolution of the problem of Job.