L. A. Mott, disciple, father, husband, Bible student, preacher, author, Gator fan, Parcheesi player has passed from this life

L. A. Mott, Jr, age 78, passed away at his home in Jacksonville, Florida, on Tuesday, August 16, 2016. L. A. was born January 10, 1938, in Brooker, Florida, to L. A. “Shine” Mott, Sr, and Cordella Brown Mott. He moved to Gainesville in his teens where he graduated from Gainesville High and attended the 14th Street Church of Christ. He studied at Florida Christian College from 1956 – 1959 where he was voted Mr. Florida Christian College. In 1959, he married Jill Whitehead. He completed his studies at Eastern Michigan University, with a degree in Language and Literature and Ancient History. 

He spent 50 years as a preacher in churches of Christ, including churches in Las Vegas; Michigan; Birmingham, Alabama; Ocala, Florida; and Maine. He is most known for his ability to study, understand, and communicate the Bible on a deep level. He has published widely-used tracts and booklets, such as “What is the Church of Christ?” and “Keeping Saved: God’s Good Gifts to Preserve His People”; study guides on the Bible, designed to enable church members of all ages to study the entire Bible in three years; and several books including Faith in the Book of Romans and Notebook on Jeremiah. Since 1996, he has published eleven books in the Thinking Through the Bible Series and CDs of his classes (thinkingthrough.org). He died with two more completed manuscripts on the New Testament books of Galatians and First Peter. 

One of his students expressed a sentiment shared by many: “Praise God for the life and work of L.A. Mott. His challenge toward rigorous study has both made my brain tired and my faith soar! I loved him, I cherish his writings, and I intend to use what he has left behind to continue to grow personally, and to teach others as we all follow him into the arms of our Savior.” 

He loved sports, especially the Detroit Tigers and the Florida Gators, fishing, bowling, movies, especially westerns, and was a voracious reader since childhood — from Tom Sawyer to Dickens to Zane Gray westerns to lengthy volumes of early American history in his last years. He loved simple southern cooking and fried seafood. He coached little league, played softball and racquetball, and ran 5ks. One of his most calming activities was to walk outside among the trees and talk to his Father in prayer. He truly dedicated his fine mind and determined spirit to serving the God he loved and helping Christians understand Scripture more accurately and apply it. 

L. A. was preceded in death by his parents and his wife Janie Alice “Jill” Whitehead Mott. Survivors include two sisters: Sandra Jergins of Tampa, Florida, and Jacqueline Brown of Alachua, Florida; three children: Deborah Cale of Jackson, Michigan, Richard (Lisa Abbott) Mott, and Todd (Rebecca Haynes) Mott, both of Jacksonville, Florida; and five grandchildren: Sam (Sarah Moyer) Cale (26), Laurie Cale (24), Thomas Cale (20), Ben Mott (19) and Emma Grace Mott (16). 

A memorial service was held on August 27, 2016, at the Julington Creek Church of Christ, 1630 State Road 13 North, St. Johns, Florida. In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to either the Cancer Research Institute (cancerresearch.org) or a fund that has been created to help publish the two manuscripts that L. A. recently completed (tinyurl.com/donate-mott).

Necessity of the Cross

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels    8

Necessity of the Cross

(Matt. 16:21–24; 

Mark 8:31–9:1)

When Jesus retreated with his disciples to the villages around Caesarea Philippi, it had become evident that Israel would not accept him. On the way, he questioned them about his identity:  “Who do men say that I am?” and then:  “But who say you that I am?”  Their answers summarize how matters stood.  Most people had no clue who he really was. But Peter speaks for the twelve when he acknowledges him as the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew Messiah). Jesus accepted the confession, but then charged his disciples not to broadcast their conclusion as yet. The following discussion indicates the reason.  They were not ready to proclaim the Christ. They did not really understand what was meant by the term. So in this closing period of his ministry Jesus tries to make them understand the nature of his Messiahship.

“And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). I have quoted from Mark rather than Matthew because Mark’s record is immediately plain that it is “the Son of man” who must suffer and die, a point to which we will return shortly.

The idea of a suffering, rejected, crucified Messiah did not sit well with Peter. So he endeavored to turn Jesus aside from the way of the cross. Peter had the usual Jewish view of an earthly messiah who would lead armies in battle and liberate the nation from the Romans. The disciples had not understood Isaiah’s word portrait of Jehovah’s suffering servant as a reference to the Messiah.

Peter was acting for Satan, parroting Satan’s proposal that Jesus did not have to go the way of the cross to attain the crown. It is no wonder that in Jesus’ rebuke he calls Peter “Satan.”  “Get behind me, Satan.”  Peter was doing Satan’s work. The focus of his attention was not upon “the things of God, but the things of men.” He had acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ on the basis of revelation from the Father in heaven (Matt. 16:17). But that is as far as revelation had taken him. He knew Jesus as the Christ, but did not understand what that meant. He was seeing things as a man and not as God saw them. It was God’s plan that Jesus suffer and die.

That explains what is meant by “must” in the assertion that the Son of man must suffer, be killed and then arise from the dead. It is true that Jesus’ adversaries were encircling him, so to speak. But he did not mean that the circumstances were such that his death was inevitable. He will repeat his prediction again and again in the last period of his ministry (Matt. 17:12, 22–23; 20:17–19). But when he finally explains why it had to happen, here is what he says:

At the last supper he explained: “The Son of man goes even as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24). Later, the same night, Jesus said to his disciples:  “All you shall be offended in me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad” (v. 31). Then he prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will but as you will” (v. 39), and then again: “My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done” (v. 42). It was the will of God that Jesus drink the bitter cup. It was not possible to accomplish the divine purpose without it.

That purpose was revealed in Scripture. When Peter whacked off the ear of Malchus Jesus told him to put the sword away. He could call for an army of angels to defend him. It was not a case of being overpowered. But in that case “how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” he asked Peter (vv. 51–54) and then turned to the crowd: “But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (v. 56).

So when Jesus said the Son of man “must” suffer, be rejected and killed, he did not mean that he had gotten himself in trouble with the authorities and there was no escape. He had to die because it was the purpose of God, that divine purpose which had been revealed in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. We shall see that he was combining two Old Testament concepts. One related to Daniel’s vision about the Son of man. The other related to Isaiah’s writings about Jehovah’s mysterious suffering servant.


Take note. I am mostly quoting the ASV (of 1901). If you use the KJV, please take note that in the synoptic gospels many textual variations are found. Not a matter of translation, but a question of the original text.

Taking Away of Bridegroom & Sign of Jonah

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels   6

Taking Away of the Bridegroom

(Matt. 9:14f)

The first direct mention of Jesus’ death is obscure. The period of questions and controversies described in Matthew 9 gave rise to a question about fasting. Why do your disciples not fast, when John’s disciples and the Pharisees are accustomed to frequent fasting (v. 14 & parallels). The question may have come in close connection with the banquet at Matthew’s house. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples were feasting at the very time others were fasting.

Jesus replied that fasting was not appropriate to the occasion. Then he illustrated the point that fasting should fit the occasion. A wedding is not a time for fasting, which expressed sorrow, but rather for eating, drinking and making merry.  “Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast” (v. 15).

The New Testament frequently portrays Jesus as a bridegroom. The sons of the bridechamber are “companions of the bridegroom” (ASV margin), or “the friends of the bridegroom whose duty it was to provide and care for whatever pertained to the bridal chamber, i. e. whatever was needed for the due celebration of the nuptials” (GT, 430 on Grk numphon). These would rejoice to be in the presence of the bridegroom (as John 3:29) and to serve him. It would certainly not be a time for fasting and mourning, but rather for joy and celebration.

It would, however, be quite different “when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.” That would be a true occasion for fasting and expressing grief. Jesus does not say:  “when the bridegroom goes away,” as to consummate the marriage and to begin his life with his bride. That would be a time of joy and his friends would certainly share his joy. But instead, Jesus speaks of the bridegroom being “taken away from them.”

Jesus seems to refer to his death. It would be like a bridegroom being snatched away from the wedding and put to death without completing the nuptials—certainly reason for sorrow.

 No one would have to make the disciples fast then. They would be full of sorrow and have no appetite for food. Such a reference to violent death does not surprise us, given the conflict that was beginning to develop. But please notice Jesus’ early awareness that he had come to die.

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels  7

The Sign of Jonah

(Matt. 12:39f)

Another reference is equally obscure. Jesus had just performed a great miracle, casting a demon from a man who had been rendered blind and dumb by the demon (Matt. 12:22). These exorcisms more than any other miracle Jesus performed were a clear demonstration that Jesus was working for God and against Satan. Nothing else could have demonstrated it so effectively. But his brilliant opponents, unable to deny the miracle, questioned the source of the power by which he worked, and tried to discredit Jesus by claiming he was in league with Satan, casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (v. 24). Jesus’ refutation exposes the nonsense, piling up one reason after another. Read the arguments in Matthew 12:25–37. But when these smart guys demanded to “see a sign” (v. 38), it is not surprising that Jesus would not play their game, but replied:  “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:  for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the seamonster (lit. tr.); so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (vv. 39–40). He had nothing more for people who could abuse evidence as these had, except the one great sign that would vindicate and authenticate him beyond any question, his resurrection from the dead. No doubt the emphasis here is upon his triumph in coming forth from the grave. But the verses do refer to the death of Jesus and prove that he anticipated his own death. However, neither this passage nor the one previously considered provides any evidence of the reason he had to die. The next one does.

The Great Physician and the Healing of Man's Infirmities

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 5

More on the Mission and Work of Jesus

The Great Physician and the Healing of Man’s Infirmities

 (Matt. 8:17 & 9:1–13)

Matthew 8:17 has another reference to the suffering servant:  “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases” (Is. 53:4). At first we are startled because the words are applied to the healing of the sick and casting out of demons. But in Isaiah the application is clearly to spiritual infirmities, from which we are “healed.”

But sin is the ultimate source of all suffering and grief in the world. When sin entered the world, a host of evils came with it, pain, suffering, death (Gen. 3). We live in a cursed world, a world in rebellion against its Creator. God could not curse man and leave him in a perfect world. So the whole world was affected by the sin of Adam (cf. Rom. 8:18–25). But when Jesus dealt with sin by dying on the cross, he dealt with these consequences of sin. None will be found in the new world (Rev. 21–22). “God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more” (21:4).

To be sure, Jesus did not immediately sweep away all pain and suffering. But perhaps the application of Isaiah 53:4 to the healings of Jesus is intended to say that these healings were a token of what was ultimately to be in that new world because he “bare our sins in his body upon the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24).

Matthew’s initial summary of the ministry of Jesus mentions two activities:  (1) Teaching in the synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and (2) healing all kinds of disease and sickness (Matt. 4:23). As we have seen (Matt. 8:16–17), Isaiah’s description of the vicarious suffering of Jehovah’s servant is applied to this healing activity. But when we come to Matthew 9:2 Jesus points out another, in fact the main purpose for his coming—i. e., to deal with the problem of sin. A man with paralysis was brought to Jesus on his palat. But remarkably, instead of immediately healing him, Jesus spoke to the ultimate problem behind all such ailments: “Child,” he tells the man, “be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven.” At that point an undercurrent of criticism began: “This man is blaspheming,” thought certain scribes (v. 3), reasoning that only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:7). The point they were missing (Matt. 9:6–8) is that God can give a man authority to forgive sins. Jesus first asks them to consider whether it was easier to say: “Thy sins are forgiven; or to say: Arise, and walk” (v. 5). Not do, but say! Surely it would be easier to say a person’s sins were forgiven. Who could know whether it was true? But to tell a paralyzed man: “Arise, and walk” would be much more easily detected if he could not do it. So Jesus would be discredited.

Jesus points out a relation between the two: “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he says to the man who was sick of palsy), Arise, and take up your bed, and go to your house” (v. 6). When the man complied, the crowds “were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (vv. 7–8). The ability to heal this ailment in the visible world was the proof of his ability to heal spiritual diseases that were invisible.

Then when Jesus called the tax collector, Matthew (called Levi in Mark) this man held a banquet in his house, evidently to introduce his friends to Jesus. But it gave Pharisees reason for another complaint (Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–18)—namely, that Jesus was eating and drinking with disreputable people, tax collectors and sinners. The complaint gave Jesus occasion for further explaining his mission. “When Jesus heard it, he said to them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). Jesus was not joining with sinners in sin, but was like a physician who goes among the sick to heal, while being careful to avoid contagion himself.

According to Matthew 9:13, Jesus recommended that his critics needed to study Hosea 6:6. God says: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” and then explained: “for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” If his critics did not understand Hosea 6:6 they would never be able to understand the mission or ministry of Jesus.

The angel had told Joseph that Jesus would “save his people from their sins.” Now two separate incidents confirm this explanation of his mission. When we eat the bread and drink the cup, we remember that he did this work by dying on the cross.

Messiah on Trial

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 4

Messiah on Trial

The synoptic gospels record that a great trial immediately followed Jesus’ baptism. Mark’s record (1:12–13) is brief; Matthew 4:1–4 and Luke 4:1–13 much fuller.  But all agree that terrible spiritual trial followed the moment of spiritual exaltation. Even a formal link is established by two of Satan’s proposals.  “If you are the Son of God” recalls heaven’s acknowledgment of Jesus shortly before:  “You are my Son.”  The temptations recur in one form or another at various points in Jesus’ ministry. But the narrative of the temptation is not just a dramatization by the authors of trials occurring through Jesus’ ministry. It is an actual occurrence that took place immediately following Jesus’ baptism.

The account is more than a model for dealing with temptation. We can profit from it in that way. But that is not the main purpose of the temptation. Jesus’ trials are not temptations common to mankind, but trials of the Messiah. They present an alternative to the idea of the Messiah summarized in the two Old Testament prophecies cited by the Father’s voice out of heaven. It is an alternative found in the nation Israel as Jesus begins his ministry.

Jesus went into the wilderness under the influence of the Holy Spirit to be tempted of the devil. It was under divine influence that Jesus fasted and grew hungry. The proposal to turn stones into bread was a temptation to abandon God in order to save himself, a temptation to make a break with God and to act independently.

But life depends on God—not just bread; and Jesus commits himself to trust God and to eat when God orders food (Deut. 8:3).

The next temptation arises from Jesus’ answer. So Jesus will depend upon the word of God for life? Well, we shall soon see whether God’s word can be depended upon. Jesus is challenged to endanger himself for no other reason than that God had given his word that he would protect the righteous man. Thus he could soon see whether God’s word would sustain him. It was a trial of God’s word, playing upon Jesus’ trust in that word.  But Jesus saw that the experiment would not show trust in God, but the opposite, a trial of God. He would not treat God’s word as something yet to be proved. He trusted it, and would not insult God in  that way.

The third temptation seems to offer what the Messiah would rightfully have, and what Jesus came to get, authority over all the world (cf. esp. Luke 4:5–8). Had not Jehovah promised his Messiah the nations for his inheritance? (cf. Psalm 2:8). It was an effort to turn Jesus aside from the way of the cross. The devil suggests that he could have the crown without the cross. Jesus could have authority over all the kingdoms of the world simply by acknowledging the devil as his overlord.

But the words quoted at the baptism, “You are my son,” were followed by others:  “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Psalm 2:8). Furthermore, the other quotation (Isaiah 42:1), “my beloved in whom I am well pleased,” was from one of Isaiah’s great passages about Jehovah’s servant who was to be exalted, but at the cost of suffering and death (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

Jesus refuses. The quotation (Deut. 6:13) sends the adversary away with words indicating he would not give Satan the homage that belongs only to God. He would not be Satan’s messiah. He would get his crown from God, even if it meant the cross.

Satan left, but only “for a season” (Luke 4:13). He would return. A materialistic people tries to make him a king (John 6:15). His own brothers urge him:  “Manifest yourself to the world” (John 7:4). His leading disciple tries to turn him from the cross (Matt. 16:21–23). Even on the cross he is taunted:  “Let him come down from the cross, and we will believe on him” (Matt. 27:42).

But the records of the temptation show that the cross was not the tragic end of some other failed mission, but itself the mission of Jesus as he understood it from the beginning. He knew the options that lay before him and made his choice at the outset. He kept to the path of the cross despite a terrible spiritual ordeal, and rejected Satan’s compromises and the false concept of the kingdom Satan had planted in the nation. He saw himself as Jehovah’s servant portrayed in Isaiah, and he knew that his destiny was the cross.  He understood it from the beginning, and would not be turned from it. Not by anything Satan could offer.

A Voice Out of Heaven (Matt. 3:16–17)

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 3

A Voice Out of Heaven

Matthew 3:16–17

After Jesus’ explanation, John permitted him to be baptized. Two extraordinary happenings followed.  “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and Look! The heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and Look! A voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:16–17).

The particle “Lo,” or more literally:  “Look!” appears twice, in each case drawing attention to something remarkable.  First, Jesus was Jehovah’s anointed king (cf. Ps. 2:2 & Acts 4:25–28), and as Peter would later explain it, “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38). The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, John would later testify, was the divinely prearranged sign by which he would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, God’s anointed one. So John explains in John 1:32–34, concluding: “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

The second happening to which attention is directed by the word “Look!” is a voice speaking “out of the heavens.” This voice identifies Jesus as the Christ (= Messiah), God’s anointed one, and it does so in the terms of two Old Testament passages.

According to the accounts in the other synoptic gospels, Jesus was directly addressed by the voice from heaven:  “You are my beloved Son” (Mark 1:10f; Luke 3:21f).  Matthew reports the words as addressed to a third party or group. The report is interpretative, indicating the significance for anyone hearing or reading the words. But the actual words spoken are reported by Mark and Luke, which makes it all the more evident that the Father is using the words of Psalm 2:7 in which Jehovah’s anointed king is addressed as his Son:  “You are my son.”  Thus the voice out of the heavens identifies Jesus as Jehovah’s anointed king, whose kingdom was to be divinely established, despite the efforts of world rulers to prevent it and to overthrow the divine government.

The other clause, “in whom I am well pleased,” also alludes to the Old Testament, Isaiah 42:1ff, which is quoted in Matthew 12:18–21. This text is the first of the series of “servant” passages in Isaiah.  In it Jehovah addresses his servant as “My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased,” going on to say: “I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles” (as quoted in Matt. 12). The word “beloved” derives from Isaiah 42, and the words from heaven should read as in the ASV margin: “This is my Son; my beloved in whom I am well pleased,” rather than as the text has it.

So now we see that Jesus is not only identified with the anointed king of Psalm 2, but also with the servant of Jehovah in Isaiah. Already in Isaiah 42 Jehovah’s servant is described as one who will have to persevere through great difficulty in order to accomplish his mission. The idea of difficulty and suffering connected with this figure will be further developed in Isaiah 49:1–7 & 50:4–11, but especially in 52:13–53:12.  In this climactic passage the sufferings of Jehovah’s servant are described as being not due to his own sins, but as vicarious and substitutionary. He suffers and even dies for the sins of others. But after receiving the death stroke he emerges in triumph, sees his descendants, prolongs his days, and with the divine purpose prospering in his hand; by his knowledge he makes many righteous and he bears their sins.

After Jesus’ baptism, therefore, the Father in heaven speaks, identifying Jesus as the Christ (or Messiah), but in the special terms of two Old Testament passages, indicating the understanding of the Messiah that is being communicated.

The words are addressed to Jesus and indicate the way in which his mission was understood from the outset. Other passages will develop the idea further, but we see how very early Jesus began to identify his mission with that of the suffering servant in Isaiah. So again we see that his death is not to be understood as a defeat or the final outcome of a failed mission. It was his mission. As Jehovah’s servant, whose sufferings were portrayed by Isaiah so many centuries in advance, he would sacrifice himself in our place, bearing our sins so that we might be righteous.

Table Talks: The Baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3)

Table Talks, Synoptic Gospels 2

The Baptism of Jesus

Matthew 3

Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (cf. Luke 3:23) when he came to the Jordan River to be baptized by John the Baptist. John himself saw this event as extraordinary.  In fact it represented a commitment already at this beginning of his public ministry to take the road to the cross.  John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus will be understood if we consider the purpose of his baptism.

It was a baptism for sinners, “the baptism of repentance for remission of sins.” People “were baptized of him ..., confessing their sins” (Mark 1:4f; cf. Matt. 3:5f; Luke 3:3).

John tried to restrain Jesus.  He said, “I have need to be baptized of you, and do you come to me?” (Matt. 3:14). It would have seemed natural if Jesus had come to assist John in baptizing others. But it was surprising to see this sinless person identify himself with sinners and ask to be baptized.  He thereby expressed recognition of his role as a bearer of sins, understanding that he must be “reckoned with transgressors” and fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy about Jehovah’s suffering servant who was to be “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 22:37).

“Permit me now,” Jesus said, “for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). The explanation likely alludes to Isaiah’s prophecy and his own role as the servant of Jehovah who would suffer and die not for his own sins but for the sins of his people. Jehovah had explained in advance:  “By the knowledge of himself (or: by his knowledge) shall my righteous servant justify many,” or as the margin puts it, “make many righteous” (Is. 53:11).  The explanation continues: “and he shall bear their iniquities.”

Jesus understood his mission from the beginning in terms of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Baptism was not for him as for others. It was the first step toward a death in which he would bear the sins of mankind and make it possible for them to be righteous.

The cross was not a defeat, the end of a failed ministry. It was the fulfillment of a divine purpose entertained in the mind of Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.

Table Talks: Matthew 1:21

Table Talks on the Synoptic Gospels 1

Jesus Christ, the Great Liberator

Matthew 1:21

The Old Testament leaves us with a certain emptiness. We wonder:  What next? Something more surely needs to be said.

Promises to Abraham:  “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), and:  “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), remain unfulfilled.

So also of God’s promise to David that his kingdom would be established for ever; that it would not be taken from the house of David as it was from Saul (2 Sam. 7:11–16).  But David’s throne was cast down and a psalmist wondered how long such conditions would last (Psalm 89).  The prophets reassured believers that God had not forgotten his promise (Isaiah 9:6–7; 55:3–4). But the Old Testament closes with the throne vacant and promises unfulfilled.

But the first New Testament book proclaims the fulfillment of Old Testament hope. Matthew 1:1 identifies Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham,” and the first page of the New Testament establishes the heir both to the covenant with David and the promise to Abraham (Matt. 1:1–17).

But if Jews expected a king like David to reign on an earthly throne and lead an army against the Roman overlord, Matthew would quickly disillusion them. Early on, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream, explaining that he must not fear to take his betrothed and pregnant bride Mary. She had not been unfaithful to him, but had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. “And she shall bring forth a son; and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:20–21).

Jesus is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament name Joshua, meaning “Jehovah is salvation.” But the angel’s explanation puts the reader on notice that the liberation to be accomplished was not political, but spiritual.  “He shall save his people from their sins.”  Bondage to Rome was not their problem. It was nothing compared to the bondage to sin. And the deliverance to be accomplished by their Savior was not a liberation from Rome, but from sin. It could not be accomplished by an army, but required the death of the Savior.

Faith Without Works (James 2:14–26)

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!

Christianity Without Bonds

“We Are Of Christ”

So said Paul, when false teachers had moved into Corinth to challenge his credentials.  Paul challenged the Corinthian disciples to consider the obvious facts:  “Look at the things that are before your face.  If any man trusteth to himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christ’s, so also are we” (2 Cor. 10:7).  There was more to be said concerning Paul’s authority as an apostle (v. 8).  But Paul was one of the ministers through whom the Corinthians had believed (1 Cor. 3:5).  He knew what a Christian was.  So they could certainly start with that.  “We are of Christ.”

That is not the only time Paul spoke of Christians as those who are “of Christ” (Gal. 3:29), “they that are of Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:29; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23).

Even in New Testament times people tended to stray from this singleminded commitment to Christ, and to exalt human beings beyond what was due.  At Corinth some said, “I am of Paul”; others, “I of Apollos”; and still others, “I belong to Cephas (= Peter)”; and “I of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:10–13).

“Is Christ divided?” Paul demanded.  They certainly were making it to appear so.  So the implied negative was a rebuke of the whole situation.  Then he had two questions for those who said, “I am of Paul”:  First, “was Paul crucified for you?” and second, “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?”

The answer, of course, was “No” to both questions; and Paul’s logic is:  Then you have no right to belong to Paul.  It was Christ Jesus who was crucified for them, paying the price to purchase them (1 Cor. 6:19–20; 7:23); and they had been baptized into the name of Christ (cf. Acts 8:16; 19:5).  They belonged to Christ and to no other.

“We are of Christ,” says Paul.  And so we say today.  Christ Jesus was crucified for us, and we have been baptized into the name of Christ.  So we belong to Christ.  We have no sectarian loyalties or denominational affiliations.  We are of Christ, and consider that that is enough to be.  It tells it all.

Jesus wanted his apostles to “make disciples” of the nations (Matt. 28:18–20).  And that is all they did.  Acts 11:26 tells us that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”  Christians!  The word has the same formation as the word Herodian, which identified those who belonged to Herod; they were adherents of Herod.  Christians are people who belong to Christ.

We are disciples (pupils, students, adherents) of Christ, as a people who sit at the feet of the Teacher, learn from him and remain in his word, confident that in his word alone we “shall know the truth” (John 8:31); who endeavor to follow him and to breathe his spirit (John 13:12–15, 34–35); to honor him before everything else and before every human loyalty (Luke 14:22–35).

Even today, men continue to exalt men, human doctrines and human systems.  But we are of Christ.  And we think that is enough to say.  It explains everything about us.  We are determined to maintain the loyalty to Christ before everything else.  We are not of Luther, or Calvin or Wesley.  We have no religious loyalty to any mere man.  Nor are we committed to any sectarian system or denominational organization.  We are of Christ.

That explains everything about us.  It explains why we tell people exactly what Jesus instructed his apostles to tell them about salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  It explains the stand we make on baptism, who is to be baptized (Acts 2:41; 8:12) and how (Rom. 6:3–4).  It explains the way we worship, the life and discipline we advocate, the way the church is organized, our understanding of the church’s mission.  We belong to Christ as the members of a body belong to their head (Rom. 12:3–5; 1 Cor. 6:15; 12:12; Eph. 1:22–23; 5:22–24).  It is not the place of the body to take matters into its own hands, but rather, to be subject to its head.  The head gives direction.  The body listens and then yields to the direction received from its head.

Paul had made his arguments before King Agrippa, and could see that the king was moved.  But the proud king responds with a brush-off.  His words are best translated:  “In little you are making me a Christian.”  Fat chance of making him a member of this sect that was everywhere spoken against (cf. Acts 28:22).  But if the king was taking Paul’s message lightly, Paul himself was as earnest as could be.  He responds to the king:  “I would to God that both in little and in great, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds” (Acts 26:27–29).  A Christian!  Yes, that is exactly what Paul was trying to make of Agrippa and of all the rest.  He wanted them to become such as he was, “except these bonds.”

A Christian!  But without the bonds.  I know Paul was a prisoner and was speaking of bonds in the most literal sense.  But it strikes me that many people today are trying to be Christians, but with chains that restrict them in their effort to follow Christ.  The bonds of sectarian and denominational loyalties.  The bonds of human doctrinal systems.  Bonds forged by human desire.  Bonds that keep them from being completely free Christians, free to “follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Rev. 14:4).

Christianity without the bonds!  If that thought touches a chord in your heart, as it does in ours, perhaps you may be ready to visit with one of our folk about how to be a Christian without the bonds.

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).