Tim Hayes

Let No Man Deceive You

Let’s carefully consider the claim that king David’s sin with Bathsheba is proof believers can willfully commit terrible sins, still be forgiven and have confidence of Heaven. It’s common for sinners to comfort themselves with the idea that King David evidently sinned worse than they are, committing adultery and murder, yet he still made it. Is this reasonable?

It certainly is clear David committed terrible sins, he committed them willfully and persisted in them over a prolonged period, and he was also forgiven: he will be present in Heaven. But this does not prove the proposed claim; we don’t know for sure if David was a believer at the time he committed these horrible sins: it is conceivable he was regenerated afterward.

David did remarkable things in faith before his sin with Bathsheba, but this not necessarily an indication he was justified, regenerated by God. Some of Abraham’s great acts of faith were prior to his justification; he followed God’s call to leave his home country (Ge 12:4) before believing in God for salvation. (15:6) God doesn’t tell us exactly when David believed in God, having faith unto righteousness. It might have been after his sin with Bathsheba.

The Apostle Paul describes David’s understanding of salvation in no uncertain terms (Ro 4:6-8, Ps 32:1-2), yet this is likely (Spurgeon, vs 5) taken from David’s testimony after his sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps David’s sin is an indication he was not yet regenerated at the time.

Anyone living a life of willful sin who presumes they have eternal life from David’s example is banking on David committing his horrendous sins as a believer, but this presumption: it cannot be proven. What can be proven is what God tells us about believers and what they’re like. For one, no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:15); one who premeditates a murder and carries it out, as David evidently did, gives clear evidence of an unregenerate state.

The Apostle John tells us to be very careful here: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1Jn 3:6-10) John warns that false teachers will try to convince us we can live in sin and have eternal life; the Apostle Paul is also very clear here. (Ep 5:5-6, 1Co 6:9-10) It’s deception.

If we want to believe a lie, if we don’t love the truth, it will be nearly impossible to resist this one (2Th 2:11-12); it certainly appeals to the flesh. Let’s not fall for it, and gently warn those who are. (2Ti 2:24-26)

articles ♦ blog

Faith Alone

Justification by faith alone, and not by works, is the foundation of Christian theology. Often referred to as sola fide (“faith alone”), it is the pillar of the Protestant Reformation; many are devoted to preserving this core tenet of Christian belief: faith alone in Christ alone. (e.g. GES)

In searching the Bible for this concept, it is instructive to note that only a single verse contains both words, faith and alone, and clearly explains the relationship between them — James 2:17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” It tells us we’re not saved by faith alone; a faith that is alone is dead, not saving faith. (vs 14) The book of James apparently denies the doctrine of sola fide, at least as most would understand it; no wonder Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, had difficulty accepting the inspired text.

Yet it would indeed be perilous to conclude that works are necessary for salvation, that we can somehow earn or merit salvation. Scripture clearly states otherwise: we’re saved by faith, and not by works. (Ga 2:16) Mixing faith/grace and works as grounds for salvation isn’t rational; as requirements they are mutually exclusive by definition; it must be one or the other. (Ro 11:6) How then do we parse this? We must be careful, thorough, and precise; we cannot afford to miss it. (2Pe 1:10-11)

It helps to begin by observing that Christ did not come to start a new religion, nor to teach us a new way to be saved: the way to Heaven has never changed. We’re saved just like Father Abraham and King David; Paul builds his case for justification by faith on the testimonies of these two men. (Ro 4:1-3, 6-8) Born again is not just a New Testament idea; it’s grounded in the Old Testament. (Jn 3:10)

It’s very easy to teach a new (and thus false) gospel by taking isolated NT passages out of context; look at the whole of Scripture. If we can’t see the Gospel in the Old Testament we don’t yet understand it, for this is how the Apostle Paul taught it. (Ro 16:25-26)

Believing on Jesus Christ (Ge 15:6) is the supernatural work of God (Jn 6:29) which causes us to rest in the finished work of Christ for our salvation. (He 4:1-3) This divine work creates in us a new, transformed nature (Ga 6:15) which does not deliberately and willfully continue in sin. (1Jn 3:9-10) Those who do intend to continue living in sin don’t yet know God. (vs 6)

Thinking we can receive the gift of eternal life without receiving Christ Himself is deception: the gift is the Giver: Christ Himself is the Life we seek. (1Jn 1:1-2) To believe on Him is to receive Him as He is (Jn 1:12) and trust in Him (Ep 1:15); it is to love Him (1Co 16:22) and obey Him. (He 5:9)

So, we’re indeed saved only by faith (by faith alone), and saving faith is only in Christ (faith alone in Christ alone), but true faith is never alone: it does not exist in isolation, apart from works. Saving faith is always accompanied by a changed life. (He 6:9) It isn’t that we must change our life in order to believe on Christ, but experiencing faith in Christ will radically change us. Pursuing holiness won’t save us, but there’s no eternal life without it. (He 12:14) When we diligently seek God, we find Him (He 11:6) and He changes us. (Ep 2:10)

articles ♦ blog

A Spirit of Meekness

Meekness has been defined as strength under control. Picture a warrior capable of imposing immense harm who chooses to deescalate a situation rather than do battle. These shall inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5)

The weak-minded tend to use strength to exalt themselves and control others, whereas the meek serve, protect and defend those in need. Think of meekness as love trained to overcome hardness and difficulty, humble competence, the opposite of selfish ambition.

Humility moves us to check our motives before engaging in conflict, fighting only as necessary, whereas pride and presumption search out strife and contention and thrive in it. (Ja 3:14-16)

Conflict will certainly come; being strong equips us to resist and overcome it; being meek equips us to do so in wisdom and love, looking to heal and edify rather than causing unnecessary harm. Meekness uses minimal necessary force: do what’s needful, but don’t return evil for evil: overcome evil with good. (Ro 12:21)

We’re to offer instruction to others in meekness (2Ti 2:25), truth to those who are seeking in a manner that both honors (1Pe 2:17) and edifies them (Ep 4:29), considering their true needs as well as we can. (Php 2:4)

When we’re debating spiritual topics in a spirit of mutual edification, asserting other points of view to be in error postures us as the authority, which is presumptuous and offensive unless we’ve actually earned the right by repeatedly demonstrating a competence which is being acknowledged in community. In making such claims we’re also exposing ourselves to stricter judgment (Ja 3:1). Even if we are competent and others are indeed amiss, asserting this is generally unnecessary, violating a spirit of meekness, not the fruit of the Spirit. (Ga 5:22-23)

When another is overtaken in a fault, we’re to restore them in a spirit of meekness, using only minimal necessary force, considering ourselves so we won’t fall into the same traps. (Ga 6:1) When possible, we approach such challenges in community, not in isolation: we generally don’t correct others on our own; to keep ourselves in check, we engage others in restoring the wounded, the broken-hearted and fallen.

articles ♦ blog

Mark Them

God tells us to mark them which cause divisions and offenses in a manner contrary to the law of Christ and avoid them. (Ro 16:17) To do this, we must differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable differences within spiritual community.

Since the primary goal in the church is to edify one another (Ro 14:19), fundamental doctrinal differences related to the nature of God, Man, Salvation, etc., the authority of Scripture, even varying hermeneutics, shouldn’t be allowed: they become a constant source of disruption and frustration in spiritual discussions and applications, especially if some insist on imposing their views upon others.

Yet even when we’re doctrinally aligned on a functional level, the spirit in which one engages can be problematic; we’re to honor all people (1Pe 2:17), respect and value everyone in a spirit of mutual submission within the Body of Christ. (Ep 5:20) Respectful behavior is often culturally defined, and may vary within spiritual communities, comprising all types of cultures, races and backgrounds. As such, it’s important for believers to highlight and align on communication protocols which foster mutual respect, such as:

1. We defer any topic until we’re each ready to discuss it.
2. We use non-accusatory language: rather than, “You’re being illogical!” or “You’re taking it out of context!”, prefer, “I don’t see how you are getting there”, in a tone which is more respectful, meek, gentle, humble.
3. We don’t interrupt or talk over each other.
4. We present one key point at a time, giving ample opportunity for response and clarification, to counter and/or challenge before moving to the next point.
5. We re-state what we hear in our own words, when presented with a complex or difficult idea, to the speaker’s satisfaction before responding.

In submitting ourselves to such rules of engagement we’re exercising self-control, monitoring and evaluating our own behavior (Pr 25:28), more ready to hear than to speak (Ja 1:19), listening to one another, allowing all to participate and be heard (1Co 14:31), to promote our mutual edification. Those unwilling to control their tongues inevitably cause unnecessary strife (Ja 3:14) and discord. (Pr 6:16-19)

Finally, whenever an offense develops between believers in the church, resolving this promptly is imperative (Mt 5:23-25), this must not be allowed to fester. (1Co 5:6) To avoid pettiness, minor indiscretions should be overlooked in a spirit of charity. (1Pe 4:8) Major conflicts (as defined by community) should first be dealt with privately (Mt 18:15), and unresolved disputes brought to the brothers’ attention. (16-17a) The uncooperative and unsubmissive, intent on polluting the congregation with divisions and offenses, must be removed and loved outside the Body as friends or acquaintances, not permitted within close spiritual community. (17b)

articles ♦ blog

In Himself Alone

Until quite recently, I’ve held what many might consider to be an extreme view of Total Depravity; I believed everyone (including me) will always make the most evil choice God allows them to make every time they make a choice, and that the only reason we do not act like Satan at every instant is the restraining grace of God. I can no longer hold this position, partly due to this verse: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.” (Ga 6:4-5) I am unable to make sense of this text, and many others like it, without abandoning my former position, so … I let it go, it’s history.

Evidently, there are degrees of real moral freedom within the boundaries of Total Depravity, such that we have some practical potential to do better or worse within these boundaries according to our own personal choices. Our depravity is evidently total in scope in the sense that all we do is tainted with sin (Is 64:6): we cannot ever do anything perfectly good (Ro 3:12), with 100% pure motives. (Pr 20:9)

However, while we may not be able to make any single choice with perfect motives, it is also evident we have some practical control of how far away we deviate from God’s perfect standard as we choose; we operate within some range of badness, and we can choose to be better or worse within this range. (2Ti 3:13) So, it appears that we are not totally depraved in degree, only in scope.

This is how we experience reality: we have moral freedom to make better or worse choices within some theoretical range of moral goodness, and this is also how God treats us (Mt 12:41); so, it makes sense that this is the reality, not just an illusion. Where these boundaries ultimately come from and how they appear within and impact each individual is mysterious, but a few things appear to be clear about it.

As a foundation, no human except Christ JEsus has ever been perfectly good at any moment (Mk 10:18); all the rest of us are rebels (Is 53:6), some more than others (Ge 13:13), but we’re all guilty (Ro 3:19), and God is perfectly just in punishing us in our rebellion. (Ps 145:17) We’re all sinners (1Jn 1:8) in need of a Savior to save us from this condition: we cannot save ourselves. (Ep 2:8-9)

That said, it is evidently also clear that we are not all equally bad; some of us make worse choices in our total depravity than others, and this difference is something we ourselves can and ought to control. God may even tend to reveal the gospel to those who are trying to make better choices within their unique range of moral ability (Ps 50:23), to those seeking eternal life. (Is 55:6-7)

This is not salvation by works; it is still God choosing to show mercy to the underserved (Ro 9:16), but it may also be God showing mercy to those who — though undeserving — are at least seeking mercy, trying their best (Ro 2:6-7), as bad as it is, within their own, unique degree of moral capability and freedom. (1Ti 1:13)

We perceive we are responsible to make the best choices we can, that it is up to each of us as individuals to do so, of our own free will, and that we don’t always want to make the most evil choice available to us, and that our actions are not all predetermined or compelled by any internal or external forces. Most importantly … we are commanded to live accordingly, and not assume we have no practical control or influence in determining our eternal destiny (Ps 50:23), but that we pursue God and His kingdom with all our might. (Lk 13:24)

If this is how we experience reality, and it is also how God describes reality, and it is also how He actually treats us, there’s sufficient reason to try to interpret all of scripture in accord with this perspective.

articles ♦ blog

Pay for the Loss

On Tuesday, April 25^th, I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle. The driver wasn’t paying attention, looking down, putting on her seatbelt while accelerating through a parking lot. I was on the sidewalk going against the flow of traffic; she hit me head on at an angle, catapulting me and my bike 10-15 feet through the air perpendicular to my direction of travel. Thankfully, I had on a good helmet; otherwise, I’d likely not be writing this today, or anything else.

I managed to come out of it with only a broken left wrist and significant bodily bruising; I have a new titanium plate screwed permanently into my wrist, but no other lasting damage, best I can tell. Looking back on it, this seems a bit miraculous in itself.

Thankfully, the driver was extremely distraught and profusely apologetic, staying with me and calling the ambulance. She took full responsibility and has been praying for my recovery. She has good insurance to help pay for the surgery, care and post-trauma recovery, additional financial loss, as well as pain and suffering. But now comes the ethics of collecting; what to ask for, how much, and how to go about it. This PIP industry is notoriously corrupt, reeking with greed and vice.

Yet Torah does lay out a sensible protocol for handling personal injury; it’s part of the Law of Love: the offending party helps the victim fully recover and also compensates for loss of time. (Ex 21:18-19) This evidently covers at least medical bills, earnings loss and related expenses. But how do we compensate for pain and suffering? Is this even in scope in the biblical protocol?

We ask how the event changed the victim’s quality of life by estimating the payoff the victim would have accepted to voluntarily suffer this loss. What monetary compensation would I have accepted in exchange for the use of my left arm for 4 months? I work out 5-6 times a week, and I type for a living. What’s that worth, in addition to all the other day-to-day activities for which I need both hands?

And even if arrive at such a sum, how do I collect it? Is it worth ruining another family financially? When I myself could easily have been the offender? When the other person actually appears to be more distraught about having caused the accident than I myself ever was going through it?

A brief study shows us two obvious things: [1] people carry insurance to protect themselves and others in just such circumstances, and [2] insurance companies generally pay only what they’re forced to. Unless we have the legal expertise and plenty of free time, we’re going to settle for less than we’re entitled, both legally and scripturally. Enter the Personal Injury Attorney: they’re trained to use legal means to ensure insurance companies pay what they should.

Putting myself in the shoes of the offender, would I mind if the victim hired an ethical PIA to get my insurance to pay a sum considered reasonable for pain and suffering? No. Would I mind if the victim hired a ruthless PIA to come after me for all they could possibly get? For sure. This then is the law of love, best I can sort it out for now.

articles ♦ blog

I Create Evil

The problem of evil in the world is challenging; we recognize pain and suffering exists — bad things happen — and we often describe this as (empirical or natural) evil. And if we’re thoughtful, we also recognize we all do things we ought not — we do wrong: when people deeply and willfully violate the universal moral standard of human conduct, we call such behavior (moral) evil. If God can prevent evil and does not, or if God Himself actually causes evil, we have difficulty understanding how God can also be just, good and loving.

First, there’s a difference between saying God allows evil, and saying God causes evil. There’s also a difference between saying God causes human suffering, and saying God causes people to be morally corrupt and wicked.

The Bible clearly states God creates evil (Is 45:7), but the immediate context doesn’t tell us what kind of evil God creates. Does God cause people to be wicked, to break His Law, or does He merely cause some (or all) human suffering?

Scripture tells us plainly God often causes human suffering: He punishes Israel when she breaks His laws (De 28:21-22) and He chastens those He loves. (He 12:5-6) His motive is always good (Ps 145:17): God punishes evil righteously (Ps 9:7-8), and He chastens His children to cause them to be holy. (He 12:10, Ps 119:75) He does not cause all human suffering (Lk 13:16), but He does ordain all of it for His purposes. (Ge 50:20, Ep 1:11)

But scripture does not clearly state God causes people to be wicked; rather, God says He doesn’t even tempt us to do evil (Ja 1:13), much less cause us to be evil; people are wicked all on their own. (14) This is the fact of Free Will: God allows us to sin against Himself and each other. (Ro 1:24-26) In fact, unless God restrains us from being evil (Ps 19:13), evil is the default human condition (Ep 2:1-3, Mt 7:11) and it’s been this way ever since the Fall of Man. (Ge 6:5)

The alternative is a God Who actually causes us to do evil and then punishes us for doing what He makes us do. (Ro 2:8-9) God might indeed be so, in theory anyway, but I’d need to confess I know nothing at all of His moral character, having lost all hope I ever could.

articles ♦ blog

Let This Mind Be in You

Jesus Christ, being equal with God the Father (Php 2:6), submitted Himself as an obedient servant to the Father (7-8) and esteemed His Father greater than Himself. (Jn 14:26) In highlighting this attitude in Christ and calling us to be like Him (5), Paul is telling us how to walk in humility by esteeming others better than ourselves. (3)

The Greek word translated better is ὑπερέχοντας, huperechōntas, which means superior, surpassing, above, over, better than. The word compares and contrasts one with another. The renowned theologian Albert Barnes, in his exegesis here, understands better in a moral context: the humble consider others to be, apart from God’s grace, morally superior to themselves.

While saints are currently being trained and equipped to judge all human behavior (1Co 6:2-3), it’s tempting to practice on our own before the time (1Co 4:5), without full knowledge of God’s Way, or of the human heart. (1Co 2:11) Not a good move. (1Co 4:3)

While we’re not to evaluate others’ moral goodness yet (Mt 7:1), trying to decide how good or bad someone is or determine what punishment or reward they deserve, we may act as if others are morally superior to ourselves, above us; we may esteem or consider them to less evil than we would be without God’s restraining grace. This violates no law of God, and in following Christ, in emulating His lowliness and meekness (Mt 11:29), God tells us to do exactly this: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Php 2:3)

God will judge us all according to our works (Ro 2:6), measuring and evaluating our thoughts, motives and actions according to His perfect, righteous standard (Jn 5:45); we’ll each score on the moral spectrum uniquely, no two of us being exactly alike. If we think to place ourselves above anyone else on this scale, with no way of knowing precisely where we stand, or exactly where anyone else does, we’re being presumptuous, proud (1Pe 5:5), thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Ro 12:3) Rather, in lowliness of mind, we’re to avoid any tendency to exalt ourselves. (Ga 6:3)

In esteeming others better than ourselves, we should not conflate moral superiority with significance (ESV95), or value (NIV) or importance (NASB95); in providing His Son as an atoning sacrifice for each and every individual, God has infinitely valued each human being equally; we ought not to consider any person more or less valuable, significant or important than any other. Doing so is partiality, being a respecter of persons (De 16:19), which violates the law of Love. (Ja 2:8-9) In love and humility we’re to prefer one another in honor (Ro 12:10), not value, pleased as others are lifted up above ourselves.

Further, we should not confuse humility merely with a call to serve others. While it’s clear Christ humbly submitted Himself to His Father as a servant, it doesn’t follow that we’re to submit ourselves as servants to others; this is actually forbidden. (1Co 7:23) We’re to consider ourselves servants to Christ, not other people, and order our lives to as to please God and not men. (Ga 1:10) In submitting to God we will generally serve others in love (Ga 5:13), and defer to the needs and interests of others (Php 2:4), yet this is always in a context of stewardship and wisdom before God, not a blanket, boundaryless neglecting, disvaluing or demeaning of ourselves in interpersonal relationships. (2Co 8:13)

Christ, our example in humility, though He didn’t consider God the Father morally superior to Himself (for both are morally perfect), He did defer to the greatness and majesty of His Father, to the Father’s Headship within the Trinity itself. (1Co 11:3b) We’re called to follow His steps (1Pe 2:21), to emulate Christ’s lowliness of mind in our relations with one another, yet we can’t do exactly as Christ did here, using the same scale He did with His Father, since on that scale of headship all those within each gender are equivalent with one another. (3a)

Since we’ve eliminated importance, significance and intrinsic worth or value as proper ways to rank ourselves, the only relevant scale or ranking we may rightly refer to here in esteeming others better than ourselves is a moral one, the scale God Himself will use to rank us. (Mt 5:18) However, we’re forbidden to make any formal judgements of ourselves or others for the time being. (7:1-2)

Thus, our default position, if we’re going to esteem others better than ourselves, must be one of considering ourselves to likely be at the very bottom of this moral scale, to potentially be, apart from God’s grace, the most evil person who has ever lived, as Paul the Apostle evidently did (Ga 3:8, 1Ti 1:15), and in this God calls us to follow his example. (Php 4:9)

articles ♦ blog

The Covenants of Promise

In God’s dealings with the nation of Israel there are two covenants (binding agreements) in play: the first is a conditional covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai (Ga 4:24); the agreement is that if Israel will obey God’s Law He will bless them, otherwise He will curse them. (De 11:26-28)

The second (or new) covenant is an unconditional covenant God will eventually make with Israel: He will put His Laws into their minds write them in their hearts (He 8:10), be their God and accept them as His people, ensure they all know Him, and put away all of their sins. (11-12) He will give each of them a new nature which delights in His laws (Ro 7:22), redeeming and saving the entire nation. (Ro 11:26-27)

This first covenant with Israel is not a promise of salvation by works; it’s simply a promise given to Israel as a nation to bless them if they honor and follow God’s law to the best of their ability, evidently as a signal to the rest of us that there’s tremendous blessing in obeying God (Ps 1:2-3), and trouble if we don’t. (Ps 119:118) Israel has, of course, failed miserably to keep their end of the covenant and are being punished by God as a consequence.

The second covenant God will eventually make with Israel certainly is a promise of redemption and eternal salvation for Israel as a nation, but it’s incomplete and mysterious at present, how He will accomplish this and what it will look like.

In the interim, in between these two covenants, we’re left to work out an understanding of how we’re all to relate to God, for it’s through these two covenants God reveals His redemptive plan. (Ps 50:5) They hold within them the keys to having a relationship with God; in being estranged from them we have no hope, and are without God in the world. (Ep 2:11-12)

Yet these two covenants with Israel don’t comprise the whole picture: God makes a third covenant related to redemption, but this one is unique in that God makes it with Himself (Ga 3:20); this is a covenant between the Father and the Son (He 10:8-10): the Father gives the Son a group of people (the elect, or chosen) to redeem, and the Son redeems these people for the Father. (Jn 6:37) This covenant is flawlessly secure because both parties to the covenant are unfailingly perfect. (Ro 4:16) This divine agreement is actually the first covenant of the three, made in eternity past (Ep 1:4, 1Pe 1:19-20) and publicly formalized, revealed and confirmed in front of Abraham, well before Sinai. (Ga 3:17)

The eternal covenant between God the Father and God the Son is evidently related to the two covenants God makes with Israel in that God produces obedience to the Law in the hearts of His elect as required in the Sinai (first) covenant (De 5:29) by providing Himself as the new heart (Ez 36:26), the divine nature within the elect (Co 1:27) inclining us to obey (1Pe 1:2), as promised in the future New Covenant with Israel. (He 10:16-17) In this way, God unites us with Himself and His Law so we partake in both of these two covenants of promise He makes with Israel (1Ti 1:6), giving us hope of eternal life and fellowship in Him. (Ep 2:13-14)

articles ♦ blog

Stone Him

Since God’s Law requires stoning stubborn rebellious sons (De 21:20-21a), it seems most Christians would argue the old Mosaic laws, or at least some of them, are obsolete, inconsistent with the Law of Love. (Ro 13:10) This is so obvious to most of us it’s offensive to suggest otherwise. (Ps 119:172) Yet Christ affirms otherwise: the entire Mosaic Law remains valid so long as Heaven and Earth stand. (Mt 5:18-19) We do well to ponder the maxim: Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness. (Is 8:20)

First, note that this command to stone a defiant son may not be obeyed in isolation, parents taking matters into their own hands: following this command requires the collective assessment and agreement of an entire civil community. Parents accuse the son of rebellion in front of the city elders, in the city gate where civil matters are formally resolved. (De 18:18-19) The elders then enquire, question the parents, the son and others familiar with the situation, and must align with the parents in their struggle. Then all the men of the community participate in executing the son, after his legal conviction.

So, unless parents live in a society which incorporates the civil aspects of Torah within its legal code (as every society should), this command to stone a rebellious son cannot be rightly obeyed. This does not mean the law is obsolete; God has not abolished it (Mt 5:17); it simply doesn’t apply outside this civil context. However, when Messiah returns to rule the nations (Ps 2:9), we can be sure He will enforce this law (Mi 4:2), and it will be holy, righteous and good. (He 1:8)

Secondly, the charge requires both parents to publicly testify that their son is in willful rebellion against them both (De 21:20a), implying both parents are uniquely accountable for training their children into adulthood, and in this case neither parent has been successful in getting their son to cooperate

Thirdly, the requirement for the son to obey implies he is still a child, not yet an adult, and therefore unable to provide for himself; he remains under his parents’ roof and dependent on them, and therefore required to obey them. Further, the context implies the son is sufficiently mature to understand the gravity of the consequences of his rebellion; though still a child, he is choosing to defy his parents and is old enough to be held accountable for his actions.

Finally, the accusation must include the sense that the son, in addition to being defiant, is focused on pursuing his own interests and pleasures. (De 21:20b) The rebellious son is intent on gratifying his own personal appetites without providing for himself; he is acting irresponsibly and burdening his parents rather than contributing to the welfare of the family.

These public accusations, and the threat of brutal execution looming before him, provide a final opportunity for the rebellious son to repent, or perhaps to expose his parents if they’ve been neglectful, abusive or cruel. (De 25:1) In either case, the conflict is dealt with decisively by the community such that open childhood rebellion is not normalized at any level within the culture. (De 21:21c)

Just imagine this command of God playing itself out in a society over decades, over centuries, as parents raise up children amidst grandparents, aunts and uncles, extended family all keeping an eye out for domestic strife, ready to intervene, to love, encourage and advise as needed.

What parent could afford to be careless, negligent or selfish here, unreasonably harsh or undisciplined, knowing a bloody execution could be the outcome? That they’d lose a son, nephew or grandson in brutal termination before the entire community. To be remembered as the family who couldn’t control their kids.

What sobriety this would encourage! (Ti 2:1-6) What self-control and wisdom! What prayerful discipline of all the children in the household, care taken to promptly and prayerfully address any signs of rebellion with firmness, impartiality, fairness, consistency and love! (Pr 19:18)

How it would encourage wisdom in courtship! to choose a compatible, godly spouse, to intentionally avoid turmoil and chaos in the home. How it would motivate parents to collaborate and work together to solve relational issues, both between themselves and among their children, to seek God in maintaining a loving, stable equilibrium in the family, constantly aware of the pulse and disposition of each of their children as they grow and mature.

Might this be a good thing?

And what are our alternatives? Tolerate such abuse and disruption in the family? Do nothing of consequence to deter and prevent it? (Ps 119:155)

And how is that working out for those who despise God’s Law? (Pr 28:9)

I hear the Jews claim that throughout their recorded history, not a single Jewish son has ever been stoned for rebellion. If true, this certainly is something to think about, as we search down the corridors of our prisons — it’s rare indeed to find among the inmates the son of a practicing Jewish family.

articles ♦ blog