Moses: The Most Humble Man? (Numbers 12:3)

“Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3, NKJV).

Based on the assumption that a humble person would not say this about himself, a number of critical scholars have questioned Moses’s authorship, not only of the book of Numbers but of the entire Pentateuch. They theorize that a later author or redactor or editor must have been responsible for at least this parenthetical statement if not the entire literary work.  

The Question of Authorship

The first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), a.k.a. the Pentateuch or the Torah, have historically been attributed to the authorship of Moses and thus designated the Five Books of Moses. He was clearly an inspired author who preserved in writing a record of historical events, including those in which he and the people of Israel were involved, along with words revealed by God and gathered into a “book” or compilation of documents.¹ Through the centuries these writings have been collectively known as “the Book of the Law of Moses,” or comparable descriptors.²

Jesus was familiar with, accepted, and validated the writings of Moses, both as a collective whole,³ as well as individual passages.⁴ The Spirit-guided apostles were also familiar with, accepted, and validated Moses’s writings, both the entire corpus,⁵ as well as particular texts,⁶ in conjunction with other inspired teachers,⁷ contemporary Jews and Jewish Christians.⁸

It seems readily apparent from the biblical record itself that Moses wrote all five books consistently ascribed to him, from Genesis 1:1 to Deuteronomy 31:24, “when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished.” Unless he prophetically recorded his own death and burial, the ending of Deuteronomy appears to have been completed by someone else, presumably his successor Joshua, who was divinely appointed, indwelt by God’s Spirit, invested with the authority Moses himself had been given, continuing the story in the manuscript bearing Joshua’s name (Num. 27:15-20; Josh. 1:1-8).⁹

Contextual Considerations

By the time we get to the twelfth chapter of the historical narrative of Numbers, the Lord has provided for his people deliverance from oppressive slavery in Egypt, protection and provision in the wilderness, direction, leadership, and hope. He has given Moses ample instruction and support, along with miraculous confirmation accompanied by God’s Angel, God’s Spirit, and a pillar of cloud and fire for extra guidance and protection.¹⁰

As the Israelites departed from Sinai to the land of promise (Num. 10:11-36), they grew increasingly dissatisfied, complaining about their surroundings and lack of variety in the Lord’s provisions, ready to revoke their freedom and return to Egypt (11:1-10). Moses himself was growing weary with all the heavy responsibilities, high expectations, and persistent backlash from the multitude of obstinate, discontent, uncooperative, contentious ingrates (11:11-15).

Once again the Lord intervened to help Moses carry this massive load, providing the assistance of 70 elders, an overabundance of additional food for the people, with a disciplinary plague to quell the disrespectful and selfish complaints (Num. 11:16-35). When it probably seemed the situation could not get any worse, Moses’s own brother and sister turned against him (12:1-2), prompting the parenthetical statement, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (12:3).

Translational and Interpretive Considerations

The Hebrew word translated “humble” in this verse, sometimes rendered “meek” (ASV, ESV, KJV), is ‘anav [עָנָו], which carries the sense of “lowly,” “afflicted,” or “humbled by oppression” (cf. Job 24:4; Psa. 9:18).¹¹ Contextually we see a clear contrast between Moses, on one hand, and his prideful siblings, on the other, who instead of graciously appreciating the special gifts and positions of service God had bestowed upon them, and rather than recognizing and respecting Moses as the divinely chosen leader of God’s people and helping to bear this enormous load, Miriam the prophetess and Aaron the high priest appear to have been consumed with envy as they turned against God’s chosen one, thereby adding to Moses’s already overwhelming burden.

The antagonism they felt toward their brother was unjustified. Moses was not a self-appointed leader. He had neither aspired to, coveted, nor ambitiously sought this position. In fact, he had yielded to God’s call reluctantly with significant apprehension (Ex. 3:1–4:18). It would have been challenging for a person of lesser character in such a lofty leadership role to resist prideful arrogance, to refrain from defending himself, and to abstain from counter attacking. God, therefore, takes up for his faithful servant Moses (Num. 12:4-9).

Conclusion

By comparison, considering the shameful attitudes and actions of Miriam, Aaron, and the Israelite people, the description of Moses in Num. 12:3, inspired by God’s Spirit, is an accurate assessment. It would be comparable to Daniel recounting his own greatness and humility in light of God’s providence (Dan. 1:19-20; 5:11-12; 10:12), and to Paul speaking of his humbled state of weakness that exalts the power of God working through him (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5-10). Moreover, with the sense of “afflicted” or “humbled by oppression” understood, the self-reflective statement of Moses makes perfect sense in this context (compare, e.g., Psa. 25:16-21; 37:7-8; 69:29; 94:3-5; Isa. 53:3-4; Jer. 1:6-8, 19-19; 12:6; 13:16-17; 15:10; 20:7-18; Heb. 11:37-39).¹²

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Ex. 17:14; 24:4-7; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 24-26. The Hebrew noun cepher [סֵפֶר] does not refer to a “book” in the modern sense of a bound volume of pages but a missive, document, writing, or scroll “in which something is written to preserve it for future use” (Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius 706-707).

     ² Josh. 8:31-35; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3-4; 2 Kings 14:6; 23:21-25; 2 Chron. 23:18; 25:4; 30:16; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6; Neh. 8:1-14; 13:1; Dan. 9:11-13; cf. Mal. 4:4.

     ³ Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; John 1:17; 5:45-47; 7:19.

     ⁴ Matt. 5:33; 8:4; 19:4-8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:3-8; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 3:14; 7:22-23; 8:5.

     ⁵ John 1:17, 45; Acts 15:21; 26:22; 28:23; 2 Cor. 3:14-15.

     ⁶ Acts 3:22; 13:17-18, 39; Rom. 9:15; 10:5, 19; 1 Cor. 9:9; 10:1-10; 2 Cor. 3:7-13; 2 Tim. 3:8.

     ⁷ Acts 7:2-44; Heb. 3:2-5, 16-19; 7:1-14; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-29; 12:16-24. E. E. Ellis identifies quotes from the Pentateuch in Paul’s writings (Rom. 4:3, 17, 18; 7:7; 9:7, 9, 12, 15, 17; 10:5-8, 19; 12:19; 13:9; 15:10; 1 Cor. 6:16; 9:9; 10:7; 15:45; 6:16; 8:15; 13:1; Gal. 3:6, 8, 10, 13, 16; 4:30; 5:14; Eph. 5:31; 6:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:18a; 2 Tim. 2:19a), along with additional allusions and parallels (Paul’s Use of the OT 150-52). For careful analysis of these and other OT quotations in the rest of the NT, see G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the NT Use of the OT (2007).

     ⁸ Matt. 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 2:22; 20:28; John 9:29; Acts 6:11, 14; 13:15; 15:1, 5, 21; 21:21; Heb. 10:28.

     ⁹ From the final verses of chapter 31, conservative scholars generally agree that the last chapters of Deuteronomy are an appendix to the entire collection that Moses placed in the care of the Levites: “there is nothing in the whole of the five books which Moses might not have written” (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT: The Pentateuch 3:517).

     ¹⁰ God leads through Moses (Ex. 3:10; 32:7; 33:1), along with Aaron (Ex. 6:26-27), God’s Angel (Ex. 14:19; 23:20-23; 32:34; Isa. 63:9), God’s Spirit (Num. 11:17, 25), and the pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22). See K. L. Moore, “The Angel of the LORD,” Moore Perspective (1 June 2013), <Link>; “The Pillar of Cloud and Fire,” Moore Perspective (27 July 2022), <Link>.

     ¹¹ Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius 776; Wilson’s OT Word Studies 223. The LXX employs the adj. πραΰς, meaning “not being overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance, gentle, humble, considerate, meek in the older favorable sense .... unassuming ...” (BDAG 861).

     ¹² “Powerless to personally supply the people’s demand for meat in the previous crisis (11:13-14), Moses was equally powerless, due to his character, to defend himself against personal attack and so deal with the authority crisis precipitated by the revolt of his brother and sister.... The affirmation of Moses’ meekness, which documents his incapacity and explains the sudden divine intervention, is thus so essential to the context that the supposition of some expositors that verse 3 may be an editorial addition, perhaps by Joshua, is rendered unlikely. To be sure, Moses’ humility ... is seen as a virtue, but one recorded by that remarkable objectivity of inspiration which enabled Moses also to speak fully of his own shortcomings (e.g. 11:11-12, 21-22; 20:10-12 and Exodus 4:10-15)” (C. M. Woods, Living Way Commentary on the OT 2:115).

Works Cited:

Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Francis Brown, et al., The New Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers, 1980.

E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Vol. III, The Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies. McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing, 1990.

Clyde M. Woods, The Living Way Commentary on the Old Testament: Vol. 2, Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy. Shreveport, LA: Lambert, 1974.

Related Posts: God's Mighty Acts in Exodus, Moses: a Husband of Blood 

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://janehgreen.com/how-to-put-god-first-in-dealing-with-others/ 

Consider it All Joy when you Fall into Various Trials

Life is hard. If you believe in God, love God, trust God, obey God, and live as the Bible says to live, life is still going to be hard. If you don’t believe in God or trust and obey him and don’t live as the Bible says to live, life is even harder. The Lord has never promised that living in this sin-filled, problem-plagued world would be easy for anyone.¹

The Unique Christian Perspective

James 1:2-3 says, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.”² James is writing to Christians (“my brethren”), so following Christ is not going to exempt us from facing trials. But notice what James does not say:

*  He doesn’t say to “feel” joyful. Rather, to “consider it all joy” is a cognitive choice.³

*  He doesn’t say “if” you fall into various trials but “when.”

*  He doesn’t say to intentionally seek out trials, but you will inevitably “fall into” them whether you want to or not.

*  He doesn’t say “perhaps” or “maybe” or “unwittingly” but “knowing.”

*  He doesn’t say these are problems you choose or bring upon yourself or can avoid but are faith tests.

*  He doesn’t say these trials produce a passive “tolerance” toward difficult circumstances but engender hearty and unyielding “endurance,” “fortitude,” “perseverance” [hupomonḗ].

What we need to learn from this timely and practical exhortation:

*  Don’t be surprised when trials come, and don’t get caught off guard.

*  Joy is not a feeling that is felt but an intentional state of mind.

*  No one enjoys life’s inevitable troubles, but as God’s children we can look beyond them and know it’s going to be okay no matter what.

*  We have divine reassurance that we’re going to be stronger and more resilient on the other end, able to face even more difficult trials and help others who are facing them as well.

*  As Christians—irrespective of our immediate family histories and environments—we have an extended church family, though not perfect, that is comprised of more good than bad, with mutual reliance on and support for one another.⁴

*  Most importantly we have the Lord on our side who has promised to never leave nor forsake us; he will carry us through all the way to the end to an everlasting home where pain, suffering, hardship, and loss will be no more.⁵

Conclusion

Like everyone else in the world, we will face trying times as long as we live on this physical earth. Unlike the rest of the world, we have a unique perspective in Christ with additional help and reassurance to get us through. Never give up hope, and never give up on the Lord.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Job 14:1; John 16:33; Rom. 5:3-5; 8:18, 35-36; 2 Cor. 7:4-5; Phil. 1:27-30; Col. 1:24; Rev. 1:9; 2:10; et al.

     ² Author’s own translation.

     ³ The verb hēgéomai means “to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard” (BDAG 434).

     ⁴ Rom. 12:9-13; 15:1-2; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 6:1-2, 10; Eph. 4:29-32; Phil. 2:1-4; et al.

     ⁵ Psa. 46:1-3; Matt. 6:33; Rom 8:28-39; Heb. 13:5-6; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Rev. 21:4; et al.

Related Posts: Most Powerful Argument Against God? 

Related Presentations: James Dalton, FHU Chapel Talk 2-23-26, "Joy" [starts at 23:38]

 

Image credit: https://www.philmckinney.com/embrace-the-hard-the-secret-to-a-fulfilling-life/

Two Pharisees: Two Responses to Jesus

Introduction

Who were the Pharisees? You can search the entire OT and find not a single reference to them. They were a Jewish sect that arose during the Intertestamental Period, promoting religious purity in opposition to the secularization and Hellenization of the Jewish people and their religious and political leaders. The name “Pharisees” means “separated ones” or “separatists.” They were strict adherents to the Law of Moses and protectors of the Jewish way of life. They sought to build a protective “fence” around the sacred Law by creating additional rules and regulations known as the “traditions” of the elders (Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14).

The Pharisees in general are probably best remembered for their hypocrisy and hostility toward Jesus and the early church. However, not all Pharisees or pharisaic tendencies were bad. Besides the hard-core adversaries, there were more moderate Pharisees,¹ two of whom are the subject of our current study.

Introducing Nicodemus the Pharisee 

The name Nicodemus is a combination of nîkos (“victory”) + dēmos (“people”), meaning “victorious among the people,” a noble name fairly common among both Jews and Gentiles. Only the Gospel of John mentions Nicodemus by name, in three separate passages (chaps. 3, 7, 19). He is described as “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1), thus a religious leader, a prominent teacher (v. 10), and a member of the illustrious Sanhedrin (cf. 7:50). Nicodemus is first introduced in the context of Jesus having traveled to Jerusalem, where “many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did” (John 2:23).²

“This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him’” (John 3:2). It is significant that Nicodemus addresses Jesus as “Rabbi,” a title of supreme honor and respect among the Jews, reserved for the most esteemed among Jewish teachers,³ similar to addressing the Prime Minister of New Zealand as “the Right Honorable,” or a high-ranking Māori chief, “Ariki.”

It was apparently important to John to mention more than once that Nicodemus “came to Jesus by night” (repeated in 7:50 [N/KJV] and/or 19:39). This subtle detail adds very little to the storyline, and no explanation is given. But John places much emphasis in his Gospel on the distinct contrast between spiritual “light” and spiritual “darkness” (1:4-9; 3:19-21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46), including the metaphoric sense of “night” (9:4; 11:9-10).⁴

At this point in John’s record Nicodemus was in the early stages of his faith and struggled to distinguish between the physical realm and the spiritual realm, between natural birth and the new birth, between worldly darkness and heavenly light. Jesus concludes the conversation by informing Nicodemus: “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (3:21). Nicodemus was much more enlightened after his encounter with Jesus than at the beginning.

As John’s narrative continues, we see the understanding and faith of Nicodemus grow. A couple of years later, while other Sanhedrin leaders were deriding and plotting against Jesus, Nicodemus takes a stand for what is right and is ridiculed by his colleagues (7:45-52). About three years after his first encounter with the Lord, despite the inherent risk, he joined Joseph of Arimathea (a “secret” disciple) to ensure that Jesus had a decent burial (19:38-42).  

Introducing Simon the Pharisee

The name Simon is the Greek form of the Hebraic Simeon, derived from a Hebrew expression meaning “he has heard” (Gen. 29:33), an implicit allusion to answered prayer with the broader sense of hearing or listening. This was a common name among first-century Jewish males.

Simon the Pharisee is introduced in Luke 7:36-50, the only time in the biblical record he is mentioned by name. He is not to be confused with other men who wore the same name nor should this account be conflated with similar episodes that occurred at different times and places.

Contextually, Jesus appears to have been in Galilee and had just declared, “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (v. 23). The crowd that was present included tax collectors who had been baptized by John, as well as Pharisees and law experts who had not, having “rejected the will of God for themselves ...” (vv. 29-30). At least some of them were accusing Jesus of being “a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (v. 34).

Nevertheless, not every Pharisee was so dismissive, and one of them, Simon, invited Jesus to his house for a meal. In recounting the event, in a very impersonal way, Luke refers to the man merely as “one of the Pharisees” (v. 36) and “the Pharisee” (v. 39). It is only after the recorded words of Jesus calling him by name (v. 40) that Luke then refers to him by name (vv. 43-44).

The scene is interrupted by a woman of the city described as “a sinner” (v. 37). She is unnamed, and the nature of her sins is not disclosed. She was crying profusely. Whether these were tears of remorse or tears of gratitude, the text does not say. The verb tenses indicate that she was a sinner in the past (v. 37) and had been forgiven and continued to be forgiven in the present (vv. 47, 48, 50).⁵

She washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed and anointed them with fragrant oil (v. 38). The Pharisee, as Luke describes him, was thinking to himself, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner” (v. 39). That she may have been a forgiven sinner was not Simon’s concern.

“And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ So he said, ‘Teacher, say it’” (v. 40). Notice that Simon did not call Jesus by name, nor did he respectfully address Jesus as “Rabbi,” as Nicodemus had done. In his thoughts Jesus was merely “this man” (v. 39), and in his verbal address Jesus was simply “Teacher” [Didáskalos], without the inherent honor and reverence the more formal title would have conveyed.

Obviously Jesus knew not only the moral and spiritual condition of this woman but what Simon was thinking. So he told a parable about two debtors, one of whom was much deeper in debt than the other, neither of whom was able to pay. The gracious creditor “freely forgave them both” (vv. 41-42), and the one who had been forgiven the most naturally loved the most.

Jesus then contrasted the two debtors currently in his presence: one an accused sinner, the other a self-righteous religious leader oblivious to his own sins. One was remorseful, penitent, and thankful; the other indifferent and disrespectful. One demonstrated love, commitment, and faith; the other was noncommittal. One was forgiven and saved. The other was not.

Comparing the Two Pharisees

On the surface, Simon’s response to Jesus seems more commendable than that of Nicodemus. Simon approached Jesus openly, Nicodemus in secret. Simon invited Jesus into his home, Nicodemus did not. However, as Jesus himself affirms, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). This statement was made shortly before Nicodemus took a stand for Jesus behind closed doors (vv. 25-52).

Nicodemus came to Jesus intentionally, while Simon’s encounter was incidental. Nicodemus came with sincerity, Simon with mere curiosity. Nicodemus approached Jesus with humility, whereas Simon maintained his prideful arrogance. Nicodemus was respectful, Simon was dismissive. Nicodemus was convinced by the evidence the Lord presented, while Simon was unmoved and noncommittal. Nicodemus was in the early stages of his faith that continued to grow, yet Simon failed to even begin his faith journey.

Conclusion

Among the Pharisees of the first century, there were two extremes: (a) the hypocritical, evil, violently opposed to Christ (Matt. 23); and (b) those openly receptive to the gospel and publicly zealous for Christ (Phil. 3:3-14). Neither Simon nor Nicodemus fits into either category. Like many of us today, between these extremes are (a) those, like Simon, who have the opportunity to follow Christ but lack conviction, reject the invitation, and remain lost in their sins; and (b) those like Nicodemus, quietly serving the Lord without a great deal of recognition but faithful nonetheless.

Let’s remember from the account of Jesus’s interaction with Nicodemus: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life .... But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (John 3:16, 21).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Consider, for example, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and Paul (Matt. 27:57-60; Acts 5:33-40; Phil. 3:5). Since the Pharisees correctly acknowledged God’s power to raise the dead (Acts 23:6-8; 26:5-7), they were prime candidates for the gospel and a number of them did become Christians (Acts 2:41; 15:5). See K. L. Moore, “A Closer Look at Pharisaism,” Moore Perspective (16 Nov. 2013), <Link>.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “Education of Jesus the Rabbi,” Moore Perspective (8 Feb. 2017), <Link>. The scribes and Pharisees loved to be seated in the highest places of honor and to be called, “Rabbi” (Matt. 23:6-7).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “And It Was Night,” Moore Perspective (23 Dec. 2020), <Link>.

     ⁵ She “was” [ēn] a sinner (v. 37), the imperfect tense conveying repeated action of the past. Jesus affirmed that her sins “have been forgiven” [aphéōntai] (vv. 47-48), the perfect tense conveying past action with ongoing results. When Jesus said to her, “Your faith has saved [sésōkén] you” (v. 50), again the perfect tense conveys past action with ongoing results.

*Prepared for the Christian Family Camp hosted by the church in Palmerston North, New Zealand (16th–19th January 2026).

Related Posts: A Closer Look at Pharisaism, John 3:16

Related articles: Lance Mosher, When being a Pharisee is a Good thing  

 

Image credit: https://medium.com/@Grailen_Made/the-three-crucial-crossroads-mastering-lifes-essential-decisions-a334ee5e8d7d 

God’s Purpose for Israel in the Old Testament

God’s purpose for Israel began with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 18:17-19; 22:17-18), renewed in Isaac and Jacob (26:3-5; 28:13-15) and their descendants (46:3; 48:3-4; 49:10), intended as a blessing to “all the families [nations] of the earth” (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Having delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage and reminding them of the covenant made with their forefathers (Ex. 2:24-25; 6:1-8), the Lord spoke through Moses (Ex. 19:3-9) reaffirming divine authority and providential care for his covenant people, along with expectations of obedience (vv. 3-6). Yet their selection in no way meant the exclusiveness of a single-nation God.

A Kingdom of Priests

“And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation …” (Ex. 19:6a). A priest serves in a mediatorial role between fellow-humans and God, so an entire priestly kingdom implies “Israel’s mission as that of bringing other peoples to the Lord…”¹ As “a holy nation,” the holiness of God was to be displayed through his people, as “Israel was called to be the vehicle of the knowledge and salvation of God to the nations of the earth.”² To this solemn mission the post-exodus Israelites pledged their obedience (v. 8).

Unfortunately, God’s people did not remain faithful to their covenant agreement (1 Kings 19:10; Jer. 31:32; cf. Jer. 7:25-28; Psa. 95:8-11; Acts 7:51-53) and suffered the consequences, including a divided nation (1 Kings 12–2 Kings 17), Assyrian exile of the northerners (2 Kings 15–17), and Babylonian exile of the southerners (2 Kings 23–25). Nevertheless, God still loved his people and sought to bring them back to obedient faith, continuing to work with them to fulfill his overall plan.

God’s “Witnesses”

Through Isaiah, the Lord issued stern warnings of judgment (Isa. 1–39), as well as messianic hope (chaps. 40–66). The restoration of his covenant people was assured (43:1-7), and they in turn were to be his “witnesses” to the nations (43:8-13; cf. 44:8). A witness is superfluous without a testimony and those to whom the testimony can be conveyed. Here “all the nations” are to be on the receiving end of Israel’s testimony.

Yahweh has such [witnesses] available – his own special people. In fact that is in a sense their very destiny. Israel is not to be a mighty worldly power dominating other nations and exercising world-empire. She is to be witness to what God has done for her, witness by her very existence and witness by the testimony that she can bear orally. By thus witnessing she fulfils her calling of being God’s ‘servant,’ whom he has chosen.³

The responsibility of the Israelites to be God’s witnesses was based on what he had done and was doing for them (43:10-25), and simply because of who he is (44:6-8). “This people I have formed for myself; they shall declare my praise” (43:21).

The God of All People

The approximately 175 allusions in the Psalms to the universality of God’s reign demonstrate the extent of his interest and care. “In the Psalms there are seventy-six references to the ‘nations’, even though the Psalms are part of the worship of Israel. And if you add references to ‘all the earth’ and ‘the peoples’ it is quite startling to see how much the Psalms teach us of God’s concern for all mankind.”⁴

In 1 Chronicles 16:7-36, when the ark of God was returned to the tabernacle, David’s song of thanksgiving shows his awareness of the universality of God’s reign (esp. vv. 8, 14, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33). David realized that Yahweh is not limited to the people of Israel alone. In 1 Kings 8:38-43, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon’s prayer evinces an awareness of the Lord’s purpose for his people, showered with grace and blessings as they submit to his holy will (vv. 38-40). Solomon prayed for the “foreigner, who is not of your people Israel” (v. 41a), foreseeing God’s message spreading to distant lands (vv. 41b-42), “that all peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel …” (43). Note also 1 Kings 8:60; 10:1, 9.

Jonah was a Jewish prophet sent to preach to a non-Jewish people (Jonah 1:1-2), a clear reflection of the Lord’s willingness to save even heathen nations who submit to him as the universal God of the entire earth.

The book of Jonah is so significant for understanding the biblical basis of mission because it treats God’s mandate to his people regarding the Gentile peoples and thus serves as the preparatory step to the missionary mandate of the New Testament. But it is also important for catching a glimpse of the deep resistance this mandate encounters from the very servant Yahweh has chosen to discharge his worldwide work.⁵

Granted, Jonah was a reluctant missionary, but the point is the Lord’s concern for all people and his willingness to proactively give them an opportunity to come to him. Jeremiah was appointed “a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5b). In fact, God’s blessings were always meant to include the Gentiles, anticipating a time when “the nations” would bow to the Creator.⁶  

First-Century Jews

That at least some Jews understood their God-given purpose is apparent in their proselytizing efforts. Jesus acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees were known for traveling great distances to win converts to Judaism (Matt. 23:15). In the first century AD, there were a number of proselytes (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43) and semi-convert God-fearers (Acts 10:2; 13:16, 26; 17:17; 18:7).

In Rom. 2:17-20, Paul reiterates God’s intended purpose for Israel. Their privileged status necessarily came with great responsibility: a guide to the spiritually blind,⁷ a light to those in spiritual darkness,⁸ an instructor of the foolish (morally and spiritually uninformed), a teacher of “children,” not literally, but the immature, clueless, uninstructed in God’s way (cf. vv. 21a, 22a; compare Jonah 4:11; Matt. 18:5). This highlights a significant expectation and duty that stems from divinely-gifted prerogatives. The people of Israel, having been granted access to the special revelation of the divine will, were necessarily obligated to share that knowledge with others.

Conclusion:

Missionary work was not something that developed in the latter (Christian) stage of God’s plan but has always been an integral part. Although Israel’s mission was often neglected and unfulfilled, it was God’s purpose for them nonetheless.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Clyde M. Woods, People’s OT Notes: Genesis–Exodus 1:175.

     ² C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT 2:98-100. “It is here that Israel’s missionary role became explicit … The whole nation was to function on behalf of the kingdom of God in a mediatorial role in relation to the nations…. Unfortunately for Israel, they rejected this priesthood of all believers …” (W. C. Kaiser, “Israel’s Missionary Call,” in R. D. Winter and S. C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement 29).

     ³ H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah 84.

     ⁴ M. Griffiths, What on Earth Are You Doing 12. Note, e.g., Psalm 67; also 22:27-28; 33:5-12; 57:9; 66:7; 72:11, 17; 82:8; 86:9; 96.1-13; 108:3; 117:1-2.

     ⁵ J. Verkuyl, “Biblical Foundation for the Worldwide Mission Mandate,” in R. D. Winter and S. C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement 40.

     ⁶ Cf. Psa. 22:27; 72:11, 17; 86:9; Isa. 2.1-4; 9:1-2; 42:1-6; 49:6; 51:4; Jer. 16.19-20; Zech. 8.20-23; Mic. 4.1-4; Hab. 2.4, 14, 20; et al.

     ⁷ Isa. 42:6-7; 49:6; cp. Matt. 15:14; Acts 26:18.

     ⁸ Echoing Isa. 49:6; cf. Isa. 11:10; 34:1; 42:6; 55:5. Paul’s commission as an apostle to the Gentiles not only parallels the commissioning of OT prophets (Gal. 1:15-16; cf. Isa. 49:1-6; Jer. 1:5) but “was in fulfillment of Israel’s own obligation to be a light to the Gentiles.... What Israel had not yet fully delivered Paul saw to be his task, but precisely as the fulfillment of Israel’s task” (J. D. G. Dunn, “In Search of Common Ground,” in J. D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law 328).

Related Posts: Universal Priesthood of Believers

 

Image credit: https://x.com/KraantiKumar/status/1711883004669227441