Question number one, from Matthew 3, was there a reason for John to have a lifestyle of living in the desert and eating locusts and honey? If you say you follow a weird guy in the desert with that lifestyle, it makes him seem kind of kooky, and people might wonder if you're following someone who has his head screwed on straight. Was there another purpose for that lifestyle? Actually, they did call him kooky. They did more than that. They called him, they said he had a demon because of his austere lifestyle, Matthew 11, 18. As for the clothes, whenever the Bible tells you about someone's clothes, it's not just to add color to your imagination, like in a novel or something like that. It's always to tell you something about that person's character or their identity. And in this case, there's absolutely no mistaking what the reference is. He's dressed like Elijah. This is the opening chapter of 2 Kings gives the account of Elijah sending a message to the king to let him know that he was going to die. Here's what it says, 2 Kings 1, 7. The king asked them, what kind of man was it who came to meet you and told you this? And they replied, He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." And the king said, oh, that was Elijah the Tishbite. That's how distinctive Elijah's outfit was. As soon as it was described like that, immediately you know that has to be Elijah, because no one else dressed like that. It's like Daniel Boone's coonskin cap or Abraham Lincoln's stovepipe hat and beard. It's just iconic. So as soon as you see this, John the Baptist dressing like this, that's what immediately would come to everyone's mind. So back then, on Halloween, if you put a garment of hair and a leather belt on your kid and sent him out trick-or-treating, everyone would just immediately say, oh how cute, look at the little Elijah. So that's how distinctive it was. So he's dressed up like a prophet, like specifically the prophet Elijah. Now that's significant because the Old Testament ends with the promise that someday God would send a prophet in the spirit and power of Elijah. And then God went silent. After making that promise, he goes silent for 400 years between the Old Testament and the New Testament. No prophets. Then, after 400 years of waiting for this Elijah-type prophet to appear, along comes John the Baptist dressed just like Elijah. Was John the fulfillment of the promise in the book of Malachi? Well, Jesus says yes, but only for those willing to accept it. He fulfilled the promise of ushering in the promises of the end of the age for those who believe, but not everyone has ears to hear that. In Matthew 11, 11, Jesus said, I tell you the truth, among those born of women, there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist, yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist till now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. But all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, and if you're willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Then he says, to what can I compare this generation? They're like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others. We played the flute for you and you did not dance. We sang a dirge and you did not mourn. For John came neither eating nor drinking and they say he has a demon. Son of man came eating and drinking and they say he is a glutton and a drunkard and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But wisdom is proved right by her actions. So the people of that time were like children who came to John the Baptist and said, Hey, John, let's play a wedding. We'll play a flute for you. Let's play a game of wedding. And John wouldn't go along with it because he was a serious man with a serious message. And that was why he had the lifestyle he had. He was there to preach a baptism of repentance. And it wasn't a time for joking around. Then Jesus comes and he came in celebration mode because he's the bridegroom of God's people. And so his arrival was a time to celebrate. So he came eating and drinking. But the people didn't get it. They were like children saying, hey Jesus, let's play funeral. Why don't we fast? And so they weren't in touch with reality. John the Baptist and Jesus were. And the people claimed that they rejected John the Baptist because he was so austere, or his clothes, or his diet, or whatever. They just proved themselves disingenuous when they turned around and then rejected Jesus also, because Jesus came eating and drinking. So to answer the question, if people claim that they are rejecting John's message because of his wardrobe or because of his quirky vegan diet or whatever, those people are kidding themselves. They're rejecting him because they don't like his message, just like the people who reject Jesus. And all their excuses are just that, excuses. Next question, also from Matthew 3. What was the purpose of baptism prior to Jesus' death and resurrection? What did it mean? to people before Christ, what did it represent, and is it connected to an Old Testament prophecy? Did it exist in the Old Testament, and how or when did baptism start? So in Old Testament times, the Jews had various washings and cleansing rituals, but nothing like John's baptism. His baptism was a baptism of repentance. We know that later on in history, the Jews required Gentiles to be baptized if they were converted to Judaism because Gentiles were considered unclean, but Jews didn't undergo any conversion ritual like that. So it would have raised more than a few eyebrows when, if that was happening, it probably was during Jesus' time. We know for sure it was happening a little bit later. Probably was happening during Jesus' time, the baptism of Gentiles who were being converted, proselyte baptism. And so it would have raised more than a few eyebrows when John calls Jews to baptism, Jews to be baptized, in a conversion-type event, because it implied that the Jews are just as unclean as the Gentiles and needed to be cleansed before God and converted just like Gentiles. And yet, Jews came out in droves to be baptized by John. In 1 Corinthians 10 it speaks of being baptized into Moses. Interesting phrase. And it's hard to say for sure exactly what that means, but I get the feeling that it means something like becoming a follower of Moses. So if you're baptized into someone, then you're becoming that person's follower, and that would give insight into the meaning of John's baptism. They're becoming followers of John. As I studied the Gospels, I get the feeling that in the Old Testament, The way you show loyalty to God is through the law, keeping the law, circumcision and Sabbath keeping and all that. In the New Testament, the way to show loyalty to God is by faith in Jesus Christ. But what about in between? During the earthly life of Jesus, but before his death and resurrection? That's kind of the, it's not really Old Testament because Jesus is there. It's not really New Testament because Jesus hasn't died and raised. So how do you show loyalty to God during that time? I believe during that period, the way that you could show your loyalty to the true God was by being baptized by John, becoming one of his followers, accepting his message. So when Jesus was baptized by John, he was showing by example that John spoke for God and the people were to follow his teaching. Next question from Deuteronomy 15. It calls for the cancellation of debts every seven years. With regard to releasing debts and giving generously, where do we draw the line so that it doesn't become like socialism? Well first, the cancellation of debts was part of the ancient Jewish economic system so that it's not binding on us today. It can only work if the rest of that economic system is in place. It's not in our culture. Much of our economic system is based on long-term loans. In Israel, they didn't have that. Everyone knew about the standard, and so they operated accordingly when they made loans, so it was a workable system for them. It wouldn't be for us. As for the question about socialism, that's really an important question, because many have suggested that the Book of Acts was essentially a communist system, because Acts 4.32 says, all the believers were in one heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. And people pointed to that and say, see, that's communism. It's just one big commune. Is that an endorsement of communism? Definitely not. In fact, it's the opposite. The verse is a description of how much the people in the church loved one another because they shared what was theirs. Communism has nothing to do with love. In pure communism, there's no private ownership. Government officials seize wealth by force and distribute it as they please, always taking a substantial commission for their trouble, and they're the only ones who end up being rich. There is all the difference in the world between voluntary sharing out of love and forced redistribution from the government. If all you had to go by was Acts 4.32, you might wonder if maybe the church entered into maybe a voluntary system of communism, like a bunch of hippies living in a commune, but we know that isn't the case because in the very next chapter you have an account where the wealthier Christians were selling land so that they could give more to the church. You can't sell land if there's no private ownership. If everything's just in one big pot, nobody could sell anything. You can't give a gift in communism. If nobody owns anything, and the government or the commune or the church owns everything, then no one can give anything as a gift. But private ownership in the church existed in the New Testament. Even as late as 1 Timothy, Paul gives instructions for wealthy Christians. He doesn't rebuke them for being wealthy or command them to give their wealth away. He just tells them not to put their hope in their wealth and to be sure to be willing to share. So there was private ownership, there was wealthy, and there were poor, and that was fine. One of the reasons why socialism and communism are opposed to the New Testament ethic is because the important thing isn't that everyone has the same amount of money. That's not important. The important thing is kindness and love and generosity, which is only possible if there's private ownership. And in my opinion, just to add a little bit, in my opinion, there are other reasons why socialism and communism are cruel to the poor. For one thing, they remove incentive for people to earn money, so the whole culture becomes less productive and less inventive, and everyone ends up poor. The poor get poorer, and the rich get poorer, and everybody gets poorer, except for government officials who are in charge of the money. So, I think it's a cruel system. Alright, next question, from Deuteronomy 17. It mentions, toward the end of that, kings should not store up excessive wealth or take multiple wives. etc. Yet that seems to be exactly what Israelite kings did, like Solomon and David. In this case, were those kings living in sin? I don't remember them repenting of having multiple wives or excess wealth, yet such a lifestyle didn't seem to be addressed by the prophets or confronted in any way. Why? Answer, yes, I believe David and Solomon were wrong to store up so much wealth and to take multiple wives, especially Solomon. It's possible some prophets did rebuke them, but it's not recorded in scripture. One reason that it's not recorded may be that the prophets who wrote books of the Bible were after the time of David and Solomon, after the divided kingdom, and they didn't write about every detail of where the kings went wrong. Their main focus was on whether kings were loyal to Yahweh or got involved in idolatry. We do have a record of the prophet Nathan rebuking David for his adultery and murder because the consequences of that became so significant for the rest of his reign and for Jewish history. And we also have an entire book of scripture devoted to showing the folly of those excesses, the book of Ecclesiastes. And given the background of Deuteronomy 17, the fact that those things are recorded in the historical books implies that they were in the wrong. So the way it's presented shows that they were in the wrong. The reality is all of us have blind spots in every culture. Most of the areas where our culture has blind spots will have an effect on us. If God dealt harshly with us for all of those things, we'd all spend all our time in the woodshed. We look at David and wonder how such a godly man could take multiple wives. If David looked at us, he might wonder how godly men and women of our day could have so little exuberance in worshiping God. We all have our weak areas, and God is patient with us. Next question, please clarify why God seemed so bloodthirsty in the Old Testament. He often ordered his people to conquer other nations and completely wipe them out, even women, children, and livestock in some cases, which can understandably seem heartless and cruel. Well, the wages of sin is death. The question isn't why those people had to die. The question is, why is anyone allowed to live after they've sinned against God? And the answer, God's mercy and patience. God was patient with those people in Canaan for a very long time. hundreds of years, but all he did was plunge further and further into wickedness that whole time. If you saw the kind of horrors that those people perpetrated, I doubt you would object to their being annihilated, except for the children. The children were innocent victims, which is often the case with the children of wicked people. They suffer the consequences that their parents bring upon them. But, you know, it wasn't just the Canaanites who died. All people die. Every human being dies, and God is sovereign over all that. He doesn't take any pleasure in it, but it's the just consequence for sin. The wages of sin is death. It's what we all deserve every moment. If it seems like some people receive punishment for sin that's too harsh, it's only because we have such a low view of God's glory that we think a sin against His name is a small thing. And so it might help to think of a sin that you have the clarity and vision to see is really evil. So take, suppose ten different people are guilty of some horrible sin, like violently raping young girls. And all ten, they're all guilty, all ten go before a judge, and the judge sends five of them to prison and lets the other five go free. If that happened, you wouldn't be asking, why is the judge so bloodthirsty with those first five? No, you'd be asking, why is he so lenient with the other five? That's outrageous. If we understood how evil it really is to sin against God, we would be asking the second question, not the first question. We would be outraged by the people who are allowed to live, not the ones who die. And what is the answer to that outrage? How can we explain God letting sinners continue to live We would hate a judge who let five rapists go. How can God be justified in giving mercy to millions who are guilty of a crime even worse than rape, cosmic treason against God's glory? Well, the answer, Romans 3.23, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus, God presented Him, Christ, as a sacrifice. Why? Why did God kill His own Son? Verse 25, He did this to demonstrate His justice because in His patience He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time so as to be just. God is justified in showing us mercy because His Son took our punishment in our place. Then there's a question here from Deuteronomy 19 about the avenger of the blood. I'm going to hold off on that one until next week. That one deserves its own whole session just for that question because it's such an important. One of the most rewarding things you can ever study in the Old Testament is the concept of the kinsman redeemer. And so I'll talk about that next time.