The Wheat and the Tares

The Wheat and the Tares

Why the Evidence Favors the Final Judgment

Introduction

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43) is one of the few parables Jesus explained in detail. While nearly every figure is identified, one important question remains:

Does the harvest refer exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, or does it describe the final judgment of mankind?

This paper does not deny the significance of A.D. 70. The destruction of Jerusalem was one of the most significant judgments recorded in Scripture and occupies an important place in the teaching of Jesus. The question is whether the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares finds its fulfillment exclusively in that event.

The thesis of this paper is straightforward:

When Matthew’s own use of judgment language is allowed to interpret the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, the cumulative evidence strongly favors the harvest as the final judgment rather than an exclusive fulfillment in A.D. 70. While an A.D. 70 interpretation remains possible, the probability is significantly outweighed by the evidence within the Gospel itself.

Rather than beginning with disputed prophetic passages, this study first allows Matthew to define one of his own recurring expressions – “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Once that expression is established, it becomes an important guide for interpreting the parable. This study proceeds upon a simple principle of biblical interpretation: conclusions should be drawn from the cumulative weight of Scripture rather than from isolated passages or disputed expressions.

Matthew’s First Use Establishes the Pattern

Matthew 8:11-12

Jesus declared:

“Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew establishes several important truths.

  • Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are present in the kingdom.
  • Many from every direction are gathered to them.
  • The sons of the kingdom (Faithful Israel) are excluded.
  • Those excluded experience “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Jesus does not explicitly identify the timing of this gathering. However, the context provides a necessary inference. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had long since departed this life. Therefore, the gathering described cannot be an ordinary earthly assembly.

More importantly, Scripture knows of only one gathering in which God’s redeemed are united with the faithful who have already departed this life – the consummation of God’s kingdom. Nothing in the context suggests a figurative description of Jerusalem’s destruction or any other national judgment. Matthew therefore establishes the first occurrence of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in connection with exclusion from God’s kingdom following the gathering of His redeemed people. Unless a later context clearly requires another meaning, this becomes the natural understanding throughout the Gospel.

Matthew Consistently Uses the Expression

Matthew 13:42, 50

The expression appears twice in Jesus’ explanation of the Wheat and the Tares. The wicked are separated from the righteous, cast into the furnace of fire, and there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew introduces no new definition of the expression. Nothing within the immediate context suggests that “weeping and gnashing of teeth” should suddenly be understood differently from its previous use. The issue is therefore not the meaning of the expression, but the timing of the harvest.

Matthew 22:1-14

The Parable of the Wedding Feast spans several stages of redemptive history.

  • Israel rejects the invitation.
  • The king’s servants are persecuted.
  • The city is destroyed.
  • The invitation is extended to all.
  • Guests are gathered from every direction.
  • The king enters to inspect the guests.

One guest is found without a wedding garment and is cast into outer darkness where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Although the parable includes the destruction of Jerusalem, the final inspection is of an entirely different character. Scripture knows of no historical occasion in which those gathered from among the nations into God’s kingdom are individually examined by the King and cast out of His presence. Rather, the scene naturally corresponds to the final accountability of all who have accepted the King’s invitation. Matthew therefore continues using the expression exactly as it was introduced in chapter eight.

Matthew 24:45-51

The Olivet Discourse begins with Jesus’ prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew records numerous observable signs by which believers could recognize the approaching judgment. These include:

  • the abomination of desolation,
  • the flight from Judea,
  • unparalleled tribulation,
  • and the shortening of those days.

These signs enabled faithful disciples to recognize the approaching destruction and escape Jerusalem before its fall. The discourse then continues. Jesus says:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ…” (24:23)

If verse 23 marks the continuation of the chronology beyond the description of Jerusalem’s destruction—and the sequence of Jesus’ time statements appears to indicate that it does – then verses 23-28 naturally describe an intervening period characterized by false Christs and false prophets before the appearance of the Son of Man. Jesus then declares:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” (24:29)

The question naturally becomes: Which days? If the chronology has continued beyond Jerusalem’s destruction, then “those days” refer to the period just described – a period marked by deception and false teachers. Only then does Matthew record:

“Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven…” (24:30)

Unlike Jerusalem’s destruction, whose approach could be recognized through observable signs, this appearance is followed not by further signs but by repeated exhortations to readiness because the exact time remains unknown. This progression is significant. Jerusalem’s destruction was preceded by observable signs. The coming of the Son of Man is not. Rather than giving additional signs, Jesus moves toward an entirely different emphasis. He declares:

“Of that day and hour knoweth no man…” (24:36)

and

“The Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.” (24:44)

The Parable of the Faithful and Evil Servant conclude this section. The servant is judged, not because he failed to recognize prophetic signs, but because he was unprepared for the unexpected return of his Master. Matthew concludes:

“The lord of that servant shall come… in an hour that he is not aware of… and shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Whether one ultimately agrees with this understanding of Matthew 24 or not, the argument presented here rests upon the chronology of the discourse itself rather than upon an external theological system.

If the discourse has indeed progressed from the sign-filled destruction of Jerusalem to the signless coming of the Son of Man, then this occurrence of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” naturally belongs with Matthew’s other descriptions of final accountability.

Matthew 25:30

The Parable of the Talents concludes with the unprofitable servant cast into outer darkness where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Immediately afterward Matthew records the judgment of all nations (25:31-46). The literary connection is striking. Matthew’s final occurrence of the expression stands immediately before the universal judgment scene, reinforcing the understanding established in Matthew 8.

Matthew’s Literary Pattern

The expression “weeping and gnashing of teeth” becomes one of Matthew’s recurring descriptions of divine judgment. From its first occurrence in Matthew 8 through its final occurrence in Matthew 25, Matthew repeatedly employs the expression at the climax of scenes involving separation, exclusion, and accountability before God.

Passage Setting
Matthew 8 Exclusion from the kingdom
Matthew 13 Harvest and separation
Matthew 22 Exclusion from the wedding feast
Matthew 24 Judgment of the unfaithful servant
Matthew 25 Exclusion of the unprofitable servant

Regardless of how one interprets every occurrence, a clear literary pattern emerges. Matthew consistently uses the expression to conclude scenes of irreversible judgment. Those who understand Matthew 13 as referring exclusively to A.D. 70 must also explain why the same expression is repeatedly used in contexts that many interpreters – including the present writer – understand to describe final accountability before God.

The issue, therefore, is not whether an A.D. 70 interpretation is possible, but whether it best explains Matthew’s consistent use of this recurring expression throughout his Gospel.

Additional Difficulties with an Exclusive A.D. 70 Interpretation

The Angels

Jesus identifies the reapers.

“The reapers are the angels.”

Again He says,

“The Son of man shall send forth his angels.”

If the harvest is fulfilled exclusively in A.D. 70, one must explain why Matthew emphasizes the work of angels rather than the Roman armies and how their activity accomplishes the complete separation described by Jesus.

The Field

Jesus plainly states:

“The field is the world.”

The sowing takes place throughout the world. The wheat grows throughout the world. The tares grow throughout the world. The scope of the field appears considerably broader than the local judgment of Jerusalem.

The Final Separation

Jesus commands that both wheat and tares grow together until the harvest. At the harvest the separation is complete. Historically, after A.D. 70 the righteous and the wicked continued living together throughout the world. False teachers remained. Apostasy continued. The New Testament continued warning Christians concerning ungodliness within the church. The complete separation pictured by the parable appears to await a greater event.

Matthew’s Literary Pattern

Throughout the Gospel, Matthew consistently employs “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to conclude scenes of ultimate exclusion. Matthew 13 naturally fits that pattern. To assign this occurrence exclusively to A.D. 70 requires demonstrating why Matthew intentionally changes the force of one of his most recognizable expressions.

Arguments Commonly Presented for an A.D. 70 Interpretation

“The End of the Age”

Jesus says the harvest occurs at “the end of the αἰών.” Many conclude that αἰών refers to the Mosaic age and therefore identify the harvest with A.D. 70. This is certainly a possible interpretation. However, the Greek word itself does not settle the matter. Standard Greek lexicons recognize a broader lexical range including:

  • age,
  • era,
  • world-order,
  • world,
  • the material universe,
  • and even the universe itself.

Consequently, the lexical meaning of αἰών alone cannot determine the interpretation. Context – not simply dictionary definitions – must determine which meaning Jesus intended.

Old Testament Judgment Language

The Old Testament frequently describes divine judgments using imagery such as harvest, fire, clouds, and angels.

Weakness: Similar imagery does not require identical events. Jesus may employ familiar prophetic language while describing a judgment greater than any previous national judgment.

The Removal of the Wicked

Some argue that unbelieving Jews were removed in A.D. 70, thereby purifying the kingdom.

Weakness: The parable describes a complete separation of the righteous and the wicked. Following A.D. 70, however, evil continued throughout the world, false teachers remained within the church, and the righteous and wicked continued living together.

Connections with Other Prophetic Passages

Some interpret Matthew 13 through other passages they understand to describe Jerusalem’s destruction.

Weakness: Such arguments depend upon the interpretation of those passages rather than upon Matthew 13 itself. The parable should first be understood within its own context and within Matthew’s own literary pattern.

Conclusion

The question is not whether the destruction of Jerusalem was a significant biblical judgment. It unquestionably was. Nor is the question whether some of the imagery used in Matthew 13 resembles Old Testament descriptions of national judgments. It certainly does.

The real question is whether Jesus intended the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares to find its complete fulfillment in A.D. 70.

When Matthew is permitted to interpret Matthew, the cumulative evidence points in another direction.

The first occurrence of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” establishes the expression in connection with exclusion from God’s kingdom following the gathering of His redeemed people. Every subsequent occurrence outside Matthew 13 naturally reinforces that understanding. Matthew never clearly redefines the expression, nor does he indicate that its meaning changes in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

Likewise, the worldwide field, the ministry of the angels, the complete separation of the righteous and the wicked, Matthew’s recurring use of “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” and the chronological progression reflected in the Olivet Discourse combine to present a picture extending well beyond the local judgment of Jerusalem.

This does not render an A.D. 70 interpretation impossible. It does, however, make it increasingly improbable.

The weight of the biblical evidence rests upon understanding the harvest as the final judgment, when the Son of Man sends forth His angels, gathers the righteous and the wicked, and forever separates them according to their eternal destiny.

The issue is therefore not what is possible, but what interpretation best explains all of Matthew’s evidence. On that question, the evidence strongly favors the final judgment.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Wheat and the Tares

The Promises of God

The Promises of God

Promises of God were given to the Israelites/Jews when they became a people. Both the passages surrounding Deuteronomy 28:1-6, Leviticus 26:3-5 establish that God would physically and spiritually bless the people in many ways if they walked in obedience to Him. Many of Israel’s successes and failures regarding this are recorded in the Old Testament.  Were the same promises of God that were given to Israel given to the rest of mankind in the Old Testament?  No.  However, that God provided care and blessings upon the remainder of His creation is seen not only in the Old Testament but expressed in Matthew 5:43-48 by Jesus.

In Matthew 6 it is expressed that God knows what man needs.  The passage as a whole expresses God’s providence for his creation and for the Jews, though the Jews would have the specific material promises in mind that God only gave them.  As the New Testament progresses, God reveals additional provision for all mankind through the gospel and the completed revelation of His will.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 expresses the Word’s acceptance into a man’s life allows him to be equipped for every good work which happens to be man’s purpose (Ephesians 2:10).  2 Peter 1:1-3 establishes the knowledge of that same word has been given so that man has all he needs for his walk in life and godliness.  Yet, these are just statements of provision regarding man, not promises of material goods.  Are there promises of God involving material possessions for His Christian Followers?

In answering the above question, consider that God provides by providence in many ways to His creation.  He also promised very specific things applicable to individuals, His apostles, and Christians that applied only to them and the first century (specifically the endowments through the provision of the Holy Spirit).  God’s promises to Christians are relatively few in number when compared to the extensive material and national promises given to Israel.  The New Testament focuses far more on spiritual and eternal promises than on temporal and material ones.

The Promises of God to the Christian:

  1. Forgiveness of Sins – Acts 2:38, I John 1:9
  2. Eternal Life – John 3:16, I John 2:25
  3. Resurrection – John 6:40, I Corinthians 15:52
  4. God’s Presence – Hebrews 13:5
  5. Wisdom – James 1:5
  6. A way of Escape from Temptation – I Corinthians 10:13
  7. All Spiritual Blessings in Christ – Ephesians 1:3
  8. An Inheritance – I Peter 1:4
  9. Suffering – Philippians 1:29, 2 Timothy 3:12
  10. Final Victory – Romans 8:33-39

In a nutshell, what I am trying to convey here is fairly simple. Israel received specific promises of material prosperity. Christians receive specific promises of spiritual blessing and eternal salvation. God providentially cares for all mankind. Providence should not be confused with covenant promises.

If you understand the focus of specific promises and providence to various groups, then when you read Matthew 6, you can understand why it can be true even when Christians suffer hunger and poverty.  Your understanding will also allow you to embrace how the New Testament confidently speaks of God’s care.  This will allow you to avoid the common error of treating every promise made to Israel as though it were automatically made to Christians.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged | Comments Off on The Promises of God

John 3 – The New Birth Defined by Heaven

John 3 – The New Birth Defined by Heaven

Man has many ideas about salvation, but in John 3 Jesus removes all uncertainty and defines it Himself. He does this early in his ministry, defining what it truly means to believe, and what He truly requires.

John 3 answers one of the most important questions a man can ask: How do you enter the kingdom of God? Jesus makes it clear that it is not by man’s will or understanding, but by being born again through submission to what comes from heaven, being born of water and the Spirit.

When Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, he came as a man with knowledge, position, and sincere curiosity. He recognized that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, but like many, he did not yet understand the nature of the kingdom or how one enters it. Jesus does not begin with small corrections or gradual instruction. He goes directly to the central issue:

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3, KJV)

This statement establishes a universal and absolute requirement. No one enters the kingdom of God apart from this new birth. Nicodemus immediately misunderstands, thinking in physical terms, asking if a man can return to his mother’s womb and be born a second time. This misunderstanding provides the setting for Jesus to define what He means.

Jesus clarifies in unmistakable language:

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5, KJV)

Here, Jesus gives the only explanation in the passage of what it means to be “born again.” The new birth consists of two inseparable elements: water and Spirit. Both are included in the condition, and both are required. The phrase is tied to an absolute statement, “he cannot enter”, leaving no room for alternative definitions or optional components.

Some attempt to interpret “water” as natural birth, referring to the fluid of the womb. However, this interpretation does not hold under the weight of the text. Nicodemus had already raised the question of physical birth in verse 4, and Jesus is not affirming that misunderstanding, He is correcting it. Furthermore, if “water” refers to natural birth, then Jesus would be stating that one must be physically born in order to enter the kingdom, which is already true of every person. This would reduce His statement to a meaningless condition.

The immediate context provides clarity. Following this conversation, the narrative moves directly into a discussion of baptism (John 3:22-26; 4:1-2). Water, in this setting, is already associated with baptism and purification. This is consistent with the broader teaching of the New Testament, where baptism is connected with the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), newness of life (Romans 6:3-4), and salvation itself (1 Peter 3:21). The conclusion is unavoidable: “born of water” refers to baptism.

The second element, “born of the Spirit”, requires equally careful consideration. Jesus immediately expands on this in the next verse:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6, KJV)

This contrast is often misunderstood as merely distinguishing between the physical and the immaterial. However, the context points to something deeper: a contrast of source or origin. “Flesh” represents what comes from man: human thinking, human systems, and human attempts to define or achieve salvation (Romans 9:31-32). “Spirit,” on the other hand, represents what comes from God. This is confirmed elsewhere in John’s Gospel:

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13, KJV)

The new birth, then, is not determined by human will or human invention. It originates entirely from God. To be “born of the Spirit” is to be brought forth by what God has revealed, not by what man has devised. It is the obedience of faith spoken of in Romans 1:5, 16:25-27.

Jesus continues in verse 8 with the illustration of the wind:

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8, KJV)

This statement is often taken to suggest a mysterious or unpredictable internal experience. However, the emphasis of the illustration is not randomness, but source. The wind’s origin is not controlled by man, and its movement is not directed by human will, yet its effects are real and observable. In the same way, the new birth originates with God, not man. It is not something man creates or controls. It is something man must receive.

Nicodemus responds with a question that reveals the heart of the issue:

“How can these things be?” (John 3:9)

Jesus’ answer shifts the discussion to authority and revelation:

“We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.” (John 3:11, KJV)

“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13, KJV)

The point is clear: man does not possess heavenly knowledge. He cannot discover or define the way of salvation through his own reasoning. Only the One who has come from heaven can reveal it. Therefore, the new birth must be understood not as a human concept, but as a divine revelation.

This leads directly to the response required. Jesus declares:

“That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:15, KJV)

This theme is expanded in the well-known statement of verse 16, but its meaning is clarified later in the chapter:

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36, KJV)

In comparing translations, it becomes evident that “believeth not” carries the idea of refusal or disobedience. This reveals that biblical belief is not mere acknowledgment. It is a response of trust that submits to what has been revealed. This distinction is reinforced by James:

“The devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19, KJV)

Demons acknowledge the truth, but they do not submit to it. Therefore, the belief that leads to eternal life is a living, obedient faith.

At this point, the entire chapter comes together. Jesus has established that a man must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom. The Spirit represents what comes from God (His revealed will) while water represents the commanded response included in that will. Christ, having come from heaven, reveals this truth, and man is required to receive it. That reception is defined as belief, and belief is shown to be submission.

Thus, the new birth is not a mystical or undefined experience. It is a clearly defined response to divine revelation. It occurs when a person submits to the testimony of Christ, being baptized in water and brought forth by the Spirit through that revealed word.

This also explains why Jesus explicitly mentions water. If He had spoken only of the Spirit, the new birth could easily be redefined as a subjective experience – something internal, personal, and unmeasurable. By including water, Jesus anchors the new birth in a specific, observable act of obedience. The Spirit defines what must be done; water demonstrates that it has been done. Without the Spirit, water would be an empty ritual. Without water, the Spirit could be reduced to a matter of personal interpretation. Together, they form a complete, God-defined response.

The closing section of the chapter (John 3:31-36) reinforces these same truths. Jesus is described as the One who comes from above, in contrast to those who are of the earth. Once again, the issue is source: heaven versus man. The problem is not lack of information, but refusal to receive the testimony given. Those who receive it affirm that God is true; those who reject it remain under wrath following their own designs and preferences. The same conclusion is reached: eternal life is given to those who believe, and belief is inseparable from submission.

John 3 does not present multiple interpretations or competing paths. It presents one unified teaching. The new birth is defined by God, revealed from heaven, and received through obedient submission.

To be born of the Spirit is not a mysterious internal event. It is to be brought forth by what comes from heaven, through receiving and submitting to the Spirit given testimony of Christ, being baptized in water and all other requirements for salvation as God has commanded, rather than following what originates from man.

Common Objections to John 3 Answered

Whenever John 3 is studied carefully, objections often arise. Not because the text is unclear, but because its clarity challenges commonly held assumptions about salvation. Jesus speaks with authority and precision, defining the new birth in a way that leaves little room for reinterpretation. As a result, several alternative explanations are frequently offered. Each of these must be tested, not by tradition or preference, but by the text itself.

Is “Born of Water” Natural Birth?

One of the most common claims is that “born of water” refers to physical birth, the fluid of the womb. However, this interpretation fails. Nicodemus’ question in John 3:4 reflects misunderstanding, not truth. Jesus corrects him rather than agreeing. If water meant natural birth, Jesus would be stating something already true of all people, making His condition meaningless.

The context clarifies the meaning. Immediately following this discussion is baptism (John 3:22–26; 4:1–2). Throughout the New Testament, water is consistently tied to baptism and cleansing (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3–4; 1 Peter 3:21). Therefore, “water” refers to baptism.

Is the New Birth a Direct Operation of the Spirit?

Some claim the new birth is a direct internal act of the Spirit apart from human response. However, John 3 emphasizes response: receiving testimony (3:11, 33), believing (3:15–16), doing truth (3:21), and obeying (3:36). These are not passive experiences.

The Spirit is tied to revelation (John 3:34). Thus, to be born of the Spirit is to be brought forth by what the Spirit reveals (God’s Word), which must be received and obeyed.

Does John 3:16 Teach “Belief Only”?

John 3:36 clarifies belief by contrasting it with disobedience. Belief is not mere acknowledgment but submission. James 2:19 shows that even demons believe without obedience. Therefore, saving belief is obedient faith.

Is Baptism Optional?

Jesus states plainly in John 3:5 that one cannot enter the kingdom without being born of water and Spirit. This is a condition of necessity. The broader New Testament confirms baptism’s role in salvation (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3–4; 1 Peter 3:21). Removing baptism contradicts the text.

Are “Water” and “Spirit” Two Separate Births?

Jesus describes one unified birth. “Born of water and Spirit” explains “born again” (John 3:3). Dividing them disrupts the passage and ignores its structure.

Is “Spirit” Referring to Man’s Spirit?

Another interpretation suggests that “born of the Spirit” refers to the human spirit. However, John 3:6 shows a contrast of origin, not parts of man. “Flesh” is from man; “Spirit” is from God.

Jesus emphasizes that truth comes from heaven (John 3:13), not from man. The parallel in John 3:31 reinforces this: what is from above is from God, what is earthly is from man.

The Spirit is tied to God’s revealed word (John 3:34). Therefore, the new birth does not originate within man but comes from God and must be received.

Who Has the Right to Define Salvation?

Man does not possess heavenly knowledge (John 3:13). Only Christ reveals it. The issue is whether His testimony is received or rejected (John 3:11, 33).

Conclusion

Every objection attempts to redefine or remove part of Jesus’ teaching. But the text stands firm. The new birth is defined by God, revealed from heaven, and received through obedient submission in being born of water and the Spirit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on John 3 – The New Birth Defined by Heaven

An Unheralded Mother

An Unheralded Mother

It is remarkable that we so often overlook the importance of those who are standing in the shadows. Yet their impact on the lives of all those around them can shape the future far more than those who stand in the limelight and the center of the stage. Take a moment to focus on one of the most unheralded heroes of the Bible. That person is the mother of David, the most widely known individual in the history of the nation of Israel.

She is so obscure that we do not even know her name. We know the name of her husband, Jesse, but she is mentioned only one time in the Scriptures. David speaks of her in Psalm 86. He was in despair because of the many enemies who sought to destroy him. He begged for God to hear him, “…for I am poor and needy” (v. 1). He called upon the Lord to preserve his life, to save him and to be merciful to him, “…for I cry to You all day long” (v. 3). He had not lost his faith in God (v. 6), but his life was filled with adversity because “a mob of violent men have sought my life” (v. 14). Perhaps you have been in such deep valleys in your life, for there often times like this in the life of many of us.

David could have thought of how God had been merciful to those who were before Him. He could have thought of the faithfulness of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and as a son of such great men, he could have asked God to be merciful to him. However, it was not on the basis of these great men. Rather it was on the fact that God had known his mother and her life, and as a son of his mother he asked God to hear him (v. 16).

Look carefully at his prayer. “Oh, turn to me and have mercy on me! Give strength to Your servant and save the son of your maidservant” (v. 16). When David thought of his mother and the impact on his life, he knew she belonged to God. When he thought of her, he remembered that she was one who belonged to God.

He also saw her as one who served God. She was not in the center of the stage like others. She was a humble servant, the wife of an unheralded husband in an obscure Jewish village. The world may not have seen her worth, but David and God valued the importance of what she was doing far differently than others did.

She was blessed by God. David saw it. He asked God to hear him, not because of his forefathers, but because of his own mother. He had seen God in her life. He had seen her righteousness and asked God to bless him because of her!

So, if you feel worthless, think about Mrs. Jesse. Then be like her, faithfully serving God and shaping the world by the life you live in the shadows and not on center stage.

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An Unheralded Mother

God Is Good, All the Time

God Is Good, All the Time—All the Time God Is Good

I am not sure the first time I heard the saying, “God is good all the time and all the time God is good.” Recently, I have been thinking about these words, and they have become even more meaningful to me. May I share with you some of the ways I have been using this phrase and how it has helped me?

God Is Faithful, All the Time—All the Time, God Is Faithful

Throughout the Bible, there is the assurance that we can trust every promise, every assurance and every word God has said. For example, when God promised to protect us from being tempted above that which we are able to bear and then promised to provide a way of escape in every temptation, it is tied to the words, “God is faithful” (1 Cor. 10:13). You can trust God because it is impossible for Him to lie (Tit. 1:2). You can always trust God.All the Time

God Is Merciful, All the Time—All the Time, God Is Merciful

Think about these words from Moses: “Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Deut. 7:9). How long is a thousand generations? If we think of a generation being thirty years, then God’s mercy is always here—even for 30,000 years! To sense the magnitude of this poetic expression of a thousand generations, remember that from Adam to the birth of Jesus there are only sixty generations! All the time, God is merciful.

God Is _______ All the Time—All the Time, God Is _______

As you deal with situations in your life, fill in the blanks above with your own thoughts about any of the attributes of God. God is holy, pure, gracious, good, compassionate, loving, caring, listening, forgiving, almighty, knowing, present, near, watching, helping, etc. The list is endless because there is no exception to His abiding nature. His eyes are always over us, and His ears are always open. His arms are always outstretched. They embrace us, and His tender hands caress us. While He has the whole world in His hands, the truth is that He has me and you individually in His hands, even when in those darkest hours we forget it.

The attributes of God are not finite and capable of being limited by time. They cannot be limited by any measurement. God is infinite and every attribute of His nature is infinite. We speak of the fact that God is omniscient (all-knowing), that He is omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnipresent (always present in every place). Every attribute of God is timeless. He never changes for He cannot be limited. So, when you read of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and all those in the Bible, add your name to that list, for God is always God!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , | Comments Off on God Is Good, All the Time