Covetousness- 10th commandment

 It is unwise to covet riches and think we can stay focused on God's purpose for our life. We are taught in the Sermon on the Mount that our lives are to be directed towards God's kingdom (Matthew 6). We cannot serve our heavenly Father and mammon (money, riches, etc.).

No servant is able to serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and he will love the other; or he will hold to the one and will despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (Luke 16:13 - 14, HBFV, see also Mark 4:19)

Wise King Solomon stated the wisest thing anyone can do, and the purpose or meaning of life, is to obey God (which includes his command not to covet, see Ecclesiastes 12:13 - 14). Obedience is the key to loving God and loving our fellow humans (Matthew 22:35 - 40, see also 1John 4:21).

To covet something is to crave or to have an inordinate desire for something you do not have. The tenth commandment says, “You shall not covet.” While all of the commandments have various layers of application, the range of this command is broadly reviewed within the text itself. exodus 20:17 says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

In reading the full command, it might be easy for a modern reader to get distracted by what appears to be human commodification: namely, a possible interpretation that a “wife” is just another part of a man’s property or, possibly, that this text is an implied endorsement of slavery. Neither is the case, as other Scriptures make plain. The point of this passage, although its original setting does arise out of the ancient world, is to highlight various things that distinguish people from one another. Perhaps in the ancient world having five servants would set you apart from your neighbor, whereas today it is that you drive a BMW and have a house on the lake. The point is that we compare ourselves with others and we develop inordinate, unhealthy desires for that which we do not have.

One of the most striking things about this commandment is that it does not focus on any outward activity at all. It is fitting that the tenth commandment brings the moral code of God right into the human heart. Hebrews 4:12–13 says that “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword . . . it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” This is where the Ten Commandments bring us. We are now looking at intentions and inner motivations.

It should be clear that there is nothing wrong with setting goals and working hard toward an academic degree, the purchase of a home, or a promotion at work. The idea that all desires are evil and wrong is a teaching of Buddhism, not of Christianity. The tenth commandment focuses on an unhealthy coveting of what belongs to another, and for which we are not prepared to work hard and earn, or for which we work for the wrong motivations. If our motivation is self-focused, or even if it is to earn God’s favor (which cannot be earned), then we can easily find ourselves in violation of the tenth commandment. Comparing ourselves with others and wanting something or someone we don’t have can give birth to coveting. Whether it is a possession, a position, or a person, we must keep ourselves free from such inordinate desires.

The Scriptures teach, “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have” (Hebrews. 13:5). What a great liberation would be ours if we lived in such contentment! Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). The very idea that it is better to give what we have to others, rather than to covet for ourselves what someone else possesses, is a radical reorientation of an entire worldview that can so easily become dominated by worldly values rather than the values of the kingdom of God. Indeed, the tenth commandment represents a reorientation of our lives around the values of contentment, recognizing the needs of those less fortunate than ourselves, and drawing our identity and self-worth from God. It returns us to that reorientation of life and heart that the Decalogue pronounced in the opening command. This is the great gift that is ours if we keep the tenth commandment.

—

Did you enjoy this entry? It is part of a book by Timothy Tennent titled, Ten Words, Two Signs, One Prayer: Core Practices of the Christian Faith. In its pages, Tennent casts a vision for a long tradition of Christian discipleship and catechesis focusing on the Ten Commandments, the two sacraments of baptism and Communion, and the Lord’s Prayer. It will helps individuals and groups:

• Gain a deeper Christian appreciation of God’s Ten Commandments to his people Israel
• Learn the meaning of the two sacraments—baptism and communion
• Discover the value of the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples to pray (the “Lord’s Prayer”)

The prohibition of lo tachmod (do not covet), is the last of the ten commandments that G‑d instructed the Jews on Mount Sinai. It is considered a grave offense, as Maimonides writes:

Coveting leads to robbery. For if the owners do not desire to sell, despite a generous offer and much supplication, motivated by a desire for the item, a person may revert to robbery, as it states in the book of Michah: "They coveted houses and they stole."1 And if the owner were to resist and attempt to save his property..., then the perpetrators may be moved to murder.2

Along similar lines, Rabbeinu Bechaye (1255-1340) suggests that the reason lo tachmod is the last of the Ten Commandments is because it is commensurate to the other nine and serves to protect them. One who has a strong desire for money and material possessions will not let anything stand in his way. Ultimately, he will come to transgress the other nine commandments in order to obtain the object of his desire.3

This prohibition—as the last of the Ten Commandments—is recorded twice in the Torah.

Once in Parshat Yitro: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor."4

And again in Parshat Va'etchanan, where the Torah records the Ten Commandments with some variation a second time: “And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor shall you desire your neighbor's house, his field, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”5

Two Prohibitions or One?

The most striking difference between the two versions of this prohibition is that while in Parshat Yitro the verse uses only the term, tachmod, in Parshat Va'etchanan, after the Torah states lo tachmod—“you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” the Torah adds an additional phrase, “lo titaveh,” you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, field, etc.

Since these words have very similar translations, some Rishonim (early scholars) argue that lo tachmod and lo titaveh are one and the same prohibition; however, others maintain that the differential wording specifies two distinct prohibitions.

The Yereim (Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, 1115-1175), the Semag (Rabbi Moshe of Coucy, 1200-1260) and the Semak(Rabbi Yitzchak of Corbeil, 1210-1280)—in their respective works enumerating the mitzvot—are all of the opinion that there is only one prohibition, referring to coveting an object, taking actions to obtain the object and successfully obtaining it.6

On the other hand, Maimonides (1138-1204) and the Sefer Hachinuch both maintain that there are in fact two distinct prohibitions: lo titaveh and lo tachmod. Lo titaveh refers only to the desire, while lo tachmod refers to one who covets an object and ultimately obtains it.7

Within this approach—that there are in fact two distinct prohibitions—there exists some discussion as to the exact nature of the prohibition of lo titaveh.

The Prohibition of Lo Titaveh

The language of both the Sefer Hachinuch and Maimonides (in his Sefer Hamitzvot), imply that the prohibition is simply against desiring that which belongs to someone else. However, Maimonides, in his magnum opus, Yad Hachazakah, as well as other subsequent Halachic authorities, write that one only transgresses lo titaveh if one entertained thoughts about how to actually obtain the item. Simply desiring the object, does not violate the prohibition of lo titaveh.8

The Semak, in support of his opinion (that there are not in fact two separate prohibitions), notes that the verses only use the words lo tachmod in reference to a married woman. While with respect to a neighbor’s house (and other possessions), the Torah uses both lo titaveh and lo tachmod. The Semakargues that if we say, as Maimonides does, that lo titaveh and lo tachmodrefer to two separate forbidden behaviors, then with respect to a married woman there exists only the prohibition of lo tachmod (acting on the desirous thoughts), but lo titaveh would not apply; yet, in respect to other people’s possessions both would apply. The Semak argues that it is inconceivable that the Torah would have a harsher attitude towards desiring another person’s possessions than towards another person’s spouse.9

The Semak’s question on Maimonides is based on his premise that lo titavehis an independent prohibition, and since it is not stated in reference to a married woman it must mean that lo titaveh does not apply to a married woman.

However, his question falls away when we consider that Maimonides himself explicitly writes that lo titaveh applies to a married woman as well. Rabbi Avraham ben Rabbi Moshe di Boton (1545-1588), in his commentary on Maimonides—Lechem Mishneh,explains the following: even though the words lo titaveh are not explicitly stated in reference to a married woman, it is nevertheless included in the prohibition of lo titaveh since it is included in the final words of the verse, “and all that belongs to your neighbor.”10

In support of Maimonides, it must be noted that (as Maimonides himself references in his Sefer Hamitzvot), his position that lo titaveh and lo tachmodare two distinct prohibitions is not his own invention; it is sourced in the Tannaic Beraita Mechilta Derashbi.11

The Shulchan Aruch and subsequent Halachic authorities all rule in accordance with Maimonides, that there are in fact two distinct prohibitions; one prohibition being lo tachmod, which means not to make efforts to obtain that which is not yours, and the second prohibition of lo titaveh, forbidding any thoughts of obtaining the item.12

From a strict legal standpoint there is no prohibition to merely desire another person’s possessions, as long as one does not entertain thoughts about obtaining it.

This concludes (in general terms) our discussion of the prohibition of lo titaveh. The remainder of this article will focus on the prohibition of lo tachmod.

What is Actually Forbidden?

As mentioned, an individual only transgresses the prohibition of lo tachmod if one makes an active effort to obtain the object of his or her desire. Moreover, the prohibition is transgressed only if a person’s efforts result in obtaining the object of one’s desire.

The Mechilta (A Midrash of Halachotfrom the period of the Mishna), derives this from a verse regarding coveting idols: “And you shall not covet and take them for yourself.”13 The Mechiltaextrapolates: Just as in the scenario of idols the coveting involves subsequent possession of the idol, so too in the case of lo tachmod one must actually acquire the item.14

This notwithstanding, the Semakimplies that while one does not fully transgress the prohibition unless actions are taken to obtain the object, coveting alone is still included in the prohibition of lo tachmod.15

This position seems difficult to understand: Since the Semak cites the Mechilta stating that one only transgresses the prohibition if the desire is followed by an act to obtain the object, why then does he maintain that even the desire in and of itself is forbidden due to lo tachmod?

One resolution is based on the principle of, “chatzi shiur assur min hatorah” (lit: a half measure is biblically prohibited): For example, when the Torah prohibits eating a forbidden food, it is generally understood that someone only violates it by eating an olive-sized amount. There is a dispute in the Talmudregarding the law of one who eats less than this amount. All opinions agree that it is forbidden to eat even a miniscule amount of the forbidden food; however, the rabbis argue as to whether it is prohibited by biblical or rabbinic law.16 The Halacha follows the opinion that chatzi shiur osur min hatorah—eating less than an olive-sized amount is forbidden biblically; however, one is only liable for punishment by consuming an olive-sized amount.17

Similarly, in the opinion of the Semak it is argued that even though lo tachmodis only fully transgressed by acquiring the item of one’s desire, nonetheless, the desire itself is forbidden under the principle of chatzi shiur osur min hatorah.18

What if One Pays for the Item?

It has been established that according to most authorities lo tachmod is not simply a prohibition against desiring or coveting another person’s possessions; rather, it is a prohibition against making efforts which result in obtaining the object of one’s desire.

The Rishonim, however, argue as to the exact parameters of the prohibition:

The Talmud, in Bava Metzia (the only place in the Talmud where the prohibition of lo tachmod is discussed), states that people assume that lo tachmod is only transgressed if one doesn’t pay for the item.19

According to Tosafot, when the Talmud states that, “People assume lo tachmodapplies only when the item is not paid for,” it is to be understood to mean that this is indeed the case.

In Tosafot’s opinion, one only transgresses lo tachmod by not paying for the item.20 (This does not mean, that according to Tosafot, if one pays for an item it is therefore permitted to forcibly take it against the owner’s will. It simply means that it is not a transgression of the prohibition of lo tachmod.)

However, most other authorities (including Maimonides and the Raavad) argue with Tosafot and take the Talmud at face value. In their opinion, when the Talmud states that, “People assume lo tachmod is only transgressed when one doesn’t pay for the item,” it means that people mistakenly think that lo tachmod does not apply when one doesn’t pay for the item. In truth, lo tachmod is transgressed even if one pressures somebody into selling an item that he wasn’t originally interested in selling, ultimately paying its full value.

Even among these authorities there are two opinions. Maimonides makes no distinction between a scenario in which the seller ultimately agrees to the sale or if he forcibly takes the item and leaves money for the “seller.”21 On the other hand, the Raavad (1125-1198) takes a “middle-ground” position, maintaining that a person does indeed transgress lo tachmod even if one pays for the object he covets. If, however, the seller agreed to the sale, the buyer would not transgress lo tachmod,notwithstanding the fact that the “buyer” was pressuring the “seller” into doing so.22

The final Halacha, as codified by the Shulchan Aruch and subsequent Halachic authorities, follows the opinion of Maimonides—one transgresses lo tachmod even in a scenario where one pressured somebody into selling an object and the “seller” ultimately agreed to the sale.23

The Punishment for Lo Tachmod

The above dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad reflects their respective opinions in a seemingly unrelated disagreement: As a general rule, the punishment for any negative transgression is lashes. While both Maimonides and the Raavad agree that lo tachmod is an exception to this rule, they provide divergent rationales for this.

Maimonides explains that lo tachmod is a negative prohibition that does not involve any action, therefore there are no lashes administered.24 This is based on the general principle, repeated a number of times in the Talmud, that one does not receive lashes for a prohibition that does not involve an action—a lav sheyn bo maaseh.25 If a negative prohibition does not entail action, but only thought or speech, then it falls into the category of a lav sheyn bo maaseh and is not subject to the punishment of lashes.

But as the Raavad points out, this is extremely difficult to understand: how can lo tachmod be considered a lav sheyn bo maaseh if the only way to transgress lo tachmod is to actually take the object!?

Therefore, the Raavad argues, there must be a different reason why there are no lashes administered in this case. He explains that this follows the general rule applied to a lav shenitan letashlumin, a prohibition which may be compensated for by reimbursing the original owner. Any prohibition which obligates reimbursement is not subject to the punishment of lashes.26 Since the perpetrator must give the item back (or reimburse the value), it falls under this general rule.

Rabbi Vidal of Toulouse (1300-1370), known as the Maggid Mishneh (after his commentary on Maimonides by that name), defends Maimonides’ rationale. He explains that this dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad actually hinges upon their earlier argument as to when lo tachmod applies, as follows.

According to Maimonides—who maintains that one transgresses lo tachmod even if the seller ultimately agrees to sell the item—in such a case taking the object was not in itself a forbidden act, since the seller ultimately agreed to the sale. Here, the forbidden “act” would only be the pressure exerted on the seller. The pressure exerted on the seller falls in the category of “speech,” not action, and makes the transgression a lav sheyn bo maaseh—a negative prohibition involving no action. Therefore, there are no lashes administered for lo tachmod.

It is now also understood why Maimonides did not explain the reason why there is no lashes for lo tachmodas due to it being a lav hanitan letashlumin - a prohibition that requires monetary retribution (as the Raavaddoes), since in this scenario there would be no obligation to return the item to the seller, since he willingly agreed to the sale.

On the other hand, according to the Raavad, who maintains that one only transgresses lo tachmod in a scenario where the seller did not agree to the sale (i.e., he was coerced), the act of taking the item was forbidden; therefore, the transgression of lo tachmod necessarily requires an action to be taken. As a result, the Raavadcould not explain that it is a lav sheyn bo maaseh, but rather explains that it is a lav hanitan letashlumin. In the Raavad’s case, in which the seller did not agree to the sale, the “buyer” would be obligated to return the item he took and thus lo tachmod can be rightfully classified as a lav hanitan letashlumin.27

Rabbi Yosef Babad (1801-1874), known as the Minchat Chinuch (after the name of his commentary on the Sefer Hachinuch) poses the following question on the Maggid Mishneh’sexplanation:

While it is true that in Maimonides’ opinion lo tachmod also applies in a scenario where one pressures a sale and ultimately secures consent, it is also clear from Maimonides that the prohibition applies equally in a scenario where the seller did not agree to the sale. Maimonides explicitly writes that one who steals an object that he had coveted and had attempted to purchase, does trangesses lo tachmod. That being the case, how can Maimonides simply state that lo tachmod is not subject to lashes since no act is connected to it, when in the instance where the seller did not agree to the sale, the transgressor commited a forbidden act by forcibly taking the object from him?

Minchat Chinuch assumes that in such a scenario, even according to the Maggid Mishneh, Maimonides would have to agree that the reason there are no lashes administered to the transgressor is due to the fact that it is a prohibition that requires one to return the object he took, as the Raavadwrites. However, as the Minchat Chinuch himself asks, this too is difficult to understand, since if this were the case Maimonides should have stated so. Why does Maimonides suffice simply with stating that lo tachmod has no lashes administered because it is a lav sheyn bo maaseh, when that rationale does not apply to all cases of lo tachmod?28

Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863-1940) and other later day authorities explain this conundrum as follows: The fact that according to Maimonides one transgresses lo tachmod even if the seller agreed to the sale, proves that in his opinion the prohibition of lo tachmod is not the act of actually taking the object, rather, it is the pressure that one exerts on the person leading up to the forced sale. However, one only transgresses the prohibition if one’s pressure is so extreme that it actually results in obtaining the item.This is in fact what the Maggid Mishneh meant all along, the issue here, vis-a-vis lo tachmod, is never the act of taking the item; it is the pressure exerted in order to obtain it.

Even in a scenario where the seller does not agree to the sale, the prohibition of lo tachmod is not the act of taking the object but rather the desire and pressure exerted. Therefore it is considered a lav sheyn bo maasehand no lashes are administered.

In other words: Maimonides and the Raavad argue about the nature of the prohibition of lo tachmod. According to Raavad, the prohibition is taking something from someone against his will after having exerted pressure to sell the item. According to Maimonides, the prohibition is against pressuring somebody to sell an item. However, lo tachmod is only transgressed if the pressure is such that it results in obtaining the object. It is now readily understood why according to Maimonides lo tachmod is considered a lav sheyn bo maaseh in all cases.

We can now also readily understand why Maimonides could not explain lo tachmod to be a lav shenitan letashlumin, for even in a case in which someone forcibly took the item, the fact that he is obligated to return the item is not due to a transgression of lo tachmod, but rather due to violating the prohibition against stealing.

According to the Raavad, it is understood that a) it cannot be considered a lav sheyn bo maaseh,being that the prohibition is the actual taking of the object against the seller's will. Also, b) it is considered a lav shenitan letashlumin, since the perpetrator would be obligated to return the object and this obligation stems from the prohibition of lo tachmod.29

Pressure to Gift

As noted previously, according to Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch, lo tachmod applies even in a scenario where one pressures someone to sell an item and the seller consented to the sale. However, the question arises as to whether this would also apply in a scenario where one pressures an individual to gift an item.

Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan (1839-1933), known as the Chafetz Chaim (after the name of one of his works on the laws of lashon hora) discusses the scenario of a prospective son-in-law who pressures his father-in-law to gift him items not included in their original marriage agreement. The Chafetz Chaim writes that while this is quite a common practice, it is in fact forbidden, because it transgresses the prohibition of lo tachmod. The Chafetz Chaimtakes for granted that lo tachmod does not exclusively apply to the case of a sale.30

This is supported by the language used by one of the Rishonim, Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi (1200-1263) in his ethical treatise, Shaarei Teshuva, which includes pressuring somebody to give an item in the prohibition of lo tachmod.31

Although Maimonides and subsequent Halachic authorities write that the prohibition of lo tachmod refers to one who pressures somebody to sell an object, it has been cogently argued that this would apply in the case of a gift, too. According to Maimonides—as evidenced by the fact that in his opinion lo tachmod applies even when the person ultimately willingly sells it—the prohibition is against pressuring somebody to sell an item that the owner doesn’t originally want to sell. There is no reason, therefore, to differentiate between pressuring someone to sell or gift an item.32

On the other hand, Rabbi Avraham Mordechai Alter, the fourth Gerer Rebbe (known as the Imrei Emes, 1866-1948), was of the opinion that the prohibition only applies when pressuring somebody to sell an item, as the straightforward reading of Maimonides implies.

As to the fact that Rabbeinu Yonahseems to understand that even pressuring someone to give a gift is prohibited, the Gerer Rebbe argued that it is possible that it is a lone opinion, or alternatively, Rabbeinu Yonah was not stating that it is prohibited, rather, that it would be midat chasidut, pious conduct, not to pressure somebody to give a present.33

Why should there be a difference between pressuring somebody to gift an item and pressuring somebody to sell an item?

In a responsum from Rabbi BezalelStern (1911-1989) a possible explanation for this is found. He makes the distinction between one who pressures somebody to sell an object—in which case it is clear that his desire for the object is so strong that he is willing to pay for the item—and one who is not willing to pay for the item, in which case his desire for the object is evidently not as strong, therefore in such a case one would not be in violation of lo tachmod.34

A contemporary rabbi, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (born 1928), offers an alternative explanation: He argues that when one pressures somebody to sell an object, the prospective seller is under more pressure to relinquish the object (since he is receiving monetary compensation). Therefore, even in a scenario where he subsequently agrees, he does not do so wholeheartedly. In the scenario of one who is pressured to give a gift, however, the pressure is less, so when he does agree to give the gift, he gives it willingly.35

What is Considered Pressure?

As noted earlier, according to Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch, one transgresses the prohibition of lo tachmod even if one pressures somebody to sell an object and that person subsequently agrees to the sale. But what exactly constitutes pressure that would be considered forbidden?

Rabbi Nochum Weidenfeld (1875-1939) seems to have understood the language of Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch to mean that one only transgresses lo tachmod if one involves others in a scheme to apply pressure.36

However, most authorities disagree and understand that according to Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruchany form of pressure is forbidden. Indeed, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the Alter Rebbe—when paraphrasing Maimonides—clearly writes that it is forbidden to either pressure directly orto involve others.37

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908), known as the Aruch Hashulchan, writes that one should be careful to avoid purchasing anything from anybody who is not a vendor, unless it is made clear that he is willing to sell the item.38

Still, as many later day authorities note, it is clear from the wording of Maimonides that one only transgresses the prohibition of lo tachmod if actual pressure is applied. It follows that simply inquiring into the status of an item would not transgress the prohibition of lo tachmod.

Some authorities are of the opinion that asking twice is already considered a violation of lo tachmod.39 Others argue that one only transgresses the prohibition of lo tachmod by asking a third time.40

There is a possible exception to this rule. Rabbeinu Yonah writes that a respectable person should not inquire whether an object is for sale if the stature of the prospective buyer would make it difficult for the seller to refuse the sale.41 Although some authorities42 understand Rabbeinu Yonah to be exhorting a person regarding proper conduct, the simple reading of Rabbeinu Yonah suggests that it is indeed prohibited.

Which Items are Subject to this Prohibition?

In Parshat Yitro, after stating “do not covet,” the Torah lists specific items: a house, a servant etc., concluding by saying: “and all that is to your friend.”

This is difficult to understand: either only specific items fall under the purview of lo tachmod or “anything that belongs to your friend,” which is accurate?

The Mechilta (a Midrash of halachotfrom the period of the Mishnah) addresses this question based on one of the thirteen methods of Torah elucidation: “klal prat uklal”—a comprehensive statement followed by a specification, followed by another comprehensive statement. Any time a verse states a law as a general statement, implying that it applies in all circumstances and then quantifies it by applying it only in certain circumstances and then concludes with a general statement, this principle tells us that in such a case, only scenarios similar to the examples given are included in the general statement.

Thus the opening words, “do not covet,” would appear to be a general statement that applies universally. The examples given, “his house, his servant, his maidservant, etc.,” are specifications. Finally, the Torah concludes with another general statement, “everything that belongs to your friend”; therefore, this would include anything similar to the examples given.43

Coveting a Spouse

The Torah explicitly prohibits coveting a married woman. As mentioned earlier, however, the Halacha follows the opinion that lo tachmod is only transgressed if one obtains the object he covets.

Being that it is extremely unlikely that a person will prevail on his fellow to divorce his wife, it is therefore extremely difficult for a person to transgress lo tachmod in this respect.

This actually serves to explain a difficulty in the way Maimonides cites this Halacha: As noted, lo tachmod is explicitly mentioned with respect to a married woman, however lo titaveh is not. Maimonides, interestingly, does exactly the opposite; when detailing lo titaveh he makes reference to a married woman; when discussing the prohibition of lo tachmod he does not make reference to a married woman.

The Minchat Chinuch explains that since the Torah explicitly states lo tachmod with regard to a married woman, Maimonides doesn't feel the need to list it. However, in the case of lo titaveh where the Torah makes no mention of it, Maimonides felt the need to emphasize that lo titaveh does indeed apply to a married woman as well.44

Rabbi Yehoshua Falk (1555-1614) writes a more intuitive explanation: Since a scheme to marry an already married woman is unlikely to yield success (as explained above), it is unnecessary for Maimonides to specify such a scenario when discussing lo tachmod. However, entertaining thoughts about how to do so is a much more common occurrence and as such Maimonides does specify this in the context of lo titaveh.45

Are Non-Jews Obligated?

The Sefer Hachinuch writes that although the prohibition of lo titaveh is not included in the Seven Noahide Laws, nevertheless, non-Jews are included in this prohibition, since it is a subcategory of the prohibition against stealing (which is one of the Seven Noahide Laws).46

Although the Sefer Hachinuch only writes this regarding lo titaveh and not lo tachmod, nevertheless, as the Minchat Chinuch points out, it is clear from the reasoning of the Sefer Hachinuch that this would also be the case in regard to lo tachmod. If lo titaveh—which does not involve any action—is considered to be a subcategory of theft, then all the more so lo tachmod, which does involve action, would be considered a subcategory of theft.47

Beyond the Letter of the Law

At the outset we noted how according to all Halachic authorities lo tachmodrefers only to one who ultimately obtains the object of his desire. Even lo titaveh is only transgressed if one entertains thoughts of how to obtain the object; simply coveting the object does not transgress either of these two prohibitions. Nevertheless, we also noted that according to the Smak and Sefer Hachinuch even coveting alone is included in the prohibition. Moreover, both Rabbeinu Bechaye and the Ibn Ezra, in their respective commentaries to Parshat Yitro, explain the prohibition of lo tachmod to be simply against desiring that which belongs to another, even if no actions to obtain the object are taken.48

Although generally speaking, the interpretations of the commentators of the Torah do not have halachic import, and from the Shulchan Aruch and subsequent authorities it is clear that it is technically not forbidden to desire another's possessions, it is nonetheless understood that it is not within the spirit of the law to do so. Indeed we find that Halachic authorities and ethicists write that it is midat chasidut—appropriate behavior, not to desire another's possessions.49

But as the Ibn Ezra himself questions, how is this possible? Surely it is not in our control whether we feel desire for someone else’s possessions or not!?

The Ibn Ezra explains that in fact it is well within our control. He explains this based on an allegory of a simple village person who knows that it is totally unfeasible for him to marry the daughter of the king, and as such would never express any desire to marry her. Similarly, if a person integrates within himself the notion that whatever possessions he does have are meant for him, and those possessions that belong to someone else have no connection to him at all, it will follow that he will have no desire whatsoever for another’s possessions.

Trodden the wine press alone- Isaiah 63- revelation 12 & 14

 If you'll turn to Revelation, chapter 14, you will read here a corresponding passage of scripture beginning with verse Isaiah 63:14 . Actually, let's go back to verse Isaiah 63:10 , "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, in the presence of the Lamb" ( Revelation 14:10 ). Who? Whoever worships the beast and the image and receives his mark in his forehead or in his hand.

This week you're going to learn some very fascinating things about the image of the beast as they'll be dealing with genetic engineering. And some of the things that are now being proposed by those scientists who are involved in genetic engineering, and you'll begin to understand a little bit about the beast making an image and giving power to it to speak and the whole world being governed and worshipping this image of the beast. You'll find some very fascinating things this week in these lectures that are coming up.

But whoever worships the beast or his image or receives his mark in his forehead or in his hand, the same is going to drink of the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture. Then in verse Isaiah 63:14 , "And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him that sat on the cloud, 'Thrust in Thy sickle, and reap. For the time is come for Thee to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.' And He that sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire, and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, 'Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.' And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horses' bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs" ( Revelation 14:14-20 ).

And then also in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Revelation, beginning with verse Isaiah 63:11 , "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse. And He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. And He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself. And He was clothed with a vesture that is dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were with Him in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." The church--go back to verse Isaiah 63:7-8. "And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron: and He will tread the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God" ( Revelation 19:15 ).

So tied in with this in Isaiah. The question: who is this that is coming from Edom with these dyed robes and so forth? I who speak in righteousness who are mighty to save. How come your garments are all stained? For I have been treading the winepress alone, trampling them in the fury. Their blood shall be sprinkled upon My garments and I will stain all My raiment. It's going to be a fierce day when God's wrath is poured out upon the earth.

"He that despised Moses' law died in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, he to be counted worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' saith the Lord. And again, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" ( Hebrews 10:28-31 ).

We talk about being saved. A person says, "What do you mean saved?" Well, I'll tell you what we mean saved. We mean being saved from that wrath of God that is going to be poured out upon the earth. Salvation has both a negative and a positive effect, actually. It's being saved from and it's being saved for--a glorious eternity with Him. But I am going to be saved from "the wrath of God that is going to be poured out against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth of God in unrighteousness" ( Romans 1:18 ).

Now, because God has been slow in judgment we so often think that God is weak, and men mistake the longsuffering of God for weakness. And that's a tragic mistake to make. For the day of vengeance and His wrath shall surely come. He has promised it. He said, "I'm not going to bring things to birth and then quit there." God speaks about surely I'm going to fulfill My word and My purposes. And the fact that God has fulfilled it up to this point, you're only fooling yourself if you think God's going to stop now. Surely the rest of the prophecy shall be fulfilled and we're right on the border once again of God's intervening in the history of man in judgment.

Now people are willfully ignorant of this fact that God has intervened in past history. Peter said that they're willfully ignorant, the fact that God destroyed the world already once in judgment. People don't like to think about that. They like to think that things are uniform. All things have continued as they were from the beginning. Not so! God has intervened in the past and He's going to intervene again in the future. But this intervention that is going to take place in the future is going to usher in then the glorious Kingdom Age and God's new kingdom and age upon the earth of which we really look forward to.

Now, "The day of the vengeance is in my heart. The year of the redeemed is come."

And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the eaRuth ( Isaiah 63:5-6 ).

God's judgment that is coming here upon the earth.

Now as we get into verse Isaiah 63:7and all through chapter 64, we have a very beautiful prayer as Isaiah representing the remnant prays unto the Lord.

I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD ( Isaiah 63:7 ),

Isn't this interesting? Right at the time that the Lord declares the day of His wrath and vengeance and judgment, the prophet then prays, "I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord."

and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses ( Isaiah 63:7 ).

Looking around and seeing what God has done. He has been so kind, lovingly kind to us.

For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their afflictions he was afflicted ( Isaiah 63:8-9 ),

Now that to me is a very beautiful scripture. "In all of their afflictions, He was afflicted." The early disciples recognized their close identity with Jesus Christ. And they recognized that those persecutions that they faced, they were actually facing and receiving for Jesus Christ. "In all of their afflictions, He was afflicted." So when they were beaten and commanded not to preach anymore in the name of Jesus, they went their way praising the Lord that they were accounted worthy to suffer persecution for Jesus' sake. Because the Lord identifies with His child in the persecution or in the suffering. Whenever you go through any persecution for the name of the Lord, in all of your afflictions He is afflicted. He bares our sorrow. He shares with us the afflictions, the tribulations, the persecutions.

and the Angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old ( Isaiah 63:9 ).

And yet, though God was so loving to them and so good to them,

They rebelled, they vexed his Holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, when Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name? That led them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble? As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD caused him to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name. Look down from heaven [their prayer unto God], and behold from thy habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of the mercies towards me? are they restrained? Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer; thy name is from everlasting ( Isaiah 63:10-16 ).

And so recognizing God as the Father, the Redeemer.

O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance. The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary. We are thine: thou never bearest rule over them; they were not called by thy name ( Isaiah 63:17-19 ). 

"

Copyright Statement
Copyright © 2014, Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, Ca.

Bibliographical Information
Smith, Charles Ward. "Commentary on Isaiah 63:3". "Smith's Bible Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​csc/​isaiah-63.html. 2014.

The solitary Warrior 63:1-6

The Lord explained how Israel could possibly rejoice in the repossession of its homeland, even if such malicious neighbors as the Edomites still surrounded it.

"Having described the exaltation of Zion and her enlargement through the influx of the Gentiles, the prophet turns to describe the destruction of Zion’s enemies." [Note: Young, 3:475.] 

"The oracle is most dramatic. The only OT passage that in any way resembles it is the account of Joshua’s encounter with the angelic captain of the Lord’s host (Joshua 5:13 to Joshua 6:5). There too, as here, there are two questions and two answers; and there is a similar anxious inquiry: ’Are you for us or for our enemies?’" [Note: Grogan, p. 339.] 

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Isaiah 63:3". "Dr. Constable's Expository Notes". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​dcc/​isaiah-63.html. 2012.

The Warrior replied that He had indeed been treading grapes, but not literal ones. He had been angry with these "grapes," and their juice had stained His garments. Furthermore, He had trodden them by Himself; no one had assisted Him in His task (cf. Isaiah 44:24; Revelation 19:13). The blood in this scene is not the blood of the Warrior, but that of the enemies He had slain.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Isaiah 63:3". "Dr. Constable's Expository Notes". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​dcc/​isaiah-63.html. 2012.

I have trodden the winepress alone,.... This is an answer to the question before put, and confirms what was observed, that his garments were like one that treadeth in the winepress; this was very true, he had trodden it, and trodden it alone, and that was the reason his garments were of such a hue; what others did by their servants, he did by himself, alone and without them. The winepress is a symbol of the wrath of God; not of what Christ bore himself as the sinner's surety, for then he was trodden as a vine, or the clusters of it, himself; but of what he executed on others. Wicked men are compared to clusters of the vine; the winepress into which they are cast is the wrath of God, and Christ is the treader of it; particularly he will be in the latter day, when antichrist and his followers will be destroyed by him; see Revelation 14:18.

And of the people there was none with me; either fighting with him, that could oppose him, any more than the clusters of grapes can resist the treaders of them; or to assist him in taking vengeance on his enemies: for though the armies of heaven follow him in white, these are little more than attendants and spectators, at most but instruments; all the power to conquer and destroy is from himself, and owing to the twoedged sword proceeding out of his mouth, Revelation 19:14 even as when he stood in the legal place and stead of his people there were none of them with him; he alone was the author of salvation, none could bear the wrath of God but himself, or engage with spiritual enemies, or work out salvation for them. But of this the texts speaks not, only of the destruction of the enemies of Christ and his church:

for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; with great eagerness, with all his might and strength; and this is the reason why his garments were so stained, even with the blood of his enemies, trodden and trampled under foot by him in this furious manner; as a person in a winepress alone, and treading it with all his might, has his garments more sparkled and stained with the juice of the grape, than when there are many, and these tread lightly. The words being in the future tense show that they respect time to come; and the manner of speaking ascertains the accomplishment of them, and which is further confirmed by what follows:

and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment; just as the garments of those that tread in the winepress are sprinkled and stained with the juice of the grape; this will have its accomplishment when he shall appear in a vesture dipped in blood, or shall be as bloody, with the blood of his enemies, as if it was dipped in it, Revelation 19:13.

Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernised and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rights Reserved, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855

Bibliographical Information
Gill, John. "Commentary on Isaiah 63:3". "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​geb/​isaiah-63.html. 1999.

The Triumphs of the Messiah.

B. C.706.

      1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.   2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat?   3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.   4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.   5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.   6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.

      It is a glorious victory that is here enquired into first and then accounted for. 1. It is a victory obtained by the providence of God over the enemies of Israel; over the Babylonians (say some), whom Cyrus conquered and God by him, and they will have the prophet to make the first discovery of him in his triumphant return when he is in the country of Edom: but this can by no means be admitted, because the country of Babylon is always spoken of as the land of the north, whereas Edom lay south from Jerusalem, so that the conqueror would not return through that country; the victory therefore is obtained over the Edomites themselves, who had triumphed in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (Psalms 137:7) and cut off those who, making their way as far as they could from the enemy, escaped to the Edomites (Obadiah 1:12; Obadiah 1:13), and were therefore reckoned with when Babylon was; for no doubt that prophecy was accomplished, though we do not meet in history with the accomplishment of it (Jeremiah 49:13), Bozrah shall become a desolation. Yet this victory over Edom is put as an instance or specimen of the like victories obtained over other nations that had been enemies to Israel. This over the Edomites is named for the sake of the old enmity of Esau against Jacob (Genesis 27:41) and perhaps with an allusion to David's glorious triumphs over the Edomites, by which it should seem, more than by any other of his victories, he got himself a name,Psalms 60:1; 2 Samuel 8:13; 2 Samuel 8:14. But this is not all: 2. It is a victory obtained by the grace of God in Christ over our spiritual enemies. We find the garments dipped in blood adorning him whose name is called The Word of God,Revelation 19:13. And who that is we know very well; for it is through him that we are more than conquerors over those principalities and powers which on the cross he spoiled and triumphed over.

      In this representation of the victory we have,

      I. An admiring question put to the conqueror, Isaiah 63:1; Isaiah 63:2. It is put by the church, or by the prophet in the name of the church. He sees a mighty hero returning in triumph from a bloody engagement, and makes bold to ask him two questions:-- 1. Who he is. He observes him to come from the country of Edom, to come in such apparel as was glorious to a soldier, not embroidered or laced, but besmeared with blood and dirt. He observes that he does not come as one either frightened or fatigued, but that he travels in the greatness of his strength,altogether unbroken.

Triumphant and victorious he appears,And honour in his looks and habit wears.    How strong he treads! how stately doth he go! Pompous and solemn is his pace, And full of majesty, as is his face;     Who is this mighty hero--who?--

MR. NORRIS.

      The question, Who is this? perhaps means the same with that which Joshua put to the same person when he appeared to him with his sword drawn (Joshua 5:13): Art thou for us or for our adversaries? Or, rather, the same with that which Israel put in a way of adoration (Exodus 15:11): Who is a God like unto thee? 2. The other question it, "Wherefore art thou red in thy apparel? What hard service hast thou been engaged in, that thou carriest with thee these marks of toil and danger?" Is it possible that one who has such majesty and terror in his countenance should be employed in the mean and servile work of treading the wine-press? Surely it is not. That which is really the glory of the Redeemer seems, primâ facie--at first,a disparagement to him, as it would be to a mighty prince to do the work of the wine-dressers and husbandmen; for he took upon him the form of a servant,and carried with him the marks of servitude.

      II. An admirable answer returned by him.

      1. He tells who he is: I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. He is the Saviour. God was Israel's Saviour out of the hand of their oppressors; the Lord Jesus is ours; his name, Jesus,signifies a Saviour, for he saves his people from their sins. In the salvation wrought he will have us to take notice, (1.) Of the truth of his promise, which is therein performed: He speaks in righteousness, and will therefore make good every word that he has spoken with which he will have us to compare what he does, that, setting the word and the work the one over against the other, what he does may ratify what he has said and what he has said may justify what he does. (2.) Of the efficacy of his power, which is therein exerted: He is mighty to save, able to bring about the promised redemption, whatever difficulties and oppositions may lie in the way of it.

'Tis I who to my promise faithful stand,     I, who the powers of death, hell, and the grave, Have foil'd with this all-conquering hand,     I, who most ready am, and mighty too, to save.

MR. NORRIS.

      2. He tells how he came to appear in this hue (Isaiah 63:3; Isaiah 63:3): I have trodden the wine-press alone.Being compared to one that treads in the wine-fat, such is his condescension, in the midst of his triumphs, that he does not scorn the comparison, but admits it and carries it on. He does indeed tread the wine-press, but it is the great wine-press of the wrath of God (Revelation 14:19), in which we sinners deserved to be cast; but Christ was pleased to cast our enemies into it, and to destroy him that had the power of death, that he might deliver us. And of this the bloody work which God sometimes made among the enemies of the Jews, and which is here foretold, was a type and figure. Observe the account the conqueror gives of his victory.

      (1.) He gains the victory purely by his own strength: I have trodden the wine-press alone,Isaiah 63:3; Isaiah 63:3. When God delivered his people and destroyed their enemies, if he made use of instruments, he did not need them. But among his people, for whom the salvation was to be wrought, no assistance offered itself; they were weak and helpless, and had no ability to do any thing for their own relief; they were desponding and listless, and had no heart to do any thing; they were not disposed to give the least stroke or struggle for liberty, neither the captives themselves nor any of their friends for them (Isaiah 63:5; Isaiah 63:5): "I looked, and there was none to help, as one would have expected, nothing of a bold active spirit appeared among them; nay, there was not only none to lead, but, which was more strange, there was none to uphold, none that would come in as a second, that had the courage to join with Cyrus against their oppressors; therefore my arm brought about the salvation; not bycreated might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts, my own arm." Note, God can help when all other helpers fail; nay, that is his time to help, and therefore for that very reason he will put forth his own power so much the more gloriously. But this is most fully applicable to Christ's victories over our spiritual enemies, which he obtained by a single combat. He trod the wine-press of his Father's wrath alone, and triumphed over principalities and powers in himself,Colossians 2:15. Of the people there was none with him;for, when he entered the lists with the powers of darkness, all his disciples forsook him and fled. There was non to help, none that could, none that durst; and he might well wonder that among the children of men, whose concern it was, there was not only none to uphold,but that there were so many to oppose and hinder it if they could.

      (2.) He undertakes the war purely out of his own zeal. It is in his anger, it is in his fury, that he treads down his enemies (Isaiah 63:3; Isaiah 63:3), and that fury upholds him and carries him on in this enterprise, Isaiah 63:5; Isaiah 63:5. God wrought salvation for the oppressed Jews purely because he was very angry with the oppressing Babylonians, angry at their idolatries and sorceries, their pride and cruelty, and the injuries they did to his people, and, as they increased their abominations and grew more insolent and outrageous, his anger increased to fury. Our Lord Jesus wrought out our redemption in a holy zeal for the honour of his Father and the happiness of mankind, and a holy indignation at the daring attempts Satan had made upon both; this zeal and indignation upheld him throughout his whole undertaking. Two branches there were of this zeal that animated him:-- [1.] He had a zeal against his and his people's enemies: The day of vengeance is in my heart(Isaiah 63:4; Isaiah 63:4), the day fixed in the eternal counsels for taking vengeance on them; this was written in his heart, so that he could not forget it, could not let it slip; his heart was full of it, and it lay as a charge, as a weight, upon him, which made him push on this holy war with so much vigour. Note, There is a day fixed for divine vengeance, which may be long deferred, but will come at last; and we may be content to wait for it, for the Redeemer himself does so, though his heart is upon it. [2.] He had a zeal for his people, and for all that he designed to make sharers in the intended salvation: "The year of my redeemed has come, the year appointed for their redemption." There was a year fixed for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and God kept time to a day (Exodus 12:41); so there was for their release out of Babylon (Daniel 9:2); so there was for Christ's coming to destroy the works of the devil; so there is for all the deliverances of the church, and the deliverer has an eye to it. Observe, First, With what pleasure he speaks of his people; they are his redeemed; they are his own, dear to him. Though their redemption is not yet wrought out, yet he calls them his redeemed, because it shall as surely be done as if it were done already. Secondly, With what pleasure he speaks of his people's redemption; how glad he is that the time has come, though he is likely to meet with a sharp encounter. "Now that the year of my redeemed has come, Lo, I come; delay shall be no longer. Now will I arise, saith the Lord. Now thou shalt see what I will do to Pharaoh." Note, The promised salvation must be patiently waited for till the time appointed comes; yet we must attend the promises with our prayers. Does Christ say, Surely I come quickly; let our hearts reply, Even so come; let the year of the redeemed come.

      (3.) He will obtain a complete victory over them all. [1.] Much is already done; for he now appears red in his apparel; such abundance of blood is shed that the conqueror's garments are all stained with it. This was predicted, long before, by dying Jacob, concerning Shiloh (that is, Christ), that he should wash his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes,which perhaps this alludes to, Genesis 49:11.

With ornamental drops bedeck'd I stood,And wrote my vict'ry with my en'my's blood.

MR. NORRIS.

      In the destruction of the antichristian powers we meet with abundance of blood shed (Revelation 14:20; Revelation 19:13), which yet, according to the dialect of prophecy, may be understood spiritually, and doubtless so may this here. [2.] More shall yet be done (Isaiah 63:6; Isaiah 63:6): I will tread down the people that yet stand it out against me, in my anger; for the victorious Redeemer, when the year of the redeemed shall have come, will go on conquering and to conquer,Revelation 6:2. When he begins he will also make an end. Observe how he will complete his victories over the enemies of his church. First, He will infatuate them; he will make them drunk, so that there shall be neither sense nor steadiness in their counsels; they shall drink of the cup of his fury, and that shall intoxicate them: or he will make them drunk with their own blood,Revelation 17:6. Let those that make themselves drunk with the cup of riot (and then they are in their fury) repent and reform, lest God make them drunk with the cup of trembling, the cup of his fury. Secondly,He will enfeeble them; he will bring down their strength, and so bring them down to the earth; for what strength can hold out against Omnipotence?

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that is available on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Website.

Bibliographical Information
Henry, Matthew. "Complete Commentary on Isaiah 63:3". "Henry's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/​commentaries/​mhm/​isaiah-63.html. 1706.

Jesus often spoke in agricultural parables and allusions, knowing that the farmers, wine producers, wheat gatherers etc would understand. Not much has changed since the ancient days in terms of how wine is made, olives are gathered, wheat is sifted. Today’s layperson, even a city dweller, can understand the simple comparisons He made with gathering wheat as living symbol of gathering His people.

There is one comparison He made which is simple but it is the most dreadful. It is the winepress of His wrath.

In old days the Israelites’ wine production was a major industry. Ancient wine presses have been discovered all over the Middle East, and in and around modern day Israel. The grapes would be gathered, and placed in a rectangular pit entered from a cleaned mosaic floor. The floor of the press would be stone, also washed. The trite picture of people stomping on grapes is not so trite: the gentleness of the underside of the foot would crush the grapes enough to release the juice but not crush the bitter seeds, releasing tannins into the wine. The juice would be allowed to run down a slough, through a filter made of leaves and thorn ranches. Seeds and twigs removed, the second pressing would then involve a press of stone, like the one below. Notice the trough running around the rim of the stone, to catch the juice.

Recently a Giant 1,400-year-old wine press discovered in southern Israel. Its size and unusual shape indicated to archaeologists that it was used for a major export operation. The press, unearthed during an excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority, is one of the largest ever discovered in Israel.

The LORD has said that He is long-suffering but His patience will come to an end. The world will not end, but most of life as we know it will end. Most will die. He will finally rectify the issue of sin and deliver His children from it. Deliverance will come! But it will be at a terrible price. Read these verses which describe an event that will literally come: 

“The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia. (Revelation 14:19-20).”

1600 stadia is 180 miles. MILES of flowing blood. Will your blood be among the flow?

Isaiah asks the LORD where He has been that His garments should be bloodied. God answers:

“I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing. (Isaiah 63:3) 

And again in Revelation 19:15

“From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.”

He does this because the armies of the world are aligned to mow down the Jews, because they are assembled to fight Him, because they are rebellious and sinful and deserve Divine Justice. He does this to deliver the believers who dwell in such a dark time. He does this to avenge the martyrs who died in the Woman’s drunken orgy of massacre and became drunk with their blood. “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6a). He does this because of the saints beheaded for the witness and testimony of the LORD and had not taken the mark. (Revelation 20:4)

Truly, it seems His wrath is nearly complete, it seems as though the moment of His Day is upon us. It seems the winepress is filling with sin and will be put to its prophetic use very shortly. The Day of the Lord is a time period, not just a day. During the entire time of The Day of the LORD He is at the same time sending out increasingly severe judgments upon the unbelieving while showing His fierce wrath and power so that those who rebel will come to Him. Many do come to Him, but still more will not.

The blessed hope is that if you believe NOW, during the age of Grace, you will not have to endure the terrible woes of the Tribulation nor see nor be within the winepress of His wrath. You will be raptured, meet Him in the air, and be led to heaven itself, where a place is being prepared for all believers. He loves you and made a way to dwell with Him forever. If you know and understand you are a sinner then you know and understand those sins will always disqualify you for heaven’s citizenship with the Holy God and LORD of Justice unless you plea for forgiveness and repent.

It sounds trite, but really, repent, for the end is nigh.

So Paul shows that God will impartially judge everyone for sinning against the light that they were given. His line of reasoning goes like this: The Gentile sinned without the Law, so he will perish without the Law. The Jew sinned under the Law and so he will be judged by the Law (2:12). In other words, as verse 6 stated, God “will render to each person according to his deeds.” Hearing the Law isn’t good enough; you must be a doer of the Law (2:13). Although the Gentiles did not have God’s Law, they all have an inner sense of right and wrong (2:14). And, although occasionally they may do what is right, they all have sinned against what they know to be right. Their consciences and thoughts convict them of their guilt (2:15). But whatever they may think of themselves, the day is coming when God will judge not only outward deeds, but also the secrets of men through Jesus Christ, in accordance with the gospel (2:16). To sum up, Paul is saying:

Since God will impartially judge everyone for sinning against what they know to be right, everyone is guilty and thus everyone needs the gospel.

These verses are not easy to interpret and so godly scholars differ on many issues. There are two main views, going back into the verses that we covered in 2:6-11. One camp argues that verses 7, 10, and 13 are hypothetical. That is to say, if anyone actually could persevere in doing good and obeying the Law, he would be saved by his obedience. But no one is able to do it, so no one can be justified by keeping God’s Law (Rom. 3:20). Justification is only through faith in Christ, apart from works (Rom. 4:4-5).

True, says the other camp, but genuine saving faith always results in a life of obedience to God’s Word (Eph. 2:8-10). We are not saved on the basis of our good deeds, but our good deeds necessarily show the validity of our faith (James 2:18-26). Thus while we are saved by faith alone, we will be judged by our works. Because (as we saw last week) this is the consistent teaching of all of Scripture, Paul is not talking here about something hypothetical.

Rather, he is showing that God’s impartial judgment of all people will be on the basis of their works. Those who are doers of God’s Word will be acquitted and go to heaven. Those who disobey God’s Word will be condemned and go to hell. At this point Paul is not looking at how a person enters into a life of obedience, but rather at the results of it. As we saw last time (and will see again today), we can only live in obedience to God if we have experienced the new birth through faith in Christ. Thus verse 13 (as also 2:7 & 10) is not talking about sinless perfection, but rather about direction. Those who live on the path of obedience to God’s Word are those who will be justified at the final judgment.

Let’s trace Paul’s argument verse by verse:

1. God will judge everyone based on the light that they were given (2:12).

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.”

“For” shows that Paul is explaining verse 11, “For there is no partiality with God.” Verse 12 means that God will judge each person according to the light that he was given. The Gentiles, who did not have the Law, will be judged apart from the Law. The Jews, who received God’s Law, will be judged by that Law. But, note carefully: Both groups have sinned and both groups will be judged for their sin. The Gentiles who sinned without the Law will perish, which refers to eternal condemnation. We have to wait until verses 14 & 15 to answer the question, “How could the Gentiles be guilty of sin if they didn’t have the standard of God’s Law to live by?” But the point of verse 12 is that God will judge every person, Gentile or Jew, according to their response to the light that they were given. So God can’t be accused of partiality.

Jesus taught the same thing in a passage that boggles your brain as you try to grasp it. In Matthew 11:20-24 we read:

Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

Jesus is saying that there will be degrees of punishment in hell, based on the amount of light that a person has rejected. Those who witnessed Jesus’ miracles and yet rejected Him will be judged more harshly than those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, who never heard about Jesus. What is brain-boggling is that Jesus knew how the pagans in those cities would have responded if they had witnessed His miracles. And, in the case of Sodom, He easily could have had the angels who went there to destroy the city perform enough miracles to bring them to faith. But He did not do that! Sodom did not repent and was judged on the basis of the light they rejected. They will spend eternity in hell for their sins. But their judgment will be lighter than that of the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, who witnessed Jesus’ miracles, but still rejected Him.

But don’t let this be a fascinating brain-teaser without applying it: How much light have you received? Have you responded to the light you have received by repenting of your sins and trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord? If not, what kind of judgment will you face when you stand before God?

2. Hearing the Law does not justify before God; only doers of the Law will be justified (2:13).

“… for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”

Paul again uses “for” (see also, 2:11, 12, and 14) to show that he is explaining or proving what he has just said. The Jews boasted in having God’s Law. They heard it read every week in their synagogues. But Paul says, “Hearing it is not enough. Hearing the Law doesn’t put you in God’s favor ahead of the Gentiles, who have not heard the Law. The issue is, doing it. Only those who do God’s Law will be acquitted or justified on judgment day.”

Again, many commentators understand Paul here to be speaking hypothetically, in that no one is able to keep God’s Law perfectly or to earn salvation by good works. As Romans 3:20 says, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that all have sinned and thus all need God’s saving grace through the gift of His Son, who died to redeem sinners who trust in Him. No one can earn right standing before God by good works.

But, while that is clear, there are reasons to argue that Paul is not talking here about hypothetical perfect obedience, which no one can do, but rather about a direction of obedience, which those who have been born of God’s Spirit do practice consistently.

For one thing, this agrees with the uniform teaching of the Bible, that God will judge everyone impartially by his works (see last week’s sermon). A person’s works reveal the reality of his faith. Works are the inevitable and essential proof of saving faith (Eph. 2:8-10). Paul is not saying that a person earns justification by obedience. Rather, he is describing those who will be justified by God on judgment day. They are doers of the Law. They obey God’s Word as a way of life.

Also, there are biblical examples of those who are doers of the Law (or, God’s Word). In Romans 2:26-27, Paul mentions the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the requirements of God’s Law. He goes on (2:28-29) to specify that he is not talking about outward observance of the Law only, but rather, obedience from the heart. He is describing Gentiles who have been saved by faith and now demonstrate their faith by obedience to God’s Word. In Romans 8:4, Paul says that through the cross (8:3), “the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” In other words, those who have trusted in Christ’s death now walk by the Holy Spirit and thus fulfill God’s Law.

In Luke 1:6, it says of John the Baptist’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth, “They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” This does not mean that they were sinlessly perfect, because Zacharias goes on to sin by not believing the word of the angel that they would have a child in their old age. Nor does it mean that they somehow would earn eternal life by their blameless obedience. Rather, because they had trusted in God and received His mercy, they became consistent doers of the Law. Their deeds proved that they would be justified on judgment day. (In defending this interpretation, I have relied on Frederic Godet, Commentary on Romans[Kregel], pp. 118-122; Thomas Schreiner, Romans [Baker], loc. cit.; Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment[Baker], pp. 179-204; and, John Piper, “There is no Partiality with God” [part 2], on desiringgod.org.)

So, Paul’s argument thus far is that God is not partial to the Jews by giving them the Law, because He will judge everyone based on the light that they were given (2:12); and, hearing the Law only does not justify anyone; we must be doers of the Law (2:13).

3. Those who do not have God’s Law still have an inner sense of right and wrong that condemns them when they violate it (2:14-15).

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, …”

Some argue that Paul is referring here to saved Gentiles who obey the Law and thus are justified. Rather, he brings up the Gentiles to show his Jewish readers that having the Law and occasionally obeying it are not enough. So verse 14 explains (“for) the first half of verse 12, that “all who sin without the Law will also perish without the Law.” Even unsaved Gentiles have an inner sense of right and wrong. Sometimes they do what they know to be right. But they often disobey what they know to be right, so that their conscience condemns them. They will be guilty before God on the day when He judges their secret sins (2:16).

Paul is not saying that the Gentiles instinctively know all of the stipulations of the Mosaic Law. Rather, he is pointing out the obvious fact that even pagans, who have had no exposure to God’s revealed Law, have a built-in sense of right and wrong that coincides with God’s Law. He is not referring to the promise of the New Covenant, when God’s Law will be written on the heart of believers (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10). Rather, when he says that “the work of the Law [is] written on their hearts,” he probably means, what the Law does, namely, teaching the difference between right and wrong (H. C. G. Moule, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges [Cambridge University Press, 1903], p. 71).

Paul is referring to the fact that almost all cultures believe that murder, stealing, rape, assault, etc. are wrong. Treating others as you want to be treated, obeying just laws, and loving your mate and your children are right. C. S. Lewis opens his argument in Mere Christianity [Macmillan, pp. 17ff.] by showing how even pagans have this sense of right and wrong. They all hold to a standard of behavior that they expect others to hold to also.

But, there is a problem: Even though we all have this built-in sense of right and wrong, we all have violated our own standards. When we do, we justify it by various arguments. “I know that I treated him wrongly, but he had it coming!” “I know that I shouldn’t cheat on my taxes, but everyone else does it. Besides, the government wastes so much money. And I’m not a millionaire!” So our conscience and our thoughts go back and forth, either condemning us or trying to defend us. That’s what Paul is describing.

The conscience is not an infallible guide, but we should never go against our conscience. It is not infallible in that it needs to be informed by Scripture, not just by what our culture may think is right or wrong, or by what we may instinctively feel is right or wrong. I have heard of new Christians, for example, who were so influenced by our godless culture, that they had no inner sense that it is wrong for a couple who love one another to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Their conscience was not reliable. It needed to be informed by the unchanging standard of God’s Word.

But Paul’s point is that every culture has standards of right and wrong that often coincide with God’s Law. And every person has a conscience that condemns him when he violates what he knows to be wrong.

To recap, in answer to the objection that God’s judgment is unfair because He gave the Jews the Law, Paul says, “No, God will judge everyone by the light they have been given and sinned against. Hearing the Law is not enough; it is the doers of the Law who will be justified. With the Gentiles, not having the Law is no excuse. They instinctively know what is right and wrong and they all have violated what they know to be right, as their consciences affirm. Finally,

4. On judgment day, God will judge the secrets of everyone through Christ Jesus according to the gospel (2:16).

“… on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ.”

The connection between verses 15 & 16 is not obvious, which has led some to put either verses 13-15 (KJV) or 14-15 (NIV) in parenthesis. Thus they tie verse 16 back either to verse 12 or verse 13. But that is not necessary. The connection is that the present work of the conscience in either accusing or defending the sinner will reach its climax on the final day of judgment, when God will judge even the secrets of men by His righteous standards. Whether a person had God’s Law or not, he will stand guilty before God on that day.

There are several things that we should not miss in verse 16 (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit [Pilgrim Publications], 31:373-384, has an excellent sermon, “Coming Judgment of the Secrets of Men,” from which I modified these points).

First, there will be a certain day of judgment. God has fixed the day (Acts 17:31). If we believe that, we’d better be ready! And if you don’t believe it, that does not mean that it will not happen! Unless Jesus was a liar or mistaken, that day is coming (Matt. 16:27; John 5:22, 24-29).

Second, on that day, God will judge the secrets of everyone. That is a scary thought! God doesn’t just look at our outward deeds. We can put on a pretty good show towards others. We can impress them with our knowledge of the Bible or our prayers or religiosity. But God knows every secret thought we have and private sin that we do. He knows the hidden prideful motives, even when we outwardly serve Him. He knows the lustful glance that no one else sees. He knows every click of the mouse on your computer, even late at night when no one else is around. He sees the seething anger in your heart, even when you camouflage it. Nothing will escape His penetrating gaze on judgment day.

Third, when God judges the secrets of men, it will be through Christ Jesus.Jesus made the astounding claim (John 5:22-23), “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” There couldn’t be a clearer claim to deity than that! For Christ to sit in judgment on the secrets of all men, He must have infinite knowledge, which only God can have (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans], p. 58).

Also, this means that if you have a picture in your mind of Jesus as being all-loving and never judgmental, then you do not have the biblical picture of Jesus. He described Himself as the judge of all! In Revelation 19:11-15, He returns on a white horse to judge and wage war. His eyes are a flame of fire. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood. From His mouth comes a sharp sword to strike down the nations. “He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty” (19:15). So if that isn’t your image of Jesus, you need to change your thinking!

Fourth, this final judgment is according to Paul’s gospel. At first glance, this doesn’t sound like good news! But, if there is no judgment for all sin, then there is no need for a Savior and thus no good news (Morris, p. 129; Spurgeon, p. 383). The gospel does not offer you the option of going on in your sin or shrugging it off as if it will not come under judgment if you do not repent. As Spurgeon put it (ibid.), “With deep love to the souls of men, I bear witness to the truth that he who turns not with repentance and faith to Christ, shall go away into punishment as everlasting as the life of the righteous.” We need to understand the bad news of judgment in order to appreciate the good news of salvation through faith in Christ.

Paul calls it “my gospel” both because he had personally owned it and to defend it against critics who accused him of preaching grace to the neglect of good works (Rom. 3:8). Paul is saying that the gospel he preached was in complete harmony with the solemn truth that God will judge the secrets of men. He “will render to each person according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6).

Conclusion

Spurgeon rightly argues (p. 384) that if we do not preach the coming judgment and wrath of God, we do not preach the gospel at all. We would be like a surgeon who didn’t want to tell his patient that he is ill. He hopes to heal him without his knowing that he was sick. So he flatters him that he is well and the man refuses the cure. Such a doctor would be a murderer. And so are we, if we do not warn people about God’s impartial, certain judgment of our every secret, and then point them to the good news that Christ offers forgiveness to repentant sinners as their only hope.

Application Questions

1. How would you answer the objection, “What about the heathen who have never heard about Jesus?”
2. What arguments support that 2:13 is not hypothetical, but rather describes the direction of life of those who are saved?
3. Why is the conscience not a totally reliable guide? How can we make it more reliable? Should we ever go against our conscience? Why/why not?
4. Why is it important to emphasize that God will judge our secrets (2:16)? What practical implications does this have?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2010, All Rights Reserved.

Anger

“I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the peoples there was no man with me: yea, I trod them in mine anger, and trampled them in my wrath; and their lifeblood is sprinkled upon my garments.”—Isa. 63:3, AS.

1. What should you be glad to know how to avoid, and why?

IF YOU can avoid having the very life crushed out of you, will you not be glad to know how you can do so? The field called Armageddon, where the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” will be fought, will be like a tremendous wine press for all mankind. Comparatively few of this generation of mankind will escape being crushed to everlasting death there. You may avoid this crushing experience and share in all the joy, singing and shouting that will both accompany and follow the treading or trampling of this global wine press. How may you do so? It is worthwhile knowing.

2. (a) How does God explain the importance of human blood? (b) What is God perfectly just in demanding for the life of a person undeservedly killed?

² Blood flowing freely and fully within your body’s blood vessels means your life as a human soul. The great “Fountain of life,” Jehovah God, tells us how important our blood supply is, saying: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it.” We can therefore see the reasonableness of his command for us not to take the blood of other people into our system, when he says: “Consequently I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’” Because blood has life value God justly accepted the blood of a proper victim as an atoning sacrifice or a repurchasing price for the life that mankind had lost as a penalty for wrongdoing or sin. So God said: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Lev. 17:11,14, NW; Ps. 36:9) Even as God was pleased to accept the lifeblood of a proper victim in payment for the life of another that had been forfeited, so God is perfectly just in demanding that the life of a person who had been undeservedly killed should be offset or counterbalanced by taking away the life of the killer.

3. (a) How did God state that to be his rule of action to Noah and his family? (b) Of what does the rainbow not stand as a sign, and so of what survivors do Noah and his family stand as signs?

³ Over four thousand years ago Jehovah declared this as his rule to the eight human survivors of the global flood, Noah and his family, from whom all of us today have descended. When granting them permission to eat animal flesh as food, Jehovah God said: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat. And, besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” (Gen. 9:4-6, NW) The life of an animal victim could not make repayment for the life of the man killed; only the life of the killed man’s brother man, the killer himself, would meet the demands of divine justice. Although at that time Jehovah God had caused the rainbow to appear in the sky as an everlasting sign that he would never again cut off all flesh by the waters of a deluge, his rainbow does not stand as a sign that he may not and will not crush all human flesh by other means like a global wine press. The eight human survivors of the global flood stand as a prophetic sign and guarantee that there will be happy survivors when mankind is crushed in the wine press of God’s anger at Armageddon.—Gen. 9:4-6, 11-16, NW; Matt. 24:37-39.

4. Why will the tramping out of lifeblood be done in justice at Armageddon?

⁴ Noah made wine after the flood, doubtless using a wine press. In the time of making wine to gladden man’s heart the blood, the juice, of the grapes flowed heavily under the crushing feet of the treaders or trampers in the wine trough. In the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Armageddon human blood will flow, human life will be poured out, on an unheard-of scale, and woe to those who are then in the war against God the Almighty! As the tramping out of the lifeblood will be done in justice, in the anger of God the Almighty, it will be because of a great bloodguilt resting upon mankind. All the past unjust shedding of human blood will be counterbalanced by crushing out the lives of the bloodguilty. It will be no injustice to mankind, but the payment of a just due.

5, 6. What experience of Judah and Jerusalem shows that there will be no refuge in any part of Christendom, and how did God through Isaiah describe that experience?

⁵ At that terrific execution upon the bloodguilty there will be no place of refuge in any part of Christendom, even though she religiously mentions God and claims to be his people. The Israelites of twenty-five centuries ago did the same thing, but it did not act as a charm to shield them when Jehovah expressed his anger at their willful wrongdoing and breaking of their covenant with him and punished Jerusalem and the land of Judah. At Armageddon Christendom faces an experience like that of ancient Judah and Jerusalem, the prophetic type of unfaithful Christendom. Describing beforehand what happened, God said:

⁶ “Behold, Jehovah maketh the land empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad its inhabitants. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; . . . The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled; for Jehovah hath spoken this word. The land mourneth, it fadeth away; the world languisheth, it fadeth away: the haughty people of the land do languish. And the land is polluted under the inhabitants thereof; for they have violated the laws, changed the statute, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore doth the curse devour the earth, and they that dwell therein are held guilty; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are consumed, and few men are left.”—Isa. 24:1-6, Da.

7. How did Jehovah turn the land of Judah and Jerusalem upside down, and what was the reason for doing so?

⁷ How did God turn the land of Judah and Jerusalem upside down? It was full of Jewish inhabitants just like a bowl full of certain things. So Jehovah treated the land just like a full bowl, turning it upside down and dumping out its human inhabitants and so emptying the land, scattering abroad its former inhabitants. Jehovah had previously measured out a treatment like that to Samaria, the capital of idolatrous, murderous King Ahab, and so Jehovah said: “Here I am bringing a calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, of which if any one hears both his ears will tingle. And I shall certainly stretch upon Jerusalem the measuring line applied to Sa·marʹi·a and also the leveling instrument applied to the house of Aʹhab, and I shall simply wipe Jerusalem clean just as one wipes the handleless bowl clean, wiping it clean and turning it upside down. And I shall indeed forsake the remnant of my possession and give them into the hand of their enemies, and they will simply become a spoil and plunder to all their enemies.” The reason for thus turning the land upside down is given, in part, in these words about Manasseh, its king: “There was also innocent blood that Ma·nasʹseh shed in very great quantity until he had filled Jerusalem from end to end, besides his sin with which he caused Judah to sin by doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah.” (2 Ki. 21:10-16, NW) About a hundred years later this dire prophecy came true.

8. Why was the land not turned right side up by being turned upside down, and so when was the land put in its right condition?

⁸ Was the land of Judah and Jerusalem turned right side up by being turned upside down? No! For Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians, the land of Judah was wrecked and completely depopulated, not even domestic animals being left there, and what former inhabitants were left were either taken captive to Babylon or frightened into flight down to Egypt. The land was upside down, like a handleless bowl emptied of its contents; so the deserted land turned into a wilderness, a jungle, with dreary ruins, infested by doleful wild beasts and birds. That was not the right condition of the land of Judah. God had given it to his chosen people according to his promise and he gave it to them to be inhabited. Therefore after letting it lie desolate and enjoy land sabbaths for seventy years, he overthrew Babylon and brought back a faithful remnant of his people from there that Jerusalem might be rebuilt and her temple restored and the land repopulated. A land was born in that day and was in its right condition, like a bowl right side up, filled with inhabitants who praised and worshiped Jehovah. In this we see a prophetic picture of how Jehovah God will preserve and deliver a faithful remnant of people to survive Armageddon.—Isa. 45:17-22; 66:8, 9;2 Chron. 36:17-23.

9. To what crushing experience is Jehovah’s treatment of the land of Judah likened, and what does this illustrate respecting Christendom?

⁹ It was frightful the way the land of Judah had its holy city and temple ruined, the most of its population slaughtered by sword, famine and pestilence, and its survivors scattered into captivity and exile in enemy lands. This experience came from the hand of Jehovah, whose covenant they had broken and whose land they had polluted with innocent blood. It is likened to his treading down the land of Judah in a vast wine press, with a terrible loss of life and spilling of the blood of the guilty. (Jer. 2:21; Isa. 5:1-8) The writer of the prophetic Lamentations mourns over it, saying: “Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, whom Jehovah hath afflicted in the day of his fierce anger. . . . the Lord hath delivered me into hands out of which I am not able to rise up. The Lord hath cast down all my mighty men in the midst of me; he hath called an assembly against me to crush my young men; the Lord hath trodden as a winepress the virgin daughter of Judah. Jehovah is righteous; for I have rebelled against his commandment.” (Lam. 1:12,14, 15, 18, Da) This illustrates what it will mean when Jehovah gives Christendom the wine-press treatment at Armageddon. Only it will be more appalling, for Christendom extends round the globe. Let no one think of finding refuge then in bloodstained Christendom.

10, 11. (a) Why is there no other place in this old world in which to escape being crushed at Armageddon? (b) Why is taking refuge in the “vine of the earth” something to avoid?

¹⁰ There is no other place in this old world where one may seek refuge and escape from being crushed at Armageddon. All the nations, those of heathendom as well as of Christendom, will be stamped down as in a global wine press. The worldly system of things is like a great “vine of the earth” that has spread all over the earth filling it with its bad fruit, and now it is about time for the entire vine to be uprooted and crushed and all its lifeblood stamped out with the greatest violence. All the nations, even those of Christendom who lay claim to Christianity, have warred among themselves soaking the earth with blood; and now, since the birth of God’s kingdom in the heavens in 1914 and since the world-wide announcement of this royal birth by Jehovah’s witnesses, the nations have risen to the height of their wickedness by preparing for war against Jehovah God and his enthroned King, Jesus Christ.

¹¹ In this hydrogen-bomb era the fruitage of this international “vine of the earth” is reaching its full ripeness and the time for this tremendous vine to be harvested is getting near, to pitch all of it, root, branch and fruit, into the wine press of God’s anger. Jehovah God even urges on the ripening of its ungodly fruitage with this challenge now proclaimed by his witnesses: “Proclaim this among the nations: prepare war, arouse the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near, let them come up. Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning-knives into spears; let the weak say, I am strong. Haste ye and come, all ye nations round about, and gather yourselves together. Thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Jehovah. Let the nations rouse themselves, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; for there will I sit to judge all the nations round about. Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down, for the press is full, the vats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of Jehovah is at hand in the valley of decision.” (Joel 3:9-14, Da) For anyone now to take refuge in the branches of this “vine of the earth,” either continuing as a branch of it or sitting under it and enjoying its fruitage, means to be stamped out of existence with it in the wine press of God’s anger. That crushing experience is certainly something to be avoided.

12. What is one outstanding reason for God’s crushing out the life of this world, and what especially comes in for its due in this regard?

¹² One outstanding reason for God’s crushing the lifeblood out of this worldly system of things is the enormous bloodguiltiness that rests upon it and that must be punished. This is true not only of the political, commercial and social organizations of this world but also of its religions. All the religions of this world now associate with the international alliance, the United Nations, and support it. These religions are all symbolized under one figure, that of the great harlot, Babylon the Great, who rides the seven-headed wild beast to a battle against Jehovah’s “Lord of lords and King of kings.” All the blood unrighteously shed on the earth is due to false religion and hence is laid to the charge of this mysterious Babylon the Great. Calling her bloodguiltiness to notice just before she is executed, John the beholder of the Revelation vision says: “I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. . . . Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Rev. 17:6; 18:24, NW) In executing judgment at Armageddon the God of justice renders to all worldly religion her dues for her sickening bloodthirstiness and bloodguiltiness.

13. What do the heavenly hosts say as respects this act of judgment, and how will the guilty drink their own blood?

¹³ Because of this act of judgment the heavenly hosts give Jehovah praise, saying: “Praise Jah, you people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God, because his judgments are true and righteous. For he has executed judgment upon the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her [religious] fornication, and he has avenged the blood of his slaves at her hand.” The long record of worldly religion, reeking with blood, must now be shown up and the coming judgment of those who have shed innocent blood under the instigation of Babylonish religion must be declared, to show that God is righteous: “You . . . are righteous, . . . because they poured out the blood of holy ones and of prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. They deserve it. . . . Yes, Jehovah God, the Almighty, true and righteous are your decisions.” (Rev. 19:1, 2; 16:5-7, NW) The guilty will be made to drink their own lifeblood by their own deserved death at Armageddon.—Isa. 49:26.