A Simple Study of the Word “Must”

God has communicated some things about himself abstractly through creation (Ps. 19:1), but he has made his will known concretely through words.

Christ rebuked the Jews for ignoring the logical connection between Moses’ “writings” and his own “words” (Jn. 5:46-47). He declared that his “words are spirit, and are life” (Jn. 6:63).

Paul affirmed that the things revealed about God to man are made known by “words”—not words derived from “man’s wisdom,” but through words from God (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thes. 2:13).

In most languages, words generally follow rules that govern meaning and context.

If we desire to extract maximum benefit from words employed in phrases or sentences, we must try to have some appreciation for the relational significance of words.

Today’s lesson, therefore, is in grammar. You will be tested, not by me, but by the Lord.

Auxiliary Verbs: Can, May, Must

Verbs are words that convey action or state of being. John wrote that Mary: “came [action] where Jesus was [state of being]” (Jn. 11:32).

There is a verb type called an auxiliary or helping verb that helps express the meaning of another verb.

In this study, I want to consider three auxiliary verbs: “can,” “may,” and “must.”

Can

“Can” expresses ability. It says nothing about the “oughtness” of whether one should or should not do something.

A man can drive his automobile at 100 miles per hour if he is reckless enough to do so. One person can murder another, but he should suffer the legal consequence of such if he does (Gen. 9:6).

May

“May” combines ability with permission.

A father instructs his daughter, “You may stay out until eleven o’clock.” She has been granted the option to linger that long on her outing.

Must

“Must” goes even further. It combines ability with permission but imposes obligation.

The watchful father may require: “You must be home by eleven o’clock.”

A Consideration of the Verb “Must”

The Greek verb dei appears 101 times in the New Testament. It carries a variety of meanings depending on the context. It may be rendered into English by such expressions as “must,” “ought,” or “should.”

Our discussion will not be exhaustive but will illustrate some important points.

The “Irresistible Must”

First, there is that which I would designate as the irresistible must.

In physics, someone might say: “What goes up [within the earth’s gravitational field] must come down.” Physiologically speaking, one must breathe, or he will die.

Theologically considered, “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due for what he had done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10).

This is an inevitable “must” that does not involve human choice. It will happen no matter what.

The “Compelling Must”

Second, there is a common New Testament use of “must” that might be called the compelling must.

This “must” is necessary in the divine scheme of things. It is essential in implementing the sacred plan of redemption. Several illustrations will be helpful.

When Jesus was twelve years old, he and his parents went to Jerusalem to observe the feast of the Passover (Lk. 2:41ff). After the festivities, Joseph and Mary started homeward, assuming Jesus was in the larger company of pilgrims. However, the lad remained behind, conversing with dignitaries in the temple.

When the worried parents found him, Mary expressed intense concern, rebuking her son, who had caused them considerable anxiety.

But the boy respectfully responded: “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Lk. 2:49, NKJV).

The term “must” does not imply “a case of external compulsion—His whole nature yearns to serve and obey His Father voluntarily” (Geldenhuys, 128). But it highlights his focused desire to fulfill his Father’s will.

Here’s another example. The ministry of the reclusive John the Baptizer was wildly popular. Vast multitudes flocked to hear him. They came from Jerusalem, throughout Judea, and the Jordan River region (Mt. 3:5).

John, however, was ever mindful that he was but a “voice crying in the wilderness,” preparing the way for the Lord (Isa. 40:3; cf. Mal. 3:1). He never sought to usurp his Savior’s place. Thus, he said of Christ: “He must increase, I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30).

Those two “musts” reflect the meticulous and measured development of Heaven’s sacred plan. God’s schedule was in place, not man’s. In this connection, study the passages where the Lord speaks of his coming “hour.”

A third example. The typical Jewish route from Judea to Galilee (or vice versa) was to go eastward beyond the Jordan and thus detour that despised “foreign country” (as the Hebrews viewed it) known as Samaria. Oddly, John records that en route from Judea to Galilee, Jesus “must needs pass through Samaria” (Jn. 4:4).

This was not a geographical “must.” It was a compelling redemptive “must.”

In this connection, Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman, convinced her that he was the promised Messiah, and visited with the people of that area for two days (Jn. 4:39-42). Little wonder, then, that a great harvest of souls was later garnered from that region (Acts 8:5-6, 12, 25).

The “Obligatory Must”

There is a frequent use of “must” that acknowledges man’s freedom of choice yet urges submission to the will of God because of a promised hope (heaven) or threatened punishment (hell). Please take a look at the following points.

The early days of the church were fraught with controversy. In Jerusalem, apostolic preaching stirred the wrath of the Jewish authorities, who charged the apostles to cease preaching in the name of Christ (Acts 4:1ff).

But compromise was no option for the servants of the Lord. Peter declared: “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

In our time, claiming religious validity to all theological systems is quite popular- that religious differences are merely cultural.

The Christian must contend otherwise. With love in his heart for all souls, he must insist that Jesus Christ and Christianity are the exclusive depositories of sacred truth (cf., also “must” in Heb. 11:6).

When the apostles were thrown into the Jerusalem prison for preaching Christ, an angel of the Lord delivered them. Immediately, they returned to the temple precincts and taught again. When further threatened, they declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

The Lord God is sovereign, and there is no appropriate substitute for obedience to his commands.

In the Protestant community, it is common for clerics to allege that salvation is “by faith alone” and that there is nothing the sinner can or must do in order to obtain salvation. One writer dazzled his constituents with his logical acumen by claiming: “Faith is the only thing you can do without doing anything.”

However, in that remarkable interview on the Damascus road, the persecuting Saul of Tarsus was instructed to proceed to the Syrian city, and “it shall be told you what you must do” (Acts 9:6). A survey of the related facts reveals that he was placed under obligation to: “Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16).

The modern denominationalist changes “must” to “need not.” Such is a travesty.

In a conversation with a Jewish ruler, Nicodemus by name, Christ declared: “You [plural—people generally] must be born anew” (Jn. 3:7). The new birth process was said to consist of two elements, “Spirit” and “water.”

“Spirit,” of course, is a reference to the Holy Spirit, and his role in spiritually “begetting” a person through the instrumentality of the “word” of God (cf. Eph. 5:26; 1 Pt. 1:23), which, in a metaphorical manner of speaking, is the “seed” (Lk. 8:11).

“Water” clearly refers to immersion in water as an act of faith, in obedience to Christ’s authority (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). The resurrection from the burial of baptism is viewed as a birth, just as Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is designated as a “birth” in Colossians 1:18. He was the “firstborn from the dead.”

Noted scholar G.R. Beasley-Murray pointed out, “In both Titus 3:5 and John 3:5, baptism is associated with regeneration.”

He continues: “The latter passage affirms the necessity of a ‘new beginning’ from God (‘from above’) through submission to baptism and through the recreative work of the Holy Spirit” (1975, 147).

The connection between the “water” of John 3:5 and Christian baptism is so amply demonstrated in scholarly biblical literature that it is beyond dispute.

In his work, The History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, a leading scholar in the Church of England, asserted that not a single writer of antiquity denied the identification of the “water” of John 3:5 with baptism. He suggested that John Calvin (1509-64) was the first to disassociate the two items and that Calvin even conceded that his interpretation was “new” (1862, 443).

We live in a world of modern Nadab and Abihus, who think nothing of offering “strange” worship to God (Lev. 10:1-2). Autocratic Jeroboams construct worship systems “devised” after their own hearts (1 Kgs. 12:33).

Like the heretics of Colossae, they are “will-worshipers” who have no reservations about concocting worship arrangements that either are “forbidden” or “unbidden,” manifested in an arrogant “self-ordered” piety (Col. 2:23; cf. Vine, 881; Kittel, 337; Thayer, 168).

By way of vivid contrast, Jesus Christ emphatically declared, “God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Our worship is not based on culture, personal taste, or religious preference. It must accord to truth, as authorized by the word of Christ through his New Testament revelation (cf. Jn. 17:17).

Conclusion

How wonderful it is that such powerful lessons can be conveyed in such small “word packages.” And yet, sadly, these words are far too frequently not understood, overlooked, or just ignored.

The spiritual person must recognize that no word in the Holy Bible is insignificant. It will be by the “word” of Christ that one will be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48). Let him who has ears, listen carefully and reverently.