"Listen to Me," is one of the ways the Lord draws attention to His message to the Children of Israel in Isaiah. *(How Many Firsts?) Today's verse follows a different tack. Isaiah 48:17
This is what the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel says: I am Yahweh your God, who teaches you for your benefit, who leads you in the way you should go.
He is assuming that His identity is sufficient to elicit the proper attention and response. There are three aspects to the introduction: LORD, Redeemer, and Holy One. When LORD is in all caps, it refers to the Name of God. We might even read this into the second phrase, "I am...." (YHWH) Then we find Redeemer. How often in the Old Testament do we find this name? Twice in Job, twice in Psalms, once in Proverbs, 13 times in Isaiah, and once in Jeremiah. Seems like Isaiah, by the direction of the Spirit, was enamored with the concept of redemption.
Incidentally, it shows up once in Ruth and helps to explain the concept. The redeemer bought the widow out of her situation. Isaiah employs this same metaphor as a name. And finally, Holy One. Two concepts that accompany the mention of the Lord all through the Old Testament are the Creator, and Holy. God's holiness is the driving force in the rituals of Leviticus. His role as creator is likewise emphasized in nearly every book. (That would be a good thing to check out.)
He created us and made us in His image. Thus we are creative. Or we should be in our work, our relationships, and our culture. We should also be pure as He is pure. (Holy suffuses the Scripture by appearing nearly 300 times. "Be ye holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:16 and five times in Leviticus.) Our society is characterized by a denial of creation and holiness. Where are we going?
Holiness and creation naturally complement each other. Remember the seven times in Genesis 1 when God said, "It is good?" (Genesis 1:4, 11, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) Good is perfect, without flaw. Another word we could use is "holy." He is the "Holy One of Israel." Let's go on.
"I am the LORD your God." I won't even try to count how many times that is repeated in Isaiah, alone. The Redeemer, the Holy One, was declaring that He was the God of Israel. (He included us later.) Then He gives the message to which they were to listen. (I like Holman here.) The LORD teaches us. He teaches us "for our benefit." Realize that the entire first five books were written, not to bug, badger, and burden us, but to benefit us. Since He is holy, it is good to know how to behave. It is our benefit to correctly interact with this Yahweh.
Then look at the next phrase. "Who leads you where you should go." Notice again, the subject: you. If we are "going somewhere," it is good to know that the "somewhere" is where we "should be."
Then the next verse drops the bomb. We will not explore that in detail, but listen: "If only you had paid attention...." They did not listen. What if they had? Recall that Isaiah is writing this 150 years ahead of time. If they had "listened" they might have avoided the tragedy of Babylon. Notice again, "If only...."
With all of the chances to understand and obey the Lord, Israel and Judah completely failed. They were told ahead of time, and still persisted in their own way. They persisted in learning things that were not to their profit and going the way they should not go.
A little ditty I learned as a grade school student goes like this:
"Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.'"
(John Greenleaf Whittier )
Listen, learn, and go. "If only...."
Friday, July 28, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
No Lament For Babylon
Isaiah 47 is a chapter devoted completely to Babylon and its destruction. This is fascinating, especially when we recall that it was written abut 150 years before it happened and about 70-80 years before Babylon became a major power in the region. "Nebuchadnezzar" was not even a name in the baby books at supermarket checkout stands. The "big enemy" for Judah was Assyria as this nation had already overthrown Israel and transported many of them far to the north and east.
So for Isaiah to be predicting both the conquest of Judah by Babylon and the subsequent destruction of Babylon by Cyrus and the Persians is pretty extraordinary. And here it is. This section of Isaiah's message focuses on both Babylon and Cyrus. This chapter is Babylon. It begins with the fall of Babylon.
"Go down and sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter Babylon. Sit on the ground without a throne, Daughter Chaldea! For you will no longer be called pampered and spoiled.
This coming destruction is a precursor to the one depicted in *Revelation, which makes this all the more enticing. The judgment is explicitly defined. The "pampered and spoiled" lady is reduced to...
2 Take millstones and grind meal; remove your veil, strip off your skirt, bare your thigh, wade through the streams.3 Your nakedness will be uncovered, and your shame will be exposed. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one.
After beginning to speak to Babylon, the Lord reveals Himself. He is the one in charge.
4 The Holy One of Israel is our Redeemer; (Isaiah had to include himself: "our redeemer.") Yahweh of Hosts is His name.
Then He continues addressing Babylon, and explains why they were "favored" to overthrow Israel and then come to the current situation.
5 "Daughter Chaldea, sit in silence and go into darkness. For you will no longer be called mistress of kingdoms. 6 I was angry with My people; I profaned My possession, and I placed them under your control. You showed them no mercy; you made your yoke very heavy on the elderly. 7 You said, ‘I will be the mistress forever.' You did not take these things to heart or think about their outcome.
Babylon, and possibly a warning to Cyrus, had decided that this victory was from her own prowess and power. They forgot the Source of their fortune or did not ever recognize it. So now...
8 "So now hear this, lover of luxury, who sits securely, who says to herself, ‘I exist, and there is no one else. I will never be a widow or know the loss of children.' 9 These two things will happen to you suddenly, in one day: loss of children and widowhood. They will happen to you in their entirety, in spite of your many sorceries and the potency of your spells.
Imagine that you are in Cyrus' library with Daniel pointing out these things to him. We are looking over their shoulders. "Look at that, ‘one day!' That was exactly like it happened. We went under the wall in the river bed and by the next night had the entire city. And you say this was here all the time?"
Daniel probably had a ball showing Cyrus all of the mentions of Babylon's fall in both Isaiah and Jeremiah. Do you think that there will be Bible studies in heaven with Jesus or Gabriel leading the study? "And here is how We did this...." Back to Babylon.
10 You were secure in your wickedness; you said, ‘No one sees me.' Your wisdom and knowledge led you astray. You said to yourself, ‘I exist, and there is no one else.' 11 But disaster will happen to you; you will not know how to avert it. And it will fall on you, but you will be unable to ward it off. Devastation will happen to you suddenly and unexpectedly. (Like in one day. Ed.and maybe Cyrus.)
Now the Lord attacks the false gods and supports to which Babylon, and others, have resorted:
12 So take your stand with your spells and your many sorceries, which you have wearied yourself with from your youth. Perhaps you will be able to succeed; perhaps you will inspire terror! 13 You are worn out with your many consultations. So let them stand and save you—the astrologers, who observe the stars, who predict monthly what will happen to you. 14 Look, they are like stubble; fire burns them up. They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. This is not a coal for warming themselves, or a fire to sit beside!
These are the guys who were supposed to deliver. They had monthly horoscopes, instead of daily. But they were just as accurate, or not, as their modern counterparts. And...
15 This is what they are to you—those who have wearied you and have traded with you from your youth—each wanders on his own way; no one can save you.
Cyrus looks up about now. "Wow, that is chilling. There was no deliverance. ‘No one could save them.' Will my country, likewise, be overthrown?"
And it was. But if Daniel had anything to do with it, Cyrus was delivered. We can likewise trust the Scriptures and turn to the One Who wrote them. Or will, in Cyrus' words, "Will my country be overthrown?"
Babylon fell. Subsequently Medo-Persia fell, then Greece, Rome, and so on. Few, if anyone, mourned when they fell, other than the citizens. Will anyone mourn for us? The warning is there, and is clear. The next chapter turns to warning Israel. Cyrus can learn from that. Jump forward a chapter (48:12.) "Listen to Me." (How Many Firsts?)
*Footnote: Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 both mention the fall of Babylon, but are four chapters apart. This is obviously the same event, which undermines credence in the "linear" interpretation of of Revelation. (One continuous story from beginning to end.) It is hard to see how the same thing could happen twice. Neither does it support the unitary interpretation, that all of the judgments; seals, trumpets, bowls, are coincident or happen at the same time.
It is best interpreted as a literal time line up to the 7th seal. Revelation 7 is a filler to describe events from the beginning of the seals to the very end. It explains how people get saved during the Tribulation. Chapters 8 and 9 again are literal and linear, up to the 6th trumpet. Then another break occurs until chapter 11 and the 7th trumpet. Another break follows, chapter 12-14 and the first "fall of Babylon, leading up to the seven bowls in Chapters 15 and 16.
Chapters 17 and 18 detail the fall of Babylon leading up to the Battle of Armageddon (also mentioned twice, Chapters 14 and 19) and the Glorious Return in Revelation 19.Then follows a linear narrative through history until the end of time and beginning of eternity. (Chapters 20, 21, 22)
Simple, isn't it? End footnote. (PS. Did you ever think you'd see Revelation explained in 3 paragraphs? Well, we did skip the first 3 chapters which would rate at least a couple of
paragraphs.)
So for Isaiah to be predicting both the conquest of Judah by Babylon and the subsequent destruction of Babylon by Cyrus and the Persians is pretty extraordinary. And here it is. This section of Isaiah's message focuses on both Babylon and Cyrus. This chapter is Babylon. It begins with the fall of Babylon.
"Go down and sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter Babylon. Sit on the ground without a throne, Daughter Chaldea! For you will no longer be called pampered and spoiled.
This coming destruction is a precursor to the one depicted in *Revelation, which makes this all the more enticing. The judgment is explicitly defined. The "pampered and spoiled" lady is reduced to...
2 Take millstones and grind meal; remove your veil, strip off your skirt, bare your thigh, wade through the streams.3 Your nakedness will be uncovered, and your shame will be exposed. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one.
After beginning to speak to Babylon, the Lord reveals Himself. He is the one in charge.
4 The Holy One of Israel is our Redeemer; (Isaiah had to include himself: "our redeemer.") Yahweh of Hosts is His name.
Then He continues addressing Babylon, and explains why they were "favored" to overthrow Israel and then come to the current situation.
5 "Daughter Chaldea, sit in silence and go into darkness. For you will no longer be called mistress of kingdoms. 6 I was angry with My people; I profaned My possession, and I placed them under your control. You showed them no mercy; you made your yoke very heavy on the elderly. 7 You said, ‘I will be the mistress forever.' You did not take these things to heart or think about their outcome.
Babylon, and possibly a warning to Cyrus, had decided that this victory was from her own prowess and power. They forgot the Source of their fortune or did not ever recognize it. So now...
8 "So now hear this, lover of luxury, who sits securely, who says to herself, ‘I exist, and there is no one else. I will never be a widow or know the loss of children.' 9 These two things will happen to you suddenly, in one day: loss of children and widowhood. They will happen to you in their entirety, in spite of your many sorceries and the potency of your spells.
Imagine that you are in Cyrus' library with Daniel pointing out these things to him. We are looking over their shoulders. "Look at that, ‘one day!' That was exactly like it happened. We went under the wall in the river bed and by the next night had the entire city. And you say this was here all the time?"
Daniel probably had a ball showing Cyrus all of the mentions of Babylon's fall in both Isaiah and Jeremiah. Do you think that there will be Bible studies in heaven with Jesus or Gabriel leading the study? "And here is how We did this...." Back to Babylon.
10 You were secure in your wickedness; you said, ‘No one sees me.' Your wisdom and knowledge led you astray. You said to yourself, ‘I exist, and there is no one else.' 11 But disaster will happen to you; you will not know how to avert it. And it will fall on you, but you will be unable to ward it off. Devastation will happen to you suddenly and unexpectedly. (Like in one day. Ed.and maybe Cyrus.)
Now the Lord attacks the false gods and supports to which Babylon, and others, have resorted:
12 So take your stand with your spells and your many sorceries, which you have wearied yourself with from your youth. Perhaps you will be able to succeed; perhaps you will inspire terror! 13 You are worn out with your many consultations. So let them stand and save you—the astrologers, who observe the stars, who predict monthly what will happen to you. 14 Look, they are like stubble; fire burns them up. They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. This is not a coal for warming themselves, or a fire to sit beside!
These are the guys who were supposed to deliver. They had monthly horoscopes, instead of daily. But they were just as accurate, or not, as their modern counterparts. And...
15 This is what they are to you—those who have wearied you and have traded with you from your youth—each wanders on his own way; no one can save you.
Cyrus looks up about now. "Wow, that is chilling. There was no deliverance. ‘No one could save them.' Will my country, likewise, be overthrown?"
And it was. But if Daniel had anything to do with it, Cyrus was delivered. We can likewise trust the Scriptures and turn to the One Who wrote them. Or will, in Cyrus' words, "Will my country be overthrown?"
Babylon fell. Subsequently Medo-Persia fell, then Greece, Rome, and so on. Few, if anyone, mourned when they fell, other than the citizens. Will anyone mourn for us? The warning is there, and is clear. The next chapter turns to warning Israel. Cyrus can learn from that. Jump forward a chapter (48:12.) "Listen to Me." (How Many Firsts?)
*Footnote: Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 both mention the fall of Babylon, but are four chapters apart. This is obviously the same event, which undermines credence in the "linear" interpretation of of Revelation. (One continuous story from beginning to end.) It is hard to see how the same thing could happen twice. Neither does it support the unitary interpretation, that all of the judgments; seals, trumpets, bowls, are coincident or happen at the same time.
It is best interpreted as a literal time line up to the 7th seal. Revelation 7 is a filler to describe events from the beginning of the seals to the very end. It explains how people get saved during the Tribulation. Chapters 8 and 9 again are literal and linear, up to the 6th trumpet. Then another break occurs until chapter 11 and the 7th trumpet. Another break follows, chapter 12-14 and the first "fall of Babylon, leading up to the seven bowls in Chapters 15 and 16.
Chapters 17 and 18 detail the fall of Babylon leading up to the Battle of Armageddon (also mentioned twice, Chapters 14 and 19) and the Glorious Return in Revelation 19.Then follows a linear narrative through history until the end of time and beginning of eternity. (Chapters 20, 21, 22)
Simple, isn't it? End footnote. (PS. Did you ever think you'd see Revelation explained in 3 paragraphs? Well, we did skip the first 3 chapters which would rate at least a couple of
paragraphs.)
Monday, July 24, 2017
How Many Firsts?
"Listen ta mea. Listen ta mea." (Sorry about the spelling. My "Southern language" skills are still developing.) Does that ring any bells for anyone? I have listened to several sermons by Billy Graham and I don't know if you would call that his calling card or idiosyncracy, but it does show up fairly regularly in his preaching. Incidentally, his daughter, Ann Graham Lotz uses it very often. Her pronunciation is clearly less accented than her Dad's. "Listen to me." One cannot help but wonder if they got this from Isaiah. (Isaiah 48:12)
"Listen to Me, Jacob, and Israel, the one called by Me: I am He; I am the first, I am also the last.
(This might be an identifying characteristic of the Lord in Isaiah. This phrase is repeated five other times. Isaiah 46:3, 12; 51:1, 4, 7)
"Thus sayeth the Lord," or "This is what the Lord says," is a common introduction to passages offered by all the prophets including Isaiah. That is to impart the gravity and authority of what they are about to say. And it marks it as "God talk," not just something that I thought up. Our present society is afflicted with deafness to what the Lord says. Like little children, they clap their hands over their ears and chant, "Nanananananana! I can't hear you."
That was a problem with the hearers in Isaiah's time. Notice to whom he speaks: Jacob and Israel. Not to read too much into the passage, but Jacob was his name "before" the transformation in Genesis 32, where it was changed to Israel. Could the Lord be implying that the "calling" was both before and after the change? If you are in God's plan, you have been called.
So the Lord introduces the passage with an identification of Himself. "I am He." This was a repeat of Isaiah 41:4 where the Lord used the same language. He also repeated the "first and last" part of His statement. More about that in a little while. "I am He," also appears twice in chapter 43 (v. 10, 13) and in chapter 52:6. One last time in the Old Testament is Jeremiah 29:23.
"I am He," occurs six times in John and that leads us into our topic for today. Notice the second phase of His introduction: "I am the first and I am also the last." As noted before, this was a repeat from 41:4, as well as the "I am He." This is definitively referring to Jehovah God: Yahweh. But the six times we find it in John, it is directly referencing Jesus. And to make us more aware and convinced that this was not a fluke of language, the "First and Last" designation is also applied to Jesus in at least two of these three New Testament references. (Revelation 1:17; 21:6; and 22:13)
I asked a guy one time about that and he informed me that there were two different kinds of "first." The First that is Jehovah is different than the first that is Jesus. Wisely, I refrained from refuting him and asked a question. (A lot of times a good question beats the best refutation.)
"And just exactly what is the difference between the two firsts? What makes one a first, first and the other a different first? It cannot be a second first, can it? That is nonsense."
He stammered about many different "firsts" but gave no concrete response.
"You mean like when two teams win the conference championship? They are both first, but tied, or co-champions."
"No," he wisely (or luckily) responded. He saw that trap coming.
"Right," I continued. "Just to be sure, we are in agreement that the Bible is true and has no mistakes, right?" He acquiesced. I usually use their own Bible so we avoid the "translation" error argument.
"We both know that the Old Testament quotes Jehovah as saying that He is God, alone, and there is no other or anyone equal to Him." Thus we disposed of the sports metaphor. (End of quotes and just editorializing from here on.)
He is God. There is no other and no equal. He is First and Last. Some translations use "Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End." That doesn't help with the conflict, however. Revelation 21:13
just uses all of them: "First, Beginning, Alpha, and Last, End, Omega."
There can only be one First. Any other interpretation or construction either does violence to the language, not to mention the intellect, or relies on hoodoo language to escape the conundrum. And a careful observer can take other instances of "first and beginning" and literarily strangle both the argument and the arguer.
Back to the context, we might surmise that Cyrus may have been tempted to equate this Yahweh with his own god or gods. The Lord, through Isaiah and later Jeremiah, and finally Daniel completely shattered that argument. People have been denying the primacy of God since the beginning. Recall Babel. They were going to circumvent this God stuff with their own approach. And as our friend Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that working for ya?" (Question again. Smart boy, that Dr. Phil.)
So "First" means first and nothing else. If we had to intellectually correlate the two uses of first on the basis of our human understanding, we would be lost. But the Scripture aids us in John 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Two distinct entities, but one Being. Jesus further explained that in John 10:30. "I and the Father are One."
This was not "one" in mind and ambition. Upon hearing this, the Jews were going to stone Him. They explained later that it was because He had equated Himself with God. This was, to them, blasphemy. I defy anyone to translate that differently than how the speakers, themselves, explained it. "You—being a man—make Yourself God." (Verse 33) (Except they probably did not capitalize the "yourself.")
"Listen to me...." That advice is just as relevant and reliable today as it was 2700 years or so ago. We do not listen to Isaiah or or any other person. Listen to the "I am He." He is the one and only First.
"Listen to me.
"Listen to Me, Jacob, and Israel, the one called by Me: I am He; I am the first, I am also the last.
(This might be an identifying characteristic of the Lord in Isaiah. This phrase is repeated five other times. Isaiah 46:3, 12; 51:1, 4, 7)
"Thus sayeth the Lord," or "This is what the Lord says," is a common introduction to passages offered by all the prophets including Isaiah. That is to impart the gravity and authority of what they are about to say. And it marks it as "God talk," not just something that I thought up. Our present society is afflicted with deafness to what the Lord says. Like little children, they clap their hands over their ears and chant, "Nanananananana! I can't hear you."
That was a problem with the hearers in Isaiah's time. Notice to whom he speaks: Jacob and Israel. Not to read too much into the passage, but Jacob was his name "before" the transformation in Genesis 32, where it was changed to Israel. Could the Lord be implying that the "calling" was both before and after the change? If you are in God's plan, you have been called.
So the Lord introduces the passage with an identification of Himself. "I am He." This was a repeat of Isaiah 41:4 where the Lord used the same language. He also repeated the "first and last" part of His statement. More about that in a little while. "I am He," also appears twice in chapter 43 (v. 10, 13) and in chapter 52:6. One last time in the Old Testament is Jeremiah 29:23.
"I am He," occurs six times in John and that leads us into our topic for today. Notice the second phase of His introduction: "I am the first and I am also the last." As noted before, this was a repeat from 41:4, as well as the "I am He." This is definitively referring to Jehovah God: Yahweh. But the six times we find it in John, it is directly referencing Jesus. And to make us more aware and convinced that this was not a fluke of language, the "First and Last" designation is also applied to Jesus in at least two of these three New Testament references. (Revelation 1:17; 21:6; and 22:13)
I asked a guy one time about that and he informed me that there were two different kinds of "first." The First that is Jehovah is different than the first that is Jesus. Wisely, I refrained from refuting him and asked a question. (A lot of times a good question beats the best refutation.)
"And just exactly what is the difference between the two firsts? What makes one a first, first and the other a different first? It cannot be a second first, can it? That is nonsense."
He stammered about many different "firsts" but gave no concrete response.
"You mean like when two teams win the conference championship? They are both first, but tied, or co-champions."
"No," he wisely (or luckily) responded. He saw that trap coming.
"Right," I continued. "Just to be sure, we are in agreement that the Bible is true and has no mistakes, right?" He acquiesced. I usually use their own Bible so we avoid the "translation" error argument.
"We both know that the Old Testament quotes Jehovah as saying that He is God, alone, and there is no other or anyone equal to Him." Thus we disposed of the sports metaphor. (End of quotes and just editorializing from here on.)
He is God. There is no other and no equal. He is First and Last. Some translations use "Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End." That doesn't help with the conflict, however. Revelation 21:13
just uses all of them: "First, Beginning, Alpha, and Last, End, Omega."
There can only be one First. Any other interpretation or construction either does violence to the language, not to mention the intellect, or relies on hoodoo language to escape the conundrum. And a careful observer can take other instances of "first and beginning" and literarily strangle both the argument and the arguer.
Back to the context, we might surmise that Cyrus may have been tempted to equate this Yahweh with his own god or gods. The Lord, through Isaiah and later Jeremiah, and finally Daniel completely shattered that argument. People have been denying the primacy of God since the beginning. Recall Babel. They were going to circumvent this God stuff with their own approach. And as our friend Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that working for ya?" (Question again. Smart boy, that Dr. Phil.)
So "First" means first and nothing else. If we had to intellectually correlate the two uses of first on the basis of our human understanding, we would be lost. But the Scripture aids us in John 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Two distinct entities, but one Being. Jesus further explained that in John 10:30. "I and the Father are One."
This was not "one" in mind and ambition. Upon hearing this, the Jews were going to stone Him. They explained later that it was because He had equated Himself with God. This was, to them, blasphemy. I defy anyone to translate that differently than how the speakers, themselves, explained it. "You—being a man—make Yourself God." (Verse 33) (Except they probably did not capitalize the "yourself.")
"Listen to me...." That advice is just as relevant and reliable today as it was 2700 years or so ago. We do not listen to Isaiah or or any other person. Listen to the "I am He." He is the one and only First.
"Listen to me.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
The Patience of Jo–seph
We hear a lot about the patience of Job. And a cursory perusal of his story does indeed portray a man who persevered under a significant amount of persecution. But to be honest, he did a lot of complaining. In fact, out of the first 31 chapters, wait a second while I count, ...18,19, 20 there are 20 chapters devoted to Job' speeches. Tellingly, chapter 31 ends with this: "The words of Job are concluded." (31:40) And I have to admit that not many tears were shed at this.
(Ed note: For those expecting the end of the book, you forgot to factor in Elihu who rambles on from 31 to 37 or seven excruciating chapters. The spell checker suggested "excoriating" and that fits too. When the Lord weighs in, He completely ignores everything Elihu said.)
Now we must credit Job with his initial acceptance of events. "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." (1:21) When his health was attacked and his wife advised that he "curse God and die," he responded, "Should we accept only good from God and not adversity?" (2:10)
But then through the following 29 chapters there are only three "high spots" where he showed the same perspective.
Job 13:15 "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:"
Job 19:25 "For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:"
Job 23:10 "But he knows the way that I take: when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold."
Other than that, it is pretty rough plodding to get through to chapter 38 when God takes over.
Our intention is not to diminish Job's suffering, but to look at some other guy's tribulations. Joseph fits right in here. Joseph had a vision from God, informing him that he would be a person of significance and that people would bow down to him, including his father and mother. He may have been a little ill advised to flaunt that before his brothers, particularly since they disliked "Daddy's boy."
Seriously, I think that he was excited with what God had promised and wanted to share the good news with his brothers. He was not intending to lord it over them, but give them a heads up for what was coming. Regardless of his intentions, they took it wrongly and schemed to murder him. Reuben's intervention saved his life, but then he was shipped off to Egypt and slavery. He was about 17 at the time.
You recall the sordid story of Potiphar's wife seducing him, failing, and then falsely accusing him of rape. (He should have demanded a DNA test to prove his innocence, but I digress.) Then he went from being a slave, to being a prisoner.
"Hey, God. You up there? Are you paying attention?" never crossed his lips. He had been "successful" as a slave in Potiphar's household, and Joseph bent his back to becoming the "best" prisoner he could be. And he succeeded.
Then came the fateful night when two of Pharaoah's servants were thrown into the dungeon. And they each had a dream. "Forget it, boys. Dreams are for fools." (NOT!) Joseph promptly interpreted their dreams for them, and watched them be fulfilled to the minutest detail.
Surely his time had come. He would at least get out of this hole. Well, not quite yet. One more dream had to occur. Just as an aside, had the butler (cup bearer) told Pharaoh and Joseph had been released from prison, would that minor event remained in anybody's memory–besides Joseph's? But when Pharaoh had a dream, the memory was triggered of a guy who could interpret dreams.
Now is your time Joseph. He had been in slavery and prison for 13 years before being elevated to the second position in the kingdom. Not once do we find a word of complaint for God or self pity. Just looking at the names Joseph gave his boys gives us a little insight into his mind set.
Manasseh which means, "God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father's household."
(Genesis 41:51) And his second son, Epharim means, "God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." (41:52)
It would be over 7 years later that his brothers actually did bow down to him, but even then he was magnanimous and forgiving. His response to them after his father had died, was,
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)
Notice in comparison that Joseph devoted zero chapters to carping and complaining about his bad luck. Instead of feeling sorry for himself, he went to work serving other people: Potiphar, the head jailer, even the other prisoners, and finally Pharaoh. And to finish his life, he served his family.
Patience is not generated by a lack of trouble, it is a result of waiting on others while God's plan unfolds. Job was longsuffering, but we might hesitate to call him patient. James 5:11 mentions the "patience" of Job, but translations other than KJV use "endurance."
Joseph was patient while he endured. That is the harder route to travel. Be patient
(Ed note: For those expecting the end of the book, you forgot to factor in Elihu who rambles on from 31 to 37 or seven excruciating chapters. The spell checker suggested "excoriating" and that fits too. When the Lord weighs in, He completely ignores everything Elihu said.)
Now we must credit Job with his initial acceptance of events. "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." (1:21) When his health was attacked and his wife advised that he "curse God and die," he responded, "Should we accept only good from God and not adversity?" (2:10)
But then through the following 29 chapters there are only three "high spots" where he showed the same perspective.
Job 13:15 "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:"
Job 19:25 "For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:"
Job 23:10 "But he knows the way that I take: when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold."
Other than that, it is pretty rough plodding to get through to chapter 38 when God takes over.
Our intention is not to diminish Job's suffering, but to look at some other guy's tribulations. Joseph fits right in here. Joseph had a vision from God, informing him that he would be a person of significance and that people would bow down to him, including his father and mother. He may have been a little ill advised to flaunt that before his brothers, particularly since they disliked "Daddy's boy."
Seriously, I think that he was excited with what God had promised and wanted to share the good news with his brothers. He was not intending to lord it over them, but give them a heads up for what was coming. Regardless of his intentions, they took it wrongly and schemed to murder him. Reuben's intervention saved his life, but then he was shipped off to Egypt and slavery. He was about 17 at the time.
You recall the sordid story of Potiphar's wife seducing him, failing, and then falsely accusing him of rape. (He should have demanded a DNA test to prove his innocence, but I digress.) Then he went from being a slave, to being a prisoner.
"Hey, God. You up there? Are you paying attention?" never crossed his lips. He had been "successful" as a slave in Potiphar's household, and Joseph bent his back to becoming the "best" prisoner he could be. And he succeeded.
Then came the fateful night when two of Pharaoah's servants were thrown into the dungeon. And they each had a dream. "Forget it, boys. Dreams are for fools." (NOT!) Joseph promptly interpreted their dreams for them, and watched them be fulfilled to the minutest detail.
Surely his time had come. He would at least get out of this hole. Well, not quite yet. One more dream had to occur. Just as an aside, had the butler (cup bearer) told Pharaoh and Joseph had been released from prison, would that minor event remained in anybody's memory–besides Joseph's? But when Pharaoh had a dream, the memory was triggered of a guy who could interpret dreams.
Now is your time Joseph. He had been in slavery and prison for 13 years before being elevated to the second position in the kingdom. Not once do we find a word of complaint for God or self pity. Just looking at the names Joseph gave his boys gives us a little insight into his mind set.
Manasseh which means, "God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father's household."
(Genesis 41:51) And his second son, Epharim means, "God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." (41:52)
It would be over 7 years later that his brothers actually did bow down to him, but even then he was magnanimous and forgiving. His response to them after his father had died, was,
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)
Notice in comparison that Joseph devoted zero chapters to carping and complaining about his bad luck. Instead of feeling sorry for himself, he went to work serving other people: Potiphar, the head jailer, even the other prisoners, and finally Pharaoh. And to finish his life, he served his family.
Patience is not generated by a lack of trouble, it is a result of waiting on others while God's plan unfolds. Job was longsuffering, but we might hesitate to call him patient. James 5:11 mentions the "patience" of Job, but translations other than KJV use "endurance."
Joseph was patient while he endured. That is the harder route to travel. Be patient
If You Can't Predict the Future, Don't Claim to Be God
Isaiah 46:10 continues our exploration of the introduction of Yahweh to Cyrus. An effective apologetic tool for explaining why the Bible is reliable uses the acronym RAMP. R is for resurrection. The Resurrection is a key theme in the New Testament and, in fact, is the best attested event from that time in history.
A is for Archeology. Archeological research has confirmed and verified literally hundreds, and thousands of events and places. And not one archeological discovery has nullified or disputed any Biblical event, person, or place. M is for Miracles. Jesus did an untold number of miracles (John 21:25). He explained in Mark 2:10-12, that He did miracles to prove that He had authority to forgive sins. (Repeated in Matthew 9:6) He was healing the paralytic to prove that people should believe in Him.
Finally, P is for Prophesy. These prophesies are not vague comments or statements that can be interpreted as a "fulfilled prophesy" years later when we get the actual details. Nostradamus comes mind as an example. Modern day astrologers and psychics struggle to hit 50% accuracy when giving, "A big earthquake will hit soon," prognostications. They could not even hit the day the ice berg would break off the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
God's prophesies are occasionally obscure, not because He made them to be vague, but because we do not know enough to interpret them. But many are specific and detailed. The birth of Jesus is one. Micah specifically pinpointed Bethlehem as the place of the Messiah's birth. (Micah 5:2) Even the Jewish scholars of that time understood that, and used it to guide the wise men. (They failed to heed their own intel and accompany them to the manger.)
Further, Isaiah specifically identified the mother of the Messiah as a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14) (I was reading an "expert" the other day and he supercilliously referred to Matthew's interpretation of the virgin birth as an "understandable misinterpretation by an unskilled linguist." The word in Isaiah is correctly translated "young woman" and Matthew inserted his own ignorance into the interpretation and usage. Matthew 1:23 Click! That was my delete button. This clown has nothing to say that is worth my time.) (Ed note: If you have questions, there are TWO virgins and the context clearly means the second is a "virgin" as reflected in the NASB translation of Matthew.)
God specifically predicted that a virgin would have a child, because that was the only avenue through which the Redeemer could come. As a "son of Adam," to mimic C. S. Lewis, the Messiah would bear the imprint of Adam's sin. The "sacrifice," according to the Old Testament must be without blemish. None of Adam's race could qualify. But I digress.
Prophesy was one of the most compelling signs that Yahweh used to validate His Deity and superiority over all other so-called gods. Verse 9 concludes with:
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and no one is like Me.
Cyrus is compelled to agree. Now for the coup de gras.
I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will.
There can be no doubt that God has predicted events, such as Cyrus himself, and now He explains how He can "know" ahead of time. Yahweh has foreknowledge, because He has determined what would happen. If I throw a rock and hit a dog pack, one will "yip!" I can predict that. I do not make it happen, but I can predict it.
The Lord tells us here that He was pre-existent. "I declare the end from the beginning, from long ago what was not done." He was before the terminals of time. He had to preexist the beginning to know that nothing came before. But He did not use a period there, but a comma.
"I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will."
His "declaration" was that "His plan would take place, just as He willed it." This is declarative and demonstrates intent. "I will do all My will."
This is comforting to the believer and disconcerting, greatly disconcerting, to the skeptic. One last prophesy comes to mind, and that is the end of all things. For believers, this is the culmination of creation, anticipated by the God-head from the beginning. (Genesis 1:1) For unbelievers, the endpoint of time does not signal their annihilation. It initiates the endless forever of separation from the God Who gave all that He had to save them.
As Cyrus heard, this has been declared from the "beginning." I am convinced that he was wise enough to believe it. I would not be surprised if Daniel did not even point out the "virgin" just for interest and adoration.
The True God can, and does, predict the future. He is God and this is His credential. "...telling from long ago what is not yet done."
A is for Archeology. Archeological research has confirmed and verified literally hundreds, and thousands of events and places. And not one archeological discovery has nullified or disputed any Biblical event, person, or place. M is for Miracles. Jesus did an untold number of miracles (John 21:25). He explained in Mark 2:10-12, that He did miracles to prove that He had authority to forgive sins. (Repeated in Matthew 9:6) He was healing the paralytic to prove that people should believe in Him.
Finally, P is for Prophesy. These prophesies are not vague comments or statements that can be interpreted as a "fulfilled prophesy" years later when we get the actual details. Nostradamus comes mind as an example. Modern day astrologers and psychics struggle to hit 50% accuracy when giving, "A big earthquake will hit soon," prognostications. They could not even hit the day the ice berg would break off the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
God's prophesies are occasionally obscure, not because He made them to be vague, but because we do not know enough to interpret them. But many are specific and detailed. The birth of Jesus is one. Micah specifically pinpointed Bethlehem as the place of the Messiah's birth. (Micah 5:2) Even the Jewish scholars of that time understood that, and used it to guide the wise men. (They failed to heed their own intel and accompany them to the manger.)
Further, Isaiah specifically identified the mother of the Messiah as a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14) (I was reading an "expert" the other day and he supercilliously referred to Matthew's interpretation of the virgin birth as an "understandable misinterpretation by an unskilled linguist." The word in Isaiah is correctly translated "young woman" and Matthew inserted his own ignorance into the interpretation and usage. Matthew 1:23 Click! That was my delete button. This clown has nothing to say that is worth my time.) (Ed note: If you have questions, there are TWO virgins and the context clearly means the second is a "virgin" as reflected in the NASB translation of Matthew.)
God specifically predicted that a virgin would have a child, because that was the only avenue through which the Redeemer could come. As a "son of Adam," to mimic C. S. Lewis, the Messiah would bear the imprint of Adam's sin. The "sacrifice," according to the Old Testament must be without blemish. None of Adam's race could qualify. But I digress.
Prophesy was one of the most compelling signs that Yahweh used to validate His Deity and superiority over all other so-called gods. Verse 9 concludes with:
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and no one is like Me.
Cyrus is compelled to agree. Now for the coup de gras.
I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will.
There can be no doubt that God has predicted events, such as Cyrus himself, and now He explains how He can "know" ahead of time. Yahweh has foreknowledge, because He has determined what would happen. If I throw a rock and hit a dog pack, one will "yip!" I can predict that. I do not make it happen, but I can predict it.
The Lord tells us here that He was pre-existent. "I declare the end from the beginning, from long ago what was not done." He was before the terminals of time. He had to preexist the beginning to know that nothing came before. But He did not use a period there, but a comma.
"I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will."
His "declaration" was that "His plan would take place, just as He willed it." This is declarative and demonstrates intent. "I will do all My will."
This is comforting to the believer and disconcerting, greatly disconcerting, to the skeptic. One last prophesy comes to mind, and that is the end of all things. For believers, this is the culmination of creation, anticipated by the God-head from the beginning. (Genesis 1:1) For unbelievers, the endpoint of time does not signal their annihilation. It initiates the endless forever of separation from the God Who gave all that He had to save them.
As Cyrus heard, this has been declared from the "beginning." I am convinced that he was wise enough to believe it. I would not be surprised if Daniel did not even point out the "virgin" just for interest and adoration.
The True God can, and does, predict the future. He is God and this is His credential. "...telling from long ago what is not yet done."
Friday, July 14, 2017
Problem Children (Corinthians and Galatians)
We have often heard the Corinthians described as Paul's problem children. They had all sorts of troubles in the church. They were proud and haughty. They were divided into different "circles" or cliches. They had open sin that they tolerated then condemned in gossip. They did not deal with it. They were irreverent at the celebration of the Lord's supper. They had erroneous teaching about the resurrection and the Lord's second coming. And we have not even looked at the second letter.
The book that immediately follows 2 Corinthians is Galatians. As as we start to read Galatians we are struck with on interesting omission. In nearly all of his books, Paul begins with a prayer and praise for the recipients of the letter. (V. 4-8 1 Corinthians) But search the first chapter of Galatians. You will find Paul's every-time greeting of "Grace and Peace." But the next phrase, v. 6 and 7) jumps right into the problem.
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
They were being deceived by a "different gospel" and diverted from the Gospel of Grace. Paul hastens to disclaim that it is a real alternative, but a distortion of the Truth. Why did he "jump into the fire" so immediately instead of going through some pleasantries? We can suggest that the Galatians were involved in doctrinal distortion, while the Corinthians were failing in their praxis.
Poor practice hurts our witness, but does not cost peoples' souls. You can know and believe the truth and not follow it. Paul addressed that specifically with them, but they were not lost. However, someone who believes the wrong thing, is in jeopardy of being lost eternally. Look at Paul's conclusion. (Chapter 1)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
And for emphasis, verse 9, he repeated it. "Accursed," is not a menial judgment. It means separated from God. The only other place Paul uses the term is 1 Corinthians 16:22 where it is applied to someone who does not love the Lord Jesus. (More warning to Jehovah's Witnesses?)
Notice the emphasis, "an angel from heaven." Many cults and false teachings rise from a visit with an "angel." There are two classes of angels. Those who followed Lucifer are fallen angels or demons. Those who remained, are "angels from heaven" and obviously would not preach a false gospel. But even if they could, do not believe them.
Paul continues his tirade against false doctrine in Chapter 3.
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
First, notice his affection for them. "Foolish Galatians." You might expect him to be more harsh and call them "dummies" or something. Instead this is a loving address to a child. He recognizes and categorizes this false teaching as bewitching. It looks attractive, beguiling, and even accurate. His definition was, "not...the truth."
The essential thread of the false teaching was that "faith is nice, but you need the real message of following and obeying the Law." Paul shreds that argument in chapter 3. He does a masterful job of appealing to, of all people, Abraham, and how he got saved. It was not by keeping the law. So if it didn't work for old Abe, how can we expect better outcomes for us? Answer: we cannot. If you do not do it through Christ, you do not do it. Period.
Chapter 4 concludes this treatise about the impotence of the law and the futility of following it. Chapter 5 makes a personal plea to get back on track with faith in Jesus. He finishes the book with more practical directions, partly to help derail any further incursions by false teachers. If we are busy doing the right things, we have less time to consider the wrong teaching that may be presented. (6)
The Corinthians were not following diligently, but the Galatians were on a divergent trail, heading for spiritual disaster. Paul carefully and cleverly dealt with both sets of Problem Children, adjusting his teaching to match the tenor of their failure.
Paul reveals both his commitment to live for the Lord and to refute false teaching. Both branches of "ministry" are critical in developing and maintaining a strong, vibrant church. You cannot teach false doctrine, regardless of how pious and sanctimonious it sounds. But the same level of attention must be devoted to the actual practice of expressing our belief in actual life.
We might summarize it as, "Walk the walk, (Practical) and talk the talk."(Theological) Little children, guard your theology and practice it diligently.
The book that immediately follows 2 Corinthians is Galatians. As as we start to read Galatians we are struck with on interesting omission. In nearly all of his books, Paul begins with a prayer and praise for the recipients of the letter. (V. 4-8 1 Corinthians) But search the first chapter of Galatians. You will find Paul's every-time greeting of "Grace and Peace." But the next phrase, v. 6 and 7) jumps right into the problem.
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
They were being deceived by a "different gospel" and diverted from the Gospel of Grace. Paul hastens to disclaim that it is a real alternative, but a distortion of the Truth. Why did he "jump into the fire" so immediately instead of going through some pleasantries? We can suggest that the Galatians were involved in doctrinal distortion, while the Corinthians were failing in their praxis.
Poor practice hurts our witness, but does not cost peoples' souls. You can know and believe the truth and not follow it. Paul addressed that specifically with them, but they were not lost. However, someone who believes the wrong thing, is in jeopardy of being lost eternally. Look at Paul's conclusion. (Chapter 1)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
And for emphasis, verse 9, he repeated it. "Accursed," is not a menial judgment. It means separated from God. The only other place Paul uses the term is 1 Corinthians 16:22 where it is applied to someone who does not love the Lord Jesus. (More warning to Jehovah's Witnesses?)
Notice the emphasis, "an angel from heaven." Many cults and false teachings rise from a visit with an "angel." There are two classes of angels. Those who followed Lucifer are fallen angels or demons. Those who remained, are "angels from heaven" and obviously would not preach a false gospel. But even if they could, do not believe them.
Paul continues his tirade against false doctrine in Chapter 3.
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
First, notice his affection for them. "Foolish Galatians." You might expect him to be more harsh and call them "dummies" or something. Instead this is a loving address to a child. He recognizes and categorizes this false teaching as bewitching. It looks attractive, beguiling, and even accurate. His definition was, "not...the truth."
The essential thread of the false teaching was that "faith is nice, but you need the real message of following and obeying the Law." Paul shreds that argument in chapter 3. He does a masterful job of appealing to, of all people, Abraham, and how he got saved. It was not by keeping the law. So if it didn't work for old Abe, how can we expect better outcomes for us? Answer: we cannot. If you do not do it through Christ, you do not do it. Period.
Chapter 4 concludes this treatise about the impotence of the law and the futility of following it. Chapter 5 makes a personal plea to get back on track with faith in Jesus. He finishes the book with more practical directions, partly to help derail any further incursions by false teachers. If we are busy doing the right things, we have less time to consider the wrong teaching that may be presented. (6)
The Corinthians were not following diligently, but the Galatians were on a divergent trail, heading for spiritual disaster. Paul carefully and cleverly dealt with both sets of Problem Children, adjusting his teaching to match the tenor of their failure.
Paul reveals both his commitment to live for the Lord and to refute false teaching. Both branches of "ministry" are critical in developing and maintaining a strong, vibrant church. You cannot teach false doctrine, regardless of how pious and sanctimonious it sounds. But the same level of attention must be devoted to the actual practice of expressing our belief in actual life.
We might summarize it as, "Walk the walk, (Practical) and talk the talk."(Theological) Little children, guard your theology and practice it diligently.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Clouds and Blue Sky
I just love reading the Bible. My daily Bible pulls Psalms and Proverbs out of the Old Testament for separate, daily readings. So going through the OT puts Job very close to Isaiah. Reading Job is like plodding through a cloudy, stormy day with just a flash of sunlight breaking through occasionally.
Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take: when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
In between those golden moments are many dark clouds of recrimination and even self absorption and doubt. Now turn your attention to Isaiah 25. We will restrict our thoughts just skimming the verses. Read the whole chapter for more. We notice a distinctly different pattern here.
Yahweh, You are my God; I will exalt You. I will praise Your name, for You have accomplished wonders, plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.
2 For You have turned the city into a pile of rocks, a fortified city, into ruins; the fortress of barbarians is no longer a city; it will never be rebuilt.
3 Therefore, a strong people will honor You. The cities of violent nations will fear You. 4 For You have been a stronghold for the poor, a stronghold for the needy person in his distress, a refuge from the rain, a shade from the heat. When the breath of the violent is like rain against a wall, 5 like heat in a dry land, You subdue the uproar of barbarians. As the shade of a cloud cools the heat of the day, so He silences the song of the violent.
6 The Lord of Hosts will prepare a feast for all the peoples on this mountain—a feast of aged wine, choice meat, finely aged wine. 7 On this mountain He will destroy the burial shroud, the shroud over all the peoples, the sheet covering all the nations; 8 He will destroy death forever. The Lord God will wipe away the tears from every face and remove His people's disgrace from the whole earth, for the Lord has spoken.
9 On that day it will be said, "Look, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He has saved us.This is the Lord; we have waited for Him. Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation." 10 For the Lord's power will rest on this mountain.
A chorus goes, "God, You are my God, and I will ever praise you." Right out of v. 1. Sun light and blue skies, if you ask me. Then we read of judgment, on Babylon, I believe. Dark clouds. But then it turns back to praising God. Check the confidence in v. 4 and 5. Promises continue in v. 6 and 7. The sunlight is almost blinding when we get to v. 8. "He will destroy death forever." He will wipe away tears. Sounds like Revelation 21:4 doesn't it?
The praise accompanying the promise continues in v. 9 and 10. Not too hard to read, is it? Lots of light. But we have to recall that chapters 24 and 25 were announcements of God's judgment. Darkness. 25:11 and 12 also pronounce judgment. More darkness.
Chapter 26 and 27 are filled with praise about the coming kingdom. More sunlight and blue skies. Chapter 28 turns to Samaria, which is affiliated with Epharim. This is part of Israel. Darkness. The chapter ends with a return to sunlight. But it does not stay light.
The next three chapters are dark times indeed. But don't stop. Read the next chapter as it returns to the Lord's exclamations of anticipation of His kingdom. It is almost like the Lord cannot stand to dwell on judgment too long. He has to get back to "the good stuff." The light. It is coming.
Look for the light. "Maranatha." "Even so come, Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 22:20)
Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take: when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
In between those golden moments are many dark clouds of recrimination and even self absorption and doubt. Now turn your attention to Isaiah 25. We will restrict our thoughts just skimming the verses. Read the whole chapter for more. We notice a distinctly different pattern here.
Yahweh, You are my God; I will exalt You. I will praise Your name, for You have accomplished wonders, plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.
2 For You have turned the city into a pile of rocks, a fortified city, into ruins; the fortress of barbarians is no longer a city; it will never be rebuilt.
3 Therefore, a strong people will honor You. The cities of violent nations will fear You. 4 For You have been a stronghold for the poor, a stronghold for the needy person in his distress, a refuge from the rain, a shade from the heat. When the breath of the violent is like rain against a wall, 5 like heat in a dry land, You subdue the uproar of barbarians. As the shade of a cloud cools the heat of the day, so He silences the song of the violent.
6 The Lord of Hosts will prepare a feast for all the peoples on this mountain—a feast of aged wine, choice meat, finely aged wine. 7 On this mountain He will destroy the burial shroud, the shroud over all the peoples, the sheet covering all the nations; 8 He will destroy death forever. The Lord God will wipe away the tears from every face and remove His people's disgrace from the whole earth, for the Lord has spoken.
9 On that day it will be said, "Look, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He has saved us.This is the Lord; we have waited for Him. Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation." 10 For the Lord's power will rest on this mountain.
A chorus goes, "God, You are my God, and I will ever praise you." Right out of v. 1. Sun light and blue skies, if you ask me. Then we read of judgment, on Babylon, I believe. Dark clouds. But then it turns back to praising God. Check the confidence in v. 4 and 5. Promises continue in v. 6 and 7. The sunlight is almost blinding when we get to v. 8. "He will destroy death forever." He will wipe away tears. Sounds like Revelation 21:4 doesn't it?
The praise accompanying the promise continues in v. 9 and 10. Not too hard to read, is it? Lots of light. But we have to recall that chapters 24 and 25 were announcements of God's judgment. Darkness. 25:11 and 12 also pronounce judgment. More darkness.
Chapter 26 and 27 are filled with praise about the coming kingdom. More sunlight and blue skies. Chapter 28 turns to Samaria, which is affiliated with Epharim. This is part of Israel. Darkness. The chapter ends with a return to sunlight. But it does not stay light.
The next three chapters are dark times indeed. But don't stop. Read the next chapter as it returns to the Lord's exclamations of anticipation of His kingdom. It is almost like the Lord cannot stand to dwell on judgment too long. He has to get back to "the good stuff." The light. It is coming.
Look for the light. "Maranatha." "Even so come, Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 22:20)
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
More on Cyrus Isaiah 46, 47
We discussed the (hypothetical) process of convincing Cyrus to cooperate with God as Daniel exposed Cyrus to fulfilled prophesy. (Back to Isaiah.) Since the role of Cyrus had been traced back at least 150 years, he was inclined, one would think, to think that his best role would be to acquiesce to the One Who created everything. He saw evidence of this in his own recent history.
Any logical analysis would concur with Isaiah 45:9.
"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker—An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands'?"
The statements are literally ludicrous. Clay questioning a potter? And more fantastic is for a pot accusing the artisan of "having no hands?" That is just hilarious. I played ball against a "yappy" catcher who insulted us by chatter to his pitcher by razzing us.
"Hey batter, batter, batter! No stick. No stick. Just chuck it in here, Duke. He can't hit it."
It was gratifying to pop one out there and then taunt him by faking a steal on every succeeding pitch. The guys on the bench took it up. "He has no arm. Go ahead and run."
We did have "sticks" and he had an arm. But no one literally said he has "no stick" or he "had no arm." But a vase on the turntable is talking back to the professional. Cyrus did not fall for that trap.
Chapter 46 pokes fun at the fake gods.
"Bel has bowed down, Nebo stoops over; Their images are consigned to the beasts and the cattle."
The idols are "floppy" and ultimately are compared to "beasts and cattle." They are "burdens" for the people who "follow" them. Actually they are the ones who lug the dead weight around. Even the "best" thing that they can "make" is a hunk of gold that even has to be nailed to a board to remain upright.
Throughout these chapters, God continually repeats the claim of uniqueness. "I am God, there is no other. There is no one like Me." No one can duplicate Him, or even make something "like" Him, regardless of how inferior.
I honestly think Cyrus got goose bumps when Daniel read verse 11 to him.
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
This could have applied to Nebuchadnezzar, as he invaded from the "east" to subjugate Israel. (Actually, Nebby came from the north as he swung around the Tigris-Euphrates crescent to avoid the desert in between Judah and Babylon.) But Cyrus came from "farther" east and he had a role in Jewish history. And Daniel surely reminded Cyrus of the fulfilled prophesies from before.
Quick, look back at Isaiah 13:17:
Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
The "them" is the Babylonians. And in Isaiah 48:14 and 15 Cyrus is specifically mentioned.
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. 15 "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
As surely as God had spoken and it occurred; as surely as God had planned it, He would do it.
If I were Cyrus, I would not be contemplating how to resist. I would be reveling in the opportunity to cooperate with this Creator, The Sovereign of the universe. What a privilege. Cyrus was all in. In fact, I would posit the idea that Cyrus was astonished that Israel was not cooperating with the Lord.
Chapter 47 reaffirms (remember this is prophesy to Isaiah, but history for Cyrus) the fall of Babylon. Babylon did not expect to be overthrown. This chapter mirrors that thinking. But "daughter, Babylon" was ignoring God, the Creator. And look at what God said that He was doing: 46:11
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Notice that the subject of this must be Cyrus. "...from the east" describes his approach to Babylon. Persia was east of Babylon. Notice the repeated phrase: "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass. I planned it, I will do it."
If a prophet came to you and pointed out how God specifically mentioned you in the Scripture, how would you respond? Well, we all do not get our names in this Book, but we are there Listen.
...Whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Do you see your name? "Who-so-ever." That is as clear as Cyrus saw his name. And the cooperative that Jesus, in John, offered is much more rewarding and significant than just defeating the Babylonian empire. In fact, Daniel probably told Cyrus about the visions that he, Daniel, had seen and that Greece was going to blast the empire that Cyrus would leave behind.
Our appointment is forever. It seems that Cyrus believed. Do you? Will you?
Any logical analysis would concur with Isaiah 45:9.
"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker—An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands'?"
The statements are literally ludicrous. Clay questioning a potter? And more fantastic is for a pot accusing the artisan of "having no hands?" That is just hilarious. I played ball against a "yappy" catcher who insulted us by chatter to his pitcher by razzing us.
"Hey batter, batter, batter! No stick. No stick. Just chuck it in here, Duke. He can't hit it."
It was gratifying to pop one out there and then taunt him by faking a steal on every succeeding pitch. The guys on the bench took it up. "He has no arm. Go ahead and run."
We did have "sticks" and he had an arm. But no one literally said he has "no stick" or he "had no arm." But a vase on the turntable is talking back to the professional. Cyrus did not fall for that trap.
Chapter 46 pokes fun at the fake gods.
"Bel has bowed down, Nebo stoops over; Their images are consigned to the beasts and the cattle."
The idols are "floppy" and ultimately are compared to "beasts and cattle." They are "burdens" for the people who "follow" them. Actually they are the ones who lug the dead weight around. Even the "best" thing that they can "make" is a hunk of gold that even has to be nailed to a board to remain upright.
Throughout these chapters, God continually repeats the claim of uniqueness. "I am God, there is no other. There is no one like Me." No one can duplicate Him, or even make something "like" Him, regardless of how inferior.
I honestly think Cyrus got goose bumps when Daniel read verse 11 to him.
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
This could have applied to Nebuchadnezzar, as he invaded from the "east" to subjugate Israel. (Actually, Nebby came from the north as he swung around the Tigris-Euphrates crescent to avoid the desert in between Judah and Babylon.) But Cyrus came from "farther" east and he had a role in Jewish history. And Daniel surely reminded Cyrus of the fulfilled prophesies from before.
Quick, look back at Isaiah 13:17:
Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
The "them" is the Babylonians. And in Isaiah 48:14 and 15 Cyrus is specifically mentioned.
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. 15 "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
As surely as God had spoken and it occurred; as surely as God had planned it, He would do it.
If I were Cyrus, I would not be contemplating how to resist. I would be reveling in the opportunity to cooperate with this Creator, The Sovereign of the universe. What a privilege. Cyrus was all in. In fact, I would posit the idea that Cyrus was astonished that Israel was not cooperating with the Lord.
Chapter 47 reaffirms (remember this is prophesy to Isaiah, but history for Cyrus) the fall of Babylon. Babylon did not expect to be overthrown. This chapter mirrors that thinking. But "daughter, Babylon" was ignoring God, the Creator. And look at what God said that He was doing: 46:11
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Notice that the subject of this must be Cyrus. "...from the east" describes his approach to Babylon. Persia was east of Babylon. Notice the repeated phrase: "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass. I planned it, I will do it."
If a prophet came to you and pointed out how God specifically mentioned you in the Scripture, how would you respond? Well, we all do not get our names in this Book, but we are there Listen.
...Whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Do you see your name? "Who-so-ever." That is as clear as Cyrus saw his name. And the cooperative that Jesus, in John, offered is much more rewarding and significant than just defeating the Babylonian empire. In fact, Daniel probably told Cyrus about the visions that he, Daniel, had seen and that Greece was going to blast the empire that Cyrus would leave behind.
Our appointment is forever. It seems that Cyrus believed. Do you? Will you?
Monday, July 10, 2017
Back To Isaiah
"Back to the Future" was a movie about a guy who "went back to the past" to affect the future–present for him. (Loose explanation.) More plausible is the story of a king in Isaiah looking back to the past to see if it is going to affect him in the "future," which to him was now.
Isaiah 45 through 50 or so seems to be devoted to prophesies about Cyrus, about 150 years before he came on the scene. As you probably recall, he was the Persian king who released the Jews to return to their homeland after 70 years in captivity. (539 BC) We know that Daniel was prominent in the administration, so can let our sanctified speculation propose that perhaps Dan was the vehicle of exposing Cyrus to the prophesies and perhaps encouraging him to fulfill them.
Let's play devil's advocate for a minute, or ten, and surmise as to why Cy would be impressed with some obscure Jewish writing and give it credence. Ironically, I was a camp counselor during college and encountered a brilliant, but skeptical high school student much like Cyrus. He was not a king, but was from New Joysey if that matters.
He was very open and aggressive with his youthful atheism. "Why should I listen to and worry about this old Book?" he challenged.
The other campers tried to explain that it was God's Word, but he dismissed that with the, he thought, erudite disclaimer that it was just an ancient text produced by ignorant and superstitious nomads and shepherds.
I "just happened" to be reading Isaiah in my devotions with my trusty "Thompson Chain Reference Bible," and, I believe, the Holy Spirit guided my thought to the prophesy of Cyrus. He was named as the ruler of a country and his acts predicted about 150 years ahead of time.
I asked Ken if prophesy would impress him. He mistakenly thought I meant future prophesy and responded that he knew all about that, and if it happened, he would believe. (That might be kind of tardy, theologically speaking, but that would be a discussion for another day.)
I countered with the question, "What if I could show you prophesy that has already been fulfilled?"
He actually had heard of the prophesies in Daniel, and though they were specific and detailed, was skeptical of them because they were somewhat veiled and distorted. The "stuff" about Jesus was probably written into the narrative later and they might or might not be valid.
I had neither the time nor inclination to do an exhaustive refutation of these ideas. He had been exposed to them and simply categorized the Bible as religious ideas and beliefs. In other words, "bunk."
"How about a king being named and his actions being definitively predicted?" I pressed. "And this is a historically verifiable person and activity. You have heard of Cyrus, the king of Persia, haven't you?"
(A little intellectual challenge there to keep him on his toes.) Of course he had and he even knew a little about the details of Cyrus' life and actions.
"Cyrus was named, and his actions predicted about 150 years ahead of time," I continued.
"How do you know that?" he challenged. Thank the Lord for the "Thompson Chain Reference Bible." It has a note estimating the approximate date of each section of Scripture. I showed him the date of Isaiah and when he prophesied. (Isaiah 742-700 BC) And then we compared it to Cyrus (580-529 BC) who released the Jews in 539 BC. ("Thompson" was our internet, back then.)
When Ken saw that he was flabbergasted. I went on to point out the more than 20 specific prophesies of Jesus in just Isaiah alone. (Not individually, of course, but a few.) My co-counselor and I had the privilege to leading this young man to faith in Christ. Prophesy convinced him.
Now back to Cyrus. Think he needed convincing? Well, God was ready if he did. Isaiah 7 is the actual account of Isaiah interacting with the King of Judah as Jerusalem is under attack by the northern kingdom, Israel, and Aram. Isaiah told King Ahaz that they would fail to capture Jerusalem and would themselves be conquered by Assyria. (Chapter 8) But then Assyria would attack and overthrow Jerusalem. Subsequently Assyria would fall to Babylon. This is from Isaiah 7 to 10. Interspersed within that were specific predictions of the Messiah. (Go ahead and read chapter 11 to get more Messiah.)
Daniel could have shown the details of these prophesies to Cyrus, along with the dates for proof. (I bet he used his "Thompson" for that too.) And we can surmise that, Cyrus, like our friend Ken, 2500 years later, was convinced. He cooperated with God and, himself, became a part of fulfilled history.
As we go "Back to Isaiah" we do not need a spiffy DeLorean time machine, but have a more reliable mode of transportation. Read the Bible. It is good for the soul. It is accurate and defensible. And, teaser coming, as we read on through Isaiah 46 and 47 we find more information for Cyrus. This is recent history for him. Join us next time.
Epilog: In the interest of full disclosure, I do not recall the young man's name. I used "Ken" as a convenience to avoid calling him "the young man" every time we needed an identifier. So if you attended Word of Life Camp in Schroon Lake, New York, the summer of 1968 and had two nuts named John and Jim as counselors, you are probably the guy. Give us a shout.
Monday, July 3, 2017
Joseph Had No Technicolor Dreamcoat
Prologue: Gov. Mike Huckabee preached at church recently, and his topic included Joseph. Ravi Zacharias also talked about Joseph, and I have been thinking about Joseph as well. So all of these things have coalesced into this thought.
Joseph is an Old Testament embodiment of a pair of New Testament concepts. First, he did not hold a grudge or refuse to forgive. He was abused, imprisoned, and sold into slavery by his brothers. He had two chances to retaliate and refused both times. The traders were the vehicle of removing Joseph to Egypt and specifically sold him into the custody of Potiphar. (Genesis 37)
He was falsely accused and imprisoned by Potpihar and his wife. (Genesis 39) No retaliation occurred once Joseph had risen to the second highest position in the land of Egypt. He did not even rebuke the forgetful butler (cupbearer) who left him in prison for a couple of extra years or so.
His second New Testament application is probably a big reason for the forgiving spirit. That was his understanding that God was in control of life and that He was orchestrating events to bring glory to Himself. Joseph was privileged to participate in this. (Romans 8:28)
Looking back on events, Joseph was sent ahead to prepare the way to save the lives of his family. (Genesis 45:5) They were still doubtful and re-raised the issue after Jacob, their father, had died. Joseph reiterated the same point in Genesis 50:20. God was in control of their lives and Joseph was merely a tool that was responsible for a portion of the plan.
Joseph also traced God's "leading" in placing him into prison where he encountered the baker and butler. There was not immediate need for a "dream reader," when the butler was released and had the butler told Pharaoh about Joseph immediately, he might have been forgotten. But after Pharaoh's dramatic dream sequence, he was "ripe" for the disclosure of someone who could interpret. Again, God's planning was impeccable.
A friend of mine used to say, "God is never in a hurry. But He is never late. He is always right on time." And the "time" is His time, not mine. The Greek words used are "chronos" and "kairos," which mean time, but they imply different things. Chronos refers to minutes and seconds. Kairos means an appointed time, an opportune moment, or a due season.
Jesus specifically delineated this first concept in Matthew 6:15.
"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." This was in conjunction with the giving of the Lord's prayer. Jesus wanted to emphasize the "forgiveness" part. "Forgiving trespasses or debt as we have been forgiven."
Jesus did not explicitly explain this, but since the Lord is using everything that happens to us for His glory, there is no foundation for holding a grudge against someone who "offends" us. The "offense" is actually God's moving in our lives. (This does not mean that any evil thing is done by God, but it does mean that any evil action can be "used" by the Lord and will benefit us and the Kingdom in the end.)
Thank you, Joseph, for illustrating two potentially troublesome concepts so clearly. He was not dreaming, or suffering a nightmare during the 20 or more years away from home. Being in the center of God's will is better than any option we might choose based on peace and pleasure.
How can we refuse to forgive when, like Joseph, we understand that God is using even unhappy events for our good?
Joseph is an Old Testament embodiment of a pair of New Testament concepts. First, he did not hold a grudge or refuse to forgive. He was abused, imprisoned, and sold into slavery by his brothers. He had two chances to retaliate and refused both times. The traders were the vehicle of removing Joseph to Egypt and specifically sold him into the custody of Potiphar. (Genesis 37)
He was falsely accused and imprisoned by Potpihar and his wife. (Genesis 39) No retaliation occurred once Joseph had risen to the second highest position in the land of Egypt. He did not even rebuke the forgetful butler (cupbearer) who left him in prison for a couple of extra years or so.
His second New Testament application is probably a big reason for the forgiving spirit. That was his understanding that God was in control of life and that He was orchestrating events to bring glory to Himself. Joseph was privileged to participate in this. (Romans 8:28)
Looking back on events, Joseph was sent ahead to prepare the way to save the lives of his family. (Genesis 45:5) They were still doubtful and re-raised the issue after Jacob, their father, had died. Joseph reiterated the same point in Genesis 50:20. God was in control of their lives and Joseph was merely a tool that was responsible for a portion of the plan.
Joseph also traced God's "leading" in placing him into prison where he encountered the baker and butler. There was not immediate need for a "dream reader," when the butler was released and had the butler told Pharaoh about Joseph immediately, he might have been forgotten. But after Pharaoh's dramatic dream sequence, he was "ripe" for the disclosure of someone who could interpret. Again, God's planning was impeccable.
A friend of mine used to say, "God is never in a hurry. But He is never late. He is always right on time." And the "time" is His time, not mine. The Greek words used are "chronos" and "kairos," which mean time, but they imply different things. Chronos refers to minutes and seconds. Kairos means an appointed time, an opportune moment, or a due season.
Jesus specifically delineated this first concept in Matthew 6:15.
"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." This was in conjunction with the giving of the Lord's prayer. Jesus wanted to emphasize the "forgiveness" part. "Forgiving trespasses or debt as we have been forgiven."
Jesus did not explicitly explain this, but since the Lord is using everything that happens to us for His glory, there is no foundation for holding a grudge against someone who "offends" us. The "offense" is actually God's moving in our lives. (This does not mean that any evil thing is done by God, but it does mean that any evil action can be "used" by the Lord and will benefit us and the Kingdom in the end.)
Thank you, Joseph, for illustrating two potentially troublesome concepts so clearly. He was not dreaming, or suffering a nightmare during the 20 or more years away from home. Being in the center of God's will is better than any option we might choose based on peace and pleasure.
How can we refuse to forgive when, like Joseph, we understand that God is using even unhappy events for our good?
Sunday, July 2, 2017
More on Philip
We discussed Philip a few months back (Quantum Leap) and traced him from Jerusalem to Samaria (north) then way south to Gaza where he witnessed to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Then he was moved north and ultimately finished his trip in Caesarea. This was in Acts 8. We don't hear about him until Acts 21.
But was that the end of his story? Back in chapter 8 of Acts, Luke recorded that Philip preached all the way up the coast to Caesarea, so would it be to big of a stretch to suppose that he continued to preach in his new, and seeming more permanent home?
Acts 10 has an interesting story that may involve Philip. Will you indulge my sanctified imagination here for a minute? Then you may decide for yourself. Read the story:
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
How many times have we read this and just skipped right over it. This guy was obviously a Roman, leading an "Italian" army group of 100 armed soldiers. (If he were the "cohort" leader it would be 600 men, which is about a 10th of a legion.) Why, or how would this Roman soldier become interested in God and in caring for the Jewish people? Would it be reasonable to think that Philip had kept on preaching for a couple of chapters? (You can puzzle out the time if you are so disposed. I'm not, right now.)
But if Philip were effective in communicating to the people there, Cornelius may have at least heard of his preaching and been curious or intrigued. We can surmise that Philip would not have been reticent about preaching to a Gentile, due to his previous "ministry." But the eunuch was heading for Africa, so the ramifications were not too far reaching in Jerusalem. Philip may have not even told them about it, since it appeared that he did not return to Jerusalem.
If Philip's preaching was instrumental in awakening a hunger in Cornelius and his family, why did they not just go to Philip? Don't you just love how God controls circumstances? The next verse relates how God stepped into the story to take control.
In short, an angel appeared to Cornelius. Luke said that he was "alarmed." This is a pretty tough Roman centurion, and probably not easily frightened. The angel, conspicuously did not deliver the customary, "Fear not." We might explore that some other time.
Cornelius' angelic visitor did direct him to send for Peter, who was currently in Joppa. I just noticed that the soldier who accompanied the two servants was a "devout soldier." (Verse 7) Do you imagine that he may also have been interested in the message about to be brought by Peter?
We know the story how Cornelius and "all those who were listening" (v. 44) were saved and received the same witness that the believers on the Day of Pentecost did. (Think the "devout soldier" was also there?)
So the question is, "Why did the Lord not use Philip to preach to them?" He was obviously in Caesarea, where he was raising his family. Was there something "special" about this congregation? It seems that there was.
Sadly, we read chapter 11 and find that instead of rejoicing at the new believers, some in Jerusalem were critical of Peter for going to "uncircumcised men and eating with them." There is a good chance that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a proselyte, and thus was "technically" a Jew.
If Philip had made the presentation and the Lord responded to Gentiles through that, the argument back in Jerusalem would have been a bit more difficult, I suggest. First, Peter, himself, required convincing by the Holy Spirit before he even went to preach. Had he, and the Jewish believers with him, not seen the evidence themselves of the salvation, as evidenced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, would the argument have been as fervent and convincing?
The Lord knew that the hard heads back in the "home base" would need a powerful persuader. Hello, Peter. Anyone want to dispute him? Some did, but not very effectively. God was in control there.
So Philip may have been the trail breaker for the belief of the Gentiles in Caesarea, but he was not obsessed with getting the "glory" and praise for his work. The Lord was at work anyway, and whom He used is not important. That He did it is the key issue.
We watched Philip leave a thriving ministry in Samaria, lead a single guy to the Lord, then preach his way all the way up the coast. He started out as a table waiter in Acts 6, as did Stephen, by the way. He was not pretentious or proud. He just got the job done.
Someone once said that there is no limit of what God can do through a man if he is not concerned about who gets the credit. Sounds like Philip, doesn't it?
We need more Philips.
But was that the end of his story? Back in chapter 8 of Acts, Luke recorded that Philip preached all the way up the coast to Caesarea, so would it be to big of a stretch to suppose that he continued to preach in his new, and seeming more permanent home?
Acts 10 has an interesting story that may involve Philip. Will you indulge my sanctified imagination here for a minute? Then you may decide for yourself. Read the story:
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
How many times have we read this and just skipped right over it. This guy was obviously a Roman, leading an "Italian" army group of 100 armed soldiers. (If he were the "cohort" leader it would be 600 men, which is about a 10th of a legion.) Why, or how would this Roman soldier become interested in God and in caring for the Jewish people? Would it be reasonable to think that Philip had kept on preaching for a couple of chapters? (You can puzzle out the time if you are so disposed. I'm not, right now.)
But if Philip were effective in communicating to the people there, Cornelius may have at least heard of his preaching and been curious or intrigued. We can surmise that Philip would not have been reticent about preaching to a Gentile, due to his previous "ministry." But the eunuch was heading for Africa, so the ramifications were not too far reaching in Jerusalem. Philip may have not even told them about it, since it appeared that he did not return to Jerusalem.
If Philip's preaching was instrumental in awakening a hunger in Cornelius and his family, why did they not just go to Philip? Don't you just love how God controls circumstances? The next verse relates how God stepped into the story to take control.
In short, an angel appeared to Cornelius. Luke said that he was "alarmed." This is a pretty tough Roman centurion, and probably not easily frightened. The angel, conspicuously did not deliver the customary, "Fear not." We might explore that some other time.
Cornelius' angelic visitor did direct him to send for Peter, who was currently in Joppa. I just noticed that the soldier who accompanied the two servants was a "devout soldier." (Verse 7) Do you imagine that he may also have been interested in the message about to be brought by Peter?
We know the story how Cornelius and "all those who were listening" (v. 44) were saved and received the same witness that the believers on the Day of Pentecost did. (Think the "devout soldier" was also there?)
So the question is, "Why did the Lord not use Philip to preach to them?" He was obviously in Caesarea, where he was raising his family. Was there something "special" about this congregation? It seems that there was.
Sadly, we read chapter 11 and find that instead of rejoicing at the new believers, some in Jerusalem were critical of Peter for going to "uncircumcised men and eating with them." There is a good chance that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a proselyte, and thus was "technically" a Jew.
If Philip had made the presentation and the Lord responded to Gentiles through that, the argument back in Jerusalem would have been a bit more difficult, I suggest. First, Peter, himself, required convincing by the Holy Spirit before he even went to preach. Had he, and the Jewish believers with him, not seen the evidence themselves of the salvation, as evidenced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, would the argument have been as fervent and convincing?
The Lord knew that the hard heads back in the "home base" would need a powerful persuader. Hello, Peter. Anyone want to dispute him? Some did, but not very effectively. God was in control there.
So Philip may have been the trail breaker for the belief of the Gentiles in Caesarea, but he was not obsessed with getting the "glory" and praise for his work. The Lord was at work anyway, and whom He used is not important. That He did it is the key issue.
We watched Philip leave a thriving ministry in Samaria, lead a single guy to the Lord, then preach his way all the way up the coast. He started out as a table waiter in Acts 6, as did Stephen, by the way. He was not pretentious or proud. He just got the job done.
Someone once said that there is no limit of what God can do through a man if he is not concerned about who gets the credit. Sounds like Philip, doesn't it?
We need more Philips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)