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?
Monday, July 3, 2017
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.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Knowing What You Don't Know
God must have a sense of humor. It is even evident in the placement of books. I read a "Daily Bible" which has Old Testament passages, Psalms, Proverbs, and New Testament passages for each day. One day the passage in Job finished with, "And thus ends the words of Job." The first verse in Psalm that morning was, "Hallelujah!" Couldn't help but chuckle.
Now we just finished Job in the OT part, and go directly to Ecclesiastes 1:16
16 I said to myself, "Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge." (Solomon)
A Hall of Fame pitcher, Dizzy Dean was said to have first pronounced. "It ain't braggin' if it's true." (Some have, "if you can do it." Same thought.) Well, Solomon was not braggin' or exaggerating or any other type of puffery. We just finished the grandiose prognostications of a young man in Job. His name was Elihu.
He started out pretty well. Job 32:6
"I am young in years and you are old; Therefore I was shy and afraid to tell you what I think.
Too bad he didn't stop there. But he goes on a little later: Job 34:2
"Hear my words, you wise men, And listen to me, you who know."
He is getting on a roll now: 36:2
"Wait for me a little, and I will show you That there is yet more to be said in God's behalf."
It is a good thing that Elihu was here to defend God, with his overwhelming logic and eloquence. I can hardly wait. 36:4
"For truly my words are not false; One who is perfect in knowledge is with you." (Himself, humbly.)
Growing up, we used to have an old saying back on the playground at Stratton Public, "Well, La de da. You must have hit the fountain of knowledge." Notice Elihu's claim: "perfect knowledge."
A few hundred years later, we read of one who was just about perfect. And he is not preening and prancing around, parading his supposed superiority. In fact, he is quite befuddled, because having the greatest intellect, most wisdom, and a lot of gold was not satisfying him. Something was missing.
One of the biggest enemies of knowledge is that we do not know what we do not know and that we do not know it. If we don't know that we don't know something, we do not miss it. If a repair man leaves a lug nut or two off or loose on your car, it will drive just like it should. That is until the pressure snaps a bolt or two and the wheel starts to wobble or come off entirely.
The first comment out of a driver's mouth in this instance is, "I didn't know it was loose."
And what he didn't know that he didn't know could have caused a serious accident. Solomon was keenly aware that he did not know something. That is the first step in learning. Elihu blathered along for six chapters. (32-37) He probably had several more to go. The end of chapter 37 is not an ending. It is abruptly terminated by the Lord in chapter 38. (Thank You, Lord.)
And notice the first five words: (38:1)
Then the Lord answered Job...out of the whirlwind and said....
After all of the argumentation, accusation, allegations, recriminations, and denunciations (ran out of "a's") God ignored everything that they said. (This is why I do not take much theology from Job. God did not even comment on it.) And, for that matter, He did not refute or rebut Job's comments either. There are about 48 questions (depending upon punctuation) that the Lord rhetorically posed for Job, none of which were, or probably could be answered. And God was not exhausted when He stopped. Job was. (As are we.)
The most profound thing that anyone from earth said was 42:6:
"Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."
And he was wise enough to stop there. Maybe I better follow suit.
God doesn't laugh at or mock us, despite our abysmal ignorance. He just waits for us to recognize that we don't know what we don't know. And get to know it.
You know?
Now we just finished Job in the OT part, and go directly to Ecclesiastes 1:16
16 I said to myself, "Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge." (Solomon)
A Hall of Fame pitcher, Dizzy Dean was said to have first pronounced. "It ain't braggin' if it's true." (Some have, "if you can do it." Same thought.) Well, Solomon was not braggin' or exaggerating or any other type of puffery. We just finished the grandiose prognostications of a young man in Job. His name was Elihu.
He started out pretty well. Job 32:6
"I am young in years and you are old; Therefore I was shy and afraid to tell you what I think.
Too bad he didn't stop there. But he goes on a little later: Job 34:2
"Hear my words, you wise men, And listen to me, you who know."
He is getting on a roll now: 36:2
"Wait for me a little, and I will show you That there is yet more to be said in God's behalf."
It is a good thing that Elihu was here to defend God, with his overwhelming logic and eloquence. I can hardly wait. 36:4
"For truly my words are not false; One who is perfect in knowledge is with you." (Himself, humbly.)
Growing up, we used to have an old saying back on the playground at Stratton Public, "Well, La de da. You must have hit the fountain of knowledge." Notice Elihu's claim: "perfect knowledge."
A few hundred years later, we read of one who was just about perfect. And he is not preening and prancing around, parading his supposed superiority. In fact, he is quite befuddled, because having the greatest intellect, most wisdom, and a lot of gold was not satisfying him. Something was missing.
One of the biggest enemies of knowledge is that we do not know what we do not know and that we do not know it. If we don't know that we don't know something, we do not miss it. If a repair man leaves a lug nut or two off or loose on your car, it will drive just like it should. That is until the pressure snaps a bolt or two and the wheel starts to wobble or come off entirely.
The first comment out of a driver's mouth in this instance is, "I didn't know it was loose."
And what he didn't know that he didn't know could have caused a serious accident. Solomon was keenly aware that he did not know something. That is the first step in learning. Elihu blathered along for six chapters. (32-37) He probably had several more to go. The end of chapter 37 is not an ending. It is abruptly terminated by the Lord in chapter 38. (Thank You, Lord.)
And notice the first five words: (38:1)
Then the Lord answered Job...out of the whirlwind and said....
After all of the argumentation, accusation, allegations, recriminations, and denunciations (ran out of "a's") God ignored everything that they said. (This is why I do not take much theology from Job. God did not even comment on it.) And, for that matter, He did not refute or rebut Job's comments either. There are about 48 questions (depending upon punctuation) that the Lord rhetorically posed for Job, none of which were, or probably could be answered. And God was not exhausted when He stopped. Job was. (As are we.)
The most profound thing that anyone from earth said was 42:6:
"Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."
And he was wise enough to stop there. Maybe I better follow suit.
God doesn't laugh at or mock us, despite our abysmal ignorance. He just waits for us to recognize that we don't know what we don't know. And get to know it.
You know?
It Is Well
There is an interesting exchange between Elisha and the Shenuemite woman. She was never named, despite having a big role in the life of Elisha the prophet. Or maybe we should say he played a big role in her life. We find it in 2 Kings 4:26
"Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, ‘Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child?'" And she answered, "It is well."
Elisha's servant was actually the one who took the message and returned with the response, but the two primary actors are E and SW. David Jeremiah's meditation referenced this passage and discussed D. L. Moody's life. (6/28/17) His grandson died and he penned the following to his children in their loss.
"I know Dwight is having a good time, and we should rejoice with him. What would the mansions be without children? And he has gone to help get things ready for his parents. You know the Master said: ‘The last shall be first.' He was the last to come into our circle, and he is the first to go up there! So safe, so free from all the sorrow that we are passing through! I do thank God for such a life. It was nearly all smiles and sunshine. What a glorified body he will have, and with what joy he will await your coming! ... You will have the dear little man with you for ages and ages.... The word that keeps coming to my mind is this: ‘It is well with the child.'"1
We recently thought of Horatio Spafford and his hymn, "It Is Well." (Peace Like a River) Spafford went to Moody and Ira Sankey after his loss of four daughters, and some biographers think that Spafford wrote the hymn after or even during this meeting.
This would certainly buttress that supposition. Moody had suffered a loss and was able to comfort him with the comfort he had received. (2 Corinthians 1:4)
Turn to the passage. The woman has just driven (one donkey power vehicle) about 30 miles to tell Elisha that her son had died. Do you think that he already knew? Sometimes he did. Regardless, he asked, "...is it well with the child?"
Her answer was, "It is well." (Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Wonder if Spafford read that in conjunction with his composing the hymn.) We can interpret this at least two ways and both will bless us. First, she, like Spafford measured the health of her soul by God. Look through the phrases of the hymn and evaluate your health. (http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul/)
Regardless of what happens, it is well. Our sin is removed and we bear it no more. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, oh my soul. This is not a pollyannaish response to bad news. It is a sober contemplation of real value, compared with temporary comfort and convenience. It is well with my soul.
But is there a second way to view her response. (Maybe both are accurate.) She knew that Elisha was a miracle worker. Chances are that she had never heard of anyone raising someone from the dead. But there is a possibility that Elisha may have told her about Elijah raising a boy from the dead, in very similar circumstances.
Whether she knew or not, she had faith. And whether or not the boy was resurrected (actually resuscitated, because he would die again) revived, she was trusting Elisha and ultimately his God. Her statement as to his being "well" reveals a depth of faith and confidence. Alive or dead, it was well with him.
It is well.
1. A. P. Fitt, The Life of D. L. Moody (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), 139-140
"Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, ‘Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child?'" And she answered, "It is well."
Elisha's servant was actually the one who took the message and returned with the response, but the two primary actors are E and SW. David Jeremiah's meditation referenced this passage and discussed D. L. Moody's life. (6/28/17) His grandson died and he penned the following to his children in their loss.
"I know Dwight is having a good time, and we should rejoice with him. What would the mansions be without children? And he has gone to help get things ready for his parents. You know the Master said: ‘The last shall be first.' He was the last to come into our circle, and he is the first to go up there! So safe, so free from all the sorrow that we are passing through! I do thank God for such a life. It was nearly all smiles and sunshine. What a glorified body he will have, and with what joy he will await your coming! ... You will have the dear little man with you for ages and ages.... The word that keeps coming to my mind is this: ‘It is well with the child.'"1
We recently thought of Horatio Spafford and his hymn, "It Is Well." (Peace Like a River) Spafford went to Moody and Ira Sankey after his loss of four daughters, and some biographers think that Spafford wrote the hymn after or even during this meeting.
This would certainly buttress that supposition. Moody had suffered a loss and was able to comfort him with the comfort he had received. (2 Corinthians 1:4)
Turn to the passage. The woman has just driven (one donkey power vehicle) about 30 miles to tell Elisha that her son had died. Do you think that he already knew? Sometimes he did. Regardless, he asked, "...is it well with the child?"
Her answer was, "It is well." (Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Wonder if Spafford read that in conjunction with his composing the hymn.) We can interpret this at least two ways and both will bless us. First, she, like Spafford measured the health of her soul by God. Look through the phrases of the hymn and evaluate your health. (http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul/)
Regardless of what happens, it is well. Our sin is removed and we bear it no more. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, oh my soul. This is not a pollyannaish response to bad news. It is a sober contemplation of real value, compared with temporary comfort and convenience. It is well with my soul.
But is there a second way to view her response. (Maybe both are accurate.) She knew that Elisha was a miracle worker. Chances are that she had never heard of anyone raising someone from the dead. But there is a possibility that Elisha may have told her about Elijah raising a boy from the dead, in very similar circumstances.
Whether she knew or not, she had faith. And whether or not the boy was resurrected (actually resuscitated, because he would die again) revived, she was trusting Elisha and ultimately his God. Her statement as to his being "well" reveals a depth of faith and confidence. Alive or dead, it was well with him.
It is well.
1. A. P. Fitt, The Life of D. L. Moody (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), 139-140
Thus Saith the Lord
"Thus saith the Lord" is found 413 times in the King James version. (Incidentally, it only occurs in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Lord is present and does not need to be announced. Jesus speaks for Himself and has the authority to do so.)
"Thus saith the Lord," is a powerful statement of authority, power, and dominance. "Thus saith THE LORD!" Can't you even now, hear Moses (Charleston Heston) thunder that in the "Ten Commandments?" It may not have chilled Pharoah's jets, but it sends shudders through me. The first time it shows up is in Exodus 4:22. The Lord commissioned Moses with this charge.
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:'"
Pharoah knew Israel, but he did not know their God, their Father. He was about to encounter that awesome fact and Person. He did not respond wisely or well.
The point of this discussion is how that was used. Some uses, like Moses,' was to introduce the Lord and to convey His authority, His message, and His judgments: Commands and declarations: Obey or die.
Other prophets used the term to signify their own delegated authority when dealing with Israel. If God said it, then you better beware and behave. The use was to deliver the commands of the Lord and to reinforce the declaration of judgment for disobedience. 2 Samuel 12:7 and 11 are particularly ominous for David after taking Bathsheba and killing her husband. Nathan thundered, "Thou art the man!" And then followed it by a "Thus saith the Lord," recitation of what God had done for David. (And what He would do.)
The prophets used it as a comfort for the people in the post-glory period. (David and Solomon) Sometimes it was a comfort, that is. They needed encouragement and knowing God was still in control was assuring, even when they were being disciplined. So the phrase that accompanied declaration of judgment also introduced confidence in the positive outcomes that were also prophesied.
Isaiah used it to introduce Cyrus to the Lord and His sovereignty in the life of this Persian king. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=HCSB
or so) Our meditation today will use the same verses as before, but instead of focusing on Who will be revered (bend knee) and worshiped (tongue confess), we will consider the certainty of the outcome. Isaiah 45:22, 23 (Knees and Tongues)
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. For I am God, and there is no other.
23 By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance.
The actual phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," is not here, but the thought and intent is. He is the God, and the only God. There is no other. Here it comes: He swore by Himself. No higher authority may be invoked. Truth has been uttered. Of course nothing else can come from Him, but that still means that it is "true" and unchanging. And it is irrevocable. It is as good as done the instant He says it. Get ready...
"Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance."
The entire population of earth at the time He comes, but more, the entire cumulative population of the earth throughout all ages is included. No one is excluded. All will bow. (Another problem with "evolution, even theistic," is where does the "God awareness" and responsibility come into existence? Just something to consider in a passing glance. I digress.)
And can we depend upon, and in fact, anticipate this event? You betcha. It is as good as done. "Thus saith the Lord." He swore it. A promise that can never be broken. "Truth has gone out." An inevitable event is postulated. "A word that will not be revoked." "Will not be revoked," because He said it and cannot be revoked because no one else would have the authority or power to reverse it. The French have a neat word: fait accompli. To brush up a little, it is a "fact accomplished." It is not only completed, it is irreversible. There is no going back, do over, or reconsideration. It is a done deal. And there is no appeal.
The world as we know it, as it was in the past, and as it will be anytime in the future, will come to this juncture. Every knee bowed, and every tongue confessing. The only variable is whether it will be done voluntarily or under compulsion. It will be done in love and admiration or in fear and abject subjugation. As the Roman commanders placed their feet on the necks of their conquered enemies, the erstwhile combatants, became servile subjects.
We get to choose our method of submission. It is going to happen, we just do not know when. And we get to choose how. Choose wisely.
"Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess." That Jesus is Lord.
Thus saith the Lord.
"Thus saith the Lord," is a powerful statement of authority, power, and dominance. "Thus saith THE LORD!" Can't you even now, hear Moses (Charleston Heston) thunder that in the "Ten Commandments?" It may not have chilled Pharoah's jets, but it sends shudders through me. The first time it shows up is in Exodus 4:22. The Lord commissioned Moses with this charge.
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:'"
Pharoah knew Israel, but he did not know their God, their Father. He was about to encounter that awesome fact and Person. He did not respond wisely or well.
The point of this discussion is how that was used. Some uses, like Moses,' was to introduce the Lord and to convey His authority, His message, and His judgments: Commands and declarations: Obey or die.
Other prophets used the term to signify their own delegated authority when dealing with Israel. If God said it, then you better beware and behave. The use was to deliver the commands of the Lord and to reinforce the declaration of judgment for disobedience. 2 Samuel 12:7 and 11 are particularly ominous for David after taking Bathsheba and killing her husband. Nathan thundered, "Thou art the man!" And then followed it by a "Thus saith the Lord," recitation of what God had done for David. (And what He would do.)
The prophets used it as a comfort for the people in the post-glory period. (David and Solomon) Sometimes it was a comfort, that is. They needed encouragement and knowing God was still in control was assuring, even when they were being disciplined. So the phrase that accompanied declaration of judgment also introduced confidence in the positive outcomes that were also prophesied.
Isaiah used it to introduce Cyrus to the Lord and His sovereignty in the life of this Persian king. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=HCSB
or so) Our meditation today will use the same verses as before, but instead of focusing on Who will be revered (bend knee) and worshiped (tongue confess), we will consider the certainty of the outcome. Isaiah 45:22, 23 (Knees and Tongues)
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. For I am God, and there is no other.
23 By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance.
The actual phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," is not here, but the thought and intent is. He is the God, and the only God. There is no other. Here it comes: He swore by Himself. No higher authority may be invoked. Truth has been uttered. Of course nothing else can come from Him, but that still means that it is "true" and unchanging. And it is irrevocable. It is as good as done the instant He says it. Get ready...
"Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance."
The entire population of earth at the time He comes, but more, the entire cumulative population of the earth throughout all ages is included. No one is excluded. All will bow. (Another problem with "evolution, even theistic," is where does the "God awareness" and responsibility come into existence? Just something to consider in a passing glance. I digress.)
And can we depend upon, and in fact, anticipate this event? You betcha. It is as good as done. "Thus saith the Lord." He swore it. A promise that can never be broken. "Truth has gone out." An inevitable event is postulated. "A word that will not be revoked." "Will not be revoked," because He said it and cannot be revoked because no one else would have the authority or power to reverse it. The French have a neat word: fait accompli. To brush up a little, it is a "fact accomplished." It is not only completed, it is irreversible. There is no going back, do over, or reconsideration. It is a done deal. And there is no appeal.
The world as we know it, as it was in the past, and as it will be anytime in the future, will come to this juncture. Every knee bowed, and every tongue confessing. The only variable is whether it will be done voluntarily or under compulsion. It will be done in love and admiration or in fear and abject subjugation. As the Roman commanders placed their feet on the necks of their conquered enemies, the erstwhile combatants, became servile subjects.
We get to choose our method of submission. It is going to happen, we just do not know when. And we get to choose how. Choose wisely.
"Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess." That Jesus is Lord.
Thus saith the Lord.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Knees and Tongues
There is a theological treatise in Isaiah 46:22, 23. It has several themes that we encounter time after time in the Scripture.
"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance."
Let's examine them point by point. First, this is the Lord speaking and He is the source of salvation–for everyone on earth. Not all will accept, but it is offered to them. Look at
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered."
And in Romans 10:13 Paul repeats this. Paul uses Old Testament quotations to point the Jews to salvation. Only he is talking about Jesus. So the Savior is Jesus.
Then The Savior identifies Himself. "I am God, there is no other." The "one and only" God claim occurs 30 times or more in the Scripture. "There is no other God." Point. Period. Exclamation point. Any claim in opposition to that is fraudulent and spurious.
And this God is the source of truth. Again there is no other. This is an attribute of the all knowing God. Since He knows everything, what He knows must be the Truth. He is "aware" of falsehood, but He is not the source of that. He only displays truth in opposition and that refutes error. And this "truth" will never change or alter. ("be revoked.") This is comforting to a world that is suffused with "false news" and shifting standards. The truth is there. It is our responsibility to look to it instead of substitutes.
Next comes an intriguing pronouncement. Remember that the Speaker is One Who has sworn. It will not ever change. "Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance." This is going to happen some day. This command will never be revoked nor repudiated.
Notice that this command is repeated in Romans 14:11. This further reinforces the permanence of this declaration. At some point, every knee in the world will bow and acknowledge that He is God. And then a curious juxtaposition occurs in Philippians 2:9. Paul is talking about Jesus and proclaims:
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
To define, "Lord" we look back to Romans 11 and Joel 2.
R-v. 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." J-v. 32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered."
Joel is talking about Jehovah. Romans is talking about Jesus. Both are Lord. The one and only Lord. When discussing the divinity of Jesus I like to quote Hebrews 1. First in verse 6 God the Father commands the angels to worship the Son. Since God is the only One, as we saw in Isaiah and He commands everyone to worship Him alone in the first commandment, this is a conundrum for anyone who argues that Jesus is "less than," or not God.
The conflict is that either God is schizophrenic, demanding people to engage in two, mutually exclusive actions, or Jesus is truly equal with God. He is indeed God as declared by the Father. If there is "no other God," then an "equal" One would be another one. This cannot occur logically, theologically, or in any kind of reasoning format.
And the second statement in Hebrews 1 is totally devastating to the denial of Jesus' divinity. Verse 8: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...." God the Father called Jesus, "O God." I have discussed this with cult followers and even used their translation of Hebrews. (I guess their "editors" have not thought to remove it yet.) As we discussed it, he argued that he did not believe that it really said that Jesus was God.
"What does it say?" I asked.
"Well, I don't know, but it does not say that," was his reply. Repeated inquiries yielded the same result. He couldn't produce an alternative meaning without repudiating his translation, but refused to accept what even that translation said. What an uncomfortable situation. He didn't believe his own version of the Bible. (Is that like schizophrenic?) How many "other mistakes" does it have? (Answer: Lots.)
Now Philippians reaffirms that Jesus is truly God. "Every knee will bow" to God the Father, as noted in Isaiah. And Philippians declares that the bowing and confessing will be to Jesus, the Messiah. If our friend Lee Strobel were to write a book on this, which he did, it could be named, "The Case for Christ. He is God."
It is not plagiarism even though it declares that Jesus is God, which is not a new idea. It suffuses the entire Scripture, from the Old Testament through the New. We saw another example of it today.
Jesus is Lord. Every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45:23&version=HCSB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:11&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+1&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A16&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10%3A9-13&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel+2:32&version=NASB
Preemptive Addendum. Here this post is not yet published and there is more. Hence the designation, preemptive. My son is preaching on John 1, a very pertinent passage to this discussion, which you noticed I avoided. This whole argument can be supported by John, but some doubters are inured to those Scriptures. So I chose more to show it is not a fluke or misprint or a "mis-translation.". The thoughts here are presented with recognition of and appreciation to Erwin Lutzer and Walter Martin. (For clarity, my responses are not marked by quotation marks. This is slightly abridged with verses cited only.)
Discussion on a Doorstep
"Hi! We are from the Watchtower and would like to talk to you about the Bible."
Great, glad to see you! (Match enthusiasm.) You are a witness for Jehovah and I am a worshiper of Jehovah. I would love to talk to you about that.
You know that Jehovah, in the Old Testament, declared that He is the only God and, in the first commandment, we are to worship Him and Him only. (Nods all around.) Part of "worship" is to obey Him, wouldn't you agree? (Keep them involved.)
Do you know Isaiah 45:22, 23? Do you have a Bible there handy? (Use theirs, not your own.) Look at that. Someday everyone will "bow the knee, and confess Him." (You can discuss the earlier phrases for emphasis.) Imagine that! The entire world will worship Jehovah. What a day!
Did you know that this verse is repeated in the New Testament? Look at Romans 14:11. Same thing, isn't it? Here is something interesting. It is repeated a second time in the New Testament. Look at Philippians 2:11.
Are you confused? Isaiah and Romans say every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jehovah, and here Paul says the same thing about Jesus. How can that be?
Maybe we can find an answer in that first chapter of...(watch them start for John)...the book that talks about God a lot. Hebrews. Look at verse 6 where the Father instructs the angels to worship the Son. That is Jesus, according to verse 5.
That goes along with Philippians, and Isaiah, and Romans, doesn't it? "Bow and confess" are acts of worship. And why? Look at verse 8. Jesus, the Son, is called God, by Jehovah, the Father.
I worship Jehovah and that means to obey Him. Right? So let's obey Jehovah and worship Jesus right now. (Kneel.) Please join me. Everyone will do so sometime. I want to do it willingly, and not under force and compulsion.
(Pray) Dear Jesus, my Heavenly Father, Jehovah, commanded me to worship You. I (gladly) worship You today. Thank you for being my Savior. Amen. (Straight in the eye.) Is Jesus your Savior? He promised that He would be, if you just ask Him.
John 3:16 is Jehovah's promise that "anyone exercising faith in Him" (They forgot to capitalize "Him" but we can look at that later.)"will not be destroyed but have everlasting life." And Jehovah promised to save anyone who believed in Him. Joel 2:32
Since Jehovah called Jesus God, and commanded us to worship Him, and recalling that there is only One God, does our "believing or exercising faith in Him" have to include the acceptance of Jesus as God? Remember back in Isaiah where Jehovah said "Turn to Me and be saved?" And John says that believing in Jesus is how to be saved. And Joel does too.
So if I do not believe in Jesus, will I be saved? No. Will you? Let's pray and believe.
"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance."
Let's examine them point by point. First, this is the Lord speaking and He is the source of salvation–for everyone on earth. Not all will accept, but it is offered to them. Look at
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered."
And in Romans 10:13 Paul repeats this. Paul uses Old Testament quotations to point the Jews to salvation. Only he is talking about Jesus. So the Savior is Jesus.
Then The Savior identifies Himself. "I am God, there is no other." The "one and only" God claim occurs 30 times or more in the Scripture. "There is no other God." Point. Period. Exclamation point. Any claim in opposition to that is fraudulent and spurious.
And this God is the source of truth. Again there is no other. This is an attribute of the all knowing God. Since He knows everything, what He knows must be the Truth. He is "aware" of falsehood, but He is not the source of that. He only displays truth in opposition and that refutes error. And this "truth" will never change or alter. ("be revoked.") This is comforting to a world that is suffused with "false news" and shifting standards. The truth is there. It is our responsibility to look to it instead of substitutes.
Next comes an intriguing pronouncement. Remember that the Speaker is One Who has sworn. It will not ever change. "Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance." This is going to happen some day. This command will never be revoked nor repudiated.
Notice that this command is repeated in Romans 14:11. This further reinforces the permanence of this declaration. At some point, every knee in the world will bow and acknowledge that He is God. And then a curious juxtaposition occurs in Philippians 2:9. Paul is talking about Jesus and proclaims:
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
To define, "Lord" we look back to Romans 11 and Joel 2.
R-v. 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." J-v. 32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered."
Joel is talking about Jehovah. Romans is talking about Jesus. Both are Lord. The one and only Lord. When discussing the divinity of Jesus I like to quote Hebrews 1. First in verse 6 God the Father commands the angels to worship the Son. Since God is the only One, as we saw in Isaiah and He commands everyone to worship Him alone in the first commandment, this is a conundrum for anyone who argues that Jesus is "less than," or not God.
The conflict is that either God is schizophrenic, demanding people to engage in two, mutually exclusive actions, or Jesus is truly equal with God. He is indeed God as declared by the Father. If there is "no other God," then an "equal" One would be another one. This cannot occur logically, theologically, or in any kind of reasoning format.
And the second statement in Hebrews 1 is totally devastating to the denial of Jesus' divinity. Verse 8: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...." God the Father called Jesus, "O God." I have discussed this with cult followers and even used their translation of Hebrews. (I guess their "editors" have not thought to remove it yet.) As we discussed it, he argued that he did not believe that it really said that Jesus was God.
"What does it say?" I asked.
"Well, I don't know, but it does not say that," was his reply. Repeated inquiries yielded the same result. He couldn't produce an alternative meaning without repudiating his translation, but refused to accept what even that translation said. What an uncomfortable situation. He didn't believe his own version of the Bible. (Is that like schizophrenic?) How many "other mistakes" does it have? (Answer: Lots.)
Now Philippians reaffirms that Jesus is truly God. "Every knee will bow" to God the Father, as noted in Isaiah. And Philippians declares that the bowing and confessing will be to Jesus, the Messiah. If our friend Lee Strobel were to write a book on this, which he did, it could be named, "The Case for Christ. He is God."
It is not plagiarism even though it declares that Jesus is God, which is not a new idea. It suffuses the entire Scripture, from the Old Testament through the New. We saw another example of it today.
Jesus is Lord. Every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45:23&version=HCSB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:11&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+1&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A16&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10%3A9-13&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel+2:32&version=NASB
Preemptive Addendum. Here this post is not yet published and there is more. Hence the designation, preemptive. My son is preaching on John 1, a very pertinent passage to this discussion, which you noticed I avoided. This whole argument can be supported by John, but some doubters are inured to those Scriptures. So I chose more to show it is not a fluke or misprint or a "mis-translation.". The thoughts here are presented with recognition of and appreciation to Erwin Lutzer and Walter Martin. (For clarity, my responses are not marked by quotation marks. This is slightly abridged with verses cited only.)
Discussion on a Doorstep
"Hi! We are from the Watchtower and would like to talk to you about the Bible."
Great, glad to see you! (Match enthusiasm.) You are a witness for Jehovah and I am a worshiper of Jehovah. I would love to talk to you about that.
You know that Jehovah, in the Old Testament, declared that He is the only God and, in the first commandment, we are to worship Him and Him only. (Nods all around.) Part of "worship" is to obey Him, wouldn't you agree? (Keep them involved.)
Do you know Isaiah 45:22, 23? Do you have a Bible there handy? (Use theirs, not your own.) Look at that. Someday everyone will "bow the knee, and confess Him." (You can discuss the earlier phrases for emphasis.) Imagine that! The entire world will worship Jehovah. What a day!
Did you know that this verse is repeated in the New Testament? Look at Romans 14:11. Same thing, isn't it? Here is something interesting. It is repeated a second time in the New Testament. Look at Philippians 2:11.
Are you confused? Isaiah and Romans say every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jehovah, and here Paul says the same thing about Jesus. How can that be?
Maybe we can find an answer in that first chapter of...(watch them start for John)...the book that talks about God a lot. Hebrews. Look at verse 6 where the Father instructs the angels to worship the Son. That is Jesus, according to verse 5.
That goes along with Philippians, and Isaiah, and Romans, doesn't it? "Bow and confess" are acts of worship. And why? Look at verse 8. Jesus, the Son, is called God, by Jehovah, the Father.
I worship Jehovah and that means to obey Him. Right? So let's obey Jehovah and worship Jesus right now. (Kneel.) Please join me. Everyone will do so sometime. I want to do it willingly, and not under force and compulsion.
(Pray) Dear Jesus, my Heavenly Father, Jehovah, commanded me to worship You. I (gladly) worship You today. Thank you for being my Savior. Amen. (Straight in the eye.) Is Jesus your Savior? He promised that He would be, if you just ask Him.
John 3:16 is Jehovah's promise that "anyone exercising faith in Him" (They forgot to capitalize "Him" but we can look at that later.)"will not be destroyed but have everlasting life." And Jehovah promised to save anyone who believed in Him. Joel 2:32
Since Jehovah called Jesus God, and commanded us to worship Him, and recalling that there is only One God, does our "believing or exercising faith in Him" have to include the acceptance of Jesus as God? Remember back in Isaiah where Jehovah said "Turn to Me and be saved?" And John says that believing in Jesus is how to be saved. And Joel does too.
So if I do not believe in Jesus, will I be saved? No. Will you? Let's pray and believe.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Tongues of Angels
Paul uses some of the most picturesque and beautiful language that can be imagined in 1 Corinthians 13. "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...." King James says "Though I speak...." Tongues of men and angels. Doesn't that soar and raise your spirits with it? It just rolls off the tongue and thrills us. Speaking of tongues, does that, as some have asserted, define a "heavenly or angelic" language that is above the plane of plain talk? Ask an expert.
"Moody Bible Commentary," on this verse explains that whenever angels talk in Scripture it is in a language that the hearer can understand. What need would there be for "another language?" Angels can probably communicate with each other telepathically, if such a thing exists in the angelic realm.
Would it seem that Paul was speaking metaphorically, poetically to convey his message? Let's look at it all.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (And profits the poor nothing as well.)
His word pictures are extreme, aren't they? "Noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Those do not convey much of a message, do they? They certainly are "attention getters," but do not go beyond that in the communication department. It appears that there is an element of exaggeration in the second half of each couplet.
Does exaggeration persist throughout the thought? "The gift of prophesy" is certainly a valid gift. But look at the extension: "Know all mysteries and all knowledge...." Whoa! That goes a little beyond what anyone has received. A human brain is literally not capable of possessing all knowledge. Go on. "All faith," for some may be an achievable level, but "remove mountains" may be a little bit of a stretch for most of us.
Notice the pattern. It is "normal or natural," followed by extraordinary. "Tongues of angels, all mysteries and all knowledge, remove mountains." It seems to follow in the final couplet: "give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned...." Feeding the poor is certainly a normal activity, but although being burned is possible, but it certainly is an extreme level of commitment. And it will not help feed anyone. (Don't go there!) All of the normal expressions are useful, helpful. The extensions are extreme, perhaps a little self praising. They are certainly not effective or profitable: "clanging cymbal, nothing, profits nothing."
Context is helpful here. If we do the normal and even if we go extremely above and beyond, yet do not have love, it is all wasted and futile. Paul's point is not that we speak with angels' tongues, know all mysteries and knowledge, move mountains, or sacrifice our lives, but that we love. Instead of going way out of reality, just do this simple, though difficult, we know, task. "Love your neighbor." (Leviticus 19:18)
Finally, is there a crack in the door to let in "angels' tongues?" Think back to the other comparisons. Knowing everything, moving mountains, offering a literal, and personal burnt sacrifice, do not seem to be the intent of the language, if indeed they are possible. They are defined in the end as "not profitable."
All of the final components of the couplets seem to be hyperbole merely for the sake of effect and not as an instruction. Speaking with tongues of men is a pretty difficult challenge for me. Incidentally, the "tongues" gift was for the evangelism of the foreign speakers. The angels do not need to be evangelized. And if we need to communicate with them, as did several guys in the Scripture, a human language seemed to work satisfactorily. There is not a shortage of people with whom to share the message, in our own language, or theirs. There is no need for an added burden or barrier.
Speak with the tongues of men, prophesy, have faith, feed the poor. That should keep us busy until the Lord comes
"Moody Bible Commentary," on this verse explains that whenever angels talk in Scripture it is in a language that the hearer can understand. What need would there be for "another language?" Angels can probably communicate with each other telepathically, if such a thing exists in the angelic realm.
Would it seem that Paul was speaking metaphorically, poetically to convey his message? Let's look at it all.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (And profits the poor nothing as well.)
His word pictures are extreme, aren't they? "Noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Those do not convey much of a message, do they? They certainly are "attention getters," but do not go beyond that in the communication department. It appears that there is an element of exaggeration in the second half of each couplet.
Does exaggeration persist throughout the thought? "The gift of prophesy" is certainly a valid gift. But look at the extension: "Know all mysteries and all knowledge...." Whoa! That goes a little beyond what anyone has received. A human brain is literally not capable of possessing all knowledge. Go on. "All faith," for some may be an achievable level, but "remove mountains" may be a little bit of a stretch for most of us.
Notice the pattern. It is "normal or natural," followed by extraordinary. "Tongues of angels, all mysteries and all knowledge, remove mountains." It seems to follow in the final couplet: "give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned...." Feeding the poor is certainly a normal activity, but although being burned is possible, but it certainly is an extreme level of commitment. And it will not help feed anyone. (Don't go there!) All of the normal expressions are useful, helpful. The extensions are extreme, perhaps a little self praising. They are certainly not effective or profitable: "clanging cymbal, nothing, profits nothing."
Context is helpful here. If we do the normal and even if we go extremely above and beyond, yet do not have love, it is all wasted and futile. Paul's point is not that we speak with angels' tongues, know all mysteries and knowledge, move mountains, or sacrifice our lives, but that we love. Instead of going way out of reality, just do this simple, though difficult, we know, task. "Love your neighbor." (Leviticus 19:18)
Finally, is there a crack in the door to let in "angels' tongues?" Think back to the other comparisons. Knowing everything, moving mountains, offering a literal, and personal burnt sacrifice, do not seem to be the intent of the language, if indeed they are possible. They are defined in the end as "not profitable."
All of the final components of the couplets seem to be hyperbole merely for the sake of effect and not as an instruction. Speaking with tongues of men is a pretty difficult challenge for me. Incidentally, the "tongues" gift was for the evangelism of the foreign speakers. The angels do not need to be evangelized. And if we need to communicate with them, as did several guys in the Scripture, a human language seemed to work satisfactorily. There is not a shortage of people with whom to share the message, in our own language, or theirs. There is no need for an added burden or barrier.
Speak with the tongues of men, prophesy, have faith, feed the poor. That should keep us busy until the Lord comes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)