Did you ever notice and lament that the Bible does not specifically refute any specific heresy? Wouldn’t it be nice, for instance, if it specifically said something like, “Abortion is wrong?” Or maybe a specific rebuke to those who deny the Trinity?
But, if it did that, then any oddball idea that was not specifically refuted could claim that since it wasn’t mentioned, it must be okay. (Incidentally, a lot of the erroneous ideas do claim that now, but without any probative force. If a grocery list of errors were included, those omitted would have a more powerful and persuasive position.)
Instead, the Bible just presents good doctrine and allows that to decimate false teaching. Aside: The US government trains forgery agents to recognize fake bills by having them study genuine ones. If they know the real thing well enough, a forgery jumps out at them like monopoly money. The Holy Spirit, in inspiring the writers to record God’s message did the same thing. He imbedded Truth into the body of the text so that it would point out error as we read.
Here is a new example. Hebrews 7:23 and 24 in describing the Priesthood of Jesus says:
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
Did something jump out at you? The author of Hebrews was comparing Jesus and his priestly ministry to that of Melchizedek in Genesis 14. He noted that the Levitical priests died and did not continue their ministry. But that Jesus will continue forever to be a priest, the Priest. That idea is continued for a couple of chapters, but the focus today is this phrase: “He continues forever....”
That was just casually stated as if it were no big deal. And to the writer, it was not. He knew that Jesus was eternal, and would never die. In fact, He had always existed. That, my friends, is one of the attributes of God. The chapter headings and explanations are not inspired text, but often help to point us to the truth. Chapter 7, in my Bible, is introduced by, “Melchizedek’s Priesthood Like Christ’s.” Notice the order listed. Melchizedek was LIKE Christ. But Jesus didn’t show up until the New Testament, and as we noted, Mel was in Genesis 14.
Even the chapter titles point to the eternality of the Lord. Notice that I used the Name, Lord. We will circle back to that later. I will briefly list six references that explicitly state that He is eternal. Let’s begin with Habakkuk 1:12.
Are You not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One?
Isaiah 26:4
“Trust in the Lord forever, For in God the Lord, we have an everlasting Rock.
Psalm 48:14
For such is God, Our God forever and ever; He will guide us until death.
Psalm 93:2
Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting.
Deuteronomy 32:39, 40
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. 40 ‘Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever....’”
Jude 25
...to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Clear, unmistakable, incontestable, unimpeachable, and explicit would be a simple way to describe that argument. God is, and claims to be eternal. So when Hebrews says that Jesus is eternal, well, I guess that kind of hints at the Trinity, doesn’t it? In fact a careful reading of those verses also interchanges the Name “Lord” with “God” almost deliberately, it would seem. This is not just a single “proof text” to point out that Jesus is God, it is woven into the warp and woof of the text from Deuteronomy to Jude. And more, if we wanted to explore it.
This does not merely represent an assumption that it is true, hoping to sneak it in under the radar. It is a bold, declarative statement. Any doubt of this must include a dismissal of massive portions of the body of Scripture. That is a dangerous theological and spiritual path. It only leads to disaster and destruction.
So the Bible does not specifically warn us against following a “Moses cult.” I made that up years ago in a discussion and just recently I discovered that there is, indeed, a Moses cult. (Maybe I ought to get royalties.) (Nah.) They take the first five books of the Bible and discount the rest. Guess they forgot to read them. Just in passing, “Thou shalt have no other gods before (beside) Me.” Ignoring the other 61 books in favor of Moses is placing him above the LORD. Busted!
That is beside the point. Specific pronouncements against a false doctrine are not necessary. Even such things as idol worship are not singled out for specific denunciation. God does declare that some of the more egregious ones are abominable to Him, but that is just in the context of claiming that He is The One and Only God. And just in case you missed the point, He will single out specific grievous and heinous examples of false gods. Ravi Zacharias points out that there are millions of gods in Indian religions. So God lumps them all into one trash bin. He does the same with false doctrines.
The Bible continues to be the best commentary on what the Bible says.
FYI. This list is not exhaustive. Just representative.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Thursday, October 3, 2019
Crazy Forgiveness
A black man was killed in his apartment by a lady who mistakenly went to his apartment thinking it was hers. Upon seeing an “intruder” she shouted for him to get down. He did not and she shot him. Oh by the way, the lady who shot him was an off duty, but still uniformed Dallas police officer.
Numerous “rabble rousers” (is that too strong a word? Is it racist?) Rabble rousers claim that the conviction of this woman for murder and her subsequent forgiveness by the victim’s brother sends a bad message. Connecting this situation with the protests of police officers shooting black men, seems to be a stretch. This discussion will ignore the particulars of the case. It is over and done with. Nothing can change the facts.
The shooter has been convicted and sentenced to prison. The “justice or injustice” of the sentence is not our topic. Something that happened after the sentencing is our focus today. The brother of the innocent victim stated, in court, that he forgave the person who shot his brother and even requested permission to give her a hug. At this point we want to deliberately ignore race, politics, and cultural norms.
Here is a person who, besides the victim himself, is probably the second most wounded member of the family and the society. His mother was hurt the most.
But for the victim’s brother to forgive the shooter is a mark of more than magnanimity and graciousness. It is an example of a love that is greater than we can generate in ourselves. Brandt Jean demonstrated the level of love that Jesus commanded His followers to exhibit. Here is the crux of the story. (https://www.newsweek.com/botham-jean-brother-bryant-offers-forgiveness-hug-amber-guyger-dallas-1462868)
In an emotional statement, 18-year-old Brandt Jean told former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for Botham's (Jean) death, that if she was "truly sorry...I forgive you. And, I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you too."
Brandt said that while he could not speak on behalf of his family, he wanted to offer Guyger his personal forgiveness, saying: "I love you just like anyone else and I'm not gonna say I hope you rot and die, just like my brother did, but I personally want the best for you."
"I wasn't gonna ever say this in front of my family or anyone, but I don't even want you to go to jail," Brandt said. "I want the best for you because I know that's exactly what Botham would want you to do and the best would be, give your life to Christ...Again, I love you as a person and I don't wish anything bad on you," he stressed.
His final statement summarized how he could do that. He had received forgiveness for his sins and was passing that along to people with whom he intersected, either for good or bad. And, expectedly, the backlash was instant and vituperous.
Rev. Cornell William Brooks (@CornellWBrooks) October 3, 2019: In an interview with Newsweek, Brooks expanded on his statements, asserting that Guyger's 10-year-sentence already "seems to send the wrong signal."
"The signal it sends is not that black lives matter, but that black lives either don't matter or matter less."
"You have black people who have received 10 years for selling marijuana. She gets 10 years for killing a person," he said. "The message that this sentence sends is that, literally, your life is worth nothing on the street and less than nothing in your own home."
And in an ultimate backhanded compliment, he continued.
Those celebrating Brandt's gesture towards his brother's killer, Brooks said, should understand that his act of forgiveness "says everything about his character and nothing about hers."
"She wasn't given forgiveness based on what she deserved, but, rather, what Brandt Jean thought she needed, according to his faith," he said. "So, in other words, forgiveness here is not something that she purchased by virtue of her character, but rather something she was given by virtue of the character of Botham Jean's brother."
Amen, brother. That is the best thing he said in the entire interview. Too bad he didn’t quit while he was ahead.
"The danger, however, here, is that the forgiveness of black folks is used as a permission slip for police brutality, a permission slip for racial profiling and a permission slip for racial disparities," Brooks said.
Am I overreacting in reading into this that “black folks” shouldn’t do such a noble and loving thing in order to avoid the appearance of sanctioning “police brutality, ...racial profiling, ...and racial disparities?” It seems like Brandt should have not done this in order to perpetuate the narrative that Brooks is condemning. By “letting her off the hook,” he betrayed his family, his race, and the culture’s obsession with the three pronged indictment of society.
Brooks is in error in his understanding of forgiveness. Forgiveness does not excuse, condone, or sanction anything that was done. When we forgive someone who has wronged us, it is not for my his sake. It is for me. I am set free from the hurt, anger, and even hatred for the one who perpetrated the wrong. He, or in this instance, she is still liable for the penalty which the jury imposed on her.
A second comment was made by his mother:
"What Brandt did was to cleanse his heart towards Amber … I do not want it to be misconstrued as complete forgiveness of everybody."
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/03/amber-guyger-hug-forgiveness-courtroom-and-its-many-meanings/3851088002/)
She almost understood it. What Brandt did reflects his commitment to his Savior, Christ, and his commitment to follow and honor Him. If he can forgive someone who took what was probably his closest friend on earth, he demonstrated that lesser offenses would also be forgiven. Notice again, not exonerated, excused, nor eliminated. But in his mind and life, they are not as important as what he has in Christ. Since Jesus forgave him and gave him eternal life, it is only understandable that he would offer that same largess to others. I want to be in his crowd.
(Incidentally, the jury that convicted and sentenced him was made up of women and people of color. https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/dallas-shooting-amber-guyger-botham-jean-1.37055573)
By offering her forgiveness, he set himself free. Pray for this man as he navigates the rest of his life. I cannot wait to see how many will experience the impact of his life and action.
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
Matthew 6:14-15 explains for us.
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
After the sentencing hearing and judgment, two people left the courtroom left the court room free: Ex-officer Guyger and Brandt Jean. She was not free from prison, but she was released from the prison of guilt and remorse. And he was released from the prison of resentment and bitterness.
Numerous “rabble rousers” (is that too strong a word? Is it racist?) Rabble rousers claim that the conviction of this woman for murder and her subsequent forgiveness by the victim’s brother sends a bad message. Connecting this situation with the protests of police officers shooting black men, seems to be a stretch. This discussion will ignore the particulars of the case. It is over and done with. Nothing can change the facts.
The shooter has been convicted and sentenced to prison. The “justice or injustice” of the sentence is not our topic. Something that happened after the sentencing is our focus today. The brother of the innocent victim stated, in court, that he forgave the person who shot his brother and even requested permission to give her a hug. At this point we want to deliberately ignore race, politics, and cultural norms.
Here is a person who, besides the victim himself, is probably the second most wounded member of the family and the society. His mother was hurt the most.
But for the victim’s brother to forgive the shooter is a mark of more than magnanimity and graciousness. It is an example of a love that is greater than we can generate in ourselves. Brandt Jean demonstrated the level of love that Jesus commanded His followers to exhibit. Here is the crux of the story. (https://www.newsweek.com/botham-jean-brother-bryant-offers-forgiveness-hug-amber-guyger-dallas-1462868)
In an emotional statement, 18-year-old Brandt Jean told former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for Botham's (Jean) death, that if she was "truly sorry...I forgive you. And, I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you too."
Brandt said that while he could not speak on behalf of his family, he wanted to offer Guyger his personal forgiveness, saying: "I love you just like anyone else and I'm not gonna say I hope you rot and die, just like my brother did, but I personally want the best for you."
"I wasn't gonna ever say this in front of my family or anyone, but I don't even want you to go to jail," Brandt said. "I want the best for you because I know that's exactly what Botham would want you to do and the best would be, give your life to Christ...Again, I love you as a person and I don't wish anything bad on you," he stressed.
His final statement summarized how he could do that. He had received forgiveness for his sins and was passing that along to people with whom he intersected, either for good or bad. And, expectedly, the backlash was instant and vituperous.
Rev. Cornell William Brooks (@CornellWBrooks) October 3, 2019: In an interview with Newsweek, Brooks expanded on his statements, asserting that Guyger's 10-year-sentence already "seems to send the wrong signal."
"The signal it sends is not that black lives matter, but that black lives either don't matter or matter less."
"You have black people who have received 10 years for selling marijuana. She gets 10 years for killing a person," he said. "The message that this sentence sends is that, literally, your life is worth nothing on the street and less than nothing in your own home."
And in an ultimate backhanded compliment, he continued.
Those celebrating Brandt's gesture towards his brother's killer, Brooks said, should understand that his act of forgiveness "says everything about his character and nothing about hers."
"She wasn't given forgiveness based on what she deserved, but, rather, what Brandt Jean thought she needed, according to his faith," he said. "So, in other words, forgiveness here is not something that she purchased by virtue of her character, but rather something she was given by virtue of the character of Botham Jean's brother."
Amen, brother. That is the best thing he said in the entire interview. Too bad he didn’t quit while he was ahead.
"The danger, however, here, is that the forgiveness of black folks is used as a permission slip for police brutality, a permission slip for racial profiling and a permission slip for racial disparities," Brooks said.
Am I overreacting in reading into this that “black folks” shouldn’t do such a noble and loving thing in order to avoid the appearance of sanctioning “police brutality, ...racial profiling, ...and racial disparities?” It seems like Brandt should have not done this in order to perpetuate the narrative that Brooks is condemning. By “letting her off the hook,” he betrayed his family, his race, and the culture’s obsession with the three pronged indictment of society.
Brooks is in error in his understanding of forgiveness. Forgiveness does not excuse, condone, or sanction anything that was done. When we forgive someone who has wronged us, it is not for my his sake. It is for me. I am set free from the hurt, anger, and even hatred for the one who perpetrated the wrong. He, or in this instance, she is still liable for the penalty which the jury imposed on her.
A second comment was made by his mother:
"What Brandt did was to cleanse his heart towards Amber … I do not want it to be misconstrued as complete forgiveness of everybody."
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/03/amber-guyger-hug-forgiveness-courtroom-and-its-many-meanings/3851088002/)
She almost understood it. What Brandt did reflects his commitment to his Savior, Christ, and his commitment to follow and honor Him. If he can forgive someone who took what was probably his closest friend on earth, he demonstrated that lesser offenses would also be forgiven. Notice again, not exonerated, excused, nor eliminated. But in his mind and life, they are not as important as what he has in Christ. Since Jesus forgave him and gave him eternal life, it is only understandable that he would offer that same largess to others. I want to be in his crowd.
(Incidentally, the jury that convicted and sentenced him was made up of women and people of color. https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/dallas-shooting-amber-guyger-botham-jean-1.37055573)
By offering her forgiveness, he set himself free. Pray for this man as he navigates the rest of his life. I cannot wait to see how many will experience the impact of his life and action.
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
Matthew 6:14-15 explains for us.
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
After the sentencing hearing and judgment, two people left the courtroom left the court room free: Ex-officer Guyger and Brandt Jean. She was not free from prison, but she was released from the prison of guilt and remorse. And he was released from the prison of resentment and bitterness.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Old Testament “I Love Lucy”
Years ago, many years ago to be frank, there was an episode of the TV show “I Love Lucy” that depicted her taking a job as a representative of “Vitameatavegemin,” a health supplement that had vitamins, meat, vegetables, and minerals. The skit involved her shilling the benefits of the product, and, to prove the point, she took a big spoonful. As the tryout/practice continued, Lucy consumed a significant portion of the elixir. And, as soon became evident, the potion was very potent.
Well, you can guess the results. At first she grimaced and frowned at the taste. Then as the session continued, she began to exhibit the characteristics of inebriation. That skit came to mind while reading Isaiah 28. Check it out.
Woe to the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim, And to the fading flower of its glorious beauty, Which is at the head of the fertile valley Of those who are overcome with wine! 2 Behold, the Lord has a strong and mighty agent; As a storm of hail, a tempest of destruction, Like a storm of mighty overflowing waters, He has cast it down to the earth with His hand. 3 The proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim is trodden under foot. 4 And the fading flower of its glorious beauty, Which is at the head of the fertile valley, Will be like the first-ripe fig prior to summer, Which one sees, And as soon as it is in his hand, He swallows it. 5 In that day the Lord of hosts will become a beautiful crown And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people; 6 A spirit of justice for him who sits in judgment, A strength to those who repel the onslaught at the gate. 7 And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink: The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; They reel while having visions, They totter when rendering judgment. 8 For all the tables are full of filthy vomit, without a single clean place.
Isaiah begins with a little sarcasm. Other skits with Lucy show her becoming progressively more disheveled and incoherent as she continued to consume an alcohol infused product. Isaiah draws attention to the “proud crown” of the drunkards of Ephraim. Some skits showed Lucy with hat askew, stumbling around, mumbling somewhat incoherently. Sounds familiar. Isaiah repeated the description in v. 3 which he called a proud crown. He attributes this spectacle to being overcome with wine. In comparison, the Lord will bring an agent that will overwhelm the nation in another manner. “Ephraim” is another name for the northern kingdom of Israel. Later in the chapter, the nation of Judah is addressed, confirming that Isaiah has both parts of the country in mind.
He also repeats another descriptive phrase: “Woe...to the fading flower of its glorious beauty.” V. 1, 3 The debauchery is taking a toll on the nation and it will be swallowed like the first fig of summer. (V. 4) That exact event occurred in stages between 734 and 724 BC for Israel. Verse 5 inserts a glimpse into the future when the Lord will restore them.
But in the meantime v. 6-8 depict the scene of the beleaguered defenders attempting to repel the invasion. It includes the leaders, the defenders at the gate, the prophet and the priest. Verse 7 describes their behavior and it sounds exactly like our friend Lucy over 2500 years later. They reel with wine and stagger with strong drink. Picture a drunken cadre of soldiers attempting to repel invaders. You get the picture.
Verse 7 describes their demeanor and competence.
They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; They reel while having visions, They totter when rendering judgment.
Imagine a drunken Lucy defending the city, delivering a message of warning, sitting at the judge’s bench rendering decisions. Not an inviting prospect. But it gets worse. Verse 8 describes the environment in their office and even cafeteria.
For all the tables are full of filthy vomit, without a single clean place.
Imagine the stench if the whole place is covered. UGH!
This is more than a screed against the consumption of alcohol. It mirrors the actions and abilities of those who have rejected the Lord. The chapter continues to include the southern kingdom in the indictment, although in not so picturesque language. Ultimately both kingdoms were deported and placed into captivity that lasted for 70 years.
The point of this consideration is that we would be wise to avoid the types of behavior that would lead to a judicial indictment. Negative, profligate, and debauched behavior is often described as acting like a drunken sailor. “Spending like a drunken sailor,” comes to mind. Driving, walking, fighting, generally acting like a drunken sailor is not a commendable or enviable description.
Just for the record, I have enough episodes of staggering, reeling, being confused and tottering without adding an additional instigating or aggravating factor. I have enough trouble navigating life while sober. There is no telling how much damage would result from any other condition.
This is kind of a negative lesson. At least it is a sober (pun intended) reflection on the results of defying and disobeying the Lord. I want to walk a straight line. (Again, pun or allusion intended.) And thank you Johnny Cash.
Have a great, and dry day. And forego Vitameatavegemin.
Well, you can guess the results. At first she grimaced and frowned at the taste. Then as the session continued, she began to exhibit the characteristics of inebriation. That skit came to mind while reading Isaiah 28. Check it out.
Woe to the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim, And to the fading flower of its glorious beauty, Which is at the head of the fertile valley Of those who are overcome with wine! 2 Behold, the Lord has a strong and mighty agent; As a storm of hail, a tempest of destruction, Like a storm of mighty overflowing waters, He has cast it down to the earth with His hand. 3 The proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim is trodden under foot. 4 And the fading flower of its glorious beauty, Which is at the head of the fertile valley, Will be like the first-ripe fig prior to summer, Which one sees, And as soon as it is in his hand, He swallows it. 5 In that day the Lord of hosts will become a beautiful crown And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people; 6 A spirit of justice for him who sits in judgment, A strength to those who repel the onslaught at the gate. 7 And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink: The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; They reel while having visions, They totter when rendering judgment. 8 For all the tables are full of filthy vomit, without a single clean place.
Isaiah begins with a little sarcasm. Other skits with Lucy show her becoming progressively more disheveled and incoherent as she continued to consume an alcohol infused product. Isaiah draws attention to the “proud crown” of the drunkards of Ephraim. Some skits showed Lucy with hat askew, stumbling around, mumbling somewhat incoherently. Sounds familiar. Isaiah repeated the description in v. 3 which he called a proud crown. He attributes this spectacle to being overcome with wine. In comparison, the Lord will bring an agent that will overwhelm the nation in another manner. “Ephraim” is another name for the northern kingdom of Israel. Later in the chapter, the nation of Judah is addressed, confirming that Isaiah has both parts of the country in mind.
He also repeats another descriptive phrase: “Woe...to the fading flower of its glorious beauty.” V. 1, 3 The debauchery is taking a toll on the nation and it will be swallowed like the first fig of summer. (V. 4) That exact event occurred in stages between 734 and 724 BC for Israel. Verse 5 inserts a glimpse into the future when the Lord will restore them.
But in the meantime v. 6-8 depict the scene of the beleaguered defenders attempting to repel the invasion. It includes the leaders, the defenders at the gate, the prophet and the priest. Verse 7 describes their behavior and it sounds exactly like our friend Lucy over 2500 years later. They reel with wine and stagger with strong drink. Picture a drunken cadre of soldiers attempting to repel invaders. You get the picture.
Verse 7 describes their demeanor and competence.
They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; They reel while having visions, They totter when rendering judgment.
Imagine a drunken Lucy defending the city, delivering a message of warning, sitting at the judge’s bench rendering decisions. Not an inviting prospect. But it gets worse. Verse 8 describes the environment in their office and even cafeteria.
For all the tables are full of filthy vomit, without a single clean place.
Imagine the stench if the whole place is covered. UGH!
This is more than a screed against the consumption of alcohol. It mirrors the actions and abilities of those who have rejected the Lord. The chapter continues to include the southern kingdom in the indictment, although in not so picturesque language. Ultimately both kingdoms were deported and placed into captivity that lasted for 70 years.
The point of this consideration is that we would be wise to avoid the types of behavior that would lead to a judicial indictment. Negative, profligate, and debauched behavior is often described as acting like a drunken sailor. “Spending like a drunken sailor,” comes to mind. Driving, walking, fighting, generally acting like a drunken sailor is not a commendable or enviable description.
Just for the record, I have enough episodes of staggering, reeling, being confused and tottering without adding an additional instigating or aggravating factor. I have enough trouble navigating life while sober. There is no telling how much damage would result from any other condition.
This is kind of a negative lesson. At least it is a sober (pun intended) reflection on the results of defying and disobeying the Lord. I want to walk a straight line. (Again, pun or allusion intended.) And thank you Johnny Cash.
Have a great, and dry day. And forego Vitameatavegemin.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Galatians
I just love Romans. Paul lays out the perfect and complete version of Theology 101. He started with God and ended with some interpersonal interactions between believers. In between are layers of theology that cover everything from original sin, to redemption and forgiveness, to the end times. (PS the whole nation of Israel will turn back to God. End of story.)
But the little gem of Galatians kind of hides out farther back in the New Testament. The Gospel that he so carefully delineated in Romans was subject to disruption. Listen to verse 6 of ch 1:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
He continues to declare that it is not really a different gospel, but a fake and that they should not even believe him if he presents an alternative. Pretty strong language there. And, just for the record, he also squelched the idea that even an angel could change or add to what he had delivered. Take that, cults.
Then to again spike any cannons, he outlines his credentials, including the acceptance of his Gospel by Peter and the Jerusalem church elders. (Read other apostles there.) What he preached was indeed from God and they all knew it. My intention is not to walk through the epistle but to hit the high points.
In chapter 3 he declares:
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
And the focus of his concern is revealed. A “works” component has been added to some of the teaching there. It essentially said that we are saved by grace, yes, but that we have to keep ourselves saved by our actions. It even implies that this “finished” salvation provided by Jesus is a little deficient. We can lose it, or take ourselves out of it, or fail to maintain it. Paul’s response was... “Bull hockey!”
Well, he was a little more discrete, “Are you so foolish?” And chapter 3 looks back to Abraham to confirm that it is by faith alone. (V. 6-9) Paul continues to point out that keeping the law is a futile enterprise. No one ever could, and no one ever can. We had to have a substitute, (there’s that word again) to remove the curse from us for failing to complete the transaction of keeping the law.
Verse 15 to the end of chapter 3 is a masterpiece of logic. If no one can alter a human contract unilaterally, then it is preposterous to believe and claim that God’s covenant can be amended. Since no one is able to keep the law, the whole world is “shut up” or bounded by the law so that the promise delivered by Christ can be afforded to everyone. (V. 22) Review quickly. God gave a promise to Abraham, His covenant: righteousness based on faith, and the extension of that promise to the entire world. So if Abraham got the promise by faith, it is ludicrous, literally nonsense to assert that there would be a different formula or recipe for others.
Was the law an enemy antagonist to faith? V. 21 b. Paul’s and my favorite negation: “May it never be!” Me genoito in Greek. That is repeated in Romans 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2.; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11. (I told you Paul liked that. But I digress.) Paul, in his most strenuous language rejected that idea. The law was a tool, a school master to show us what our deficiencies were. A good teacher does not teach the class what they already know. He counters ignorance by teaching what they do not know. (I did that for years. Maybe I still do.)
Then in chapter 4 he extends the argument. An heir, the son of the land owner, is like a slave when he is a child. Both are under guardians and masters until the date that the father has designated for the son’s identification as such, or to use a Biblical term, adoption. Then the son has full privileges and responsibilities of ownership and leadership in the family.
We have received the adoption as sons (4:5) and now are full participants in His family. Verse 9 presents Paul’s anguish:
But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, (been adopted into the family as the heir-ed) how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Why do you want to return to the tutorship of the slave who “raised” you? The term, “foolish” comes to mind here, once again. Paul’s literal anguish is explained in 4:12-20. Then in chapter 5 Paul gets very stern and pointed.
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Pay attention to what you are asking. Paul then appeals to Jewish history to compare Isaac with Ishmael. One was the son of a slave and the other was the son of Abraham’s wife, and the heir of the Promise that God had given. And for the final comparison, we turn back to Genesis,
“Cast out the bondwoman and her son, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
(That was in Genesis 21.) Do you want to be a slave again?
So Paul points out that people who put themselves back under the law are following an inferior relationship and inheritance. Ishmael got to wander in the wilderness, alone with no father. Isaac lived with his father and inherited the promised blessing. Sounds like an easy choice.
Paul turns to specifics in chapter 5.
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (V. 1)
Slavery is the practice of keeping the law in order to please God. The specific item of dispute was being circumcised. Ironically, some today urge people to keep Jewish traditions and feasts as a means of “walking more closely with the Lord.” There is nothing wrong with observing them, but there is no inherent spiritual value or merit in them either. God doesn’t love us for keeping the feast of whatever any more than He loves those who do not keep it. This is even true for Jews. Ask Michael Rydelnyk, a Messianic Jew. (I suspect that he has read Galatians a time or two.)
Paul concludes the treatise in 5:7:
You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
The “caller” to observe the law and all of its customs was not “Him who calls you.” Don’t go there. But then just in case someone decides that good relations between “brothers” is superfluous to the Christian life, Paul spends the next two chapters outlining our responsibilities to each other. His paragraph headings speak for themselves.
5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit
Then chapter 6 finalizes the mandate to care for others and don’t behave like spoiled brats. And 6:17 is Paul’s final admonishment.
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.
Shape up and don’t cause me so much trouble. What a fantastic lesson in applied theology. Paul wants us to all live like sons and treat others as if we like them. We do. I just love Galatians. I hope you do too.
But the little gem of Galatians kind of hides out farther back in the New Testament. The Gospel that he so carefully delineated in Romans was subject to disruption. Listen to verse 6 of ch 1:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
He continues to declare that it is not really a different gospel, but a fake and that they should not even believe him if he presents an alternative. Pretty strong language there. And, just for the record, he also squelched the idea that even an angel could change or add to what he had delivered. Take that, cults.
Then to again spike any cannons, he outlines his credentials, including the acceptance of his Gospel by Peter and the Jerusalem church elders. (Read other apostles there.) What he preached was indeed from God and they all knew it. My intention is not to walk through the epistle but to hit the high points.
In chapter 3 he declares:
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
And the focus of his concern is revealed. A “works” component has been added to some of the teaching there. It essentially said that we are saved by grace, yes, but that we have to keep ourselves saved by our actions. It even implies that this “finished” salvation provided by Jesus is a little deficient. We can lose it, or take ourselves out of it, or fail to maintain it. Paul’s response was... “Bull hockey!”
Well, he was a little more discrete, “Are you so foolish?” And chapter 3 looks back to Abraham to confirm that it is by faith alone. (V. 6-9) Paul continues to point out that keeping the law is a futile enterprise. No one ever could, and no one ever can. We had to have a substitute, (there’s that word again) to remove the curse from us for failing to complete the transaction of keeping the law.
Verse 15 to the end of chapter 3 is a masterpiece of logic. If no one can alter a human contract unilaterally, then it is preposterous to believe and claim that God’s covenant can be amended. Since no one is able to keep the law, the whole world is “shut up” or bounded by the law so that the promise delivered by Christ can be afforded to everyone. (V. 22) Review quickly. God gave a promise to Abraham, His covenant: righteousness based on faith, and the extension of that promise to the entire world. So if Abraham got the promise by faith, it is ludicrous, literally nonsense to assert that there would be a different formula or recipe for others.
Was the law an enemy antagonist to faith? V. 21 b. Paul’s and my favorite negation: “May it never be!” Me genoito in Greek. That is repeated in Romans 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2.; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11. (I told you Paul liked that. But I digress.) Paul, in his most strenuous language rejected that idea. The law was a tool, a school master to show us what our deficiencies were. A good teacher does not teach the class what they already know. He counters ignorance by teaching what they do not know. (I did that for years. Maybe I still do.)
Then in chapter 4 he extends the argument. An heir, the son of the land owner, is like a slave when he is a child. Both are under guardians and masters until the date that the father has designated for the son’s identification as such, or to use a Biblical term, adoption. Then the son has full privileges and responsibilities of ownership and leadership in the family.
We have received the adoption as sons (4:5) and now are full participants in His family. Verse 9 presents Paul’s anguish:
But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, (been adopted into the family as the heir-ed) how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Why do you want to return to the tutorship of the slave who “raised” you? The term, “foolish” comes to mind here, once again. Paul’s literal anguish is explained in 4:12-20. Then in chapter 5 Paul gets very stern and pointed.
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Pay attention to what you are asking. Paul then appeals to Jewish history to compare Isaac with Ishmael. One was the son of a slave and the other was the son of Abraham’s wife, and the heir of the Promise that God had given. And for the final comparison, we turn back to Genesis,
“Cast out the bondwoman and her son, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
(That was in Genesis 21.) Do you want to be a slave again?
So Paul points out that people who put themselves back under the law are following an inferior relationship and inheritance. Ishmael got to wander in the wilderness, alone with no father. Isaac lived with his father and inherited the promised blessing. Sounds like an easy choice.
Paul turns to specifics in chapter 5.
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (V. 1)
Slavery is the practice of keeping the law in order to please God. The specific item of dispute was being circumcised. Ironically, some today urge people to keep Jewish traditions and feasts as a means of “walking more closely with the Lord.” There is nothing wrong with observing them, but there is no inherent spiritual value or merit in them either. God doesn’t love us for keeping the feast of whatever any more than He loves those who do not keep it. This is even true for Jews. Ask Michael Rydelnyk, a Messianic Jew. (I suspect that he has read Galatians a time or two.)
Paul concludes the treatise in 5:7:
You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
The “caller” to observe the law and all of its customs was not “Him who calls you.” Don’t go there. But then just in case someone decides that good relations between “brothers” is superfluous to the Christian life, Paul spends the next two chapters outlining our responsibilities to each other. His paragraph headings speak for themselves.
5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit
Then chapter 6 finalizes the mandate to care for others and don’t behave like spoiled brats. And 6:17 is Paul’s final admonishment.
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.
Shape up and don’t cause me so much trouble. What a fantastic lesson in applied theology. Paul wants us to all live like sons and treat others as if we like them. We do. I just love Galatians. I hope you do too.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Cleansing
When rain falls, it hits the highest peaks first. That said, a cleaning process logically and logistically begins with the highest elements and progresses down the body of the object to be cleaned. When God cleans His church, the same principle will apply. The “highest” or most prominent and quite possibly the most Christ-like will experience the cleansing bath before anyone else.
Ironically, this came to mind in a dream. I was addressing a group of camp counselors and their charges. I do not remember the topic or passage from which I was speaking, (probably a good thing, now that I think about it) but as we progressed through the message a number of the leaders began to express repentance and contrition. Some merely wept quietly, while others got up and went to the altar and knelt. This was followed by others doing the same or approaching each other, whispering a few seconds, then embracing, often with tears.
The lesson didn’t seem to be that profound when I wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was using it in a mighty way. Now, mind you, this was a dream. But it made me think of two real-life situations. First, is the real predicament with which the church faces both the society in general and the coming future. And our second situation is this world itself. God’s message has been discarded and disregarded for decades. Is there hope?
Several pastors have recently discussed revival and, to a man, they commented that no revival in history has commenced without a movement of prayer preceding it. And we will not experience revival without prayer. A Christian radio network pauses every day at 12:00 to remind us to pray for our world, our country, our church, and our family. They present striking examples of how prayer “worked” in the past, and challenge us to emulate that posture today in our situation.
Weather disasters, military defeats, and spiritual confusion are just some of the examples cited. We literally face all of those things today. Our country, our churches severally and Church corporately, and our families are struggling with issues that seem unprecedented in history.
The second thing about revival after being introduced by prayer is that it “hits the highest peaks” first. Revival will begin at the top and wash down. The time for Jesus to return is drawing near. And, like the rain, the realization of His work will fall on the highest peaks first.
I grew up on a farm with a small septic tank. (This will tie into our thought, just hand on.) In an attempt to not overfill and thus cause a “toxic or noxious” spill, we conserved water. One way we did that was the washing machine did not empty into the septic system. It discharged out back under a tree, which I am sure benefited from the phosphates in the detergent. But I digress.
The practical application was that when we took baths, we shared the water, again to avoid overtaxing the capabilities of the limited septic system. And the smallest, and usually the cleanest, took their baths first, then we older, dirtier ones took ours last. God the Holy Spirit will begin to cleanse His family, the church. He will address the “cleaner” ones first, then progress down (literally) the line to the rest of us.
But the key issue is that He will clean us and prepare us for His service. This is our second point of application. This world is drying up and dying like the tomato plant that we put in our yard. We got a few plum-sized fruit from it, and the tomato lover was pleased with the crop. But the end is coming, both for that plant and for the world. The Lord is at the door. The angel is holding his trumpet to announce His return. 1 Corinthians 15:52
...in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
That refers to His coming for the church, then seven years later He will return, with His church, all dressed in white to cleanse the world of those who reject Him. (Revelation 19:11, 14) That is just like the Flood in Noah’s day. What a spectacle! The Groom comes riding on a white charger and His Bride, in full regalia, that is a wedding gown, comes riding behind!
(Historical disclaimer. I think it was Queen Victoria in 1840 who began the tradition of a bride wearing a white gown. But she surely did not invent the concept. It was right there in Revelation. She merely copied it. That said, the “bride” in Revelation will probably not be wearing a “ball gown” such as we have come to expect at weddings. The white clothes, representing purity are not a vestige of historical interpretation. They are real. And they are the focus of our thoughts.)
(Second disclaimer. I heard a guy saying that “the last trump” (KJV) is the current President. He is a Trump. Can you say, “Bo-gus!” with gusto and disgust? The trumpet in Corinthians is a literal trumpet. My Dad called me son, but I did not light up the world. A coincidence in names is not a prophetic revelation. Don’t be foolish. Nuff said.
(Well maybe one more thing. I was dating a girl in college named Joy and she dumped me. I talked to my counselor and told him that I had just that morning read a verse that said, “...that I may finish my course with joy.” (Acts 20:24) That was a promise, I claimed, that Joy and I would live life together. “Nope,” (you dope, he didn’t say) “that is just a coincidence in words. It is not a prophetic comment.” Read the Bible carefully, but intelligently. Now nuff said.)
Back to cleansing. Purity begins at the top. Personal note: I wash my hair and head first, then down to the trunk and armpits, followed by, uh, well you know, then the legs and feet. TMI, probably. Top-down is the point. The pure church will be produced by cleansing from the top down. Pray for our leaders, that they will experience the cleansing of the Holy Spirit. Then we open ourselves to His purifying touch. Finally, let the “cleansing bath” wash all over the society and world.
John finished his survey of coming things with, “Even so come, Lord Jesus.” Amen and amen. Be clean. (Revelation 22:20)
Ironically, this came to mind in a dream. I was addressing a group of camp counselors and their charges. I do not remember the topic or passage from which I was speaking, (probably a good thing, now that I think about it) but as we progressed through the message a number of the leaders began to express repentance and contrition. Some merely wept quietly, while others got up and went to the altar and knelt. This was followed by others doing the same or approaching each other, whispering a few seconds, then embracing, often with tears.
The lesson didn’t seem to be that profound when I wrote it, but the Holy Spirit was using it in a mighty way. Now, mind you, this was a dream. But it made me think of two real-life situations. First, is the real predicament with which the church faces both the society in general and the coming future. And our second situation is this world itself. God’s message has been discarded and disregarded for decades. Is there hope?
Several pastors have recently discussed revival and, to a man, they commented that no revival in history has commenced without a movement of prayer preceding it. And we will not experience revival without prayer. A Christian radio network pauses every day at 12:00 to remind us to pray for our world, our country, our church, and our family. They present striking examples of how prayer “worked” in the past, and challenge us to emulate that posture today in our situation.
Weather disasters, military defeats, and spiritual confusion are just some of the examples cited. We literally face all of those things today. Our country, our churches severally and Church corporately, and our families are struggling with issues that seem unprecedented in history.
The second thing about revival after being introduced by prayer is that it “hits the highest peaks” first. Revival will begin at the top and wash down. The time for Jesus to return is drawing near. And, like the rain, the realization of His work will fall on the highest peaks first.
I grew up on a farm with a small septic tank. (This will tie into our thought, just hand on.) In an attempt to not overfill and thus cause a “toxic or noxious” spill, we conserved water. One way we did that was the washing machine did not empty into the septic system. It discharged out back under a tree, which I am sure benefited from the phosphates in the detergent. But I digress.
The practical application was that when we took baths, we shared the water, again to avoid overtaxing the capabilities of the limited septic system. And the smallest, and usually the cleanest, took their baths first, then we older, dirtier ones took ours last. God the Holy Spirit will begin to cleanse His family, the church. He will address the “cleaner” ones first, then progress down (literally) the line to the rest of us.
But the key issue is that He will clean us and prepare us for His service. This is our second point of application. This world is drying up and dying like the tomato plant that we put in our yard. We got a few plum-sized fruit from it, and the tomato lover was pleased with the crop. But the end is coming, both for that plant and for the world. The Lord is at the door. The angel is holding his trumpet to announce His return. 1 Corinthians 15:52
...in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
That refers to His coming for the church, then seven years later He will return, with His church, all dressed in white to cleanse the world of those who reject Him. (Revelation 19:11, 14) That is just like the Flood in Noah’s day. What a spectacle! The Groom comes riding on a white charger and His Bride, in full regalia, that is a wedding gown, comes riding behind!
(Historical disclaimer. I think it was Queen Victoria in 1840 who began the tradition of a bride wearing a white gown. But she surely did not invent the concept. It was right there in Revelation. She merely copied it. That said, the “bride” in Revelation will probably not be wearing a “ball gown” such as we have come to expect at weddings. The white clothes, representing purity are not a vestige of historical interpretation. They are real. And they are the focus of our thoughts.)
(Second disclaimer. I heard a guy saying that “the last trump” (KJV) is the current President. He is a Trump. Can you say, “Bo-gus!” with gusto and disgust? The trumpet in Corinthians is a literal trumpet. My Dad called me son, but I did not light up the world. A coincidence in names is not a prophetic revelation. Don’t be foolish. Nuff said.
(Well maybe one more thing. I was dating a girl in college named Joy and she dumped me. I talked to my counselor and told him that I had just that morning read a verse that said, “...that I may finish my course with joy.” (Acts 20:24) That was a promise, I claimed, that Joy and I would live life together. “Nope,” (you dope, he didn’t say) “that is just a coincidence in words. It is not a prophetic comment.” Read the Bible carefully, but intelligently. Now nuff said.)
Back to cleansing. Purity begins at the top. Personal note: I wash my hair and head first, then down to the trunk and armpits, followed by, uh, well you know, then the legs and feet. TMI, probably. Top-down is the point. The pure church will be produced by cleansing from the top down. Pray for our leaders, that they will experience the cleansing of the Holy Spirit. Then we open ourselves to His purifying touch. Finally, let the “cleansing bath” wash all over the society and world.
John finished his survey of coming things with, “Even so come, Lord Jesus.” Amen and amen. Be clean. (Revelation 22:20)
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Dumb and Dumber Is Not Just a Movie
Two articles in the USA Today made me think. They had an emphasis on sexual exploitation and assault on college campuses. One article quoted a counselor who said, “IF you plan on overindulging, talk to your peer group about having somebody responsible look out for you.”
That probably hits at least a level two on the dumb, dumber, dumbest scale. Just planning to overindulge seems a little counter productive. I am going to a smorgasbord and eat two pounds of BBQ ribs. And fries and other stuff as well. Not because I will enjoy it, but because I can. “I paid for this and I’m going to get my money’s worth.” The tummy ache we got as a kid when we binged out on candy, cookies, or ice cream, or all three, seems to be forgotten.
Overindulging on inebriants is even more stupider. First it is a poison. People have and do die from alcohol poisoning. And, not in personal experience, but second hand testimony has informed me that if you do survive, the aftermath makes you wish you were dead.
But the final level of dumbosity, that is one higher than dumbest, is “having someone responsible look out for you.” Think on this for a nanosecond. You all are going out to “par-tay!” The “responsible” person will be in a similar condition to the one being “looked out for.” Jesus said that if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:14) I would surmise that a drunk, watching out for a drunk, will be a little less than worthless. Maybe a lot less.
Nuff said. Then an article farther down the page reported that “Tainted alcohol worries travelers.” It went on to note that several tourist destinations, particularly in Mexico and Puerto Rico have had “guests” poisoned and even killed by methanol also know as wood alcohol that they consumed at a resort. (Maybe they should be signed in as “Victims,” instead of guests.) The first time this happened, it was a surprise. The twenty or thirtieth time is getting deep into the dumb scale.
My dad used to say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” You can make the application here. In both of our stories, we see a level of repeated foolishness that is unnerving. Why are people so dumb? And why are they repeating that folly?
Another thing that Dad taught me was, “What is this for?” Is college or vacation a place to go to get hammered? That is not a sports term referring to how Clemson treated U of A in the last college super bowl. That is a slang term for losing your senses, as in being whacked up side the head by a hammer. If you want to booze it up, stay home where it is relatively safe, providing you have someone to call 911 when you get into life threatening territory.
Or better yet, imbibe a great cinnamon spice tea–hot or cold. It “tastes great and is less filling.” And does not lead to assault or death. Just think of how many news reporters would be out of work if we all did that.
That is “nuff said.”
That probably hits at least a level two on the dumb, dumber, dumbest scale. Just planning to overindulge seems a little counter productive. I am going to a smorgasbord and eat two pounds of BBQ ribs. And fries and other stuff as well. Not because I will enjoy it, but because I can. “I paid for this and I’m going to get my money’s worth.” The tummy ache we got as a kid when we binged out on candy, cookies, or ice cream, or all three, seems to be forgotten.
Overindulging on inebriants is even more stupider. First it is a poison. People have and do die from alcohol poisoning. And, not in personal experience, but second hand testimony has informed me that if you do survive, the aftermath makes you wish you were dead.
But the final level of dumbosity, that is one higher than dumbest, is “having someone responsible look out for you.” Think on this for a nanosecond. You all are going out to “par-tay!” The “responsible” person will be in a similar condition to the one being “looked out for.” Jesus said that if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:14) I would surmise that a drunk, watching out for a drunk, will be a little less than worthless. Maybe a lot less.
Nuff said. Then an article farther down the page reported that “Tainted alcohol worries travelers.” It went on to note that several tourist destinations, particularly in Mexico and Puerto Rico have had “guests” poisoned and even killed by methanol also know as wood alcohol that they consumed at a resort. (Maybe they should be signed in as “Victims,” instead of guests.) The first time this happened, it was a surprise. The twenty or thirtieth time is getting deep into the dumb scale.
My dad used to say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” You can make the application here. In both of our stories, we see a level of repeated foolishness that is unnerving. Why are people so dumb? And why are they repeating that folly?
Another thing that Dad taught me was, “What is this for?” Is college or vacation a place to go to get hammered? That is not a sports term referring to how Clemson treated U of A in the last college super bowl. That is a slang term for losing your senses, as in being whacked up side the head by a hammer. If you want to booze it up, stay home where it is relatively safe, providing you have someone to call 911 when you get into life threatening territory.
Or better yet, imbibe a great cinnamon spice tea–hot or cold. It “tastes great and is less filling.” And does not lead to assault or death. Just think of how many news reporters would be out of work if we all did that.
That is “nuff said.”
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
More on David
We looked at David’s Psalm to his little rescued lamb last time. Further meditation on that story brought up another line of thought. We commented that David cited his rescue of the lamb to Saul when he, David was attempting to convince the King to allow him to challenge the Giant.
Just before this encounter, David’s brother had rebuked him, charging that David was merely curious, looking for some entertainment. (1 Samuel 17:28) He belittled David’s contribution to the family by asking what had happened to the “few sheep in the wilderness.” Actually, David had responsibly left them in the care of another keeper, so he was “doing his job.”
The ironic thing is, that Eliab, the elder brother, was not “doing his job.” Goliath had come out and challenged the men of Israel to battle for 40 days. No one, including David’s soldier brothers, had responded. Then David arrived and was anxious to confront the Philistine who was belittling Israel and berating the God of Israel. This is the point at which Eliab charged David with dereliction of his duties in caring for those “few sheep.”
Based upon Eliab’s response to Goliath, we can surmise that had Eliab been the one in the wilderness with the sheep when the lion and bear attacked, the “few” would have been a couple less in number. David was not a coward. He did not run from lion, bear, or giant. His father Jesse may have not sent him to keep the sheep based only on his being the youngest and thus assigned the more menial tasks, but the father may have recognized the bravery inherent in his youngest son.
Whether David felt fear in his encounters is not known, but bravery is not a lack of fear. Rather it is acting in spite of fear. David not only “acted,” it says that he ran toward the encounter with Goliath. (V. 48) This is an interesting tactic and it possibly unnerved Goliath, causing him to hesitate just a second. A second too long, that is. And you know the rest of the story.
One other interesting sidelight is that this battle tactic was employed by Alexander the Great when he conquered the known world. His soldiers ran toward the enemy, again unnerving them and contributing to the successful defeat of enemy armies. This was even prophesied by Daniel in his dreams. (Daniel 7:6)
After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.
Daniel’s vision was of four beasts that would conquer the world. First was Babylon, the nation in power as he lived. His vision occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, before Daniel saw and interpreted the “handwriting on the wall.” Babylon was overthrown by Medo-Persia which, in turn, fell to Greece represented by the leopard. Then a fourth, a “dreadful and terrifying” beast gained power, and we know that as Rome.
Greece, under Alexander, had overcome enemies by the tactic of running into battle, represented by a leopard with wings. This was reinforced by another vision two years later in chapter 8. This time, the kingdom of Babylon was not represented, but the successor, Medo-Persia characterized by a ram with two horns, one more prominent and larger than the other. (“Medo,” the lesser country and “Persia” the greater.) It “butted” west, north, and south, taking control of all of the land around it. History now identifies this entity as Medo-Persia, the consortium that overthrew Babylon.
Then in v. 5, we find the successor: a goat from the west.
While I was observing, behold, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
Note that the conquering force was “flying,” or moving rapidly. Again a leader is identified by a “conspicuous horn.” The confrontation between the two forces follows in v. 6. (The goat...)
He came up to the ram that had the two horns, which I had seen standing in front of the canal, and rushed at him in his mighty wrath. 7 I saw him come beside the ram, and he was enraged at him; and he struck the ram and shattered his two horns, and the ram had no strength to withstand him. So he hurled him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was none to rescue the ram from his power.
The specific detail of “charging or rushing” the enemy is specified. And the kingdom of Persia was completely destroyed, just as Daniel had predicted about 300 years earlier. (A summary of the decisive battle may be found here. The final analysis was that Alexander lost about 100 men while killing over 300,000 and capturing many more. 301 BC)
David’s and Alexander’s strategy was also seen in the “blitzkrieg” unleashed by Hitler in WWII. Back to David. This teenager, of 16 or 17 as far as we know, began his career by protecting sheep from predators, then battling to the death, a nine-foot-tall opponent. He inaugurated a battle plan that led to many successful campaigns throughout history. And his brother had the temerity to challenge him and his courage.
Seems like the obvious is not always so obvious.
Just before this encounter, David’s brother had rebuked him, charging that David was merely curious, looking for some entertainment. (1 Samuel 17:28) He belittled David’s contribution to the family by asking what had happened to the “few sheep in the wilderness.” Actually, David had responsibly left them in the care of another keeper, so he was “doing his job.”
The ironic thing is, that Eliab, the elder brother, was not “doing his job.” Goliath had come out and challenged the men of Israel to battle for 40 days. No one, including David’s soldier brothers, had responded. Then David arrived and was anxious to confront the Philistine who was belittling Israel and berating the God of Israel. This is the point at which Eliab charged David with dereliction of his duties in caring for those “few sheep.”
Based upon Eliab’s response to Goliath, we can surmise that had Eliab been the one in the wilderness with the sheep when the lion and bear attacked, the “few” would have been a couple less in number. David was not a coward. He did not run from lion, bear, or giant. His father Jesse may have not sent him to keep the sheep based only on his being the youngest and thus assigned the more menial tasks, but the father may have recognized the bravery inherent in his youngest son.
Whether David felt fear in his encounters is not known, but bravery is not a lack of fear. Rather it is acting in spite of fear. David not only “acted,” it says that he ran toward the encounter with Goliath. (V. 48) This is an interesting tactic and it possibly unnerved Goliath, causing him to hesitate just a second. A second too long, that is. And you know the rest of the story.
One other interesting sidelight is that this battle tactic was employed by Alexander the Great when he conquered the known world. His soldiers ran toward the enemy, again unnerving them and contributing to the successful defeat of enemy armies. This was even prophesied by Daniel in his dreams. (Daniel 7:6)
After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.
Daniel’s vision was of four beasts that would conquer the world. First was Babylon, the nation in power as he lived. His vision occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, before Daniel saw and interpreted the “handwriting on the wall.” Babylon was overthrown by Medo-Persia which, in turn, fell to Greece represented by the leopard. Then a fourth, a “dreadful and terrifying” beast gained power, and we know that as Rome.
Greece, under Alexander, had overcome enemies by the tactic of running into battle, represented by a leopard with wings. This was reinforced by another vision two years later in chapter 8. This time, the kingdom of Babylon was not represented, but the successor, Medo-Persia characterized by a ram with two horns, one more prominent and larger than the other. (“Medo,” the lesser country and “Persia” the greater.) It “butted” west, north, and south, taking control of all of the land around it. History now identifies this entity as Medo-Persia, the consortium that overthrew Babylon.
Then in v. 5, we find the successor: a goat from the west.
While I was observing, behold, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
Note that the conquering force was “flying,” or moving rapidly. Again a leader is identified by a “conspicuous horn.” The confrontation between the two forces follows in v. 6. (The goat...)
He came up to the ram that had the two horns, which I had seen standing in front of the canal, and rushed at him in his mighty wrath. 7 I saw him come beside the ram, and he was enraged at him; and he struck the ram and shattered his two horns, and the ram had no strength to withstand him. So he hurled him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was none to rescue the ram from his power.
The specific detail of “charging or rushing” the enemy is specified. And the kingdom of Persia was completely destroyed, just as Daniel had predicted about 300 years earlier. (A summary of the decisive battle may be found here. The final analysis was that Alexander lost about 100 men while killing over 300,000 and capturing many more. 301 BC)
David’s and Alexander’s strategy was also seen in the “blitzkrieg” unleashed by Hitler in WWII. Back to David. This teenager, of 16 or 17 as far as we know, began his career by protecting sheep from predators, then battling to the death, a nine-foot-tall opponent. He inaugurated a battle plan that led to many successful campaigns throughout history. And his brother had the temerity to challenge him and his courage.
Seems like the obvious is not always so obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)