A Year in the Word Together RSS feed

A Giant Question

I received this question this morning and sent the reply that follows it.

Question:

I was wondering about how Saul was told who David was and whose son he was when David first came to minister to him with music (1 Sam 16:18.19) but yet a couple of chapters later after David killed Goliath, Saul had to ask about David's lineage (1 Sam 17:55-58). Maybe it's the forgetfulness that comes as we get older? Unfortunately I am beginning to know that all too well myself. J

Answer:

Yours is a good question because it is a common one. The key to answering it is to focus more closely on Saul’s question—he doesn’t ask who David is, but whose son David is (vv. 55, 56, 58). The reason he asks that question (i.e., trying to find out the name of David’s father) is because of the promise made to the one who kills Goliath. The promise is found in verse 25, “And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.” Notice that last part—“make is father’s house free in Israel.” I think that is the main answer to the question. David kills Goliath, so Saul is asking who his father is so that the David’s family can be made free in Israel.

Holding Out for a Better Offer

The phrase in the title of this post is one usually associated with buying and selling (although sometimes it is used in courtship too!). A potential buyer makes an offer and the seller decides to pass on that offer in the hopes of a better offer down the road. This phrase came to mind this morning when I read Romans 8:25, “But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

The context makes it clear that the initial offer comes to us from the flesh (cf. vv. 12-13). It promises us payment that will satisfy certain of our desires. But because of the Spirit’s presence in our lives, we have the hope of a better offer, “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (v. 23). As long as we live in this present world, there will always be two offers—flesh and Spirit. The tension for us is that the flesh’s offer is already on the table. The “payment” can be delivered immediately. We can see it, smell it, touch it, and taste it. Not so with the Spirit’s offer. “Payment” is future and we cannot see it (cf. v. 24 “for who hopes for what he already sees?”).

Here is the heart of verse 25—our ability to hold out for the better offer is rooted in our hope. Paul ties them together in a cause-effect relationship: “if we hope…we wait eagerly for it.” Hope enables us to wait. The stronger the hope, the more eagerly we wait. So, how do we grow stronger in hope? A lot could be said here, but let me just draw our attention to where Paul started this section of Romans because I think it is the centerpiece of our hope. Back in chapter five, Paul wrote this, “hope does not disappoint because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. ⁶For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (vv. 5-6).

Those two verses introduce themes that Paul returns to in chapter 8: (1) hope (vv. 20, 24-25); (2) the love of God (v. 39; implied in our sonship too, vv. 14-16); (3) the Holy Spirit's presence in us (vv. 9-11, 23); and (4) the death of Christ on our behalf (vv. 3, 11, 32, 34). We could summarize it like this, “Our hope is based on God’s love for us proven by the death of Christ and confirmed by the presence of the Spirit.”

Or, to return to the phrase in the title, we can hold out for that better offer because we are sure it will come—God loves us and will deliver what He promised, having proved that by sending His Son to die in our place and confirmed it by providing the down payment of His Spirit. The strength of our hope is directly connected to our grasp of these incredible truths. That means are ability to say no to the flesh’s offers is tied to our grasp of these truths too. Glorying in God’s love, Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Spirit’s witness to our adoption is the fuel that kindles the fire of hope. When our hearts are satisfied with these, we can hold out for that better offer.

Ichabod and the Sovereignty of God

And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD. Thus the word of Samuel came to all Israel... She said, "The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God was taken." - 1 Samuel 3:21-4:1, 22

The beginning of Samuel 4 brings rays of hope for Israel. The LORD is revealing himself again to them through the young Samuel. He is speaking as a prophet of God, in the stead of God, to Israel. In the atmosphere of a corrupt priesthood and a libertine society (i.e. "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25) , God is raising up another true prophet.

But things took a drastic turn for the worse. Rather than turning to the LORD for deliverance over the Philistines, Israel chose to take the holy ark of the covenant out of its hallowed dwelling in the tabernacle and parade it in battle as a good luck charm. They wanted God's blessing in battle without obedience to His Word.

We read the horrible outcome (slaughter of 34,000 soldiers and capture of the ark) with little surprise. But Israel sure was surprised! The Benjamite's announcement of the defeat and loss of the ark evoked an outcry in Shiloh and the ultimate death of the high priest Eli.

The final four verses of the chapter provide a vivid reminder of how tragically this loss was felt. Eli's daughter-in-law (wife of Phineas, one of his two terrible sons) gave birth prematurely due to the news of her husband and father-in-law's death and the loss of the ark. In the naming of her son she confirmed the depth of Israel's current condition. Ichabod, "the glory has departed," was her conclusion, for "the ark of God has been captured."

It seems that Israel's reaction was, "How can this be? How can the LORD allow his people to be defeated by the Philistines? And worse, how can he allow his ark to be captured?" It was as if the very presence of the LORD fled from their land, no longer able to help them.

With our historical advantage we can go on and read "the rest of the story," to see God's curse on the Philistines, the ark's return to Israel, and its eventual resting place in Jerusalem during David's reign.. But it is helpful for us to stop and wrestle through the theological questions that events like this evoked from Israel. In it we can learn valuable truths about God's character and what our response ought to be to tragic circumstances.

This tension between God's sovereign allowance and man's responsibility reminds me of the first chapter of Tom Wells' A Vision for Missions. Wells tells of two responses by missionaries to the often asked question: "Why did you not come sooner with the gospel message?"

The first response was "The Lord Jesus left orders with the church to take this message everywhere. But the church has been slow in doing it. You know how people are; they do not always do what they are told." This answer focused on man's responsibility; in this case the church's responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus.The second response, by the well-known missionary William Carey, placed the focus on God's sovereignty. When asked nearly the same question by a Brahman in India, Carey answered that at one time it pleased God to keep back the gospel from India. He went on to assert that God has His reasons for doing so; by allowing it to sink deep into sin, His work of saving people out of darkness would display His power and grace all the more brilliantly.

Wells explains that the two answers ought not be categorized as one true and the other false; rather they illustrate two coexistent sides of the issue: man's and God's. The one explains the human cause-effect factor as to why the Brahman had never heard of Jesus or, in our reading, why Israel was defeated and the ark captured. Israel's (and the church's) disobedience resulted in severe consequences. As well, the depravity of the Philistines and the Indians in rejecting the true Creator God must be considered.

Wells warns us, however, to not stop with man's responsibility. "Right here we may make a grave mistake. We may suppose that we have said all that can be said. If we think in this way, we reckon without God. Specifically, we reckon without the sovereignty of God" (17).

Both sides must be given equal treatment, while recognizing God's freedom to intervene on the other side for is sovereign purposes. Wells further develops God's sovereign interaction with man in the rest of the chapter.

Wells concludes by urging believers to realize that " since God reigns...there is something we must say. We must say it as clearly as we say that man has failed. We must say, with William Carey: 1) It pleased God and 2)God has His reasons. There is an instinct in Carey's answer, the instinct to resort to God. How we need that!" (21)

Israel's wicked disobedience of God's commands and their arrogant use of the ark resulted in their defeat and judgment. However, God also had a sovereign plan behind it all. For one, He showed Israel that they cannot place their trust in man-made objects for deliverance, even the holy instruments from the tabernacle. God is not to be worshiped in the same way men worship their idols.

The LORD also used the loss to severely judge the Philistines, proving that just as the ark was not Israel's talisman for victory, so their Dagon idol was not the reason for their victory (5:1-12). As a result of the deathly plagues the LORD inflicted on them, they eventually returned the ark back to Israel (6:1-12).

Whether we are attempting to interpret Old Testament narrative, explain the delay of gospel evangelism to a people group, or properly respond to a family tragedy, we must acknowledge both man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, placing active trust in God's freedom and power to intervene for the sake of His glorious name.

Prayer works!

While reading Acts 23 this morning, I was reminded again of the importance and effectiveness of intercessory prayer. Part of the historical backdrop to what happens with Paul’s rescue in Acts 23 is found in Romans 15:30-32. Before Paul travels back to Jerusalem, he writes to the Romans and asks them to pray for three things: (1) that he may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea; (2) that his service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints; and (3) that he may come to the Romans in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in their company. He is so burdened about these matters that he asks them “to strive together” with him in prayer to God about them.

We’ve been studying prayer on Sunday mornings and I’ve repeatedly emphasized the efficacy of prayer with these words, “prayer works because God designed it to work.” When you compare Romans 15:30-32 with Acts 21-23, you find several clear testimonies to the truthfulness of this statement. Look at those prayer requests again, then consider: (1) that Acts 21:17 says that Luke records that when the missionary team “arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly;” and (2) that Acts 21 and 23 show clearly how God protected Paul by (a) motivating a Roman commander to respond immediately to the riot that broke out; (b) allowing the arrogance of the Jewish leaders to produce a fight among themselves rather than an attack on Paul; and (c) by placing Paul’s nephew in a position to learn of the plot against Paul, then causing both the centurion and commander to listen to the words of this young man. It is really a remarkable chain of events that come together in order to fulfill the prayer request which Paul was making before God’s throne, and for which he had invited the fervent prayers of the Roman believers.

The Apostle clearly believed in the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. He constantly invited others to pray for him, and he described those prayers as an effective instrument used by God to accomplish His purposes. Although he wrote it to the Corinthians, I am sure he would have responded to the Romans who prayed in the same way as he did in 2 Corinthians 1:10-11, God “who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, you also joining in helping us through your prayers, so that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed on us through the prayers of many.” God delivers. We help in that deliverance through prayer. Prayer secures the blessings and results in multiplied thanksgivings.

Our commitment to just about any effort is tied to our belief in its effectiveness. None of us engage fervently and faithfully in what we consider to be fruitless, pointless tasks. Let’s be reminded by the combination of Acts 21-23 and Romans 15:30-32 that God hears the combined prayers of people who may be far removed from each other, but are striving together in prayer for the same purpose, and He acts on behalf of those who wait for Him. Let’s be reminded that the prayers of people comfortably situated in North America can be effective instruments in securing protection for those who are laboring for Christ on the other side of the globe. Let’s be reminded that prayer works because God designed it to work!

Invincible and Entitled

The tragedy of Samson’s life is stunning. He is the poster boy for wasted potential. He had incredible gifts and opportunity, but squandered them by being controlled by his appetites. What he saw, he wanted, and what he wanted he pursued without regard for rightness or risk. Samson’s foolishness would almost seem like a caricature if there were not so many examples, past and present, of people who follow the same pathway. It seems that not many weeks go by without word that some well-known, influential person has walked in the foolish steps of Samson—enticed by his eyes, ensnared by his lusts, and then enslaved to his sins. It’s tempting to provide a list of the foolishness that has been on display, but that might be dangerous because it makes it easier for each of us to think that such foolishness is only possible for others. The seedbed of such incredible moral disasters is right there, in thinking that we could never play the fool like that. “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (1 Cor 10:12).

Matthew Henry, commenting on Samson’s fall, captures the danger for all of us:

See the fatal effects of false security. Satan ruins men by flattering them into a good opinion of their own safety, and so bringing them to mind nothing, and fear nothing; and then he robs them of their strength and honor, and leads them captive at his will. When we sleep our spiritual enemies do not. Samson's eyes were the inlets of his sin (ver. 1) and now his punishment began there. Now the Philistines blinded him, he had time to remember how his own lust had before blinded him. The best way to preserve the eyes, is, to turn them away from beholding vanity. Take warning by his fall, carefully to watch against all fleshly lusts; for all our glory is gone, and our defense departed from us, when our separation to God, as spiritual Nazarites, is profaned.

Samson was full of boundless arrogance and driven by unbridled appetite. He thought he was invincible and entitled to whatever he wanted. What a toxic combination. Samson’s life certainly provides a sobering warning to all who have been entrusted with leadership. Yet, it would be a serious mistake to think that only people with power and privilege need to be warned by his life. Our culture feeds the beasts of arrogance and appetite non-stop, blinding people to the consequences of foolish choices and enslaving them to the pursuit of pleasure. If you think that you are not affected by this, then, friend, you are in great danger. You’ve been flattered, to borrow Henry’s words, into a good opinion of your own safety and need to wake up to the fatal effects of such false security. Let Samson’s tragic life be a warning to us all of how God is dishonored and potential is destroyed when we think too highly of ourselves and allow ourselves to become slaves of our appetites.

Something Bigger than Victory

“God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Cor 1:27b). The center of this divine strategy is the Cross, but you can see God using it from cover to cover in the Scriptures. Gideon’s defeat of the Midianites is a very clear example of it in several ways—Gideon is anything but a confident warrior, the use of only 300 men, and the way in which the victory is actually obtained. That this is a deliberate strategy is clear from what God tells Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, ‘My own power has delivered me’” (Judges 7:2).

That God works in this way is a clear testimony to the fact that victory in battle is not the ultimate objective. If God can defeat Midian with 300, then He certainly could have defeated them with 32,000! The goal is not mere victory, but the kind of victory that exalts the Lord, not Israel. By using the most unconventional and unlikely means, the Lord accomplishes two objectives—the deliverance of Israel (the immediate objective) and the magnification of His own glory (the ultimate objective).

That God’s glory be the ultimate objective is both necessary and beneficial for God’s people. It is necessary because God will not give His glory to anyone or anything else (cf. Isa 42:8). God knew that Israel’s heart would become puffed up and would take credit for the victory, so God designed a way of victory which would leave them no room to boast. And this was a display of God’s kindness to them—by exalting Himself and humbling them, He was doing for them what was in their best interest.

God’s way is to use the weak and inglorious so that His strength and glory are clearly seen. This is for our good. We need to see how great He is so that we are never tempted to trust in ourselves. The temptation to trust in man’s strength and wisdom seems to run throughout the Scriptures, so it must be the evidence of our depravity, not restricted to any particular culture. Yet, it seems that American culture prides itself so much on self-sufficiency and personal accomplishment that we, as believers, are extremely susceptible to the kind of pride that God didn’t want Israel to have. In fact, the brochures for most ministry conferences and the books on how to “build a church” in our day seem to overflow with the very self-confidence that God detests.

Maybe that’s why the church in the US is in such bad shape—our boastful pride over our little victories stands in the way of God’s magnificent work on our behalf. Perhaps the lesson of Gideon’s little army is one that we need to meditate on more carefully.

Follow the Fleece?

Our Bible reading this morning, Judges 6, brought me across the well known account of Gideon and his fleece. This is an action that has been interpreted both positively and negatively. Some think that Gideon’s example is something that we should imitate when we need to know the Lord’s will or need confirmation of what we believe is the Lord’s will. Gideon’s “fleece” becomes a symbol for something that the Lord does to prove His intentions and direction. The basic pattern is like this, “Lord, if you want us to do X, then do Y so that we can know it.” Of course, for Y to really prove the point, it has to be something quite extraordinary like Gideon’s fleece being wet while surrounded by dry, then dry when surrounded by wet. If the “fleece” is easily explainable, then it really doesn’t do much for you.

Others, including me, think that Gideon serves as an example here, but it is not a good one! Gideon was not trying to determine what God’s will was—he already knew. Gideon’s action was really the expression of doubt. His own words, “If You will deliver Israel through me, as You have spoken” (v. 36), show that he already knew not only what God’s will was, but also what God had promised to him. This was not anything like asking the Lord to open doors in front of you if He wants you to proceed in a direction of which you aren’t quite sure. This was asking God to do something to prove that He will keep His promise. Gideon knew God’s will and had a promise from God about his success in accomplishing the task, but Gideon wanted reassurance. That may be natural, but it is not commendable.

Although God graciously accommodates Gideon, what Gideon did really amounts to a violation of Deuteronomy 6:16, “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.” Moses is referring to what happened in Exodus 17 when the people of Israel demanded that God provide water for them in the wilderness. Specifically, verse 7 described their sin in this way, “they tested the LORD, saying, ‘Is the LORD among us, or not?’” The parallel with Gideon’s request seems clear. Israel did not need a sign that the LORD was among them, nor did Gideon need this fleece test. God had already revealed Himself and made promises that were to be trusted, not tested.

Two thoughts struck me as I meditated on this again today: (1) what a gracious God we serve that He patiently deals with Gideon in spite of his doubts and disobedience—“He is mindful that we are but dust” (Ps 103:14b); and (2) what a perfect Savior is Jesus Christ—when tempted by the devil to put His Father to the test by demanding a miracle, He refused on the basis of the very text that Gideon disobeyed (Deut 6:16). That is the example we should follow, not Gideon’s use of a fleece.

Some thoughts from the Bible reading today

1. God’s plan is for male leadership, but when men fail to step up to the task, God often accomplishes His purposes through willing women, e.g., Deborah and Jael step up while Barak is hesitant and lacks faith. The ladies knew that it was the Lord who would win the victory, so they could take Him at His Word. For some reason, Barak thought God could only work if Deborah was involved—a thought that dishonors God by making Him dependent on His servants!

2. I love how Acts 8 ties together the ideas of “the word” and “Christ” throughout the chapter—“preaching the word” (v. 4), “proclaiming Christ” (v. 5), “preaching the good news about…the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 12), “received the word of God” (v. 14), “spoken the word of the Lord” (v. 25), and “beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him” (v. 35). This suggests: (a) that their evangelism was expository in nature, i.e., it exposed the meaning of biblical texts; and, (b) that their evangelistic preaching was Christ-centered, i.e., it was about the person and work of Jesus Christ, not about the hearer’s felt needs or whatever. I was reminded of Paul’s testimony in 2 Corinthians 4:5, “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake.”

An Outline for Praise

The NIV Study Bible has a series of notes regarding today's reading from Psalm 150. The notes provide a brief outline of the chapter – a concise yet powerful chapter on the praise our God deserves. Though some will have already read these notes, I hope my posting them here provides a helpful outline for many others who may not have read them.

Psalm 150: Praise God!

1. Where God should be praised? (verse 1) He should be praised everywhere – in the earth and in the heavens!

2. Why God should be praised? (verse 2) He should be praised for what He does (creation and redemption) and for Who He is (His greatness).

3. How God should be praised? (verses 3-5) He should be praised with everything (all the instruments of the orchestra) and with all of our energy (e.g. notice how the instruments are played).

4. Who should praise God? (verse 6) Everything, everybody, with every breath should praise the Lord.

Maybe there is a sermon here waiting for someone to more fully explore . . . enjoy!

Conquer and Possess

I received this question:

“At the end of Joshua 11 it says that Joshua ‘took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses…’. And yet at the beginning of ch. 13 God tells Joshua that ‘…very much of the land remains to be possessed.’ Can you explain the seeming disconnect?”

To which I replied:

The key here is to recognize the difference between conquering and subduing the land. Most take the statement at the end of chapter of 11 as indicating that Joshua had decisively defeated Israel’s enemies, breaking the back of their resistance and killing their leadership. The statement at the beginning of chapter 13 reflects the fact that, though the land had been conquered, it wasn’t fully subdued it—the Israelites needed to spread throughout the land and occupy it. That process would require skirmishes and fights that would smash all remaining resistance. Here’s a comment from the ESV Study Bible that relates to this:

If the emphasis in the first half of the book of Joshua is on the Lord’s faithfulness in giving Israel the land, it now falls to Israel to prove faithful in taking possession, that is, occupying the territories that will be allocated to them. The words rendered “possess” or “possession” appear with increased frequency in the second half of Joshua….

Christ and the Defeated Kings in Joshua 10

I know that title for this blog post probably doesn’t make sense, but let me explain. As I was reading Joshua 10 this morning, I was struck by verse 26, “So afterward Joshua struck them and put them to death, and he hanged them on five trees; and they hung on the trees until evening.” Joshua needed five trees because he had defeated the five kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (v. 23). It was an incredible victory from the LORD. But the part that struck me was the mention of hanging them on the trees. In part, it struck me because Joshua did the same thing to the king of Ai (cf. 8:29).

The main reason, though, that I found it striking was that it prompted me to think about the glory and offensiveness of the Cross. Remember what Paul writes to the Galatians? “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’” (3:13). Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 to support the fact that Christ became a curse for us by hanging on that tree. For Paul, the glory of the Cross was found in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, but for Paul’s enemies, ancient and present, the idea that Christ became a curse is offensive. And what Joshua did to those defeated kings helps us understand how offensive it was to the Jews.

Hanging on a tree was for convicted criminals and defeated kings, not for the Messiah. Because the Cross has become an ornament and decoration for us, we probably can’t feel the offense of it very well. A Jew, steeped in the Law and Hebrew history, would feel it very much. Moses recorded God’s curse against those hung on a tree, and Joshua put it into practice. Hanging on a tree meant being under God’s curse. Let’s not forget that. Christ on the cross became the curse for us so that we might be redeemed from that curse.

I took no pleasure, this morning, in thinking about the death of these five kings. I was, though, full of amazement again at the grace of God poured out at the Cross. The Cross is an incredible display of humble sacrifice and a message that must be received in humble repentance and faith. To the natural mind, it is foolish and scandalous. To those who are the called, it is the wisdom and power of God. SDG!

Grace and Mercy

“He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:10).

Here is one of the incredible “benefits” (v. 2) given to us by the Lord. The point of the text is that God has not dealt with us as our sins deserve. Even when God deals with our sins, He is not giving us what we deserve for them—the penalty of sin is eternal condemnation. His discipline for His children is very different than His judgment on sin. Discipline comes from a Father who loves His children. Punishment comes from a Judge who meets out justice on criminals.

This text expresses the heart that truly understands God’s mercy, and I wonder if our culture has not dulled our senses to this wonderful truth. We live in a time where the dominant themes focus on our own worthiness (vs. unworthiness) and forgiving ourselves for our past mistakes (vs. seeking forgiveness from God for our sins). Our world doesn’t quite seem to understand that God has done something for us that we don’t deserve—in fact, not only don’t we deserve it, we deserve something far worse. As someone has defined grace, it is unmerited favor to those who merit disfavor. That’s what this text reminds us of—we deserve punishment, but God has given us something completely different. And He didn’t do it because of us, but because of He is compassionate and gracious (v. 8).

Even on the worst of days, I’m doing better than I deserve! “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His holy name.”

He humbles us for our good

“In the wilderness He fed you with manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end” (Deuteronomy 8:16).

This is a text of Scripture to keep close at hand as we go through life! It is fascinating to me, in that I normally think of the manna as this incredible daily miracle (and it was), but the fact that they were dependent on God for their daily food was designed to humble them and put them to the test. How did it humble them? The next verse, v. 17, helps supply the answer, “Otherwise, you may say in your heart, ‘My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.’” The surrounding context is a warning about the danger of satisfaction apart from God and pride that might lead to disobedience (cf. vv. 12, 14). Their daily dependence on God for manna served as a forty year object lesson that they were not self-sufficient, so that they must depend on and be satisfied with the LORD their God.

And that’s why God can say that humbling them and testing them was “to do good for you in the end”—is there any greater good than learning to live in deliberate, daily dependence on God and to walk in obedience to Him? So, when we face testing that humbles us by exposing our weakness and lack of self-sufficiency, let’s consider it a blessing from God, because that’s what it is. He is humbling and testing us and that is good for us in the end.

A Song for Our Day

Psalm 73 is an ancient song, but its relevance is amazing. In a sin-cursed world, the wicked will often prosper in the short run, and the righteous often suffer in the short-run. The psalmist, seeing this, almost falls away from following God. Almost. But he sees two other things that preserve his soul: (1) the ultimate outcome for those who reject God—their prosperity will pass away quickly (vv. 17-20); and (2) the ultimate superiority of God over all things—He is worth more than wealth and health (vv. 25-28).

These two truths are important for us to keep in mind as we walk through a world saturated with materialism and governed by a short-term perspective. Don’t measure life by what people have or how comfortably they live. Those treasures are shallow and short-lived. The nearness of God is better than wealth and health. Knowing that God will guide you in life and then receive you into glory at death is a real treasure. Don’t let the world switch the price tags on you!

Argument in Prayer

Reading Numbers 14 this morning reminded me of a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon called “Order and Argument in Prayer.” Spurgeon mentions the prayer that Moses makes to the Lord in Numbers 14:13-19 as an example of using argument in your prayers. Moses doesn’t just ask God not to destroy the nation, he appeals to God on the basis of God’s own name or reputation before the nations—if Israel dies in the wilderness, then the nations will conclude that God couldn’t keep His promises. Moses grounds his prayer request in God’s glory.

If you’ve not read Spurgeon’s sermon on this subject, let me encourage you to do so (you can find it online here http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0700.htm). Here’s a taste of it that may help in understanding something about the issue of using arguments in our prayers:

Why are arguments to be used at all? is the first enquiry; the reply being, Certainly not because God is slow to give, not because we can change the divine purpose, not because God needeth to be informed of any circumstance with regard to ourselves or of anything in connection with the mercy asked: the arguments to be used are for our own benefit, not for his. He requires for us to plead with him, and to bring forth our strong reasons, as Isaiah saith, because this will show that we feel the value of the mercy. When a man searches for arguments for a thing it is because he attaches importance to that which he is seeking. Again, our use of arguments teaches us the ground upon which we obtain the blessing. If a man should come with the argument of his own merit, he would never succeed; the successful argument is always founded upon grace, and hence the soul so pleading is made to understand intensely that it is by grace and by grace alone that a sinner obtaineth anything of the Lord. Besides, the use of arguments is intended to stir up our fervency. The man who uses one argument with God will get more force in using the next, and will use the next with still greater power, and the next with more force still. The best prayers I have ever heard in our prayer meetings have been those which have been fullest of argument.

Don't be dumb beast!

“Man in his pomp, yet without understanding, is like the beasts that perish” (Psalm 49:20).

What a devastating critique of unredeemed humanity! How sad that so much time, energy, and attention is spent chasing after riches, possessions, and reputation as if these were the true measures of a person. Oh how we who know Jesus Christ and have the wisdom of Scripture to teach us must fight hard against the pressure of our culture to measure life like this. It is very easy to admire the rich, famous, and powerful—to think that they have something to be desired and are models to be imitated. Yet, this psalm, especially its stinging concluding verse, calls us to a very different response. God’s Word to us—“Do not be afraid when a man becomes rich, when the glory of his house is increased; for when he dies he will carry nothing away; his glory will not descend after him.”

IOW, don’t measure people by their possessions or power because these are temporary. Measure people by their relationship to God—do they know Him and walk in His ways. To ignore or reject God is to live “without understanding” and to eventually be “like the beasts that perish.” The difference that matters can’t be measured in material terms. The difference that matters is wisdom, true wisdom that comes from fearing God.

This psalm is not against material things—the Bible, and our own experience, testifies to the reality that God has blessed some of His children with material prosperity. Having money and things is not inherently bad. Living for them is. Measuring your life by them is. Idolizing others who have them is. Praise God for men and women with resources who understand this and live in a way that will outlast everything they have.

Meditation on Psalm 44

This has always been a psalm that has intrigued and troubled me. I am intrigued by: (1) the backward look of the first few verses—it sounds as if the Lord’s work is mainly a thing of the past (“the work that You did in their days, in the days of old” v. 1); (2) the confidence that God would work on their behalf now in the way that He did before (cf. vv. 4-8) even though it seems that they are experiencing something quite different—“You have rejected us and brought us to dishonor” (v. 9). This combination of positive recollection, hopeful prayer, and blunt description of their difficult present circumstances is intriguing to me. At the very least, it must mean that faith in God does not mean wishful thinking that dismisses current realities.

The troubling part comes toward the end of the psalm. Normally, it seems, the problems that Israel faced were the just outcome of their own unfaithfulness. They departed from God and He disciplined them for it. But here, the psalmist is very clear that they “have not forgotten [God], and [they] have not dealt falsely with [His] covenant” (v. 17). If they had done so, surely God would know it and deal with it (cf. v. 21), but this isn’t the case. Instead, they are suffering because of their commitment to God (v. 22, “for Your sake we are killed all day long”). When I say it is troubling, I mean so only in the sense that I still struggle with the concept of why the righteous suffer. There is something inside of me that feels the inequity of this—it can only happen in a sin-cursed world and will ultimately be made right when God makes all things new through Jesus Christ. Unrighteousness prevails only temporarily.

This psalm reminds me that it has always been so for God’s people—the righteous will suffer in a sin-cursed world. Obviously, the people of the psalmist’s day experienced it. The Apostle Paul uses v. 22 in reference to the same reality for believers as we live in a sin-cursed world (Rom 8:36). No one fits the description of v. 22 better than our Lord Jesus Christ—He was a sheep led to slaughter by the unrighteous for His Father’s sake. If we follow Christ, we will face circumstances like these. As we do, let’s maintain the balance of this psalm—recollection of God’s past deliverances, hopeful prayer for present help, and confidence that God will redeem us for the sake of His lovingkindness (v. 26).

Son of God

I received this question a few days ago (sorry for the delay in responding!):

"I don't understand how Jesus calling Himself the Son of God makes Him equal with God. John 5:18 seems to indicate that because He called God His own Father, that was synonymous with equality with God.

I see several other proofs in Scripture that Jesus is God, but I would never think to use the idea of equality being bound up in the fact that God is His Father. Is there a connection here, or am I reading too much into it?"

Here is the text of John 5:18, "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

A couple of points to note:

Part of the answer is found in a proper understanding of the idea communicated in the biblical notion of being the "son of" something. We tend to think merely of parent-child relationship, but there seems to be a pretty clear biblical idea that being the "son of" something means that you have or share the characteristics of it. For example, in Mark 3:17, Jesus calls James and John a name which means "Sons of Thunder." Obviously, in this case it can't mean that Thunder was their father. It clearly means that they, because of their personalities, were like Thunder. This is a Hebrew (OT) idiom, so the Jewish people/leaders of his day knew He was claiming Divine character.

I think the comment in v. 17 also helps prepare for this conclusion--Jesus says, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." IOW, Jesus is identifying Himself as joined in the work of God. It is doubtful that these unbelieving Jews really understood the full significance what Jesus was claiming about Himself, but they knew He was claiming something that, in their minds, no mortal should ever claim.

Getting Moses Ready to Lead (Exodus 4:24-26)

With the exception of Genesis 6:2, a section of last Saturday’s reading – Exodus 4:24-26 – may be the Pentatuch’s most difficult passage to understand. Its difficulty is found in the uncomfortable nature of the subject (foreskin, blood, and circumcision) and the cultural and dispensational gap between the story’s original context and our setting today. Thankfully, though, through Spirit-enabled study and appropriate biblical correlations we can understand both the meaning and significance of this passage. When understood properly it provides a shocking display of both God’s absolute holiness and His undeserved mercy.

Though Moses grew up in Pharaoh’s court, he no doubt understood the truth of God’s ways. After all, in a truly remarkable display of God’s providence, it was Moses’ mother who was his early-childhood nurse (Ex 2:8-9). As a committed Hebrew mother, she must have sought to teach Moses God’s ways even though he was very young – and must have sought to provide for Moses’ instruction in God’s ways after she returned him to Pharaoh’s daughter (Ex 2:10). Since the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, prescribed in Genesis 17:10-14, was so important and the consequences for not performing it were so dire (note Gen 17:14), it is unthinkable that Moses would be unaware of his responsibility to circumcise any sons he might have.

Reading Exodus 4:24-26, though, we learn that Moses’ first-born son was not circumcised (see Ex 2:22 to learn that his name is Gershom). Why would this vital covenant-keeping responsibility be left undone by Moses? Though Moses knew what was prescribed by the Lord, it seems he left this matter undone because of his wife’s abhorrence for the physical procedure. Can you hear the total disgust in Zipporah’s words, “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me . . . a bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision”? The idea of circumcision must have seemed so cruel and utterly detestable to her! Remember, too, Moses was living in his father-in-law’s household when Gershom was born (see Ex 2:21-22). Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, may have had the same view of what was to be done to the eight-day-old baby as Zipporah.

As seemingly benign as it may be, with such a blatant disregard for God’s prescription, Moses was not prepared to lead God’s people out of Egypt. The strong terms in verse 24 underscore God’s commitment to deal with Moses’ disobedience – “encountered him and sought to kill him.” This was no small matter to God!

In what way did God “encounter” Moses? Some suggest the encounter was a physical illness which rendered Moses incapable of doing what Zipporah had to do for him. This understanding seems to make sense but the original language of the text does not include the precise wording used in other passages to describe a physical illness or injury (e.g. 1 Kings 17:17 and 2 Kings 1:2). The “encounter” described in Exodus 4:24 is most likely illustrated in Proverbs 17:12 and Hosea 13:8. It describes a struggle – a hand-to-hand wrestling match or fight. Moses’ “encounter” with the Lord, I believe, was similar to Jacob’s wrestling with the Lord (Gen 32:24ff). God held Moses in a death grip – giving him a final opportunity to turn from his sin and fully obey God’s prescribed truth. Certainly, had God truly wished to kill Moses, he could have done it in a moment. “Moses had committed a serious offense against the Lord that made him unfit to be God’s agent of deliverance or to live in God’s presence” (Ron Allen).

Though repulsed by what she must do, Zipporah, acted quickly to save Moses’ life by completing the thing Moses has failed to do (and now was unable to do due to his “encounter” with the Lord). Following God’s prescription, she did for Moses what must be done – “took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin”. Her words (as mentioned before) and her actions (“threw it at Moses’ feet”) covey the completion of the action and her repulsion by it. But God’s command had been obeyed. God’s anger is assuaged – “so He [the Lord] let him alone” – and Moses is now ready to lead God’s chosen people.

What a powerful lesson about God is wrapped in three verses! In these verses we learn of God’s holiness. His Word must be obeyed – no matter how uncomfortable it may be for us or those who follow us. We must never put our thoughts above God’s Word (e.g. “If I do this, even though God has told me not to, it will help me have a better witness of Christ.”). God’s Word is to be obeyed completely.

These verses are a vivid display of God’s mercy. God mercifully came to “encounter” Moses. Though it was an intense confrontation, God’s purpose was to make Moses a fit vessel for His glory. How many of us, like Moses, having known what ought to be done and not doing it, have known the patient kindness of the Lord in correcting us and bringing us to a path of obedience. God certainly will not overlook our sin but He will not leave us alone in our sin – by His Spirit He is making us more and more like His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

One last note: 4:20 mentions “sons” but it seems only the first-born son is at the center of the drama in 4:24-26. The “first-born” is the connection throughout the broader context – see verse 22 and 23 – and is principally brought to the forefront in the drama. Once Moses obeyed [through Zipporah’s actions] God regarding Gershom’s circumcision, I believe he followed through at some point to circumcise all who were under the teaching of Genesis 17.

The Hebrew Midwives (Catching up on a couple questions from Exodus folks have asked)

In Exodus 1 (sorry to step back a few days), we read of the Hebrew Midwives, their directive by Pharaoh to kill all male Hebrews, their deception of Pharaoh and their blessing by God. This raises the question, "Is it ok to lie (tell Pharaoh the Hebrew women give birth too fast to get there and kill the males"), in order to accomplish a greater good (save the lives of the children)? This passage is similar to the situation taking place with Rahab the harlot in Jericho, who lied to authorities in order to save the lives of the Israelite spies. A couple points are in order:

1. What is at stake? In both instances, the lives of people were being threatened by unjust and ruthlessly evil officials.

2. Why did they lie? In this case, the midwives were perhaps telling a partial truth. The Hebrew women likely did give birth more quickly because they were laborers, and in good physical condition. But they were not telling the whole truth. Some argue that the better choice for them would have been to say "It is wrong, and we refuse to do this, come what may--kill us if you want to," but in their weakness they chose a lower path because they were human, and didn't want to die. But I think the more likely reason was that they realized that any delay they could cause in what Pharaoh had purposed to do, which was clearly evil, would save more lives. This was a case of what Ethicists call "The Greater Good Principle” and it is used only when there is clarity in what is at stake and a primary concern for right.

3. The final question is, does God reward their lying? The reason the midwives did not kill the males is given in verse 17: "they feared God." Also, the reason God blessed them is clearly given in verse 21: "Because the midwives feared God." God rewarded them because they feared Him. If we are ever to be blessed by God in the course of a vital ethical dilemma, the foundational element is that we "fear Him." After all, "The fear of the Lord is "to hate evil" (Prov 8:13a) and is "the beginning of wisdom (applying truth to life)" (Prov 9:10a).

Some conclude from this interpretation that as long as they can identify a greater good, then they can bend the truth. This is not a reasonable conclusion. The whole tenor of the Scripture exalts truth and truth-telling. It exalts hating evil and having a direction towards holiness. I think we can conclude that If we are actively fearing the Lord, and then ever have to deceive to delay or halt a ruthlessly evil life taker, then you may be justified in doing it, but otherwise, stick with the truth.

What took so long?

Exodus 2 closes with these words, “So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ²⁵God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them” (vv. 24-25). It is easy to understand why they were groaning—they were slaves and, even more horrible, their male sons were being killed simply for being born. Egypt had gone from a place of deliverance to a one of bondage and suffering. Why had God allowed this to happen? Why would He allow His chosen people to suffer like this at the hands of a godless ruler and people? Why not deliver them before it got to this sad state of affairs?

We have to be careful when we provide answers for why God does what He does. If He doesn’t tell us, then we should not presume to know the mind of the Lord on the matter—who are we to understand the counsels of God? As the Apostle Paul says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33). Or, as Moses put it, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29).

So, we must not go beyond what God has revealed in seeking to answer this (or any) why question. Do we have any answer from God Himself as to why He would allow the people of Israel to suffer in Egypt for as long as He did? Well, in fact we do. You may recall from your Bible reading earlier this year that God explained to Abraham that his descendants would go down to the land of Egypt “where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years” (Gen 15:13). The reason? Here’s what the text of Scripture says, “Then in the fourth generation, they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete” (Gen 15:16). One clear, revealed reason that they would spend those years in Egypt was because of God’s justice with regard to the Amorites (for more biblical statements on this see Lev 18:24-27 and Deut 9:4-5). God’s patience with the Amorites accounted for one aspect of His timing on delivering the Israelites from Egypt.

Now, I believe there were other reasons, but I’d like to just meditate on this one right now. What happened here opens up a window into the complexity of God’s control over all things. He works on a timetable and on a scale which is, to use Paul’s words again, “unsearchable” and “unfathomable” for our finite minds. There are factors involved in every aspect of God’s providential control of which we are completely unaware, but of which He is completely aware. Should we not trust Him in these things?

All that God promised to Abraham about Israel’s deliverance came to pass at the time that God had appointed. We too can live with confident expectation that all God has promised to us will also come to pass in God’s time and God’s way. We may not understand what is causing the delay, but, learning from this particular example, let’s rest on the fact that God’s justice and mercy are woven into all His dealings. Though we are seldom thankful on behalf of others when it is true, let’s be thankful that God is patient with sinners. If He weren’t, we’d all be toast.

Using the Spirit's Sword

The reading for today included the Lord's test in the wilderness through the attack of Satan (Luke 4). The Lord provides for us the perfect example of how to use the Word in spiritual battle--every attack of Satan is countered by a response from Scripture. Here are three points I made when we studied the parallel passage in Matthew's gospel:

You must know the Word before you can use it!

You must understand the Word to use it properly!

You must use the Word the way God intended it to be used!

One of the benefits of reading the Bible from cover to cover is that you come to know what it says better. You can't use the parts of the Bible that you don't know exist because you've never read them! So, don't buy into the approach to Bible reading that acts as if it is only good if you get some spiritual zap from it. There is something very valuable in simply learning what the Bible says. Read it so you know it.

But, using it properly means you have to understand what it means, so read carefully and thoughtfully too. The key to the Lord's answers in each test is that He understood what that text meant. The Bible is not a magical charm to be waved in front of temptation as if it will scare the devil off. You probably noticed in your reading that the devil actually quoted the Bible, so he must not be afraid of it. The Bible supplies the reason(s) why we obey God rather than yield to sin's temptations.

IOW, we could paraphrase the conversation in Luke 4 something like this:

Satan: You're hungry. Use your power to make the stones into bread.

Christ: I won't do that because there is something more important than bread--obedience to my Father!

Satan: You're supposed to be king some day. I will give you the kingdoms now without the cross if you bow down and worship me.

Christ: I won't do that because only God is to be worshipped and you're not God.

Satan: Your Father promised that He would use His angels to protect you, so jump and let's see that happen.

Christ: I won't do that because it is wrong to test the Father by making decisions that force Him to rescue Me. I am to trust Him, not put Him to the test.

Jesus wasn't just quoting verses, He was giving reasons for obedience. He was basing His response on the Word and that's what we're supposed to do too. So, keep reading!

Shepherds or Not?

A couple of questions have come up about the interaction between Joseph and his brothers regarding how they should describe their occupation to Pharaoh. Here are the two questions:

After reading Gen.46 & 47, I would like to get some input as to what the pastor’s think, specifically about the end of Chp. 46 and the beginning of Chp. 47. Joseph’s brothers have a fear that he is harboring some vengeance against them for what they have done to him. So, why, at the first opportunity do they defy him and say they are “shepherds” when he tells them it is loathsome to Egyptians and to say instead they are “keepers of livestock”? Just wondering.

I understand the reason he told his brothers not to tell Pharaoh about being shepherds, but wasn’t that deceitful? And why did they go right out and tell Pharaoh that they WERE indeed shepherds?

The gist of the question assumes that the brothers did something different than what Joseph told them to do. I think, though, it isn't quite accurate to see a conflict between their words and his words. In fact, I think they actually did what Joseph counselled them to do.

Here's why I think that: (1) 46:31-32 make it very clear that Joseph himself intended to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds (“"I will go up and tell Pharaoh...the men are shepherds”) and (2) in Joseph’s and his brother’s minds, there seems to be no difference between the descriptions “shepherds” and “keepers of livestock” (cf. 46:32 “the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock”). So, the long and short of it is that they did what Joseph asked them to do.

The thing that I think might be being missed here is that Joseph was giving them a strategy for getting the land of Goshen (cf. v. 34 "that you may live in the land of Goshen"). He actually wanted them to be viewed as “loathsome” so that Pharaoh would sent them away into the land of Goshen because that was the best land.

Hope that helps.

Joseph and Christ?

A question sent to me:

I have always heard Joseph spoken of in glowing, almost sinless, terms, and I know he is a type of Christ. But what about his deceptive trick on his brothers in hiding the money in their sacks and then accusing them of stealing?

My reply:

I’d probably be a little slower to draw the conclusion that he used a deceptive trick with the money. He gave them their money back, or, probably more accurately, he give them the amount of money they had paid back—he said it wasn’t their money, but that God had put money into their bags. I take that to mean that “put his money in the sack” means something like “put the amount of money they spend in the sack.” Sort of like when we borrow money from someone, then two weeks later pay them back by saying, “Here’s your money.” We don’t literally mean, “Here are the very same dollars you gave me two weeks ago.” We mean, “Here is the amount of money I borrowed from you.”

The tougher issue is what he does with Benjamin—there he actually frames him by placing an item in his bag and accusing him of stealing it. It is hard to know what is happening in Joseph’s mind since the text doesn’t say directly, but some take it to be a process of testing that he is putting his brothers through. IOW, how will they respond to this threat against their youngest brother? Will they betray and abandon him like they did Joseph, or would they remain true to their father and brother? As it turns out, they do so, and then Joseph reveals himself to them. Now, if that was Joseph’s intent, then I don’t think I would call it a deception in the normal sense.

That being said, I’ve personally never be one to make a claim like the one you’ve alluded to, i.e., that Joseph has no sin recorded about him so that he is a type of Christ. I’ve never felt comfortable with that statement because: (1) I don’t see any biblical warrant for making it; (2) while the text clearly paints Joseph in a positive light compared to many in the narratives around him, I don’t think it intends to paint him as perfect; and (3) I take a more cautious view of types, namely that the NT tells us that something was typified in the OT (versus us getting to decide what is a type). So, I see an example of how God provides deliverance by controlling the events and direction of His servants’ lives, but I don’t move all the way to saying Joseph is a picture of Christ.

Thanks for asking!

A Promise of Prosperity? Mark 10:29-30

If you have seen Joel Osteen on TV, you probably chuckle at his jokes, are impressed with the size of the congregation, and told if you follow Christ you will be happy, healthy and rich. An oft-quoted passage is this one, "Truly I say unto you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life."

It all sounds really great, except for that slip up "with persecutions." Didn't Jesus mean "with Pensions?" No, it really is persecutions, and that gives us the "tip-off" that Jesus is not talking about getting material prosperity when we follow him. I think a quote by Charles Erdman is helpful:

Occasionally a whisper steals into our heart. We have sacrificed for Christ's sake; "does it pay?" Jesus replies that every sacrifice made for His sake, receives a hundredfold recompense in this life, not in the literal kind, but such as to satisfy the soul a hundred times more than the thing surrended ever could, and then, in the future, that completed, perfected, "eternal life" which the rich man craved, but which he lose that, for a few fleeting years, he might retain his wealth.

And, even the persecutions, are blessings to us, as we enter into sweeter fellowship with Christ through those difficult opportunities.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Sin

The two chapters of reading for today (Gen 45; Mark 15) formed a powerful statement about God's sovereignty and man's sin. Genesis 45 records the unveiling of Joseph's identity to his brothers, which obviously would cause them to be greatly afraid—the most powerful man in their world turns out to be the brother they sold into slavery! Joseph's explanation to them is an incredible expression of confidence in God.

In vv. 7 and 8, Joseph uses very strong language to describe God's activity in all of this—“God sent me before you" and "it was not you who sent me here, but God"--in spite of the brothers' clear sin that had been involved in this. Later, he will balance the two out, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), but his words in Genesis 45 make it clear that Joseph sees the sovereign hand of God as supreme. The LORD had a plan to preserve and protect Israel that included, without participating in, the sin of Joseph's brothers. The sin was all theirs, but God overruled that sin in order to carry out His pre-determined plan. (In fact, God had told Abraham years before that his descendents would go down to Egypt, so this was no plan B for God.)

What captured my heart this morning was the connection that this had to what we see recorded in Mark 15. There we find the record of our Lord's crucifixion. I think we can say without hesitation that this represented the greatest act of sin ever committed—the sinless Son of God was betrayed, unjustly condemned, and brutally mocked and executed. Yet, all of these sins worked together to accomplish the plan of God which had been set from before the foundation of the world. Or, to quote Peter, "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death" (Acts 2:23). Just as God controlled the events of Joseph's life so that Israel could be preserved, the Father controlled the events of Jesus’ life so that salvation could be provided.

We'll never comprehend fully how divine sovereignty and human responsibility work together, but we must not stumble over the truth that they do. Contrary to stumbling, the fact that God's sovereign hand rules over all the affairs of man should cause us to stand full of trust and love, full of confidence in and commitment to our great God.

Reminder from Mark 4:35-38

When a day’s circumstances radically change, in whom do we look to for guidance and answers? Perhaps you have been in a situation and wondered, “How did I get here today?” Or you have thought, “What a day!” Amid the uncertain circumstances of life as we follow Jesus, we must trust Him who is in control of all things.

In Mark 4:35-38: We have the recounting of what happened to the newly formed disciples on a given day. What was happening “on that day” (4:35)? The day or two preceding, Christ had just come down from the mountain after having called his disciples to follow him. They are with him now and people in his own town are saying that Jesus has lost his senses (3:21), and say he is of Beelzbul (3:22). The crowds increase to the point they have no place to eat. Eventually there is no place to teach them. Now the crowd presses so they are by the sea, so he gets into the boat to have a makeshift floating pulpit (4:1). Christ now teaches the crowds about the reception of the Word of God with the parable of the sower and the soil.

Christ was trying to teach the disciples privately (4:33-34), so, they went to go to the other side that evening (4:35). Then, the storm comes. Nothing from the text indicates that this is the work of Satan. The natural setting of the sea of Galilee is conducive to storms coming upon them. These were all fishermen, they had to have been used to this situation. Now, they cry out in fear and, Mark records for us an apparent tone of disdain and frustration: Don’t you care? We are dying!

Christ remedies the situation (4:39). Christ is the creator, sustainer, and controller of all things. The disciples acted as if he was unaware. How often do we act as if God is unaware of the circumstances that we are facing right now?

Christ confronts them about their attitude and unbelief (4:40). Why are you acting cowardly and in fear? Certainly they wanted to be saved from the storm (cf Matt 18, Lk 8), but Mark is pointing out an attitude of what we often feel about life’s circumstances. Christ was asking them “Why don’t you trust me? Have you no faith?”

The disciples recognize the one in whom they should fear and trust (4:41). They became very fearful, that is trusting in God. The word for fear in this verse is a different word than what Christ confronts them about (v40 is “cowardice”). Their trust was not, but now is in Christ. Now the disciples recognized they had a lot to learn about Christ.

At least two reminders are here for us. First,Christ is the one who is in control of the circumstances and changes that we face in life. Second, Do we demonstrate our lack of faith by indignantly questioning God? “What about me?” is often our plea.

Amid the uncertain circumstances of life as we follow Jesus, we must trust Him who is in control of all things.

The Hard Truth about Mark 4:12

If you are reading the NT portions along with others, you were no doubt struck by Jesus words in Mark 4:12 "so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."

I was struck and sobered from this verse. I know a few people in our ABF shared the same reaction as we talked about the chapter.

This kind of hard statement in the Bible leads me to check a few things--the source, the immediate situation (context) and the bigger picture. I would encourage you to do the same.

First, the source. The verse is in caps in the NASB. They use that font to indicate a quotation from elsewhere in the Bible. This is a quote from Isaiah 6:9-10, quoted in Matthew 13:13 as well, and here the substance is quoted by Jesus. These words from Isaiah appear several times in the New Testament (cf. John 12:40; Acts 28:26). Back in Isaiah, we see Isaiah called to speak the truth to the disobedient people of Judah, and the truth that he spoke would not produce the results we think preaching should produce--it would render their hearts insensitive and their ears dull and their eyes dim. . . otherwise they might . . . return and be healed (Isa 6:10). The source gives us the sobering reality that God's message and methods are sometimes meant to confirm rebellious people in their sin which they had so gladly chosen, and not to change them.

The immediate situation in Mark shows Jesus going home (3:20) and his own people--family, friends from growing up, etc. saying "He has lost his senses. (21)" Then the scribes came and said he was demon possessed (3:22). Some were believing him and showing it by doing the will of God (35). So, we have some believing and some blaspheming people listening to Jesus in the immediate context. To these all Jesus spoke in parables "to denote a judicial blindness that comes to people as the penalty for hardening their hearts against the light. Jesus implied that the parables did serve as a judgment on those who deliberately rejected Him and His revelation" (Heibert, in his commentary on Mark).

In the bigger picture, we have here a hard truth, but truth nonetheless. These parables were not stories Jesus creatively used to encourage repentance or enliven emotion. They were not a method Jesus used, like a flannelgraph, so the masses would more likely understand or be receptive to the truth. They were not used to soften hearts or break down barriers.

No. This parable was an illustration that made clear the state of people--and those on the negative side of the story would not like it and they would not accept it. The blasphemers were those whose ground was rocky. Hardened. Not receptive. Others are described as well. Jesus teaches his disciples that if people reject the plain, proclaimed truth statements of who He is and why they need to believe about Him, then His parables would only harden them further. And, this was what they deserved, and I would add, what they truly needed, for it is not until one recognizes the depth of their sin that they can realize the glories of God's grace.

Alot more could be said, but in the end, we have to answer our question--was Jesus not compassionate? Did he not want to do all he could to get the lost to turn to him? Did He use the parable "otherwise they might return and be forgiven?" The Bible says clearly to these questions: No, He was compassionate (Mt. 14:14); Yes- He did all that he would as a just, holy and loving God, and all that was needed for the lost to be able to come to him;" and third, is "Yes" for that is what the Bible says. What we conclude here is that the honest truth was what God wanted them to hear. No cajoling. No seeker-senitive stories or music to break down barriers. No emotional appeals. Jesus wanted those rejecting Him to see the barriers they themselves had erected. He wanted them to know they were being rebellious and deserved judgment. And, He is not willing that any of them perish but that they would all come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).

From this passage, we recognize the great privilege that comes with believing the plain truth about Jesus...and the grave danger of rejecting that truth.