Exegetical Thoughts and Biblical Theology

Observations on the use of the number 1,000 (’elef II אֶלֶף) in Scripture

2011-06-29T14:57:00.002-04:00

I was recently notified that a respected conservative was entertaining the possibility that the word 1,000 in the Pentateuch meant either "troop" or "clan." If that were the case, the number of male Israelites exiting Egypt would be less than 1/10th of the 600,000 number in English translations. That set me looking at the use of the number 1,000 (’elef II אֶלֶף) in Scripture.

In nearly all the discussions of the "problem" of the large number in the Pentateuch I have read, there is very little actual discussion of the way in which the word 1,000 (’elef ) is used in the Pentateuch or elsewhere.

I suspect this is because the linguistic data is so straightforward and consistent that such a discussion would serve to minimize rather than highlight the "problematic" nature of the text. In fact, I have never seen anyone suggest that the word ’elef is mistranslated on the basis of textual analysis.

The consistent basis for suggesting alternative translations is inevitably that people find it impossible to conceive how such large numbers of Israelites lived, moved, and interacted in the ways described in Scripture. Setting aside how it happened, I wanted to look at precisely how this word is used in contexts where items are being counted.

Here are my observations.

The word ’elef is used to count pieces of silver (Gen. 20:16), men (Num. 31:4), sheep (Num. 31:32), cattle (Num. 31:33), donkeys (Num. 31:34, cp. 31:39), shekels (Exod. 38:25), women (Num. 31:35), cubits (Josh. 3:4), men and women together (Josh. 8:25; Jdg 16:27), songs (1 Kgs 4:32), and chariots (1 Kgs 10:26). Precisely the same lexemes (words) and with the same syntactical conventions (grammar) are used in counting all of these items. In other words, there are no differences in the way Hebrew counted animals, money, distances, and people.
The use of ’elef with other specific cardinal numbers (e.g., 130, 70, in Num. 7:85) argues that ’elef is a specific cardinal number.
The use of ’elef together with the numbers ‘hundreds,’ ‘fifties,’ and ‘tens’ argues that ’elef is a cardinal number larger than hundreds and related to it fractionally as the other terms relate to each other (Exod. 18:21, 25; Deut. 1:15).
The word “hundreds” is used only with the numbers 1-9. There are no examples of a count of 10 or greater hundreds, e.g, eleven hundred or twelve hundred. This data supports the conclusion that, in contexts of counting items, ’elef always refers to a number larger than 999.
There are examples of four digit numbers with only single digits more than 1000 (e.g., 1005, 1 Kgs 4:32) up to four digit numbers with 9 hundreds more than a thousand (e.g., 3,930, Neh. 7:38). There are no examples of ’elef being used in any context where it naturally refers to a cardinal number other than 1,000.
The use of fractions when dealing with large numbers (5-6 digit numbers) demonstrates that the number 1,000 was meant by the use of ’elef :

(a) In Numbers 31, Moses recounts the spoil taken in the capture of Moab: 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, 32,000 female virgins. The spoil was split 50/50 between those who fought and the rest of the congregation. Yahweh was to receive 1/500th of the spoil of the men of war (Num. 31:28).

50% of 675,000 sheep is 337,500 sheep. Out of 337,500 sheep, 1/500th is 675 sheep, which is the precise number recorded in Num. 31:36-37. Out of 16,000 people, 1/500th is 32 persons [נָפֶשׁ], which is the precise number recorded in Num. 31:40.

The same syntax is used when counting people, in this case female virgins, as when counting the animals. In order for this math to make any sense, the word must refer to the number 1,000.

(b) In Exod. 38, Moses counts 603,550 men who were 20 year old and older. Each man was charged ½ of a shekel of silver. That yields 301,775 shekels of silver.

Exod. 38:25 records that there were 100 talents of silver and 1775 shekels of silver collected from the numbering of the congregation. Each talent has 3000 shekels in it. Thus, 100 talents = 300,000 shekels.

The number of shekels of silver collected matches perfectly with the number of men counted. 603,550 men must mean six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty men.
The NT confirms the rounded total of those who died at Baal Peor as 24,000 (1 Cor. 10:8). Num. 25:9 has 23,000, which is the same figure rounded down instead of up. This adds the weight of NT inspiration to the reading of this syntax as cardinal numbers. It also means that ’elef cannot be read as “units,” “troops,” or “clans” in this context.
The LXX consistently renders ’elef as 1,000 χίλια. Thus the Septuagint translators understood the Hebrew word to refer to the number 1,000.

What does all this data mean?

It means that there isn’t the slightest linguistic reason to understand the large numbers in the OT as anything other than actual counts of large numbers of items.

Beyond the Holy of Holies as a Place

2011-03-19T07:31:00.000-04:00

It just struck me for the first time as I was reading/listening to Numbers 18 that ‘most holy’ as a superlative category has a fairly wide range of referents. I have thought of the Holy of Holies as the only “most holy” item, but that is incorrect. In addition to referring to the Holy of Holies, the terminology קדשׁ קדשׁים is used for the following items:

Altar of burnt offering (Exod. 29:37)
Altar of incense (Exod. 30:10)
Tent of meeting, ark of testimony, table of showbread and its utensils, altar of incense, altar of burnt offering, lamp stand and utensils, laver and base (Exod. 30:26-29)
The incense (Exod. 30:36)
The remainder of the grain offering (Lev. 2:3)
The sin offering (Lev. 6:25, 29)
Guilt offering (Lev. 7:1, 7)
Showbread (Lev. 24:9)
All items “devoted” (cherem) to Yahweh (Lev. 27:28)

Note: Lev. 21:22 identifies the types of food a priest with a defect may eat as “both the most holy and the holy”

The Kohathites work with the “most holy things” (Num. 4:4). They alone are allowed to touch them.

There is a repeated statement that “whatever touches” a most holy object will become holy. The tent of meeting, ark of testimony, table of showbread and its utensils, altar of incense, altar of burnt offering, lamp stand and utensils, laver and its base--all these are said to transmit holiness (Exod. 30:29). In addition, the altar of burnt offering (Exod. 20:27), the grain offering gifts (Lev. 6:18), and the flesh of the sin offering (Lev. 6:27) are singled out as items that sanctify whatever touches them, unless touched by someone who is unclean from touching a dead body (Hag. 2:13). Although not in the category of “most holy,” the priestly garments also can transmit holiness and thus are not to leave the tabernacle/temple precincts (Ezek. 44:19; cf. 46:20).

This changes my picture of the tabernacle having a steady upward gradation of holiness from the outside to the inside of the “most holy” place. “Most holy” things were throughout the tabernacle courtyard, holy place, and most holy place. “Most holy” things were being handled (utensils) and interacted with (altars, lamp stand, showbread, showbread table) on a daily basis.

The Loss of Wisdom

2011-02-01T06:51:00.000-05:00

The urgent “retain” language of Proverbs finally began to sink into my consciousness this last year. Solomon says plenty about gaining, buying, finding, and searching for wisdom. That has been my focus for the past 25 years.

However, I have begun to notice a pattern in my life. If I don’t regularly teach, talk about, think about, or otherwise call certain truths to mind, they tend to slip out of my consciousness. Anybody who has taken a foreign language knows the principle “Use it or lose it.” I’m beginning to understand that principle applies to wisdom too.

Proverbs 3:1 My son, do not forget my teaching, But let your heart keep my commandments;

Proverbs 3:18 [Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast.

Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not vanish from your sight; Keep sound wisdom and discretion,

Proverbs 4:5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth.

Proverbs 4:13 Take hold of instruction; do not let go. Guard her, for she is your life.

Proverbs 5:1 My son, give attention to my wisdom, Incline your ear to my understanding; ² That you may observe discretion And your lips may reserve knowledge.

Proverbs 6:20 My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; ²¹ Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck.

These passages highlight the necessity of wisdom’s retention. It is not the case that once gained wisdom is yours. Wisdom is not like silver or gold in this regard. Wisdom, the dual skill of seeing life and all of its circumstances from God’s perspective and as a result of living life God’s way, is like any other skill: it must be maintained through deliberate practice. And like any other skill, the basics must receive focused attention.

Morning Meditations on Yahweh from Proverbs 29

2011-01-29T06:56:00.003-05:00

Prov. 29:13 רָשׁ וְאִישׁ תְּכָכִים נִפְגָּשׁוּ מֵאִיר־עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם יְהוָה׃

The poor and the oppressor meet together; Yahweh enlightens the eyes of them both.

Information: Yahweh is responsible for giving sight to the eyes of all men, regardless of their status.

Implication: All men are dependent upon Yahweh. All men should be grateful. All men are responsible to Yahweh for their use of His gift.

Inclination, i.e., how should this truth enliven my will and emotions, inclining them to glory in Yahweh and gladness in Him?: I am thankful for sight! Please grant me to fear using your gift for sinful purposes. “Take my eyes and let them be, pure, compassionate like Thee.”

Prov. 29:25 חֶרְדַּת אָדָם יִתֵּן מוֹקֵשׁ וּבוֹטֵחַ בַּיהוָה יְשֻׂגָּב׃

Fear of man creates a snare, but the one trusting in Yahweh is safe.

Information: Yahweh is trustworthy. Yahweh is strong. Yahweh makes Himself available to those who trust Him. Yahweh exercises strength for those who trust Him.

Inclination: I rest from fear of alarms, from fear of attacks, from fear of the future, from fear of my inadequacies. Ah! Blissful rest in trusting Jesus! I rejoice at my invulnerability in Yahweh. Nothing can touch me that He does not permit. Incline my heart to trust You more fully. Grant me greater grace to trust you in all things great and small.

Proverbs 10:29 and the Way of Yahweh

2010-12-19T21:29:00.004-05:00

In the New American Standard Bible (1995), Proverbs 10:29 reads:

The way of the LORD is a stronghold to the upright, But ruin to the workers of iniquity.

This verse struck me as odd. Why would Yahweh's way be ruin to anybody? So I decided to investigate.

The phrase "way of Yahweh" occurs seven times in the OT, five of which are conceptually parallel Proverbs 10:29 (Gen. 18:19; Jdg. 2:22; 1 Kgs 2:22, Jer. 5:4, 5). God “knows” Abraham so that he will command his children to “keep the way of Yahweh” by doing righteousness and justice (Gen. 18:19). This set of collocations—the way of Yahweh is kept by doing righteousness—shows up in Judges 2:22, where the Lord tells Israel he will leave Canaanites in the land in order to test them to see whether they will keep the way of Yahweh as their father’s did. The clear implication is that keeping the way of Yahweh involves doing what is right and good in His eyes.

Amon, son of Manasseh, unmoved by his Father’s late-in-life repentance, “forsook Yahweh, the God of his fathers, and did not walk in the way of Yahweh” (1 Kings 21:22). Here failure to walk in the way of Yahweh is the consequence of forsaking Yahweh. One cannot cleave to Yahweh and not walk in His way. The previous two verses fill out the “way” Amon walked: he did evil in Yahweh’s sight, walked in all the way Manasseh had walked, and served the idols his father had served.

In Jeremiah 5:4, 5, the prophet seeks for those who “know the way of Yahweh, the mishpat of God.” The way of Yahweh appears to be appositionally modified by the phrase mishpat of God. Keil & Delitzsch comment on Jeremiah 5:4-5, “They know not the way of Jahveh, i.e., the way, the manner of life, prescribed to men by God in His word; (cf. 2 Kgs 21:22; Psa 25:9). The judgment of their God, i.e., that which God demanded as right and lawful (2 Kgs 17:26)."

This background illumines Proverbs 10:29 and helped me know how to interpret its cryptic lines. A paraphrase of the passage would read, “The upright—those who do what is right and good in Yahweh’s sight—find that Yahweh provides them protection because they know, keep, and walk in His way; the wicked—those who do what is wrong and evil in Yahweh’s sight—find that their way leads them to destruction; they have no protection from Yahweh."

I think the NASB mistranslates the second half of this verse by not supplying a linking verb. It should read, “but destruction [is / shall be] to the workers of iniquity.” As it stands, the NASB’s rendering implies that the way of Yahweh is destruction to the workers of iniquity. This rendering depends on understanding Yahweh as a subjective genitive, and ignores the phrase’s predominant usage throughout the OT--as a shorthand for the lifestyle Yahweh desires and requires from His followers.

Those who choose not to walk in His ways (the wicked) will be destroyed. On the other hand, those who live the way Yahweh prescribes find Yahweh is indeed their stronghold.

Vows: foolish, sacred, forgivable?

2010-12-14T16:42:00.004-05:00

Recently, someone asked me:

Are there foolish vows and sacred vows? Are there vows God will forgive, or does God hold one accountable for all vows until death?

My short answer is all vows are sacred; some are also foolish (Pro. 20:25; Eccl. 5:2 4). Breaking any vow is sin (Deut. 23:21; Eccl. 5:5-6; Num. 30:15). God will forgive vow-breakers (Num. 30:6, 9, 13); though He warns there may be dire consequences for failing to keep a vow (Eccl. 5:6).

My best understanding of Scripture is that God does not continue to hold a person responsible to fulfill a vow that has been broken, repented of, and forgiven. God did, however, require those who vowed to give Him a non-cash asset (a field, house, etc.) and then changed their minds to give instead the monetary equivalent plus 20% to the Lord (Lev. 27).

The key texts where God reveals His perspective on vows are Leviticus 27, Numbers 30, Deuteronomy 23:21-23, and Ecclesiastes 5:1-7. Interestingly, the two New Testament texts (Acts 18:18; 21:23-24) that mention vows give no indication that God’s perspective on vows has changed.

A vow is a voluntary promise to God to do or not do something (cf. Deut. 23:23). Vows are not limited to “If-you-do-this-for-me, I’ll-do-that-for-You” bargains with God (cf. Psa. 56:12-13). You don’t have to use the words “vow” or “promise” to make a vow. Anytime you voluntarily tell God you are going to do or not do something for Him, it is a vow.

In Ecclesiastes 5, Solomon warns us that vows should not be made lightly: “Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you are on earth; Therefore let your words be few” (5:2). In verse 4, he cautions us not to be late in paying our vows, for God takes no delight in fools who fail to pay their vows. It is better, the wise man counsels, not to vow at all, than to vow and fail to pay (Eccl. 5:5). This echoes Deut. 23:22 where Moses informs Israel it is not sin to abstain from vowing: “if you abstain from vowing, it is not sin.”

On the other hand, if you vow and fail to pay, it is sin (Deut. 23:22; Eccl. 5:5). Not only is it sin, but Solomon warns, “Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger, “It was a mistake.” Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands?” (Eccl. 5:6). In other words, God punishes those who break their vows. Claiming that you made a mistake and shouldn’t have vowed or didn’t really mean what you vowed arouses God’s anger against you. Thus, Solomon concludes, “Fear God” (Eccl. 5:7).

The seriousness of vows is further underscored in Numbers 30 where God identifies which vows are automatically binding and which may be nullified. God distinguishes the vows made by adult males, widows, and divorced women from those made by female children and wives. In the case of adult males (Num. 30:2), widows, and divorced women (Num. 30:9), they must fulfill any vow they make. In the case of female children (Num. 30:3-5) and wives (Num. 30:6-8; 10-15), if their father or husband nullifies their vow on the day that he hears it, then they are absolved of their vow (Num. 30:5, 8, 12). However, if the father or husband does not nullify their vow, then their vow stands. They are responsible to fulfill it. If the father or husband does not say anything the first time he hears it but chooses to nullify it at a later time, then he will “bear the iniquity” of the broken vow (Num. 30:15).

Because Numbers 30:2 includes “swearing an oath” as an equivalent of taking a vow, the guilt offering prescribed for breaking an oath (Lev. 5:4) would likely apply to a broken vow. Since God provides a sacrifice for atoning for a broken vow, we can infer that forgiveness for breaking a vow is available through Christ, who is our guilt offering (Isa. 53:10).

Secular Work in Biblical Perspective

2010-11-01T16:55:00.003-04:00

I was recently asked something like the following:

I work a secular job that I don’t enjoy. I’d much rather be involved in a ministry-related job. How can I be in the center of God’s will in this kind of a job? How can I be contented and fulfilled when I’m not happy in my job?

I think 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 provides a good starting point to answer these questions.

In this passage Paul addresses Christian slaves who had zero control over their lives, let alone their work. He encourages them to take advantage of any opportunity to become free (7:21). At the same time, he emphasizes (7:17, 24) that they do not have to change their life-situation in order to live in service to Christ (7:22).

We can infer two principles from this passage. First, it is biblically acceptable to take opportunities that God brings our way to change from a less favorable situation to a more favorable situation (i.e., from slave to free). Second, any kind of legitimate occupation, including being a slave, can be done as service to Christ. (Paul would not regard as a “legitimate occupation” forced prostitution or other sins the OT penalized as capital crimes.)

In Colossians 3:23-25, Paul addresses the situation of slaves in Colosse. In verse 23 he tells them, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.” The phrase “as for the Lord” is the key. They were to view themselves as serving Jesus in their slavery rather than serving their human master. Whether it was taking out the chamber pot, plowing the field, or cleaning the stable, they were to do their work in the same way they would do it for Jesus: heartily. Heartily means willing diligence. It is the opposite of foot-dragging reluctance. Someone who does work heartily does their best with a positive attitude.

In verses 24-25 Paul gives three reasons they should serve their human masters heartily. First, “knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance.” In other words, when you serve a human master as you would serve Christ, you will be rewarded by Christ. This conclusion is supported by the parallel passage in Eph. 6:8, “knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” Even taking out the chamber pot receives its reward!

Second, “It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.” Since we are actually Christ’s slaves (Rom. 622), everything we do is service to Him. In other words, this is not just a matter of acting as if Jesus were our master or boss. He is our master!

Third, if you do wrong, you will “receive the consequences of the wrong which [you] have done, and that without partiality.” Jesus has no tolerance for slip-shod work. If we wrong our human master, Jesus will see to it that we receive the appropriate consequences.

What does all this mean for Christians who work in “secular” jobs? It means that there is no such thing as a non-ministry job for a Christian. You are serving God just as much as the person who works in a “ministry” job. God calls Christians to jobs in the secular work place precisely so that they can be salt and light as they work for Him in those capacities. Since God is fully sovereign over our lives, if we’re walking in the light, we can assume that the job opportunities He does or does not open for us are reflections of His will for us.

Regarding contentment, remember what Solomon taught us: meaning and satisfaction are not found in any of life’s components but only in life’s Creator (Eccl. 2:24; 5:18; 12:1, 13-14).When we know that we are going to be rewarded for our work and that we are doing what God wants us to do, how can we not be fulfilled? Whether or not we enjoy our work, we can choose to be thankful and joyful in doing it (Col. 3:17). Such an excellent spirit will glorify God (Dan. 6:3; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Here are a set of numbered commitments that I think reflect the Bible's perspective on "secular" work:

1. I will do it for Jesus (“as to the Lord”; Col. 3:23).

2. I will perform my work at the quality level I would produce if Jesus’ were my boss (Col. 3:23-25).

3. I will commit to do all I do “in the name of Jesus,” i.e., as a representative of Jesus, with thankfulness (Col. 3:17).

4. I will consciously seek his help to do the best that I can do (John 15:5).

5. I will remind myself regularly that God is going to reward me for how I perform my job (Col. 3:24-25).

6. I will ask God to help me be salt (Matt. 5:13), light (Matt. 5:14-16, a discipler (Matt. 28:18-20), and a reprover of evil (Eph. 5:11-12) through my life and my words as I work.

7. I will choose to believe that God has me here for eternal purposes: both my good and the good of others (Rom. 8:28-29), that God is sovereign over my boss(es), that God can open or close any door of opportunity He desires (Psa. 75:6-7).

8. I will choose to be content by

a. remembering that meaning and satisfaction are not found in any of life’s components but only in life’s Creator (Eccl. 2:24; 5:18).

b. choosing to be thankful each morning that I have this job and this opportunity to serve Christ (Col. 3:17)

c. Rejecting any temptation to compare myself with others (2 Cor. 10:12). This leads to envy and discontent.

9. I will ask God to open any doors of opportunities He wants me to walk through (2 Cor. 2:12).

10. I will ask God to help me have a cheerful, excellent spirit as I stay where He has placed me (Deut. 28:47; Dan. 6:3).

11. I will view my earnings as God-given to provide for my family (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:12; 1 Tim. 5:8) and to enable me to give to those who have need (Eph. 4:28).

Why should we count it all joy? Second Reason

2010-06-26T21:08:00.014-04:00

The first reason we should "count it all joy" is that trials build our faith's capacity to endure (James 1:3).

James gives the second reason in verse four: "... that you may be perfect, complete, lacking nothing." (ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.)

But before he gives the second reason, he gives a second command: "Let endurance have its perfect work." (ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω)

What does it means to "let endurance have its perfect work?" Think of the 10k marathon. If a runner gives out after 9k, his endurance did not complete or finish the job. Endurance "has" its perfect work, when it makes it all the way to the finish line. That's what endurance is supposed to do: take you the distance.

Here's James' point. When you're still in pain, or you're out of a job, or you're still not sleeping well, or your situation is getting worse not better, or all of the above are true simultaneously ... don't quit trusting God! Don't jump off the Potter's wheel! Continue affirming and trusting in God's goodness, wisdom, faithfulness, and sovereignty.

Easy to say!! Sure it's easy to say, and Yes, it's teeth-clenchingly difficult. But that is what James is saying.

But HOW do you "let endurance have its perfect work?" Just mindlessly mantra Romans 8:28?!! No ... but to answer the how question will require a separate post ...

So ... A key reason not to give up and the second reason we should could it all joy when we fall into various trials is God is using them to make us perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

I think it is a mistake to try to distinguish between "perfect," "complete," and "lacking nothing" here. James is piling on the synonyms for effect -- like we do when we say it is a wonderful, fabulous, glorious day.

What does perfect mean? It doesn't mean God is fixing our minds, so they think without logical error. It doesn't mean God is fixing our bodies, so that they are always hale and hearty.

"Perfect" in James describes the kind of gifts that come down from the Father of Lights (James 1:17), the law of liberty (James 1:25), and the man who is able to bridle his whole body (James 3:2). The variety of items James describes as "perfect" makes it a bit difficult to determine precisely what he has in mind.

Perhaps it is best to allow the other two synonyms he uses to focus his idea for us: complete and lacking nothing. The perfection God is working in our lives is a completeness where nothing that should be present is lacking. That sounds like what Paul describes as "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13). In other words, full Christlikeness of character.

Now, unless you are really enthused about gaining spiritual maturity or full Christlikeness, learning that your trials are helping you become fully like Jesus won't incline you to "all joy." And, frankly, that is a major part of our problem. We have forgotten that being a disciple of Jesus means making being like him the ultimate and focal object of our life (Mat. 10:24-25).

When we do long to be like Jesus more than we long to be like anyone or anything else, then knowing that God is perfecting us into the image of His Son will be a grounds for great joy.

Why should we count it all joy? First Reason

2010-06-21T20:41:00.009-04:00

In my previous post, I argued that James has in mind trials that challenge our confidence in God's goodness, wisdom, faithfulness, or power. Why are we supposed to count falling into such trials all joy?

James gives a two part answer. The first part is in Jam. 1:3 -- "knowing this that the trying of your faith works patience."

The word "knowing" is a participle both in English and in Greek. In both languages, participles are usually subordinate to (dependent upon) the main verb in a sentence. That means that participles give additional information about the main verb.

In this case, the main verb is "count" (ἡγήσασθε) in Jam. 1:2. The participle in v. 3 gives the reason why James is telling his readers to count faith-testing trials all joy: because we know that such trials of our faith produce patience.

As noted previously, the word translated patience (ὑπομονήν) is not the ability to stand in a long checkout line at a Walmart without losing your cool. It is the ability to keep on running the 10k marathon when you hit hills in the 7th kilometer.

But James isn't talking about endurance in general. He certainly isn't talking about physical endurance. He is talking about faith's endurance. Our faith is like a set of muscles that require practice and exercise to build the stamina necessary to endure the rigors of spiritual battle.

God is much like the drill instructor who wisely and appropriately pushes his soldiers to their limits to build their endurance. An officer knows that his soldiers will be worthless in battle without stamina. We too are soldiers (2 Tim. 2:3-4), but we are of no value in Kingdom warfare without enduring faith (Eph. 6:16; Heb. 11:6).

He whose faith in God's wisdom, power, goodness, or faithfulness wavers in the battle is unsteady, unstable, and displeasing to God. "Let not that man think that he shall receive anything from the Lord" (Jam. 1:6-7).

So God intentionally puts us through tests, not primarily to see IF we will believe Him, but rather to strengthen our faith, our confidence in Him. As we come through faith-tests, by His grace, our confidence in God grows firmer and firmer.

Steadfast and immovable faith greatly glorifies God. It magnifies Him as the All-Sufficient, Fully Trustworthy One. His goodness, wisdom, power, and faithfulness shine brightest when His children continue to trust Him in trials that appear to belie His character.

This is the first reason we should rejoice: God is strengthening our faith and glorifying Himself through our trial(s).

The kind of trials James has in mind (Jam. 1:2-4)

2010-06-20T21:33:00.005-04:00

Most commentaries will note that the word translated "trials" in James 1:2 means a "test." BDAG offers "a test to learn the nature or character of something."

That suggests synonyms like problems, difficulties, issues, inconveniences, or perhaps examinations. If we work only with verse 2, then James seems to be talking about counting it all joy when you encounter life's difficulties, regardless of their nature.

However, verse 3 narrows the focus of this passage and further defines the specific kind of trials that James has in mind. Specifically, James is addressing trials that test a person's faith.

What is a "trying of faith?" A trying of faith is a test that challenges what you believe about God. If the trial you are facing doesn't raise questions about God's goodness, power, wisdom, faithfulness, or love, then it isn't the kind of trial that James is thinking about.

I have my share of problems, difficulties, issues, inconveniences, etc. But the vast majority of them never raise any questions about God's character in my mind, let alone serious questions.

But when I'm standing by the bedside of my wife who's starting to be out of her head with pain, and she's pleading with God for mercy and relief, which does not rapidly materialize, that's an opportunity for questions to arise about God's goodness.

Or, I'm sitting on the chapel platform and hear prayer requested for a young father who accidentally ran over and killed his four year old son who was running to greet him as he returned from work -- questions about God's wisdom, love, and goodness easily enter the mind.

How can God be good an allow this?
Why doesn't God answer my prayer ... Does He care?
Things sure don't look to me like God's in control ... is He really sovereign over all of life's circumstances?

When these or similar thoughts enter your mind, welcome to a James 1:2-4 kind of trial.

But don't quit with verse 3. Verse 4 adds an additional dimension to the kind of trials James has in mind.

But let patience have her perfect work
that you may be perfect, complete, lacking nothing.

The first half of the verse is fairly obscure until you understand that "patience" (hupomone) is "endurance, staying power, fortitude." It is the ability to keep on keeping on when the road is rough and the journey long.

In other words, verse 4 indicates that at least some of these faith tests may be long. It is one thing to affirm God's wisdom, love, power, faithfulness, and goodness 24 hours after the enemy rolls up his faith-toppling battering ram. It is quite another thing to continue unwaveringly in that affirmation as days stretch into weeks and weeks into months, even as Grond continues its unrelenting blows.

At least two places in the rest of this epistle touch on examples of faith-tests: legal abuse of poor Christians by the rich (Jam. 5:4-6), and extended bed-fast sickness (Jam. 5:14-16).

It is in the midst of such faith-testing trials that James directs us to count it all joy!

When you fall into various trials ... (Jam. 1:2-4)

2010-06-19T20:49:00.005-04:00

I have fallen into various trials over the past month:

Three weeks ago my wife's post-op pain got out of control and she was hospitalized for 2 days..
Five days later all five members of my immediate family, myself included, plus my father-in-law, got food poisoning and we were vomiting in turns and simultaneously over a period of 12 hours.
Four days later my wife reacts horribly to a medicine prescribed by her gynecologist--burning in the chest, then overwhelming nausea, then overwhelming irrational fear, then return to normal, to be repeated every 30-40 minutes for the next 24-36 hours.
Another four days and another medicine is prescribed to which she reacts even more violently and that puts her in the hospital for three days. (She does not tolerate SSRI or SNRI meds!)

The results of all the above plus the stress of the surgery and a long list of other stressors preceding the surgery: her adrenal glands appear to have gone haywire, messing with her ability to sleep, putting her out of commission for a while as she attempts to rest enough to recover. That placed her care and the care of our three boys on my plate: all summer projects out the window!

I think that qualifies for James' "various trials." And regarding all such trials he commands, "Count it all joy!"

James' command raises a host of questions: What is joy? What is "all joy?" What does it mean to "count" it all joy? Why should we count falling into various trials all joy? And how do you do that?

In this and the (hopefully) following posts I'm going to try to answer these questions. But a little background first. I first worked on this passage back in 1992 for second year Greek exegesis project. I've preached this passage probably more than I've preached any other passage in Scripture. And, since 2002 I've been requiring my Advanced Homiletics students to preach this passage. So I've heard it preached, both well and poorly, quite a bit!

All that to say, I've been mulling this one over for a long time. As the Lord takes me through deeper waters, I have found this passage to be unshakable bedrock. My appreciation for its profundity only grows as I face more difficult trials.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit = Filling with the Holy Spirit

2009-10-24T07:12:00.004-04:00

1. All four gospels record John’s statement that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (and fire, except Mark and John).

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

2. Prior to His ascension Jesus prophecied that the disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit after a few days.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

3. On Pentecost, all the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

4. A few days later they were filled again.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

5. The apostles specify being “full of the Spirit” as a criterion for being a servant in the church. Fullness of the Spirit is, therefore, a characteristic discernible by fellow-believers.

Act 6:3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. (cf. 7:55)
Acts 6:5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

6. The Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of the Samaritan believers prior to Peter and John praying for them. They prayed for them that they might received the Holy Spirit, and then when they laid hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 8:17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

7. Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit through the ministry of Ananias.

Acts 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

8. At Cornelius’ house, the Holy Spirit falls upon those listening. The narrator describes Peter’s amazement at the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles. Peter speaks of the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44 ¶ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 10:45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

9. Peter describes the event at Cornelius’ house in terms of the Holy Spirit “falling upon them as He did upon us at the beginning,” and specifically identifies this as an example of Jesus’ prophesy that “you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 11:15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
11:16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

10. Barnabas is described as a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith. Again, fullness of the Spirit is discernible.

Acts 11:24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.

11. The disciples in Antioch of Pisidia were being filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. Note the imperfect tense. The ongoing nature of being filled with the Spirit could be interpreted iteratively, as in Acts 2 and then 4, or progressively as Ephesians 5:18 seems to imply.

Acts 13:52 And the disciples were continually filled (ἐπληροῦντο) with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

12. God gave the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and those assembled with him. The issue here is how δοὺς should relate to ἐμαρτύρησεν: antecedent time or means. It fits the contours of means quite well.

Acts 15:8 καὶ ὁ καρδιογνώστης θεὸς ἐμαρτύρησεν αὐτοῖς δοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καθὼς καὶ ἡμῖν
Acts 15:8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

13. After Paul laid his hands on the Ephesians the Holy Spirit came upon them. The variety in terminology suggests that the language itself is non-technical and descriptive: filled, came upon, fell upon, baptized with, received.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

14. Texts not included above which use the language of “full of/with the Holy Spirit” are Acts 4:8; 7:55 and 13:9.

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,
Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, [Stephen] gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;
Acts 13:9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him,

At first glance, these texts seem more like OT texts where the Spirit comes upon a person for a specific purpose and for a limited time. On the other hand, in each of these cases, these people were previously said to have been filled with the Spirit, and in Stephen’s case especially, he was picked as a deacon on the basis of the fact he was full of the Holy Spirit. That data seems to weigh on the side of understanding Luke’s choice to include this characterization as a theological note to avoid the appearance that the special deeds done by these men were self-originating, but were rather Spirit-empowered. The point of this epithet is not to denote a new or renewed “filling,” but the fact of the Spirit’s fullness (i.e., controlling, empowering presence) out of which their actions flowed.

Conclusion: There is no difference between Christ’s baptism of believers with the Holy Spirit promised in the Gospels and Acts 1:5 and the Filling with the Spirit received throughout Acts. This is a Christological baptism with the Spirit (instrumental dative) and is to be distinguished from the Pneumatological baptism by the Spirit (dative of agency) of 1 Corinthians 12:13.

The LORD is a God of Justice (Isa. 30:18)

2009-09-23T21:26:00.003-04:00

Isa. 30:18 caught my attention this morning. The nature and necessity of divine justice has been on my mind because I've been lecturing on the biblical teaching regarding election and predestination.

What stirs debate in theological circles generates only praise from inspired writers of Scripture: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, e.g., He chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him, having predestined us in love to adoption as children through Christ to himself" (Eph. 1:3-5).

In Isaiah 30:18 Isaiah describes Yahweh to rebellious Israel: "Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself/rises to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him."

That sent me looking for other OT texts connecting justice (mishpat) to Yahweh. Three texts stood out to me: "the Lord loves justice" (Psa. 37:28), "I, Yahweh, love justice and hate robbery" (Isa. 61:8), and "I am the LORD who practices lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight" (Jer. 9:24[H 23]).

All the while I'm looking at these texts, Romans 9:14 is sounding in the back of my mind: "Is there injustice with God? God forbid!" Paul could have responded, "God is sovereign. He can do anything He wants," or even, "God is sovereign. He could choose to do anything, and it would by definition be just." And some, it seems, think that is what he says in Romans 9:15-21. But that cannot be what 9:15-21 mean if Romans 9:14 is understood.

There is such a thing as injustice, and it is unthinkable that injustice could be found in God. Thus there are things that God in His infinite sovereignty could not do, for they would be unjust. Yahweh's love for and delight in justice ensure that all his dealings with His creation will fully comport with His revelation of justice.

What does God say justice is? and what is the relationship between divine justice and human culpability?

More on those questions, hopefully sooner rather than later, but for now ...

I rejoice that Yahweh's love for justice and His love for me intersected in His self-propitiation on my behalf (Rom. 3:25)!

Capital Punishment within a Christian Worldview

2009-04-24T09:26:00.003-04:00

God entrusted to fallible, fallen, unsaved humans the responsibility of exercising justice (Deut. 1:16-17). He established the principles by which humans were to judge justly:

1. No favoritism or partiality (Lev. 19:15).
2. No allegation may be accepted without a minimum of two witnesses (Deut. 17:6).
3. When the appropriate number of witnesses are present, and the allegations are found to be true, the judges must pass an equitable sentence upon the criminal, i.e., the punishment is to be equal to the crime (Exod. 21:24-25; Lev. 24:19-21; Deut. 19:21).
4. The judges are to be present when the punishment is meted out so that they are fully aware of the effects of the punishment (Deut. 25:1-3).
5. The witnesses, in the case of capital punishment by stoning, are to be involved in carrying out the punishment (Deut. 17:3-6). This means that if witnesses have colluded and falsely accused someone, they become guilty of murder and, when discovered, will receive the same death penalty that they wrongly had inflicted upon another (Deut. 19:15-19).
6. Execution by stoning was to be done publically with the participation of the public (Deut. 17:7). This reinforced the seriousness of the crime and served as a deterrent to future criminal activity.
7. Prior to the establishment of the Mosaic Covenant and the creation of the nation of Israel, God established capital punishment as the appropriate sentence for intentional manslaughter in time of peace (Gen. 9:6)
8. Within the context of the Israelite nation, God established that the following crimes were to be punished with the death penalty

+ Intentional manslaughter in time of peace (Lev. 24:21; Num. 35:30-33). The Numbers passage is important because God says no amount of money may be accepted as reparation for murder. Only by the blood of the murderer being shed can a land be purged from the guilt of murder.
+ The owner of an animal that kills another man, if the owner knew the animal was likely to kill and did not take precaution to keep the animal away from people (Exod. 21:29). In this case, the owner may ransom his life with money if it is demanded of him (Exod. 21:30).
+ Kidnappers (Exod. 21:16)
+ Those involved in witchcraft (Exod. 22:18)
+ Those who are involved in homosexual behavior (Lev. 20:13) or beastiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16)
+ If a man marries a woman and her mother, they are all to be burned with fire (Lev. 20:14)
+ Whoever blasphemes God’s name (Lev. 24:16).
+ Whoever curses his father or mother (Lev. 20:9) or strikes his father of mother (Exod. 21:15).
+ Those who commit adultery (Lev. 20:10), including the rape of or consensual sex with an engaged woman.
+ Those who commit incest (non-rape) are both killed (Lev. 20:11-12)
+ A non-Levite who gets near the tabernacle during its setup (Num. 1:51).
+ A prophet or dreamer of dreams who entices God’s people to serve other Gods (Deut. 13:3), as well as any person or group of persons who depart from God and serve other gods (Deut. 13:5ff)
+ A stubborn, rebellious son who is a glutton and a drunkard (Deut 21:18-21). It appears that after a person was stoned to death, they were hung on a tree as a warning against committing such crime. They were allowed to hang only until sundown (Deut. 21:22).

Since God is always just, God’s establishment of capital punishment for the above crimes means that it is an appropriate (equitable) punishment for the seriousness of these crimes. If the death penalty seems too severe for these crimes, that tells us that we do not view these crimes the way God does. Since God specifies that certain crimes are to be punished by stoning, others by burning, and others by hanging, none of these forms of capital punishment should be regarded as inhumane or failing to reflect a godly compassion.

The fact that God imparted responsibility to exercise capital punishment to fallible, fallen, unsaved humans tells us that the possibility, even likelihood, of injustice being done, was not a sufficient cause from God’s perspective to forbid capital punishment. It should not, therefore, be a sufficient grounds for us to oppose it.

When we value human life more than God values it, we are idolaters because we are essentially saying we know the real value of things better than God does.

Since we are not part of the nation of Israel, we as individuals do not have the freedom to enact capital punishment. However, to the extent that we can influence the laws of our land, we should seek to influence our laws to punish as capital crimes those sins that God deems worthy of capital punishment.

NT Issues:
Woman taken in adultery. Assuming that this story is actually part of the text (and there are serious questions about its authenticity), Jesus told the witnesses to stone her. He passed judgment that she was worthy of death. However, he also added a condition that exposed the hypocrisy of her accusers: “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus is not establishing a requirement that only those without sin can be involved in the judgment of others. If so, that would invalidate all forms of civil courts by non-Christians, but God said that those in authority in civil government are appointed by God (regardless of their personal spiritual status) and they do not “bear the sword in vain,” implying that they legitimately wield the sword (a tool of death) in the punishment of evil doers (Rom. 13:1-6).

1 Cor. 6:9-11 some of the Corinthians were formerly adulterers and homosexuals, but God washed, justified, and sanctified them. Does this show that God no longer considers these capital crimes? No. Rather it shows that these sins are not unforgiveable. Capital punishment in the OT did not preclude the possibility of repentance and forgiveness prior to being killed. Repentance, however, is not a reason to commute a death penalty for those who, according to God, deserve it. The reason the Corinthians weren’t killed for their adultery and homosexuality is because they were not living in Israel under God’s government. They were living under Roman law which did not reflect God’s perspective on these issues. We too live under laws which do not reflect God’s perspective on these issues, but as followers of Jesus, the one who gave the Mosaic Law to Israel, we must view all of life from His perspective.

Glorying in the Cross (Gal. 6:14)

2009-04-10T19:42:00.009-04:00

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Galatians 6:14 KJV)

Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾽ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ

What does it mean to "glory in the cross?"

The first rule of interpretation is context, and the previous two verses provide the setting.

Galatians 6:12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. (NASB)

As Paul makes clear throughout this letter, Judaizers were pressuring the Galatian Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Their purpose in this campaign was to avoid persecution themselves and to be able to boast about making "converts," which appears to be what Paul means by "so that they may boast in your flesh."

The word translated "boast" in v. 13 (NASB) is the same word translated "glory" in v. 14 (KJV). To "glory" in something is to view it as a basis for bragging, boasting, or being proud. BDAG offers the sense "to take pride in someth.," and the glosses "boast, glory, pride oneself, brag" for Gal. 6:13, 14.

In contrast to the Judaizers who wanted to brag or boast about a "righteousness" achieved through external conformity to the Law, specifically through circumcision, Paul asserts that he will only glory, boast, brag about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I remember singing songs about "glorying in the cross," and being uncertain what precisely it mean to glory in the cross. It is difficult to glory in the cross if I do not see the cross as more than the place Jesus died for my sins.

As I have matured in my understanding of the significance of the cross in God's plan of redemption, my appreciation for the cross (metonymy for all that was accomplished by Jesus in his atonement on the cross) has grown.

The cross should be the grounds for our boasting for at least the following reasons:

• The cross reveals the monstrous nature of my sin – the Son of God had to suffer and die to ransom me. Yet, He did!
• The cross trumpets the necessity of justice, the inevitability of punishment for sin, and an irrevocably moral universe.
• The cross testifies to the value God places upon humanity, made in His image (Col. 3:10).
• The cross unveils the vastness of God’s desire for our restoration to relationship with Himself, the unsearchable limits of His love (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8).
• The cross is a token of God's purpose to give me all that it takes to live in relationship with Him, for if God spared not His son, how shall He not also with him give me all things freely (Rom. 8:32).
• The cross was the place where Christ provided a propitiation for righteous wrath of God for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
• The cross frees me from the law's claim upon me – for the law views me as dead through my union with Christ – and frees me to be married to Christ and bring forth fruit to God (Rom. 7:4-6).
• On the cross Jesus bore in his body the punishment my sins rightly deserved so that I need never experience that punishment (1 Peter 2:24)
• The cross is the basis of my justification (Gal. 2:16-20).
• The cross provides me with a righteousness I could never acquire on my own (Phil. 3:9; 1 Peter 2:24)
• The cross frees me from sin’s control (Romans 6:1-7:6)
• The cross is the means by which the world has been crucified to me and I have been crucified to the world (Gal. 6:14).
• The cross leads to resurrection and new life.
• The cross is the basis for the believer's entire sanctification (actualizing my union with Christ’s death to sin) and all ongoing growth in Christlikeness (Rom. 6).
• The cross points to the sacrificial blood which now cleanses those who walk in the light from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7).
• The cross removed the barrier to the holy of holies – the temple veil was torn from top to bottom when Jesus cried it is finished.

Hallelujah for the cross!

A Valuable Resource for Child Rearing

2009-04-08T21:25:00.003-04:00

Several years ago, some of my friends highly recommended Ted Tripp's book Shepherding a Child's Heart. I purchased it and read it. I didn't find it significantly helpful. Probably that's a commentary on me, though Tripp's style tends to be repetitious, and I don't do repetitious well.

Recently, Lizzy Stetler posted a link to a series of five lectures by Tripp on Child Rearing. Marianne viewed the lectures and encouraged me to. The lectures are fabulous. I particularly resonated with his second lecture "Giving Kids a Vision for God's Glory." Powerful stuff!

I heartily recommend any dad (and mom) who is serious about inculcating a Christian worldview (modern term for Scripture's "wisdom") into their children to absorb all you can from these lectures.

Here are the links to the five lectures:
Session 1: The Call to Formative Instruction
Session 2: Giving Kids a Vision for God's Glory
Session 3: Helping Kids Understand Authority
Session 4: Helping Kids Understand the Heart
Session 5: Overview of Corrective Discipline

As usual, my recommendation does not constitute an endorsement of everything Tripp says. We are always responsible to search the Scriptures to verify the accuracy of any teaching.

He is able ...

2009-03-08T17:35:00.006-04:00

• to guard what I’ve deposited with Him δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω• ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι, οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν. (2 Tim. 1:12)

• to do exceedingly abundantly above what we are asking or thinking Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν (Eph. 3:20)

• to cause all grace to abound unto me. δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, (2 Cor. 9:8)

• to help those who are being tested ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι. (Heb. 2:18)

• to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him. ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. (Heb. 7:25)

• to guard us from stumbling and present us blameless before his glory with great joy. Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει (Jude 1:24)

• to subdue all things to himself. ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. (Phil. 3:21)

• to heal blind eyes. ἐλθόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ τυφλοί, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς• πιστεύετε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ• ναὶ κύριε. τότε ἥψατο τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν λέγων• κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν. (Matt. 9:28-29)

Lord Jesus, I rejoice that you are able! You are more than able to enable me with overcoming power, more than able to give victory again! I rejoice in your ability!

I'm really enjoying using Bagster's Daily Light in BibleWorks 8. This resource offers thematically selected Scripture readings for morning and evening. In BW 8, they can be read in Greek and Hebrew as well (see below).

God sanctifies Himself (Ezek. 38:23)

2009-03-07T11:17:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday I shared a SS lesson with the combined Adult and Young Adult classes at Burlington Bible Methodist Church. I attempted to answer three questions:

1. What does it mean for God to sanctify Himself (Ezek. 38:23)?
2. What does it mean for us to sanctify God?
3. How do the answers to the first two questions relate to the first petition of the Lord's pattern prayer, "Hallowed by thy name?"

In this post I share my answer to the first question. As I journeyed through all the OT texts on holiness, I was struck by the following verses.

Isaiah 5:16 But the LORD of hosts will be exalted in judgment, And the holy God will be sanctified in righteousness.

Ezekiel 20:41 "As a soothing aroma I will accept you when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered; and I will be sanctified among you in the sight of the nations.

Ezekiel 28:22 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Sidon, And I will be glorified in your midst. Then they will know that I am the LORD when I execute judgments in her, And I will be sanctified in her.

Ezekiel 28:25 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and will be sanctified in them in the sight of the nations, then they will live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.

Ezekiel 36:23 "I will sanctify My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I am sanctified among you in their sight.

Ezekiel 38:23 "I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the LORD."'

Ezekiel 39:27 "When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall be sanctified through them in the sight of the many nations.

"Sanctified" appears to have the same basic information component in reference to God that it does in reference to things or human persons: separateness or set apartness. God is sanctified when He acts in a way that clearly separates Him, i.e., distinguishes Him, from the pantheon of ANE gods.

His name had been profaned ("made common, ordinary") by the exile of Israel. From the standpoint of the watching world, Yahweh turned out to be no more powerful than any of the other gods that Nebuchadnezzar's military juggernaut had toppled. Yahweh was, in fact, less power than the Babylonian gods, because the Babylonian gods had empowered Nebuchadnezzar to capture His city and destroy His temple.

This is what Yahweh will not tolerate: being made to look ordinary. Thus he promises that He will sanctify Himself (distinguish Himself from all others), magnify Himself (demonstrate His greatness to the world), and make Himself known in the sight of many nations (Ezek. 38:23) by bringing Israel back from exile and reestablishing her in her land.

The statement that he "is sanctified in righteousness" (Isa. 5:16) deserves special attention. Righteousness in Hebrew, contrary to what many theological word books say, is "conformity to a standard." I am convinced that Lev. 19:35-36 and Deut. 25:13-15 provide the key texts for understanding what it means for something to be righteous: it measures up to the standard under consideration. A righteous scale is one that weighs a pound as a pound and not as a 1.5 lbs or .75 lbs. Righteousness in persons is their conformity to whatever standard is under consideration.

Righteousness in God is God's conformity to His own standards, i.e., His self-consistency. Since God's character sets the standard for righteous behavior in human morals, since character is the standard to which He always adhere. And this is one of the things that sanctifies Him, i.e., sets Him apart and establishes His incomparableness. If the ANE gods were anything, they were fickle and perfidious. This is precisely the opposite of the character of Yahweh. He is righteous in all His ways.

When we pray the first petition of the Lord's prayer, one of the things we are asking God to do is act in the world in a way that clearly manifests the unique excellence of His character and being thereby distinguishing Himself, setting Himself apart, from all others "gods."

Discovery: 1 Peter 1:16 quotes Leviticus 19

2009-03-01T21:44:00.005-05:00

I was sitting in chapel a month ago and Dad was doing a great job preaching 1 Peter 1:13-16. This is a great text that demonstrates that NT apostles understood the Pentateuch to provide immediately applicable commands for NT believers.

Verse 16 is Peter's quotation from Leviticus that buttresses his apostolic injunction to be holy in all your conduct: because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

I was sitting there with my copy of Biblia Sacra (combined Hebrew & Greek Bible), and I noticed the Greek syntax of the quotation placed "holy" in an emphatic position: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to look at the syntax of the Hebrew text in the places in Leviticus where this statement is made (Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2; cf. Lev. 20:7). What struck me as I looked is that Leviticus 19:2 is the only place where the Hebrew syntax exactly matches the Greek syntax of 1 Peter 1:16.

וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָ֑נִי (Lev. 11:44)
וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָֽנִי׃ (Lev. 11:45)
קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ (Lev. 19:2)

What further piqued my interest was that Peter's "in all your conduct" fits Lev. 19 much better than it fits Lev. 11. Leviticus 11:44 is part of the conclusion of a section on clean and unclean foods and is followed by a chapter on purification of women after childbirth.

I have been slowly memorizing and meditating on Leviticus 19 for about 6 months. I had come to the conclusion that God's "be holy for I am holy" in v. 2 is not merely one command in a list of commands, but is the key command that controls the entire chapter.

Specifically, fearing one's parents (v. 3), keeping His sabbaths (v. 3), rejecting idolatry (v. 4), worshiping God according to His specifications (vv. 5-8), caring for foreigners and the needy (9-10), not stealing or lying (v. 11), not swearing falsely (v. 12), loving your neighbor (v. 18) ... in fact the entire chapter is an explication of what it means to be holy "in all conduct."

I couldn't wait for chapel to be over so I could go check the LXX to see if, in fact, the variations in Hebrew syntax had been maintained in Lev. 11 and 19. I was a bit disappointed to find that it wasn't.

Lev 11:44 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν
Lev 11:45 ἔσεσθε ἅγιοι ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι ἐγὼ κύριος
Lev 19:2 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν
1 Pe 1:16 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός

In Leviticus 11:44, the LXX doesn't reflect the Hebrew syntax and places "holy" before "you shall be." So ... the syntax really doesn't decide the question of what text Peter was quoting. I suspect that those identifying cross-references just picked Lev. 11:44 because it was the first place this command occurs. However, I did notice that the syntax of 1 Peter 1:16 does perfectly match Lev. 19:2 as far as it goes.

Bottom line: Both the syntax and the context of Leviticus 19 make it a much better fit as a proof text for Peter's command to "be holy in all your conduct."

Application: In AL this week, I preached a two part message on 1 Peter 1:14-16 and Leviticus 19:1-18. Lev. 19:15-18 was a message all of its own, and, wow, what a powerful text on holy living! In fact, even though conduct is on front stage of this chapter, vv. 17-18 powerfully demonstrate that the holiness God wants from His people has always been a heart holiness that manifests itself in one's life.

To be holy as God is holy is to have the same excellence of character and conduct distinguishing us from the world that distinguishes God from all others gods.

Deut. 6:6-7 -- Train them when you sit, walk, lie down, get up ... what am I supposed to say?

2009-02-08T16:21:00.009-05:00

In Deuteronomy 6:6-7, God says,

6 These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. 7 Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

The KJV of v. 7 reads, "thou shalt teach them diligently." When I think of teaching, I think primarily of a setting where one person imparts information to others who do not have that information.

That needs to happen, but it isn't what God is talking about in this the classic passage on child training. The word translated "teach" in the KJV means "repeat." By using the word repeat God focuses on the method of instruction, not on the instruction itself.

Every teacher knows repetition aids learning. The Master Teacher commands parents to repeat His words (contextually, the Ten Words which are the Ten Commandments) to their children, not just daily, but all throughout the day.

I'm trying to take this to heart. So, my kids have learned the Ten Commandments Song, and Allan can accurately quote them and identify them by number. At almost five, he's showing a fairly decent understanding of what they mean.

But does Deut. 6:6-7 mean I'm supposed to quote the Ten Commandments at least four times each day to my kids? Three considerations suggest a negative answer to that question.

If there is any repetitive distillation of biblical wisdom that expounds the implications of God's Ten Words, it is the Book of Proverbs. Yet, Proverbs is far from being dull, monotonous, or inartistic. Its literary variety in vocabulary, syntax, and structure make its repetitions interesting and lively. Proverbs is, in fact, an explicit biblical model for parental obedience to Deut. 6:6-7. Say it over and over, but beware unvaried pattern.
The Ten Words themselves are actually applications of the two greatest words God has given us: Love God wholeheartedly, and love your neighbor as yourself. In and on these two commands hangs all God desires from us. Therefore, our daily repetitions must include them, flow from them, and point to them.
Although the Ten Words are the immediate context of Deut. 6:6-7, the entire book is a restatement of God's Torah (instructions) for His people. God promises success and blessing to those to memorize and meditate upon, not merely the Ten Words, but the totality of His Torah (Josh. 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3, etc.)

That means that the totality of God's word is to be the repeated object of conversation with our children when they rise, walk with us, sit with us, and when they go to bed. ... The problem is where to start.

Here's a few of the things I've been doing to implement God's method of child training. I welcome your ideas as well.

I started quoting Psalm 23 (with appropriate hand motions) when I put the boys to bed. Thanks to Mark Cravens for this idea. Psalm 23 lead to Psalm 1 which has lead to Psalm 19--what I'm currently working on.
When we eat breakfast together, Marianne or I play Scripture off biblegateway.com. Allan's favorite is the entire book of Jonah. But we vary the texts.
Sunday we have nearly 2 hours of driving time in the car. So I am putting together a family radio program that is a mix of Scripture, children's songs (1, 2), familiar hymns (1, 2), and children's stories. This is also a part of my attempt to make the Sabbath a special day for the boys.
We memorize verses during family worship.

I was reading William Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life this afternoon. Chapter 18 is well-worth a parent's time reading, especially dads. Starting on p. 147 of the pdf version, William Law introduces "Paternus," a father who talks to his 10 year old son about God. I was struck by the solid, Scriptural advice Paternus gives his son. In fact, I intend to incorporate some of it (in modernized English) into my repertoire of key truths I want to inculcate in my sons. Here are a couple samples:

Aspire after nothing but your own purity and perfection, and have no ambition, but to do everything in so reasonable and religious a manner, that you may be glad that God is everywhere present, and sees and observes all your actions.

I can bring you food and medicines, but have no power to turn them into your relief and nourishment. It is God alone that can do this for you. Therefore, my child, fear, and worship, and love God. Your eyes, indeed, cannot yet see Him. But all things that you see are so many marks of His power and presence, and He is nearer to you than anything that you can see. Take Him for your Lord, and Father, and Friend, look up unto Him as the fountain and cause of all the good that you have received through my hands; and reverence me only as the bearer and minister of God's good things unto you. And He that blessed my father before I was born, will bless you when I am dead.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: Appendix A Available For Download

2009-01-05T10:37:00.003-05:00

Zondervan has given me permission to make Appendix A--the glossary containing all words occurring over 100x-- available as a free download. I have formatted the document so that it can be printed double-sided as a booklet. For the booklet version click here: http://apbrown2.net/rhbappendixa.pdf

If the booklet format is too hard to figure out how to print (it can be difficult), you can download a full-pageversion which you can then print in whatever way you prefer. For the full-page version click here: http://apbrown2.net/rhbappendixa_full.pdf

Tole, Lege!
Philip Brown

What does it mean to believe in Jesus?

2008-12-13T15:01:00.004-05:00

Since I require my Advanced Homiletics students to preach either John 3:1-13 or John 3:14-21 as their third sermon, I’ve heard 7 messages on both passages within the last 2 weeks.

The frequent occurrence of the verb πιστεύω in John 3:1-21 has caused the issue of what it means to believe in Jesus to resurface in my thinking. The key phrases are
• Everyone who believes in him [the Son of Man] (John 13:5)
• Everyone who believes in him [the Son] (John 3:16)
• The one who believes in him [the Son] (John 3:18a)
• The one who does not believe has been condemned (John 3:18b)
• Because he has not believed on the name of the only Son of God (John 3:18c)

Theologically, I know that for faith to be saving faith it must bear the fruit of obedience to Christ (James 2:22-26). There is no Lordless salvation (Matt. 7:21). But “believe on Jesus” seems so cognitive, so cerebral, so non-heartish … it almost seems to lend itself to a religion of the head apart from the heart.

A common answer to my question—you must mentally affirm that Jesus is God’s Son, that he died for your sins, and rose again for your justification, and that He will save you from your sins if you ask him to—has in many parts of Christendom yielded a harvest of orthodox heads and adulterous hearts and lives.

Today I had a breakthrough. Baptism helps explain what it means to believe in Jesus.

Many Christians don’t realize that baptism is not a uniquely Christian rite. In the first century, baptism was a common practice among both Jews and Pagans. It was an initiatory ritual by which one signified one’s commitment to become an adherent to a religious sect. John the Baptist is the prime NT example of this (John 4:1). However, we find descriptions of similar rites from Qumran, in Josephus, and in Greek literature.

When one was baptized in the name of X, the one baptized was announcing his intention to be with and learn from X. In other words, it was common knowledge that getting baptized was a public declaration that you were becoming a disciple of someone or something.

Immediately following the calls to belief in John 3:1-21, John states that “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing” (John 3:22). In other words, people who “believe” in Jesus get baptized in his name, thereby signifying that they are becoming His disciples, apprentices, followers—people who were going to pattern their whole lives after Him and His teaching.

“Believing” is a mental affirmation, but it more than mental affirmation. It means staking my whole life on Jesus’ claim that He is the way to God and there is no other way. It means willingly yoking myself to him so that I can learn how to do life His way (Matt. 11:29). It means decisively abandoning my old way of life and being baptized into apprenticeship to a new way of life—His way.

It means being willing to forsake father, mother, sister, brother, wife, houses, lands, and even my own life, in order to pattern the totality of my existence after Him (Mark 10:28-30). It means believing that Jesus is the Master of every facet of life, so I must be his disciple in every facet of mine.

That’s what it meant to the Philippian jailer when Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). He recognized that belief required baptism in Jesus’ name, and baptism in Jesus' name symbolized his entrance into a brand new life of learning to think and act and react like Jesus.

That is what it means to believe in Jesus.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: WLC-BHS Differences Clarification

2008-11-14T20:33:00.004-05:00

I recently received a question about the Qere readings in 1 Sam 18:14, 22 that appear in BHS but do not appear in the Westminister Leningrad Codex (WLC) and therefore do not appear in A Reader's Hebrew Bible (RHB). The questioner wondered why the black dot that normally marks WLC-BHS differences in RHB did not appear there.

A fair question, and here, I hope, is a fair answer. According to the WLC 4.10 morphology, there are 56 instances where BHS adds a Qere that is not present in L. The Qere readings in 1 Sam. 18:14 and 22 are two such instances. Although I have not checked all 56 instances in BHS, the few I did check showed that BHS was following a note in the masorah in adding the Qere reading.

On page xvi of RHB's introduction, we said that RHB will mark with a supra-linear solid black dot all known instances where the editors of WLC read the text of L differently than the editors of BHS. Additions of Qere readings to L do not constitute a different reading of L's text as it stands. Therefore, such instances are not marked in RHB.

I suspect that many, if not most, users of BHS do not pay attention to whether Qere readings are marked as added to L by BHS, and thus would (wrongly) assume that RHB should reflect BHS at all points. Such is not the case.

Giving Thanks for God's Holiness (Psa. 97:12), Part 1

2008-08-10T20:40:00.006-04:00

Jonathan Edward's The Religious Affections, John Piper's lecture on Preaching as Worship (TrinJ 16) and my study of holiness in the OT converged in a sermon this morning on Psalm 97.

I've been listening to The Religious Affections in spare moments for nearly a year. At times it is brilliant. At others monotonously stuporific. His thesis is that true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections. His biblical-theological support for his thesis is unassailable. (Pdf copy of Religious Affections here.)

Edwards defines the affections as "the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclinations and the will." He clarifies this by noting that the inclinations and the will are actually the same thing, just viewed from two different perspectives. It is called "inclination" when viewed from the angle of desire; it is called "will" when viewed from the angle of decision and action.

Edwards asserts, rightly I believe, that "there never was any thing considerable brought to pass in the heart or life of any man, by the things of religion, until the mind was deeply affected by those things." Therefore, one of the chief aims of preaching is to stir up the affections so that the will is vigorously and sensibly active in responding to God's truth.

In Piper's language, preaching should "bring into sharp focus God as the all-satisfying Treasure of our lives." Our aim should be "that God would become so gloriously all-satisfying in our lives that nothing can lure us away from him."

What holy affections should God's holiness stir in me? How does God's holiness contribute to His being the "all-satisfying Treasure" of my life? In the Psalms alone I found the following:

Inspired responses to God's holiness

give thanks for it (Psa 30:4; 97:12)
worship Him for it (Psa. 29:2; 96:9; 99:5, 9)
praise Him because of it (Psa. 99:3)
exalt Him for it (Psa. 99:5, 9)

Inspired responses to God’s holy name

it is the object of our trust (Psa 33:21)
bless it (Psa. 103:1; 145:21)
glory or boast in it (Psa. 105:3)
give thanks to it (Psa. 106:47)

Most of these responses made immediate sense to me. However, giving thanks at the remembrance of God's holiness did not. Why is thankfulness or gratitude the response to God's holiness? I can't honestly say that my previous understanding of God's holiness has ever moved me to be thankful. What is it about God's holiness that should move me to thankfulness?

The answer to that question depends upon my understanding of what God's holiness is. Based on my study so far, here's my best understanding.

Holiness, when used in reference to God, normally denotes God's separateness from all things due to the unique excellence of His being and character. In this sense, God's holiness is not one moral attribute among His many. His holiness is not equal to His moral excellence. His holiness is a consequence of His moral excellence. He is separate from all things because He is superior in both His being and His character.

I conclude that separateness is the essential component of holiness, whether in reference to things, human persons, or God, for the following reasons:

1. With reference to things and human persons, all examples from Scripture involve the person or thing being separated from ordinary use, service, or purpose unto God for His possession, use, service, or purpose. For a fairly comprehensive list of the referents of holy and holiness, click here.

Things: 7th day (Gen. 2:3); ground (Exod. 3:5), assemblies (Exod. 13:2), war (Jer. 6:4), a fast (Joel 2:5).
Persons: 1st born (Exod. 13:2), Israelites (Exod. 19:10), Jesse and sons (1 Sam. 16:5), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5).

2. Since God teaches us about His holiness by first acquainting us with holiness applied to things and persons, His holiness must be essentially analogous to the holiness of things and persons. Since separateness is the essential component of holiness with person and things, I assume it is the essential component with God.

3. My assumption that separateness is the essential component of divine holiness appears to be substantiated by texts that connect God's holiness with his incomparableness (Exod. 15:11; Isa. 40:25) and his transcendence (Psa. 97:9, 12; Isa. 57:15).

If God's holiness is His separateness from all things , what is it that makes Him separate? As I read the OT data, it is the unique excellence of God's being and character that separates him from all things.

The unique excellence of His being involves His attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternality, immutability, self-existence, self-sufficiency, infinity, and sovereignty. The unique excellence of His character involves His love, righteousness, justice, mercy, wisdom, goodness, wrathfulness, truthfulness, and jealousy.

In my next post, I'll develop the support for concluding that it is the unique excellence of God's being and character that separates him from all other things.

John Piper: Preaching as Worship

2008-08-09T11:01:00.003-04:00

I found this address by John Piper this morning. It resonates with me and challenges me.

"Let me point to three biblical reasons for believing that preaching is meant to be and to kindle God-exalting worship.

First, I believe it because the Word of God says that everything is to be done in a worshipful, God-centered way: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31); "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col 3:17). If everything is to be radically oriented on magnifying the glory of God and exalting the name of Jesus, how much more preaching. Whatever preaching deals with-and it is to deal with everything-it must be done with a view to begetting and sustaining worship-the valuing and cherishing and displaying of the glory of God.

Second, I believe that preaching is meant to exalt the centrality of God because the Word says that God himself exalts his own centrality in all that he does. And preaching is one of the great things that God does. God's Word in Isa 48:11 is like a great banner flying over all his acts from creation to consummation: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another." He chose us and predestined us for his glory (Eph 1:6), he created us [believers] for his glory (Isa 43:7), he saved us for his glory (Eph 1:14); he sanctifies us for his glory (2 Thess 1:12). All God does he does to magnify his glory in the earth. Preaching is one of the great things that God does. It is God's work. And therefore the mission of preaching is the mission of God: "I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth" (Ps 46:10). Our aim is worship-the valuing and cherishing and displaying of the greatness and the glory of God.

Finally, I believe that preaching is meant to exalt the centrality of God because the NT teaches that the appointed end of preaching is faith, and faith is the primary covenant requirement of God, precisely because it humbles us and amplifies the trustworthiness and all-sufficiency of God. Repeatedly Paul lines up preaching with faith as its goal: "How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:14, 17). "Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21). "My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5; cf. also Rom 16:25f; 1 Cor 15:11, 14.) The aim of preaching is to beget and sustain faith. Why? Because faith magnifies the power and trustworthiness of God. This is why Paul loves the model of Abraham: Abraham "grew strong in his faith, giving glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to what he had promised" (Rom 4:20). The heart of saving faith is a spiritual apprehension of the glorious trustworthiness of God in Christ and an earnest embracing of all that God is for us in Christ to satisfy the hunger of the soul.

That is the way Jesus described faith in John 6:35: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." Believing in Jesus means coming to him for the quenching of our souls' thirst. Faith in Christ is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus. When we experience that, we magnify the preciousness and worth of God, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him-which means we worship.

The aim of preaching, whatever the topic, whatever the text, is this kind of faith-to quicken in the soul a satisfaction with all that God is for us in Jesus, because this satisfaction magnifies God's all-sufficient glory; and that is worship. Therefore the mission of all preaching is soul-satisfying, God-exalting worship."

Rudolph Otto’s The Idea of the Holy: Overrated

2008-07-26T22:28:00.007-04:00

Rudolph Otto was a German Protestant theologian and historian of religion. In 1923 the first English translation of his German work The Idea of the Holy appeared. It has become, as Victor P. Hamilton’s says, “one of the books most frequently referred to in this area [holiness].” I was reading Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch today, and he referenced Otto. In fact, Otto was the only author he referenced in his discussion of holiness in Genesis 1-2 (short paragraph).

Frankly, I’m weary of references to this book in contexts where the biblical meaning of holiness is discussed. Scholars regularly pay lip service to it as though it constitutes a signal contribution to our knowledge of God's holiness. Admittedly, Hamilton notes that “Otto does not address … the fact that God’s holiness gives the basis to his moral demands.” But the fact that his is the only work referenced by Hamilton suggests he is significant and worth reading. Today I looked up on the book on Google books and read around in it, particularly his chapter, “The Numenous in the Old Testament.”

The first thing I noticed is that the focus on the book is not on what holiness is in Scripture, but rather on the experience men have when encountering what they regard as holy. The subtitle of the book is significant: “An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational.”

John C. Durham accurately capture’s Otto’s understanding of holiness: “Otto characterizes the numinous as the holy (i.e. God) minus its moral and rational aspects. A little more positively, it is the ineffable core of religion: the experience of it cannot to be described in terms of other experiences. [Note that the German heilig can be rendered as either holy or sacred. The translator had to make a choice and chose holy. So in the context of Otto, for holy it is possible to read sacred: the religious experience he discusses is the experience of the sacred.]” (www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/otto1.html).

Second, Otto’s work assumes an evolutionary, Hegelian view of religious development from the primitive to the advanced. This perspective is completely unbiblical and at odds with the current movements in Western religion. We’re heading polytheistic again.

Otto's treatment of the OT is shot through with rationalistic, history of religions assumptions: Again, Durham captures it well: “In the chapter on the numinous in the Old Testament, Otto discusses the transition of the Old Testament God from an early Yahweh, still bearing traces of the 'daemonic dread' of the pre-god stage of the numinous , to an Elohim in whom 'the rational aspect outweighs the numinous' [p 75], though the latter continues to be very much present.”

Third, as Durham's site points out, Otto never uses the Latin phrase most commonly attributed to him (Hamilton cites it): mysterium tremendum et fascinosum [sic]. According to Durham, the et fascinans was added to Otto's mysterium tremendum by Ninian Smart. This observation suggests what I have long suspected: that few of those who cite Otto have read Otto, and that he is cited because he "must be."

My conclusion: The Idea of the Holy book offers the bible-believing scholar nothing of value for understanding the nature of biblical holiness. Biblical scholars should stop citing it, except perhaps in discussions of what it is like to experience the "holy."

Edited 12/2010:
Thanks to my various commenters. You have helped me see that "worthless" as a description of Otto's work is too strong. Its worth lies in its narrow compass: analysis of the religious experience of what is heilig. Its worth does NOT lie in helping the believing reader of Scripture to understand God's holiness or the holiness He requires of us. Hence it should be referenced not in discussions on the definition of divine or human holiness, but in discussions on the psychology of human experiences of the "holy."

Defining Holiness: Where to start?

2008-07-24T14:28:00.002-04:00

I find it a very common practice by theologians to insist upon beginning with God when defining holiness. With the resurgence of trinitarian theology, the focus has been on beginning with God’s trinitarian nature and relationships as the matrix for holiness. Some have gone so far as to assert that if one’s definition of holiness does not work within the Trinity before creation it is incorrect.

Logically, it makes sense to begin with God. Clearly, God is holy (Exod. 15:11). He is incomparable in holiness (Isa. 40:25). What interests me is that God does not start our understanding of holiness where theologians think He should. (Who knows where He started Adam’s?!) If we take the canonical order of the Torah as His chosen starting point for preserving His revelation for our understanding, then God starts teaching us about holiness with non-personal items: a day, some dirt, and an assembly.

A holy day
In Gen. 2:3 God makes the seventh day holy because in it He rested from all his labors. Several things are noteworthy here:
• “To sanctify” here denotes God’s action in setting the day apart from the other six days on which He worked unto a special purpose: rest.
• The sanctification of the day made it special. In other words, it is not an ordinary day but a special day by virtue of having been set apart (made holy) for rest.
• Without any preconceived idea of what the verb qadash means, it is clear that it involves separating something from the ordinary unto the special.

Holy dirt
In Exod. 3:5 God tells Moses that the dirt he is standing on is holy. What made the dirt holy? I take it that God’s special presence made the ground holy. I note here that …
• holy ground requires special treatment. Moses had to take off his sandals.
• the fact that it was “holy” meant it had been separated from ordinary use unto special use by God.
• Here again separation from the common/ordinary unto special use/treatment by God is at the core of the meaning of holy.

A holy assembly
In Exod. 12:16 God designates the first and seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as days upon which a “holy assembly” was to be held. The text does not specify the purpose of the assembly, but Ezek. 46:3, 9 indicate it was for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh.

What is “holy” about this assembly? The text reveals that no work was to be done on these days, except for the work needed to cook. Again, God separates a day from ordinary days by prohibiting work and separates it unto a special purpose: assembly for worship. Holy in this context appears then to have the sense of “special as a result of a having been set apart by God.”

In each of the first three pentateuchal texts where God calls something holy, the meaning of the word holy involves the ideas of “separated from common use/activity unto special use/activity by God” or “special because of having been separated for a special purpose.”

Surprised by covetousness

2008-07-24T08:33:00.003-04:00

On Tuesday, I was reading Romans 7 as part of my Scripture reading during my personal worship time. Verse 7 stuck out since we are teaching our son, Allan, the ten commandments.

Romans 7:7 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν· οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." (NASB)

I was surprised to see that the noun “coveting” = ἐπιθυμία; the verb is a form of ἐπιθυμέω. The standard words for desire, strong desire, frequently translated "lust" by the KJV! Is that what coveting is--desire?

So I checked the LXX. It uses ἐπιθυμέω in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5. Then I checked BDAG, Louw-Nida, and Friberg. None of them list “covet” as a sense of ἐπιθυμέω! Then I went to the Hebrew: חמד is the verb translated “covet.” HALOT does not list ‘covet’ as a sense. It lists “to desire.”

So I looked up “covet” in the Oxford English Dictionary and it lists the 10th commandment under sense three “to desire culpably, to long for (what belongs to another). Sense 1 was ‘desire, eagerly desire.’ Sense 2 to desire with concupiscience or fleshly desire.

Conclusion: “Covet” is not a technical term distinct from other terms for desire. It is the normal word for desire.

This shifts my understanding of the commandment. You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife. You shall not desire your neighbor’s house. When something belongs to another, to desire that very item is wrong. To desire an item like it, then I assume, is not wrong. To desire a wife like one’s neighbor’s wife is ok.

Wow, this ties into 1 John 2:15-17 and worldliness. Since "the things in the world" are lusts -- ἐπιθυμία -- all worldliness is a violation of the 10th commandment as well as a violation of the 1st commandment.

Holiness through the OT looking glass

2008-07-23T08:24:00.006-04:00

In He Gave Us Stories Richard L. Pratt calls the OT text a three-fold looking glass: a translucent window that opens upon events in the ancient world, a stained-glass window that presents a highly selective, ideologically focused drama, and a silvered mirror which shows us ourselves in others' garb. Pratt’s metaphor deserves the biblical theologian’s regular meditation. Most of us easily forget Scripture’s stained-glass nature and think only of it as a transparent pane, however circumscribed, for viewing God’s Kingdom plan unfolding step by step, phase by phase.

Such forgetfulness leads to serious exegetical error. First, we think that because the text does not say the ancients knew something, therefore they did not know it. This is a conclusion unreasonable and unsustainable.

The NT off-handedly attributes knowledge to OT characters of which there is not the slightest hint in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Jude tells us that Enoch prophesied Yahweh’s coming in judgment with multiplied thousands of his holy ones (Jude 1:14). While most would relegate any apocalyptic knowledge or interest to millenniums later, it in fact existed at least a mere seven generations from Adam, if it was not known from the beginning.

The bounds of inscripturated revelation have never compassed the totality of special revelation. That is to say, God revealed (many?) things to those who were His people that Scripture does not tell us.

What does this mean for a study of holiness? It means the biblical theologian must not assert that the near absence of holiness terminology in Genesis reflects a relatively great ignorance of its meaning and nature by the characters in Genesis. It also means that the biblical theologian should be refuse the temptation to trace boldly the historical development of this concept, since he have no way of knowing what was known when, unless the text tells him.

The second danger of such forgetfulness is the temptation to follow Scripture’s canonical sequence in the false assumption of chronological sequence. We do not know when, during Moses' lifetime, Genesis was written, but we do know that Exodus 1-13 was likely to have been written after Exodus 19-23.

How do we know this? Did Moses chronicle his birth, flight, the ten plagues, the Exodus before arriving at Sinai? I think it most unlikely. It seems far more likely that the 38 years of wilderness wandering provided Moses time for the inspired literary activity that gave us the narrative framing of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers.

What does this mean for a study of holiness? It means the biblical theologian who follows the canonical path through the Pentateuch does not follow the chronology of special revelation. He follows the literary path laid down by the Spirit's inspiration of theological narrative.

Survey of Holiness in the OT

2008-07-19T15:15:00.003-04:00

I just finished, last night, a journey through every OT text that has any of the cognate Hebrew terms for holiness. There are 823 instances of the following cognates: the verb q-d-sh, the noun qodesh, and the adjectives qadosh and qadesh. I’ve been on the journey off and on for about a month.

Three things prompted my study. First, my SS class asked for a study on holiness and its related topics. Second, Dad and I have been discussing the nature of God’s holiness for a couple months. Third, in his book Portraits of God, Allan Coppedge asserts, “A survey of the data indicates that the meaning of holiness has six major components. They [are] the concepts of separation, brilliance, righteousness, love, power and goodness” (p. 51).

My previous studies of the concept of holiness had lead me to conclude that holiness at its essence is separateness. When applied to human persons, it is separation unto God from the common and ordinary as well as the sinful and defiling. When applied to God … well, I wasn’t exactly sure. I’d been taught it was his transcendence and moral purity or perhaps his moral excellence. But Coppedge’s statement challenged my previous understanding. Hence the current study.

I’m still sifting through the data, but several things stand out to me.

Having surveyed the data, I have not found any data that supports Coppedge’s assertion that the meaning of holiness includes the concepts of brilliance, love, power, or goodness. The data overwhelmingly points toward separateness as core to the meaning of holiness. I’ll say more about holiness and righteousness later.
I was reminded that the term “saint” or “holy one” is not coined by Paul in the NT, but used by Paul in the same way it is used in the OT (Psalm 16:3; 34:9).
Several texts jumped out at me as establishing the conceptual basis for Peter’s admonition to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” in 1 Peter 3:15.
The first petition of the Lord’s prayer has roots in Leviticus, Isaiah, and especially Ezekiel that I’ve never heard articulated in the pulpit.
Jesus’ sanctification of himself (John 17:19) has a parallel in Yahweh’s sanctification of himself (Ezek. 38:23).

In subsequent posts, I plan, Lord willing, to develop these concepts.

RHB: 1st Printing Sold; 2nd Printing Has Arrived

2008-07-16T17:10:00.002-04:00

I just learned from Zondervan that the first printing of A Reader's Hebrew Bible has completely sold out (hence the "out of stock" notice on Amazon.com).

The good news is that the second printing has arrived and will soon be shipping to suppliers. The second printing includes a significant number of corrections, including the unfortunate tsere-segel problem in Genesis. For a complete list of errata, including the corrections included in the second edition as well as those to be fixed in future printings, click here.

Man looks at the outward appearance, but God ... 1 Sam. 16:7

2008-06-02T22:17:00.004-04:00

“Why do you have a class that addresses trivial external matters like modesty, gender-distinct clothing, or 1 Cor. 11:2-16? Don’t you know that ‘man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart?’” ~student

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

1 Samuel 16:7 is often used to silence substantive discussion about externals in the life of a Christian and ranks among the most misunderstood and misused texts in Scripture.

The context of this verse is Samuel's mission to anoint a replacement for King Saul. When Samuel observed the excellent physical characteristics of Jesse's first son, Eliab, he assumed wrongly that he was God's choice.

God corrects Samuel's impression by informing him that whereas Samuel can see only the outside, God can see the inside and His choices are based upon the heart.

There are several reasons why this text does not imply that God is concerned only with heart issues and does not care about externals.
1. God does not say he cares only about the heart. He says that He can see the heart; whereas man cannot.
2. Both the Old and New Testaments give ample evidence that God does care about externals.

Old Testament
For example, God required Israelites to wear tassels on their outer garments to remind them of His commandments (Num. 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12). He required Israelite men not to cut their beards (Lev. 19:7; 21:5). This requirement made Israelite men standout significantly from their upper class ANE counterparts’ highly stylized beards (e.g., here or here). God designed garments for His priests to wear “for glory and beauty” (Exod. 28:2, 40).

New Testament
In Matt. 6:17 Jesus commands us to wash our faces and anoint our heads when fasting. In other words, make the outside look nice so that the discomfort of fasting does not appear.
In 1 Cor. 11:2-16 God clearly addresses men and women’s hair: long hair on a man is a shame; shorn or shaven hair on a woman is a shame, whereas long hair is a woman’s glory.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-10, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write about how women are and are not to adorn their outside.

The idea that teaching about outward appearances is necessarily unspiritual and legalistic flies in the face of Scripture itself. If we teach the whole counsel of God’s word, then we will teach the parts that address, whether explicitly or implicitly (e.g., Rom. 12:2), our “outward appearance.”

The whole counsel of God teaches that our outward appearance should be a consciously designed reflection of our inward love for God and passion for His glory. God looks upon both the heart and the outward appearance. Since man can see only the outward appearance, how much more zealous should we be to live out love’s obedience to our Father’s external commands, that men may see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven!

What the Bible Teaches about the Destiny of the Wicked

2008-05-18T08:27:00.005-04:00

The destiny of the wicked in eternity is commonly referred to as Hell. The English word “hell” is used in the New Testament to translate three different Greek words: gehenna γεέννα (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk. 9:43, 45, 47; Lk. 12:5; Jas. 3:6), hades ᾅδης (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Lk. 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14), and Tartarus ταρταρόω (2 Peter 2:4). Other terms denoting the place where the wicked are punished include “the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42, 50), “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7), “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15), “the outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), and “the blackness of darkness” or “utter darkness” (Jude 1:13).

Hades is described in Luke 16:23ff as a place of (1) self-awareness, (2) torment/agony in flames, (3) memory and remorse, (4) perception of Paradise, and (5) separation from God and the righteous by a great chasm. It is the temporary holding place for the wicked dead until the Great White Throne Judgment. Hades is then cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:11-15).

Gehenna is described as a furnace of unquenchable, eternal fire where there is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:41-42; 18:8; Mark 9:43-48). Jesus said eternal fire (Gehenna) was created for the punishment of the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). It is where God is able to destroy both the body and soul (Matt. 10:28)

The lake of fire is where the beast, the false prophet, the devil, death, Hades, and all those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown (Rev. 19:20, 20:10, 14-15). It is described as (1) a place of eternal torment in fire and brimstone, and (2) the second death. Those who worship the beast and receive his mark are tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb, the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day and night (Rev. 14:10-12). Although not explicitly called the lake of fire, the description of this place matches the lake of fire identically. Because of their similar descriptions, Gehenna and the lake of fire apparently refer to the same place.

The abyss. The abyss or bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1-2, 11) is a place demons on earth fear (Luke 8:12). It is where Satan will be bound for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:3). The abyss and the lake of fire are distinct places. The beast comes out of the abyss and goes to the destruction of the lake of fire (Rev. 17:8; 19:20), and Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit and is finally cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:7, 10). The abyss does not directly relate to the punishment of wicked humans. It appears to be a place of temporary punishment and imprisonment for wicked angels.

Scripture describes the eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46) of the wicked in terms of death, perishing, destruction, and banishment. Punishment as death/perishing. To understand spiritual death, one must understand the nature of spiritual life. According to Jesus, eternal life is being in right relationship with God (John 17:3). Eternal death, therefore, is not being in right relationship with God. Sinners are dead spiritually now (Eph. 2:1) and will experience the “second death” forever (Rev. 21:8). To “perish” is to “die.” The unsaved are perishing now (2 Cor. 2:15), and unless they repent they will perish eternally (Luk 13:3).

Punishment as destruction. In 2 Thess. 1:9 the wicked are punished with “eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” Matt. 24:48-51 juxtaposes destruction and continued existence. The evil slave is cut in pieces, which would normally terminate conscious existence. However, the diced up slave is “assigned a place with the hypocrites where there is weeping and teeth gnashing.” This destruction encompasses both soul and body (Matt. 10:28), thus requiring the resurrection of the wicked’s body (John 5:28-29; Act 24:15). The phrase “whose worm does not die” may picture the never-ending corruption experienced by the wicked (Mark 9:42ff).

Punishment as banishment. The wicked are told to depart from Christ (Matt. 7:21-23) and are cast (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 25:30; Mk. 9:42-48) into Gehenna/the outer darkness which is “outside” the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:14). They are shut out of the marriage feast and refused entry (Matt. 25:10).

God and Hell. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). It is not his desire that anyone should perish (2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 18:14). Some have asserted that God sends no one to hell (e.g., C. S. Lewis), but this cannot stand scripturally for it is Jesus as Judge who commands that men depart from him into everlasting fire (Matt. 25:41). From God’s perspective, according to Scripture, sin against Him deserves eternal punishment. This confirms our common sense awareness that the seriousness of a crime is, in part, a function of the importance of the person against whom it is committed. To insist a God of love could not punish eternally is to misunderstand God’s love, deny His revelation, and to imply that you are more merciful/benevolent than God Himself.

The question that surfaces most frequently when discussing eternal punishment in Hell is “Why is the punishment for a finite sinful act never-ending?” The Bible does not answer this question directly. However, the best answers I’ve found include the following elements: (1) God is just; therefore, whatever penalty he prescribes for sin must be just. (2) Sin is an offense against an infinite Being; therefore, it is not entirely finite in nature. (3) We cannot determine the extent of sin’s effects, so we do not know that sin’s effects are finite. Eternal punishment suggests that they are eternal. (4) Although Hell’s punishment is never-ending, all sinners do not receive the same level of punishment. In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus says those who knowingly do wrong will receive many stripes, but those who unknowingly do wrong will receive few stripes (cf. Rom. 2:12).

Our response. Fear God (Matt. 10:28) and do whatever it takes to avoid being cast into hell (Matt. 5:29-30). In eternity, hell is abhorrent to the saints and perhaps serves to remind them of the consequence of rebellion (Isa. 66:24). My study of this topic has again impressed on me
the horrors of eternal, conscious punishment in hell. No wonder Jesus told his disciples to do whatever it takes to avoid going to hell (Mark 9:43-48).

Brothers and sisters, let us fear God, depart from evil, and flee to Christ!

What Should I Think When I Hear of Sin in the Church?

2008-04-15T10:25:00.001-04:00

1. I should mourn (1 Cor. 5:1-2). I mourn because of the shame that is brought upon God’s holy name. I mourn because of the stumbling block such sin is in the path of unbelievers. I mourn because of the damage to the body of Christ. I mourn for the families affected by the sin—families are never exempted from such suffering. I mourn because of the destruction that such sin produces in the lives of those deceived by it.

2. I should reject the temptation to gossip. Prior to the the enactment of church discipline, if another person is not part of the problem or part of the solution, I am gossiping if I share information with them that they do not have. I say, “prior to the enactment of church discipline,” because one of the purposes for church discipline is that believers would “hear and fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). What about people who already have that information? Eph. 5:12 says, “It is a shame even to talk of those things which are done of them in secret.” That means I do not discuss the details of sin with others.

If someone is offering to share information with me about a situation where believers have fallen into sin, I ask them if they think I am part of the problem or part of the solution to this situation. If they say no, I then inform that that it would be gossiping to pass that information on.

3. I pray for the repentance of those who have sinned—a full 180 degree turn around—and restoration to Christ, first, and then to the Body, second. Sin in enslaving (Rom. 6:16). Those involved need to be freed. Sin in destructive (Gal. 6:7). It takes a long time to rebuild after the destruction of sin in a life.

4. I pray for grace to be given to those who are involved in Galatians 6:1 restoring those overtaken in a fault. The human heart is extremely devious, and the enemy likes to use every opportunity to cause others to fall, especially those who are involved in restoring the fallen.

5. I pray that God would protect me from dwelling upon the sin and would keep me from stumbling in my mind.

6. I pray that God would increase my fear of Him so that I would always turn aside from evil. I recognize that apart from the grace of God, I too could be enslaved by sin.

7. I pray for the family, immediate associates, subordinates, and others directly affected by the fallout of the sin. The devil will be tempting them to be bitter, hateful, angry, resentful in their thoughts as well as their actions toward these people. If it is immorality, the devil will do his worst to destroy the family of those involved. I pray for God’s protection, comfort, sustaining grace to surround and support those who have been betrayed and wronged.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: Errata Reports

2008-02-29T22:21:00.006-05:00

I just received word from Stephen Salisbury at Westminster that he received his copies of A Reader's Hebrew Bible today. I'm delighted to hear that it is shipping earlier than expected.

I would encourage users to do two things: (1) read the introduction carefully, and (2) read the review of the volume I posted on January 23, 2008 here. The Genesis errata list promised there is now finished and available here.

I also welcome reports of errata. Please report them as comments on this post or to readershebrew@gmail.com. If errata is posted as comments to this post other users will be able to see what has already been reported.

Happy reading!

Update: 6/19/2008
Known issues:
1. Esther 1, footnotes 6-21 do not match the footnotes in the text. Beginning with ftnt 22, the footnotes are back in sync. Really odd database issue.
2. Deut. 5:21 the verb that should be the second word in the verse accidentally wrapped up to the previous line and appears in v. 16.
Update: 7/10/2008
A full errata list for A Reader's Hebrew Bible is available online here.

Thinking Like Jesus = Missional Living (John 4:34)

2008-02-12T07:27:00.000-05:00

John 4:34 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.

“My food is that I might do the will of the One who sent me and that I might finish his work.”

This passage arrested me yesterday.

Food is what sustains and empowers life. Life, as we know it, revolves around food. Work schedules created by the reasonable inevitably make temporal room for food. Food is important!

Jesus’ life revolved around food as well: His food was doing the will of the One who sent him. Jesus had a clear perception of His sent-ness. Do you?

Scripture teaches that God brought each of us into this world for a purpose. Paul says, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for good works which he prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). It’s the “prepared ahead of time” part of that verse that tells me that God has pre-planned a set of jobs He wants us to do. We, too, have been “sent” into this world on a mission. (And, no, that doesn’t imply the belief in the exist of pre-incarnate souls.)

Do you view yourself as having been sent? Jesus did. We should too. When I think of myself as having been sent by God into this world, my life—all of it—becomes missional. God’s plan is not just a framework within which I create my own mission. God’s plan, according to Psalm 139, involves every single day of my life (Psa. 139:16).

Thus the will and work of the One who sent me is to grade tests, instruct my children in the ways of God, husband my wife, prepare and give lectures, do academic research, write papers, publish, .... In other words, every part of my life that reflects God’s will (all of it!) is part of the work God has sent me to do.

This gives me purpose and meaning. It also sobers me to realize that I am responsible to finish the work He has given me. The “talents” the master has left me are not just the gifts and capacities he has bestowed. My “talents” also include my opportunities and my responsibilities.

Father, please help me to think like Jesus: “My food is to do Your will and complete the work You have sent me to do,” so that I may pray like Jesus, “I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4).

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: A Review by its Typesetter

2008-01-23T11:02:00.001-05:00

It is unusual for the typesetter of a volume to review it. It is perhaps even more unusual for a volume’s typesetter to also be one of its principal editors. Both are true in my case. Although I obviously have a vested interest in A Reader’s Hebrew Bible, as the review below will demonstrate, I believe I am uniquely positioned to review the volume in a way that time constraints would forbid to most users.

Binding, Gilding, Thickness, and Paper
On Dec. 20, 2007, I excitedly opened the overnighted package containing the advanced author’s copy of A Reader’s Hebrew Bible (RHB). I was quite pleased with the Italian Duo-tone cover. The look and feel were pleasing, even elegant. The silver edging of the pages gives it a Biblesque look.

I had been unsure about how thick the volume would be, especially since I would eventually like to see it combined with A Reader’s Greek New Testament (RGNT). I was pleased that the volume was only 1 5/8 inches thick. When I placed my RGNT on top of it, the combined thickness wasn’t any greater than the NASB Inductive Study Bible that I regularly carry, so the potential for a combined edition still exists.

When I opened the volume, the first thing I noticed was the paper on which it was printed. It appeared to be the same as the RGNT. The whiteness allowed more bleed through than I would have preferred, but in good lighting the text is easily readable, and the bleed through quickly ceased to be distracting as I put the volume to use. (I’m in dialogue with Zondervan about the possibility of using the same paper type used in Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testamenti or BHS. However, the first lot of books has already been printed, so any changes will come in subsequent printings.)

Suspended Letters, Inverted Nun’s, and other Masoretic Esoteria
After looking at the craftsmanship of the volume, I had a short list of items that I wanted to check on: suspended letters, inverted nun’s, the large letters in the Shema‘, and the small print in Joshua 21:36-37—the Leningrad Codex does not contain these two verses that most other Masoretic manuscripts contain. I had included them because they are included in Westminster’s electronic version of L, and they are included in BHS.

All the suspended letters came through nicely (Jdg. 18:30; Job 38:13, 15; Ps. 80:14), but I was distressed to see the masoretic accent telisha parvum in the two texts where inverted nun’s occur (Num. 10:35-36, and Psalm 107:21-26, 40 [RHB pages 1220-21]).

I checked the PageMaker files, and the inverted nun’s were present. I checked the PDFs I sent to Zondervan, and sure enough the inverted nun’s were missing! Further checking revealed that PDF generator I used will not embed any character of any font located in the position I had assigned to that character! Item one for my errata list.

The large letters in Deut. 6:4 came through nicely, as did the other large and small letters (Lev. 11:42; Num. 27:5; Prov. 16:28; Isa. 44:14; Jer. 39:13). When I checked the small print of Joshua 21:36-37, it occurred to me that I had not included an explanation of the brackets used there in the introduction. The brackets indicate that these two verses do not appear in the Leningrad Codex. Item two for the errata list.

An Unfortunate Set of Spelling Errors in Genesis
Earlier this month, as I was reading Genesis 1:20, the unusual spelling of nephesh caught my attention. I looked up the verse in BibleWorks, and confirmed that the word was indeed mispelled in RHB. Upon investigating, I found that an error in the typesetting code (i.e., the VBA program I wrote to handle the layout and typesetting) had, unbeknowns to me, corrupted the spelling of 322 words in Genesis, before it was caught and corrected. Fortunately, this error affects only Genesis. Most unfortunately, it affects Genesis!

The precise nature of the error is as follows: four instances of segol + a sub-linear accent were replaced with tsere + a different sub-linear accent. Specifically, the segol + accent combinations shown in the upper row of the chart below were replaced by the tsere + accent combinations below them.

The first column’s error will be the most noticeable since all first year Hebrew students learn that the silluq is the accent that normally occurs on the last word in a Hebrew verse. The segol + silluq combination was replaced with a tsere + tebir combination in 84 instances, thus there will be 84 instances of a tebir at the end of a verse that should be a silluq. The errors represented by last three columns occur respectively 111 times, 108 times, and 19 times. A complete list of this these spelling mistakes in Genesis is available here. Items 3–324 for the errata list.

HALOT as a Gloss Source
I have reservations about the accuracy of HALOT’s glosses. Having glossed over 48,000 of the 60,650 instances of Hebrew/Aramaic words found in RHB, I found myself surprised on more than a few occasions by the infelicity of the glosses supplied in HALOT. At times, some of these were the result of a poor or mistaken translation from the German HALAT into English. Other times, it appeared that whoever had written the particular entry I was working with had not given adequate consideration to the context when they listed a given verse under a particular sense.

Nonetheless, HALOT is considered the foremost Hebrew lexicon in English, and therefore, deserves to be represented, if for no other reason than to bring its glosses into closer scrutiny by Hebrew scholars. For this reason alone, I would encourage those Hebrew scholars whose knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary allows them to read unhindered in any part of the Hebrew Bible to make use of the volume nonetheless. HALOT deserves more scrutiny than it has received to the present.

Screening of Proper Nouns in Gray
There a number of places where prefixed prepositions were improperly screened in gray (Gen 2:8; 13:5; 1Kgs 21:23; 2Kgs 2:15; Jer. 32:8; Est 9:15; 2Ch 1:13; 14:12). In all of these cases, it should be contextually clear to the reader that the initial character is not part of the name but is a preposition. More items for the errata list.

Typesetting of Vowels & Accents
Proficiency in reading and exegeting Hebrew has little bearing on a comprehensive understanding of the appropriate placement of Hebrew vowel-points and accents. I discovered the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of a single TrueType font to handle all the potential combinations about half-way through the project.

Despite all the progress made in unicode fonts, I was not comfortable typesetting Hebrew with unicode in MS Word 2003, the word processing program I used to layout the project, and PageMaker 7.0 does not handle unicode fonts at all. (I know about InDesign, but decided to stick with what I knew.) More importantly, I specifically wanted the font face to make shifting back and forth from BHS relatively easy. As a consequence, I developed eight additional TrueType font sets, based on the BibleWorks Hebrew font, to accommodate the varieties of vowel-point + accent positioning. It was also necessary to write code to find these combinations in the text and properly position the vowel-points and accents.

The most noticeable placement error I have found in RHB is the placement of hireq + yetib. It is wrongly placed to the right side of the letter under which it occurs, rather than centered underneath it. See, for example, the preposition ‘im in 1 Kgs 1:7, 9 or the preposition ki in Eccl. 4:15. Once this is fixed in the typesetting code, it will no longer be an issue.

Another accent placement issue involves the occurrence of a meteg or silluq on a patach furtive. My code did not account for this combination and, therefore, the accent was not appropriately shifted to the right along with the patach furtive. See, for example, Psalm 132:15.

Those who are highly attuned to the masoretic accentuation system will note with frequency an accent anomaly caused by a coding mistake. All instances of a tsere + munah appear as tsere + mereka. See, for example, metey in Isa. 5:13, which should have a munah rather than a mereka.

A niggling issue that has bothered me enough to note it is that the size of the holem is inconsistent. With the holem vav, the size is fine, but the holem by itself strikes me as too small. I will enlarge it for better readability.

Line Breaks in Poetry
For the most part, I have been satisfied with the poetic line breaks of RHB. I have encountered a few places so far where a more felicitous line break is possible. For example, in Isaiah 2:2, the first line would break better at the zaqef qaton, rather than its current break. I welcome user feedback to identify such places.

WLC-BHS Differences
The Westminister Leningrad Codex (WLC) morphology notes around 500 instances where the WLC differs from the 1983 edition of BHS. When compared the 1997 edition of BHS, there was a much greater uniformity between the two texts. My comparison identified only 27 instances were WLC disagrees with BHS. However, when making this comparison I did not factor in instances in which BHS suggests a Qere reading that is not offered in the Leningrad Codex. See, for example, haksheyr in Eccl. 10:10 where neither WLC or L offer a Qere reading, but BHS does. The Westminster morphology (4.8) identifies 58 instances concerning which they say, “We have abandoned or added a ketiv/qere relative to BHS. In doing this we agree with L against BHS.” These instances have not yet been completely verified.

Conclusion
Even though I had 4 years of Hebrew in grad school and teach Hebrew on the undergraduate level, I still find my knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary sufficiently limited to make reading through Proverbs or Isaiah vocabulary-vexing.

The foremost reason motivating my desire to create RHB was that I wanted to be able to read Hebrew Wisdom Literature devotionally without constantly having to resort to a lexicon, and I didn’t want to have to be bound to my computer so that I could mouse over unknown vocabulary for a gloss. This purpose is more than adequately accomplished in RHB.

Having ranged through a healthy sampling of the Hebrew Bible in the month since I have received my copy, I recognize it is not a perfect volume. It will, however, enable its users to accomplish the objectives for which it was produced: develop skill in reading Hebrew through regular exposure to large portions of the Hebrew Bible.

I recommend that professors of Hebrew who have their classes read through portions of Genesis as well as users whose Hebrew skills are not sufficient to identify immediately the instances in Genesis where a tsere wrongly occurs instead of a segol print off a copy of the errata sheet soon to be provided and carry it with them. For those for whom this does not constitute a challenge, I believe you will find the volume a valuable means to achieving and maintaining a reading fluency in Hebrew.

Wisdom in Ecclesiastes

2008-01-19T20:26:00.000-05:00

The noun "wisdom" (chokmah), adjective "wise" (chakam), and verb "to be wise" (ch-k-m) occur a total of 58 times in Ecclesiastes.

My best understanding of Ecclesiastes' core message is Permanent meaning and satisfaction are not found in any of life's components, but only in life's Creator. ~Jim Berg

Solomon (Qoheleth) drives this wisdom-nail firmly into place (cf. Ecc. 12:11) by consistently juxtaposing the positive and negative sides of any topic he addresses. His treatment of wisdom is no exception.

What follows is my best attempt to summarize Ecclesiastes' explicit teaching on wisdom.

Wisdom comes from God, and He gives it to those who please Him (2:26). Wisdom is attainable to those who set their hearts to know it (1:13, 16-17), but one cannot know all the wisdom there is to know (7:23; 8:16-17). There is more profit in wisdom than in folly just as light is better than darkness (2:12-13), for wisdom enables the wise to see where he is going, whereas the fool can't see his path (2:14). However, wisdom does not enable one to see the future (9:1), and it takes only a little folly to outweigh the benefits of wisdom and honor (10:1).

It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man than to listen to the song of fools (7:5). It is better to be young, poor, and wise than old, rich, and foolish (4:13), but the wisdom of the poor is despised (9:16). Wisdom with an inheritance is good and profitable for those who see the sun (7:11). In fact, wisdom is better than money; though both offer protection, wisdom can save your life (7:12). However, wisdom can't save one from death, for all die (2:16). Further, wisdom is useless in the grave, so make vigorous use of it you can while you're alive (9:10). And beware for wisdom improperly displayed (being "over wise") can destroy you (7:16).

Wisdom gives more strength to a wise man than ten rulers give to a city (7:19). Wisdom is better than strength (9:16), for it can help to win a war with a small force, but the poor wise man is soon forgotten once a crisis passes (9:15) and his wisdom is despised (9:16b) . Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good (9:18).

A wise heart knows the right time and procedure (8:5). Wisdom has the advantage of giving success (10:10), but the appetite is never satisfied, so in this regard there is no advantage to the wise over the fool (6:8). Wisdom gives success, but the race is not always won by the swift, bread is not always to the wise nor is wealth always to the discerning, but time and chance (under the sun perspective) happen to all (9:11). Wisdom makes a man's face shine (8:1), but in much wisdom there is much grief (1:18), and the reality of oppression is maddening to the wise (7:7). Wisdom may enable one to do accomplish great things, but it cannot guarantee that the one who inherits its profit will use it wisely and not squander it (2:19-21), nor can it ensure that its possessor will not be forgotten, for there is no lasting remembrance of the wise (2:14).

The wise value the house of mourning over the house of pleasure (7:4), for it reminds them of their mortality and the certainty of judgment (11:9). Wisdom doesn't value the past over the present (7:10), but whatever it finds to do, it does it with all its might (9:10).

The words of the wise heart in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools (9:17). The words of wise men are gracious (10:12), even though they are goads (12:11).

A Newly Discovered Well of Delight (Ephesians 3:18-19a)

2008-01-02T09:26:00.000-05:00

On a Thursday in October, I finished teaching through Ephesians for the sixth time in six years. Having one student in Prison Epistles this year permitted me to employ Socrates’ teaching method extensively. It bears good fruit.

This year I dug deeper into Ephesians 3:17-18 and discovered a well of truth that has been delighting my soul. I hope it will yours as well. First the context.

Eph. 3:14’s “For this cause” is the closing parenthesis of the parenthetical statement Paul began in 3:2. The opening parenthesis is the “For this cause” in 3:1. The “cause” that motivated Paul to bow in prayer is found in 2:21-22. God is building us into a temple in which He will dwell by His Spirit.

Scenic Exegetical Detour: In Eph. 2:22 the word translated habitation (KJV) or dwelling (NASB) occurs 18x throughout the OT, but it is most frequently used (10x) in statements about Heaven as the habitation or dwelling place of God. Perhaps Paul had Solomon’s use of this term (1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; cf. Psa. 33:14 [LXX 32:14]) in the back of His mind? Though Solomon had built a magnificent temple for worshiping Yahweh, he knew Heaven was Yahweh’s dwelling place. But Paul seems to be saying that God intends to have a change of residence some day: we will be His habitation!

Because God is in this building program, Paul prays that He would strengthen the Ephesians inwardly by His Spirit so that (purpose infinitive) Christ may dwell in their hearts (16-17a). Wait a minute, Paul. You said yourself that “he that does not have the Spirit of Christ is none of His” (Rom. 8:9). Why are you praying for Christ to dwell in their hearts when He already does?

I think Paul would say, “Notice that I used katoikeo, not oikeo or enoikeo.” The verb katoikeo can denote taking up permanent residence (cf. Mat. 2:23; 4:13). Louw-Nida offer, “to live or dwell in a place in an established or settled manner.” I don’t think the permanence of Christ’s dwelling is at issue here, for Christ does not enter and dwell in a new believer’s life only temporarily. He enters intent to stay eternally.

Rather, the focus of “dwell” in Eph. 3:17 seems to be on what dwelling in an established or settled manner implies: making oneself completely at home in the residence. Here then is the crux of the matter. In order for us to be the permanent dwelling place of God, we must first by strengthened by the Spirit so that Christ may make himself fully at home in our lives – by faith.

By faith! Whose faith? Surely, ours not Christ’s. And why faith? What additional faith/trust is requisite for Christ to make himself fully at home in our lives? Faith that gladly, willingly allows Him access to every room, attic and cellar, closet and shed of my life. Faith that believes any renovations of heart and life He wants are good and in my best interest. Faith that believes His plans are better than mine, His paths are perfect. Indeed, it is a profoundly strong faith that is needed, thus Paul’s prayer for inner strengthening by the Spirit.

And here is that joy-well I mentioned: v. 18-19a. “that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints length and breadth and height and depth and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge ….”

To be honest, v. 18 never meant much to me before this semester. Most of the commentators I’ve read after like to soar eloquent on the height, depth, length, and breadth of Christ’s love. His condescension; the universal scope of his love; the cross as the measure of the length of his love. Don’t get me wrong. Those are all marvelous truths, but they didn’t resonate with me in this context.

Then it occurred to me that “to know” in Greek can indicate experiential knowledge and not just cognitive knowledge. That’s when the light turned on for me. Paul is talking about experiencing the unlimited love of Christ in all of its dimensions! That’s why he opened v. 18 with a “that” (KJV) or “so that” (NASB)—this verse indicates the purpose for Christ’s dwelling in our hearts.

Christ wants to make himself fully at home in our hearts so that He can fill all the “rooms” of our lives with His limitless love. Even though his love surpasses knowledge (cognitively), it can be known experientially! Ah, here is a joy-generating thought: If I, by faith, grant Christ unhindered access to every dimension of my life, He, whose love always has my best interest and his greatest glory at heart, will allow me to experience His unfathomable love in all of its limitlessness!

Herein lies the beauty of Christ in us, “the hope of glory.” It glory now and greater glory yet to come! Who wouldn’t want to experience the limitless love of Christ?

O Father, would you not by your Spirit strengthen me mightily that your Son may make himself fully at home in my heart so that I might come to know experientially the vastness of his love. Amen.

Galatians 5:17 Breakthrough!

2007-12-27T10:57:00.000-05:00

Galatians 5:16 Le,gw de,( pneu,mati peripatei/te kai. evpiqumi,an sarko.j ouv mh. tele,shteÅ¹⁷ h` ga.r sa.rx evpiqumei/ kata. tou/ pneu,matoj( to. de. pneu/ma kata. th/j sarko,j( tau/ta ga.r avllh,loij avnti,keitai( i[na mh. a] eva.n qe,lhte tau/ta poih/teÅ¹⁸ eiv de. pneu,mati a;gesqe( ouvk evste. u`po. no,monÅ (If this looks like gibberish, download the Greek font bwgrkl.tff from my left sidebar)

For years Galatians 5:17 has bothered me.

On a straightforward reading, it has always seemed to me to contradict verses 16 and 18. My way around the problem has been to say, “Whatever v. 17 means, it can’t be a denial of verses 16 and 18.” Yesterday, during the yearly Brown family Theology Fest, we had a breakthrough!

This year our family theology fest is focusing on the NT’s use of “flesh,” particularly those passages in which it is used in a morally negative sense. We started with Romans on Tuesday afternoon and we made it to Galatians 5:16-18 by yesterday afternoon.

Verse 16 is an incredible promise. An expanded translation helps give its full import. “But I say, be walking in the Spirit and you will never fulfill the desire of the flesh.”

Paul uses a double negative construction to make his negation as emphatic as possible. His point is that a Christian can and will resist fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, if he constantly submits to the Spirit’s control in his life. A life free from willful sin is every Christian’s privilege!

However, everything that verse 16 promises seems to be snatched away with verse 17. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

It’s that last phrase that seems so strange. For years I have read it as asserting that there is a statemate between the flesh and the Spirit and, as a result, the flesh wins by default. It almost seems to be Rom. 7:25 in different words.

Nathan voiced this observation, I concurred, and Dad flatly disagreed. He argued that v. 17 is saying the exact opposite of what we were saying. There is indeed a conflict of desires between the flesh and the Spirit, but it is not a stalemate; the Spirit wins! We were both incredulous. We had never heard this interpretation from Dad, from whom both of us have learned much of what we know.

No way! Where in the world did you come up with that? Dad seemed to think it's what he had “always” said. Nathan grabbed Grace in Galatia by Ben Witherington III for a third opinion, and Witherington shocked us by concurring with Dad.

As I sat looking at the Greek text, I began to see how that interpretation actually fits the text better than what I had previously regarded as a “straightforward” reading of the text.

1. Verse 17 starts with "for" (ga.r) indicating that verse 17 is a logical extension of verse 16. It is not contrast; it is continuation. The second "for" in v. 17 is a parenthetical explanation of why the flesh and the Spirit have opposite desires.

2. As Witherington points out, there are three possible ways to take v. 17c: (1) you cannot do the good things you (by the Spirit) want to do, (2) you cannot do the bad things you (by the flesh) want to do, or (3) you cannot do either the good or the bad. The third option is nonsense, so that leaves (1) and (2).

Since v. 17 is a logical extension of v. 16, it doesn't make sense to say, "Walk in the spirit and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for you cannot do the good things you want to do." That leaves only option (2).

3. The KJV translation "you cannot do the things you would" is, at best, misleading. The Greek text says nothing about ability. It does not use dunatai or other similar verbs that deal with capacity or ability. The two verbs in 17c are subjunctives and should be translated to reflect that mood: "...with the result that you may not be doing whatever things you may be desiring."

4. The phrase "whatever things you may be desiring," then, refers to the desires of the flesh. We can paraphrase this last part of verse 17 this way: "so that you by walking in the Spirit may not be doing whatever things your flesh may be desiring."

To recap: verse 16 identifies the solution to the problem of the flesh: walk in the Spirit. Verse 17 explains why this solution is necessary: the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another, and the only way to avoid fulfilling the flesh's lusts is by walking in the Spirit.

Verse 18 reinforces this conclusion from a different angle. If you are being led by the Spirit, which is another way of talking about walking in the Spirit, then you are not "under law." The Galatians were being told by Judaizers that they must be under the Mosaic convenant, through circumcision, to be saved. Paul refutes this idea by pointing out that what is begun by the Spirit cannot be completed by something done to the flesh. Being led by the Spirit is the antithesis of living according to the flesh, which places a person under the law.

Degrees of Holiness, Degrees of Reward

2007-10-25T21:15:00.000-04:00

I was recently asked, “Do degrees of holiness here on earth result in degrees of reward in Heaven?”

The question assumes there are degrees of holiness. Is that true? When we consult the OT, we see degrees of holiness in the tabernacle. The courtyard and all its equipment were holy, the “holy place” was more holy than the surrounding tabernacle, and the holy of holies was the most holy of all.

Are there degrees of holiness in people ? When we are saved we are made holy (1 Cor. 1:2). This holiness is real, but it is limited. It has not been integrated into every facet of our thoughts and behavior. Thus, it is often the case that new believers who are holy, act unwittingly in unholy ways. The Corinthians are a classic example (1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1-3). The more our minds are transformed to think as God thinks, the more holy our lives become (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1). Holy living flows from holy thinking that is motivated by love for God.

About five year ago I read A Life God Rewards by Bruce Wilkinson. It revolutionized my thinking on the topic of rewards. I found things to disagree with, but I would heartily recommend (most of) this book to all for prayerful, scriptural examination.

To answer the question posed to me, I did a quick examination of the New Testament’s teaching about rewards. Here’s what I found. Jesus taught that God rewards those who

love those who do not love them (Mat. 5:46-48),
do what is right without seeking to be noticed by men (Mat. 6:1),
give to the poor without public acclaim (Mat. 6:3-4),
pray in private (Mat. 6:6),
fast without calling attention to their fasting (Mat. 6:16-18),
receive a prophet or a righteous man (Mat. 10:41),
or give even a cup of cold water to a child (Mat. 10:42; Mark 9:41).

Jesus promises “great reward” (degrees of reward!) to two groups: those who are persecuted, lied about, hated, ostracized, insulted, or scorned as evil for Christ's sake (Mat. 5:12; Luke 6:23), and those who love their enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return (Luke 6:35). In fact, Jesus commands us to "leap (for joy)" because of the great reward persecution secures for us in Heaven (Luke 6:23).

Jesus also teaches that those who make profitable use of the capacities God has given them will be rewarded. The parables of the talents and minas (Matt. 5:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) are interesting because the master rewards faithful servants with administrative responsibility—“I will put you in charge of many things” (Matt. 25:21); “you are to be in authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17).

I infer from these passages that the rewards of Heaven are not primarily, if at all, monetary. Jesus rewards faithful servants by increasing their responsibility and breadth of service. Eternity is not about sitting on clouds, strumming harps, nor it is simply an endless praise service. Earthly work is preparation for eternal service for our King on a much grander scale. Work in Heaven?! Don’t be disheartened! You can be confident that our Designer will so fit our heavenly service to our design that we find it incomparably enjoyable and satisfying.

When we examine Paul's writings, he teaches that God rewards believers according to their works:” We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10). The word “bad” in 2 Cor. 5:10 does not mean sinful. It means worthless or unprofitable. God will test the produce of our entire life by fire in order to reveal its quality (1 Cor. 3:13). Those whose works survive the fire of Divine scrutiny will receive reward (1 Cor. 3:14). Those who works are burned up, will “suffer loss”; however, they will be saved (1 Cor. 3:15).

Paul commands Timothy to teach that those who do good, are rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, store up for themselves “the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Tim. 6:18-19). The reward of a “crown” appears several places in the NT. All those who have loved Jesus’ appearing, will receive a “crown of righteousness” when he appears (2 Tim. 4:8). Those who persevere under trial (Jam. 1:12) and those who are faithful unto death will receive the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). Elders who shepherd the flock well will receive an unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:1-4). Jesus warns the Philadelphians to "hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown" (Rev. 3:11).

My favorite passage on rewards is Ephesians 6:5-8. “Whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” In other words, everything you and I do as to the Lord, even if it’s slave-labor, will be rewarded in Heaven! (See also Col. 3:22-24.)

The NT concludes with Jesus promising marvelous rewards to him who overcomes. The one who overcomes will:

eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God (Rev. 2:7).
not be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:11).
receive some of the hidden manna, a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it. (Rev. 2:17).
receive authority over the nations, rule them with Christ, and receive the morning star (Rev. 2:26-28).
be clothed in white garments; his name will not be erased from the book of life, and Jesus will confess his name before His Father and His angels (Rev. 3:5).
be a pillar in the temple of God, he will not go out from it anymore; and I [Jesus] will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name (Rev. 3:12).
sit down with Me [Jesus] on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne (Rev. 3:21)
inherit the new heaven and new earth, the new Jerusalem, and the spring of the water of life (Rev. 21:1-7).

My quick survey has by no means exhausted the NT’s teaching on rewards, and it hasn’t even touched the OT. Perhaps the most thought provoking OT passage on rewards is Daniel 12:3, “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” This statement by Daniel’s angelic interpreter seems to indicate that glorified saints shine with varying degrees of intensity depending on the level of their reward or perhaps as part of their reward.

So in answer to the original question: When we understand that holiness involves not only the absence of that which is sinful, but also the presence of that which is godly, then, yes, degrees of holiness here affect the level of our reward in the next life. The more our lives are filled with the fruit of holiness, the greater our rewards will be.

When David was a Man After God's Own Heart (1 Sam. 13:14)

2007-08-26T21:39:00.001-04:00

"A man after God's own heart." That is probably the phrase most commonly associated with King David in many people's mind.

Unfortunately, that phrase is frequently misused and even misunderstood. At issue is this: Precisely when in David's life did God regard him as a man after His own heart?

The answer: 1 Sam. 13:14 and Acts 13:22.

1 Sam. 13 recounts the story of Saul's choice to offer sacrifice to God without a priestly representative present. Because he violated God's word and did not wait for Samuel to be present, Samuel tells him,

You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.

There it is! David was a man after God's own heart, BEFORE he was anointed king of Israel. It was the shepherd boy David of whom God said he is a man after my heart. God did not say this about David after his adultery with Bathsheba. This was not an end-of-life analysis of David. It was the early, pre-Goliath David who was a man after God's own heart.

Acts 13:22 expands on this passage a little: "After He had removed [Saul], He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.'

Here then is apostolic commentary on what it means to be a man after God's own heart: one who will do all His will. I emphasize the "all" because it was Saul's selective obedience that God considered disobedience. God longs for those who will do all His will, not just the parts they like.

Since David began as a man after God's own heart, but failed to remain such a man, there is both promise and warning in this passage.

The promise: we can be men & women whose hearts beat with God's. To be such requires whole-hearted obedience to His will we know.

The warning: we can cease to be men & women after God's own heart. When we deliberately choose our way over His way, we are headed Saul's way. David knew he had followed Saul's path through adultery and murder. That why he prayed so fervently, "take not your Holy Spirit from me." He had seen what happens when God's Spirit leaves.

The difference between Saul and David was not perfect performance. It was repentance. Saul was sorry, but not repentant. David, after confrontation, was both sorry and repentant.

Father, I want to be and live as a man after your heart. Grant me grace to do all your will, even the parts that are hard and painful. For Christ's sake, Amen.

Caleb's Concubines (1 Chron. 2:46, 48)

2007-07-06T07:47:00.000-04:00

Just read 1 Chron 2:18-4:4 and learned that Caleb, the man who wholly followed God (Deut. 1:36), had two concubines: Ephah and Maacah (1 Chron. 2:46, 48)!

From what we know about the Ancient Near East (cf. Nuzi) concubinage was a specific, legal status that was public—a kind of sub-wife position. Being a concubine was not to be a private ‘mistress’ at all.

What am I to learn from this? First, that God's assessment of Caleb as a man who "wholly follows God" is a statement about Caleb's obedience to the light he had. It is not a statement about his full conformity to the character and will of God. Caleb, apparently, was walking in all the light he had – but in his culture, a culture shaped by sin, concubinage was an acceptable practice for men of means. (David apparently had enough concubines that they aren’t even named, see 1 Chron. 3:9.)

I can imagine someone decrying the worldliness of Caleb or David, articulating the doctrine of marriage from Gen. 1-2 which Jesus himself would later teach, and then separating from these individuals as disobedient to God’s will and plan, compromisers with worldliness.

Would such a person be wrong? No, they would be right. Concubinage was (and is) contrary to God’s will, assimilated from the sinful world, and it brought with it all the consequences of violating God’s will. But the “problem” (for the person who recognizes that concubinage is contrary to God’s will) is that God worked with Caleb and David anyway. In spite of their blindness to the sins of worldliness in their lives, their hearts were wholly set to please God in view of the light He had given them.

I think this should tell me that God will work with people as long as they are wholly set to follow Him. The fact that they are compromised by worldliness, unconsciously, will not mean that God cannot or will not use them. The wrong conclusion to draw from this is that God doesn’t really care about what we do as long as we follow Him.

The lesson for me is that my heart must be wholly set to follow God. I must walk in all the light that He has given me. Others aren’t responsible for my light. I am. When I meet or observe modern Calebs, I should keep in mind that the fact God is using them does not mean God approves of the areas of their lives where they are living in violation of His word. It just means that God will bless and use anyone whose heart is wholly set to follow Him to the best of their knowledge.

Father, help me to be such a person!

Joy Unspeakable and Job

2007-06-21T21:05:00.000-04:00

I had these thoughts in response to Phillip Dickinson's comments on my May 2006 How to Fight for Joy post.

Have you perhaps had something like the following calico account of two of my experiences?

I received news that a donor had agreed to give approximately $100,000 each year over the next ten years to a fund for the establishment of a seminary here at GBS. I was overjoyed, elated.

My wife comes into my office to inform me that her mother is experiencing excruciating pain and has been taken to the hospital. My wife is in tears. Upon hearing the news from my wife, my sense of joy vanishes or at least dissipates rapidly. I'm distressed and seek to be a comfort to my wife.

Did I lose my joy?

Most certainly not! Upon the first opportunity that my mind had to return to the contemplation of the donor's pledge, my inward rejoicing and delight (aka joy) resumed its singing and simmered over time to a happy hum.

My best short description of joy, at present, is that joy is the emotional result of a mental focus. That's the short version. The extended version is: Christian joy is the emotion of happy satisfaction that results from a mental focus on the persons, promises, and character of our Triune God.

This definition identifies joy as an emotion. My best study of the biblical words for joy has led me to this conclusion, so far. Like almost all emotions, we cannot directly manipulate them. Most emotions are the consequence of a pattern of thinking, that is, they are a consequence of our mental focus. Mental focus is the result of the questions we ask ourselves and the assertions we make to ourselves.

For example, to generate the emotions of confusion, depression, blackness, even despair, repeatedly ask yourself the questions, "Why this? Why me? Why now?" when you encounter some negative circumstance. Oh, and insist upon the answer being empirically verifiable and fully comprehensible by your mind. This is how Job got in the pit.

The fruit of Joy produced by the Spirit is really the Spirit granting us desire and power to choose to focus our minds upon the person and promises of God in Christ. The more we do, and consequently the better we "see" Jesus, the greater our joy.

I think I see in this an analogy to the Spirit fruit, love. Love (for others) is a self-sacrificial commitment to seek their highest good as I seek my own and as Christ sought my good. This fruit is in evidence in our lives when we engage our wills to seek others' good self-sacrificially.

Just as God wants such good-seeking to be the character of our life, so He wants it to be our mental habit, our continuous disposition to focus our minds upon His person and promises that our joy may be full. This is how Job got out of the pit. God presented Job a series of questions that changed his focus from himself to God. Same medicine worked for Elijah.

Solomon reveals that there is a time to weep (Eccl. 3:4). It is not appropriate for a Christian to experience joy as the dominant ascendant emotion at all times. Sorrow, anger, compassion. These emotions were ascendant in our Lord at times, but the foundation of joy was always present: a full knowledge of the person and promises of His Father. All that was needed to bring joy streaming back to the forefront was to focus His mind upon His Father.

Fighting for Joy is fighting to see and understand the person and promises of God in Christ more clearly. The clearer our vision, the greater our joy. The steadier our gazing, the steadier our joy.

Father, grant me to see you in Christ more clearly and to gaze upon you in Christ more steadily that I may glorify you more fully by revelling in the joy that attends such attention.

Reading Psalms to Children

2007-02-14T09:20:00.000-05:00

Allan came in this morning as I was reading my Bible, so I read him the portion of Psalm 34 that was part of my reading. As I read to him, it occurred to me that reading the Psalms not only identifies the character of God and the paths in which He wants us to walk, but it also identifies how He views and relates to those who choose not to walk in His ways. Conviction and fear would be the result of a consistent reading of the psalms to those who are not right with God. That's another good reason to read the Psalms to children.

34:16 The face of the LORD is against evildoers, To cut off the memory of them from the earth.

34:21 Evil shall slay the wicked, And those who hate the righteous will be condemned.

I was challenged recently to learn that the Stam family, from which John Stam the martyred missionary to China came, began every meal of the day with Bible reading. Each place setting had a Bible and all shared in the reading.

This strengthens my resolve to incorporate more regular Scripture reading into the fabric of my family’s life.

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD" (Deut. 23:2 KJV)

2006-07-18T11:08:00.000-04:00

I've been systematically reviewing Rick Warren's book The Purpose-Driven Life on my website. I've done chapters 12-28, and I'm going back and picking up chapters 1-11, on which I previously wrote a brief review.

In Chapter 2, page 23, Warren writes, “While there are illegitimate parents, there are no illegitimate children.” I find this a very helpful distinction!

I remember the animus and disgust that seemed to emanate from an older preacher who referred to his granddaughter’s child conceived out of wed-lock as illegitimate. Besides being an ungodly attitude, it was grossly wrong to saddle a child with the onus of his/her parent’s sin. Yet that is the way sin is. Sin never affects only the perpetrator. It always affects others.

However, as I was writing the above I remembered Deut. 23:2 "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

So I looked up the term mamzer (Deut. 23:2; Zech. 9:6), translated ‘bastard’ by the KJV. And I looked up bastard in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Mamzer does not denote a person born out of wed-lock (HALOT, NIDOTTE). It denotes either a person born of illegitimate mixed-parentage, a half-breed, or a person born from an incestuous marriage forbidden in Lev. 18. An example of a half-breed would be an Israelite who married one of the seven forbidden nations of Canaan. And, interestingly enough, bastard can also mean a person of mixed breed (OED).

Deut. 23:3 is the only other prohibition that forbids entry into the congregation of Israel to the tenth generation: Ammonites and Moabites. If 23:4 didn’t provide the reason for this prohibition, it would be natural to assume since they were born of incest, that is the reason God prohibits their presence in the congregation (which I take to be the worshipping congregation in the tabernacle, not a prohibition of inter-marriage). However, verse four says the reason God is prohibiting their presence is that they did not help Israel in the wilderness but hired Balaam to curse them.

Does Deut. 23:2 have any relevance to the Christian today? In terms of universal principles and specific applications. Deut. 23:2 would be a specific application of the universal principle that divinely approved marriage must be between believers (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14ff) and perhaps that the sins of fathers are visited upon their children. Since the dwelling place of God (the temple) is no longer a physical building, but God dwells within His people, there would be no corresponding specific application prohibiting mixed breeds from God's presence.

Both Deut. 23:2 & 23:3-4 make it clear that sin's consequences extend far beyond the lives of the sinner. Thank God that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded!

One facet of that grace is that despite illegitimate conceptions, God superintends the design of the resulting child, sent Christ to die for him/her, and willingly dwells within any such person who turns to Christ in saving faith.

Plenteous grace with Thee is found! Praise the Lord!

Our Stewardship of Grace (1 Pet. 4:10-11)

2006-06-19T09:32:00.000-04:00

1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (NASB)

After enjoining believers to fervent love (4:8) and uncomplaining hospitality toward one another (4:9), Peter calls each of us to employ the gift (Grk: charisma) we have received for the purpose of serving others (4:10). We are to use our gifts in a manner that plainly communicates their source: God. When we serve in this manner God is glorified through Christ (4:11).

Peter's exhortation teaches us several important truths about spiritual gifts:
1. Peter implies that each believer has received at least one gift.
2. The purpose of God's gracious gifts to us is that we serve one another. All gifts are service gifts. None are grounds for self-congratulatory comparison.
3. Peter directly ties our gifts into the primary purpose for which God created us: to glorify Him. God gifts us to glorify Him.
4. We glorify God in the use of our gifts when we openly acknowledge the source and power for our service. It is not inappropriate to thank people for their expressions of appreciation after we have edified them through our gifted service. And neither is it hyper-spiritual to add a phrase such as "the Lord helped me" or "Praise the Lord" after saying, "Thank you."

As I taught through this passage yesterday at the conclusion of a lesson on spiritual gifts, a phrase in verse ten that I had previously overlooked jumped out at me: "as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."

I think most believers associate stewardship with money or possessions. God owns it all; I'm just a steward. That is indeed true. But Peter tells us that we are also stewards of grace.

Have you ever thought of yourself as a steward of grace? The gifts God has given us are grace gifts. That means God has freely given them to us based not on our merit but on His wisdom.

We often approach the subject of spiritual gifts out of curiosity only to learn from Peter that they are actually a responsibility! Or perhaps I should say, they are a God-given opportunity to fulfill the two most important commands--to love God and others--through glorifying God in serving others.

Someday we will give an account for our stewardship of the gifts God has given us. May the Lord find us faithful stewards of His grace serving others to His glory through Christ Jesus!

A Major Reason I Advocate Church Membership

2006-05-26T15:18:00.000-04:00

In 1997 I was completely opposed to the idea of church membership. I grew up in a church that did not have official membership. I saw no great value to membership. It seemed like all responsibility and only one privilege—voting—a privilege more likely than not to lead to church problems.

During the summer of 1997, Bob Jones University hired me to write the last in a series of Sunday School quarterlies for their college SS classes. Developing Biblical Interpersonal Relationships was the topic assigned. While researching for the chapter on how to deal with relationships broken by sin, I ran across a true story that ran much like the following.

A church in Colorado had an open-membership policy like I grew up with: if you come regularly and tithe, you’re a member. A young woman, who was a part of the college & career group, decided to move in with her boyfriend. From her perspective, her moral behavior was none of the church’s business.

That wasn’t how the church saw it. Since she had been a regular “member,” the church initiated the steps Jesus laid out in Matthew 18:15-17 for dealing with a brother or sister who sins. First, her friends went to her, but she wouldn’t listen. Then the church leadership went to her, explaining what the Bible says about fornication and Christians, but she wouldn’t listen.

At this point, she decided that since she was being harassed by a bunch of legalists, she would just quit attending that church and go somewhere else. However, the church didn’t look at it quite that way. From the church’s perspective, she was backsliding, and they had to exercise the discipline Christ prescribed in order to bring her back into right relationship with God. So, they took the third step: they brought her case before the church, formally censured her in absentia, and declared her no longer a member of the church.

She sued the church for libel and defamation, and the court awarded her $250,000. The rationale: because she had never made any formal commitment to membership and had told the church leaders that she no longer considered herself a member of their church, the church did not have a legal right to discipline her.

My study of the Scriptural principles for church discipline had lead me to the conclusion that God designed it to function as the immune system for the Body of Christ. A church without church discipline is like a body without an immune system: it will fall prey to every and any disease that comes along. As I pondered the Colorado church’s story, I completely reversed my opinion. Not only am I no longer opposed to church membership, but I see it as absolutely essential for the spiritual vitality of the Church.

The biblical mandate of church discipline and the legal impossibility of exercising it without church membership is one of the primary reasons I am advocating a rethinking of church polity, and especially the way we conceive and practice church membership.

When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy

2006-05-14T21:57:00.000-04:00

This book by John Piper caught my attention because I am unsatisfied with the level of joy in my life. I do desire God. And for that grace I am grateful. Yet, I long to find Him my chief joy.

Verses like the following suggest there is greater joy to be had than I currently have:

Hebrews 10:34 For you … accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
— Christians accepting the wrongful seizure of their property with joy! Joy because their future inheritance included permanent, unseizable possessions. But that didn’t change the fact that they had lost their property, perhaps all their assets: lands, cash, houses, etc. Why? Because they were Christians. … accepted joyfully!

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy…
— right after love comes joy!

1 Peter 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,
— sounds like those gospel songs that make poetic flights the supposed substance of everyday living … “waves of glory o’er me roll” … the only problem is, this inspired Scripture. … joy inexpressible and filled with glory! Where’s that in my life?!

Here are some quotes from the first chapter of Piper's book that have been deepening my hunger for God:

> “the truth and beauty and worthy of God shine best from the lives of saints who are so satisfied in God they can suffer in the cause of love without murmuring.” (15)

> Jonathan Edwards argued with all his intellectual might in 1729 that “Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites.” [Imagine wondering if your appetite for God was getting a little out of hand!?] Edwards continues

“[We ought] to be endeavoring by all possible ways to inflame our desires and to obtain more spiritual pleasures. … Our hungerings and thirstings after God and Jesus Christ and after holiness can’t be too great for the value of these things, for they are things of infinite value. … [Therefore] endeavor to promote spiritual appetites by laying yourself in the way of allurement. … there is no such thing as excess in our taking of this spiritual food. There is no such virtue as temperance in spiritual feasting. (19)

O God, grant me unbounded appetite for You and grace to lay myself in the way of soul allurement to You.

Losing and Regaining our First Love (Rev. 2:4-5)

2006-05-07T15:18:00.000-04:00

Revelation 2:4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place-- unless you repent.

What does it mean that the Ephesians had left their “first love?”

Notice that three actions (not feelings, emotions, or attitudes) are commanded: remember, repent, and do:

1. “Remember” – they are to remember "from where they have fallen." Their current position is one below where they had been. Their current behavior is missing the first deeds that were motivated by their first love.
2. “Repent” – this tells me that whatever it is to “leave your first love” is something that requires repentance, i.e., sin.
3. “Do the deeds you did at first” – Obedience is the perfect expression of love for God (1 John 2:5). The Ephesians’ departure from their first/former love is evident in that they have ceased to engage in the expressions of that love.

I think a fair analogy may be made with courtship and marriage. Many a man, fired by the warmth of “first love,” performs deeds gallant and chivalrous for his bride-to-be/new bride. Due to the nature of the human constitution, the warmth of “first love” wanes. It cannot be helped. Not is it to be particularly lamented, UNLESS with the settling into the routines of married life, the husband no longer does the deeds he did at first. He no longer holds the door, opens the car door, etc. showing his deference and love. The issue is not that he no longer “feels” the same, but that he no longer “acts” the same. It is the action that is the true measure of love. When action is absent, love is absent or soon will be.

This is not to say that emotional deadness is an acceptable condition for a Christian. Scripture will not countenance such a norm.

Yet, Jesus does not call Ephesus (or us) to regain the ardor and fervor of a new convert. He calls us to maintain first love’s deeds, i.e., obedience, regardless of our emotional fluctuations.

Praying with Paul for Discerning Love (Phil. 1:9-11)

2006-05-03T07:52:00.000-04:00

Heavenly Father, for those I’m bringing before You, I pray that you would cause their love for You to increase and abound in greater knowledge of You and, consequently, in greater discernment so that they will be able to identify and choose things that are excellent—the things that please You most—so that, from now until Jesus returns, their lives will be blameless in your sight, harmless to others, and filled through Christ’s enablement with thoughts, words, and deeds that are righteous—fully in harmony with Your word—so that their lives will bring glory and praise to You.

Praying with Paul for Empowerment (Eph. 3:14-21)

2006-04-07T11:47:00.000-04:00

Dear Father, father of the whole family that bears your name both in heaven and on earth, I pray that you would, in proportion to the unlimited, glorious riches that you have, strengthen those I’m praying for inwardly with power by the Holy Spirit so that Christ may have full right of way in their hearts through faith. Since they have been rooted and grounded in Your love, would you enable them to join all the rest of the saints in comprehending the incredible dimensions of your love, and the love that Christ has for them, a love which is beyond our ability to understand. I pray this so that they would be filled up to all the fullness of God, i.e., become just like Jesus in whom all Your fullness dwelt. Father, you are the One who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that I ask or think, through the power of the Holy Spirit is at work within your children. I give you glory and praise and pray that your name will be glorified in your church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations. Amen!

Praying with Paul for Enlightenment (Eph. 1:17-20)

2006-04-07T11:45:00.000-04:00

Glorious Father, God of our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray that you would give those I’m praying for a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in their relationship with You so that they might know You. Since the eyes of their heart have been enlighted, I pray that they will understand and appreciate (1) the hope You have called them to,
(2) the glorious riches of Your inheritance in the saints, i.e., how much you value them and all those who are your children, and
(3) the surpassing greatness of Your power that is available to us who believe — the same power that raised the Christ from the dead and seated Him at Your right hand in heaven.

Notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

2006-01-15T16:55:00.000-05:00

4:1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more.
4:2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

As Paul heads toward the close of his letter, he urges the Thessalonians to "excel still more" in pleasing God.

Pleasing God is the relational context within which Paul wants the Thess. to view what he is about to say. I.e., here is further information about how to excel in pleasing God.

4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;

God want us to be "sanctified" -- Paul further defines this sanctification in terms of separation from sexual immorality.

The one word definition of 'sanctification' is separation. To be sanctified or holy is to be separated from immoral behavior to moral behavior, from the impure to the pure, from the unclean to the clean.

The term translated sexual immorality (porneia) denotes any type of sexual behavior forbidden by God. This is not merely premarital immorality.

To be separated unto God involves having nothing to do with sexual sin.

Young people often want to know "how far can I go" when I'm dating. Let's notice a few things about this question.
1. Notice that the question itself assumes that one is going "somewhere." That somewhere is sexual intimacy.
2. The question is asking in essence, how close can I come to sexual intimacy and still be within the bounds of the "ok."
3. In Matt. 5:28 Jesus tells us that merely looking upon a woman (or a man) to lust after them is, in God's eyes, an act of adultery. In other words, you can't even "go there" (sexual intimacy) in your mind.

Sanctification in the area of sexuality is not simply a matter what one does not do with the body. It is also a matter of what one does with the mind.

Rom. 14:13 tells us to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. Notice it does not say, "Avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh." Nor does it say you should not have fleshly desires. It says you must not do anything that sets up an opportunity for the flesh to fulfill its lusts.
The issue is not just avoiding sin. The issue is also avoiding the actions, thoughts, and places that make it possible for sin to take place.

... for the rest, click here

Devoted to one another in brotherly love (Rom. 12:10)

2006-01-14T09:48:00.000-05:00

I was sharing a section of Barclay’s treatment of the key NT words for love with my Greek I students yesterday. The section dealt with philostorgos in Romans 12:10, which the NASB translates, “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.” As Barclay explains it, the word translated “be devoted” (philostorgoi) connotes the devotion a parent has for a child or a child for a parent. A verse from 4 Maccabees supports Barclay’s statement: “O sacred nature and affection of parental love, yearning of parents toward offspring, nurture and indomitable suffering by mothers!” (15:13). Similar usage may be found in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 7.252) and Philo.

The “yearning toward [their] offspring” which parents experience is the sort of devotion that the Spirit through Paul is exhorting us to have toward one another. Interestingly Paul qualifies this with the word philadelphia, brotherly love. Because we are siblings in Christ, our devotion should be brotherly.

Frankly, the significance of this passage didn’t really strike me until I started to pray the opening prayer. Can I honestly say that I am “devoted to my fellow believers [including students] in brotherly love?” I’m afraid not. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever even given a thought to being “devoted” to the members of my family in Christ in a manner that approximates natural family devotion. So I had to confess my failure to consider the meaning of this passage, let alone make strides to apply it. Following confession should always be supplication for grace to grow and walk in the light. By God’s grace, I intend to be growing in being devoted toward fellow believers with brotherly love.

Samuel Adams on Thanksgiving, 1777

2005-11-25T19:22:00.000-05:00

"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...together with penitent confession of their sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor; and their humble and earnest supplications that it may please God through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance...it is therefore recommended...to set apart Thursday the eighteenth day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise, that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feeling of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor...acknowledging with gratitude their obligations to Him for benefits received. ... To prosper the means of religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost'."

God's Hesed in Action (Psalm 90:14)

2005-10-22T23:25:00.001-04:00

Psalm 90:14 O satisfy us in the morning with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.

Ever since my first year of Hebrew, I’ve been fascinated with the word hesed. It is one of the dominant OT words for how God deals with us, and without question the most frequently praised attribute of God: “for his hesed endures forever!” Dr. Terry Rude, my first year Hebrew prof., defined it as God’s ‘loyal lovingkindness.’ Of its ± 248 occurrences, the KJV translates it mercy 149x, the NASB – lovingkindness 176x, the NIV – love, ESV – steadfast love, NET Bible – loyal love, NLT – faithful love.

As Dr. John Oswalt said in his Aldersgate Forum lectures on holiness last week: this is a very difficult word to translate. In fact four PhD dissertations in the last century were dedicated to determining the meaning(s) of this word, and I even ventured a shot at it in a lengthy footnote (Ch. 5, ftnt. 34) in my dissertation.

Despite looking at all its occurrences, studying its semantic range, reading Gordon Clark’s dissertation on it, and so on, I have not been satisfied with my practical grasp of the term. What has particularly bothered me is that I rarely ever rejoice in and thank God for His hesed, yet that is clearly the focal point of OT praise.

This was bothering me particularly on Wednesday of this week, so I told my Hebrew students that they really ought to begin wrestling with this word. Today I took up my own advice again. But this time with a different focus. Rather than attempting to refine my understanding of the sense(s) or meaning(s) of the word, I decided to look at its referents.

When God does hesed with people (that’s the Hebrew idiom), what does He do? In other words, if I am to find evidence of God’s hesed in my life, what am I supposed to look for? Here’s the data I found in 20 minutes during my devotions this morning:

Examples of God's Hesed at work:

God delivering Lot from Sodom -- deliverance, saving of life (Gen. 19).

God guiding Abraham's servant to Rebekah -- providing leadership (Gen. 24).

God granting His servant favor in the eyes of his superior (Gen. 39; Ezra 7, 9).

Guiding Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 15:13).

Does Exod. 34:7 imply that forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin is God's hesed at work? Num. 14:19 appears to support the idea: Moses prays that God would forgive the iniquity of the people in accordance with His great hesed.

Ruth 1:8 -- Naomi's prayer that God would deal with Orpah and Ruth with the same hesed that they have shown to their (now) dead husbands and to Naomi -- thus a kindness, a loyalty -- sticking with Naomi, helping care for her (Ruth 1:20).

God's provision of Boaz as a redeemer for Ruth and Naomi is evidence of His hesed (Ruth 2:20).

God took away His hesed from Saul = no longer spoke to Him, permitted him to be tormented by an evil spirit, i.e., no longer protected him spiritually (2 Sam. 7:15).

To show kindness is to do the hesed of God with another person (2 Sam. 9:3).

God keeps covenant and hesed by keeping his promises for good to those to whom He makes them (1 Kings 8:23). For example, God did "great hesed" with David by making Solomon his son king in his place (2 Chron. 1:8).

Psalm 6:5 a prayer for deliverance on the basis of God's hesed.

Psalm 21:7 Because of God's hesed, the one who trusts in him is not shaken. God's establishment and strengthening is an evidence of his hesed.

In sum, what I learned this morning is that God’s deliverance, salvation, guidance, kindness, forgiveness, loyalty, keeping of His promises to do good, protection – all these are evidences of His hesed at work! No wonder Moses hungered to be satisfied with God’s hesed. And I have begun to rejoice in and thank God for his never-ending hesed!

We are members one of another (Eph. 4:25)

2005-09-12T08:03:00.000-04:00

Ephesians 4:25 Since you put away lying, Speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

“We are members of one another.” What does it mean that we are members of one another? The image is clear enough. Paul taught that we are a body in 1 Corinthians 12. Hands, eyes, head—they are vitally connected to each other. Vital connection involves mutual dependence. The well-being of each part of my body contributes to my total health. It’s not difficult to understand that in physical terms.

But do I really view myself as so vitally connected to other believers that my spiritual well-being affects theirs? The issue is not “Is it true?” The issue is what am I doing about this truth?

When I am spiritually weak, dry, or diseased, my ill health spiritually affects the spiritual health of the Body of Christ. When I am growing in Christlikeness, feeding my soul well, and living in the Spirit, my spiritual good health contributes to the overall health of the Body.

In other words, our spiritual well-being is not just our business. It is actually a matter of concern for the whole body. On an individual level, when I sit down to nourish my relationship with God through His word and prayer, I am also contributing to the nourishment of other believers in a real, yet often unseen fashion.

How is that nourishment communicated to the rest of the body of which I am a part? My attitude is infectious. The health of my soul is the subtext of my words. I cannot avoid the osmosis of my spirit any more than a cell in my body can avoid the osmosis of oxygen or carbon dioxide. In fact, any attempt to prevent such osmosis would necessarily be detrimental both to me and fellow body members.

That gives significance to the “least” of the members of the Body. That transforms my perception of the importance of my personal spiritual health. I must stay healthy! That enhances my concern for those who are members of me: please stay healthy!

The Culture of the Kingdom of God

2005-09-09T21:51:00.000-04:00

Culture, according to Webster, is the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a group of people. Does the Kingdom of God have a distinctive, normative culture? I mean by that, is there a set of attitudes, values, goals, and practices that citizens of the Kingdom of God share? And what is the nature of that sharing? Is it an accident* of citizenship or is it an essential? Do citizen have to share these attitudes, values, goals, and practices, or are they optional—like most elements of human culture?

I submit that the Kingdom of God has a normative, non-optional culture. I further submit that one of the purposes of God’s word is to teach the attitudes, values, goals, and practices that constitute the Kingdom’s culture. If that is so, then one of the chief goals of pastoral teaching is to facilitate the acculturation of new citizens with the Kingdom’s culture.

Imagine being in a new converts’ class where the leader begins the class with, “Welcome to the Kingdom of God. When you placed your faith in Christ, you were not only born into the family of God, but you were transferred out of the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of God. You are now citizens of God’s Kingdom. One of the top priorities of this class is to introduce you to the ways things operate in the Kingdom of God. A few things won’t be much different than what you are used to. On the other hand, there are many ways in which God’s Kingdom is radically different, even completely opposite from the Kingdom of Darkness. Its nature, its laws, its culture—they’re all quite different. You will probably experience a bit of “culture shock” as you begin to grow in your faith and develop as a new citizen. Please feel free to ask any questions you have as we go along. I’ll be happy to help in any way I can. I hope you are ready to get to down to business learning how to live as a citizen in God’s Kingdom.”

I asked my students that question this week. One of them responded that it almost sounded cultish. Actually that thought went through my mind as I thought about this. However, I’m convinced that the reason this sounds so strange is that we have either dispensationalized the Kingdom so that it relates only to the Eschaton. Or, we simply have never given any serious thought to the Biblical data regarding the Kingdom of God. In my case, it is the latter.

*In philosophy, accident refers to “a nonessential attribute or characteristic of something.”

The Kingdom of God & The Gospel

2005-09-03T15:31:00.000-04:00

The Kingdom of God (aka Kingdom of Heaven) has been a subject of interest to me for at least the last 5 years. I remember starting a Bible study on it with Marianne when we were dating. I quit after the first session because I realized I didn’t know enough to continue.

Two things about the Kingdom of God have piqued my interest over the last three years: (1) the realization that the Kingdom of God was core to the Gospel message that Christ preached, yet I can’t ever remember hearing a gospel message that had the Kingdom at the core of the message; and (2) the realization that the Kingdom of God has a culture and the Bible is its manual for acculturation.

Here’s the data that shows how integral the Kingdom of God was to the gospel preaching of the NT:

John the Baptist’s message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 3:2).

Jesus’ message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 4:17); “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)

Jesus’ teaching, as recorded in the Gospels, include around 80 references to the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe Jesus as preaching a “gospel of the kingdom of God” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:15; Luke 16:16)

Jesus’ post-resurrection ministry was characterized by “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

Philip the evangelist preached “the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s missionary message consistently included the Kingdom of God as theme (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

Paul’s epistles reference the Kingdom of God across the span of his ministry (Gal. 5:21; 2 Thess. 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Romans 14:17; Col. 1:13; 4:11; Eph. 5:5).

Hard to argue with that kind of ubiquity! It is central to the gospel. Why have we lost sight of this?

A Prerequisite for Revelation (John 14:22-24)

2005-07-16T16:47:00.000-04:00

A young man sat in my office not too long ago. He was deeply troubled by questions and doubts about his relationship with God. He longed for God to be "real" in his life, but he feared yielding his life unreservedly to God for His total control.

I suggested two options to the young man: (1) Spend time reading Francis Schaeffer's The God Who is There and/or Escape from Reason. These works profoundly influenced my thinking as a late teenager, and I think they still contain a valuable message to those searching for God. My only warning was that he remember that God will not be found by the intellect alone. Without faith it is impossible to please God (or find Him). (2) The second option I suggested was that he simply yield himself totally to God and pursue relationship with Him, despite unanswered questions and unresolved doubts.

We prayed together and he left intending, I think, to pursue option 1. ...

This morning I sat on a porch swing and read John 14:22-24, which says,
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

Another one of Jesus' non-sequiturs! And then again, maybe it isn't. Judas asked why Jesus was not revealing himself to the world. Jesus replied that that the Father and Son make their abode with those who love Jesus and keep His word.

In other words, Jesus was revealing Himself to the disciples because they loved Him and were keeping His word. He was not revealing Himself to the world because they didnot love Him and were not keeping His word.

Is there a broader principle behind Jesus' statement?: Revelation hinges on loving obedience. If I want Christ to reveal Himself more fully to me, I must be in full obedience to all that He has already revealed. John 7:17 implies this, but this truth hit me anew in this passage.

Perhaps I gave that young man the wrong advice. Given Jesus' response to Judas, I should have said "God generally reveals Himself to those who love Him and are living in obedience to His Word. If you want God to be "real" to you, you have to be willing to trust Him enough to surrender fully to His control. Only when you are in that position of humility are you positioned to receive the grace of greater revelation."

Of Him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43)

2005-07-13T00:02:00.000-04:00

Acts 10:43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (NASB)

I haven't been able to get away from the radical implications of this verse for the last 6-7 years. I keep coming back to it again and again. Our reading of the OT is very non-Petrine; at least mine has been.

Contextually, "Him" and "His name" refer to Jesus. So we can reword the verse this way, "Of Jesus, all the prophets bear witness that through Jesus' name everyone who believes on Jesus receives forgiveness of sins."

Does that sound as strange to you as it does me? Here are the questions that come to my mind:

1. All the prophets? Really?
2. The prophets talk about believing on Jesus? Where? I've never seen His name mentioned in any of the prophets.

So I went looking ... and what I found was that the prophets repeatedly call upon people to believe in the name of Yahweh (i.e., the LORD). See, for example, Isa. 50:10; Joel 2:32; Zeph. 3:12.

That means that Peter believes Yahweh is Jesus. In other words, Peter sees the prophetic call to turn to the LORD/Yahweh (Isa. 45:22), as a call to turn to Jesus.

Which leads to the questions ... When does Yahweh have reference to the Son and when does it refer to the Father? How often should we be reading Yahweh as Christ in the OT? What does Yahweh's existence as one in three, and three in one mean for understanding which person(s) of the Trinity are in view when His name Yahweh is used?

Bottom line: All the prophets talk about Jesus. Are we reading them the way Peter was? Yahweh must refer to Jesus in the OT much more than I am used to thinking.

An Independence Day Prayer from Daniel 9

2005-07-04T22:45:00.000-04:00

Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keep Your covenant and lovingkindness for those who love You and keep Your commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances.

Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants, who spoke in Your name to our presidents, our congressmen, our judges and all the people of the land. Righteousness belongs to You, O Lord, but to us open shame, as it is this day -- to the men of America, the inhabitants of Washington, D.C. and all the United States, those who are nearby and those who are far away -- because of their unfaithful deeds which they have committed against You. Open shame belongs to us, O Lord, to our presidents, our congressmen, our judges, because we have sinned against You. To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against You; nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in Your teachings which You set before us through Your servants.

Indeed all America has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse is being poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in Your word, for we have sinned against You. As it is written in Your word, all this calamity is coming on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Your truth. Therefore the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice.

And now, O Lord our God, who have brought us out of all the lands of the earth with a mighty hand and have made a name for Yourself, as it is this day -- we have sinned, we have been wicked. O Lord, in accordance with all Your righteous acts, let now Your anger and Your wrath turn away from this country, America; for because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, we have become a reproach and a blot on the earth. So now, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on this land.

O our God, incline Your ear and hear! Open Your eyes and see our spiritual desolation; for we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, for your name’s sake.

Amen, and Amen.

Rod and reproof (Prov. 29:15)

2005-06-29T12:15:00.000-04:00

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. (NASB)

The juxtaposition of rod and reproof struck me this morning as I was proofing Proverbs 29 for A Reader’s Hebrew Bible (more info.; sample). Since I am daily shaping the behavioral patterns of my son, it is good to be reminded that it is rod and reproof that gives wisdom. Either the rod or verbal correction alone is insufficient. They work together.

The rod I take to be metonymy of cause for effect. In other words, the rod is what causes pain, and pain is (at all levels of development) a motivator to avoid whatever behavior produced the pain. If the rod is seen merely as a physical instrument, I think its real significance is lost. It is the pain of the rod that helps drive away folly. If physical pain is ineffective, other sorts of rods are available (e.g., loss of privilege, loss of play-time, etc.).

Reproof involves the verbal instruction that identifies the incorrect behavior for what it is and provides instruction on why it is wrong and what is the appropriate alternative.

This is, of course, an axiomatic statement; therefore, it does not mean wisdom is always and only imparted by rod and reproof. But the final stich (last half of the verse), contextualizes this axiom: “a child who is allowed to run loose without restriction shames his mother.” Without the restraint of rod and reproof, parental shame is the inevitable consequence. Solomon should know.

Mansions in the Father’s House (John 14:2, 23)

2005-06-25T09:17:00.000-04:00

14:2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. (NASB)
14:2 evn th/ oivki,a tou/ patro,j mou monai. pollai, eivsin\ eiv de. mh,( ei=pon a'n u`mi/n o[ti poreu,omai e`toima,sai to,pon u`mi/nÈ

The AV says, “In my Father’s house are many mansions …” As child growing up, I assumed that mansions meant what I thought a mansion was: a palatial house with crystal chandeliers, grand staircases, and more rooms than you knew what to do with. Then I studied NT Greek and found out that the word translated mansions means “a dwelling place.” It does not denote or even connote the fabulous sort of residence I envisioned. That was a bit disappointing, initially.

I was also inclined to wonder why the AV chose mansion since it doesn’t mean mansion. In the process of studying NT Greek, I also began to learn something about the history of English. Words change their meanings over time! The word mansion used to be used for “Any structure or building serving as a place in which to live or lodge, as a house, a tent, etc.” (Oxford English Dictionary). In fact, in William Tyndale’s NT, he translates 2 Cor. 5:1-2 “…oure erthy mancion wherin we now dwell … Desyringe to be clothed with oure mansion which is from heven …” (yes, that is how they spelled in the 1500s!).

And that brings me to this week. I started memorizing the Upper Room discourse of Jesus (John 14-17), and noticed something I had written in the margin of my Bible. The word monh, moné occurs in John 14:23 “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode [monh,n] with him.”

We are the moné of the Father and the Son! There are many dwelling places in Heaven, but God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 2:20-22), has chosen to make us His dwelling place. What an incredible privilege … what an incredible responsibility. We must maintain God’s dwelling place in a way fit for Him—with purity in every area. Holiness is not the condition God imposes upon our living from His throne in Heaven. Holiness is the necessary condition for God’s triune presence to take up and maintain residence in us.

Father,
Empower me by the Spirit, today, to love you fervently and obediently, so that my life may be wholly lived unto You and thereby be holy in all that I do, say, and think.
For Christ's sake,
Amen.

Jesus' Prayer for Unity through Perichoresis (John 17:21-23)

2005-06-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

John 17:21 ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. 22 κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν· 23 ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν, ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐμὲ ἠγάπησας.

21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (NASB)

Jesus begins his petition for unity in John 17:21 -- "That they all may be one" … how? … "just as you, Father, are in me and I in you.

Perichoretic union, (= mutual indwelling of persons), is the focus of the oneness that Christ prays for.

How can we be “perichoretically” one? The rest of the verse explains: “in order that they also might be in us.” We are “one” as Jesus prayed, when we are united with Father and Son.

Verse 22 continues the idea: “I have given them the glory that you gave me in order that they may be one as we are one.”

What is the “glory” that Jesus gave His disciples and how does that result in their unity?
My first stab at defining the “glory” would be the privilege of union with Christ.[1] That is the next thing Jesus says: “I in them and you in me, in order that they might be perfected in oneness.”

Implications:
1. This is perhaps the passage most abused by evangelicals in a plea for visible, corporate unity. The unity for which Jesus was praying was not the unity of believer with believer, but rather of all believers with Christ and the Father. This has implications for how we relate to others, but I do not believe it implies visible, denominational, or structural unity.

2. What an incredible prayer! Jesus wants us in Him. He is in the Father (v22), so that puts us in the Father as well. The Father is in Him (22) and He is in us (23), so that means the Father is in us too.

3. Jesus opens the door to the mysterious ‘oneness’ of God our Triune God. Jesus and the Father are “one” through mutual indwelling. We become “one” in the same way: we indwell God and He indwells us. Here is marvelous truth, profoundest mystery.

4. Yet, the mystery of mutual indwelling is ours through union with Christ through faith. This participation in divine perichoresis affords us the privilege of fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:4), and grants us the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2:2).

Surely, the appropriate response is glad praise, enthusiastic participation in triune fellowship, adoring humility and submission.

Father,
I marvel at the privilege that union with Christ has afforded me! Grant me grace to delight more fully and participate more sensibly in the oneness that is already mine in Christ by the Spirit.
On the grounds of Jesus’ name, I pray.
Amen.

[1] So also Barnes, Jamieson-Faussett-Brown; Gill: “the Gospel is meant, which is glorious in its author, matter and subject, in its doctrines, in the blessing: grace it reveals, and promises it contains, and in the efficacy and usefulness of it to the souls of men. This was given to Christ, and he gave it to his disciples.” Wesley: “The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians.” Clarke: “the glorious privilege of becoming sons of God; that, being all adopted children of the same Father, … however, … the words may therefore be understood of the glory which they were to share with him in heaven.

What's wrong with it? vs. What would please Jesus the most? (Phi. 1:10)

2005-06-16T21:20:00.000-04:00

Philippians 1:10 εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα, ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ,

1:10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;

Verse 10 identifies the reason Paul is praying for the Philippians’ love for God to abound in knowledge and discernment: so that they would be able to “approve the things that are excellent” (NASB). Or as the HCSB puts it: “so that you can determine what really matters.”

As a kid growing up, I developed a set of mental criteria by which I made my decisions. One of the primary questions in my criteria was “Is there anything wrong with this?” That is, of course, an important question. But the more I study what it means to love God, the more I am convinced that that question is not the most important question I should be asking.

In verse 10 Paul prays that the Philippians would be able to distinguish not just the good from the bad, but the better from the good, and ultimately the best from the better. As the saying goes, “It is often the good that is the greatest enemy of the best.” It is easy to get swept along doing good things, legitimate things, even ministry things—but things that aren’t the best use of our time, our talents, our resources.

The word translated “excellent” refers to “the essential things, the things that really matter or are of greater value” (Friberg, BDAG).

So how do I discern the best? How do we figure out what “really matters.” Paul’s answer: The ability to figure out what really matters flows from your love for God abounding in knowledge and discernment. The more you know and love God, the more clearly you will be able to see what pleases Him and the more deeply you will desire to please Him. Not that such discernment will always be a cinch. The word “approve” involves rigorous testing to determine the nature of a thing.

But the ability to discern what really matters isn’t the ultimate purpose of Paul’s prayer. That is really just a means to the larger end. The greater end to which he prays is that they would be sincere and blameless until the day Jesus the Christ returns.

I’ve never forgotten what William Barclay says about the word εἰλικρινεῖς aylikrinaise “sincere” in his New Testament Words. He notes that this adjective was used in secular Greek in reference to pottery or sculpture from marble. One of the dangers of working with marble is the potential for cracking or chipping in the process of producing saleable goods. A skilled artisan knew how to color wax properly and work it into such cracks or chips in a way that blended perfectly with the marble. The only way to tell if a sculpture or vase had such wax covering a blemish was to hold it up to the sun and slowly rotate it. The sunlight would reveal any wax. A piece of marble sculpture that had no wax-covered blemishes was called εἰλικρινεῖς “sincere.”

That is the kind of integrity God desires in my life, our lives. We can be held up to the scrutinize of His Sun – His Word – and no waxed over blemishes will be seen. No unconfessed sin. No unreconciled relationships. No unChristlike words spoken without making them right..

The final word that describes the character the flows from God-loving discernment is ἀπρόσκοποι aproskopoi “blameless.” The word denotes “being without fault because of not giving offense” (BDAG). This is essentially a relational descriptor. It characterizes the way we have related to other people.

Love for God necessarily bears upon how we relate to others. God-pleasing discernment also results in others-loving actions. As we determine and do the things that are best, our lives will not only avoid giving offense to others, but as Solomon says, they will be living-giving springs (Prov. 10:11).

Love for God abounding in knowledge & discernment (Phi. 1:9)

2005-06-13T02:32:00.000-04:00

Philippians 1:9 Καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει

1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, (NASB)

As an inspired prayer, this passage reflects God’s desire for His people. In exegeting this passage there are multiple questions to be answered.

1. Paul prays for their love to abound. Love always has an object; therefore, we should ask, “Love for what?” Is Paul praying that their love for others would abound or that their love for God would abound? Or is it both? Is one primary and the other secondary?

Theologically, love for God always precedes and is the source for love for others (1 John). Hence, if it is both, is the primarily love for God. Verses 10 and 11, while mentioning blamelessness which does have an others-focus, seem to focus primarily on our spiritual condition. That leads me to believe that Paul is talking about the Philippians’ love for God.

2. How then does love for God abound more and more in knowledge? What is the relationship between love for God and knowledge?

When I married my wife, I knew her as well as I could at that time. After four years of marriage I know her much better than I did then. My increased knowledge has resulted in increased love and appreciation for her. This is the way it works in our relationship with God. The more we know about Him and of Him, the more we love Him. As knowledge grows, love grows. The inverse of this is also true, love for my wife has motivated me to get to know her better. The more we love God, the more we want to know Him.

Whether epiginwskw denotes “real knowledge” as the NASB, or the prepositional prefix has lost its intensifying force and as a result the word is merely a synonym for ginwskw is difficult to tell. Taking a minimalist approach insures that we exegete the bare minimum Paul intended.[1] I’m inclined to think that making anything of epiginwskw as opposed to ginwskw would be reading into the text what isn’t there.

3. Not only is our love for God to grow through greater knowledge of Him and into greater knowledge of Him, but our love is to abound in discernment. What is this discernment (KJV: judgment)?

Marriage, again, supplies a helpful analogy. The more I know about my wife, the more my discernment with regard to her is refined. I can discern when she is pleased and when she isn’t. Little facial, body, hand movements that would have meant nothing to me four years ago are now clues to what she is thinking and feeling. Beyond discerning what displeases her, I have also grown in my discernment regarding what pleases her.

In like fashion, as my love for God abounds in knowledge of Him, my ability to discern the things that please Him and displease Him should increase.

In summary: In Phil. 1:9 Paul prays that the Philippians' love for God would abound in greater knowledge of Him and in discernment of the things that please Him.

... exegetical thoughts will continue later ...

[1] EDNT offers “knowledge as recognition of (the will of) God that is effective in the conduct of the one who knows God.” BDAG offers “knowledge, recognition.”