BibleBase Second Thoughts

Multi-tasking: virtue or vice?

2011-12-16T12:03:00.001-08:00

I watched an hour long documentary last night entitled 'Digital Nation'. It was originally created back in February of 2010. If you would like to watch the same you can find it here, Digital Nation It begins by observing some tests conducted at MIT and Stanford so it isn't written by Luddites! The tests showed that among those who prided themselves most on their multi-tasking internet lives were not multi-tasking nearly as well as they thought and that such multi-tasking evidenced significantly slower rates of function, memory disorganisation and were worse at analytical reasoning. This may all have deep significance socially but I am more interested in its possible effects on our devotional lives.

Perhaps it is significant that one of the Biblical opposites for 'evil' is 'single'. "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Luke 11:34 KJV." and the Psalmist makes his own intention very plain; "Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. Psa 119:34 KJV"

There are times then when our Salami-slicing abilities really work against the concentration that God is desiring. God can never be satisfied with the kind of Christianity which regards the spiritual life as an interesting add-on to all the other things we are doing. There are times when everything else has to stop and we give ourselves to God alone. "Be still, and know that I am God: Psa 46:10 KJV"

The internet and modern technology are great tools for acquiring data, even Biblical data, but there is more to relationship than data. I discovered many years ago that what I learn quickly I tend to forget quickly but the disposition which marinates in the word and presence of God will add flavours to the character that will never be available to those who are 'hooked on tronics' and its instant solutions.

Arnold and the 'Jehovah' mystery.

2011-09-13T07:42:00.001-07:00

Back in the late 1960s a young friend and I created a Robot for the purposes of a Sunday School Anniversary. His name was Arnold. He had a speaker in his chest and heard through a microphone in his nose. His eyes flashed when he spoke and he was supposed to be helping me to tell a story but he kept on messing it up... to the children's delight! Arnold was operated by my young friend and that anniversary was his only proper performance.

However, Arnold began to make an appearance at the birthday parties of my children. He was the party manager's nightmare. He sang loud songs and constantly misinterpreted all the instructions that were given to him. It was hardly a real birthday party without 'Arnold'. 'Arnold' became part of our family legend. It was a great sadness when we moved house and Arnold was fatally damaged.

During his reign as king of the birthday parties Arnold was operated by me remotely from another room. I forget who it was who finally cracked his identity but someone suddenly said "I know who Arnold is; he's just a mixed up Ronald." The secret was out; Arnold is an anagram of Ronald. Arnold was a side of my character that most people never saw; anarchic and mischievous; the child who was always lurking in the background. Long after Arnold had gone if one of my mischievous moods came on me and I ended up fully clothed in the bath with all the children my wife's sensible rebuke was captured in a single word "ARNOLD!!"

Most of the folk reading this will never have known Arnold; the name of Arnold means nothing to them. But for those with a shared history just the mention of Arnold's name will bring a wry smile to their faces and transport the whole family back to long ago days. Remember Arnold while I recount another story...

and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty;
but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. Ex 6:3 ASV

In fact, the name Jehovah is used in the book of Genesis alone 164 times before this event recorded in Exodus 6:3. So how can God say Abraham and Isaac and Jacob had never know him by that name? Read it carefully; it doesn't say they didn't know God and it doesn't say that they didn't know the name Jehovah, it says "I was not known to you by my name Jehovah." The name of Jehovah became a name with a history and when the name of Jehovah was used that shared history would awake in the memories of those who had shared it and knew that name. Arnold and Jehovah are names with histories; only those who have shared the history can appreciate what is meant by the word 'Arnold' or 'Jehovah'. There are aspects of God's character associated with that shared history that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had never known and never did know.

Jehovah was uniquely the name of God given to the people of the Old Covenant. whose story is told in the Old Testament; this is why the name never appears in the New Testament which is the story of the New Covenant and its people. Jehovah is the name of God as characterised by seven key elements of his relationship with the people of the Old Covenant;

I am Jehovah,
and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

and I will rid you out of their bondage

and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments:

and I will take you to me for a people,

and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

And I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob;

and I will give it you for a heritage:

I am Jehovah. (Exodus 6:6-8)

but do we believe it?

2011-09-05T01:00:00.000-07:00

I was listening to some favourite Christian songs on my iPod. They came from some radio programmes I did a few years ago; Breakfast Meditations. On the third or fourth morning I was thinking about the Greek word poiema. If it looks like our word 'poem' that is no accident, that's where our word comes from. It means 'made' but with the sense of a design and process and completion.

It's the word used in...

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Rom 1:20 NKJV

You can see the sense of the word here as it refers to the creation. The 'creation' is not a random accident but a carefully planned and crafted work of art. It was designed and executed with a clear purpose that Isaiah identifies...

For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. Is 45:18 NKJV

There we have it. It was not created 'in vain' ie without purpose, but to be inhabited. What is the purpose of the creation? We are. But what is our purpose? Ah, that's another question.

The word poiema is only used twice in the Bible. The second time is in Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Eph 2:10 NKJV

So each time poiema is used it is in the context of creation. The first time in the context of the natural creation but the second time in the context of another creation... the Church. By the 'Church' I don't mean a denomination or the conglomerate of Christian gatherings. I don't even mean the sum total of all evangelicals throughout the world. This is not an accumulation but a creation; a new creation. Something which did not exist and then as a result of carefully planning exists as a work of art which was executed with a master's skill.

So, is the Church a beautiful but fatally flawed human concept or is it a divine poiema? Is it the result of a Gentile section grafted onto a faithful Jewish remnant or is it a new creation?

For Paul it is a single family comprised of those in heaven and those on earth upon whom God has put his name; he has owned them as his own. Eph 3:14,15. Part of this new creation's purpose is to manifest to 'powers and principalities in the heavenly places the manifold wisdom of God'. Eph 3:10. Like the first creation is has not been formed 'in vain' but in order to be inhabited... by God himself. Eph2:19-22.

It is enough to keep us awake at night in breathless wonder at the audacity of God's great plan and work of grace... but do we believe it?

a considered opinion?

2011-08-17T01:39:00.001-07:00

I have been asked to preach in October on a particular controversial topic; Christian Zionism! The request came with a plea to present a 'considered opinion'. That gives me my title for the session; "Christian Zionism: a considered opinion". I am excited by this title, especially the second half of it.

More than 30 years ago I was spending 6 months in an Asian country. The country had a border with a much smaller nation which was ruled by a fierce anti-Christian government. Two young teenagers from the smaller country were pursuing their education in the larger country and had come to a clear faith in Christ; they had been baptised, at their request. Myself, 2 other English preachers, a long term missionary and the two teenagers spent the night in a small wooden house. When the 'boys' had gone to bed the missionary was very subdued. She said "when it is discovered what these boys have done, they will be poisoned by their families."

I had a very broken night. The question that kept me awake was a simple one; "is what I am preaching worth these two fine young men dying for?" I had an old friend who used to say "a man is not a man until he knows what he is ready to die for". I could have given a list of 'Bible truths' that I was willing to die for, but how many of those truth was I willing to let someone else die for?

I have a somewhat deserved reputation for being pedantic; I think truth is important and ought to be precise. I probably have a reputation for having 'opinions' too, but I endeavour to keep my opinions in two water-tight compartments. There are those which are really a 'best fit' hypothesis to some Bible theme. I am willing to share those opinions with you if you ask me, but I have another list of 'opinions' I am ready to die for. More... I have some convictions which are so strong, and in my view so crucial, that I preach them without fear or favour, even though I know the repercussions are such that anyone believing them may have to put their own life on the line too.

If any of my hearers ever have to make that choice I would want to be sure they were laying down their lives for Bible truths which were clear and fundamental and significant and not something which was my own 'best fit' theology.

Blaise Pascal is reputed to have coined the phrase;

"In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

And in all things, charity."

It is a good motto for a preacher. There are issues where a man or woman will have cause to quote Luther's famous words;

"My conscience is subject to the word of God.

Here I stand. I can do no other".

but there are times too when in honesty and humility a preacher will need to end his session with the words;

"...this is my considered opinion."

Riots or Revelation: the only real options

2011-08-10T09:13:00.000-07:00

The version best known by Christians of an older generation is...

Where there is no vision, the people perish: Prov 29:18 KJV

It has been a favourite with many a preacher. The general interpretation was that unless we have a God-given goal, usually held by the leader, the work of God will fade and vanish. The New King James Version corrects this misunderstanding...

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law. Prov 29:18 NKJV

This is referring to a quite different Biblical concept. When there is no revelation of God's will people will live lives which are without restraint.

In the UK we have been experiencing a time of civil disorder and mob activity. We have generations now who have never been taught that God has placed limits on human freedom and that he will hold us accountable when we cross those lines. We have generations who are experts on their 'rights' and who could hardly name a 'responsibility'. Sooner or later the behaviour that we have seen on our streets is inevitable to a society which has 'no revelation'; they will simply, as the wise man told us 3000 years ago, throw off restraint.

Why not? Atheistic evolution has no reason for the requirement for a man or woman to 'love their neighbour as they love themselves'. Dawkins and others struggle to create the notion that 'collectively' we have evolved into communities which realise that survival is a better prospect when we 'stick together' but it is an empty logic.

If there is no God, and the fool lives his life on that presumption, why not cast off all restraint?

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psa 14:1 NKJV

This famous verse is actually telling us the mind-set of certain people. God is not in their thoughts; 'in their thoughts/heart' they are working on the assumption that 'there is no God'. In the UK our TV screens have been taken up with experts from one field or another who 'explain' why thousands of youngsters have taken to the streets in looting and destruction. The real answer is much more simple than those we constantly hear. The cause of the riots? practical atheism. The 'fool' has the mind-set that there is no God; There will be no 'repercussions'. The only fault is in getting caught. The 'atheist' will produce 'abominable works' because there is no logical, ultimate, restraint upon his behaviour. His mind-set is a personal pragmatism; if it suits 'me' that's a good enough reason.

Are riots and looting wrong? Why are they wrong? If we are the simple product of an atheistic evolution how can anything be wrong? Right and wrong are redundant categories; all that really matters is 'what do I get out of it?' If there is no God and no future judgment, why is rioting 'wrong'? Unless there is a revelation of a God who requires his creatures to behave in certain ways that he has ordered, why not 'cast off restraint'.

So how should those who believe in a God who has revealed 'right and wrong' respond in the face of riots? We must be active agents of a 'revelation' of the will of God and we must point men and women to one who took on his own shoulders the 'lawless-nesses' of a whole world and made a way back to God. Ultimately relationships between one person and another can never be on a right foundation until those persons are themselves rightly related to God; the horizontal relationship can never be truly 'right' until the vertical relationship is mended.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:18–21 NKJV

Some thoughts on Bible versions. Part 5. ESV

2011-08-09T23:30:00.000-07:00

More vanishing truths. ESV

The ESV comes highly recommended by almost everyone. It is an evangelical revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Bible-Researcher: ESV It began as a reaction to the 'inclusive NIV' and it is advocated by a galaxy of evangelical academics. Originally it claimed to be adopting a 'literal equivalence' philosophy of translation but now seems to have adopted the phrase 'essentially literal'. It has the easy reading style of its RSV and is gaining acceptance in many circles. I use it frequently in my studies; but I don't trust it.

Several times in the writing of Paul we have reference to a contrast between what he calls 'the old man' and 'the new man'. Rom 6:6; Eph 2:15; 4:22, 24; Col 3:9–10. It is a thrilling image and one that is crucial to a true understanding of Paul's teaching about the effects of regeneration. The references make it clear that there can be no peaceful co-existence between the 'old man' and the 'new man'. In a key passage in Romans Paul details the consequences of the behaviour of 'one man'; Adam, and goes on to expound the consequent effect of our union with Adam being ended and our union with the 'new man' being begun. That foundational understanding is necessary in understanding Paul's teaching about the 'old man' and the 'new man' and their mutual exclusivity. It is key to understanding the nature of the new life into which the Spirit brings us.

The 'old man' is human solidarity under the wrong head and is the direct consequence of Adam's first rebellion. That act created a different kind of 'man' and a different entity to which we are all joined by first birth. Adam is said to be a type/figure of another man; the new man, Christ Jesus. What a tragedy then than all these ideas are cut off at the root by the ESV decision to interpret 'the old man' and the 'new man' as the 'old self' and a 'new self'. In the ESV we slide from direct Biblical revelation into the mists of psycho-babble and non-biblical notions of 'the self'. It is quite impossible to get back to revealed truth from this position. The truth of the end of 'the old man' and the beginning of the 'new man' have disappeared from the ESV.

And not only from the ESV... the NIV takes this same route, as does the NASB. What we have here, in the ESV and in the NASB are versions which claim to hold to 'literal equivalence' but which have chosen to translate these key passages in the light of 'dynamic equivalence'. I know that many of my friends will disagree with me, but I hold that it is impossible to understand what Paul is teaching about the radical nature of regeneration if we confine our studies and thinking to the likes of the ESV, NIV and NASB.

Some thoughts on Bible versions. Pt 4 NIV

2011-08-07T23:39:00.000-07:00

Disappearing truths in the NIV?

Some time ago I was asked to be the speaker at a church house party weekend. I was 'commissioned' to do 4 sessions and after having prayed felt I should do a mini-series on the Christian's walk. I had in mind the way we begin and the way we must continue and had a series of verses in mind, particularly from Paul's letters.

I was interested in the word 'peripateO' which means to walk about (or around). Paul uses this key picture of the Christian life 32 times in his letters. Rom 6:4; 8:1, 4; 13:13; 14:15; 1 Cor 3:3; 7:17; 2 Cor 4:2; 5:7; 10:2–3; 12:18; Gal 5:16; Eph 2:2, 10; 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15; Phil 3:17–18; Col 1:10; 2:6; 3:7; 4:5; 1 Th 2:12; 4:1, 12; 2 Th 3:6, 11. It speaks of the steady 'one step at a time' pattern of Christian living.

I had some key verses in mind:

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6:4

(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 2 Cor 5:7

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. Gal 5:16

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, Col 2:6

I prepared my outline thoughts using my New King James Version and then I hit a snag. I asked what version of the Bible the people at the house party would be using; answer: The New International Version. Why would that be a 'snag'? Well, the NIV has systematically eliminated the picture of the Christian life as a 'step by step obedience' by refusing to translate 'peripateO' as 'walk'. It opts instead for 'living', 'acting', 'behaving', 'use', among others. The favoured choice is 'living'. In fact, it has chosen not to translate it but rather to explain what Paul means by his use of the word.

There are times when short-cuts look very much like vandalism. If the NIV is prepared to take this kind of short-cut how do I know what other short-cuts it may take? And that is the problem; it undermines my confidence in what I am reading. I may 'understand' much more easily what I am reading but how do I know if I am now reading what Paul really meant?

Some thoughts about Bible dogs. Pt 3 worship

2011-08-04T23:30:00.000-07:00

Now what on earth can dogs teach us about worship?

Christians have very different ideas about worship. For some it is the Sunday morning service at the local parish church, for others it is a worship band and enthusiastic communal singing. The most frequent Greek word translated 'worship' in the New Testament is proskuneO (Strongs G4352); It is a Greek word which has the Greek word for 'dog' right at the centre of it. It almost certainly derives from a word which has come to mean 'kiss', like a dog licking his master’s hand.

It is an interesting choice of word. In Hebrew the word for 'worship' means to prostrate yourself in surrender. If you combine this idea with that of a dog submissively licking its master's hand you have a fascinating insight into what the Bible means by 'worship'. It has almost nothing to do with music and very little to do with praise; it is the state of affectionate surrender to a master.

The idea of personal submission has gone AWOL (absent without leave) from much of contemporary Christianity. Perhaps the family pet has something to teach us here?

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matt 4:10 KJV

Apparently the only true service of God begins with the submission of a personal affection to Jesus Christ himself.

Some thoughts about Bible dogs. Pt 2 Part of the family

2011-08-02T23:30:00.000-07:00

I made a point of explaining that 'dogs' never became part of the 'family'. There is an exception to this.

There is a Bible character who begins outside the family but becomes an integral part of the family. It seems that he was a Kennizite and that implies that he was not one of the descendants of Israel. He rose to prominence in the family of Judah and was commissioned to reconnoitre the land of Israel before the Conquest.

He seems to have been a foreigner who was integrated into the family of Judah and left a lasting legacy of courage and naked faith. Perhaps it was because his origins were remembered that he was always known by the name that showed he was not originally part of the family. They called him by the name that indicated a foreigner from outside the family; in English 'dog' or 'whelp', in Hebrew... Caleb. Joshua 14:6.

Here was a man with little spiritual legacy and, so far as we can tell, no right to be part of the Bible's story but we know him as a man of extraordinary faithfulness to the revealed will of God. It is an encouraging reminder that it is not our past which determines our destiny and usefulness in the kingdom of God, but our current obedience.

Some thoughts about Bible dogs. Pt 1. Beware of dogs!

2011-07-31T23:30:00.000-07:00

You're joking! Not at all. There are more than forty references to 'dogs' in the Bible but no references to 'cats'! (I rest my case!) There are some interesting ideas and themes connected with dogs throughout the Bible, but you will have to adopt a non-English mind-set to really understand them.

The Hebrew peoples didn't generally like dogs. If you really disliked or despised someone you called them a 'dog'. The Hebrews used the term 'dog' to describe non-Hebrews. When Mephibosheth wanted to express his self-humbling at the feet of David he went a step further and called himself a 'dead dog'. 2 Sam 9:8. Paul calls those who wanted to bring Christians under the yoke of the law, dogs and the mutilation and says we are to 'beware' of them; Philippians 3:2. and finally the Revelation tells us that 'dogs' will be outside the heavenly city. Strong stuff.

This is the language of metaphor. The phenomena of animals as 'pets' is foreign to the Bible. This is not easy for western Christians to appreciate. At a period on my life I lived next door to a university with beautiful open parkland and ornamental lakes. I had many African visitors and we frequently strolled through the university grounds. I always knew the questions I would be asked. They would see a squirrel and ask 'can you eat them?' They would see rabbits and ask 'can you eat them?' They would see flocks of Canada geese on the lakes and they would ask 'can you eat them?' It seemed such a waste to have so much good food going to waste. My African friends also found it difficult to understand why we allowed 'dogs' into our houses. In an African house you may get chickens but no dogs! Biblically, a dog is never part of a family.

Jesus called a non-Hebrew woman and her daughter 'dogs' and he distinguished very specifically the difference between 'dogs' and 'family'.

But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. Mark 7:27–28 KJV

The word translated 'dogs' is really little dogs but you must not think of an adorable puppy when you say 'little dogs'. Tyndale translated this word as 'whelps' which was usually used in an insulting manner. Did you notice the distinction between 'family members' and the 'whelp' which ought not even to have been in the house but crept in to pick up a few crumbs under the table.

It was a measure of the woman's humility they she pressed her case in the way she did. Genuine poverty cannot afford to take offence. All that mattered to her was that she gained a few crumbs for her daughter. Jesus knew the woman's heart all the time...

Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matt 15:28 NKJV

There is a profound truth here. We may have no claim on his care and may not deserve even to me in the same home but there is a simple prayer that will always gain access to his heart.

Lord, help me. Matt 15:25 KJV

Some Thoughts on Bible Versions: Part 3

2011-07-28T23:00:00.000-07:00

Teach Thyselfe Olde Englishe?

Why should anyone bother with such an archaic concept? Well, some may just be curious but there are occasions when the switch from ‘thou’ to ‘you’ is quite significant.

This is a little article I created a few years back. If you read it through you will be able to show off to your friends by explaining why the sign which declares...

Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe

is inaccurate. But if you read further you may find Olde Englishe can hold the key to some real gems of revelation.

Teach Thyselfe Olde Englishe

And, following on from the close and personal use of God's proper name, 'Thee' and 'thou' are not so grand as you might think and speak of an intimacy that we have lost in the modern usage of the word 'you'.

Some Thoughts on Bible Versions: Part 2

2011-07-27T23:27:00.000-07:00

As part of the Sinai Covenant Jehovah gave 10 laws and an abundance of 'judgements' for his people. The 10 laws are placed in a very specific context;

And God spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Ex 20:1–2 ASV

One of the 10 laws dealt specifically with those who did not honour the personal name of Jehovah.

Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Ex 20:7 ASV

It is using this name of 'Jehovah', the covenant-name of God with his people, fraudulently which incurs God's anger. To promise or claim something on the basis of this name when God has not endorsed that promise is fraud of the most deadly kind. It is tantamount to forging God's signature!

There are two crimes against God which constitute the greatest of sins. The first is idolatry; idolatry perpetrates a 'lie' against the character of God. There is no greater sin. The second is close; taking the name of Jehovah in vain perpetrates a 'lie' against what God has said. The preacher who declares 'God says' had better quote him accurately! James 3:1

To ensure that the great name of "Jehovah" was not used inappropriately the Jewish people determined that they would not use it at all. They believed that non-use was better than ab-use. To ensure that no one used it wrongly they decided that when they came to read the word 'Jehovah' they would say the word 'Lord' (Adonai) in its place or they would simply say the words "the name' (HaShem) without pronouncing the name "Jehovah".

Perhaps early Bible translators shared the same reluctance and thought that using the name too frequently would devalue it. Is that why our Old King James Version followed the Jewish pattern of using the word LORD instead of 'Jehovah'. Whatever the reason modern translations now seem to omit all reference to God's proper name and simply refer to him as LORD (upper case). The original Hebrew and the ASV of 1901 showed no such reluctance as this graph will show.

In fact the loss of the proper name for God is tragic. 'Jehovah' is not a title it is a proper name. In our constitutional monarchy the proper way to address the monarch is 'Your Majesty'. It brings dignity and a sense of distance; I am not suggesting we should stop using the title. However, there have been a few individuals, her husband, her mother, her sister who I presume in private occasions would call her 'Elizabeth'. Can you feel the difference between 'Your Majesty' and 'Elizabeth'? If you can, you can feel the difference between 'LORD' and 'Jehovah'.

The Psalms use the personal name of Jehovah over 700 times. In times of joy and distress, faith and anxiety, victory and defeat, the psalmist draws near, not to 'Your Majesty' but to 'Jehovah'; the God who has signed my release papers and guaranteed me a place in his future plans.

Some Thoughts on Bible Versions: Part 1

2011-07-26T23:30:00.000-07:00

Question: What word can you find 4 times in the Old King James Version, never in the NKJV, never in the ESV and 6777 times in the American Standard Version of 1901?

Answer: Jehovah

There is a long history behind these statistics.

God 'signed' the Sinai Covenant with the personal name of Jehovah. Although Abraham and others had known the name of Jehovah, God had never revealed to them the significance of that name. When he promised to deliver the descendants of Abraham from Egyptian captivity he made it clear that he was about to commit himself to an entirely different kind of relationship with those 'sons of Israel'.

And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am Jehovah. Ex 6:2–8 ASV

Bible words don't have definitions; they have histories. There have been lots of suggestions as to what the name 'Jehovah' actually means. I will ask a slightly different question. "Who is Jehovah?" He is the God who has revealed himself to the people of the Sinai covenant in seven great affirmations.

1. I will bring you out from under the burden of the Egyptians

2. I will rid you of their bondage

3. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments

4. I will take you to me for a people

5. I will be a God to you...

6. I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham etc

7. I will give it you for a heritage

These affirmations are bordered with a statement which is repeated "I am Jehovah". It is as though he had 'signed' his name at the beginning and the end of this statement. No one can take away from it and no one can add to it. This promise is 'bankable'!

When we read the personal name of Jehovah in the American Standard Version of 1901 we are reading of a God who has 'put his name' to this commitment to the sons of Israel.

transformation... in a heart-beat

2011-07-25T07:25:00.001-07:00

Here's another thought from some recent experience. Charles Wesley's hymn...

Jesus, Thine all victorious love
Shed in my heart abroad;
Then shall my feet no longer rove,
Rooted and fixed in God.

O that in me the sacred fire
Might now begin to glow;
Burn up the dross of base desire
And make the mountains flow!

O that it now from Heav’n might fall
And all my sins consume!
Come, Holy Ghost, for Thee I call,
Spirit of burning, come!

Refining fire, go through my heart,
Illuminate my soul;
Scatter Thy life through every part
And sanctify the whole.

...prays for God's life to be 'scattered through every part'. Is that an acknowledgement that regeneration is a process? Some who oppose the notion of God transforming a man or woman in a moment are keen to emphasise the idea of a slow progression. Here's my personal experience...

I have been undergoing a course of treatment for Angina which has included 'angiograms'. They involve putting a long, thin, flexible tube called a catheter into a blood vessel in your groin or wrist. The catheter is then guided to your heart and a special dye (contrast agent) is injected through the catheter so that X-ray images show your heart more clearly.

There is an interesting consequence to this procedure. When the dye is released it produces a sensation of an intense hot flush which courses through the body. I was warned with the words 'the hot flush is coming'. It is a very peculiar sensation right on the borders of pain in its intensity.

Here's my question and my answer.

Question: 'How long did it take to 'scatter' that dye through 'every part'?

Answer: a heart-beat.

The Red River of Life

2011-07-16T12:04:00.001-07:00

It was a 'Fact and Faith' film distributed by Moody Press in the 1960s and was a fascinating glimpse into the wonderful workings of the human body and the multi-tasking functions of the blood stream. I had my own version this week.

Yesterday I went into hospital for a procedure to fit a 'tricky' stent. I had been diagnosed as having angina and this was the remedy. I had also been put on a cocktail of drugs to do various things to my 'red river of life'. An earlier angiogram had shown damage and severe restrictions of blood flow in parts of the heart. Over the past few months my energy levels had been pretty much rock bottom and it was not helped by some of the medication. Yesterday I underwent the one and a half hour procedure which fitted a 'Capella' stent. I have some photos which compare the blood flow before and after the procedure; they are mildly shocking. I estimate that I am getting up to 300% better flow in some regions than prior to the procedure. All that comes from the medical data but what I wasn't expecting was the dramatic 'felt' results of the procedure.

Within an hour I was feeling more awake than I had in the previous six months. My whole disposition seemed to have awoken and I was 'raring to go'. By now you are probably thinking this is in the wrong blog... no it isn't. I have been thinking about the life of God in the soul of a man.

Sometimes for reasons, or sometimes apparently without reasons, the flowing of his life becomes impeded and then everything is 'hard work'. It becomes an effort just to stand up and walk a few steps. Samson-like we sometimes shake ourselves and think 'just get on with it, it will be fine', but it isn't 'fine', something is amiss. Our souls can become vulnerable to various ailments; check out Psalm 103:1-3 NKJV

What we need then is a master physician who can make a precise diagnosis and then administer a 'procedure' to alleviate the impediment. Suddenly, the red river of life flows again and everything is changed, every disposition and ability. What we need at such times is the master's touch.

In the realm of the physical and of the spirit; He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust. Psa 103:14 NKJV

Precious Memories

2011-06-10T14:33:00.001-07:00

This is a video of Eric Hutchings. I was almost certainly in the congregation in the Bingley Hall when this message was given. My wife, Margaret, came to Christ under this ministry and I received much from this man and his team. Take a look at evangelism in the 1960s!

For Many other free videos visit the website: www.sermonindex.net

Fascinating!

Us

2011-06-06T12:36:00.001-07:00

That must surely be the shortest title to any of these blogs and I can't believe that it is over 2 months since I began this series. I can't remember now what interrupted it or why I never got back to it but I can remember where I wanted to end up.

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. Is 1:18 NKJV

The previous verses have built up a relentless accusation against God's people and the gap between man and God has seldom been expressed so completely. And yet in the face of this stark contrast God uses the personal pronoun 'us'. 'Us' implies some commonality. With some people there is a massive common ground and 'us' or 'we' comes easily. There are fewer things in common with my dog, although I occasionally use 'we' on one of our walks. What commonality would I have with a rock? Hardly any.

This little word always arrests me when I read this passage of Isaiah. God says 'us'; let 'us' reason together. What commonality is there between this description of man apart from God and God himself, and yet God says 'us', and even more amazingly 'let us'. We might have expected a lightening bolt of judgment but in its place comes this gentle invitation. No matter how marred the image has become, no matter how thoroughly the likeness has been vandalised, God draws near and says 'there is something we must do together here'. What a gospel...

Come...

now...

and let us reason together...

weighed down with guilt

2011-03-31T22:00:00.000-07:00

Isaiah's description of Israel, and us, continues...
A people laden with iniquity, Is 1:4 NKJV

I wonder if they 'looked' as though they were weighed down with sin? Many don't who are! From time to time I come across folk that I describe to myself as 'happy pagans'. Their lives are devoted to the pursuit of self-gratification. They live life 'to the full' in their own estimate; there is not much sign of the heavy load, they take life pretty much as it comes.

No one really knows themselves unless God grants them revelation. We are such experts at self deception. John the gospel writer put his finger on such in his first letter;

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8 NKJV

That probably means that the vast majority of mankind, at any single time, are living in self-deception. We don't feel it, so we don't worry about it.

The words 'guilt' and 'iniquity' come together frequently in the Scriptures. (Ex 34:7; Lev 5:17; Num 5:31; 14:18) Guilt is the consequence of iniquity. Biblically it has nothing to do with the way we feel; although Christians and modern society at large often refer to 'feeling guilty'. Iniquity is the sin, guilty is God's verdict upon the sinner.

People who are not conscious of the sin are seldom conscious of God's judgment upon their condition. But the fact is that...

there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:22–23 NKJV

and because we have 'sinned' the verdict is inevitably 'guilty' or 'under God's sentence. (Rom 3:19) and yet we may be completely unaware of the way God views us.

The consciousness of sin brings 'conviction' or the sense of burden, but we carry our load whether we are conscious of it or not. It is a work of God's grace when conviction of sin begins, although the experience is anything but comfortable. Many opt for palliative care; they fill their lives with business and things which block out the pain of conviction. What a way to treat the kindness of God. There is a wise saying in the book of Proverbs;

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Prov 27:6 NKJV

ohhh... sinful nation

2011-03-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

Isaiah’s description of the people of God now continues into the next verses…

Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward. Is 1:4 NKJV

They certainly ‘told it like it is’, these Old Testament prophets. From the description of its spiritual promiscuity Isaiah now turns to some of the consequences of the nation’s rebellious ways. Do remember that we are not pointing the finger here but simply seeing, in the description, a portrait of all men and women from God’s perspective. The man under whom I spent the earliest years of my pilgrimage would always say “you have to tell the bad news before you can tell the good news.” He was right, of course. The good news is good news because it brings the news of the remedy to what we have become. We are sometimes so eager to get to the good news that we merely scan verses like these and want to hurry on the ‘for God so loved the world’ verses, but it is often a blessing in disguise to let some of the bad news sink in before we move on.

The contrast could hardly be greater. This nation’s beginnings began with a conditional promise in which God promised them that…

…if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ Ex 19:5–6 NKJV

But to those destined to be a ‘holy nation’ God now brings the accusation that, in his sight, they are a ‘sinful nation’. They have gone in the opposite direction to their God declared destiny. What a tragedy. But it is not only ancient Israel that bears this tragedy. Here is God’s description and declared destiny for the whole race…

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Gen 1:26 NKJV

Can we recognise the human race today from this ancient description? Neither does God… and yet God never gave up. Recently it was reported that Prince William had quoted his grandmother when he visited the site of the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ. “Grief is the price we pay for love”. They are profound words. When we love someone we put a terrible weapon into their hands; the more we love them, the more they have the power to hurt us, intentionally or unintentionally. At one level that is what Calvary is all about. There is a deep grief in God’s description of the nation of Israel and of us. The word translated 'alas' here is not really a word at all; it is a single letter groan. 'Alas' is the kind of word you might use if you spill your coffee down your shirt; the Hebrew is a groan from a broken-hearted God. God’s hurt at our rebellion has gone off the scale.

How greatly did he love us and grieve over our sin? Calvary is the measure of that love.

my people do not know

2011-03-27T22:00:00.000-07:00

A shallow stream runs through the broad unpaved street and makes it typical of many smaller Romanian villages. So ‘across the street’ is across the stream too. It is not very wide and most folks can leap it easily. Each morning a young cow-herd gathers up the cows and goats from different places in the village and takes them out to pasture. In the late afternoon they return and as the cow-herd walks the length of the unpaved street cows peel off, one by one, from the little herd and stand with their heads by the gates to the little courtyards awaiting admission to their home stalls. No one has taught them to do this. They know their home and return to it gladly.

As an inveterate ‘town-y’ I am fascinated by this sight. Cows are not famous for their intelligence or navigation skills but apparently they can all recognise home. Although the nearest tree to my old home was almost a mile away in a local park I am not unfamiliar with this phenomena either; I read of it in the opening chapter of Isaiah…

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: “I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me; [i]The ox knows its owner And the donkey its master’s crib; But Israel does not know[/i], My people do not consider.” Is 1:1–3 NKJV

You can sense that Isaiah and God himself are somewhat incredulous. Even a cow knows where it belongs… but not Israel. Slow moving and full witted people are sometimes described as ‘bovine’, but Isaiah says the cows have more sense than God’s own people. It is a scathing denunciation.It isn’t as though they are strangers to the place. They were ‘nourished and brought’ up here; they have a long history of knowing that their home stall means safety and provision.

It is describing the nation of Israel but it is not recorded here for Israel’s sake alone; we all find our portrait in Isaiah. How faithfully God has ‘nourished and brought us up’ and yet, almost unbelievably, we ‘don’t know what side our bread is buttered on’; to use an old English expression.
The Bible frequently uses the word ‘know’ to mean ‘recognise’; ‘a tree is known by its fruit’. Israel’s behaviour is not the result of ignorance; they are refusing to ‘recognise’ where they belong. Another prophet, Jeremiah, put his finger right on the spot…

Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return. Jer 8:5 NKJV

Ah, that’s the point, not that they are unaware but that they have consciously chosen to stay out in the cold. That’s why I say that this was not just written for the benefit of Israel;

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1 Cor 10:11 NKJV

But was that God's last word?

2011-01-04T02:46:00.001-08:00

I am reading in the prophecy of Jeremiah and have arrived at Chapter 18. It is famous for its metaphor of the Potter's Wheel. The imagery is beautiful but the goal of the illustration is both encouraging and daunting.

Jeremiah sees a potter working at his potter's wheel. Jer 18:3–4 Although preachers have made some interesting conjectures there is no real explanation as to why this pot 'went wrong'. If we read further on we shall see the implications. The illustration and the accompanying prophecy is aimed at Israel. Jer 18:6; Israel in this context is the northern kingdom of Israel, as distinct from Judah. Israel had been broken and dispersed over a hundred years before Jeremiah's prophecy. Its peoples had been merged into the empire of Assyria and had 'vanished off the radar'.

The was the pot which even while it had been in the potter's hands had been spoiled. For a time I worked as the labourer for a very skilled potter in the Wedgwood factory in Staffordshire. Clay is a pretty cheap commodity. If a pot was 'spoiled' it would be much more cost-effective to 'bin it' and start again. But this is not what this potter does; he simply remakes it as something different;

And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Jer 18:4 NKJV

again and another... perhaps it is important to note that this spoiled pot is not 'repaired', it is remade and to another design. It is the same clay but it now has an entirely different destiny.

It was a word of hope for the scattered remnants of 'Israel', the northern kingdom. Their situation must have seemed utterly hopeless, ruined beyond repair and yet God gives this amazing picture. Even when God has pronounced judgement and that judgement is in process of being worked out, God has not given up.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. Jer 18:7–8 NKJV

If ever a nation had been plucked up out of its land, pulled down and left as a ruin, and destroyed as far as any might judge, that nation was Israel, the northern kingdom. And yet God's last word seems to have a post script; if this plucked up, pulled down, destroyed nation will only hear God's word and turn from its headlong flight to destruction, God will step in yet again and 'make it again into another vessel'.

There is an even deeper tragedy than their exile later in this chapter. In spite of this wonderful and generous offer Israel refuse to accept it;

And they said, “That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.” Jer 18:12 NKJV

and then it really will be the last word.

For the Romans January was named after their two faced god Janus who stood on the threshold of the year and looked both backwards and forwards. It is a practice many of us repeat without a consciousness of how old the pattern is. What of 2010? Was it a year in which you were plucked up, pulled down and destroyed? That is not necessarily the last word. There is a Potter who is still willing to remake it into a new design, just as long as we return to him and reject our obstinate hopelessness.

For each one of us as we stand on the threshold of a year past and another begun God holds us still in his hand and is ready to work a miracle, are you ready to receive one?

Poetic Imagination v Revelation?

2010-12-26T00:30:00.000-08:00

I received a very special and unexpected Christmas present, a copy of "the History of the World in a 100 Objects". It is the text that has accompanied a BBC series in which 100 items from the British Museum have been selected to tell the story of human history. It is beautifully produced with great art plates of some amazing artefacts. I am one of those odd people who read the Prefaces and Introductions to books and this book has both; they explain the philosophy behind the book in some detail.

Some years ago I while working in the City of London I attended a lunch-time lecture at the British Museum on the Philosophy of History. There is an old adage that there is 'no such thing as uninterpreted history'. That means that all history is edited and interpreted, almost always by the victors who put their own spin on events. This lecture declared that we can pass no judgments of any kind on history without reinterpreting it and advocated a kind of history without conscience in which we pass no moral comment but simple 'give the facts'. It is impossible of course for any human being to be really objective in 'giving the facts'. Only the man or woman who knows they are subjective and takes that into account has any chance of 'giving the facts'. Those who have dabbled in the mystery may recognise the 'post modern' approach of my lunch time lecturer.

The preface and introduction of my Christmas present give a different slant. They declare, particularly with pre-text artefacts, that it is essential to use 'poetic imagination' in the interpreting of history. I read of a man chipping away at a flint hand axe whose mental processes of flint-knapping stimulated those parts of the brain that would create language. It created, I read, the kind of language which had the vocabulary of a seven year old child. (notice, not a 6 or 8 year old child) It then takes this 'fact' into the next chapter and uses it as the foundation for the next layer in human evolution in which carved animals and human figures show the evolution of religion. For 'poetic imagination' read 'sheer speculation'.

Are we then at the mercy of the imagination of our poets for our understanding of the world in which we live or is there an alternative? Short of the discovery of time travel the only alternatives can be imagination or revelation. There are aspects of life of which we can discover absolutely nothing by our own investigations, but we need not be ignorant of all these. God has given us, not a poetic speculation, but a unique and reliable revelation in the Scriptures. We know where 'religion' came from; it came because men had rejected 'revelation'.

although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Rom 1:21–25 NKJV

Idolatry then, whether in physical images or in contemporary philosophies, is always the consequence of turning our back on revelation.

Paul and the Nativity: Part Two

2010-12-23T01:26:00.001-08:00

Our first look at Paul and the Nativity took us on a round trip from heaven's throne to Calvary's Hill and back again. This second glimpse into the 'why' of the incarnation comes in the midst of an appeal that Paul makes for contributions to his 'poor saints fund'. He reminds the saints in Corinth of the 'unspeakable gift' that God in Christ has already made.

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. 2 Cor 8:9 NKJV

It a brief sentence that holds wonderful revelation. When Paul speaks of Christ 'becoming poor' he is not thinking of Bethlehem and the manger, although that is included. In his birth the Son of God 'became poor' but that poverty was relative. He was born into a working family where Joseph presumably had his small family business. That was comparative poverty but the Greek language would have a word for that; the man for whom it was necessary to do a day's work so that he had the resources to buy bread to give him the strength to the same thing all over the next day.

But New Testament Greek has another word which means abject poverty, the poverty of the beggar who has no resources whatever. Perhaps we could make the point like this; by his birth in Bethlehem the Son of God was impoverished but at Calvary he was 'beggared'.

"He was rich" goes farther back that we can imagine. In the eternity before time began the godhead coexisted in perfect union and delighted in each others' company. Before a single star was made the one that we now know as the Son of God was 'rich'; not 'rich' in possessions but in relationship. God is the only self-sufficient being in the universe; all else is daily dependent upon him.

If 'rich' then means fellowship and harmony within the godhead what can 'beggared' mean? Surely it can only mean the loss of his 'riches'. Was there such a time when the Son of God was bereft of such 'riches'? Yes, there was and we hear it the the testimony of his dereliction; "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" This was the culmination of a staggering journey. The Gospels tell the story of the journey's beginnings in incarnation, birth and life but it was at Calvary that the journey reached its furthest extremity. Stuart Townend captures the truth in his contemporary hymn;

How deep the Father's love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

The cry 'forsaken' was not a misapprehension but the heart-broken testimony of one who was never deceived and only ever spoke the truth.

But if 'rich' means harmony and fellowship with God and 'made poor' means the loss of harmony and fellowship how are we to understand the rest of this brief sentence? In mathematical terms we have 'established a value for 'rich' and another for 'made poor' but Paul is not retelling the record he is answering the unasked question 'why?' What was the purpose of this event that Stuart Townend describes as a 'searing loss'? The answer could not be more plain... it was so that others might become 'rich'.

Now we have already established a value for the word 'rich' so we can declare categorically that the 'searing loss' was 'in order that through his poverty others might become 'rich'; that others might gain access into that 'harmony and fellowship' with God that the Son of God relinquished at Calvary.

I pray for all who read this at this Christmas-time, that the promise of Isaiah's prophecy may be further fulfilled in each one, that...

He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. Is 53:11 NKJV

Paul and the Nativity: Part One

2010-12-22T09:17:00.001-08:00

There is a line in a Graham Kendrick song which says...

...if you keep him in the manger,
then there is no danger
from the Christmas child.

Herod, of course, did not fear the child in the manger but the man he would become. To yield up the throne is the most difficult thing ever asked of human beings and ultimately, at some point in life, we will be faced with the age-old challenge; do we crown him or crucify him? There are no alternatives to this stark choice.

As we move from the Gospels to the Letters we discover that the writers are not apparently interested in the kind of events that are recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As historians their task was mainly along the lines of 'what has happened'. The early Christians had many faithful witnesses to 'what has happened', questions they now faced were those answered in the Letters; 'why did these things happen? and what are the lasting implications.

Paul seems to have little to say about angel visitors, wise men and shepherds; that is not his brief. He knows those records but his task is to ask 'what does it all mean?' This is Part One of Paul's Nativity teaching.

Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:4–11 NKJV

That thrilling passage of Scripture is a mixture of amazing choices and amazing consequences. Paul has gone behind and beyond the story of the Nativity; he telling us 'why is all happened'. It is thrilling to identify the choices that the Son of God made and the consequential things that 'happened to him'.

First something he refused to do; he refused to his equality in the godhead as a prize to be snatched for. Being in the form of God he refused to claim his rights then he 'emptied himself'. There are important historical theological reasons why translators don't usually translate that as 'emptied' but 'emptied himself' and 'made himself of no reputation' are both legitimate translations; with either translation the point is that he performed the actions himself, it did not 'happen' to him but was an action that he took.

The list continues; he himself took on the form of a bond-servant. This was not an inevitable consequence on incarnation, this is part of the reason for the incarnation. This was his choice to come into our world as a bond-servant. It continues, he humbled himself; he was not 'humbled by the incarnation', the incarnation was the consequence of his self-humbling.

Down, down he comes from the highest to the lowest; from godhead to bondservant. He chooses to humble himself and chooses to be obedient to the death, and not just any death but 'the death of the cross'; the kind of execution that bond-servant, non-persons were subjected to under Roman law. In a few masterful strokes Paul maps the journey from heaven's throne, through Bethlehem's stable and Calvary's hill and back to heaven's throne again. It is breathtaking.

His current reign demands a response. Like Herod we may refuse his reign or like the wise men and the shepherds we may bow at his feet. Not the feet of a child in a cattle trough but at the feet of the one whose reign will know no end. We have tracked his choices, now he is tracking yours.

Daily Bible Reading Schemes

2010-09-20T06:27:00.001-07:00

I have been using the CWR 'cover to cover' Bible reading scheme for a little while. This as the blurb says is 'as it happened'. It is designed to read through the Bible in one year in chronological fashion. I have enjoyed it but found some things I wasn't quite so keen on.

For example, it puts the first chapters of Deuteronomy together with the Exodus account of the deliverance from Egypt. There is a logic to that but that is NOT 'as it happened'. Deuteronomy is the 'second giving of the law' and took place 40 years after the 'first giving of the law'. The whole point is that it was later, much later. I think it is better to read individual books in their entirety to get the sense of the books' themes.

So I have returned to my own Daily Bible reading scheme. I created this some years ago to help international students at the Church Life School that we ran here in Reading for some years. This has some particular advantages, I think.

The BibleBase Daily Bread App is a Bible reading schedule based on a 3 year cycle.

The OT is roughly 3 times longer than the NT, but as the Bible contains 'progressive revelation' I think it is best to spend equal amounts of time in each Testament. So in the 3 year cycle you will read the OT once, but you will read the NT 3 times.

It is 'roughly chronological' meaning that the books are in chronological order, or roughly so, but the events are not synchronised as with 'cover to cover'.

It has smaller 'bite size' pieces giving time to chew over what you are reading, and it had a few gentle questions to encourage the students to think about what they were reading and its personal relevance.

My brother and colleague Gary Sims has created two 'apps' for this reading programme, one for the iPhone, iPodTouch, iPad and one for the Android. Both apps are free. Currently we are getting about 500 downloads per week. Why not give it a try to see if it suits your needs?

The iPod, iPodTouch, iPad app is freely available at
Biblebase Daily Bread for the iPod etc

and the Android version is available at
Biblebase Daily Bread for the Android

Let us know what you think. Thank you.

God's Agenda for your Friends

2010-09-20T01:49:00.001-07:00

Another gem from Oswald Chambers today. The phrase that caught my attention was that we are expected to “...deliberately identify ourselves with God's interests in other people. "That ye love one another; as I have loved you . . “

I recall as a very young Christian being greatly offended by the way that God had handled Gideon! After his victories it is recorded that Gideon had many wives and concubines and 70 sons. Judges 8: 30 After his victories too he created an image which became a snare to him and to others. Judges 8:27. At the heart of my sense of offence was that I was convinced that God should have sorted out these aspects of his life before his victories! It took a long time to understand that the statement “...My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” Is 55:8 NKJV could include the notion that His Agenda might not be the same as my Agenda.

God, I discovered, was not nearly so tidy as I was and certainly wasn’t nearly such a clear thinking evangelical as I was. I have a computerised ‘to do list’. As I tick off one item in a project the next item appears; it is all very tidy. God on the other hand seems to have different points of concentration in the lives of men and women and sometimes concentrates on aspects of a life that aren’t even on my ‘to do list’. It was a challenging revelation to discover that God’s creative works, and his new creation works, are not an exercise in painting by numbers.

When I am in the company of a friend is my conversation framed by my ‘to do list’ or God’s? Am I willing to go ‘off topic’ or do I insist on first, second, third...? Jesus said “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. John 5:19 NKJV That surely is the question; ‘what is the Father doing in this life? ‘not ‘how to I get this soul to the next point in my agenda?’ Am I in such a fellowship with the Father that I can ‘see’ what he is doing or do I just revert to my script?

His Temptation and Ours

2010-09-18T00:27:00.001-07:00

This was the title of Oswald Chambers “My Utmost for His Highest’ entry for 18th Sept. It started my thoughts running in a different but not not contradictory direction. It is helpful, I think, to consider the nature of the saints’ temptations; and by ‘saint’ in this context I mean the regenerate. Hebrews declares that “he was tempted in all points as we are,” Heb 4:15. He was, we are... but who is ‘we’? Historically it is the group made up of the writer of Hebrews and his readers. If we remember how the writer described his readers, Heb 6:4–5, they are clearly ‘the regenerate’ or as I shall call them from now on ‘the saints’. So this group really includes all the saints AND Christ himself; there is a kind of temptation that is unique to the ‘sons of God’. The Hebrews passage is not telling us that Christ experienced every possible temptation that mankind has experienced but a particular kind of temptation, the temptation of the sons of God.

There was a moment in Christ’s life when God publicly confirmed him to be ‘the Son of God’. His temptations, as recorded in the gospel narratives, were the direct result of this ‘witness of God’ that he was who he was. “And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,” Luke 4:1 KJV Luke makes the connection very clear. The Temptation in the Wilderness was not just the temptation of an ordinary man but of a man identified as ‘son o f God’ and who was ‘full of the Holy Spirit’; this is the temptation of a ‘saint’; a holy one.

According to Oswald Chambers, “Until we are born again, the only kind of temptation we understand is that mentioned by James - ‘Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." But by regeneration we are lifted into another realm where there are other temptations to face’. The thing to notice about the wilderness temptations of the Son of God is that his temptations were entirely external; they did not come from inside but from an alien spirit on the outside. These temptations did not come ‘from’ a heart that was ‘crooked beyond all other crookednesses and incurable’ Jer 17:9 but they came ‘to’ a heart that was in perfect alignment with God.

When we have become ‘saints’ by regeneration and God has borne witness with our spirits that we are ‘children of God’, and we are living in the 'fulness of the Spirit', it will not mean the ‘end of temptation’ but as OC expresses it ‘ ...by regeneration we are lifted into another realm where there are other temptations to face’. Our defence against an external enemy will need to be very different to our defence against an internal enemy.

It is a vital element of spiritual warfare that we "know our enemy".

Drawing a line under it

2010-08-08T13:59:00.001-07:00

Did you ever have a day where you felt, “I will be glad when I can draw a line under this day and move one?” Have you ever had a ‘life’ where you felt the same.

I have been asked to give the eulogy for a friend who is desperately ill. It came as a surprise and I wondered why I had been asked. I think I know part of the reason, he feels his past will be in safe hands. Would my ‘past’ be safe in your hands? Is our ‘past’ safe in God’s hands. How can we move on when the past still haunts us? How can we move on when we can never be sure whether or not the past will catch up with us? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if my past could be in safe hands? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if God could just ‘draw a line under the past’? The Bible says he can.

The epistle to the Hebrews constantly contrasts the Old Covenant with the New Covenant and reminds its readers of the original terms of that New Covenant as we first read it in Jer 31:31-34. It promises a new heart and a new spirit and God’s own Spirit coming to take up residence within and it concludes with an amazing statement... ""For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jer 31:34 NKJV or as it comes through into Hebrews... "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Heb 8:12 NKJV. God’s mercy will stretch to encompass the extremes of our unrighteousness and will ensure forgiveness. Our unrighteousness can never take him by surprise and as the chorus says...

His love has no limit
His grace has no measure
His power has no boundaries
Known unto man
For out of his infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth and giveth and giveth again.

But how can a God who has all knowledge say he will no longer remember?

We should distinguish here between forgetting and not remembering. Forgetfulness is a frailty but refusing to remember is a choice. God is determined to ‘draw a line under it’ and he will not allow the past to leak into the present.

Let me illustrate...
"A certain man had two sons...” It is one of the most famous stories ever told. Luke 15:11-32. I won’t retell it here but when the prodigal younger son comes to his senses he determines to head home and hopes for a job in the kitchens. "I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.”" Luke 15:18–19 NKJV When he returns home even before he begins this confession his father wraps him in a great bear-hug. The son begins his prepared speech but before he can continue with his plans for a job in the kitchen his father has already moved on... "‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’" Luke 15:22–24 NKJV Did you notice what the father said about his son's sin? That’s right... nothing, he has chosen not to remember it!

The story has a sequel. The older son is all too aware of his younger brother’s record and he tries to get the father to pass a judgment; "these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him." Luke 15:29–30 NKJV Did you notice what the father said about the younger son’s sin this time? That’s right... nothing, he has chosen not to remember it!

Will you come home? A father’s embrace awaits you, a new start awaits you. You need not fear the past. When you share that past with God you put it into safe hands and he draws a line under it. It is not a failing, it is his choice... “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

do feel free to say 'no'

2010-07-28T13:41:00.001-07:00

I was talking to someone today about how we ask for things. Suppose I wanted to borrow your garage to store some of my stuff. I can ask in different ways. I can say "is it all right if I put my stuff in your garage?" But I have now put you under an obligation and if you say "no'" the process risks me feeling rejected. If, on the other hand, I say "please feel free to say 'no', but is it all right if I put my stuff in your garage?" I give you the genuine opportunity to say "no" and yet for our relationship to be whole. Is this just English reserve 'gone mad'? It may be... but it may be something else.

Do I really leave people free to make their own decisions or do I manoeuvre them into a corner so that the only thing they can do is provide the response that they know will please me.

Let's try another one. "Is it all right if I keep your hammer for another week?" Is that ok or would it be better to say "I have brought your hammer back, would it be all right to borrow it for another week?" In the first I have built in the presumption that you will say "yes", with the second I have given you a genuine free choice.

But this is not a lesson in English manners, I have Paul and Philemon in mind. The runaway slave Onesimus had been of great service to Paul and Paul no doubt would have continued to benefit from this service but Paul will not presume...

12 I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. 14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary. Philemon

It is really remarkable how Paul refuses to put Philemon, Onesimus' true owner, under any pressure. He will not presume, he will not take Philemon's answer for granted. I wonder where he got his 'manners'.

God is almighty. He is the possessor of heaven and earth. He has every right to demand that we bow the knee to him and commit to serve him forever, but he will not presume and will not take our answer for granted. He gives us genuine choices. As with the father and the prodigal son he 'empowers' us to make the 'wrong' decisions. We are genuinely 'free to say "no"'. Or like the old story of Abraham's servant who went seeking a bride for Abraham's son. He lavishes gifts on the would-be bride and tells her of the wealth of her prospective bridegroom, but in the end it comes down to a genuine free choice; will you go with this man? Gen 24:58

In creating man God has given him the most amazing power; he is free to say 'no' to God. And because this is a genuine free choice he also has the power to say 'yes'.

Persistent Patterns

2010-07-27T11:40:00.001-07:00

AW Tozer used to bewail that fact that so much effort was spent in schooling the saints to be workers. He had a simple conviction; teach them to be worshippers and the serving will follow automatically.

Paul makes the same connection but as a warning. Romans Ch1 details the development of the nations in their deadly slide into sin and puts all the blame on their worship. It all began, he says, when the race turned its back on the revelation of the true God and exchanged the truth of God for a lie. The consequence was that they...

...exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Rom 1:25

Do you see the pattern? They rejected truth, put the lie in its place and then 'worshipped and served'. They are an inseparable pair, worship and service. Have no doubt there is a law written into the race that we will ultimately serve what we worship and our behaviour will be the direct consequence of those first choices.

In the wilderness temptation Christ was offered a short-cut. His ultimate purpose is to bring the kingdoms of the world in subjection to the Father. 1Cor 15:24 NKJV It would only take a single short-term compromise to short-cut Calvary and 'cut to the chase'.

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve. Matt 4:8-10 NKJV.

There is it again, that persistent pattern... you shall worship... you shall serve...

Perhaps we need to challenge ourselves regularly to ask the question 'who (or what) am I worshipping?' Do we make an idol of the church or evangelism or mission? If so we will find ourselves 'serving our idol'. This is such a subtle temptation. In our culture we more easily reject the obscenity of bowing down to a stone god, but the subtle temptation to put something in God's place will continue to the end of our pilgrimage.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1John 5:20,21

more likely than not

2010-07-07T10:39:00.001-07:00

I was listening to a very subdued scientist on the radio today. He was declaring that scientists can never say anything is absolutely true. Science he said is constantly challenging itself and is 'self-correcting'. His topic was the hooha that has continued since the emails for the University of East Anglia were made public.

Now I am not a spokesman for either the pro-global warming or the anti-global warming camps. There is a delightful American phrase which I intend to use more and more... "I don't believe I have a dog in that fight". However this sudden rush of humility sits very strangely when we compare it to some of the assertions of Dr Richard Dawkins. He asserts that evolution is proven and that there is no doubt. We now understand the universe, he declares. Perhaps we can hope that the new mood of science spokespersons is contagious, but I won't hold my breath.

This afternoon's radio science spokesperson concluded that the most that science could really say was 'more likely than not'. How many degrees short of certainty this is were not explained. If Dr Dawkins adopts this stance we shall begin to hear that Neo Darwinian Evolution 'cannot be said to be absolutely true' but is 'more likely than not'. I won't be holding my breath to hear Dr Dawkins say that either.

human but not a person?

2010-07-05T01:49:00.001-07:00

A recent news Times article reported that "abortion is the killing of a human being but this is less important than a woman's right to control her own life". Abortion is killing but women’s rights rule.

Over three millennia ago God enshrined universal law in a series of instructions given to the people we call Israel. The principles of the law were universal but the Exodus 20 application of it was unique to a group of people who entered into a solemn and binding covenant to keep it. We call it the Ten Commandments, although the full law contained hundreds. The Ten Commandments all deal with a very modern topic 'respect'. The first few commandments are a commentary on the fact the God has rights and that they must be respected. The remainder are based on the principle that human beings have rights and they must also be respected. (Noticeable by their omission are any commandments that deal with 'my rights to my rights'.) These simple commandments instruct me as to how I must respect God's rights and how I must respect the rights of other human beings.

There is an underlying revelation truth which is as the base of all the commandments directed at respecting the rights of others. It is staggering in its simplicity and in its implications. [color=0033FF] “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. Gen 9:6 NKJV[/color] Human rights are derived from a very simple truth; human beings are in the image of God and that sets them apart from every other life form.

There are many noble souls who have died for the rights of other people but the only sure foundation of a right attitude to others is the truth that human beings are in the image of God. That means old human beings who no longer have an economic function. It means tiny human beings whose lives hangs by a thread. It means tiny human beings whose presence is an inconvenience to other human beings. It means damaged human beings whose bodies or brains do not function 'normally'.

As mere creatures at the top of some evolutionary pyramid human beings have no more rights than a wood louse. Their only right is their might; their traditional ability to impose their will on other life forms. But if mankind, and even the tiniest scrap of it, is truly in the 'image of God' it must transform forever my attitude to their 'rights'. For those rights are not created by arbitrary judgements of other human beings but are a God given heritage and a God given trust.

some thoughts on the UK election: part 5

2010-05-05T01:28:00.001-07:00

We are getting quite a bit of coverage on the issue of a 'hung parliament' and the question of 'tactical voting'. So I thought I would share some thoughts along those lines.

democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives :

As believers we are to 'obey the king' that is to say we are to take our place as citizens in the society where God has placed us. The simple definition of democracy I have used here could easily be expanded into whole books on the topic but the essence is that those eligible to vote usually vote for a representative. In the UK we have a representative democracy. We elect our representative and authorise him/her to make decisions on our behalf. So how would a believer view the prospect of voting for a member of parliament he does not really want but in order to 'spoil' the chances of one party over another?

Yesterday I heard three separate politicians make their comments. One said 'vote with your head'; he meant go for the tactical vote which spoils another party's chance of government. Another said 'vote with your heart'; he meant choses your personal representative. Another said 'vote with your conscience'; which also means vote for your personal representative. This opens up a whole can of worms. Technically in the UK we don't elect a political party, we elect members of parliament. The party which ends up with most members of parliament is invited, by the Queen, to form a government. This must all seem unbelievably quaint to my republican readers!.

During the time of people like Wilberforce 'party politics' was a much more fluid thing and even into living memory a great parliamentaran like Winston Churchill changed parties twice, from Conservative to Liberal and later back from Liberal to Conservative. Things have become much more frozen now and it is interesting to note that all the major contenders for the premiership would probably regard themselves as Gladstonians.. who was a Liberal! In modern times the party machine has controlled our democracy and you will frequently hear the phrase 'voting for a party' although in its purest form our system doesn't vote for a party but for a local member of parliament.

So how should a believer vote? Surely 'with his conscience'. To do otherwise is to manipulate the political machinery and calls the essence of democracy into question. In a couple of days we in the UK will be invited to take our citizen duty in a general election. Our duty is not to enter into the power politics of 'moral majorities' and 'tactical voting' but simply to do as we are asked... who do you choose to be your personal representative in the next parliament?

some thoughts on the UK election: part 4

2010-04-27T04:17:00.001-07:00

This is a reposting of a blog I did about a year ago but this distinction between crime and sin is an important one as we consider the choice of a government. Governments are not required to be holy but they are required to be righteous. We shall need to see the distinction between morals and crime if we are going to make a sober choice of parliamentary candidates.

It was a song from the 1940's and included the lines...

if it's something you enjoy you can be certain that
it's illegal, it's immoral or it makes you fat.

The singer's lament is that whatever they really wanted to do always seemed to fall into one of these three categories. It was perceptive in that it recognised that 'legal' and 'moral' are distinct categories but less perceptive in that it presumed that 'fun' would inevitably be in either one of these categories or another; it reality these categories often overlap.

It is because of the overlap that there is such anger among British folks as I write. Some Members of Parliament have been 'playing the system' or maybe even 'milking' it. It seems that very few will actually have done anything illegal but there is a gathering sense that what they have done is certainly immoral. Few will have broken the law in their far reaching expenses claims but many have breached a hidden law of the conscience that we call morality. Illegal actions should be punished by the state but what about immoral actions?

Polygraph machines, or lie-detectors as they are sometimes called work on a principle that when someone tells a lie the body sets off a kind of moral smoke-alarm. Stresses are created in the inner man that are seen in changes in blood pressure or heart rates. It seems that something in our deepest psyche knows that something is wrong and "sets off the smoke-alarm". Something in the behaviour of our British MPs has set off the smoke-alarm in the public at large. There may be no 'law' that has been broken but we are a 'law unto ourselves', 'the work of law is written in our hearts'. Rom 2:14,15. It has serious implications and not just for the Members of Parliament.

In this same passage in Romans Paul says that 'whoever judges another passes sentence on himself'. Rom 2:1 Some profess to have no conscience and are free from all law but it is a self-deception. If I know that something is wrong when someone steals from me, I also know that something is wrong if I steal from someone else. I cannot assess another's behaviour without acknowledging that in my own behaviour there are things which deserve judgment and justice.

The atheist may say he doesn't believe in God but the real problem is that God doesn't believe in atheists. He knows that he has not left himself without a witness and in some secret part of the consciousness men and women know they are accountable for the way they live. They may make their bold professions of 'freedom from law' but that annoying smoke-alarm keeps going off!

some thoughts on the UK election: part 3

2010-04-26T11:41:00.001-07:00

Let's have a look at some Biblical precedents.

There are at least three OT characters who seem to have played quite a part in the government of non-Israelite nations. I am thinking of Joseph, Daniel (and his three friends) and Mordecai. It is helpful to see the way that these men functioned; they were all men who were 'in the wrong place'. By that I simply mean they were not where they would have chosen to be or where they might have expected to be; they were all 'out of place'.

They were all senior advisors to pagan monarchs and their service of these monarchs is really instructive. None of them actually 'sought office'. None of them tried to convert their kings nor did they attempt to 'Christianize' (or Israelitize) the governments that they served. Their personal integrity and faith brought them at times into conflict with their kings and their faith had a considerable impact upon their masters, but they had no 'mission'; they simply served their masters. They lived in their worlds as witnesses not legislators.

What I am trying to say is that they did not impose their faith or its implications on the nations in which they served. They served God faithfully and they served their kings faithfully. They were exemplary examples of the phrase 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's'... and they never mixed these two things up. They did not hide their faith but only when their loyalty to God and their loyalty to men came into conflict do their different worlds collide.

The place of the Christian in society will always be a delicate balance. Should Christians avoid public office or responsibility? Not on the basis of these Biblical examples. Should Christians take on public office in order to shape the nation in which they serve? Not on the basis of these Biblical examples. So just what is our role in our complex modern world, are we to be the world's legislators or its conscience?

some thoughts on the election: part 2

2010-04-21T11:35:00.001-07:00

Let me draw some things to your attention that you may have not noticed or perhaps forgotten.

There are two contrasting covenants referred to in the Bible. The Sinai or Old Covenant is very conscious of territory and nation and state. In fact that covenant served as a kind of tenancy agreement for the ancient people of Israel. Keep the tenancy and you keep the land; break the tenancy agreement and you will be evicted. That covenant created what is known as a theocracy; the state and the religion of the people were inseparable. It was God's people and God's land. The religion of the what we call the Old Testament is, in the main, intensely territorial. Anyone who touched God's people or his land came under summary judgement. There was no distinction between crime and sin for all the laws were God's laws. The nation and the state and 'the church' were one.

And then there is another Covenant, usually called the New Covenant and its key document is the New Testament. This Covenant has, apparently, no interest at all in territory. A man or woman might be accused of being a Christian and found guilty but there was a distinction between crime and sin. It was no sin to become a Christian but for some it was a crime. In the New Testament there are no nation-states because its background is the Roman empire of which all were subjects in one way or another. There are ethnic groups but no nations in the modern sense of the word.

The way the New Testament looks at the state and our involvement in it is very different from the Old Testament perspective. In the Old Testament men and women were required, as part of their covenant to be an integral part of the whole social and political life of the nation. In the New Testament the underlying metaphor is of the stranger and the pilgrim. "This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through"; no Israelite could have sung that song but it has been the marching song of the Christian for two millennia.

Where shall we get our patterns and principles?

some thoughts on the election: part 1

2010-04-19T12:36:00.001-07:00

The Christian has dual citizenship: of heaven (Philippians 3:20); and of an earthly nation (usually that in which he was born).

This is a quotation from a document called Election Briefing 2010. For folks in the UK just now it is a 'must read' item but is the quote accurate or helpful? The statement is often used to justify a believer's commitment to politics, patriotism, war and a whole bunch of other things. What basis do we have for saying that a 'Christian has dual citizenship'? How would that work out? Dual citizenship is a 'two-edged sword', it can mean that you end up with the duties of both nations and the protection of neither.

Is there another view? There is but it is a little old fashioned now. Some of the early Christian Brethren based their non-involvement in the the political process with another phrase 'believers are not called to tame the wild beasts of Daniel 7 but to call out a people for Christ'. This one will need a bit of an explanation! Daniel 7 predicts a succession of world empires from the days of Daniel's own time to the end times. Some of those early Christian Brethren believed that as this succession of empires had already been prophesied the Christian should not waste their times trying to 'change the course of history'.

How do you react to these two views? Give them some thought and we'll try to think through the implications of living as Christians on earth.

by grace through faith: part 10

2010-04-08T08:35:00.001-07:00

Let’s think a little about ‘justifying faith’. This is the language often used to describe the kind of faith that results in justification. Most in Calvinism see this is a unique kind of faith being the unique consequence of regeneration. The understanding, as we have already said, is that faith is the consequence of regeneration, regeneration being the trigger to everything else. In this understanding conviction, repentance, conversion and justifying faith are all the consequence of regeneration. This doctrine usually separates ‘justifying faith’ from subsequent experiences of faith. I want to question this assumption in today's blog. Is ‘justifying faith’ different in essence from any other experience of faith? Clearly the faith that results in justification is different in its effect from the faith that receives physical healing, but is it different in essence? If it is true that men ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ cannot ‘hear’ God what are we to make of God’s commandments? What is the point of God giving any commandment to anyone who is not ‘regenerate’. Do you see my dilemma?

If ‘justifying faith’ is really a special application of faith how would we expect this to work out? Hebrews 11 has a long list of the ‘heroes of faith’ which specifically points to justification as being the result of faith. Heb 11:7 (hover your cursor over the reference) Noah believed and became an heir of the righteousness that is ‘by faith’. That declares that Noah was ‘justified by faith’. But what did Noah believe in order to be ‘justified by faith’? How many aspects of ‘the gospel’ did he have to believe before he was ‘justified by faith’. Did he believe in the work of the cross, or in the resurrection or in the coming of the Spirit? We have no reason to believe any of these things was revealed to him and yet ‘by faith’ he became an heir of the ‘righteousness’ that is the result of ‘justifying faith’. So how did his faith work? and how did Abraham’s faith work? What did Abraham know of incarnation and Christ’s atoning work and his resurrection? If we work our way through the list of Hebrews 11 we shall see a very wide variety of ‘revelation’ that the heroes responded to. Is it ever possible then to make a list of essential beliefs that are precursors to ‘justifying faith’? I hope I have said enough to show how complicated this is going to become if we pursue this particular logic.

So what did these people believe? The answer is easier that you might imagine. The answer is not a ‘what’ but a ‘who’. Abraham’s faith, as recorded in Genesis 15, becomes the archetypical example of faith, and especially ‘justifying faith’.

And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6

or as Paul quotes it...”Abraham believed God...” Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6

Faith, at its heart is faith in a person not in an idea. The Wesley brothers were a classic example of those who believed ‘truth’ before they believed ‘God’. What is usually described as their ‘intellectual conversion’ took place some weeks before they experienced ‘justifying faith’. They were already preaching ‘evangelical truth’ although they had not personally experienced it. It is when our faith finds its resting place in the person of God himself that the miracle become clear. Here is an excerpt from John Wesley’s journal for May 24, 1738.

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

The moment of faith can be identified here ‘...I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.’ John Wesley’s faith came to rest, not in a Biblical truth, but in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul does not promise ‘justification by faith’ to those who believe in ‘justification by faith’ but to those who ‘...believe in Jesus... Rom 3:26.

Of course the Jesus we believe in must be the Jesus of the Bible and not some phantom of our own creation, but genuine faith is an I-thou’ encounter; we rest our faith in the person of Jesus Christ.

by grace through faith: part 9

2010-04-03T02:44:00.001-07:00

Let’s take another look at synergy in action. 1Chron 28 & 29 tell the story of transition from the rule of David to that of Solomon. If you are unfamiliar with this story I do recommend that you read it before you read this! 1Chron 29:1-5 is David’s personal testimony to what he has done. This is followed by the response of the leaders of Israel in 1Chron 29:6-9 and then we have the record of David’s prayer in 1 Chron 29:10-17 and finally David’s exhortation to the people to “bless the LORD your God” and their response in 1Chron 29:20-25. It is an exciting passage and one easy to see in the imagination. It was the culminating act of David’s reign. Let’s work our way through these sections...

1Chron 29:1-5 is David’s personal testimony to what he has done. The focus of this passage is on David’s own effort and contribution. They had been collecting resources for the building of the temple and all is now ready. In addition to the official funds David added an enormous contribution from his own personal funds; 1Chron 29:3. That contribution alone is mind-blowing. In gold alone he contributed almost 4000 tons; 1Chron 29:4. (many years ago in the 1970s I commented on this in a meeting which included a gold bullion dealer. He whipped out his calculator and announced that David’s contribution exceeded the gold reserves of Germany; the richest european country at that time.) David is not shy to list his own decisions in this; “I have prepared with all my might”, “I have set my affection to the house of my God”, “I have given to the house of my God”. This is David’s personal contribution to the building of the Temple.

1Chron 29:6-9 is the response of the leaders of Israel. The leaders responded in the same spirit as David and gave lavishly to the work; “Then the people rejoiced, for they had offered willingly, because with a loyal heart they had offered willingly to the LORD; and King David also rejoiced greatly.” 1Chron 29:9.

1Chron 29:10-17 is David’s prayer. The mood of this passage is very different. He gives all the glory to God. Both the materials and the willingness of the offerers is ascribed to God’s hand. It contains the classic sentence “But who am I, and who are my people, That we should be able to offer so willingly as this? For all things come from You, And of Your own we have given You.” 1Chron 29:13. and furthermore...”"O LORD our God, all this abundance that we have prepared to build You a house for Your holy name is from Your hand, and is all Your own.” 1Chron 29:16. That all sounds like a clear conversion to monergism but we need to read on...

Right on the heels of this absolute recognition that God has made all this possible we have one of David’s profound insights; “I know also, my God, that You test the heart and have pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things; and now with joy I have seen Your people, who are present here to offer willingly to You.” 1Chron 29:17. That is a priceless insight. Although he recognises that all has been made possible by God he sees that he is personally accountable for the stewardship of what God has entrusted to him. God puts the hearts of men to the test.

We shall not be judged on what we received but on what we did with what we received. It is God’s gift put into men’s hands. David is absolutely clear as to the enabling source of all he has but he is equally clear that he will be held accountable for what he has received. It will be the grace of God and the faith of David expressed in active response that see the Temple built; this is synergy.

by grace through faith: part 8

2010-04-02T04:00:00.001-07:00

The conflict between authentic Calvinism and all other attempts to systematise revelation truth can be expressed in the simple formula... monergism vs synergism. These words deserve a brief explanation. The idea of synergy is used in science and business and theology in very different ways but theologically speaking ‘synergism is the teaching that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration’ while ‘monergism is the teaching that the Holy Spirit acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration’. Synergy is a word with a biblical history. It is the verb translated ‘work together’ in Rom 8:28. You can see how the word is defined and used here in the BlueLetterBible. See how the Bible uses this concept. It is the word ‘syn’ meaning ‘together’ and the word ‘ergeO’ which means ‘to work’. It would not be amiss to say it speaks of partnership. Whereas ‘syn’ implies ‘togetherness’ ‘mono’ implies ‘aloneness’ and this is the thrust of these two words. Is the work of salvation the result of a partnership between God and man or is it a sovereign and independent act of God? Is God the prime and initiating agent in salvation or is he the sole agent in salvation?

Let’s take a look at a well known verse from Isaiah; "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 Let’s take the first two phrases and examine them.

1. Come now. The invitation or command originates in God. We cannot come unless the Lord draws us. We cannot believe if he has not spoken and we cannot obey if he has not commanded. So there ought to be no confusion here. Salvation belongs to the Lord and is in his gift alone. The phrase implies that some kind of movement is necessary; to get from there to here you must ‘come’ and it is I who must do the coming. The promise was that if the Father lifted up the Son he would draw all men to himself. John 12:32. The cross was the first part of that process and we may be sure that God is at work ‘drawing’ men and women to himself. But ‘drawing’ and ‘coming’ implies response. God has on occasion used the method of ‘beaming’ an individual from one place to another but not in the context of salvation. The command or invitation to ‘come now’ is a clear indication that the person who hears these words must take some responsibility in moving from one place to another.

2. and let us reason together... This is one of the most profound statements in the Bible. Take note of that tiny word ‘us’ and think about the implications. To use the pronouns ‘we’ or ‘us’ implies that at least two people have something in common. When we contrast ‘us’ and ‘them’ we imply that ‘we’ have some common ground that is not shared by ‘them’.

The earlier verses of this chapter describe the human condition in a graphic way; “...The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is no soundness in it, But wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; They have not been closed or bound up, Or soothed with ointment.” Isaiah 1:5-6. That’s as dramatic a description of man in his congenital sin as we will find anywhere in the Book. There is nothing to commend this creature to God. He is helpless and hopeless. Man is a bundle of corruption. I trust we have said enough to make it plain that this creature is totally corrupted... there is no soundness in him.

It is all the more remarkable then that God addresses such a creature with an invitation to come and a plea to ‘let us reason together’. Let the significance of that ‘us’ settle upon your spirit. In spite of the description we have been given it is still possible for God to use the embracing pronoun ‘us’ in this phrase. At some level, in spite of all appearances, God and this wreck of humanity have something ‘in common’; otherwise he could not use the pronoun.

And notice too, wonder of wonders, that God insists that He himself and this ruined creature must do something ‘together’. The consequence of this ‘synergy’ will be deep and radical cleansing; “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.” Could God ‘impose’ cleansing upon this creature? Theoretically he could. Theoretically the father could have dragged the wayward son out of the far country and brought him home hostage, but he didn’t and he doesn’t. He will not impose saving grace but he makes it wonderfully available.

This is the mystery of synergy. God’s grace is 100% his responsibility and I cannot make 1% contribution to it, but faith, ie responding to what God has said in promise or command, is 100% man’s response. Responsibility is found to be ‘my response to his ability’ but in the ‘my’ and ‘his’ of that sentence there is a wonderful and necessary synergy; by grace we are saved, through faith.

by grace through faith: part 7

2010-04-01T03:31:00.001-07:00

For many years I was deeply puzzled by the Matthew interpretation of the parable of the Sower. When his disciples asked him why he was using parables Christ quoted Isaiah 6:9-10. (remember that if you hover your cursor over that reference you will get the NKJV version) It seemed as though God were blocking their understanding in response to their dullness of hearing. Matthew’s account of Christ's exposition of the parable added to my puzzlement. The response of the earth to the sown seed begins with the seed sown on the downtrodden wayside. “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.” Matt 13:19. There’s that reference to ‘understanding’ again. It is because the hearer did not ‘understand’ the word of the kingdom that the sown seed is unproductive and quickly stolen by the birds. The theme continues in the account of the good ground; “But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty." Matt 13:23 and we find here another reference to ‘understanding’. Does salvation depend on our ability to understand? Apparently it does but that is not the whole story and ‘understanding’ in not the same as having a certain inherent intelligence; this is not salvation by IQ.

My puzzlement lasted a long time until I came across another part of the prophecy of Isaiah. God promised spectacular signs which would capture the attention of his people and then Isaiah declares the purpose of these eye-catching signs; Isaiah 41:20. I am going to do my own translation here “so that they may see and recognize and consider and understand in a unity that the hand of the LORD has done this”. Let’s observe the order here...

1 That they may see; God would take care to ensure that men and women would be drawn to what he was doing. This is one of the purposes of miracles. They serve as burning bushes which cause us to ‘turn aside’ from our daily activities to pay attention to something out of the ordinary. God would ensure that they were alerted to the fact that something extraordinary happening in their midst.

2 ...and recognize; by some inner intuition they would discern that the phenomena which had drawn their attention was something of significance. They would recognize ‘the hand of God’ or ‘the voice of God’ in that moment. Their consciences would bear witness to the truth they were experiencing.

...so far these are involuntary stages of a process. They ‘happen’ without any action on the part of the one who sees and recognizes, but then there is a change...

3 ...and consider; this is the process when the mind begins to engage with what has been witnessed. We are no longer a passive witness but we begin to consider the meaning of the event. This stage requires action on the part of the witness. We are to take hold of the truth which has fleetingly flashed across our consciousness and we are to think through its implications. I think it was D L Moody who used to say that he had ‘more hope of a murderer than of a lazy man’. Here is a really obscure verse for your consideration; “The lazy man does not roast what he took in hunting, But diligence is man's precious possession.” Prov 12:27. What a folly, to never profit from the thing that you have held in your hand. When truth ‘comes to us’ we are required to ‘do something’ with that truth otherwise we will lose it. “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” Matt 13:12. That verse is from the same passage in Matthew.

4 ...and understand; and now see what will inevitable follow the man who has seen and recognized and considered. He will understand. This is not the understanding of a superior intellect but the blessing of God upon the man who has taken ‘revelation’ seriously. Now we see that God is right to hold a man accountable for ‘not understanding’ for that man has slighted the miracle of revelation and thereby chosen to remain in his voluntary darkness. From such will be taken even the little that he had. God will hold men accountable for what they do with revelation.

by grace through faith: part 6

2010-03-31T04:56:00.001-07:00

I’m going to take a couple of days to examine some key aspects of the faith which is a response to revelation. First let’s take a look at one of the basic building block verses of the New Testament. “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.” Hab 2:4 The verse is quoted three times in the New Testament; Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11 and Heb 10:38. The phrase is known so well that it is at the heart of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith. I want to to concentrate on the often missed contrast that we are given in Hab 2:4. Let’s put it in its full context of Hab 2:2-5. Sometimes it is helpful to define a Bible word by examining its opposite. The Hab 2:4 verse points approvingly to the ‘believer’ but in its context it contrasts the ‘believer’ with another kind of person. We might have expected it to contrast believer with unbeliever but it doesn’t; it contrasts the believer with the proud or presumptious man.

In particular it uses a fairly rare Hebrew word which is translated as ‘lifted up’ in the KJV and ‘proud’ in the NKJV. It is the Hebrew word Strong's H6075 - `aphal and is only used twice in the scripture. The first use of the word is in an account which has become a by-word for unbelief and disobedience. It a brief sequel to the account of Israel’s refusal to enter the promised land. God’s sentence on their rebellious disobedience was that they would be condemned to a 40 year exile in the wilderness. It is the reaction of some to this sentence that contains the Hebrew word ‘aphal.

We need to retell part of the story to see its significance. God’s word of sentence has been given by Moses and the reaction of some might be seen as a kind of repentance. Some having heard the 40 sentence changed their minds; ‘And they rose early in the morning and went up to the top of the mountain, saying, "Here we are, and we will go up to the place which the LORD has promised, for we have sinned!”’ Numbers 14:40. That sounds ok doesn’t it? They are acknowledging their sin and are willing to act out their repentance. They claim their behaviour is ‘bible-based’.. ‘we will go up to the place which the LORD has promised’. That sounds as though it should work but it won’t. They are putting their trust in yesterday’s word rather than today’s word. Strange as it may seem to obey the word that God spoke yesterday may just be carnality and defiance.

Our Hebrew word appears in Num 14:44 and is translated as ‘presumed’. One of the opposites of faith is seen to be not unbelief but presumption. ‘aphal means a swelling, a hillock or even a tumour. It may have all the appearance healthy growth but it is a killer. It is the swelling of an unsurrendered heart. It is man taking it on himself to choose when he will do what God has said. As my wife used to say to our young children “slow obedience is disobedience”.

When God speaks and we ‘hear’ that revelation of truth in our hearts it creates a window of opportunity. We cannot choose when we respond to revelation, we must respond at the moment of the revelation and take the window of opportunity. This is partly the significance of the words of Christ in the wilderness temptation. ‘But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' “’ Mat 4:4. the current word. That is man’s daily sustenance is the result of daily receiving the word of grace that God is speaking at that time. This is not a reference to biblical doctrine but to God’s ability to speak into our condition. That grace is available ‘in time of need’ or as Youngs Literal Translation has it “we may come near, then, with freedom, to the throne of the grace, that we may receive kindness, and find grace -- for seasonable help.” Words from God come in their season and we cannot presume to use them ‘out of season’. We do not choose the moment of our faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God and a man cannot believe what he has not heard. However a man can refuse to believe what he has heard and the consequences may be fatal.

I cannot daisy pick through Bible verses but as God makes his truth alive to me I can believe and because I can I must.

by grace through faith: part 5

2010-03-30T04:30:00.001-07:00

I think it is time to expound what I mean by the statement that ‘faith is right response to revelation’. Just what do I mean by revelation? The NT speaks from time to time of ‘mysteries’, the Greek word really means ‘secrets’. The words and phrases ‘mime’ and ‘keeping mum’ all derive from the basic idea that a mystery was an unspoken secret. In the ‘mystery religions’ of the 1st century the word was used to mean secrets which were revealed (there’s the word revelation) to initiates to the mystery religions. As the initiates passed from one degree to another they were allowed to hear new truths; the modern day Freemasons work on the same principle. So a NT mystery is not mysterious but an unspoken secret. Such secrets can cannot be discovered by effort or piety but can only be revealed to those who commit themselves.

What I mean by revelation is the way in which a ‘truth from God’ or if you prefer ‘a word from God’ is somehow ‘heard’ in the inner man. This does not come by education or personal effort although it is frequently linked to some earlier obedience. Let me illustrate what I mean by reference to the best known parable of all; the man who had two sons. Luke 15:11-32. It is a wonderful story and will be told as long as time lasts. Jesus introduced the story with the words “a certain man had two sons”. It is important to remember that although we call this story the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus described it as a story about “a man who had two sons”. It is important to notice the context of this teaching too. Jesus told this story in answer to the murmerings of those who accused him of ‘receiving sinners and eating with them’ Luke 15:1

Each of these sons had a moment of revelation. The younger son’s moment is captured in the phrase ‘he came to himself and said...’ Luke 15:17. Truth entered his darkness. It was a moment of revelation. He was given a moment’s respite in his desperate slide and in that moment he heard truth. The truth came from his own lips but the revelation was a gift of God to him. His response to that revelation was manifold. He accepted the revelation and determined to act on it. Not only did he determine to act on it but he carried out his resolve. The result of that faith was that he was reconciled to his father who greeted him with a kiss of welcome and lavish gifts.

The elder son’s moment of revelation is captured in the behaviour and the statement of his father to him. The elder son was ‘not willing to go in’ (Luke 15:28) as a result of his anger. He judged his father’s action as being unfair and refused to be part of the homecoming. The next statement is full of pathos; "he would not go in so his father came out". This is ever the heart of God, always willing to ‘go out’ to those who will not ‘come in’. And not only did he go out but he pleaded with his elder son. The Greek word is ‘parakaleo’ and can be translated comforted, pleaded, encouraged. The tragedy of this story, and we need to remember why the story was told, Luke 15:1, is that the father’s pleading goes unanswered. The father’s behaviour is a revelation and so are his words; “"And he said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours.” Luke 15:31. We are bound to ask why the elder son had never received his father’s blessing and gift and the answer is surely that the elder son never asked for it. James 1:6.

As the parable ends its lasting images are of a reconciled sinner in the father’s embrace and reinstated in the family home, and a self-righteous law-keeper who never really knew his father outside in the cold. Revelation is a necessary prerequisite to genuine biblical faith, but ‘faith is right response to revelation’. Without right response the younger son would still be in his pig sty and without right response the elder son excludes himself from the generosity of a father’s heart.

by grace through faith: part 4

2010-03-29T08:52:00.001-07:00

Let's quote this verse in its entirety. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:8 The key question now is what is 'that' referring to in this passage?

This is not a 'pay your money and take your choice' type of question. The Greek language has lots of fascinating precisions which it is not possible to reproduce in the English language. Folks who have some familiarity with another language will know that most European languages give a gender to nouns; usually masculine, feminine or neuter. Pronouns, such as 'that' then have to agree in 'case and number' with the original noun. The pronoun translated 'that' in Eph 2:8 is in the neuter form but both grace and faith are nouns which carry the feminine gender. If 'that' were referring to either or both 'faith' or 'grace' it would be in the feminine form rather than the neuter. So what is the 'that' which is of God? It is the whole work of salvation and only a thorough-going Pelagian would suggest otherwise. Certainly I know of no Arminians who would claim otherwise. Salvation belongs to our God.

Faith is unusual in that it appears as both fruit (Gal 5:22) and a charistmatic gift (1Cor 12:9) Faith is clearly a many splendoured thing! There are events of faith and also a process of faith. Christ rebuked those who had no faith and men of his day prayed for 'faith'. So who is responsible for faith? God or man?

Faith is right response to revelation. A man cannot believe simply because he decides it would be a good thing to do so. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. God must speak before men can hear and respond rightly, but not all who hear respond rightly. Those who 'rightly respond' are commended for their faith and those who do not are held accountable for their disbelief.

by grace through faith: part 3

2010-03-27T04:04:00.001-07:00

I’m going to ask you to do a little work today. I am thinking of James 1 and his allusions to the world of nature. This is a fascinating portion of scripture and holds some key concepts.

In James 1:14-15 he writes “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” He is tracing the personal history of a sin and he uses bold strokes to reveal the truth. To understand the richness of this language you will need to dig a little deeper. The online resource BlueLetterBible will be our tool for digging deeper. This URL will take you to the Greek text behind our familiar translations and by identifying and then clicking the Strongs numbers equivalents of the Greek words several dictionaries will open up. Do make the time to examine what James is saying here. This is spiritual biology. It shows that an individual sin is the result of a spiritual process. The key word to it all is the idea of conception. Conception, of course, is the result of seed being received. I don’t want to be indiscrete but something passes from the outside to the inside and something on the inside welcomes the intruder. A sin then is the result of a conception and the conception is the result of insemination.

In contrast James 1:21 has a similar but slightly different natural process in view. “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” Now what we have in mind is the sowing of seed and germination. Again some time spent in the BlueLetterBible resource will prove really beneficial. This time the URL gives us the opportunity to dig deeper into James original words. The Old KJV ‘engrafted’ has been corrected in the NKJV to ‘implanted’ and the reader is instructed to ‘receive’ that implanted word with ‘meekness’. I don’t want to make this too demanding but there are two separate Greek words which our versions translate as ‘receive’. This is dechomai, which is slightly more passive that lambano, and we might translate dechomai as ‘accept’ or 'receive' or ‘welcome’. James instructs his readers to ‘welcome’ the ‘implanted word which has the power to save our souls.

Notice it is the ‘implanted word’ which is able or has the power to save our souls. If the word is not implanted, and it cannot be implanted unless it is ‘welcomed’ by the good earth, it cannot have the power to save the soul. The earth cannot create the life that is encapsulated in the seed but the seed cannot reproduce that life unless it is welcomed by the earth. We can only be saved ‘by grace AND through faith’.

by grace through faith: part 2

2010-03-26T09:34:00.001-07:00

Calvinism claims that because man is dead in trespasses and sins he is unable to hear. Consequently man must be regenerated so that he can hear. The order, says Calvinism, must be first life and second hearing. The logic of that seems absolutely watertight except for the fact that we have Biblical data where that pattern is reversed.

The first that comes to mind is the statement of Christ himself; "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." John 5:25. This statement puts the two stages in exactly the opposite order. Apparently, life is the consequence of hearing rather than the other way around. It might be objected that this is an eschatological statement and not one that pertains to personal salvation. There is truth in that but John's writings are always multi-layered and his careful compositions have left nothing to chance. There can be little doubt here that it is because the voice of Christ has been heard that life can begin.

The second that comes to mind is the account of the raising of Lazarus. 'Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go."' John 11:11:43-44. Again we discover that a dead man responds to the voice of Christ. Apparently 'the dead' can hear when Christ speaks.

And hearing, of course, is fundamental to faith. 'How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?' Rom 10:14. Believing and faith and just the verb and the noun of the same word in the original Greek. It is important to see the order here too. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Rom 10:17 and this passage makes it clear that we are speaking of the kind of hearing which produces the right response to God. We are not putting man first here but simply declaring that when God has spoken a human response is necessary. The 'hearing of faith' causes a man or woman to 'call' upon the name of the Lord and those who so call 'shall be saved'.

I have my own definition of faith; faith is right response to the Word of God. A man or woman cannot chose to 'have faith' at their own whim. They cannot believe until God has spoken, but when God has spoken they must believe in order for 'salvation' to be accomplished. When God has spoken (and in the tomb of their deadness they have heard his voice) there must be the obedience of faith and the reaching out to receive what God has promised. Salvation is by grace AND through faith.

by grace through faith: part 1

2010-03-12T08:05:00.001-08:00

Ok, let’s talk about grace and faith.

Grace is often defined as ‘God’s unmerited favour’. That’s alright as far as it goes, the trouble is I doubt that it goes far enough. Grace is not just an attitude of God but a dynamic enabling. It is not positional but active. God’s grace is always on the move never static. When Paul wrote Ephesians he used the phrase God’s ‘great love with which he has loved us’. Eph 2:4-6. I love the phrase. This is not only a statement that God is love or has love but that he loves. Grace is love on the move towards men and women. Grace is missing from the description of love found in Gal 5:22-23 but that is because the whole list is a description of the grace that is God’s enabling power working in men and women.

We cannot state this too strongly, grace is the ‘grace of God’. It is his and his alone. We cannot deserve it no matter how ‘righteous’ our life has been. It is God’s choice not only to favour the undeserving but to show his favour to the undeserving. God’s every relationship with men and women has been and will always be on the basis of his grace. The big divide between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is the nature of that grace. Is it conditioning grace or enabling grace? The Calvinist wants to exalt God above any possibility of man’s self-boasting and declares that God’s work is monergism; that is to say ‘only one is working in salvation’. He is consistent in as much as he gives God 100% of the credit for the process of salvation. The question remains that if salvation is 100% God’s work, does that imply that the unsaved are unsaved because God has not chosen them to be saved? Most Calvinists would be prepared to sign up to this. Consequently most Calvinists see the very beginning of personal salvation as a sovereign act of regeneration that takes place unbidden and unassisted in the heart of the believer. That initial act of regeneration shows itself in awakening, repentance, faith and conversion. In this scenario faith and obedience are direct and inevitable consequences of regeneration. The believer has no more say in the matter that he did in his own physical conception and birth.

This may seem watertight but it opens up some significant questions. If faith, or for that matter any virtue, is the inevitable consequence of a sovereign act of God how can a man be held responsible for ‘not having faith’? There are far too many examples of those who lacked faith receiving rebukes to be ignored and that would seem to point to the fact that at some level they are being held accountable for their lack. If virtue or vice are the consequence of man’s behaviour it seems rational to reward or punish them in some way, but if they are the direct consequence of God’s action or inaction how will God judge those unable to behave any differently. If I tell my child not the eat the biscuits and them place them in some inaccessible place, do I commend him for his virtue in not eating the biscuits? On the other hand if my child has made some choices he must be held accountable for whatever choices he has made. Consequently his virtue or vice will receive its just reward.

We can escape from this dilemma simply be understanding that grace is not conditioning power but enabling power. We are utterly unable to do anything to please God apart from his enabling power but his power is not imposed upon us but offered to us. There can be no salvation without the full hearted consent that the Bible describes as faith. We cannot be saved ‘by faith’ alone, we must be saved ‘by grace through faith’. Only in this can God receive the glory that is his and we receive the consequence of our response to his enabling grace.

do not be called leaders

2010-03-11T05:10:00.001-08:00

I am still thinking about the similarities between the early churches and the early internet and my morning reading brought me to Matthew 23.

The New Testament has a whole bundle of words which indicate 'masters' of one kind or another. Vine's Expository Dictionary has a whole page for 'masters'. You can check it out here Our word here is Strong's G2519 - kathēgētēs Can we 'fine tune it'? I think we can. The Greek prefix 'kata' often has the sense of 'thoroughly' so this is a strengthened form of 'master'. Like Father or Rabbi it is the 'top of the tree'. Jesus told his apostles that they were not to allow others to refer to them as 'the teacher', 'the father' the leader'. Leadership is a biblical concept but we must be careful not to take our models from industry or the military; that is not the kind of 'leadership' that the scripture has in mind. Perhaps a better word might be a 'guide' and we must not accept the role of 'the guide'.

OK let's get back to the internet. No one person was ever in charge of the 'internet'. No one decreed its laws and protocols; they simply emerged. The process was by what are known as 'requests for comment' or RFCs. An innovator who had an idea as to how to do something would publish it as an RFC and wait for comments. If it was accepted by users then it would become an accepted protocol. They held that its 'laws' should be 'discovered not decreed'. What is this anarchy? democracy? No it was the observance of life. They watched to see what emerged and "less was required than allowed" as standards emerged. There were no arch-leaders, gurus or popes. It is all a 'bit hairy' as we say in the UK. It forever threatens to run in anarchy and chaos. The early churches were more like this than you might have guessed. Safety was not ensured by the setting up of high fences or detailed laws of behaviour or doctrine. Safety found its guarantee from another source.

Its 'safety' was ensured by each member 'holding fast the head', not by conformity to the dictates of 'leaders'. "Neither be called leaders" said Our Lord, "for one is your leader, even Christ". Matt 23:10

is everything we believe about the universe wrong?

2010-03-10T05:58:00.001-08:00

I watched two BBC programmes yesterday. One, The Wonders of the Solar System, was a slick portrayal of the way 'we now understand the whole universe' with the presenter declaring that science is different to all religions because it does not require faith. It used exotic locations to describe the wonders of the big bang and how it was all provable by the mathematics.

The second was an ‘Horizon’ programme entitled “is everything we know about the universe wrong”? In the second programme a parade of university professors discussed dark matter, dark energy and dark flow with the recurring chorus ‘we don’t know’. They showed how the math does not quite work and how we have to invent ‘dark matter’ which is unobservable by anything made of ordinary matter. Apparently even ‘dark matter’ is not sufficient to explain the observations made by cosmologists so ‘dark energy’ was proposed. One professor described it as an unwanted, unexpected and unwelcome new kid on the block! But even ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ can’t make the numbers fit so we now have ‘dark flow’ as well. ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’ and ‘dark flow’ are, according to one cosmologist just ways of saying ‘we don’t know’. Apparently there is five times as much ‘dark matter’ as visible matter in the universe and dark matter can pass through visible matter without any impact of any kind. The cosmologists have now suggested that the ’nothing’ between all the visible bits of the universe is not ‘empty nothing’.

I was taken with the humility of these top flight academics. Further down the tree there are no doubts and everything is settled but up in the higher realms there are people who are saying ‘we don’t know’. There is an old saying from a Russian cosmologist who declared ‘cosmologists are often in error but never in doubt’. Apparently they are some who are now doubting.

I know there are dangers of making God the ‘God of the gaps’ but everytime they came to an impasse I found myself thinking ‘that sounds like God’. If you are in the UK and can access the BBC's iPlayer I strongly recommend you giving this programme an airing.

the churches: a distributed network

2010-03-09T09:49:00.001-08:00

I have been re-reading an old book on the origins of the internet. It is called ‘where wizards stay up late’ and is fascinating glimpse into how things happened from the beginning. When I first read it I was struck by several similarities with the efficiency of the net which paralleled the early churches. What? you say, the internet? Yes, let me explain. One of the tragedies of the church history is the way in which the simple and flexible pattern of the Acts’ years so quickly ossified into monarchical bishops and the Roman catholic church. The developed organisation of the churches was a control feature implemented by the leaders in the early years of the 2nd century. To compare the earlier networking of the churches with the structures or polity of the church in the 2nd century is deeply distressing. By the time Ignatius of Antioch is writing letters, just 30 years or so after John, he is strongly advocating a single monarchical bishop who rules over a territory and controls who is ‘in’ or ‘out’. ‘the bishop is as Christ’ says Ignatius. ‘Do nothing without the bishop’ says Ignatius. No baptisms, breaking of bread, are to take place without the bishop. Often those ‘controls’ were with the intention of keeping the flocks safe, but they created a hierarchical dependence which ruined the simple pattern of the earlier churches.

The churches became what the early internet people would have called a ‘decentralised network’ and finally became a ‘centralised network’ in the Roman Catholic structure. Let me see if I can explain. In a centralised network we would have a central hub and from that hub would spread out clusters of other points. Yet, each of those points would be organically connected to the centre hub rather than to each other. In this way the central hub would control all the satellites but a disaster at the hub would wipe out the whole thing. It is an extremely vulnerable set up although one perfectly designed to control all the satellites. So the Vatican would control all the other churches and all the other churches would be dependent upon the church at the centre of the hub. All authority is derived from the central hub which controls all the parts.

Now imagine a situation in which that central hub spawns other hubs which in turn have their own satellites. If one of these hubs goes down all its own satellites will go down but the rest of the network would survive but in pockets. They will have lost their overall communication but each little hub will still be able to control its own satellites. The result will be that we now have scattered clusters which are no longer connected to other scattered clusters. The system where the central hub spawns other central hubs is called a ‘decentralised network’ and is effectively what happens in a denomination. Each little group is self contained and like finches on a island are likely to develop their own unique features...or idiosyncrasies. Effectively each little cluster has become its own ‘centralised network’ and lost the input from all the other centres.

Now imagine something which looks like a piece of a fisherman’s net. There are no special hubs or centres but each knot, or unit, is connected to several others. No one church is ‘more important’ that another has has no hierarchical authority over another. If one of the knots is destroyed communication can flow around it and access the other knots. In other words what you have is inter-dependence with no levels of authority to dictate the patterns. No knot is absolutely dependent upon another knot.

The earliest forms of the internet were designed to produce a ‘distributed network’. There were no official ways of doing anything because there were no ‘officials’. The system provided was is known as ‘high redundancy’ meaning that if any part of the net went missing the information could still find its way home by another route. F F Bruce once wrote that ‘the early church was organised for catastrophe’. He meant that there was a high level of ‘redundancy’ built into its patterns. If catastrophe came it would have its local consequence but the networking of the churches would not be destroyed although it might be damaged. God’s design accommodated the possibility of disaster and ensured that the whole family remained in touch.

Within a couple of generations men had organised the churches into a shape which could not cope with such a catastrophe. The churches would have to depend more and more upon the central authority and the central authority would take more and more power to itself. It is a pattern that can arise in any generation and in any mission field. It is much more efficient... apparently but ultimately it can only degenerate into absolute control. There is a special wisdom in the apparent ‘disorganisation’ of the early churches. As long as God was in their midst they would flourish, without him they would quickly fade and die. The danger of the centralised network and the decentralised network is that they can work without God at their centre.

Rewriting History

2010-03-08T04:24:00.001-08:00

It used to be said that it was the preaching of Wesley and Whitfield that saved England from the French Revolution. it was a fairly well established ‘truth’ of history. However there is no such thing as un-interpreted history. It has also often been said that one of the spoils of victory is that you get to write the history! This means that whenever we read history we need to remember that the writer has a point of view, even if he doesn’t declare it and the prevailing culture will powerfully effect the final ‘history’.

So why am I raising this? Last night I watched the latest in a very well produced series of programmes that the BBC has created called ‘the Seven Ages of Britain’. Its host is David Dimbleby who is now an avuncular figure and a national institution in the UK, as was his father before him. The latest series concentrated on the 18th century. It traced the rise of the middle classes through art and sculpture. It focussed on the famous Hogarth series known as the Rake’s Progress and spoke of the initial sympathy of the UK for the French Revolution which turned to revulsion as the revolution descended into barbaric cruelties. Conspicuous, by its absence, was any reference at all to the 18th century revival and the involvement of Wesley and Whitfield. The methodist revival which was once said to have ‘saved England’ has now been written out of history.

I am a ‘very’ amateur history buff, and I usually have some history book on the go at all times. In truth all my study of history has one theme, I am always ‘looking for the saints’! That is to say my reading of history is always with a view to seeing what God was doing as such times and how the saints responded to the changing seasons. The old historians believed that history had a direction and retold their stories in the light of that timeline. The famous history of Macaulay is really tracing the development of the British Empire and points that get most attention are points which show that ‘development’. Modern historians are adopting a more ‘post modern’ position; there is no big story just a jumble of events which impact on each other. Henry Ford’s derisory comment that ‘history is just one d***ed thing after another’ is pretty close to the current viewpoint; there is no design and no purpose. We trace how we got here but it has all been arbitrary and random. Modern TV historians of the kind of David Starkey and Simon Schama are of this school. Their knowledge of facts is immense but they have no ‘theory of history’. In their dumbing down of history for the TV audience they both constantly make assertions and cut corners for which they have no evidence; they put little Thucididean quotes into the mouths of their characters to make their point. The history is consequently wide and flowing but not deep. We are left with generalities which are the convictions of the historian and where the historian has no conviction we are faced with wide open spaces. Starkey, Schama and Dimbleby are men with great skills in communication but they have no dimension of the divine; their histories are two dimensional.

The East Germans used to joke that whereas all countries had an uncertain future they were the only country with an ‘uncertain history’. They were referring to the process whereby their history was being constantly rewritten from a Marxist-Lenonist perspective. We are now, apparently, all East Germans. There is a famous axiom of historians that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. That means that just because they haven’t found it it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. With the current batch of high profile historians pursuing their set course there are set to be great gaps in the history the public and our children are learning. But those ‘gaps’ are not ‘evidence of absence’ but only evidence of the particular historian’s perspective. Modern historians claim to be more objective than their predecessors but people who convince themselves that they are 100% objective fall into the greatest trap of all, they have no awareness of their powerful subjectivity. Contrariwise the honest man who knows he will inevitably be shaped by his subjectivity has a much better chance of guarding against his own bias and thereby of writing a more objective history.

So by all means listen and watch the new historians but dig into some of the older ones too and whenever you listen or watch say to yourself ‘there is no such thing as uninterpreted history and what I am hearing is just one man’s narrow viewpoint’. Only Bible history is 100% reliable.

7. WORSHIP, praise and service

2010-01-29T08:57:00.001-08:00

You often hear the statement that the first use of the word 'worship' comes in the story of Abraham's intention to sacrifice Isaac. And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.” Gen 22:5 but this is really only true in an English version. The Hebrew word usually translated 'worship' is Strong's H7812 - shachah and means 'to prostrate oneself'. It is the physical attitude of unconditional surrender and of utter compliance with the will of another.

If we were to draw a stick-figure of a man 'worshipping' it would be of someone lying on their face before another. Not that I am advocating any 'method' of worship, I am trying to identify the essence of worship. It contains within its sense the idea of surrendering to someone much more powerful who will now be served without hesitation. It is the thought captured in Psalm 2 where we are admonished to Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Psa 2:12 This is the kiss of willing obeisance rather than of affection.

Christ's rebuke to Satan's temptation was “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” Matt 4:10 It is an entirely appropriate answer to someone who had said “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Matt 4:9. The Greek word for 'worship' used here is also highly suggestive. It is the word Strong's G4352 - proskyneō In its origins it meant 'to kiss towards'. Again it is the picture of absolute submission to another; it is a good Greek equivalent of an original Hebrew word.

Digging a little deeper unearths another vital theme. In the wilderness temptations all Christ's answers come from the book of Deuteronomy and 'you shall worship the lord your God, and Him only you shall serve' is a quotation from Deuteronomy where it says You shall fear the LORD your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name. Deut 6:13 It is significant that 'fear' is changed to 'worship' by the Lord in the wilderness. True worship is close to fear but has the element of a willing surrender in it too.

True worship is beyond words or forms; it is an inward disposition. An old friend of mine used to say 'the language of true worship, like the language of true love, has a very small vocabulary'. Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few. Eccl 5:2

6. Godwards - thou shalt be unto me...

2010-01-22T06:51:00.001-08:00

Its key purpose, and this may shock, was not evangelism but to be a people centred upon God and available to him. OK that's where we left off last time. Let me re-emphasise the point with a couple of prepositions and some pronouns...

The nation that became the OT covenant community were given this 'if.. then..' promise. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” Ex 19:4–6 NKJV I have my eye on that little phrase which is repeated twice in this passage.. 'unto me'. This is God staking his claim on this people. If they accepted the terms of the covenant they would become 'his' in a way unique among all other nations and if they accepted the terms of this covenant they would become a 'priestly kingdom and a holy nation to me'. The whole orientation of these opening words is 'Godwards'. There is no mention of a promised land nor of a commission; these would come in due time but are not the main focus.

In the 'Missing Jewel of Worship' A W Tozer commented "We're here to be worshippers first and workers only second. We take a convert and immediately make a worker out of him. God never meant it to be so. God meant that a convert should learn to be a worshipper, and after that he can learn to be a worker. The work done by a worshipper will have eternity in it."

Did you ever notice the order in this well known verse? Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” Matt 4:10 NKJV. Worship first, workers second. What is true of the individual is true of the covenant community and is true of the local expression of that covenant community too. The 'purpose' of the universal church and the local church is to 'worship and to serve' in that order.

These are not two different 'views' of the local church, this is a single view with two aspects. The church that worships will inevitably serve, but the church that serves may never discover the wonder of worship.

5. The Song of Moses and the song of the Lamb

2010-01-20T11:55:00.001-08:00

Meanwhile, back at the 'church'. BTW If you want to read these blogs on 'the church' scroll to the bottom of the page where you will find various 'topic categories', choose 'church' and you can read the whole series...

The heading for this blog is taken from Rev 15:3 where we see those who sing these two songs. The Song of Moses we know from Exodus15 but the Song of the Lamb? I think it is the song of the 'redeemed' in Rev 5:9-10. So how are these two songs linked? They are both songs of deliverance with a view to the future. The book of the Revelation constantly uses themes from Israel's captivities in Egypt and Babylon and looks towards God's ultimate deliverances and to the purpose of that deliverance.

The Song of Moses is very interesting. There are a couple of themes in it which are surprising. At this point of Israel's history God had not promised to enter into a national covenant neither had he mentioned the possibility of a sanctuary in which he would live among them. Nevertheless there are pre-echoes present in the song of Moses. ...You have guided them in Your strength To Your holy habitation. Ex 15:13 NKJV and even more remarkable... You will bring them in and plant them In the mountain of Your inheritance, In the place, O LORD, which You have made For Your own dwelling, The sanctuary, O LORD, which Your hands have established. Ex 15:17 NKJV In the first reference Moses might have had in mind Sinai as God's habitation but the second reference clearly follows the possession of the land of Canaan. Let me make the point more clearly. God does not mention a national covenant until Exodus 19 and even then there is no mention of a sanctuary. The sanctuary, that I may dwell among them, comes into the story at Ex 25 after the national covenant has been enacted. And yet here, prophetically, Moses refers to the ultimate purpose of the possession of the land, it is to be the place of God's sanctuary.

The nation of Israel would have an identity which was determined by the fact that the nation surrounded the Sanctuary or, to put it the other way about, that they would be a nation at whose centre God would have his own Sanctuary. There were to be, and this was their destiny, a kingdom of priests to God and a holy nation. This is a key feature of the old covenant community and again of the new covenant community. Its key purpose, and this may shock, was not evangelism but to be a people centred upon God and available to him.

Tsunamis, earthquakes, genocide, and the love of God

2010-01-15T06:32:00.001-08:00

I first wrote this little article for a weekly contribution to Sermonindex about 6 years ago.. but now in the face of the Haiti earthquake I still have no better answer.

Tsunami toll could top 100,000”; The Times. “God is Love”; the Bible

time to pause and think

I have juxtaposed two stark statements as the heading for this week’s devotional meditation. How does the Christian consider these two statements? Do they cancel out each other? Do we make a choice of believing one or the other? If not, in absolute terms, do we close our minds to one or other of these ‘facts’? The question uppermost in my mind is ‘why did this happen’? At the risk, of you reading no further into this little meditation, I will tell you frankly, I don’t know. And I will go further, I don’t believe anyone else knows either.

It is not unbelief or backsliding to ask questions. The prophet Jeremiah was to become a witness to the death of his nation. Everything he recognised as God’s love gifts would be swept away; the Priesthood and the Temple, the Throne of David, the very nation would be dragged ignominiously into exile. As the horrors begin to unfold Jeremiah lifts up his voice’ Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? (Jer 12:1 KJV)

It is a wonderful and honest statement. Underneath Jeremiah’s acknowledgement of God’s nature a question is bubbling. Jeremiah is trying to make sense of what he sees, as no doubt many have and many will in the future. It is a reworking of Abraham’s rhetorical question; That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen 18:25 KJV)

The legitimacy of the question was recognised by the Lord in Luke’s gospel; There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luk 13:1-5 KJV) The word translated ‘suppose’ here is ‘dokeO’ to judge or decide. The Lord is asking the question ‘how are you thinking about these events?’

The astute will notice that so far we are doing pretty well for questions although answers are a bit short in supply. It is right to ask these questions and very human. We were created with the power of reason, and the need to link cause and effect. Somehow we have always known that every event must have a cause. This is the admission of every child who asks a question beginning with the word ‘why’. ‘Why’ demands that there is a reasonable basis to our universe. Some Christians shrink from such questions; they feel that somehow the question is impertinent. The command to … love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (Luk 10:27 KJV) undercuts that escape from reason.

The mind or understanding however needs more that raw data to make its right deductions; it requires revelation. Paul prayed, in the Ephesians’ letter, that The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph 1:18 KJV) The understanding needs ‘light’ from outside as well as its own inherent deductive powers. In that wonderful chapter about ‘faith’ in Hebrews we have the statement By faith we understand that the ages were framed by a word of God, so that the things being seen not to have come into being out of the things that appear. (Heb 11:3 MKJV)

This kind of understanding must always begin with faith and faith, according to my own personal definition, is right response to revelation. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God… (Psa 14:1a KJV). To ‘leave God out of the calculation’ is the Bible definition of a fool. Conversely The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Pro 9:10 KJV) Abraham and Jeremiah both begin their questions with two basic assumptions; that God is Righteous, and that God is God. In other words God had the power to do what He wills, but what He wills will always be righteous because He Himself is Righteous and He can only act in consistency with His Own character.

Abraham was about to see the destruction of Sodom, Jeremiah was about to see the destruction of Jerusalem, but for both the underlying question is how can God justify this behaviour? The spirit of both these men is identical. Abraham’s subsequent conversation was not the bartering of a village market, but the same response as that of Jeremiah. The KJV expresses the scene beautifully; …let me talk with thee of thy judgments... I heard a man recently who said that he is often angry with God; a chill went through my spirit when I heard the words. The man who gets angry with God is never going to get an answer the question ‘why’? We never get an answer to the question ‘why’ when we hurl it heavenwards through clenched teeth. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. (Psa 25:9 KJV) We may recall that Moses was described as ‘the meekest man in all the earth’; it is written of him He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. (Psa 103:7 KJV) I think it is more than a simple Hebrew parallelism. Some people only every see God’s acts; the meekest man saw God’s ways.

To be pedantic, we would have to say that all that humans will ever see is the ‘outer-skirts’ of His ways. This was Job’s realisation; The pillars of the heavens tremble and are astonished at His rebuke. He quiets the sea with His power, and by His understanding He shatters the proud. By His Spirit the heavens were beautiful; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. Lo, these are the edges of His ways; but what a whisper of a word we hear of Him! And the thunder of His power who can understand? (Job 26:11-14 MKJV) Speaking elsewhere of God’s ways the psalmist said; Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. (Psa 77:19 KJV) What a vivid picture that is, especially when we recall that this passage is referring to the Red Sea and the Exodus. ‘God’s way is in the sea’; unimaginable, unpredictable, unrepeatable, untraceable. Theoretically you could visit this spot today, and find nothing but, in its fleeting moment, God walked here and did things of eternal consequences.

The words of Jesus in Luke’s gospel are an abiding warning against an understanding based on joining up the dots by the shortest possible route. The Luke 13 passage is instructive because it deals with both human culpability and natural disaster. In the first Pilate might have been blamed, in the second an earth tremor, but in both cases the Lord refuses to connect the disaster event with individual or group sin. This is important when we consider the 1986 Chernobyl Meltdown, the 2004 Tsunami or the 9/11 WTC implications. I will ask and answer my own question… “Do you suppose that the residents of Belorus and Ukraine, the Indian ocean seacoasts or the Haiti… were sinners above all… that they suffered such things?” “No, I don’t”. This may surprise and unsettle some of my friends but I am sure that these words in Luke are to prevent us making such connections. It is impossible to deduce cause from effect just by joining up the dots.

Such a deduction would need revelation as well as information. Some will claim such revelation and quickly defend their opinions, but I have no such revelation and in the absence of plain New Testament teaching cannot submit to these conclusions.

There is another classic portion of scripture where dangerous questions are asked. This time the one asking is Asaph, one of David’s chief musicians. His question is to be found in Psalm 73. He is in the middle of the same theological dilemma, and starts again by declaring God to be good, but his own thinking has him on the slide. He has watched the wicked and they are ‘getting away with it’; in fact, they are thriving. He wonders whether his own clean walk has just been a waste of time, a sheer vanity. He hasn’t spoken these things publicly for fear of causing others to stusmble, but as he meditates his thinking becomes ‘too painful for me’. There is a limit to our comprehension of suffering. One of the most wicked men of the last century, Joseph Stalin, once remarked ‘One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic’. There is a truth in this cynical comment. We do not usually mourn more over 18 buried under Siloam’s tower than we would over 17 unless the extra one is our own child. Perhaps this is part of God’s goodness to us that we cannot perceive what ‘50000 victims of a Tsunami’ really means. We are more likely to shed our tears over the thought of a single person weeping for his son, than of 50000 faces we never saw, being swept away. It is not until Asaph entered the place of God’s presence that the slide stopped; we shall find the same.

This is where the greater revelation of the New Testament makes its special contribution. God is not afar off, checking the latest statistics. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? (Luk 12:6 KJV) If you check the ‘going rate’ with Matthew’s gospel you will know that the price was 2 sparrows for a farthing, but the sellers would sometimes have a special offer of five sparrows for 2 farthings. They had ‘thrown in’ in the fifth sparrow without cost. Even this ‘sparrow without a price’, added almost as an afterthought or bonus, was not forgotten before God. Matthew touches the same truth but his phrase almost sounds unfinished, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (Mat 10:29 KJV), and different translators have added words to make up the sense, without your Father’s consent, without your Father’s will, I prefer to leave it as it is; ‘without your Father’. He was not far off checking statistics; He was there, when the sparrow fell. God’s capacity for sorrow is infinite.

In each one of those private tragedies which make up the 100,000 He was there too. He felt each pain and panic. He feels now the wounds of each bereaved loved one. He feels the pain of the coming years. I recall an old lady who used to be part of our church. I knew her in the 1980s. On her mantel piece in her home she had a faded photograph of her younger brother in army uniform. On his birthday, each year, she would weep. “He died”, she would say, “on his 19th birthday, at the Somme”. Over 60 years and the wounds were not healed. God’s wounds have not healed either. The pain that this world has caused and does cause Him is beyond thought or calculation. God’s capacity for sorrow is infinite.

How can God allow all this pain? I don’t know but I know He shares it and ‘feels’ it far more than we ever could. To the sure knowledge of His absolute righteousness, I am able to add the revelation that God is Love. This love with which God still loves His world through all its sorrows was demonstrated once in its fullness; But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8 NASB) and that anchor holds all my other thoughts secure. There is a pattern, I am sure, that is beyond all human knowing and a day may come when we will see more than just ‘the edges of His ways’, but in the meantime through tears and pain His people must lift their hearts as did Jeremiah all those years ago.

My soul has been rejected from peace; I have forgotten happiness. So I say, My strength has perished, And so has my hope from the LORD. Remember my affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and bitterness. Surely my soul remembers And is bowed down within me.
This I recall to my mind, Therefore I have hope. The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, For His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, says my soul, Therefore I have hope in Him. (Lam 3:17-24 NASB)

a fearless future

2010-01-13T05:28:00.001-08:00

Over 30 years ago as I stood in the beautiful sweep of Izmir’s harbour I looked upwards to the hill behind the city. It Bible times the city was known as Smyrna and the hill was known as “The Crown of Smyrna” because of the way that buildings ‘crowned’ the hill’s summit. It inevitably brought to mind the promise of Jesus to the congregation in Smyrna that the overcomers would receive 'the crown of life’; Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. Rev 2:10.

There are some mind-stretching concepts here. This congregation was about to undergo the devil’s wrath against the people of God. God could have stopped it easily but he had chosen not to. Why? Any answer would be just human speculation. Their imprisonment, although the consequence of the devil’s activity, had a divine purpose; in order `(Greek hina) that you may be tested. Trials are an inevitable part of Christian experience; they ‘go with the territory’. As Peter tells us it is not ‘strange’ or ‘foreign’...Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; 1Pet 4:12. My old Bible college principal used to say that ‘Satan was God’s chief inspector of boilers’! God is confident in his workmanship in the lives of his saints and is not afraid that they will fail the testings.

The sufferings of the congregation in Smyrna were not a mere possibility; they were scheduled. These are things that they are ‘about to suffer’ are definitely on the way, but their duration is fixed from before their beginning. You will have tribulation for 10 days. There is a snippet of a hymn on the edges of my mind but I can’t recall it all. It contains the lines ‘if God hath set their number ten, you ne’er shall have eleven’. This is the promise for all the saints. It will not go on for ever... a lifetime at most. ;-) No trial permitted by God is open ended but carefully circumscribed, thus far and no further. It is said of one the riders in the book of Revelation that ‘power was given unto him to make war with the saints...’ Rev 13:7 ‘it was given unto him’ , he did not usurp it and beyond his limits he cannot go.

There is a similar promise which is much better known generally to the saints. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1Cor 13:10 This is the ESV version. The assurance that there is a fixed ‘exit’ from this temptation is the hope that enables the saint to ‘endure’ under the weight of it. That sure ‘exit’ strengthens us as we ‘endure it’.

Perhaps the most amazing part of our original verse is the command ‘not to fear any of those things which you are about to suffer’. They are coming but you are not to fear them. You are not to fear ‘any of those things’; we are not allowed a single exception. The saints’ trials will result in crowns to cast at his feet for those who obeyed him and refused to fear the future. And why should we not 'fear the future'? Simply because of the central theme of the book of the Revelation... God is still on the throne.

the reactions of the saints

2010-01-09T04:55:00.001-08:00

Just a simple personal testimony today.

Reactions are interesting things. I suppose they are the product of character and experience. They say that a child is born only with the fear and consequently the appropriate actions for loud noises and falling. A memory comes to mind. When one of our babies was just a few days old and sleeping in her cot we were visited by a local doctor. While he was attending our dog began to bark. I ‘shushed’ her and said ‘you will wake the baby’. But the baby didn’t wake. I asked the doctor why. His answer was that she had ‘grown up with it’, meaning that her months in the womb had accustomed her to the barking of a dog. No doubt other noises would have woken her.

I have had some interesting reactions myself in the last couple of weeks. I have been diagnosed with fairly serious health issues. So what is the ‘reaction’ to such news? Well, a degree of shock certainly but also an instinctive rising of the heart God-wards and an instinctive reaching out to the saints. Some others might instinctively reach out to other means of support, a medical textbook... or a bottle. At such times you long for safety and instinctively the saint knows that he will find it among the saints. This is not the first time I have been the happy recipient of generous love and the assurance of prayer; it is impossible to measure how precious it is. Paul once commented on his trial of imprisonment with the comment; For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, Phil 1:19 NKJV It is really quite a remarkable comment. We might have thought that the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ would be all that anyone could possibly need but Paul makes a couplet of it, ‘through your prayer AND the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ’. He knew he needed the prayers of the saints. We all do, and yet so often we give the impression of such self-sufficiency that we isolate ourselves from the supply that the saints are to provide.

One of the signs of regeneration is a genuine change in our reactions. Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. 1 Pet 2:24–25 NKJV Did you notice the tense there? ‘you were like sheep going astray’? Literally, ‘you used to be like sheep going astray’. That was the old unregenerate instinct and reaction, ‘prone to wander’. But regeneration effects a radical change in nature and with a new nature come new reactions. The instinct now, even if we should sin, is not to break lose but to huddle closer to a Shepherd who bore our sins in his own body on the tree. Trials which encourage such reactions are truly blessings in disguise.

6. Happy Anniversary?

2010-01-06T04:15:00.001-08:00

We have just celebrated our 45th Wedding Anniversary and we sat and talked about how well we could (or couldn't!) remember the details of the actual wedding day. God never forgot any of the details of the great day of the Sinai covenant. He constantly reminded Israel of it when in their spiritual promiscuity they turned to idols. But he remembered it with remarkable affection too.

The Ezekiel 16 chapter is addressed to 'Jerusalem' but is really intended for the whole nation. Jeremiah writing a little earlier does the same thing in a passage which is as moving, in its way, as that of Ezekiel.

It begins Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem... Jer 2:2 but what follows makes it very clear that God is thinking of the whole nation and its beginnings. Ezekiel speaks of the beginnings from the perspective of the utter unworthiness of the nation but Jeremiah had taken a different perspective. He gives us an amazing glimpse into the heart of God; "Go and cry in the hearing of Jerusalem, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: "I remember you, The kindness of your youth, The love of your betrothal, When you went after Me in the wilderness, In a land not sown. Jer 2:2. This is really an extraordinary memory of the Sinai event. That word 'kindness' is really covenant love or 'loyal love'. We are used to hearing about God's 'loyal covenant love' but in this instance God is remembering that of Israel!

How well do you remember this story? Do you remember any expression of Israel's loyal love? He describes the event: "I remember you, The kindness of your youth, The love of your betrothal, When you went after Me in the wilderness, In a land not sown. Israel [was] holiness to the LORD, The firstfruits of His increase..." Jer 2:2-3. God is remembering Israel's faithfulness to him as it was expressed at the beginning. We are usually mindful of Israel's abject failure but God remembered a time when they responded in a remarkable way to his mercy.

During the very covenant ceremony Israel was unfaithful to her bridegroom and God was ready to wipe them out and start all again with just Moses. Moses pleaded for them and God condescended to continue with them. Ex 32:33 For the next year they remained at the foot of Sinai until they had completed all that was required for their priestly role, especially God's own mobile temple that we know as the Tabernacle. During this time the people of Israel 'only had eyes for one'. They brought their daily gifts with such abandonment that Moses had to make the most remarkable financial appeal in history... he pleaded with them to STOP giving. Exodus 36:5-7.

God remembered these days when Israel was 'holiness to the Lord'; entirely separated to her bridegroom'. And this was no 'cupboard love' in which the people loved God for what they could get out of him. This was a time when they '...went after Me in the wilderness, In a land not sown. Jer 2:2. That's the kind of bride/church that God has always had in mind. There is an echo of this in Christ's word to the church in Ephesus in the Revelation. Of all the various conditions found in the churches of the Revelation only Ephesus is threatened with extinction, and with this solemn comment; Nevertheless I have [this] against you, that you have left your first love. Rev 2:4. God never forgets first love and He will never be satisfied with anything less.

an excursus: the wonder of acceptance

2010-01-05T12:52:00.001-08:00

The passage I quoted yesterday from Ezekiel is a very moving one. It describes 'Jerusalem' as a foundling, the unwanted child that is discarded and left to die. 'Jerusalem' here is both the city and a means of speaking of the nation in the way that we might say 'relations between Washington and London have become strained'. In such a statement we are really regarding the 'capital' city as representing the whole nation.

The point is this child had nothing 'going for it', nothing to attract anyone to it, no virtue, no merit. This is always the basis of God's dealing with men and women. He does not 'chose' us on the basis of any merit or virtue, there is none. As we come to him by faith in Christ he declares us 'right with him' or as the theologians call it 'justifies us by faith'. 'God, him say me OK' is the Pigeon English explanation for such a wonder. God takes us as he finds us and any attempt as self-improvement only delays the process.

This is the truth of Ezekiel's foundling. This was how God found his people and he did not demand their improvement before he took them as his people. He did insist on their choice to commit themselves to his plans for their life. He did insist that when they had become his people the pattern of their lives would change, but change was not a condition of their acceptance.

Among those who love the truth of holiness there is a perpetual danger, the danger of preaching justification by sanctification. By that I mean the temptation to believe that although we come to God on the basis of sheer unmerited grace our continued acceptance is on the basis of our good behaviour. As Paul might have put it, having been accepted by grace are you now made perfect by your own achievements?

Let's return to Ezekiel's world. This is what God found; As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live. Ezek 16:16:4-6

This is how God 'felt'. "When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine," says the Lord GOD. Ezek 16:8.

and this is what God did first... "When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine," says the Lord GOD. Ezek 16:8.

and this is what he did second... "Then I washed you in water; yes, I thoroughly washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil. Ezek 16:9

Did you notice that he loved and embraced this human piece of flotsam and swore an oath and entered into a covenant BEFORE he cleansed it? Be sure to understand the order here; first justification, second sanctification.

5. you are invited to a wedding

2010-01-04T02:25:00.001-08:00

It is almost lost in the fullness of the details of the Sinai event, but God has taken care to ensure we understand what is happening at this point in the history of 'the church of Israel'. And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Ex 19:17. What an amazing scene.

Now that they are no longer the 'servants of another' God brings them to a secret trysting place in the desert of Sinai. This event created 'the church of Israel' and it takes the form of a solemn contract. Speaking of these events some centuries later Ezekiel described it in daring language; ... I swore to you, and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Ezek 16:8. It is important to notice that God records a change in his relationship with the nation of Israel from this time; and you became mine. Were they not 'his' before this event? Yes, but not in the unique relationship of a marriage covenant.

This distinction is recorded in the opening stages of the making of the Sinai covenant. So far as I know God had made no promise to enter into such a relationship with them while they were slaves in Egypt but now, set free, they were 'eligible' and God begins his courtship; Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. Ex 19:5 The whole earth is 'his', all the nations are 'his', the whole creation is 'his' but the nation of Israel were going to become 'his' in a unique and exclusive way.

Although this covenant it initiated by a sovereign God of overwhelming power the covenant is not imposed upon Israel, it is submitted to them for their full hearted consent. It is only 'if' they 'obey his voice and keep his covenant' that Jehovah will take them as his bride.

If we read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament we will see a pattern emerging here, the church is also a bride. The 'church of Israel' was also the 'bride of Jehovah'. The 'church of Jesus Christ' is also the 'bride of Christ'. Now that we have established that link let's ask the question again; 'what is a church?' It is a bride. What is the purpose of a bride? Procreation? Faithful witness? The effectual change of a society? A bride might fulfil all these tasks but none of them does justice to the question "what is the purpose of a bride"? and although a church may excel in all these areas these are not the purpose of its existence. To discover its purpose we shall need to see God's view of it when it fails in its purpose.

4. that they may serve me.

2010-01-01T10:56:00.001-08:00

The danger is that we think we know the Exodus story so well that we have stopped thinking about it. When Moses was arrested by the burning bush it led to a long conversation in which God expounded Moses' mission. Just what was the purpose of Moses' mission? The usual answer is something along the lines of 'he brought them out that he might bring them in'.Deut 6:23 but that is not the whole story. God's intention all along was to make them his own people. As part of that purpose he would 'bring them out' and as part of that purpose he would 'bring them in' but the purpose was to make them his own covenant community; the church of Jehovah - the 'qahal of Jehovah' Deut 23:1–3, 8; Judg 20:2; 21:5; 1 Chr 28:8

This theme comes through strongly in Exodus. Here is a KJV quotation from Moses' initial encounter with God at the bush; And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. Ex 3:12 KJV. I have opted for the KJV to illustrate a point obscured in all modern translations and to show it more clearly I have put the personal pronouns into bold font. Did you notice the switch from the singular to the plural? 'Thee' and 'thou' are singular and refer to Moses alone. 'Ye' on the other hand is plural and refers to Moses and the whole people of Israel. Moses was commissioned and promised that his mission would result in the whole nation being gathered to 'serve' God at Sinai. To get the sense in the NKJV we would have to put the word 'all' in between the words 'you' and 'shall' in the last sentence.

The theme continues in Moses appointments with Pharaoh; 'And the LORD spoke to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Let My people go, that they may serve Me.' Ex 8:1. They were to be set free from Pharaoh's service to be engaged in the service of God. The message to Pharaoh is given in two slightly different forms; 'that they may serve me' Ex 8:1 and 'that they may hold a feast unto me'. Ex 5:1. This is not Moses telling a half-truth but simply an expansion of the full message. They would 'serve' God by 'holding a feast' for God.

So what is the purpose of the covenant community, the 'church of Israel'? It was to wait on God as his servants at a feast. Their prime task was not evangelism or even witness but simply to be a people available for God. Their deliverance from bondage and the inheritance of their own land were necessary as 'no man can serve two masters', (Matt 6:24) but God's intention was to have a people were separated from all other peoples so that they could be God's people... without distraction. Exodus 19:5-6.

The name under which this covenant was to be undertaken was that of Jehovah. Ex 6:3; that would be the 'signature' on the covenant document. In Exodus chapter 6 there is a 'mission statement' of God's intentions and at the heart of it lie the words..."I will take you as My people, and I will be your God... Ex 6:7.
The underlying purpose of Exodus was not Israel-centred it was God-centred. Yes, Israel would get their freedom and a promised land, but God would get a covenant community who would be available to him as his servants. What we have been calling the 'church of Israel' was in fact the 'church of God'.

3. resetting all the dials

2009-12-31T12:50:00.001-08:00

Now here's an appropriate theme for a New Year's Day!

Just two verses before the first reference to ancient Israel being a 'church' we have a fascinating declaration; "This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you." Exodus 12:2. God was resetting all the dials. This event would mark a brand new start which would culminate in new community.

Up until this time God's dealings had been with individuals but he was now going to create a 'covenant community' and it was to be marked by a change in the calendar. It would take a series of events to bring a 'new' covenant into existence. God's judgments would be visited on the enemy and a lamb would die and the individuals of Israel would have to pass under its blood to reach the safety of their homes. The families within their blood-stained homes were to eat the roast flesh of the lamb and later come to a mount that burned with fire. Heb 12:18-21. This was ancient Israel's Passover lamb, later a lamb would be provided for all nations who would be not ancient Israel's passover but 'Christ, our passover...' 1Cor 5:7.

The sacred archive is laying down a pattern for us that we are expected to recognise in its greater fulfilment; Israel's passover was not only an event and a commemoration, it was a prophecy... Luke 22:15,16. In time the 'new' covenant that Moses brought into being became an 'old covenant' and passed away. In its place would come a genuine 'new covenant' by a greater mediator; a better covenant based on better promises. Heb 8:6.

Passover and Sinai established the basis for a 'church of Israel'; a covenant community set apart from all other communities. Calvary and Pentecost established the basis for another 'church, the 'church of Christ'; a covenant community also set apart from all other communities.

To understand the true nature of 'church' we must not separate Passover and Sinai... nor Calvary and Pentecost.

2. words have histories

2009-12-30T13:38:00.001-08:00

Frequently when I am preaching I say, "Bible words seldom have definitions, they have histories". This touches on the very purpose of the Biblical revelation and the way we are expected to use it. Over centuries God was laying down not just a historical archive but a trail by which he would educate his people. These stories became embedded in the psyche of the nation and were thus available for God to use to build truth; line upon line, precept upon precept.

So where will we find the first elements of 'ekklesia', the covenant community? We find them in the story of the Exodus and that old King James Version does us an unexpected service here which is lost in all modern translations. I refer to two occasions in particular when the word 'ekklesia' is not not used in reference to the New Covenant community but rather the Old Covenant community. This is the KJV version of Stephen's defence in Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" So far as I know no English translation since the KJV has ever used the word 'church' here. Every version, realising that this is a reference to the Old Covenant community of Israel, has chosen to avoid the word 'church' lest the reader should confuse the 'Old Covenant Community' with the 'New Covenant Community'. The other instance is Heb 2:12 where again only the KJV uses the word 'church'. I am not saying that modern versions are wrong to use the word 'congregation' in these two place, only that by not using the word 'church' we have lost the clue that 'church' is not a New Testament concept; it is Old Testament!

If we want to understand the nature of the concept of 'church' we shall need to go back almost to the beginnings. That Hebrews reference is very valuable as it provides a vital connection to an old Hebrew word. It works like this... Heb 2:12, in the Greek, has the word 'ekklesia' but the verse is a quotation from that wonderful Psalm 22:22 where the Hebrew word is 'qahal'. 'Qahal' is the word used in Exodus 12:6 where most modern versions will translate it as 'assembly'. It is used often of the nation of Israel and was often translated by the word 'ekklesia' in the Greek version of the Bible called the Septuagint. When the New Testament writers used the word 'ekklesia' it already had a history!

Where is all this taking us? We are discovering that the nation of Israel, and the disciples, already had a concept of what we have now come to speak of as 'church'. As far as they were concerned, being part of the Covenant Community of Israel, they were already 'in the church'. Imagine their shock then at hearing that Christ had an intention to build his own church and speaks of it in the future tense; "I will build my church..." Matt 16:18. One 'church' was already in existence but Christ had plans for another! We shall learn much of the purpose of the 'church' as the New Covenant Community if we spend a little time considering what 'church' meant for the Old Testament Community.

1. what is a church?

2009-12-29T23:09:00.001-08:00

Can we define 'church', 'baptism', 'bishop', 'deacon', 'apostle', 'prophet', 'pastor'? All these words and many more like them are not really English words at all, 'they are transliterated Greek words; ie the Greek letters have been replaced with English letters rather than the words being translated into English words. The English translations would be 'House of the Lord', 'plunge', 'supervisor', 'servant', and 'messenger'. The problem that lies with tranliterating rather than translating is that it leaves us with no definition of the words other than the way in which I choose to use them. Let me try to illustrate what I mean, let's take the Greek word 'kuon'. (if you know what it means please humour me and pretend that you don't for a while). Now suppose I begin to use that word in a sentence or two. "The kuon's trunk is very versatile and its tusks are very dangerous". Ah, you say "I know what kuon means". But what you don't know is that I am using the word wrongly; 'kuon' is the Greek word for 'dog'. If enough people begin to talk about the kuon's tusks it will form an image of 'kuon' in the mind which is defective, to say the least.

This same thing happens with words like 'bishop'. "Ah," you say, "I know what a bishop is." It is very probable that you don't know what a 'bishop' is but rather what someone's personal definition of 'bishop' is. This means Bible students have to work hard and consistently to try to use Bible words accurately, otherwise they effectively re-define them. This is what has happened to the word 'bishop'; centuries of wrong use have re-defined it and now when we see the word in the Bible we have to make a conscious effort to correct our immediate image of a 'bishop'.

The word 'church' probably comes from a Greek phrase 'KURioKos oikos'. (I have capitalised the key letters to show the link with 'church' or if you are Scots 'kirk'. The word 'kuriokos' means 'belonging to the Lord'. The whole phrase 'kuriokos oikos' means 'the Lord's House' and is NEVER used in the Bible. The word 'church' ought not to be in your Bible. So why can I find it 115 times in my King James Bible? Well there is a history to this.

The first 'English from Greek' translation was done by William Tyndale in the 16th century. His version only uses the word 'church' twice... to describe heathen temples! Where most versions have 'church' Tyndale had 'congregation'. The word he was translating was not 'kuriokos oikos' but 'ekklesia'. This word has a long history but it means a group of people separated from the 'crowd' with a special purpose in mind. It can only mean 'people', it can never mean a building.

So where do we get the word 'church' from? In the early 17th century England got a new king, a Scot. He was king of two kingdoms and consequently the Scots know him as James VI of Scotland, while the English know him as James I of England. But James didn't want to be king of two kingdoms, he wanted to be king of a United Kingdom (that phrase is his!) He wanted a United Kingdom, with a United Parliament, and a United Religion and he wanted to be head over it all. Half a century later, during the reign of his son Charles I, this lead to the English Civil War.

Part of James' project to create one nation out of two was the book we know (and love) called the King James Bible. He specifically insisted that Tyndale's word 'congregation' be replaced with the word 'church'. But the word 'church' really meant a building and ought not to be in the King James Version at all. We cannot turn back four centuries so we are stuck with the word 'church' which we have to constantly re-define! The waters become very muddy. So what is an 'ekklesia' and how would be recognise one? In Bible terms the 'ekklesia' is a covenant community. It is not part of the local community, in fact, it has been 'called out of' the local community and become a separate entity with a distinct purpose. Over the next few days, I will try to define 'ekklesia' from a Biblical perspective and try to see how well it compares with those things we tends to call 'churches'.

If you would like to ask questions or discuss this please join us on the Biblebase Discussion Forum under the thread what is a church?

a Saviour who is Christ the Lord

2009-12-23T05:49:00.001-08:00

The clearest statement of the implications of the birth of Christ was revealed to an unexpected group of men; not a priest like Zacahrias, or to the wise Magi, but to simply uneducated shepherds who were keeping watch over their flock. When we think of shepherds we must be sure to guard against the mental picture of our British hill shepherds. These sleep in their warm beds at night and now only 'guard' the sheep against their own folly. I recall watching some Romanian shepherds some years ago. They were huddled around a large fire and carried heavy stick to defend their flock against bears and wolves. They wore evil smelling sheepskins and were not the kind of people you would want to invite to the hospital to welcome the arrival of your baby!

The shepherds represent the outsiders. They were disapproved of by the religious leaders as a result of their irregular pattern of life and their irregular attendance in the religious festivals. And yet it was to these unlikely social outcasts that the herald angels gave their proclamation; "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord". Luke 2:11

And the promise was not just for a spiritual or intellectual elite but was the promise of 'great joy which will be to all people.' Luke 2:10. On the assumption that you are not a visitor from another planet, there is a wonderful welcome for you here. Although religious particularism and social etiquette might exclude these shepherds, this message specifically declares that the message is for 'all people'. Human beings constantly draw little circles around their own groups to exclude the non-conformers but the angels draw a larger circle which encompasses all our petty divisions. They have the divine perspective.

'Glory to God in the highest,

And on earth peace and goodwill among men'

Luke 2:14

The Gospel according to Zacharias

2009-12-22T05:59:00.001-08:00

Mary spent three months in the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth and Zacharias had not spoken a word. I wonder if he listened to the conversation of the women. (I knew a man who came to Christ as a result of listening in on a conversation between two women!) Mary returned home to Nazareth and Zacharias lived with his silence and his meditations on the overheard conversations. When John was born the Holy Spirit filled Zacharias and from his newly opened lips came a stunning prophecy. It culminated in a thrilling prediction of John's destiny.

But the first half is all about another child who will not be born for another six months. This child will not come from the house of Levi as John, but from the house of David. It is a wonderful prophecy of Christ but it is also a wonderful declaration of the purpose of the Christ's coming.

He would bring a 'horn of salvation', a symbol of power and authority. Luke 1:69. This would be a powerful salvation.

The salvation he would bring would be very comprehensive; 'from our enemies and out of the hand of all that hate us.' Luke 1:71

The purpose of 'having been delivered from the hand of our enemies' is that his servants 'might serve him...' Luke 1:74. It was designed to remind us of the original 'gospel' given to Moses.(Ex 8:1) "Let my people go so that they may serve me." This 'serving' is the word used for the service of a priest.

But it is the manner of that service which is so thrilling.

'..without fear' Luke 1:74

'in holiness and righteousness before Him...'

'all the days of our life.' Luke 1:75

Does this describe our service of God? fearless, holy, righteous...
and not 'in heaven when we die' but here and now. '...all the days of our life'!

This is the gospel according to Zacharias...

Do we believe this gospel? Do we preach it?

(if you let your cursor hover over the Bible references you should see the full text)

a tale of two births

2009-12-21T01:23:00.001-08:00

Luke's gospel begins with the story of two miracle births, or to be more precise two miracle 'conceptions'; the birth itself in both cases was perfectly normal. There are similarities in the visit of Gabriel and the two children are the subject of a thrilling prophecy from an old priest, but Luke takes great care to distinguish the different nature of these two 'miracle conception'. We can express the essence of the difference in a single phrase or two; Elisabeth was barren; Mary was virgin.

The miracle that Elisabeth received was a miracle of healing in which her sexual reproductive faculties were healed enabling the conceiving of John Baptist. That birth was the product of two 'bloods', the union of Elisabeth and Zacharias. The child produced by this normal physical union had a wonderful destiny to be sure. He would be, as Christ once described him, the 'greatest born of woman'. Matt 11:11 He would be Israel's greatest prophet and the man God would use to 'restore all things'. Matt 17:11. He was to be 'filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb. Luke 1:15. But, and it is an big BUT, he would be a child of two human parents and would be no different in constitution to any other child, you and me included.

See how carefully Luke distinguishes the miracle of healing in Elisabeth from the miracle of creation in Mary. Mary's child would constitute a brand new beginning for the human race. Mary's child would be God's son. The old KJV expressed the consequence of this miracle by declaring "therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. The phrase jars a little on modern ears. The NKJV has 'that Holy One', both are accurate translations but perhaps the older version may make us think a little deeper.

John Baptist was not a 'holy thing' at his birth. He was a joy to his parents, chosen by God for a great destiny and filled with the Holy Spirit and yet he was 'once born' and was 'a sin-infested thing' like the rest of his race. He would exercise a powerful ministry and see thousands come to his baptism of repentance but a man may be mightily blessed by God and still be 'born of woman' and consequently still be outside the Kingdom.

Jesus the Son of God and of Mary was different. This was a fresh start. He would be 'holy' and 'human'; a unique being. As a result of the 'overshadowing' of the Holy Spirit he would be guarded, in the womb, from all the deadly inheritance of Adam. The baby born nine months later was mankind's new beginning and all who would pass out of Adam and into Christ must be able to trace a similar history. Their spiritual new birth, the result of the coming of the Holy Spirit, must make them a child of God, born not 'of bloods', nor of natural desires, nor of human powers of choice, but 'of God'. John 1:12

Will you go with this man?

2009-12-15T08:13:00.001-08:00

Luke's account of the nativity has some very instructive elements. Is regeneration the sovereign and uninvited act of God or does he require human cooperation in his work? This is controversial territory, but perhaps the story of Mary can help us.

The account contains a well loved phrase "For with God nothing will be impossible." Luke 1:37 but we need to go back to the American Standard Version to find a more literal translation of the words. "For no word from God shall be void of power." It is the answer to Mary's gentle enquiry; "Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" Luke 1:34. She has heard that she is to conceive while still a virgin and she is naturally perplexed at the prospect.

Gabriel explains, if we dare call it that, the process that will take place. "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. I hesitate to 'explain' these words further. The coming miracle would be the sole work of the God. As with the miracle of regeneration the conception would be...

not of bloods, the word is plural. This birth would not be the result of the mixture of bloods.

nor of the will/desire of the flesh. This birth would not be the result of human passion.

nor of the will of man. This birth would not be the result of any human decision. (see John 1:13)

Perhaps we should attempt to go no further. Surely that answers the question; it is 'all' of God, and God alone? Amen, but that is not the whole answer.

Back to Luke's account and Gabriel's answer to Mary's question... The Greek construction implies that 'no word from God' is 'without power'. Or to put it into the positive expression, 'every word from God has inherent power'. It was this statement from Gabriel which drew a specific answer from Mary; "let it be to me according to your word". Mary has received the revelation and believed it. The impossible can be, but only because God's every word has 'dunamis' inherent power. But this is more that a recognition of truth, this is the point at which Mary embraces the 'word of God' for herself. Without her consent this event would have been a hideous violation of her body. With her consent it becomes the point of meeting of God's sovereign work and human cooperation. Without Mary's assent there would have been no incarnation and without human assent there can be no regeneration.

Way back in Israel's history there is an account of Abraham's servant who is searching for a bride for Abraham's son. He was led by the sovereign will of God to God's perfect choice. Rebekah would be part of God's sovereign plan. She did not create it. It was not of her design, or passion or will; it was God and God alone. Surely that answers the question. It would seem so until we hear a question put to her by her brother; "will you go with this man?" Gen 24:58. That question was put to a human being and required a human answer. It always does. God forces his will on no one but waits patiently for human consent 'that he may be gracious'. Isaiah 30:18.

a virgin with a history

2009-12-11T01:32:00.001-08:00

This blog will not be 'devotional' but will just take the opportunity to address a real 'old chestnut'. One of the latest to join the fray has been Richard Dawkins, the arch evangelist of atheistic neo-darwinianism. Unfortunately Dawkins knows even less about the Bible than I do about biology. It concerns the Hebrew word 'almah' which is translated in the King James Version of Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin'. Dawkins reckons that this is Christian re-editing and claims it ought simply to say 'an unmarried woman' with no implied comment as to the chastity of the said woman. The Christians, he claims, have 'interpreted' it to suit the myth of the incarnation. So what are the facts?

The question has been answered many times, sometimes in a very comprehensive manner. I am just going to take a more gentle route. First it is true that 'almah' does mean an unmarried woman. However in the context of the Sinai covenant and Old Testament law all unmarried women were required to be virgin. Sexual activity prior to marriage was punishable by death or forced marriage. So by implication the natural expectation would be that an unmarried woman would be virgin.

However the story doesn't end there. Some 200 hundred years before Christ the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in a famous work called the Septuagint, usually designated by the Roman number for 70 ie LXX. This was due to a legend that it was translated from the Hebrew in 70 days by 70 scholars. When those scholars wanted a Greek word for 'almah' they chose 'parthenos'. Now 'parthenos' can only mean 'virgin'. So if there has been any manipulation of the original Hebrew text it was done by Hebrew scholars who were translating into Greek. But why would those ancient scholars have wanted to introduce the idea of a virgin birth? The answer is simply that they understood the sense and context of the original and knew that the only logical Greek word was 'parthenos', a virgin.

The Septugaint, LXX, was the Greek version of the Bible that was used in the early Christian era. Apparently it was the version that Christ read from in Luke 4:18. The early Christians recognised that Isaiah 7:14 was a Messianic prophecy which had been fulfilled in the incarnation through the body of a virgin. When Matthew writes "Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel" Matt 1:23 he is not re-interpreting the Old Testament to support the Christian myth, he is simply quoting the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which had been used for over 200 years. Some 750 years before the event Isaiah, speaking in the power of the Spirit, made this extraordinary prediction, "a virgin shall conceive". The prophecy was fulfilled in Nazareth in Galilee and brought to its glorious conclusion in Bethlehem where "she brought forth her first-born son and laid him in a manger". Matt 1:24,25

What are YOU doing here?

2009-12-09T02:00:00.001-08:00

It's a fairly familiar feeling for travelling preachers. You see a familiar face in among the listeners but you can't quite 'place' them; they are in the 'wrong' context, probably visiting from another church. I have the same feeling reading some parts of Isaiah. You suddenly find old friends and think 'what are YOU doing here'. This is especially true with those well known Christmas verses. This morning I was reading some of the earlier chapters of Isaiah and came across those familiar old friends such as 'Immanuel, God with us' Isaiah 7:14 and 'unto us a child is born' Isaiah 9:6. Have you ever tried to read them in their context? It is puzzle indeed.

Isaiah was writing for several decades and it may well be that we don't have his writings in what we would call chronological order. This itself is very instructive. The ancient peoples didn't tell 'straight line history', they constantly double back on themselves. Almost always the history has some 'point' and the narrative will continue until that point is reached and then double back on itself. The first two chapters of the Bible do the same. It is a salutary warning for those who try to reduce prophecy to timetables of future history.

In addition to the fact that it is often difficult to follow the 'straight line history' of the prophets, we have the strange phenomena of telescoping. Events over hundreds of years are telescoped into a few sentences giving the impression that the events are synchronised. It is like seeing a range of mountain peaks and not commenting on the valleys that lie between them. This is the explanation of old friends in unfamiliar places. We have seen some of these peaks much more clearly in the New Testament and it is sometimes a shock to discover them in their original environment.

Isaiah's days were tumultous. Super powers were 'slogging it out' and smaller puppet kingdoms were being swept along in the process. In the midst of the political chaos of his day he hears the promise that 'God is with us'. They may seem to control all the levers of power but God is with us. In one sense this was always true but in another more intense sense this fact would be incarnated in the birth of a child. He, himself, would be the embodiment of this assurance. This 'child' would shoulder the government of the nations and of the spread of his kingdom there would be no end.

It can only have been the vaguest of comforts to the people of his day but in the person of Jesus Christ the promise has become flesh and blood. In the continuing chaos of the human experience God has 'just the man for the job'. 'Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given'.

King Saul: a case study

2009-12-07T11:20:00.001-08:00

I have been reading and meditating on the life of Israel's first legitimate king. Saul is such a tragedy. In his first beginnings he 'ran so well' but stumbled and fell.

His purpose, under God, was to break the power of the Philistines. 1Sam 9:16. His first battle was against Nahash the Ammonite; a man whose name means 'The Serpent'. 1Sam 11:1. The story has an echo of Eden about it. Gen 2:15. Adam was given the role of serving and guarding the garden, but he surrendered to the Serpent and the die was set for the human race.

Carl Marx apparently once said that 'all compromise carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. That was certainly true for Saul. As his independence developed into outright rebellion we hear a Samuel's clear insight; rebellion is as witchcraft (divination) and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. 1Sam 15:23. These are strong comparisons. The essence of witchcraft and divination is the manipulation of God. Magic seeks to impose the will of man on powers greater than himself. Idolatry is the greatest sin; it maligns the nature and character of God. And yet we often smile at 'stubbornness' and will sometimes confess it with a sense of defiance.

There is an interesting side plot to this story. At some point Saul set his face against witchcraft and divination to the extent of banishing them from the land, 1Sam 28:3 and yet all the time the same seeds were sprouting in his own heart. It is often said that we are most intolerant of our own sins when we see them in others. Saul the zealot set himself against the outward expression of witchcraft and divination and at the same time was nursing the same attitudes of heart. 'the heart' said another prophet 'is deceitful and desperately wicked. Who can know it?' Jer 17:9.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 1Cor 10:11,12.

Baptism, filling or anointing?

2009-12-02T01:36:00.001-08:00

G Campbell Morgan distinguished these biblical concepts with the phrase "one baptism, many fillings, constant anointing." It is a very apt summary of scriptural teaching. This morning I was reading the first couple of chapters of 2 Samuel and noting David's attitude to and experience of 'anointing'. Even though Saul had long lost his communion with God David insists that Saul is the Lord's anointed. 2Sam 1:16. In the lament that follows he says that Saul died 'as though he had not been anointed'. (KJV) In the next chapter David himself is anointed King over the tribe of Judah.

David, in fact, was anointed three times; once by Samuel 1Sam 16:13, once by Judah 2Sam 2:4 and once by the whole of the nation 2Sam 5:3. So what does 'anointing' signify? Pentecostal/charismatic usage is to regard 'an anointing' as a temporary resting of 'power' on a speaker or a singer, but this is not the way the Bible uses the concept. The first Bible anointing is of a 'stone'! Gen 28:18. The stone did not have special powers after this event but had been recognised and set apart from all the other stones with a unique destiny.

This is the true Biblical concept, someone is identified and specifically recognised as having a unique role. In that sense David was 'anointed' by Samuel as God's representative and later that 'anointing' was endorsed by Judah and finally by Israel. However, David was God's 'anointed one' from the day that Samuel consecrated him as such. In the Old Testament the high priests were 'anointed', so were kings. Sometimes prophets were anointed but the central thought is of 'identification' and 'authorisation' rather than an endue of power. Anointings and baptisms are quite different; anointings come 'on' people, baptisms submerge people.

Jesus of Nazareth was 'anointed with the Spirit' at Jordon, not 'baptised with the Spirit', although many confuse the two. In John's first letter we discover a distinctive New Covenant truth; "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will* abide in Him." 1John 2:27. The anointing, as with all the blessings of the New Covenant, has been internalised. It abides 'within'. God's Spirit bearing witness with our Spirit that we are children of God now instructs us in the manner of our living and believing. It is 'the anointing' now, Christ's own gift to the whole family of God's people, not a sudden flush of eloquence but an abiding Spirit who identifies us as God's 'anointed ones' and leads us out into our destiny.

independence hardening to rebellion

2009-12-01T02:23:00.001-08:00

I have just finished rereading 1 Samuel. Tracing Saul's spiral into disaster is a sobering read. This was the man who was uniquely chosen by God to be the leader of His people. He was chosen to take the battle to the Philistines and bring deliverance to Israel. The final chapter tells the tragic outcome of the story; Israel in flight and Saul and this three sons dead; at the hands of those same Philistines. How could such a thing happen to a man who is initially 'tailor made' for God's purpose?

There are at least three key markers to his descent into chaos. The first took place at Gilgal. That itself is significant. Gilgal had a history; it was the place where the people of Israel crossed into the promised land and their first action was to cripple all their soldiers! The temporary crippling was occasioned by the rite of circumcision, a ceremony which has many significances but may be summed up as Paul did in Phil 3:3 "(we) have no confidence in the flesh". I will not retell the story of 1 Samuel 13 but it showed Saul as a man of personal 'resource'. When God did not turn up, in the person of Samuel, he just carried on without Him. Oswald Chambers identified Saul's first sin, like Adam's, as 'independence'. It was an act of 'good, common sense' in the context but it marked Saul as a man who was prepared to innovate and choose his own way. He would do the 'will of God' but in his own way. The seeds of all that follow are found here.

Later in his story, 1 Samuel 15, Saul is given a commission to destroy the ancient enemies of God's purpose. Again Saul 'adapts' the commandment given to him and compromises God's plan. This time Samuel identifies it as 'rebellion' and 'stubbornness'. Independence has hardened into outright rebellion; it always does.

The final key marker finds Saul bereft of God's counsel but still determining to carry on. God has refused to speak to him by dream, or ephod or prophet but Saul is determined to get an answer. For Saul, the end will justify the means. He seeks out a medium, 1 Samuel 28, who summons Samuel from the grave but Samuel has no guiding word for him, only a death sentence.

The story of Saul covers about 40 years and has been preserved in the scriptures as a solemn warning and admonition. Single acts of independence can produce devastating harvests if they are not checked by genuine repentance and a willingness, in the disciple, to listen and obey his master's voice.

which yoke?

2009-11-30T02:28:00.001-08:00

I suppose of all the 'comforting words' of scripture Matthew 11:28 would have to come high on the list. "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." but I trust we are learning to read beyond the confines of a single verse. This is a conditional promise and we cannot expect the fulfilment of the promise if we do not fulfil its conditions.

The picture of the yoke is frequently used in the NT as a metaphor for the Law. The way in which the Law had been applied by the Pharisees had made it literally 'unbearable'; Acts 15:10 The rulers of the day used the Law as as a 'one size fits all' and would not lift a finger to help those who were being crushed by it. To such 'weary and heavy laden' Christ offered a different yoke. Do note that he did not offer a 'yoke-less' option but a 'different yoke'; this was no 'off the peg' 'one size fits all' but a 'tailor made' union which bound the disciple to his master.

The full promise with its necessary conditions reads; "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light."

Taken together the whole passage makes the issues very plain. We find our 'rest' by coming under Christ's personal 'yoke' for our lives. What a 'rest' it is to come out from under every other 'yoke' and to come under the 'yoke' of Jesus Christ! This lifts from our shoulders every other obligation other than to 'learn of me'. It binds the disciple and his master into an exclusive relationship, and in that union and no other we find rest for our souls. In this union alone we discover that his yoke is easy and his burden is light or as John later testified..."For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3.

but will the truth set you free?

2009-11-29T08:27:00.001-08:00

Apparently, according to the Bourne finale, the marble walls of the CIA are adorned with the words "and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32

This is one of those verses which seems very encouraging until you look a little closer. I recall a wayward definition of a parable as 'one of those stories which, just as you are beginning to enjoy it, grips you by the throat". This is one of those 'just when you are beginning to enjoy it' moments.

We don't quote the Bible now we just quote texts and often without context. The full quotation begins with some words of Jesus to some who had become 'believers'. He warned them of the danger of brief lived faith. "If you continue in my word then you are genuinely my disciples, and you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free". Apparently there are both 'disciples' and 'genuine disciples', otherwise there would be no need for that qualifying word 'genuine' or 'authentic'.

So how can we distinguish between the two? Those who 'continue' in the word that Christ has spoken to them are the genuine article; people who suddenly believe may not be. It is not a high moment of faith that defines a genuine disciple but that steady adherence and obedience to Christ himself.

And it is only those who are in that present tense relationship of master/disciple with Christ who will know the truth and THEN, and not before then, the truth will make them free. There is nothing magical about data, it is the relationship to the one who speaks the truth that makes the difference.

Bank Holidays and Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T06:49:00.001-08:00

I recall an American remarking on the fact that in the US national holidays celebrated key historic events while in the UK they seemed to celebrate the closure of the banks! It is not quite that simple but the idea of a Thanksgiving Holiday is very attractive. What do atheists do on this day? I recall another friend saying the saddest sight in all the world was a thankful atheist! What does he do with that upsurge? When he sees a sunset or the sweep of the milky way or the nails on a new born baby's hands, what does he do with that emotion?

Paul showed that there was an integral link between unthankfulness and idolatry in his letter to the Romans. Marking the beginning of the deadly spiral away from God's destiny for mankind he declares; "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Rom 1:21 Apparently, idolatry starts right there with a refusal to recognise what we know to be true and a refusal to be 'thankful'.

I have observed something in Christians of many different persuasions throughout the world; it is almost impossible to keep a thankful man down and almost impossible to keep an ungrateful man up! If that is where the rot began that is the place we can begin the recovery. How do I get back on the flight path? Give God his rightful place and lift your heart to him in thanksgiving.

a jealous God?

2009-10-29T10:25:00.001-07:00

For those taught to regard 'jealousy' as a sin, this self description of God is often a challenge: Ex 20:4-6. It comes in the passage which refers to idolatry and explains that God's particular hatred of idolatry stems from the fact that he is a 'jealous God'. How so?

It is almost impossible now for us to separate out aspects of God's character which seem contradictory. Is he a God of justice or a God of love? Yes! He is a God who exhibits his holy love in anger against the rebel. The two are not contradictory but complementary. It is because we hardly ever see 'anger' without 'temper' that we are tempted to consider God as being inconsistent. Christ was angry... often, but he never lost his temper.

When human beings exhibit jealousy it is a manifestation of self-defence and part of the philosophy that attack is the best from of defence. With God however, there is no self-centredness of this kind and God's jealousy does not stem from fear of loss of reputation. So where does it come from?

The context shows us plainly. Idolatry is a redefinition of God and inevitably a slander of his character. This is why the revelation of God in Christ is so necessary. Even the revelation of God in creation and scripture is partial but in Christ God is seen plainly. If we change this revelation we redefine God and that is idolatry.

God is 'jealous' of his character partly because to malign that character will result in inevitable loss for those who believe the lie. It is usually accepted that to defile the character of mother or wife is bound to provoke strong anger from the one who knows and loves 'mother' or 'wife'. The love of the Godhead cannot ignore the slander perpetrated in idolatry and the right word for this is 'jealousy' but it is jealousy without self-centredness and anger without temper.

God: a new definition?

2009-10-15T09:09:00.001-07:00

I recently had the opportunity to read a publishing phenomenon called "God explained in a taxi ride". All you need to know about God in the time it would take for a short taxi ride and, believe it or not, a condensed version for those who want it quicker. What kind of God might we define in the time allotted to a taxi journey? The conclusion, for those who don't have the time for the taxi ride or to read the condensed version is 'whatever you see as the source of life, chance, evolution, creation, that is your definition of God. Whatever you see as being behind everything, that is God'. That's it. I saved you $10!

The Bible often surprises people by the strength of its condemnation of idolatry. If you were to put the big sins in descending order 'idolatry' would be the first. Does the Bible betray a lack of proportion in this? No, the reason that idolatry is so treacherous and so often condemned in the scripture is that idolatry is the attempt to 'redefine God'. You cannot think rightly of anything if you do not think rightly about God. If I take any other route inevitably it will become a question of 'my definition is as good as yours'. Who has the right to define God? The theologians? the man in the taxi? The believers? Surely my favourite preacher/writer can be trusted to define God? Actually he can't. Only God has the right to define God.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18. This 'only begotten son' is the one who said "I and My Father are one." John 10:30. If we want to know what God is like we must come to Jesus Christ. He is the only one qualified to 'define God'. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ does not only mean to agree with his moral teaching. Many, like Ghandi, have commended his teaching but refused to surrender to his person.

To be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to allow him, and him alone, to define God for me. Not in words alone but also in deeds. I turn aside from every other definition of God and risk everything on this one. He has the exclusive monopoly in defining God; there can be no 'new definition'. Any other definition is idolatry and a defamation of God's character. Idolatry begins with the rejection of Jesus Christ as the definition of God. If I reject him, I reject the Father.

earthquakes, tsunamis and the love of God

2009-10-04T01:01:00.001-07:00

This is a re-issue of a piece I wrote 5 years ago. Someone asked me again yesterday. "Why does God allow these things?" This is still my only answer.

I have juxtaposed couple of stark statements as the heading for this Biblebase Second Thoughs blog. How does the Christian consider these ideas? Do they cancel out each other? Do we make a choice of believing one or the other? If not, in absolute terms, do we close our minds to one or other of these ‘facts’? The question uppermost in my mind is ‘why did this happen’? At the risk, of you reading no further into this little meditation, I will tell you frankly, I don’t know. And I will go further, I don’t believe anyone else knows either.

It is not unbelief or backsliding to ask questions. The prophet Jeremiah was to become a witness to the death of his nation. Everything he recognised as God’s love gifts would be swept away; the Priesthood and the Temple, the Throne of David, the very nation would be dragged ignominiously into exile. As the horrors begin to unfold Jeremiah lifts up his voice’ Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? (Jer 12:1 KJV)

It is a wonderful and honest statement. Underneath Jeremiah’s acknowledgement of God’s nature a question is bubbling. Jeremiah is trying to make sense of what he sees, as no doubt many are now and many will in the future. It is a reworking of Abraham’s rhetorical question; That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen 18:25 KJV)

The legitimacy of the question was recognised by the Lord in Luke’s gospel; There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luk 13:1-5 KJV) The word translated ‘suppose’ here is ‘dokeO’ to judge or decide. The Lord is asking the question ‘how are you thinking about these events?’

The astute will notice that so far we are doing pretty well for questions although answers are a bit short in supply. It is right to ask these questions and very human. We were created with the power of reason, and the need to link cause and effect. Somehow we have always known that every event must have a cause. This is the admission of every child who asks a question beginning with the word ‘why’. ‘Why’ demands that there is a reasonable basis to our universe. Some Christians shrink from such questions; they feel that somehow the question is impertinent. The command to … love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (Luk 10:27 KJV) undercuts that escape from reason.

The mind or understanding however needs more that raw data to make its right deductions; it requires revelation. Paul prayed, in the Ephesians’ letter, that The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph 1:18 KJV) The understanding needs ‘light’ from outside as well as its own inherent deductive powers. In that wonderful chapter about ‘faith’ in Hebrews we have the statement By faith we understand that the ages were framed by a word of God, so that the things being seen not to have come into being out of the things that appear. (Heb 11:3 MKJV)

This kind of understanding must always begin with faith and faith, according to my own personal definition, is right response to revelation. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God… (Psa 14:1a KJV). To ‘leave God out of the calculation’ is the Bible definition of a fool. Conversely The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Pro 9:10 KJV) Abraham and Jeremiah both begin their questions with two basic assumptions; that God is Righteous, and that God is God. In other words God had the power to do what He wills, but what He wills will always be righteous because He Himself is Righteous and He can only act in consistency with His Own character.

Abraham was about to see the destruction of Sodom, Jeremiah was about to see the destruction of Jerusalem, but for both the underlying question is how can God justify this behaviour? The spirit of both these men is identical. Abraham’s subsequent conversation was not the bartering of a village market, but the same response as that of Jeremiah. The KJV expresses the scene beautifully; …let me talk with thee of thy judgments... I heard a man recently who said that he is often angry with God; a chill went through my spirit when I heard the words. The man who gets angry with God is never going to get an answer the question ‘why’? We never get an answer to the question ‘why’ when we hurl it heavenwards through clenched teeth. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. (Psa 25:9 KJV) We may recall that Moses was described as ‘the meekest man in all the earth’; it is written of him He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. (Psa 103:7 KJV) I think it is more than a simple Hebrew parallelism. Some people only every see God’s acts; the meekest man saw God’s ways.

To be pedantic, we would have to say that all that humans will ever see is the ‘outer-skirts’ of His ways. This was Job’s realisation; The pillars of the heavens tremble and are astonished at His rebuke. He quiets the sea with His power, and by His understanding He shatters the proud. By His Spirit the heavens were beautiful; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. Lo, these are the edges of His ways; but what a whisper of a word we hear of Him! And the thunder of His power who can understand? (Job 26:11-14 MKJV) Speaking elsewhere of God’s ways the psalmist said; Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. (Psa 77:19 KJV) What a vivid picture that is, especially when we recall that this passage is referring to the Red Sea and the Exodus. ‘God’s way is in the sea’; unimaginable, unpredictable, unrepeatable, untraceable. Theoretically you could visit this spot today, and find nothing but, in its fleeting moment, God walked here and did things of eternal consequences.

The words of Jesus in Luke’s gospel are an abiding warning against an understanding based on joining up the dots by the shortest possible route. The Luke 13 passage is instructive because it deals with both human culpability and natural disaster. In the first Pilate might have been blamed, in the second an earth tremor, but in both cases the Lord refuses to connect the disaster event with individual or group sin. This is important when we consider the 1986 Chernobyl Meltdown, the 2004 Tsunami or the 9/11 WTC implications or the most recent news. I will ask and answer my own question… “Do you suppose that the residents of Belorus and Ukraine, the Indian ocean seacoasts or the United States… were sinners above all… that they suffered such things?” “No, I don’t”. This may surprise and unsettle some of my friends but I am sure that these words in Luke are to prevent us making such connections. It is impossible to deduce cause from effect just by joining up the dots.

Such a deduction would need revelation as well as information. Some will claim such revelation and quickly defend their opinions, but I have no such revelation and in the absence of plain New Testament teaching cannot submit to these conclusions.

There is another classic portion of scripture where dangerous questions are asked. This time the one asking is Asaph, one of David’s chief musicians. His question is to be found in Psalm 73. He is in the middle of the same theological dilemma, and starts again by declaring God to be good, but his own thinking has him on the slide. He has watched the wicked and they are ‘getting away with it’; in fact, they are thriving. He wonders whether his own clean walk has just been a waste of time, a sheer vanity. He hasn’t spoken these things publicly for fear of offending others, but as he meditates his thinking becomes ‘too painful for me’. There is a limit our comprehension of suffering. One of the most wicked men of the last century, Joseph Stalin, once remarked ‘One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic’. There is a truth in this cynical comment. We do not usually mourn more over 18 buried under Siloam’s tower than we would over 17 unless the extra one is our own child. Perhaps this is part of God’s goodness to us that we cannot perceive what ‘50000 victims of a Tsunami’ really means. We are more likely to shed our tears over the thought of a single person weeping for his son, than of 50000 faces we never saw, being swept away. It is not until Asaph entered the place of God’s presence that the slide stopped; we shall find the same.

This is where the greater revelation of the New Testament makes its special contribution. God is not afar off, checking the latest statistics. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? (Luk 12:6 KJV) If you check the ‘going rate’ with Matthew’s gospel you will know that the price was 2 sparrows for a farthing, but the sellers would sometimes have a special offer of five sparrows for 2 farthings. They had ‘thrown in’ in the fifth sparrow without cost. Even this ‘sparrow without a price’, added almost as an afterthought or bonus, was not forgotten before God. Matthew touches the same truth but his phrase almost sounds unfinished, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (Mat 10:29 KJV), and different translators have added words to make up the sense, without your Father’s consent, without your Father’s will, I prefer to leave it as it is; ‘without your Father’. He was not far off checking statistics; He was there, when the sparrow fell. God’s capacity for sorrow is infinite.

In each one of those private tragedies which make up the 5000 or 50,000 He was there too. He felt each pain and panic. He feels now the wounds of each bereaved loved one. He feels the pain of the coming years. I recall an old lady who used to be part of our church. I knew her in the 1980s. On her mantel piece in her home she had a faded photograph of her younger brother. On his birthday, each year, she would weep. “He died”, she would say, “on his 19th birthday, at the Somme”. Over 60 years and the wounds were not healed. God’s wounds have not healed either. The pain that this world has caused and does cause Him is beyond thought or calculation. God’s capacity for sorrow is infinite.

How can God allow all this pain? I don’t know but I know He shares it and ‘feels’ it far more than we ever could. To the sure knowledge of His absolute righteousness, I am able to add the revelation that God is Love. This love with which God still loves His world through all its sorrows was demonstrated once in its fullness; But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8 NASB) and that anchor holds all my other thoughts secure. There is a pattern, I am sure, that is beyond all human knowing and a day may come when we will see more than just ‘the edges of His ways’, but in the meantime through tears and pain His people must lift their hearts as did Jeremiah all those years ago.

My soul has been rejected from peace; I have forgotten happiness. So I say, My strength has perished, And so has my hope from the LORD. Remember my affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and bitterness. Surely my soul remembers And is bowed down within me.
This I recall to my mind, Therefore I have hope. The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, For His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, says my soul, Therefore I have hope in Him. (Lam 3:17-24 NASB)

so what does a disciple need to do?

2009-09-25T15:12:00.001-07:00

This brings us to the second element of the way in which we are to 'disciple the nations'. A disciple is technically 'a learner' who learns at the feet of a master, but what does he learn? There is a kind of instinct in evangelical circles that there is an irreducible minimum of doctrine that a person must learn before they can be considered a Christian. In the Second century there were definite things which must be learned and those who were learning were called 'catechumens'; people who were under instruction and ultimately people had to 'know their catechism' before their full initiation into the new covenant community. But is this what Christ is referring to in the Great Commission? Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, [even] to the end of the age. Amen. Matt 28:19-20

We need to recall to mind that a 'disciple' is one half of a relationship. Primarily he is following a 'teacher' rather than a 'teaching'. Christianity is not, primarily, a doctrinal system. It is not, primarily, a code of ethics. It is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This is why Christ made the bold assertion; I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6. It is not possible to be 'right with God' other than through the the sole agency of Jesus Christ. If we desire to come to God we must come to Jesus Christ; there is no exception to this.

The Great Commission is fulfilled as men and women become disciples of Jesus Christ. Nothing short of this can be allowed. Becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ involves a full hearted surrender to him in water baptism and an undertaking to 'observe' what he is teaching. 'Observe' here does not mean taking on the role of an interested spectator. The word means to actively guard what has been entrusted; it is the picture of an armed guard or watchman. Those who would be disciples are not those who subscribe to a doctrinal statement but those who actively guard what has been entrusted to them. Let me illustrate...

Christ had been preaching and some of the Jews who listened believed him. To those who had 'believed' Christ spoke these words; Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32 Those words, 'the truth shall make you free'. have become a slogan used by many but they are not true... not in isolation from the rest of the sentence. If we work our way backwards perhaps you will see my point. The truth only frees those who know it and the only ones who know it are true disciples of Jesus Christ, and true disciples of Jesus Christ are those who 'abide' ie 'continue' in the truth that he has revealed to them. So reading it forward again... those who hear the word that Christ is speaking and who continue in obedience to that word are genuine disciples. (the word 'indeed' is the word 'true' and the word 'true' often means 'the genuine article' in the New Testament) So in order to be a genuine disciple I must continue in my obedience to what Christ has said to me. Such genuine disciples will know the truth and knowing that truth, as genuine disciples, will set them free. Freedom depends upon discipleship and discipleship depends on 'holding onto' and 'working out' the things which Christ says to us.

This Great Commission is a wonderful repeating cycle. We 'disciple' the nations by bringing individuals to the place where they surrender to the person of Jesus Christ and set their course to obey what he has said to them. How does he speak to us? In many ways, but particularly through the testimony of those men to whom he originally committed this Great Commission. All newly 'discipled' men and women are to 'guard the things that I have commanded you'. They are to guard the things that I have committed to you. This includes the command to 'go and disciple the nations'. In other words this Great Commission passes on in its entirety to each new generation.

The life truth committed to the disciples is now committed to the new 'disciples', and part of that commission is that they also embrace the Great Commission. The result of that is that each new generation of disciples also receives this Great Commission. It means that every genuine disciple of Jesus Christ is automatically invested with the same responsibility... to go into all the nations and to 'disciple' them. There are no exceptions; if I am a disciple I have a commission.

so how much does it cost to be a disciple?

2009-09-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

I had a hunch about the Great Commission for a long time. Is this one command or three? Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen. Matt 28:19-20. The punctuation of the NKJV suggests that it is three commands. (By the way, there is no punctuation at all in the original Greek text so all punctuation in the New Testament is interpretation rather than inspiration.) My hunch was that this was not...

Go and make disciples
baptising them in the name...
teaching them to observe all things...

but rather... Go and make disciples; baptising them in the name... and teaching them to observe...

In other words the Great Commission is simply 'Go and disciple the nations' and the process by which this will be achieved is 'baptising them in the name... and teaching them to observe... ' So 'baptism' and 'teaching to observe' is the method by which the Great Commission is to be fulfilled. I was encouraged recently to discover that I am not the only one to have this hunch; Youngs Literal Translation has it too... having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age.' Did you notice that Youngs puts the 'baptising' and 'teaching them to observe' into a parenthesis, showing that this is the way they were to 'disciple the nations'.

Let's think through the implications of that. Water baptism is a simple symbol of surrender to the will of another; a surrender of such scope that the person being baptised is effectively taking an active part in their own funeral. This is a 'no-turning back' surrender, the kind that burns all the bridges. I have conducted quite a few water baptisms, I always give the candidate the same advice "Let me do this. Don't try to help me, just trust me." It is such a simple but profound way of sealing the choice. I yield myself utterly to another's will. Of course it symbolises too the point of departure and entrance; from death to life, but at its heart it is a foolish act of total obedience and abandonment.

To be 'baptised in the name of...' signifies that the baptised will be forever owned by the one in whose name he is baptised. This is a symbolic transfer of ownership. From this moment I am no longer a free man, able to make my own choices. From this moment my life belongs to another.

How much does it cost to be a disciple? Only everything. It is easy to miss this truth in the presentation of the gospel; regeneration is free, becoming a disciple will cost me everything.

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. Phil 3:8.

am I a disciple?

2009-09-23T16:24:00.000-07:00

In the moments before his ascension Christ gave a unique commission. It is usually known as the Great Commission and has been the source of thousands of stirring sermons. Its most familiar form is in the language of the King James Version; And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt 28:18-20 KJV. The King James version has the word 'teach' used twice but there are two quite different Greek words behind the passage. The New King James Version will illustrate this point; Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… Matt 28:19.

We are familiar with the word 'disciple'; as a noun it is used often in the New Testament. But the word 'disciple' has a twin sister, a verb which really ought to be translated 'to disciple'. This word is only used four times in our New Testament; it is the Greek word mathEteuO. One of these references is to Joseph of Arimathaea who is described as being 'discipled to Jesus'; And evening having come, there came a rich man, from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was discipled to Jesus… Matt 27:57 YNG. This is telling us that Joseph became a personal disciple of Jesus Christ. It was not that he subscribed to a particular set of truths, or that he had joined a community. It simply means that a relationship came into existence in which Jesus was the Master and Joseph was the Disciple. The 'becoming a disciple' was not a long drawn-out process but a point of decision in which Joseph recognised Jesus as his sole source of truth and guidance. Joseph did not join a Discipleship Training School, or commit himself to a course of study, he simply made a choice; Jesus Christ was to be his single channel of instruction and life.

The first eleven 'disciples' received a commission to go into all the nations and to bring men and women into this same unique relationship with Jesus Christ. John the gospel writer, contrary to some historical opinion, never had any disciples of his own, nor did Peter or Paul. Their life's work was to bring others to Christ himself. A disciple, after all, is one half of a matched pair; the other half is a master/guide. Those eleven men knew that Christ had forbidden them to be masters. They would have not misunderstood the great commission.

This poses an important question; am I a disciple? or am I the disciple of a disciple? Am I dependent upon Christ or am I dependent upon someone who has introduced me to Christ? It poses other vital questions too; am I fulfilling this great commission? I may travel the world preaching, I may be a great Bible teacher… but if I am not bringing men and women to the place of personal dependence upon Jesus Christ, I am not 'discipling the nations'. I may be able to boast of thousands of decisions for Christ and have seen miracles performed but if I am not bringing men and women to sit at the feet of Jesus Christ I am not fulfilling the Great Commission.

Hebrews: Now look who's talking!

2009-09-09T03:02:00.001-07:00

The first chapter is a comprehensive statement about the identity of the speaker. I don't mean the author of the letter but the person he will constantly draw attention to throughout it. He has identified the risen and ascended Christ as Son, heir, firstborn, and King-Priest. The one who ...by Himself purged our sins... Heb 1:3 and who now reigns as King-Priest on the throne of the universe. It has been by this 'Son' that God has spoken in these last days (Heb 1:2) How are we to respond to the Word that God has spoken?

It is recorded in the Romans epistle that originally the human race knew the truth but rejected it. ...they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Rom 1:20-21. The original revelation was rejected. The revelation that came through Moses was, in terms of personal obedience, mostly rejected. Now that God has spoken 'by a Son' surely they will listen to him, won't they? Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. Luke 20:13-15 KJV

The rejected heir has been crucified but has risen and taken his throne. Will God now move in retribution against those who rejected him? This was what the crowd feared on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:37) But 'no' he 'sits as a priest upon his throne' and still holds out the offer of salvation. (Acts 2:38-39)

Those to whom our epistle to the Hebrews was addressed stood on the threshold of the ultimate disaster. They had responded to the gospel, received the Holy Spirit and experienced the 'powers of the coming age' (Heb 6:4-5) and now stood in danger of 'turning back' to Judaism and the obsolete covenant of Moses. The ESV states the danger in the clearest terms; Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. Heb 2:1 ESV. It is the metaphor of a small boat which has broken its moorings and is now drifting away on the currents. Perhaps 'slowly drifting' but fatally drifting.

The books of Proverbs gives us a little pen-sketch of the 'sluggard'; I went by the field of the lazy man, And by the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding; And there it was, all overgrown with thorns; Its surface was covered with nettles; Its stone wall was broken down. When I saw it, I considered it well; I looked on it and received instruction: A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest; So shall your poverty come like a prowler, And your need like an armed man. Prov 24:30-34. D L Moody, apparently used to say that he 'had more hope of a murdered than of a lazy man'.

This is the last word and the last chance to such men and women; See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, Heb 12:25.

Hebrews and Psalm 110

2009-09-08T08:30:00.001-07:00

This may be the most quoted Old Testament passage in the Bible. Matt 22:44. Mark 12:36. Luke 20:42. Acts 2:34. 1 Cor 15:25. Heb 1:13; 7:17, 21. Its first 4 verses must have perplexed readers for a millennium. Christ used it to show that the Messiah was greater than David. Peter used it explain the Resurrection of Christ. Paul used it to point to the Consummation of all things and the author of Hebrews used it as one of the great proof texts for the New Covenant.

Part of its mystery lies in the mention of Melchizedek. Melchizedek appears in the story of Abraham, very briefly. Gen 14:18-20. He then disappears for 1000 years before reappearing in Psalm 110:4. He then disappears for another 1000 years before taking centre stage in the epistle to the Hebrews.

There is much that we could say about Melchizedek but the main point is that he is a Priest-King. Israel was not allowed to have Priest-Kings. Their priests came from the tribe of Levi, and the intention was that their kings would come from the tribe of Judah. Priesthood and monarchy were mutually exclusive. There are no Old Testament pictures of a Priest-King other than the mysterious Melchizedek. So after 3-400 years of Levitical priests why would David begin to speak of a different kind of priesthood? and who is this that David refers to as 'my lord'?

The author of Hebrews sees this as a comprehensive promise that the Old Covenant would be replaced by another, better Covenant based on better promises and with a better Mediator. As the Law and the Priesthood were an inseparable unit, to change the Priesthood meant an inevitable change in the Law; For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. Heb 7:12. This could not be a slow fade into the new but must mean a complete break between the old and the new.

The reign of Christ as Son, heir and firstborn is established clearly but now the author adds a wonderful nuance, this reign will be different; Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Zech 6:13 By his ascension he has been declared Son and heir and firstborn and a priest forever, after the model of Melchizedek. He has all authority in heaven and earth but at this point in time he exercises that authority as a 'priest' and not as a judge.

Another time must come when he must judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31) but for the time being... Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Heb 4:14-16.

Hebrews and Psalm 45

2009-09-07T11:15:00.001-07:00

The second of the 'throne' psalms in Hebrews is Psalm 45. The historical setting seems to have been the coronation or marriage of Solomon and its sub-title is a 'Song of Loves'. It is an appropriate title, verses 1-12 being focussed on the King and verses 13-17 on the bride. It is only after the Son had been 'anointed' that the bride comes into view. There could be no church before Christ's coronation.

Again the psalm seems to outstrip its original purpose as it declares; Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. Psa 45:6-7. It is true that rulers were sometimes referred to as 'gods' but what are we to make of the refrain "thy throne... is forever and ever"? Youngs Literal Translation has Thy throne, O God, [is] age-during, and for ever...Psa 45:6 YNG Where the Greek version (LXX) has 'into the age of the ages'. This is a glimpse of an eternal reign!

The author of Hebrews has no doubt that ultimately this is a reference to the Messiah on his eternal throne. He is persisting in his theme of Son and heir but it is the sequence of events that is key too. Notice the order of those events;

1. you have loved righteousness and hated iniquity

2. Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

This is anointing which follows his triumph. Christ's ascension and accession, ie his coronation is an important truth of revelation. It is because of this that Peter declared; Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. Acts 2:33 It is because he is enthroned and has received this 'anointing' that he is able to 'pour out this which you now see and hear'. In fact, for Peter, the outpouring of the Spirit was the earthly proof of this heavenly reality.

But what kind of anointing is this? Is he anointed King or Priest? The answer to that question will open up the rest of Hebrews to us.

Hebrews and Psalm 2

2009-09-04T02:20:00.001-07:00

The author of Hebrews bases his introductory chapter on a group of Psalms. In fact, the whole letter might be seen as a 'sermon' based on texts from the Psalms. These psalms provide a wonderful link to the Old Testament and a thrilling insight into the way that the early Christians 'read their Bibles'. Of course, they didn't have a Bible as we understand it but many would be familiar with much of the Old Testament.

Psalm 2 is a curious psalm. Unless we read it carefully it can be quite difficult to identify the speakers and the listeners. Of the 12 verses we might say that 9 represent God as speaking to the whole world; Psalm 2:1-6, 10-12. But we have three verses in the middle which seem to be out of place; Psalm 2:7-9. Who is the 'I' in Psalm 2:6, and who is the 'I/me' in Psalm 2:7 ? At first glance it seems that it is king David who is speaking and that this is a kind of coronation hymn but the author to the Hebrews sees another meaning in the psalm.

Part of the clue is in the phrase 'I have set my king' (Psalm 2:6) The word translated 'set' is usually translated 'poured out' in the Old Testament and if you 'pour out' oil on a designated person that would make it an 'anointing' and the person would become the Anointed One. This links it with the Anointed One in Psalm 2:2 but the word in verse 2 in Hebrew is 'mashiyach', the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' and the Greek equivalent of that word is 'Christ'.

Now we can see how the author of Hebrews is thinking. This is not simply a coronation hymn for David but a prophecy of 'David's greater son', Jesus Christ. The nine verses are indeed God speaking to the nations but those three verses Psalm 2:7-9 is a glimpse into a heavenly court and can be understood as the testimony of Christ himself. He has been raised from the dead and has ascended into heaven. It is the time of his coronation. The Father publicly acknowledges him as his Son (Psalm 2:7) and his heir (Psalm 2:8) This is the introductory theme of Hebrews 1:2-5 and the 'today I have begotten you' is not a statement of biology but rather the public acknowledgement of given authority.

The final scene of the psalm is a word of counsel to the leaders of the nations to submit to God's duly appointed king and includes the words 'Kiss the Son, lest he be angry'. (Psalm 2:12) This is not a kiss of passion or affection but the kissing of the hand in submission. This is the gospel proclamation. God has set his Son at his own right hand and ruler of heaven and earth and men must surrender to this rule or 'perish'. That is a necessary and sober warning but the psalm ends on a sweeter note; Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. (Psalm 2:12) Have you?

Son, heir and firstborn

2009-09-03T12:15:00.001-07:00

These three titles from the first chapter of Hebrews have caused many to think that in some way Christ is inferior to the Father. In fact, all three titles are ancient ways of speaking about publicly acknowledged authority.

In 44 BC Julius Caesar 'adopted' Octavius. This was not the kind of adoption that we are familiar with today. Octavius wasn't a bouncing baby but a battle hardened soldier. In ancient times 'adoption' was a sign of favour and acceptance. Men adopted ‘sons’ to ensure the continuance of their empires and fortunes. Octavius became Julius Caesar's 'son', his heir and effectively his 'firstborn'; he is better known as Caesar Augustus. Many Roman Emperors were ‘adopted sons’.

So what point is being made by the author of this letter? In this passage the words son, heir and firstborn have nothing to do with biology but everything to do with a public acknowledgment of the relationship between Christ and the Father. He is publicly acknowledged, by resurrection and ascension, to be the rightful ‘son and heir’. He emptied himself to fulfil the Father’s will and thereby to gain our salvation and now the Father has given him ‘an inheritance’, the reward of his faithful service.

The title of 'firstborn' was used in a similar way in the Old Testament; Then you shall say to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. Ex 4:22-23. That is a good example of the nature of ancient adoption. The prophecy of Jeremiah has a similar comment about the northern kingdom of Israel; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn. Jer 31:9. We could illustrate the theme from many an Old Testament passage. The ‘firstborn’ was the chief son who was commissioned to carry on the Father’s will into the next generation. Sometimes a first son who failed his father was dispossessed and another son was given the role of ‘firstborn’. The ‘firstborn’ had a double portion of his father’s estate AND his mother and other dependants to care for.

This does not diminish the person of Christ nor does it take away from his divinity. He is co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial with the Father. Everything we mean when we say God the Father, is equally true of the ‘Son’. The author of Hebrews is consciously putting Christ ‘in his right setting’ so that there are no misunderstandings. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, greater than the Aaronic high priests. He has been entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. He is the unique expression of God in humanity and to be worshipped as God for ever.

There is an interesting post-script to this idea of ‘son, heir and firstborn’ Our author describes the true church... to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb 12:23. That phrase ‘are registered’ is a verb in its plural form and gives us the clue to something easily missed in our English versions; the word ‘firstborn’ in this verse is plural, the firstborn-ones. What we have here is a whole company comprised of sons, heirs and firstborn ones. This is the constitution of the true church; each member (whether male or female) is acknowledged as one who has the Father’s favour and is entrusted with authority to act on his behalf… not to grow fat on double portions but to provide for the ‘dependants’.

God's last word

2009-09-02T11:40:00.001-07:00

The letter to the Hebrews begins with a contrast which sets the scene for the remainder of the letter. It puts a clear line of division between 'the old days' and 'now'. Or as the text has it... God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; Heb 1:1-2.

It is contrasting the way that God speaks to us. In 'the old days' he spoke at various times and in various ways and the revelation of truth built slowly so that men could begin to get their clear conception of what God was like. Those revelations were true but not the whole truth; they were partial and some older translations use the language of 'parts' and things 'partial'. We then 'fast-forward' from 'time past' to 'these last days'. The writer speaks from the position of the 'last days' which began with the coming of Christ. He says that 'in times past' God spoke by means of prophets; uniquely commissioned spokesmen for God, but in 'these last days' God has spoken, not through spokesmen, but through his own Son.

This is why John's account of the life of Christ describes him as the Word. Not 'a word', that's what the prophets delivered. But Christ is 'the Word', he is the non-partial revelation of God. God has nothing to say that he has not said in the person of Christ; Christ is God's 'last word'. John's gospel account tells us that 'the Word became flesh and lived among us'. John 1:14. John never recovered from this discovery. In Christ he saw God in all his fulness. John 1:16-18. There may well be fragments of truth in other religious traditions, but everything that God wanted us to know about God is 'visible' in Jesus Christ. This is what Christ himself was pointing to when he answered Philip's request to 'see the Father' with such direct clarity; Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John 14:9.

And this is why anyone who rejects Christ stands in such great jeopardy. Christ is God's full and final witness, to reject him as 'the Word made flesh' is to turn away from God's last word to the human race. It is also the reason that to think wrongly of Christ is such a foundational folly. We cannot think wrongly of Christ and think right in any other part of our thinking. He is the foundational corner-stone. If that corner-stone is skewed it is impossible to build true in any other part of life. The answer to the question 'what do you think of Christ?' is not religious trivia, it is the difference between light and darkness, life and death.

the sole agent

2009-09-01T02:44:00.001-07:00

It is part of a beautiful little verse in Peter's first letter; For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God 1 Pet 3:18. This verse could provide us with the perfect material for one of those old-fashioned 'three point sermons'.

The Purpose of His death
...to bring us to God... He did not die as a martyr nor as the result of a miscarriage of justice. Nor was this some divine oversight or cosmic accident, it was part of a definite plan. This does not remove the responsibility of those who did the deed but points to the fact that God was at work in history fulfilling eternal purposes. This simple phrase carries a large implication, it implies that in some way we were separated from God. Why else would it be necessary to do something to 'bring us to God'.

So in what sense are ordinary human beings 'separated from God'?

Christ... suffered... for our sins...
We cannot take the Bible seriously and at the same time ignore this statement. It is a frequent testimony of scripture that Christ's death had to do with 'our sins'; not his sins, he had none. In his death he suffered the due penalty for the breaking of God's known laws; The soul who sins shall die. Ezek 18:20. If you click on the reference you can read the rest of that verse. It says very plainly that every member of our race will receive the due penalty for doing what we knew to be wrong and for not doing what we knew to be right. We are culpable and our sins have separated us from God.

If this is true, and Christ had no sins, how are we to understand his death? He died as the representative and substitute for everyone who had ever broken God's law. He received the punishment that was rightfully ours. An Old Testament prophet had seen this dimension to his death hundreds of years earlier; Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Is 53:4-6 That is what Bible students call 'substitutionary atonement', Peter simply refers to it as...

the just for the unjust
He took my place, my sin and my punishment. That is what Bible students call 'penal substitutionary atonement'. But in all the wonder of what he achieved we must be careful not to forget that clearly stated purpose. He died in our place, for our sins, as the sin-bearer upon whom God's righteous judgment came, but he did it all, without reluctance... to bring us to God.

What a tragedy it would be if having perfectly accomplished all that was necessary we should fall at the last hurdle... and not come to God. There is forgiveness for sins, peace with God, acceptance, bubbling joy and a million other blessings available... but only for those who will do business with God's sole agent in this enterprise.

Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Heb 7:25

Living in a patchwork covenant?

2009-08-29T01:08:00.001-07:00

Changing the mind-set is a process rather than the result of a single flash of light. The famous Ironebridge in Shropshire, UK was opened on New Year's Day in 1781, the Iron Bridge was the first arch bridge in the world to be made of cast iron. Architect Thomas Farnolls Pritchard commissioned Abraham Darby III, an ironmaster working at Coalbrookdale in the gorge, to cast and build the bridge over the river Severn, which had until then been crossed by ferry. The construction had no precedent, so Pritchard, whose background was in joinery, based the design on carpentry, with joints including mortise and tenon, and blind dovetail.

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

iron 'dovetail' joints

Pritchard had a whole new discovery at his feet but initially he was stuck in the mind-set of a previous era. Don't mock him, it happens to Christians all the time. It has sometimes been the habit for preachers to deride the slowness of Peter and the early disciples to 'follow through' in the implications of a New Covenant, but how many who mock Peter are still building iron bridges with dove-tail joints?

One of the great cures for this phenomena is a careful reading and re-reading of the letter to the Hebrews. The New Covenant is not, according to this letter, transition but replacement; then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. Heb 10:9. It is a theme which begins in Chapter 7; there has been 'a change in the priesthood'; Heb 7:12 and the law was a function of the priesthood in the same way that the priesthood was a function of the law; Heb 7:11. The result is that the 'first' or 'earlier' commandment has been 'set aside' as in Heb 7:18.

The New Covenant is not the next step in a kind of evolution of truth but a brand new beginning. It is not a new patch added to an old garment. To live it to its full purpose we shall need to 'set aside' all the 'dovetail joints' of our previous religious experiences and trust the Mediator of this New Covenant to do 'a new thing'. Is 43:18-19

Drawing near and drawing back.

2009-08-27T07:20:00.001-07:00

The letter to the Hebrews contains some of the most solemn warnings in the Bible. Souls with ultra-sensitive consciences often struggle through some of its statements. The letter is full of contrasts. It contrasts Christ with every other servant of God, and contrasts the New Covenant with the Old. There is another, underlying, contrast which is the whole basis of the letter; it is the contrast between drawing near and drawing back.

The letter focuses strongly on faith. Faith is the way that we respond positively to the word of God. In my little thumbnail definition I usually describe it as 'right response to revelation'. The letter to the Hebrews was written to people who have come to a place of personal faith in Christ and had received His Spirit but were in danger of reverting to their original Judaism. The writer, whoever it was, reminds his readers of the way in which old Israel 'drew back' from the promise that God had given them and died... 'out of Egypt' but never 'in the promised land'. I wonder how many this description would fit today? Have you turned your back on the old and known the beginnings of God's redemption but know you have not received all that was promised and find yourself stuck in a 'sub-standard Christianity'? Hebrews has a word for you.

Historically Israel had an Exodus, a meeting with God and, finally, a full entrance into their promised land. I am not suggesting that we create a three stage theology from this but only that these events may focus our attention in a helpful way. It is so easily forgotten, especially by preachers that 'he brought them out so that he could bring them in' is not the whole story. The full story is 'he brought them out so that he could bring them to himself, and after entering into a covenant with them he could then bring them in'. It's not as snappy perhaps that's why we usually go for the shortened version.

Do we have any consciousness of having 'drawn near to God' or is that just the language of the old hymns? On what basis would we be able to 'draw near to God'? Our author has no doubt; it is on the basis of faith. They did not 'draw near' because they had achieved some qualification in terms of righteousness; they 'drew near' because they were invited. Christ's death for us on the cross is the basis for our 'drawing near', nothing else will do. The apostle Peter once summed up the gospel in the words... For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God... 1 Pet 3:18 There is no other basis upon which we can draw near.

But being declared right with God is not quite the same as 'drawing near' to God. It is the necessary condition but not the automatic consequence. The apostle Paul writes of this fact in his letter to the saints in Rome, speaking of Christ he says; through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom 5:2-3 He has been speaking about 'justification by faith' but notice now that he says 'faith' gives him 'access into grace'. Faith opens the door and puts us on a right standing with God but we must then walk through it.

The danger for the readers of the Hebrew's letter was twofold; that they would not draw near AND that they would draw back. To 'draw back' in this context is to retreat from the understanding of acceptance with God by faith in Christ's sacrificial death and to set up our camp on the old ground of acceptance with God through human obediences. Those who do so, according to the writer are in mortal danger; Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” Heb 10:38 Just in case you missed it the first time he repeats the statement but in more positive terms in the following chapter; But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Heb 11:6

Acceptance with God is by grace through faith, but the reward is promised to those who 'diligently seek' him.

The embodiment of an answered prayer

2009-07-27T03:54:00.001-07:00

Only the brave will read any further after that title!

Psalm 22 changes its mood dramatically in the middle. Save Me from the lion’s mouth And from the horns of the wild oxen! You have answered Me. Psa 22:21 NKJV The last half would more accurately be translated as 'you have heard me'. The first half of the Psalm is dark and brooding. It speaks of the real 'passion' or suffering of Christ. Not Mel Gibson's version which just concentrated on the physical side but on the real inner suffering of Christ's death. He was conscious that in bearing sin he was suffering 'separation' from his Father. The dramatic description that follows the cry of 'Why has thou forsaken me?' speaks of a terrible battle that was raging on the inside, hidden from all eyes and cameras.

Suddenly at verse 21 the mood changes from the horror of separation to the joy of future hope and the watershed is the phrase 'you have heard me'. At this point in time Christ knew that the price was paid and the battle won. His cry of victory 'it is finished' bears witness to that. But what had been 'heard'? and why would the scripture use this language? The victory was not gained in some underworld as some have taught but there while he was still impaled to the cross on the horns of the wild aurochs.

Christ's death was not a tragedy or a cosmic accident, it was the cornerstone of salvation. It was a pouring out of his life to provide the legal foundation for all forgiveness from God. As the old Wesley hymn has it 'justice divine was satisfied'. Isaiah had prophesied this and spoken of the battle that would be won at Calvary and the means by which God would bring forgiveness and salvation to men and women; Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. Is 53:12 NKJV It's there again the image of the work on the cross being 'an intercession for transgressors'. His poured out life was the propitiation, the price paid, to make reconciliation possible.

This prayer was heard and the proof of that is the resurrection. Proof positive that the prayer was heard and the sacrifice accepted; Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; Heb 5:7 DRBY That version goes on to say 'he was heard'.

In its powerful images the Bible declares that Christ still bears the marks of his wounds in heaven. He is 'in place' as the person in whom this great prayer was heard. Our access to God is because we have a legal representative who can 'speak' to the Father on our behalf. His moment by moment intercession is not so much in terms of myriads of individual prayers but in the fact that his presence 'in heaven for us' is the great symbol of a prayer that was answered once and for all and which will always guarantee us access if we leave all the 'pleading' to him; My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2 NKJV

Dear Diognetus...

2009-07-24T02:42:00.001-07:00

"Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred."

Did the style of that seem a little archaic? No wonder, it was written somewhere around 130 AD by an anonymous Christian writing to an 'interested pagan' who is named as Diognetus; it is, in the language of our day, 'seeker-friendly'. It is usually called the Epistle to Diognetus and is a fascinating document. The letter is remarkable for its gentleness. This is not abrasive' in-your-face evangelism' but shows a genuine readiness to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience... 1 Pet 3:15-16 NKJV It is not a long letter and well worth reading, it's more in the style of a gentle evangelistic tract. Perhaps we should write some tracts like this?

For this blog I am more interested in the description, in italics above, of the Christian attitude to the world and culture in which we live. They live here as 'sojourners'. That's an archaic word now but it simply means someone who isn't staying, they are just passing through; you can see the French word for 'day' in the middle of it. These 'citizens' were living the same kind of cultural experience as those around them, but they weren't staying. It's that theme of 'pilgrims' again. The word 'pilgrim' draws our attention to the fact that he is on a journey, the word 'sojourner' draws attention to the fact that he is not settling down. They are the opposite sides of the same coin.

For the early Christians this was their prevailing world-view. Writing a little earlier at the turn of the first century Clement, an elder in the church in Rome, wrote to the church in Corinth. I am always thrilled with the opening sentence of his letter; The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. It's that same persistent theme that shaped the thinking and ambitions of the early Christians. Like Abraham of old, they had their eyes fixed on another city; ...he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. Heb 11:10 ESVS

Good morning, pilgrim

2009-07-23T03:16:00.001-07:00

When I was a teenager and an Anglican I went on a pilgrimage. It was to St Chad's Cathedral in Lichfield and was designed to give folks in the parishes a sense of belonging to the 'mother' church. Nowadays if someone uses the language of pilgrimage we usually think in terms of Eastern religions or Catholicism. Even the old hymn about 'being a pilgrim' is hardly ever sung now. And yet it is a thoroughly Bible idea... not a pilgrimage to 'holy places' but the idea of life being a journey to a specific destination.

I remember while preparing for my teenage pilgrim finding a verse in which Pharaoh asks Jacob how old he is. Jacob's answer captured my thoughts for a long time; And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are one hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.” Gen 47:9 NKJV Jacob regarded his life as a pilgrimage and knew that a pilgrim lives by 'days' rather than years. The Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament and usually translated as 'strangers'.

Centuries later when Peter wrote to Christians scattered throughout Asia Minor he had the same kind of thoughts in mind; Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect pilgrims of a Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet 1:1 (This is my own translation) Many Bible commentaries will tell you that Peter is writing to the Jewish Diaspora but I think they are wrong. He is beginning a letter-long metaphor in which he sees the Christians as a New Israel. Parts of which are already gathered 'home' to heaven, the remainder are like the Diaspora Jews of his day (and ours), living abroad in alien cultures and always thinking about 'home'.

An old puritan preacher prayed 'Lord, if you see me in danger of nesting, put a thorn in my nest'. It is a quaint prayer but he was aware of the dangers of settling down and becoming indistinguishable from the culture in which he was living. Christians have always struggled with getting the balance right here. Do we ignore the culture we live in and create Christian ghettos? Do we just add Christian elements to the culture that we are already part of? Do we expect to transform the culture we are living in to a Christian culture? Do we set our face to fight our culture at every step?

There are no neat answers to these questions. Unlike ancient Israel we do not live in theocracies where there is no division between 'church' and 'state'. Christ recognised the distinction between 'church' and 'state' when he said; Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. Matt 22:21. That recognises two kingdoms not just one.

However we resolve the details of our daily lives we do well to bear in mind Peter's reminder; ...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. 1 Pet 2:9-12 NKJV In the final analysis, this world is not my home, I am just passing through... I need to build that consciousness into my lifestyle.

it's just clay... but with attitude

2009-07-16T07:22:00.001-07:00

Paul asks one of his famous rhetorical questions in Romans 9:20-21, "does the potter not have power over the clay?" The expected answer of course is 'of course he does', however that is not the end of the story.

God asked a similar question back in the days of Jeremiah. “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! Jer 18:6. but this story about the pot will end in tragedy.

The pot is spoiled while it is in the potter's hand on the wheel. The scripture does not indicate what spoiled it at this stage; the focus is not the sickness but the cure. The potter 'made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.' Jer 18:4 Clearly something interrupted the potter's progress and the potter sets to to remake it. I once worked with a potter like this for over a year in the Wedgwood factory in the UK and spent a fair bit of time watching the process and thinking about this passage of scripture.

The original destiny of the clay has not been achieved so the potter remakes it again from the start, into a shape that pleases the potter. The pot did not choose its destiny and even when things go wrong the pot did not restore itself to its God-given destiny. This is what Paul is saying in Romans; the destiny of the pot is not the choice or the responsibility of the pot. I think it almost certain that this Jeremiah passage of scripture was in Paul's mind as he wrote Romans.

But Paul would also have known how this passage of scripture continues. God declares that even though the pot has become spoiled God is able and willing to remake it. The pot does not choose its destiny. God applies the parable to 'the house of Israel' and says he has destined judgement against the people because of their rebellion but that he is willing and able to revoke that destiny and to replace it with blessing if they will turn from their sin. Their answer is shocking; And they said, “That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.” Jer 18:12. They rejected God's word... this pot has an attitude! This clay in the hands of the potter is rejecting God's new destiny and purpose.

In the UK learner drivers use dual-control cars. The instructor has a clutch (most of the UK's cars still have a clutch!) and a foot brake which means he can interrupt the action of the learner. The instructor has no steering wheel, only the driver has a steering wheel. The driver sets his course and chooses the destination, the instructor cannot change that. But the instructor can prevent the driver arriving at his destination by operating the second clutch and foot-brake. In this parable please be sure that to understand that I am making the driver the illustration of God, and the instructor the illustration of the wo/man who can choose to co-operate with the will of God or to reject it.

The teaching of Jeremiah 18 is that someone who receives the word of God still has the power to reject it and if he rejects it he will thwart the destiny (destination) that God had chosen. The clay cannot create its own destiny it can only co-operate with or frustrate God's pre-destination. The potter does have the power to choose a destiny for the clay but, in the parable that God revealed to Jeremiah, the clay has its own responsibility to respond and receive the word of God.

God has made his original purpose and 'destination' plain; The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9 It is not the will of God that any wo/man should perish, this is the plain testimony of scripture, but God has given a fearful power to members of the human race; we have the power to say 'No' to God and so to frustrate his purpose and destiny for our lives.

Taming the wild beasts of Daniel 7?

2009-07-02T02:27:00.001-07:00

Some time ago a friend requested a blog on the way that a Christian ought to 'connect' with society's structures ie government. I had it on my 'to do' list for ages and then cancelled it thinking it too complex to deal with in a blog. Then I read a comment on the life of Anthony Norris Groves in an old book by G H Lang. His final sentence was "It is no part of the God-given duty of the church to tame the wild beasts of Daniel 7, and the attempt is vain".

It's the old question that Christians have struggled with since the earliest centuries, the relationship of Christ to culture; I mean the culture of the day. Some said Christianity should rule the culture; this is known as 'Christ over culture'. Some said Christianity should take its place within the culture; this is known as 'Christ within culture'... and some have said, as did Tertullian, 'what has Rome to do with Jerusalem, or the forum with the temple?'; that is known as 'Christ against culture'.

The prophet Daniel saw the progression of empires in two separate visions. First he saw it as a magnificent statue (Daniel 2) which would be obliterated by the coming of Messiah's kingdom. Then, in Daniel 7, he saw it figured in a savage conflict of wild animals; this is the point of G H Lang's comment. If the kingdoms of the earth are destined to thrash it out in the dust what part does the Christian have in those events? Does s/he ignore it, try to improve it or try to prevent it. You can see Lang's point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

To be a Roman citizen was a high privilege and at times Paul exercised the rights that came with it but on another occasion he declared ...our citizenship is in heaven... Phil 3:18-20 The word 'citizenship' is politeuma. You can almost see the word for 'politics' in there, it means to be a member of a state or city. The question is do we have dual citizenship? The duties and privileges to and of an earthly state and the heavenly city? And what happens when the courses of those two states are on a collision course?

In letters from the last years of the 1st century we know that Christians very much regarded themselves as 'sojourners' that is 'aliens in transit'! They didn't know the chorus but they would have embraced the theology that said 'this world is not my home, I'm just a passing through'. Jesus had said 'if my kingdom were of this world my servants would fight' John 18:36 The concept of 'Christ over culture' which the Roman church, and others since, have tried to impose only shows that such kingdoms were kingdoms of men and not of Christ. When a man fights for a kingdom he betrays his real motives, he wants control. Did God ever intend Christians to control the world? The crazy claims of many even today is that we are to control the world as Christians. They have not noticed the tenses Paul uses when he says 'the saints will judge the world'. 1Cor 6:2-3. Others have made the same mistake and were rebuked by Paul when he said 'you have reigned as kings but without us'. 1Cor 4:8

It is not the task of Christians to 'rule the world'. We are here in our sojourn as witnesses not legislators. As witnesses we may take a place in government or local community life but not to impose Christian standards, rather to serve as the world's conscience.

Whatever happened to modesty?

2009-07-01T02:10:00.001-07:00

"Summertime and..." ...you just don't know where to look anymore. Some time ago I was talking to someone from an Amish background. He had turned away from much of what he regarded as 'legality' but he and his wife and family still used the Amish dress code. I asked him 'why?' His answer unsettled me. He said 'we believe clothing was God's plan for modesty not a means of attraction'. What do you think about that? I think the theology is pretty much flawless. That doesn't mean that the next time we meet you will recognise me by my braces (suspenders for the US market) and an Abraham Lincoln beard, but it certainly had me thinking, and still does. It is so easy to follow patterns we see around us without thinking and without considering what kinds of problems we are creating for others.

It brings to mind a question I was once asked by a teenager. "Is it wrong for me to want to be attractive?" I asked her, gently, what she wanted to 'attract'.

You will notice I have got this far without talking about 'the world'. I think 'the world' is such a misunderstood concept that I usually try to avoid it unless there is time to really consider what the phrase signifies. The old complaint is that Christians generally avoid being 'worldly' by the simple ploy of being 'ten years out of date', but there is much more to the biblical concept of 'the world' and those who 'love it' than being slow to jump onto the next band-wagon fashion.

Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, I am and I am my sister's keeper too, and my sister is my keeper too. That doesn't mean that I imprison them in a cage of my own fashion design but that I am 'watching out for the well-being of others'; Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus... Phil 2:4-7.

I came across an old blog today that started my thoughts in this direction. It gave me my title for this blog; Whatever happened to modesty? It is a gentle piece from a man with five daughters and well worth reading. It concludes with...

"Four Guidelines for Modesty".

1. If you have trouble getting into it or out of it, it is probably not modest.

2. If you have to be careful when you sit down or bend over, it is probably not modest.

3. If people look at any part of your body before looking at your face, it is probably not modest.

4. If you can see your most private body parts or an outline of those parts under the fabric, it is probably not modest.

I like the way is focuses on 'guidelines' rather than 'rules'; it has the gentle touch of a father.

Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. 1 Cor 8:11-13.

plated with gold and silver or inhabited?

2009-06-24T11:37:00.001-07:00

My attention was caught reading Habakkuk recently and his comments on idolatry. He describes the processes that were commonly used in creating an idol and ends with the comment; it is overlaid with gold and silver, Yet in it there is no breath at all. Hab 2:19 The Hebrew word used here and translated as 'breath' is the word ruwach, it can also be translated as 'wind' or 'spirit'. The thing that is without breath is without life and the thing that is without spirit-breath is without spirit-life. The description is used in contrast with a much better known verse; “But the LORD is in His holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before Him.” Hab 2:20. The heathen nations had magnificent temples, as did Israel, but beauty is not a sign that God inhabits the place. It may be 'overlaid with gold and silver' and yet be missing that vital breath which is God's spirit.

If we take a snapshot of the creation we would have a point at which God had 'formed (literally 'potted') man of the dust of the ground... Gen 2:7 and yet had not breathed life into him. If the creation had stopped at that point I presume the man would have been a magnificent work of art. God, after all, is the supreme craftsman. All the animals could have filed by and wondered at this supreme creation and yet there would be... no breath in it at all; that distinctive likeness of God would have been absent.

It is sobering to consider how much energy and time and talent we can put into a methodology for worship only to create something in which there is no breath at all.

There is another comment that Habakkuk makes about the idol; he calls it a silent stone.Hab 2:19 Again it serves as a reminder that we can put so much energy and planning into the creation of a place where we expect God to speak only to discover we have created a silent stone.

In contrast the Lord is in his holy temple Hab 2:20.He is present in the midst of his people. Oh what a difference it makes when the Lord is in a place. It may have little earthly beauty and yet be vibrant with the life of God. The sermons may have little to commend them as works of art and yet the voice of God is heard in them.

There were many competing gods in the times of Israel's history but Israel's God had one simple distinguishing feature... he was, and is, the living God.

The strength of walls and those who guard them

2009-06-22T06:22:00.001-07:00

This blog has been provoked by watching a video one of my sons published on YouTube. He spent two years based in China and much of his break time exploring and photographing the Endless Wall. You can see the video here but it is the final quote which captured my imagination. It is from the war-lord Genghis Khan "The strength of walls depends upon the courage of those who guard them." You will need to watch the video to see the point of the quotation.

City walls were important in ancient times and meant the difference between chaos and security. The first city builder was Cain, who built a city in direct defiance of God's instruction; Gen 4:12,17. He build it because he felt vulnerable. We still tend to build 'walls' when we feel vulnerable! The writer of Proverbs commented on the way a rich man uses his wealth to create his own self-made security; Prov 18:11. The wise man put his faith in the name of the LORD, as the previous verse tells us Prov 18:10, but the 'rich fool' puts his confidence in his own resources. Such man-made walls, like China's Endless Wall, are doomed to ultimate failure.

The image of the security that walls bring, however, is a familiar Bible metaphor. We create structures to our days and lives and churches to act as a defence against the invader. We build our walls thinking that our central 'doctrinal truth' will be safe behind the walls of our denominational creed. My son's video comments that China's walls were built... to keep the barbarians out, to keep the people in, and to keep the soldiers busy. He comments that 'all of them failed'. They always do, and our doctrinal and denominational walls,which are often build for the same three reasons also fail... for the same reasons. And it is the reason given in the strange Genghis Khan quote, the strength of walls ultimately depends upon the courage of those who guard them.

At the turn of the 6th Century BC, as Jerusalem's walls faced the hordes of Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet Isaiah gave a curious prophecy; I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent, Is 62:6 No doubt many who heard the words thought it was another promised of 'security for the chosen people and their city', but within a few short years Nebuchadnezzar's battering rams had breached the walls of Jerusalem, and left the 'doctrinal faith' of its inhabitants as a burning ruin.

Did God fail in his promise? or had the promise always had another dimension? As Luther's hymn boldly declared 'the city of God remaineth'. But Luther wasn't thinking about the earthly Jerusalem but about a city which is a metaphor for God's people remaining safe in the will of God, in spite of all attacking barbarians. It is these walls and these 'guardians' of the wall that God has in mind. He calls them 'watchmen', says that he has appointed them to their posts, and that they will continue to pray 'day and night'. It is in the hands of these 'guards of the wall' that the purposes of God rest, not in doctrinal walls and denominational safeguards but in intercessors who will 'not be silent, but who will lift their prayer to God day and night.

Has God appointed you to such a post? We need you to stand your ground now as much as at any time in the history of Christianity. Don't waste your energies on building man-made walls to keep the invaders out and the faithful in, lift your heart to God and pray. Ultimately the safety of the 'city' will not depend on the strength of the walls but upon the courage of those who guard them.

Christ, the centre or a fashion accessory?

2009-06-10T12:05:00.001-07:00

The amounts of money that go into advertising prove one thing at least; the manufacturers believe it. We may laugh or groan at the adverts but commercial experts don’t throw their money away; they know that folk are affected by what they see and hear. One, not so subtle, aspect of advertising is the attempt to create a ‘must have’ product. Apple have just about achieved this with their iPod; that trailing white cable is the way to go. If you want to be part one of the in-crowd you just can’t afford to have another kind of mp3 player.

Jesus once made a very strong statement about the things we acquire. He said, "Be careful and guard against all kinds of greed. Life is not measured by how much one owns." (Luke 12) That strikes against some fundamentals of our modern culture. Our culture says that identity is made up of key brands and that to be without those brands defines the kind of person I am. Christ says it doesn’t.

Just how do we measure a life? Income, career, potential, job satisfaction? “Get a life.” they say, but they seldom define ‘life’. I knew a businessman who had a cute message on his answering machine. It simply said “Who are you and what do you want?”, then it paused a while and added “…some people spend their whole lifetime answering these two questions.” Have you ever tried to answer the question ‘who are you?’ “I’m a student.” Fine, but is that who you are? “I’m the daughter of a doctor, a coal miner, a tv star…” Fine, but is that who you are? Mind you, this isn’t a new problem. About 3000 years ago a teenager lay on his back looking up at the stars and asked, “what is man, that You think of him, the son of man that You care for him?” (Psalm 8)

Some folks, when they feel their ‘life’ is inadequate try to improve it with all kinds of additions; friends, cars, clothes, gadgets. There is a devastating series of lines in an old Graham Kendrick song telling the story of a man whose life has just settled down into a typical modern rut. Stuck in front of the TV he is described as…

He has his armchair fantasies, adventures, realities,

Courtesy of the TV companies,

Though he no longer seems to know which of his lives is real.

There must be happier lives,

because he’s often seen them advertised.

They come free with the things you buy.

At least, that is the lie he likes to believe.

…and all this long before secondlife.com and facebook!

Some folk even try the solution of ‘adding religion’ to make life worthwhile. Some even try to ‘add’ Christ to the deadly mix of fashion accessories, but Christ is not ‘add on’ and any ‘christ’ which can be ‘added on’ is not the real Christ. In one of Paul’s wonderful descriptions of the Son of God he simply describes him as ‘the beginning’. (Colossians 1:18) A beginning can never be an ‘add on’, a beginning has to be the first thing.

Christ once described the way that people responded to the things he said to them. Some, he said, just made ‘truth’ an ‘add on’. They just added a little truth to what they already had. “When the storm came,” said Jesus, “it was all wiped out.” But there was another kind of listener and doer, someone who dug down to the bedrock and with that as the foundation built their house. “When the storm came.” said Jesus, “that house stood the test.”

Here’s our question then, Is Christ the beginning, the foundation of our life, the bedrock? Or is he little more than a religious fashion accessory? I remember an old man teaching me how to pack a case. You put the big thing in first, he said, and the other things will usually fit around it. If you put all the other things in first, there’s seldom room for the big thing. Don’t try to fit Christ into your busy life, get those priorities sorted.

(this was originally written for a youth page a couple of years ago)