Genesis 15 contains one of the most important verses in the Bible. God has undertaken to be both Abraham's shield and his exceedingly great reward but Abraham has a question; But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Gen 15:2 NKJV. His safety and provision have no point if he has no descendant. His chief household steward stands to inherit if Abraham has no blood line. God's answer is a breathtaking glimpse of the starry heavens and a breathtaking promise.
This is the context for one of the most important verses of the Bible; And he believed in Jehovah. And he reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6 ASV. This event becomes the template for saving faith. He rests his cause in God alone and the record declares that as a consequence God 'reckoned it to him for righteousness'. Abraham's acceptance with God was not to be based on his own achievement but upon God's free grace. This is a thrilling moment in Bible history but I want to concentrate on the revelation that follows.
We have said that these personal introductions or self-revelations of God are vital links to the way in which God wants us to 'see' him. In the moment we call 'now' Abraham is probably elated by his victory but subdued by his childlessness. He looks into the skies and sees myriads of stars, he looks into his own moment of 'now' and sees empty hands; I am childless. This is the exact moment, the perfect context in which God will reveal more of who he is to Abraham. In such moments God chooses to reveal himself to Abraham not only as the possessor of heaven and earth but as the Lord of history. Jehovah holds all things in his hands and he holds time too.
And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. Gen 15:7 ASV. When we are mid-process it is all too easy to be lost in the momentary detail. God's revelation of who he is declares that both the past and the future are in God's control. In fact, there is something of a guarantee in the past that stretches into the future. God is reminding Abraham of his own past; I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees. The reason you have come to this moment in time Abraham, is that I did something in your past. I brought you out. You walked on your own feet but the truth is 'I brought you out'.
And my purpose in bringing you out was to take you in, to give this land to you as your inheritance. I am Jehovah that brought thee out … to give thee this land to inherit it. Gen 15:7 ASV. God never runs out of resources. He has counted the cost, he knows he can complete what he has begun. There is a painful cry in the prophecy of Habakkuk; O LORD, revive Your work in the midst of the years! Hab 3:2 NKJV. Sometimes we need a special revelation 'in the midst of the years'. God is the God of beginnings and completions, he is also the God of the middle years, that time of life that we call 'now'.
Friday, 20 July 2012
Monday, 16 July 2012
a rose by any other name?
Shakespeare's Juliet asks a question;
…I wonder.
I have been reading the account of Isaac and his wells. It begins with God setting the scene and giving it a long-view perspective.
God was preparing Isaac for the tests that would surely come. They came in the form of hostility from the people of the land that he was camped on. They had blocked up all the wells that Abraham and his servants had dug. No doubt it was a way of telling Isaac to 'move on'. So Isaac 'moved on' and came to the valley of Gerar and pitched his tent there. (Gen 26:17) The place had a history; Abraham had stayed there. But the people of the land had already blocked up Abraham's old wells so Isaac had the task of unblocking them, and of doing something else. He not only unblocked Abraham's old wells but he insisted in changing their names back to the names that Abraham had given.
This is a glimpse into the culture of the day. If you owned something you had the right to change its name. God worked on this principle when he changed Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's to Sarah. Later he would finally get Jacob in his grip and change his name to Isaac. So Abraham had dug these wells and named them but those who wanted to erase the memory and testimony of Abraham had blocked the wells and renamed them. It is the ultimate re-writing of history; change the name. The idea is scattered through the Old Testament as the names of significant places receive new names.
But Isaac didn't give the reopened wells new names; he gave them old names. He was not innovating but building on old foundations.
We live in days when innovation and enterprise seem to be the watchwords of God's people and their mission. The search is on for more relevant methods of evangelism and 'church' planting and meetings. In some circles the search is on for different words and concepts that will better build the bridge between the local church and the community. The old words and concepts have too many disappointing and dusty memories; they are a 'turn off' to the 'current generation'. Some biblical phrases are too loaded with theological baggage; Baptism in Spirit, Sanctification, New Covenant, Regeneration.. they are all yesterday's words. Time to move on?
Of course to go back to the old names when the wells are still blocked would be folly. That would be a simple but deceptive paint-job. You don't change the nature of the well by giving it back an old name, but we should be cautious about finding new names for old truths in order to make them more acceptable. And there is a another danger that faces us. To use the old word but to change the definition is a well tried and tested method of perverting truth. No, a paint job will not do, nor the the pretence that all is well just because we are using the right words. We need to reopen the old wells AND give them back their old names. After all, to return to an ancient refrain of mine; "words have histories". Ah, some will say, this is just semantics and pedantry… but I wonder…
Who was right? Juliet or Isaac?
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
…I wonder.
I have been reading the account of Isaac and his wells. It begins with God setting the scene and giving it a long-view perspective.
Then the LORD appeared to him (Isaac) and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” Gen 26:2–5 NKJV.Isaac's prospects were good because Abraham was faithful. There is an unbreakable link here. Isaac was intended to build on the foundation that Abraham had laid. He cannot choose his own ways and traditions, he is part of a continuum.
God was preparing Isaac for the tests that would surely come. They came in the form of hostility from the people of the land that he was camped on. They had blocked up all the wells that Abraham and his servants had dug. No doubt it was a way of telling Isaac to 'move on'. So Isaac 'moved on' and came to the valley of Gerar and pitched his tent there. (Gen 26:17) The place had a history; Abraham had stayed there. But the people of the land had already blocked up Abraham's old wells so Isaac had the task of unblocking them, and of doing something else. He not only unblocked Abraham's old wells but he insisted in changing their names back to the names that Abraham had given.
And Isaac dug again the wells of water which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father, for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham. He called them by the names which his father had called them. Gen 26:18 NKJV.
This is a glimpse into the culture of the day. If you owned something you had the right to change its name. God worked on this principle when he changed Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's to Sarah. Later he would finally get Jacob in his grip and change his name to Isaac. So Abraham had dug these wells and named them but those who wanted to erase the memory and testimony of Abraham had blocked the wells and renamed them. It is the ultimate re-writing of history; change the name. The idea is scattered through the Old Testament as the names of significant places receive new names.
But Isaac didn't give the reopened wells new names; he gave them old names. He was not innovating but building on old foundations.
We live in days when innovation and enterprise seem to be the watchwords of God's people and their mission. The search is on for more relevant methods of evangelism and 'church' planting and meetings. In some circles the search is on for different words and concepts that will better build the bridge between the local church and the community. The old words and concepts have too many disappointing and dusty memories; they are a 'turn off' to the 'current generation'. Some biblical phrases are too loaded with theological baggage; Baptism in Spirit, Sanctification, New Covenant, Regeneration.. they are all yesterday's words. Time to move on?
Of course to go back to the old names when the wells are still blocked would be folly. That would be a simple but deceptive paint-job. You don't change the nature of the well by giving it back an old name, but we should be cautious about finding new names for old truths in order to make them more acceptable. And there is a another danger that faces us. To use the old word but to change the definition is a well tried and tested method of perverting truth. No, a paint job will not do, nor the the pretence that all is well just because we are using the right words. We need to reopen the old wells AND give them back their old names. After all, to return to an ancient refrain of mine; "words have histories". Ah, some will say, this is just semantics and pedantry… but I wonder…
Who was right? Juliet or Isaac?
Friday, 13 July 2012
I am your shield and your exceedingly great reward.
Let's try out the principles we identified in last week's Friday blog.
In the Bible revelation this is the first time that God introduced himself in this way. The words stand in the very first verse of Genesis 15. Almost certainly they should have been the very last verse of Genesis 14.
Let's start with the dramatis personae, the characters or a list of characters in a play or story, of this special revelation. It is a complex cast. We have 9 kings, three brothers, three alliances, Abraham and his nephew and a mysterious king-priest and all in one chapter! We also have a major set-piece battle and a night raid. We also have two 'deals' set before Abraham and a choice to be made and all this in just one chapter! It's the kind of chapter we need to read slowly and thoughtfully.
As the curtain opens Abraham's family tent is pitched on the land that belongs to one of those three brothers whose name was Mamre. They were Amorites and the three brothers were the leaders of a defensive alliance which included Abraham. We are told that they were 'the masters of a covenant' (baal-berith) with Abraham. It seems that one of the conditions of Abraham's tenancy of the land was the understanding that in the event of attack Abraham and his household warriors would stand with the Amorite brothers in defending the territory. Seen from the other perspective the Amorite brothers were Abraham's 'Desert Shield'.
There were two more alliances. Four city-state kings in the North exercised dominion over several city-state kingdoms in the South. Initially the Southern kingdoms paid tribute but then rebelled. Abraham's nephew Lot lived in one of the Southern cities. The Northern alliance marched South to punish the 5 Southern Alliance city-states and won a resounding victory. The battle was known as '4 kings against 5'. The Northern alliance plundered the cities of the South and took many hostage, including Lot.
Abraham led a night-sortie against the homeward bound Northern alliance. The end of the chapter makes it clear that the household warriors of the Amorite brothers were part of the rescue party. Abraham's attack was successful and the treasure and the hostages, including Lot, were rescued.
As he returned home Abraham has two encounters which will have great significance. The encounters are with two kings, the mysterious priest-king named Melchizedek and the king of Sodom; they each have an offer to put to Abraham. The king of Sodom offers unimaginable wealth to Abraham, the entire battle spoils on condition that Abraham restores the people of Sodom to their king. (It is interesting, in the light of later events, that Abraham was once 'the deliverer of Sodom' and its people.)
Abraham, however, had already made a choice that rendered the Sodom offer redundant. His meeting with Melchizedek had opened his eyes. The priest-king offered Abraham the symbols of fellowship in the service of God Most High, the Possessor of Heaven and Earth. In the lights of the day, this was a stirring revelation. The general belief was that 'gods' were territorial and ruled over designated areas. Melchizedek revealed to Abraham that this was not so and that God Most High was the Possessor of All. Abraham's response was dramatic. He raised his hand in a solemn oath that his only allegiance would be to Jehovah, God Most High. Abraham had built altars to Jehovah and had called upon the name of Jehovah, now he was beginning to see just who Jehovah really was. Such an allegiance ended Abraham's alliance with the Amorite brothers. He had given up his 'Desert Shield'. The oath included a refusal to join any kind of financial partnership with the his old allies. Abraham had given up his reward of battle plunder.
It was, as the record tells us, 'after these things' that God revealed himself to Abraham. Abraham's choice is the context in which God reveals himself to Abraham. "Do not be afraid. I am your shield and your exceedingly great reward". Who needs the Amorite brothers or the king of Sodom when God has promised to be all in all. As Jim Elliott was to say much later "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep and gains what he cannot lose."
In the Bible revelation this is the first time that God introduced himself in this way. The words stand in the very first verse of Genesis 15. Almost certainly they should have been the very last verse of Genesis 14.
Let's start with the dramatis personae, the characters or a list of characters in a play or story, of this special revelation. It is a complex cast. We have 9 kings, three brothers, three alliances, Abraham and his nephew and a mysterious king-priest and all in one chapter! We also have a major set-piece battle and a night raid. We also have two 'deals' set before Abraham and a choice to be made and all this in just one chapter! It's the kind of chapter we need to read slowly and thoughtfully.
As the curtain opens Abraham's family tent is pitched on the land that belongs to one of those three brothers whose name was Mamre. They were Amorites and the three brothers were the leaders of a defensive alliance which included Abraham. We are told that they were 'the masters of a covenant' (baal-berith) with Abraham. It seems that one of the conditions of Abraham's tenancy of the land was the understanding that in the event of attack Abraham and his household warriors would stand with the Amorite brothers in defending the territory. Seen from the other perspective the Amorite brothers were Abraham's 'Desert Shield'.
There were two more alliances. Four city-state kings in the North exercised dominion over several city-state kingdoms in the South. Initially the Southern kingdoms paid tribute but then rebelled. Abraham's nephew Lot lived in one of the Southern cities. The Northern alliance marched South to punish the 5 Southern Alliance city-states and won a resounding victory. The battle was known as '4 kings against 5'. The Northern alliance plundered the cities of the South and took many hostage, including Lot.
Abraham led a night-sortie against the homeward bound Northern alliance. The end of the chapter makes it clear that the household warriors of the Amorite brothers were part of the rescue party. Abraham's attack was successful and the treasure and the hostages, including Lot, were rescued.
As he returned home Abraham has two encounters which will have great significance. The encounters are with two kings, the mysterious priest-king named Melchizedek and the king of Sodom; they each have an offer to put to Abraham. The king of Sodom offers unimaginable wealth to Abraham, the entire battle spoils on condition that Abraham restores the people of Sodom to their king. (It is interesting, in the light of later events, that Abraham was once 'the deliverer of Sodom' and its people.)
Abraham, however, had already made a choice that rendered the Sodom offer redundant. His meeting with Melchizedek had opened his eyes. The priest-king offered Abraham the symbols of fellowship in the service of God Most High, the Possessor of Heaven and Earth. In the lights of the day, this was a stirring revelation. The general belief was that 'gods' were territorial and ruled over designated areas. Melchizedek revealed to Abraham that this was not so and that God Most High was the Possessor of All. Abraham's response was dramatic. He raised his hand in a solemn oath that his only allegiance would be to Jehovah, God Most High. Abraham had built altars to Jehovah and had called upon the name of Jehovah, now he was beginning to see just who Jehovah really was. Such an allegiance ended Abraham's alliance with the Amorite brothers. He had given up his 'Desert Shield'. The oath included a refusal to join any kind of financial partnership with the his old allies. Abraham had given up his reward of battle plunder.
It was, as the record tells us, 'after these things' that God revealed himself to Abraham. Abraham's choice is the context in which God reveals himself to Abraham. "Do not be afraid. I am your shield and your exceedingly great reward". Who needs the Amorite brothers or the king of Sodom when God has promised to be all in all. As Jim Elliott was to say much later "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep and gains what he cannot lose."
Monday, 9 July 2012
The Father is seeking...
I have just restarted my Biblebase Daily Bible Readings readings based on the Earley Christian Fellowship's Church Life School which we ran some years ago. I am reading in Genesis, the book of beginnings. In many ways Genesis is like a seed plot, all kinds of wonderful truths that flower later in the Bible can be found in the seed-plot of Genesis.
For example. How often have you heard it said that the first reference to worship in the Bible is in the story of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac? This is the verse in mind:
The Hebrew word for worship used here in Genesis 22:5 is [Hebrew Strong’s 7812] shachah, it is a word which means to prostrate oneself (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God): and is usually translated by the old King James Version as 'worship'. This is the word used by Abraham en route to Moriah. It is used earlier in Abraham's story in the record of 3 mysterious visitors to his tent door;
If we were trying to find a modern equivalent what words would be use? I have a suggestion, surrender. The position adopted by Abraham and later by Lot indicated total and absolute surrender to another.
When the Hebrew scholars translated the word shachah into the Greek language for a translation known as the Septuagint they usually used the ordinary Greek word for worship, [Greek Strongs 4352] proskuneO. It is a word with an interesting history. The letters kune link it with the Greek word for a dog. It seems that originally the word indicated the kind of total surrender that a dog gave to its master when it licked his hand. We are back to that word surrender again.
Apparently the Bible's idea of worship is constantly linked with the idea of total surrender. Perhaps, mischievously, I found myself putting the Bible word into some of our more common uses of the word worship. How does a Surrender Service sound? or a Surrender Band or perhaps even a Surrender Leader?
And it was not curiosity alone which made me try using the word in its older sense. I found my thoughts centring around two profound statements of Christ...
For example. How often have you heard it said that the first reference to worship in the Bible is in the story of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac? This is the verse in mind:
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 NKJV.It is true that this is the first use of the English word worship but it is not the first time the Hebrew word for worship is used.
The Hebrew word for worship used here in Genesis 22:5 is [Hebrew Strong’s 7812] shachah, it is a word which means to prostrate oneself (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God): and is usually translated by the old King James Version as 'worship'. This is the word used by Abraham en route to Moriah. It is used earlier in Abraham's story in the record of 3 mysterious visitors to his tent door;
So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, Gen 18:2 NKJV.That is a vivid picture. Old Abraham runs to meet them and then throws himself on his face at their feet. Later we find Lot greets these mysterious messengers of God in a similar fashion. (Gen 19:1 NKJV)
If we were trying to find a modern equivalent what words would be use? I have a suggestion, surrender. The position adopted by Abraham and later by Lot indicated total and absolute surrender to another.
When the Hebrew scholars translated the word shachah into the Greek language for a translation known as the Septuagint they usually used the ordinary Greek word for worship, [Greek Strongs 4352] proskuneO. It is a word with an interesting history. The letters kune link it with the Greek word for a dog. It seems that originally the word indicated the kind of total surrender that a dog gave to its master when it licked his hand. We are back to that word surrender again.
Apparently the Bible's idea of worship is constantly linked with the idea of total surrender. Perhaps, mischievously, I found myself putting the Bible word into some of our more common uses of the word worship. How does a Surrender Service sound? or a Surrender Band or perhaps even a Surrender Leader?
And it was not curiosity alone which made me try using the word in its older sense. I found my thoughts centring around two profound statements of Christ...
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.
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23–24 NKJV.We magnify Your name, Lord,
We worship and adore You,
For who You are, for what You've done
Among Your people here.
We open up our lives to You,
Lay down our minds and wills,
We want You Lord to have Your way,
For we delight in You.
Friday, 6 July 2012
God's Self-Revelations
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? Job 11:7–8 KJV. It is a question from one of Job's unhelpful helpers. But it is a profound question none the less. How can feeble men and women ever discover truth about God? We can't reach high enough or low enough. God is beyond us. The human mind and man's ability to reason is a powerful tool but is inadequate for this task. How can the finite fathom the infinite? How can we ever know anything about God, it is all beyond our reach.
It is true that genuine truth about God IS beyond our reach but it is also true that man is not beyond God's reach. And this is where it must all begin, not with mankind discovering God but with God revealing himself. We could know nothing of eternal truth if God had not revealed himself.
Have you ever been asked to introduce yourself at a meeting of any kind. "Just say a few words about yourself" says the host and we hardly know where to start. Just suppose we were in a smaller meeting with God, how would you introduce yourself, and how would God introduce himself? It's likely that you would be begin with the words "I am…". Where you go from there depends on what aspect of your character you want the meeting to know. These 'self-revelations' are fascinating things. We usually hide more than we reveal. The version of ourselves that we want to portray will be finely tuned to the event and to the hearers.
That is why the times that God says "I am…" are so fascinating too. The words that follow this simple formula are what God wanted men and women to know about him. 'By searching' they could never really discover God and an infinite God would overwhelm us if he revealed himself in all his unrestrained god-ness. God's self-revelations then are occasions of his condescension. That's a word that has fallen on hard times. It now means talking down to someone in a patronising manner. It wasn't always so. The word originally meant 'to come down' not in a patronising way but in mercy. One of the Hebrew words translated as 'mercy' (chanon) actually means to 'stoop down to someone'. God has condescended, stooped down, to reveal himself to mankind. Those revelations of who is he is are true but not complete; there will always be 'more' for God to reveal of himself, even eternity will be too short. So when God says "I am…" it is never the whole story but it is that part of the story that God intends to bring into focus. That's why it is valuable to take note not just of what God says about himself but why, and to whom and when.
John Wycliffe (1320 – December 31, 1384) advised his followers that in reading the scriptures to observe the context is as important as to observe the words.
It is true that genuine truth about God IS beyond our reach but it is also true that man is not beyond God's reach. And this is where it must all begin, not with mankind discovering God but with God revealing himself. We could know nothing of eternal truth if God had not revealed himself.
Have you ever been asked to introduce yourself at a meeting of any kind. "Just say a few words about yourself" says the host and we hardly know where to start. Just suppose we were in a smaller meeting with God, how would you introduce yourself, and how would God introduce himself? It's likely that you would be begin with the words "I am…". Where you go from there depends on what aspect of your character you want the meeting to know. These 'self-revelations' are fascinating things. We usually hide more than we reveal. The version of ourselves that we want to portray will be finely tuned to the event and to the hearers.
That is why the times that God says "I am…" are so fascinating too. The words that follow this simple formula are what God wanted men and women to know about him. 'By searching' they could never really discover God and an infinite God would overwhelm us if he revealed himself in all his unrestrained god-ness. God's self-revelations then are occasions of his condescension. That's a word that has fallen on hard times. It now means talking down to someone in a patronising manner. It wasn't always so. The word originally meant 'to come down' not in a patronising way but in mercy. One of the Hebrew words translated as 'mercy' (chanon) actually means to 'stoop down to someone'. God has condescended, stooped down, to reveal himself to mankind. Those revelations of who is he is are true but not complete; there will always be 'more' for God to reveal of himself, even eternity will be too short. So when God says "I am…" it is never the whole story but it is that part of the story that God intends to bring into focus. That's why it is valuable to take note not just of what God says about himself but why, and to whom and when.
John Wycliffe (1320 – December 31, 1384) advised his followers that in reading the scriptures to observe the context is as important as to observe the words.
Those questions cannot be bettered and especially when we consider those times when God says "I am…". Revelation always has context.It will greatly help you, for understanding scripture:
If you pay attention not only to...
WHAT is spoken or written,
But also OF WHOM it was spoken or written,
And TO WHOM,
With what CHOICE OF WORDS,
At what TIME, WHERE ,
For what PURPOSE,
In what CIRCUMSTANCES;
Considering also WHAT IS SAID BEFORE
And WHAT IS SAID AFTER.
Friday, 29 June 2012
a preacher's prayer
I am back in Psalm 19. This is familiar territory particularly at such a time as this. 'such a time as this.'? As July begins I am just a month away from a week long residential conference where I am scheduled to be leading the morning Bible readings. Most of the conference attendees will be camping in the fields around a large marquee. I have four one-hour morning sessions and any time now panic will begin to set in. It is not a screaming panic, just enough to make sleep a little fitful, and to present my mind with a thousand reasons as to why I should not be speaking at the sessions!
This is probably an unexpected revelation for many. We tend to see someone preaching and we think they live a charmed life with not a ripple on the waters of their experience. We 'see' the authority with which Paul declares truth in his writings and find it almost impossible to believe his testimony; I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 1 Cor 2:3 NKJV. Who? Paul? surely not. At one point in his writings Paul repeats an accusation made against him; “For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” 2 Cor 10:10 NKJV. His gifting had an impact on his writing but he himself was not a man of supreme presence or self-confidence.
So why Psalm 19? The Psalm seems to have as one of its themes the way that God reveals himself. It begins with the revelation of God in the creation and particularly in the creation above us. The creation constantly preaches 'without words. The old ASV has a different slant on these verses; The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. Psa 19:1–3 ASV. There is no speech, their voice is not heard… nevertheless the message goes out day by day and night by night.
Then the Psalmist, David, moves on to the revelation of God given in the written testimony of the scriptures and the law. These are wonderful verses to savour. The things revealed, by God, through his word, affect powerfully those who receive them into their lives. David then adds his personal testimony; More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb. Psa 19:10 ASV.
Then we come to the final 3 verses. Who understandeth [his] errors? Purify me from secret [faults]. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous [sins]; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be perfect, and I shall be innocent from great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer. Psa 19:12–14 DRBY. This is from the JN Darby translation, which is a very literal rendering. The words in the square brackets are not in the original but have been added to make the meaning more clear.
Suppose this passage is not speaking about 'sins' as such but the limited understanding of the Psalmist or anyone who seeks to convey truth about God. (Notice how all the 'sin' words in brackets are not in the original version) He knows there are 'secret things'; things lodged in his understanding that he may have lost track of. Things that may continue to influence his thinking subconsciously. He suspects there may be 'presumptuous things' that are lurking there too. It is so easy to extrapolate Bible truths and to develop ideas that are no longer direct revelation but are the unwitting conclusions of presumptuous thinking. He asks that these secret presumptions will not 'have dominion' over him. He wants God to keep him from untraceable thoughts which may dilute or even pervert the truth.
He is apprehensive about the possibility of 'great transgression'. Peter said that a preacher should preach as an 'oracle of God'. No pressure there then! James said that the teachers will be judged with greater severity. No pressure there either! His only hope is not in the orthodoxy of his theology or the amount of thought he puts into his speaking. His only hope is that God will watch over his thoughts and his words, that God will be his strength and his redeemer.
I return to these words again and again in prospect of preaching. No amount of previous experience can prepare us. No amount of personal, detailed, Bible studies. We have one hope alone; we hang upon our Rock and our Redeemer.
This is probably an unexpected revelation for many. We tend to see someone preaching and we think they live a charmed life with not a ripple on the waters of their experience. We 'see' the authority with which Paul declares truth in his writings and find it almost impossible to believe his testimony; I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 1 Cor 2:3 NKJV. Who? Paul? surely not. At one point in his writings Paul repeats an accusation made against him; “For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” 2 Cor 10:10 NKJV. His gifting had an impact on his writing but he himself was not a man of supreme presence or self-confidence.
So why Psalm 19? The Psalm seems to have as one of its themes the way that God reveals himself. It begins with the revelation of God in the creation and particularly in the creation above us. The creation constantly preaches 'without words. The old ASV has a different slant on these verses; The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. Psa 19:1–3 ASV. There is no speech, their voice is not heard… nevertheless the message goes out day by day and night by night.
Then the Psalmist, David, moves on to the revelation of God given in the written testimony of the scriptures and the law. These are wonderful verses to savour. The things revealed, by God, through his word, affect powerfully those who receive them into their lives. David then adds his personal testimony; More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb. Psa 19:10 ASV.
Then we come to the final 3 verses. Who understandeth [his] errors? Purify me from secret [faults]. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous [sins]; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be perfect, and I shall be innocent from great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer. Psa 19:12–14 DRBY. This is from the JN Darby translation, which is a very literal rendering. The words in the square brackets are not in the original but have been added to make the meaning more clear.
Suppose this passage is not speaking about 'sins' as such but the limited understanding of the Psalmist or anyone who seeks to convey truth about God. (Notice how all the 'sin' words in brackets are not in the original version) He knows there are 'secret things'; things lodged in his understanding that he may have lost track of. Things that may continue to influence his thinking subconsciously. He suspects there may be 'presumptuous things' that are lurking there too. It is so easy to extrapolate Bible truths and to develop ideas that are no longer direct revelation but are the unwitting conclusions of presumptuous thinking. He asks that these secret presumptions will not 'have dominion' over him. He wants God to keep him from untraceable thoughts which may dilute or even pervert the truth.
He is apprehensive about the possibility of 'great transgression'. Peter said that a preacher should preach as an 'oracle of God'. No pressure there then! James said that the teachers will be judged with greater severity. No pressure there either! His only hope is not in the orthodoxy of his theology or the amount of thought he puts into his speaking. His only hope is that God will watch over his thoughts and his words, that God will be his strength and his redeemer.
I return to these words again and again in prospect of preaching. No amount of previous experience can prepare us. No amount of personal, detailed, Bible studies. We have one hope alone; we hang upon our Rock and our Redeemer.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
The Queen and her Diamond Jubilee
Etymology has to do with the origins of words, their historic roots and their development. All words have roots but the meaning of a word is not determined by its root but rather by its use. Language is a living thing and words change their meaning over time. It is sometimes the way of Bible students to refer to a Hebrew or Greek word and then redefine its meaning so that it reflects the original roots of the word. This is an area where a little learning can truly be a dangerous thing. Words don't just have roots, they have histories and histories change the way a word is used and consequently its meaning.
I was thinking about this over the last few days when in the UK we have been taken up with the affairs of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. That phrase shows how the history of a word can change its meaning. The word 'jubilee' has Hebrew roots. In fact, it has to do with the blowing of trumpets and was originally an event which took place every 50 years when debts were cancelled and slaves were set free. So a 60 year, diamond jubilee is an idea that cannot be re-attached to its Hebrew roots. The phrase has other problems, the Anglo-Saxon word 'cwen' which is the root of our word 'queen' actually means the 'wife of a king'. This is beginning to get complicated because the current United Kingdom 'queen' is not the 'wife of a king'. We cannot interpret the phrase 'Queen's Diamond Jubilee' just by referring to the roots of the words, we have to take into account the passing of centuries, remembering that 'words have histories'.
It works in the opposite direction too. When we read the Bible we need to guard against the danger of importing the modern usage of a word back into a Bible passage. Let me illustrate briefly. The word 'guilt' has now come to mean 'shame'. So when we read of 'guilt' in the scriptures we need to remind ourselves that it is not referring to a feeling but to the verdict of a judge. Biblically, to be guilty is to have come under the judge's condemnation, our feelings have no relevance in the matter.
So how can we guard against the twin dangers of going too far back to a word's root or going too far forward to the modern usage of a word? Simply by saturating ourselves in the context of the word as we find it in the scriptures. Remembering that the meaning of a word is determined by its usage, not its original or contemporary meaning but its historical usage. Of course all this takes time and patience, high cost values in an age of quick-fixes and sound-bites. But there is no other alternative, in studying the Bible we have to invest to profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
