"the year that the king died"

That is how Isaiah introduces his life-changing experience at the temple in his 6th chapter.

Question: Why did he not say "in the year Jotham took over as king?" According to Isaiah 1:1, that is exactly the same year, right? What is it about the "death" of a beloved king who reigned 52 years and pleased the Lord (says both Kings and Chronicles) that made Isaiah say, "I remember when I met God in the temple....it was when the great king Uzziah died?"

I suppose it is because to have an appreciation for the very next phrase of this same verse, Isaiah had to feel some sort of loss. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it was that Isaiah was feeling so much loss that only a vision of God would do.

How does it sound in your life to say..."When something new began, I saw the Lord on HIs throne?" That is not nearly as life-changing or emphatic or comforting as "In the year of the death of a man who was dearly loved, I saw the Lord on His throne, high and lifted up."

What a loss! Who can replace Uzziah on his throne? Who can fill in the gap he left behind? Oh..."I see"..."I see the Lord on His throne, high and lifted up."

"God speaks to man...yet man somehow still lives!"

That is the sentiment of Moses' history in Deuteronomy 5:24. How is it possible that Eternal God would enter the realm of creation display a pico-helping of his glory (see same verse).

This is not the god of the Egyptians or the Babylonians or the....well, just fill in the blank. We do not have some sort of transcendant, un-interested, hard-to-get, untouchable god. No, the same God that visited Moses did not show up to you necessarily in a literal sense as he did to Moses...but what is a "literal visitation" when you know you have seen so little of His glory anyway? I don't know, but Moses saw this glory and we saw his glory and we still lived...somehow...we still lived!

Remember, God said, "I will visit you" when He promised a deliverance from Egypt (Genesis 50:24-25). What? Wait a minute, I don't remember that! Of course you don't Israelite! That happened 38 or so years ago and you want something sensational today.

Look at your life: The timing of things; the harmony of things; the peace in your soul in troubled times; the bills that get paid; the times when you should be (humanly speaking) falling a part.....but you don't...because you know God still visits--and He's visiting now...and you live.

Until the time of His literal visitation (1 Peter 2:12), we simply "gird up" and look forward (1 Peter 1:13) and live (John 17:3).

Does this bother you?

Deuteronomy 2:34 speaks of Moses rehearsing God's direction and victory in demolishing whole cities--women, children, everything. Does that bother you?

It bothers me, of course. What is important, however, is for us to remember is that this is the same God Who took on flesh (John 1:14) in the form of His Son (John 1:18) and will return to the same "Holy War" idea in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-10 and Revelation 19:11-21.

Let's start there. Two Testaments--same God.

Does Israel have a future?

There is a future for Israel. My belief is based on Romans 11 and the question Paul poses: “Has God cast away His people?” Then Paul answers it in this chapter. First in 11:1, he says “Certainly not.” Even in his time there were some Jews that believed on Christ. He then goes on to say that the very thing from which they were broken will one day be theirs again into which they can be “grafted” (11:24). What is this “tree” from which they were broken? The “promise” of faith resulting in “son-ship” to Abraham (9:4-10:12). When they are restored to faith in the seed of Abraham (that is Christ, Romans 11:25-26), then they will be in a place where God can fulfill His land promise to Abraham which was spelled out in Genesis 15:18-21 and re-emphasized in Ezekiel 47:13 (and following).

Luke 22:30 speaks of a time when the “twelve tribes” will indeed be an entity with Jewish leadership. For what purpose will this be done? This will be done first to fulfill the promise of land to Abraham, but also to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 with re-emphasis in Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:25. Revelation 20:1-6 uses this same language where it describes a temporal kingdom and uses the term “Christ” in this and only this context within Revelation. In other words, this will be the kingdom of the Jewish Messiah headquartered in Jerusalem during the future Millennium.

He was first...

1 Peter 1:2 describes believers as

Elect
a. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
b. through sanctification of the spirit
c. unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.

Ok, writing has never been my strongsuit. The truth is, I know this is with believers, but I just wanted you the reader to know that all of this was true first with Christ.

First, Christ is "elect." Notice 1 Peter 2:4-6. It calls Him "elect" twice.

Second, Christ is "elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Notice 1 Peter 1:20. This verse says that He was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." I love context.

Third, Christ is "elect according to the foreknownledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit." Hebrews 9:14 says He was "offered through the eternal Spirit." I don't know the depth of that statement, but it seems that the Holy Spirit ushered Christ into the "holy place" (see two verses earlier).

Fourth, Christ is "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and the blood of sprinkling." Hebrews, again, is replete with references of Christ's obedience unto death (Hebrews 5:8) and His offering/"sprinkling" of His blood (Hebrews 9:14; 12:24) which resulted from this obedience.

Milk-Toast Believers Stay With The Basics

First, notice the six-part foundation of Hebrews 6:1b-2.
All six things are Jewish in nature—if not Messianic Jewish in particular.

(A) “Repentance from dead works” is a “change of mind” regarding those works that are outside of Christ. 6:6 requires that this repentance be distinguished from a position sympathetic to Christ as those who “crucify” Him “cannot be renewed to repentance” (6:6). “Faith toward God” is an acceptance of His provision for forgiveness in Christ. If Christ is the “speaking of God” (1:2), then Christ is the “Word of God” spoken of in 4:12. For one to trust this God, there must be something upon which they can trust. How can one trust somebody if they have not heard a promise of some sort from them.

(B) “Baptism and laying on of the hands” seem best understood from the scope of Acts 8 where they are found as twin evidences of conversion. One was man’s acknowledgement of conversion while the other was God’s (as the Holy Ghost would come upon those whom received the “laying on of the hands.”)

(C) “Resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” are of course the third couplet of “things to come.” John 5:28-29 shows that this is not an original thought with Hebrews’ author.

Second, acknowledge that all but the “laying on of the hands for the Holy Spirit” are timeless and should be taught today.

Third, realize that we build upon foundations, but we are building nonetheless.
The writer doesn’t generalize them as “unable to comprehend Biblical truth", nor does he say the basic doctrines are expendable. However, He says they are unable to adequately consume the “milk” and move on to “meat.” He equates “milk” as the “first principles of the oracles of God” (5:13) and the “principles of Christ” (6:1).

The “first principles” or “beginning principles” are that with which he meddled before 5:11 and that into which he would love to delve (5:11), but simply doesn’t feel like they are ready. This is evidenced by the fact that the next four chapters (through chapter 10) stays with the comparison between Christ and Aaron and does not "move on."

Fourth, know that "meat” is equated with more teaching of “perfecting” (6:1) doctrine regarding “Melchisedek” (5:10-11). Therefore, the “advanced truth” spoken of is more truth concerning this “order of Melchisedek.”

Fifth, pray for an enlightened mind. This principle of “moving on” is exercised through the brain muscle. It must be stretched and used to be able to know (“through the spirit of wisdom and revelation” Eph 1:17-18) Christ for one’s sustenance and enjoyment. Churches should not be allowed to minimize the depths of Christology. Rather, knowing Christ is life (John 17:3), we must develop our vocabulary to bridge the language and generation gap. However, we must not strip the depths of God’s richness from the message itself--else it is no longer the message.

Consider the Song of Solomon

I greatly enjoyed seeing the patterns developed in Song of Solomon.

Notice the repeated sections known as "refrains." These refrains help me to understand that this was indeed a song to be song. The “I charge you” refrains of 2:7, 3:5, 5:8, and 8:4 are now circled and connected in my Bible as are the “mutual” refrains of 2:16, 6:3, and 7:10. The “hurry up” refrains of 2:17 and 8:14 also are noteworthy in my understanding that we are dealing with a beautiful song and not merely a developing narrative.

The parallels also seen in 4:1 and 6:4 are good also as they help us understand a re-occurring theme or situation in their lives. I love parallels and patterns in Scripture so this invited me to study even more.

The Element of Sinful Humanity

At a recent soccer tournament, I was reminded of how we will one day not be subject to referees who are tired. How about being subject to a pilot who is distracted by his poor marriage? What about being under the care of a surgeon who despises his paperwork? Won’t it be something to enjoy life without the judgment calls of sinful humanity? What about the judge who has an agenda? What about the English professor who has no subjectivity or affinity for a particular writing style? How about spouses who don’t decide what the other was saying without asking?

Of course, all of this is precluded by the fact that there are losers, a need to be somewhere else, cursed flesh and poor health; we view these realities through the reality of no disorder, and incomplete speech. One day.... one day.... the order will be restored (Revelation 21:1).

A trip to the Emergency Room

The fact is we go through things each day which tell of a perfect world. One only need to sit in the middle of imperfection to see that there is much more out there. If Ecclesiastes 3:11 is correct and “eternity is set in the hearts of men,” then it takes very little imagination to see that we are yearning for “a country…a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Everywhere we look in these places that testify of imperfection, we see those who will be out of jobs when the kingdom comes. I realize that those who have redeemed bodies (Romans 8) will have no need for hospitals. Ambulances will have no home but the junkyard and the drivers will need to retrain to another trade. The security guards will need to go back to school and those who are brandishing firearms will need to find a new instrument to master. When the Great Miracle Worker rules and reigns on the throne of His father David (see 2 Samuel 7:16 and Hosea 3) with a “rod of iron” (Psalm 2:5-12; Revelation 2-3), there will be no need for buzzer-activated doors, security cameras, or metal detectors.

My wife, who has had eight surgeries on her abdomen (to include three "c-sections"), will know nothing of such things with her glorified body. Our bodies will be like His body (1 John 3:2)—fashioned like His glorious body (Philippians 3:20). I guess that means we will be spared co-pays for pharmaceuticals. They will have no claim on this body. Poor America—the people live longer…longer and more miserably than anywhere else on the globe for those longer years, it seems.

I walked to the vending room where I saw a soldier who was with his wife whom he fears is miscarrying a second time in two pregnancies. I think about how the 100-year old will be considered an infant when he dies (Isaiah 65:20) in the millennium.

"What is man....that you visit Him?"

In Hebrews 2 the author quotes portions of Psalm 8.
To what man does Psalm 8 historically refer?

Based on Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8 must refer to Adam as the first man who was “crowned with glory and honor” and “given dominion.”

To whom does Psalm 8 refer prophetically?

Prophetically, Psalm 8 must refer to the last Adam when compared with Romans 5:13ff, 1 Corinthians 15:20ff and Hebrews 2:8. Bruce shows that Paul references this in Philippians 2:6-11 (Bruce 1990, 73)

Jesus affirms this in Matthew 21:16 as he applies the praise of the children in Psalm 8:2 to His welcome on “Palm Sunday.”

How does Hebrews’ author use this prophetically?

Hebrews applies this prophetically to Jesus’ exaltation already declared in 1:13 but delineated in 2:5 where he says it occurs in “the world to come.”

What does the author mean that not all things are presently subjected to Jesus?
It is the tension between 1:13 and 2:5. It occurred in 1:13, but is quite real in our perspective in 2:5: “the world to come.” This is, without a doubt, the issue eluded to in Matthew 6’s model prayer where the “will of the Father which is done in Heaven” is desired “on earth.” The now of “shadows” will soon be, in the mind of the Hebrews’ author, the “world to come” of “substance."

Even mentors find time to be alone with God.

Jesus spent all day teaching (Mark 1:22), and He spent all evening healing (1:32), yet He arose before the sun, and found time to pray to His Father in a special, secret place (1:35). This has much to do with mentoring because His disciples found Him carrying out His duty of prayer (1:36). “Pictures are worth a thousand words” it is said. There are greater impacts in the lives of the followers when they see the teachings of the teacher in the life of the teacher. Did they receive teaching on prayer? Yes. As a matter of fact, the desire to receive a class on teaching came upon the heels of Jesus being found in prayer again (Luke 11:1-2). There is convicting power in finding someone who is busy doing that which they have been teaching.

Even in the hours before His redemptive work, He was found by His disciples praying (14:32). Jesus was the example of prayer. If God prayed to God, how much more should humanity pray to God?

A Spiritual Leader is “ready” regarding the law of God.

The writer of Ezra doesn‟t introduce Ezra until his seventh chapter when he describes him as a “ready scribe” (7:6). He was ready to be an expert in the words of God as revealed in the Law of Moses. He had a ready heart as a seeker of the words of God as described in the Law of Moses (7:10). His mind and his heart were ready to find the Word of God, to copy the Word of God, to do the Word of God, and to teach the Word of God—even before it seemed like opportunity was upon him.

Shadowlands

Ecclesiastes 3:11 “He has set always/eternity/the world/forever in their hearts.”
Have you ever wondered why it is that man is looking for new things to conquer and never finding the energy, it seems, to do it? “Maybe if I get time, I’ll take up piano lessons.” Before we know it, life is over and we are confronted with the reality that so little of what we have done was worthwhile. Yet, we feel so driven. We feel like there is plenty for which we should get up. If I had a few more lives I would find a cure for cancer or learn to be a brain surgeon or have 17 children or…or…just find some more mountains to climb. Earth is not what it was, and neither are we. This is not the believers' home anyway.

Genesis 1:26-27 “Let us make man in our image.”
And why shouldn’t we wish to dominate? The dominant, Creative One made us in His image. It only seems right that an eternal God Who knows no rival would make people who are creative, eternal, and relational. Relational? Yes, it was an “us”, after all, that made us. It was a creator who made us and so we are creative as we are in His image. What dominates our minds is that we are so hungry for success and so unable, it seems to find it. We are people hungry for clear minds and clean consciences and yet so much of that eludes us.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13 “Eyes haven’t seen; ears haven’t heard; neither has man’s heart understood the things which God’s Spirit has revealed to those who are spiritual men—comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.”
So what is it that God has revealed to me that my eyes are not ready to see; my mind not ready to understand? I have heard it said that we use only a fraction of our brain. Is it possible that impulses are blocked because of sin or because of shades of consequence from a sin-cursed world? How many things never occur to us because we are so earthly-minded? How much earthly-mindedness comes from being sinful from heredity and how much comes from personal choice I shall never know, but this I know…the curse has taken me away from being able to acknowledge His presence in some measure. Just what would I be able to know about my state in Christ; what would I know about the world to come; what would I know about what really is; what would my gifting of discernment be like if I could think clearly?

2 Corinthians 3:18 “We are being changed from glory to glory seeing the glory of God clearer after each change.”
This makes Heaven seem more precious and home-going more desirable when I realize that, slowly but surely, my spirit is being renewed in the inner man and my mind is becoming clearer (Ephesians 1:18; 4:23; Colossians 3:10). As I am becoming more like Jesus, I am becoming more human than I have ever been from the perspective of a post-Adamic human being. Why is it that we are so driven to that which can never be attained? The answer is that we are so close to that realm in our creation and so far away in our fall. I do not know what it is to walk with God in the cool of the garden as Adam did, but I am being renewed to my original state, and one day, glorification will allow me to be what God has created me to be.

Even better than being in a state of Adam’s “able not to sin,” I am being renewed, in that “faith-victory that overcomes the world” (1 John 5:4) to a place of “not able to sin.” A shadow of that land is experienced by those who suffer for Jesus (1 Peter 4:1).

That is what we are in—shadow lands. These shadow lands are filled with imperfections of the fall. We look at the original garden to see to which we are heading. We look at the post Edenic world to see how things are cursed and awry and how they will one day be when the Second Adam returns to make everything right because of His work in the garden wherein lieth “the place of the skull” (John 19:41). It was there where, on a tree/cross (Acts 5:30), our Second Adam (says Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) regained paradise with God for those of Adam’s race.

It is the “heavens and the earth” which were created in Genesis 1 and are kicked out of the presence of God in Revelation 20:11. It is these same two words found as representing the new creation in Revelation 21:1. It is He which “makes all things new” (Revelation 21:5).

David the Leader out of 1 Samuel

Growing Influence
However many might men he was in charge of previously, what is true now is that he has four hundred men that would gladly die for their leader. Why? He took them as they were: indebted, discontented, and disenchanted (22:2). David‟s relation to those who were “on the run” was one of endearment. He continually “went out and came in” among his people (18:16).

The Loyalty to Lead
David loved his king—the very king that sought to destroy him. David desired to do nothing more than to serve that very king in peace and solitude (22:14). Given the opportunity to usurp the kingdom, David wouldn‟t have taken it (24:10).

The Empathy to Lead
After the priest that was with David lost his entire family to the hand of Saul, it was David that said, “My goodness! Look what I have done, Abiathar! I have affected your entire family (22:22). Please stay with me, and if need be—we‟ll die together.” David‟s “coming in and going out” among his followers shows his incarnational ministry—loving enough to live among them; to die with them (Towns, 97).

The Resilience to Lead 13 Without question, the ability to bounce back makes a real leader. David‟s city was invaded, burned, and the residents were captured and taken away (30:3). His men were distraught (30:6) and David was horribly heart-broken as well (30:4). The amazing thing is that he had a clear enough mind to ask for direction from the Lord (30:7) and “strengthen himself in the Lord” (30:6).

The Grace to Lead
After recovering their things in a great slaughter of the Amalekites (30:17), the four hundred men who partook in that great campaign included some naysayers who thought the two hundred who stayed behind shouldn‟t have the spoils of this military effort (30:22). David made a policy that those on “Rear Detachment” would reap the same benefits as those who left the guardianship of the homeland to conquer the enemy (30:24).

What does it mean to "believe on His name?"

After all, that is what is required to "receive Him" according to the whole of John 1:12.

Am I going to jump all over Scripture and write a "topical blog?" No, this Scripture is very clear in its context for John the Apostle is making a clear case:

1. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the pre-existent Word (See John 1:15,27, and 30).

2. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the "Lord" of the Old Testament (See John 1:23).

3. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the sacrificial "Lamb of God" (See John 1:29 and 36).

Is it any or all? It is indeed within the scope of John's writing here that Jesus is "believed upon/relied upon/trusted" as the Son of God Who died for the sins of the world.

To the Old Testament hearer, they would have taken special interest in Jesus' eternality as the "Word" of John 1:1-3 and that He was also "Jehovah" in the Old Testament. They indeed would have to believe this report.

Perhaps you are thinking "Of course I believe that!" But do you? Are you still hoping that Heaven is your home? Are you still thinking it may be your home? Are you praying often that Heaven is your home? Then you have not believed the Gospel and you are very probably not saved? Judgmental? Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 and see there are some who have "believed in vain."

To believe that Jesus the Lamb of God Who took away the sin of the world means that you believe there is nothing more for you to do.

You may also see 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 2:14, Colossians 1:20, and 1 Peter 3:18 to see that Christ's work is done and we are to rest in His Work! Rejoice!

Another John

John 1:6-8 records the introduction of "a man sent from God whose name was John." This one was prophesied in Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3. This man was appointed by God to bear witness, not of himself or his program...but of the Light. This is that light which proceeds from "life" (John 1:4) which is in God and The Word (1:1-3) Who "became flesh" (1:14).

If Jesus is the "Light of men" (1:4; 1:8-9), then the Life is also the Word Who "became flesh" (1:14).

Why did John "bear witness of the Light?" Because this is the only thing that causes men to believe (1:7).

An amazing contrast: John 1:5 and 1 John 1:5

John 1:4-5 says there is "Life" in the "Word," and this "life was the light of men." Furthermore, the "darkness did not comprehend (same word as 'receive' in the originals of John 1:12) it."

Jesus furthermore defines Himself as the "Light of the world" (John 8:12). Think about how this is pictured in Genesis 1:2-4 and how the physical world was without form and void and it took the light for men to see his way.

The dilemma of John 1:5 is not just that man is in darkness but also that darkness is in man. Man is, himself, darkness. What a sad contrast! To know the Creator "in Whom is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5 oddly enough) created us to be His image bearers of light, and we to the contrary have opened the door for darkness to enter His creation.

John 1:5 speaks of the great attempts the "Word" has made to reach man and the seeming mundaneness man has returned in "comprehending/receiving" the light. Why? 2 Corinthians 4:4 says it is because man is blinded by the god of this world.

The sad reality is that even though the Word was not received by the "darkness" 1:4-5; 10-11, God sent a man to go before Him so that "all men through him might believe." John the Baptist was that man (1:6).

Who is in this?

In dealing with this assignment, I wish to let Scripture interpret itself, and I would like to suggest some points with the “Bottom Line Up Front” Approach:
1. Judas Maccabeus is the one that “finishes the transgression” (9:24).

That is, in these 70 weeks, or 490 years, “finish the transgression” will be a reality. So, what is “the transgression”? We could either read all the commentaries man has written on the subject, or we could read the best commentary on Daniel: Daniel. We find reference to “the transgression” one chapter earlier where we are told that a “little horn” (Antiochus IV says Miller, 225) comes out of the “goat” (Greece says Miller, 225), and commits “the transgression” (8:12) of taking away the sacrifice.

Furthermore, we are told “the transgression” would continue for 2300 days. What happened in 2300 days? Judas Maccabeus “cleansed the temple” (8:14) or “finished the transgression” (Daniel 9:24).
Does it happen within the 490 years as promised in Daniel 9:24? Yes. Did Jesus the Messiah do it? No.

2. Antiochus IV made an “end of sin” or “ended the sin offering” (9:24).
The word “sin” in this same verse is used 294 times in the Hebrew (Enlishman’s Dictionary), and many of those times it is translated “sin offering” [as pointed out by Adam Clarke (Biblesoft.com)].

The question remains: “When was this ‘sin offering’ ‘sealed up’ or ‘stopped’? When Antiochus IV “ordered the cessation of temple sacrifice in 167 B.C” (Longman, 206-207), there was “an end to the sin offering”.
The immediate context just one chapter previous does not allow for such a flow past the immediacy of Antiochus IV.

So, again, was this done within 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not in the context.
3. Judas Maccabeus “made reconciliation for iniquity” (9:24)
Again, it’s interesting to note that this word behind “reconciliation” is used 182 times in the Hebrew (Englishman’s Dictionary), and most of those times, in the KJV, it is translated “atonement”. Incidentally, this word is not used any other time in Daniel, so immediate context is not going to help us on the usage of this word alone.

However, the word behind “iniquity” is used only two other times in the book of Daniel, and they are both in this chapter (verses 13 and 16). What is the “iniquity” in the context? Whatever it is, it caused God to bring the enemies of Israel (in this case, Greece) against their Jerusalem (9:16). Does it not make sense, then, that this “making atonement for iniquity” is the exact opposite of “making an end of the sin offering” (point #3)?

In other words, though most English translations produce “making an end of the sin offering” and “making atonement for the iniquity” two different momentous waypoints in these 490 years by putting a comma and the word “and” in between them, I submit that these are to be seen as “action (Antiochus IV) and reaction (Judas Maccabeus)” without a comma as proven in the above two points.
In other words, Daniel 9:24 could be read as: “490 years are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, to stop sacrifices and start them again to atone for the reason for which they were removed in the first place…”.

Did this happen within the specified 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not likely.
4. Judas Maccabeus “sealed up the vision” (9:24)
The phrase, “to seal up”, is the same Hebrew word as “to make an end” under point #2 above. Now, what is the “vision” and the “prophecy”?
Take note that the word “visions” is not used, in this sense, prior to Daniel 8. This word is then used 8 times before 9:24. Clearly, in the context, we are speaking of the vision that has points 2-4 wrapped up in it. Relook that “vision” if you have any doubts. Who “ended” or “sealed up” the 2300 days of no sanctuary and no sacrifice in the vision of Daniel 8? Judas Maccabeus.

5. God “sealed up the prophecy” (9:24)

Take note that the word “prophecy” is not used prior to Daniel 9. Then, it’s used three times prior to 9:24 (Englishman’s). Two of them generally refer to “the prophets”. 9:1 makes it clear that the context speaks of Jeremiah’s reference to 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians.
Does the captivity of 70 years end within the 490 years? Of course. Did God do it?
God takes credit for the captivity in the 1st place:
Jeremiah 25:9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant , and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.
God takes credit for bringing them back to their land as well: Isaiah 44:28-45:1.

6. Judas Maccabeus “anointed the most holy” (9:24)

This is 1 of 13 times “most holy” is found in the book of Daniel (Englishman’s Dictionary). 5 of those 13 times are found before this verse. What do they tell us about this expression “most holy”? Daniel 8:13,14 sheds great light, as the immediate context just one chapter earlier, on what the “most holy” really is. This passage has already been expounded upon under points 2-4, but just to emphasize, this “most holy” being “anointed” is a big deal to Daniel. He would have definitely understood 9:24 as the answer to 8:13,14.

Let's not make the mistake of stating that Christ does all 6 things in 9:24 thus, of course, making it future to us as well as to Daniel- which, of course, removes the historical significance away from the original reader (Daniel). It is rightly apply it to a sanctuary. Which sanctuary? The one restored by Judas Maccabeus.
Wait a minute? Was it common practice to “anoint the most holy place” or “sanctuary”? You be the judge:
Exodus 30:26 And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony,
Exodus 40:9 And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy.
Leviticus 8:10; Numbers 7:1

Conclusion
Apparently, Israel gets engaged with some sort of Old Testament worship during the 1st half of this future 70th week of Daniel thus rejecting the work of Christ accomplished once for all, and, consequently, earning the “fearful looking for the judgment of God”.

70 weeks?

The intention here is to describe the details pertaining to the accuracy of the prophecy of Daniel’s “70 weeks”, the starting time and event for the prophecy of the “70 weeks”, the division of the weeks within the prophecy, and the purpose of the prophecy.

The Duration of these Weeks
Genesis 29:27,28 speaks of Jacob “fulfilling the week of Rachel” when he worked seven years for Laban to have the right to marry Rachel. When Daniel speaks of “70 weeks” to accomplish the six events of Daniel 7:24, he is speaking of 490 years for the duration of the entire prophecy “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” (9:25) until the “bringing in of everlasting righteousness” (9:24).

The Beginning of the 490 Years
Daniel 9:25 is clear that these 490 years begin when there is a command to “restore and build Jerusalem”. Daniel 9:1 speaks of this being the “first year of Darius who was made king over [this] realm”. Who made him king? It just so happens that this is the year that Cyrus, King of Persia, conquers Babylon, and thus, puts this Darius the Mede in charge of the realm wherein Daniel resides. Tenney tells us it is October 12, 539 B.C. Maclaren has the date of this conquest as 538 B.C. Halley has the date of this decree as 536 B.C. In any case, the reader has a window of approximately three years.
Ezra 1:2 shows this command to “restore and build Jerusalem” as says Daniel 9:25. Many have tried to make this a reference to rebuilding the temple only, but Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 knock this notion in the head as Ezra was apparently only concerned with the temple and not so much with communicating to his readership the rebuilding of the city itself. We would expect this close proximity to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus to be the case as Ezra 1 makes it clear that this decree took place in the first year of Cyrus’ reign. The bottom line is that this is the obvious decree spoken of as it makes wonderful sense contextually on two fronts: 1. It was the decree given the very same year of this vision. 2. The timing of this decree re-enforces the answer-to-prayer nature of this vision as Daniel was in deep, prayerful distress (9:3) over the captivity of his people. The vision is even said to have been an answer to Daniel’s urgent prayers in 9:20-23. How urgent is the answer if it doesn’t occur for another 100+ years?

No matter how these 490 years lay out on a timeline, the starting point is without dispute 539-536 B.C. when compared with Isaiah’s writings, and when considered within its context in Daniel 9.

The 1st 7 Weeks
If the reader is anything like me, the experience has been that of lumping the first seven and the middle 62 weeks together into one unit of 69 weeks. Two thoughts soon follow: 1. They were given as 2 units, and should remain as separate entities. 2. Dispensationalists often allow a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks which, in this author’s belief, is likely. Why can there not be the same between the 7th and the 8th? This would certainly allow for the prophecy to begin around 538 B.C.
Since Miller places the beginning of the 490 years in Nehemiah’s time, he offers no insight conducive to the assumption of a 538 B.C. start time. Others, like Longman give up on interpreting the first seven weeks.

So, what happened between 490 and 487 B.C. marking the end of the first seven weeks? This author is not entirely sure from his study. Ambiguities, like “what happened after the first 49 years” and “how long the interval lasts between the 7th and 8th week” are not troublesome enough to keep the start point of 538 B.C. mysterious.

One Year= 360 days
One would rightly assume that if, Daniel’s 70th week is described by seven 360-day years, the first 69 weeks would be likewise defined as such. With this idea of a 360-day year, the 490-487 B.C. closure of the first 49 years does not change more than a few months.

Conclusion
What has been clarified? The starting time of the 490 years at 539-536 B.C. ending the first “seven weeks” around 490-487 B.C. Also, it is true that the middle 62 weeks (434 years) were over before Jesus died on the cross (Daniel 9:26). Lastly, the 70th week is completed as “everlasting righteousness” is “brought in” (Daniel 9:24).

"The Word was with God."

What a powerful phrase out of John 1:2. When taken with John 1:14 and 17:5, one can at least begin to understand what type of relationship God the Father and God the Word had before creation.

A word about types:
When we say "Jesus is the 'anti-type,' we aresayign that Jesus is the fulfillment of "types." It may be also said that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of every Messianic symbol and type. That is, the "symbol/type" is a sort of fore-telling of the Messiah/Christ--Jesus of Nazareth.

The Old Testament picture of John 17:5 is found in Proverbs 8:12-32 where "wisdom" is described in a similar manner. Paul then speaks of Jesus as being "the wisdom of God." This tells us that the Old Testament speaks primarily of Jesus the Christ.

Did that guy take that out of context?

Some of us have felt uncomfortable with Hebrews 1:5. The end of the verse records the author’s quoting of a single phrase of 2 Samuel 7:14. Here’s how the question is phrased: “If we use one phrase in that verse or passage to prophesy of Christ, shouldn’t the rest of that passage also prophesy of Christ?” Even further, this leads to other questions: “If the rest of the passage prophesies of Christ, does this mean that Jesus could sin since the next phrase in 2 Samuel 7:14 introduces the possibility of sin?”

First, let’s rephrase the question: “Could the author feel free to pull one phrase out of the Old Testament and apply it to Christ and not actually be applying the rest of the context to Christ as well?”

Let’s rephrase it a 2nd time: “Could a God-inspired author of the New Testament take another God-inspired phrase in the Old Testament and apply it to Jesus without regard to that Old Testament’s phrase’s context?”

I believe the answer is “yes.” I want to prove that using another New Testament writer: Matthew. Moreover we will take only a few examples from the passion week. The first two are examples of what we are speaking about whereas the 3rd example is Matthew quoting from a purely Christ-centered Old Testament passage.

1. Matthew 26:30-32
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

So here is Jesus pulling something out of context in Zechariah 13:7. Certainly, one can see Jesus in Zechariah 13:6-7, but what about 13:5? It doesn’t seem right for us to take verse 7 and not verse 5 does it? I think you’ll agree, though, that it is quite permissible for “the Word in the Flesh” (John 1:14) to pull things out of the Old Testament (even out of context) which apply to Him.

2. Matthew 27:5-10
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

So here is the author (guided by God the Holy Spirit) taking two Scriptures out of context. He is quoting both Jeremiah 32:6 and Zechariah 11:12-13. If you turn to both of these fine passages, you will find that the reader of the Old Testament would have no idea they were speaking of Christ from the context. Should we allow this apostle Matthew—this God-inspired author of the New Testament—to do such a thing? I think we should.

3. Matthew 27:35-36
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there;

Now you will look at Psalm 22—the place where this quotation is taken from—and you will find that this Psalm is entirely Messianic.

Conclusion:
Perhaps you can see how ill-advised it is for a person to say, “I am an apostle.” Do you see the privilege they are taking to themselves? Certainly the privilege of wresting Scriptures out of context as seen in the first two examples is permissible to God’s Son and God’s apostles, but this is not something we should see as normal or even righteous in God’s sight for today’s believer.

Why did God choose Israel? (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)

"Did the Lord choose the nation of Israel to be his people because he knew that his son would be born of this nation?" This was a question submitted by a Berean. What are some other ways that we could ask this question:

1. Did God choose Abraham to be the first Hebrew because He knew Jesus would come from him?
2. Did God choose Jacob to be the first Israelite because He knew Jesus would come from him?
3. Did God choose Judah to be the first Jew because He knew Jesus would come from him?
4. Did God choose the line of David because He knew Jesus would come from Him?

Well, I suppose the best way to answer this question would be to first say that God could have sent His Son into any line of human beings (if it was within the line of His will).

So...then why did God choose Israel? We cannot be sure the motive of God for choosing Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Judah or Phares, etc..., but we can be sure that God re-chose (so to speak) the nation of Israel in pulling them out of Egypt because

1. He loved them (Deuteronomy 7:8).
2. He promised the preservation of this people to their fathers, the Patriarchs (7:8).

Do ladies have to wear a head covering while praying?

Are women to pray with their heads covered? If so, does this mean they are to wear a veil?

This was the question submitted by an attender at Berean. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-16, this discussion arises. After reading the passage, please notice the following points:

1. The physical head of a man or woman is being compared to their spiritual head/authority:
The man's physical head is being compared to his spiritual head/authority: Christ (11:3-4).
The woman's physical head is being compared to her spiritual head/authority: her husband (11:3,5). Moreover, the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man (11:7-8).

2. If a woman's head is shameful, she brings disrespect to her spiritual head/authority: her husband (11:5). Moreover, she steals his glory (11:7-9).

3. A woman's head is to be sheared/shaven or covered. They are given a choice based on a custom of the day (11:6).

4. A woman needs to allow the authority over her to rest on her head: the husband (11:10). Furthermore, this submission or show of humility somehow provides spiritual protection (11:10). The implication is that this submission to her authority is shown if she covers her head or shears/shaves it (See #3 above).

5. After a few verses of discussion, all of a sudden this whole man/woman and long/short hair discussion comes upon us. Why? All of the sudden, Paul tells us that is is right for a woman to have long hair. He says it is "a glory" to her (11:15). When we compare this with 11:7-9, we realize that this long hair is really the glory that is given to her husband on her behalf.

6. After all of this, we see the connection between a "covering" and "long hair": What is it? See verse 15: "Her hair..." which kind of hair in context? Same verse? "long hair." "Her [long] hair is given her for a covering."

Conclusion: Verse 15 tells us that a woman is to cover hear head as she worships. What is this covering? Her long hair. In this age of merging the genders and feminizing men and masculizing women, we should remember that God is glorified as we fit our roles.

The greatest argument for this is the Trinity: God the Son is equal to God the Father...yet He submits to the Father in every area of eternity (John 9:4).

The second greatest argument for this is the Gospel: God the Son is equal to the Father...yet He submits to Him in the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8).

Teaching and Teachable in the Church

When you arrive at Titus' 2nd chapter you find that believers are to be both teaching and teachable. Verse 1 shows this.

Verse 2 implies that older men are to be teaching younger men. This taken with verse 6 makes it pretty obvious when you consider the instruction of older women to teach younger women in verses 3-5.

Please notice that women are to teach younger women in both formal and informal settings. What are they teaching? Things like how to be reserved, to be devoted to their families, to be selective in what they say, to be pure in every area, to work primarily in the home to provide a haven for their families and to be obedient to their heads (the husband). These practical matters are not only the proper instruction between ladies in the church (says these verses), but they are in line with "sound doctrine" (verse 1) and their neglect has the potential of allowing the world to blaspheme this same doctrine (verse 5).

A History Of Water Baptism (Revised Aug 4)

Historical Point #1: "Covering" or "submersion" or "baptism" is seen as a corporate occurrence where God's people were covered/submersed/baptized in the Red Sea and cloud as they left Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). This was a sign of their national belief as seen in Exodus 14:31 (Thank you, John Gill, for the connection).

Application of Historical Point #1: We are a peculiar nation (says 1 Peter 2) and have a corporate faith (says Ephesians 4:3-4). Therefore, we have a common sign of our faith: baptism.

Historical Point #2: “Washing” or “baptism” in water was a custom in Israel as a means of preparation for priestly service as they offered sacrifices to God in His tabernacle (Exodus 40:12-13).

Application of Historical Point #2: Believers are a “priesthood” who offer “spiritual sacrifices” to God in a “spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5; Revelation 1:5). There is a need to receive such a “washing” prior to serving God’s people. The intent, then, of being a part of God’s assembly (the church) is to serve! Baptism (or washing) saves the believer from a bad conscience which results from not identifying oneself with Christ (1 Peter 3:16; 3:21).

Historical Point #3: Because this was a very Jewish practice (as seen above), it was carried forth by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1)—who was not only a Jew, but was also the last of the Old Testament prophets (who were all Jews; Matthew 11:13). John the Baptist’s baptism was one which allowed those who had “repented” to demonstrate by a changed life that they had repented of their sins (see Matthew 3:6).

Historical Point #4: Because the early church was led by Jews primarily, being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” was the first sign that they had “repented” concerning Christ (Acts 2:37-38).

Historical Point #5: Because the early church was largely Jewish at its “grand opening”, a “baptism of repentance” only seemed natural to them, and they gladly did so to show they had trusted Christ (Acts 2:41).

Historical Point #6: Even after the first Gentiles were saved by their Lord Jesus (Whose human lineage is Jewish), they were instructed by a Jewish apostle to be baptized (Acts 10:48).

Application of Historical Point #6: Gentile and Jewish believers alike continued to be baptized after faith in Christ (Acts 16:30-33). It is very important to remember that the agent of salvation from the penalty of sin is the blood of Christ, and not the waters of baptism (Romans 3:25).

Historical Point #7: When people who were previously baptized became believers in Christ, they were “re-baptized” (Acts 19:5). Baptism is a picture of what has already occurred on the inside of the believer (Acts 1:5; 10:47). If one hasn’t been inwardly washed, baptism is meaningless—like a wedding ring to an unmarried person. At the moment of salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ moves each believer into His body (the church) through a washing (‘baptism”) of His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5). Therefore, when one is baptized in water, they are saying, “I have already been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and I am now a part of Christ’s body on earth (the church)”.

Application of Historical Point #7: • Good students of the Bible remember that these two baptisms are spoken about very often in the New Testament, and they are very careful not to confuse passages that speak of “spirit baptism” with those that speak of “water baptism” (such as Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

Second Application of Historical Point #7: The believer has inwardly experienced what Romans 6:6 describes as the crucifixion of the old man; the believer has also inwardly experienced what Romans 6:5 describes as the resurrection of a new man.

CONCLUSION
The church has “ordinances” which are to be carried out until the return of Christ. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are these very special, symbolic acts where we celebrate the reality of a twice-risen Christ Who has both risen from the dead (Romans 1:4), and forty days later, rose to the right hand of God in the Heavens (Mark 16:19; Acts 3:21). These do not have saving merit, as salvation is found only in the faith one places in Christ (Ephesians 2:8). So, let one “examine themselves” whether they are truly born again before they partake of these most Holy ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:28; 2 Corinthians 13:5).

Did the Old Testament Saint have faith in Christ?

You be the judge.

They had the promise of the sacrificial one (seed of the woman whose heel would be bruised by Satan) who would "crush the serpent's head" (Genesis 3:15).

1. The Israelites under Moses were drinking Christ as they drunk from the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).

2. The Israelites under Moses were confronted with an opportunity to tempt Christ (1 Corinthians 10:9).

3. Abraham believed the Gospel (Galatians 3:8). Context tells us that this is the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:8-9 compared with 3:8-14).

4. The Israelites under Moses who did not make it into Canaan did not believe the Gospel (Hebrews 4:2). This is the Gospel of Christ according to Hebrews 3:14.

5. Moses chose to embrace the "reproach of Christ" (the condition of being cast away with Christ) when He sided with the Israelites (Hebrews 11:26).

6. Those who died in Noah's flood rejected the preaching of the Gospel of Christ (1 Peter 3:18-4:6).

"So can women even talk in church?"

This is a good question and one almost doesn't want to hear an answer because of the face value of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Let's take a look.

First, please notice that all of chapters 11-14 is speaking of exercising God's gifts in the church?

Second, please notice that this requirement to "keep silent" is found three times in the passage: verses 28, 30, and 34 (not just 34). So, what do we see in these three verses? Context is king!

Verse 28: The one who "speaks a tongue" without an intepreter is to "be silent."
Verse 30: A prophet who has given his prophecy is to "be silent" while another comments on his prophecy.
Verse 34: Women were to keep silent in the churches.

What is evident about the ladies whereof Paul speaks is:
1. Ladies were in the body of Christ which is made up of both genders. The context is clear that males are in view up to this point. Just read the pronouns.
2. Ladies are to be of the body of the the "teachable" rather than the "teachers" when in mixed company ("under obedience" in verse 34).
3. They have husbands which are expected to be their primary clarifiers of what is "learned" in the church (verse 35).

Men, there is no room here for negligence. If you are a believer, you are responsible to rise to the position of spiritual leader in your home (ladies, be prayerfully patient). Hear Matthew Henry:

"As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at least to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home."

Conclusion
The "keep silence" in verse 34 and the "not permitted for them to speak" in verse 35 are converse (or "flip side") of the 3 points above in that there were ladies in the Corinthian church who were: 1. glad they were now allowed into the worshiping body of Christ just like men, 2. were also regularly circumventing their husbands in public worship, 3. were speaking out and often taking leadership during the public teaching times of the church.

Paul was trying to curb some of this newfound enthusiasm of freedom with some guidelines in which things could still be done "decently and in order" (verse 40). Two ditches, right? In this case one is the law and supression of women and the other is complete merging of gender roles in the church.

So, can women testify of God's work in their lives in front of men? Yes. Are there other ways for them to teach the Scriptures in the church? Yes. Stay tuned.

How can I know that I am in the will of God?

My very favorite passage on this thought is found in the letter to the Ephesian believers.

This phrase "will of God" is used approximately 6 times. The 5th and 6th times are found in Ephesians 5:17 and Ephesians 6:6 which stress the need for us to know the "will of God" and to commit every action within the "will of God."

Now, that doesn't help answer the question, does it? That just re-enforces the need to get an answer.

Well, I am pleased to tell you that the first four times this idea of the "will of God" is found in Ephesians 1:1-11

The first time its mentioned is in verse 1 where Paul tells us he is in the "will of God." That doesn't help us answer the question, though, does it?

The other three times are mentioned in verses 5, 9, and 11. We find that the will of God is simply this: "being holy and without blame before Him in love." Look at verse 4: This is why we were "chosen." In the very next verse he says we were "predestined" for this purpose. He has wanted a people who would walk "holy, without blame before Him in love." This is why we were "chosen" (v 4), "predestined" (v. 5), "adopted" (v. 5), "redeemed" (v. 7), "forgiven" (v. 7), "wise" (v. 9), "prudent" (v. 9), "gathered" (v. 10): To be "holy and without blame before him."

I just don't want to complicate things, my friends. The will of God is to be "holy and without blame before Him in love."

Past this, He opens doors, closes doors, gives wisdom, and even sometimes gives very, very clear leading. When it doesn't seem like any of this is happening, default to"being still" (Psalm 46:10) and do the will of God: "Walk holy and without blame before Him in love."

"Women can't teach?"

That is the question that usually arises when one reads 1 Timothy 2:9-12. How do we handle such an idea in light of verses like Philippians 4:2-3?

We must consider the issue in 1 Timothy 2 was to teach the Word as the authoritive teacher. "To be in silence" has a very oppressive idea attached to it today, but we must remember that both men and women are to be reserved in their speech. Proverbs, for instance says, "In the multitude of words there [lacks] not sin." In other words, the more we talk, the more we are prone to sin.

So understand that nobody has a license to be unbridled in their speech--including men (James 1:26).

The reasons why Paul required this can be described elsewhere, but the point that must be stressed that this is not some sort of cultural thing only for that time. Being "showy" in your apparel or your hair is just as immodest now as it was then (see 2:9-10). So in the context there is no need to see a time element introduced for whether sisters can teach the Bible to brothers in Christ when the church meets (see 2:11-12).

After all, if the wife is the helper "meet" for the husband (as Genesis 2 states), then a sister in Christ should be concerned primarily with helping her husband with his ministry--not establishing her own ministry.

Now, consider Philippians 4:2-3 and compare it with Luke 8:1-2. Here is an example of certain sisters in Christ who labor in the Gospel with Paul (just as those in Luke did with Jesus). There is no need to believe they were leading churches and teaching doctrine to mixed crowds. By themselves, these Scriptures "could" teach that they did, but these Scriptures are not "by themselves," right?

Remember, Jesus is submissive to the Father in every way. Yet...He is equal with the Father.

The "Spirit of the Lord" departed from Saul?

How is this possible? 1 Samuel 16:14-15 speaks of God's Spirit leaving Saul and an evil spirit being sent from God to "trouble him."

This is the question from one of our folks at Berean. It seems like we have two questions here:

1. How did Saul lose the Holy Spirit?

2. Is this "evil spirit" sent from God an angel or a sort of mood?

Regarding the first question, we must remember that the abiding, permanent presence of the Holy Spirit is something that we believers enjoy today without much thought. For one thing, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit ("marked for pick-up" in the context of Ephesians 1:12-13) until the coming of Christ (Ephesians 4:30). For another thing, we are told that the Holy Spirit lives in us (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This is a benefit that was not apparently available to King Saul. Apparently it was not available to King David either. See that the Holy Spirit came upon David in 1 Samuel 16:13 upon his anointing to be king. See also his fear of losing this sweet presence in Psalm 51:11.


Regarding the second question, we must remember that "evil" in many senses is from God (Isaiah 45:7) so we need not confine this "evil spirit" to "good" or "fallen" angels. We just need to know that "angels" are "spirits" (Hebrews 1:7, 14) and that even "evil ones" can be sent from God. See the story in 1 Kings 22:19 and following for further light on this subject.

Worship= Adoration + Action

“How can the directives of Hebrews 13:15, 16 be practically applied in a worship service?” In this case, when we worship, we are ascribing worth to the God of Heaven.

Some notes of observation from Hebrews 13:15-16:1. This “praise” must be sacrificial (v. 15). That is, if it does not cost something to praise, it is not a sacrifice; be it pride or self-respect, there must be a sacrifice.
2. The “sacrifice of praise” must be offered continually. (v. 15). That is to say that the lifestyle should be characterized by laying “sacrificial praise” down at the Master’s feet. If one is continually praising, it is hard to imagine cross words proceeding from the same mouth.
3. The “praise” is to be vocal (v. 15). It is impossible to have “fruit of the lips” that is unheard or inaudible.
4. “Praise” includes giving of thanks (v. 15). That is to say that unless there is some form of gratitude, it is not praise. It is not simply enough to rename attributes to God.
5. “Praise” is not the only “sacrifice.” There are also “good works” and “sharing” that can be done which can be costly (sacrificial).

Some points of application for a worship service:
1. The liturgy (program of the worship service) should leave room for audible, sacrificial praise. That is to say that there should be time for corporate, audible response to truth that has been presented. This response could be in the form of individual prayer according to one’s uniqueness. This response could be in planned, musical form. This response could be a spontaneous outburst on the corporate level as well.
2. The atmosphere which is set should be that of gratuitous service. That is to say, a pastor and his help could make it the popular notion that “after we sit at Jesus’ feet” (as Mary did), we arise and serve Him (as Martha did). It is one thing to bow at His throne and adore Him. It is another thing to move with haste from His throne and represent Him.

Hate my parents?

Last night, one of our missionaries re-affirmed that God loves sinners.

I had a good question following the service in light of another message that previously mentioned Romans 9:13: "Does God love each individual?"

How do we handle verses that say "God hated Esau?"

How is it possible that the One who said to even "love your enemy" (Luke 6:27) then turned around and said "hate your family" (Luke 14:26)?

The key to verses like Romans 9:13 and Luke 14:26 is to see that there are comparisons taking place. There appears to be this kind of idea:

Romans 9:13 "In comparison to the love God had for Jacob, his attitude towards Esau was hatred."

Luke 14:26 "In comparison to the devotion one needs to have for Jesus, their affection towards their natural family would almost be hatred."

Conclusion: I don't think Paul and Jesus are contradicting Jesus' words. There appears to be this amazing chasm between devotion towards God and affection towards family. Just as there was an amazing distance between the "love" God had for Jacob, the "vessel of mercy" and the attitude He had for Esau, "the vessel of wrath fitted for destruction."

This is my best answer. Did God love Esau? Sure. Are we expected to love family? Sure. Of course. But in comparison to the right person, this love may seem negligable.

Abiding fruit comes from Christ’s abiding words in the believer.

For a discussion of what it means to "abide in Christ", it would be fitting to highlight the places where this word “abide” is found in the context. The word, according to e-sword.net, is found 41 times in the Gospel of John—ten of which are found in the context of John 15. These observations follow:

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

1. There is no fruit for the one who abides outside of Christ. (15:4)
2. The one who abides in Christ also has Christ abiding in Him. (15:5)
3. Those who abide outside of Christ, and therefore bear no fruit, are discarded. (15:6)
4. When Christ abides in the one who abides in Him, Christ’s words also abide in him. (15:7)
5. The one who abides in Christ and Christ’s words abide in Him can pray for whatever he desires. (15:7)

Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

1. The one who abides in Christ is to also continually abide in His love. (15:9)
2. It appears that this transition from “abiding in Christ” to “abiding in Christ’s love” is essentially defining one by using the other. That is, one can “abide in Christ” by “abiding in His love.” (15:7-9)
3. Continually abiding in His love is done by keeping His commandments. (15:10)
4. We are joyful as we keep His commandments. (15:11)

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

As we abide in Christ, we have fruit that continually abides.

Summary:
One can expect to bear “abiding fruit” as they abide in Christ (15:4) by abiding in His love (15:9) by keeping His commandments (15:10). All this is made possible because Christ abides in him (15:4) through His abiding words (15:7). Or, abiding fruit comes from Christ’s abiding words in the fruit-bearer.

Hebrews 2:1-4

Please see the following phrases:
1:3 “…hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son”
1:3 “…upholding all things by the Word of His power…”
1:5 [by implication] “He said to the Son, ‘You are my Son. I have begotten you.”
1:5 [by implication] “He said, ‘I will be a Father to You, and You will be a Son to Me.”
1:6 [by implication] “He said, ‘Let all the angels of God worship You.”
1:8 “He said, ‘Thy throne, God…”
1:13 [by implication] “He said, Sit at my right hand…”

These seven quotations from the preceding argument emphasize how God the Father spoke to us—utilizing His Son. It only makes sense that we hear His Word. Therefore, the following phrase makes a lot of sense:

2:1 “We ought to give more earnest heed to the things we’ve heard lest we let them slip.”

Since we are to “hear” what was “spoken” about His deity, it seems appropriate to give the “or else” consequence if we don’t “hear” it. The major connection between the “or else” statements of 2:1-4 and the “humanity argument” of 2:5-18 seems to be the reigning Jesus of 2:5-18 who will carry out the “or else” of 2:1-4 for those who don’t hear the words of God spelled out in chapter 1.

So....there I was

I got off my plane in Seattle this past Sunday afternoon and I was thinking "where do I go to get my rental car" while I was staring at the baggage claim and talking to my wife on the phone. Finally, I realized that I was probably "in over my head" (being male and all) trying to do too many things at once. So, I told my wife I would call her when I got on the road (to Fort Lewis for my Chaplain Annual Sustainment Training).

I looked over and there was a older woman who obviously worked at the airport. She had her hands on the handles of a wheelchair and she was awaiting some baggage (or else she was waiting on somebody who was waiting for baggage). I didn't pay much attention. There was a guy in the wheel chair with his leg in a bandage. I found out later that he injured it playing sports with some other soldiers (yes, he was in the army). Then I noticed a girl standing by him (whom I later found to be his girlfriend).

She had one arm completely gone and the other arm was gone from above the elbow. Again, I glanced for my baggage and didn't think about it again. I glanced at the back of her shirt and saw the letters "EOD" which stands for "Explosive Ordinance Disposal." I know the job well. My friend Jim from church used to do this and I know the training his horribly rigorous and that it takes very bright people to pass the myriad of tests to pass that course and enter that elite corps of "bomb disposal" personnel.

I thought, "Come on! Really? This young lady with 1/2 of one arm was diffusing bombs? Here I am--I have completed two combat tours and I didn't exactly diffuse bombs. Maintain 11,000 volt electical infrastructure, but not diffuse bombs. I then noticed her bend over to pick up a bag and struggle with it with her 1/2 arm. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I am ashamed that I waited as long as I did, but I finally realized that I was supposed to be getting her stuff instead of watching her struggle (I hope it was only a second).

After retrieving both of their huge, heavy bags from the conveyor I figured I could come back for mine and I told them I was carrying them out to their ride by the pick-up point. I asked her if she was in EOD. She said she was. I then asked if that was how she lost her arms. She said it happened in 2006. Now, listen...I don't care if you think I'm sick, or inappropriate or stupid or what....I looked into her scarred-up face; I reached out to shake her hand and I intended on saying "thank you." In a very brief moment I realized she had no hands to shake (I said she had no hands to shake) and I simply gave her a little hug and said, "you are such a hero. Thank you." I also thanked her boyfriend for his service and introduced myself as a Pastor and Chaplain in the USAR.

So, I have been thinking about this question. How did this girl in her very, very early 20's end up on a foreign soil diffusing bombs? How did we become a society that was "ok" with a blurring of the gender distinction and gender role lines? How would I feel if that was my sister diffusing bombs and losing her arms? How would I feel if that was my young wife diffusing bombs? How would I feel if that were, God forbid a thousand times, my daughters--losing their arms while diffusing bombs?

I cannot say it any better than Doug Phillips and the good folks at Vision Forum ministries has done.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/

Something is wrong.

Jesus the RaceRunner

Psalm 84:9-12--God, You are my shield.

Twice in this Psalm, we find God being called a "shield." The last verse in this Psalm says a person is "blessed" when they trust this "Shield."

As I think of the loneliest times in my life, I have found them at the end of trails I have forged. Allow me to be transparent.

1. In 1994, I was competing at the American Association of Christian Schools convention at Bob Jones University. I was representing the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools as the top place finisher. I was competing in preaching. I remember staying in the dormitories there on campus and feeling quite alone. At the risk of sounding rediculous, I was in the position of "alone" because I was dying to be around certain people with whom I was just sure I was going to be able to visit. I remember "making the trip happen." I made the arrangments. I said "no" to alternative means of transportation. I grew discontented with obvious provisions for both the trip and companionship on the trip. I became the chief provider in this voyage. I spent a day or two of that trip feeling very, very lonely.

Did God fail me? The fact is, I ceased to trust in my Shield (from loneliness), and I made my own way.

2. In 1997, I took a trip to Colorado. I was frustrated with where I was. I was discontented with my job. So, I accepted a position in Colorado to work around a familiar face. I was tired when I made the decision, and it too was a very, very lonely time in my life. I spent five weeks in Colorado and I felt "cut off" from the favor of God. I tried my best to fake happiness, and I couldn't make it happen.

Did God fail me? I made a move, and then I asked God to bless it. Did God fail me? No, I ran and expected my shield to follow.

3. In 2001, I was in AIT with my family at Fort Gordon, GA. I understood that I was not going to be able to get my contracted MOS (job) because of a security clearance issue. I was tired of waiting for the system to work. I assumed I would not be able to get a clearance. I gave up my satellite communications job because I was impatient. I left Fort Gordon, GA and went to Fort Jackson, SC to become a job that I just wanted to "make work." I ended up dreading my job and for the next three years, sought a different job. I was miserable.

By the way, I found out that my clearance went through THE EXACT DAY that I left Fort Gordon.

Did God fail me? Did He cease to shield me? I grew impatient, and ran through any 'ol door I could and asked God to bless it. Does God guarantee to "bless" the man who runs from his shield? No, "trusting the shield," according to this Psalm, brings "blessing."

I guess what I am trying to say is that I find people who want to talk every week about problems. I praise God for that. I am a pastor. But what many of these dear folks need to see is that many (not all; not most; don't hear what I'm not saying) issues in their lives and in their marriage and in their workplace are absolutely self-wrought.

We attend church once a week and never attend a Bible study and never meet with a small group and never respond to a pastoral contact and wonder, "Why does God seem so far from me?" Well, could it be that He is trying to shield you and you are not interested?

"We have to meet as soon as possible!" Really? Did your marriage just start deteriorating?

"When will he change?" Well, I suppose he'll change at about the same rate that he got into the hole from which you want him to climb!

"Why is God not blessing our finances?" Well, maybe because you go out to dinner every time He gives you an extra $20.

"Why does she always hang out with those friends?" Maybe because you took her "club'n" before you deployed.

"Why won't he lead me to a church?" Possibly because you resisted him the last time he tried to lead and he is still recovering.

"Why won't God give me a better job?" Maybe because you are a horrible employee at the one you have?

"Why won't God save my mother?" Maybe because you don't open your mouth to witness to her and you dishonor her with your neglect?

You see, we try to blame everything on God. He is the "Shield." He is the "Lord" (boss). We should ask God for direction. Our attitude should not be one of "God, please bless what I'm about to do."

To Whom Does "God's Elect" Refer?

Romans 8:32 says "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" To whom does that refer?

Context is king. Romans 8:29 says "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son."

Who are God's elect? Those whom He "predistined?" He set them aside as His precious ones (1 Peter 2) to be like Jesus.

Why did He do this? He knew them. See John 17:3 or 2 Timothy 2:19 for what this kind of "knowledge" refers.

Context is king.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 110

These 2 Great Psalms speak of Christ.

Psalm 2
The kings of the earth are against "the anointed" of God (verse 2)

This "King" is set by God--and is "begotten" also (verse 6, 12). Even though Van Gemeren make it clear in his treatment of Psalm 45 that this is typical jargon for the king to be known as the "son of God," this is not typical for everyone. The Old Testament often speaks of Israel as a nation as God's son (Exodus 3; Hosea 14), but does not typically double this language to also have an applicaton for the king.

There is a promise to give "the uttermost parts of the earth" to this king (verse 8). This is clearly Millennial in its scope and was never offered to David.

This King is seen as being able to punished by the wrath of this "set king" (verse 12). Once again, this is apocalyptic in its nature and speaks little of David. Apocalyptic language may be normal for kings of secular nations but there is no reason to force the practice of heathen nations upon the people of God.

Psalm 110
Only Jesus has been actually offered the "right hand" of God (verse 1).

Only Jesus could be labeled "holy" in his Kingship (verse 3).

Only the One Who was before Abraham could be a "priest after the order of Melchezedek" (verse 5).

Only Jesus could have such an exhaustive, dreadful reign over the kings of nations (verse 6).

How are they used in the NT?
Psalm 2 is elluded to in Acts 1:8 It dawned on me that this phrase is found in another place, which really gives us the execution whereby we achieve the desired endstate: Acts 1:8 "ye shall be witnesses utno me...unto the uttermost part of the earth." So it actually speaks of Christ and His commission. Is this achieved? Hebrews 8, at least, seems to say it will be: "for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest".

This Psalm is also used by Peter in His prayer to God before the church in Acts 4. He is clear that it is speaking of Jesus.

Paul quotes this same Psalm when recognizing the resurrection of Christ in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13).

Psalm 110 is used by Christ to prove that this Psalm did not actually speak of David at all. He stumped the Pharisees by showing them this was speaking of the Messiah (Matthew 22:42; Luke 22:42). Moreover, Jesus is said to be sitting at God's right hand many times in the New Testament (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3; 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22).

This same Psalm is also used by the author of Hebrews (5-8) regarding Christ alone when he speaks of the priesthood of Melchezedek.

This same Psalm is elluded to in how Jesus deals with His enemies with His "sharp sword"--"strking through the kings" (compare verse 5 with 2 Thes 2; Revelation 19).

This same Psalm is elluded to in the judgment scenes Jesus paints for Himself (compare verse 6 with Matthew 25:31-44).

Verse 6 also finds a home in Revelation 19:19-21 when describing the dead bodies following Christ's coming to "strike through" the kings ("kings of the earth" spoken of in Psalm 2:2).

Shall I argue with God?

When you read Psalm 35, you get the idea (as you would with many of the Psalms) that God hears His servants better when they argue with Him--or at least they think He does.

This has influenced my worship and prayer life by showing me that it is permissible to be bold, but that this boldness needs to be tempered with reverance. I see that the Psalmist of Psalm 35 had a difficult time getting away from lament and petition and quite humanly spent less time on "confession of trust" and "vows to praise." It is almost as if the only time I can vow to praise is when I am trusting. It seems like getting to that point is most troublesome. That is to say, we, like this Psalmist, have a difficult time getting away from the lament and petition cycle long enough to sit back and trust. God is not hard of hearing. If this bold display of a "laundry list" is simply pouring out a sad heart, then perhaps the real question is "what do I need to do to see God as the 'King Who reigns'?"

When I see the command to "rejoice always" (Phil 4:4) and "give thanks in everything" (1 Thes 5:18), I am calmed with the reality that I can find inner joy as a rule and suffer periods of lament throughout periods of time in my life where I am learning to adjust. Perhaps Paul would've said it this way: "The only reason I know how to 'rejoice always' is because I have "learned to be content in every state" (Phil 4:11).

If I am to weigh whether it is even valid to pour out my heart to God in the aforementioned "laundry list" ranting, then perhaps it is for me. Does God need to be convinced? Is it the same God who answered to a short prayer of Elijah on Mt Carmel? Is today's God the same God who answered the short prayer of Jesus in John 11 before raising Lazarus from the dead? God does not need a long prayer? As Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:3 whether God hears long prayers better than short ones? It could be that for us to "pray in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 20), we need to struggle a bit in ascertaining what the will of God is. Paul prayed thrice for a certain thing until God revealed to Him that He was not praying within the will of God (2 Cor 12:9). If he were, his prayer would've been heard and the "thorn in the flesh removed" (1 John 5:14-15). The struggle with God in "arguing" is sometimes for our benefit. We could call it therapy. At any rate, God is longsuffering and will listen to us as we listen to ourselves and as we seek to make our prayers clearer to best reflect what our heart feels. Even then, there is intercessory help (Romans 8:26).

The Law

In reading of Romans 7:1-3, we find out God intends marriage to last until death. It says that one is "bound by the law" to their spouse until that spouse dies.

The question is, "Does this mean that only Jews are required to keep their spouses until death because this may speak of the ceremonial law of Moses, and we are not required to keep such a law?"

The word behind "law" here in these verses is used 51 times in the book of Romans. Consider this:

The first time it is used in Romans is in Romans 2:14-16 where one speaks of the Gentiles who live according to a law that is "written in their hearts." If we consider this alone, one can then ascertain that this "law" of Romans 7:1-3 is this natural, creation-wide law that requires the compliance of all men everywhere. Wouldn't it make sense that, if we don't see a definite shift from "moral law" to "Mosaic law," we should see this as a law to which we are subject?

The plight of the "deeper life."

There is much to say about those who love the Word and, yet, cannot seem to get victory over sin. You've seen them. They flock to Bible seminars, Bible studies, Bible bookstores, Bible discussions, Bible blogs, Bible churches, etc..., These are they who get the latest study Bibles and cannot, after years and in some cases decades, find victory over their sin. Why? They love the culture of religion. They are romantics. They love belonging to churches where they "feel loved and accepted"; where the messages are "relevant"; where "everybody knows your name."

Psalm 50 speaks in some light of this in verse 16 when a group comes into view who "declare statutes" and "claim covenants" yet (as seen in verses 18-20) they are quite obviously haters of the Words of God. Now, how is this possible in light of the context?

Collins calls this audience that which savors the idea of having a loving Father Who regularly speaks with them (verse 16), yet they despise His discipline (verse 17). In other words, they want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. This brought discord rather than the corporate unity they so desperately sought (999; biblio entry in previous post).

What becomes apparent is that those who are addressed in verse 16 are also those who are addressed in verse 7. These are they who also become great givers in the temple. However, these are also they who cannot keep their promises to God (verse 14). These are also they who withold the thank offerings as seen in verse 14 and their praise in verse 23. Indeed, these are they who offer to God that which costs them nothing in the way of personal holiness.

"Give me the open street of public religion, and I will drive 'fastly and furiously'. Give me the back alley of personal holiness which shuns laicentious freedom and stupid, self indulgence, and I will call for a taxi to circumvent such an avenue." VanGemeren speaks of these as those who "parrot the law yet abandon it instantly at the opportunity to promote their self interests" (432; biblio entry in previous post).

God help us to be those who are more than culturally religious.

A God of love Who brings justice?

I would speak “Theologically” versus “Biblically.” That is, I would speak philosophically about God as John Day does in his note on page 168—showing that God’s sense of justice is invariably linked to His lovingkindness. That is, the fact that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) means that He cares deeply for truth, righteousness, and order.

That is, in order for His love for Holiness to be exemplified, there would need to be a certain strong hand of justice. There would need to be a moral code, and One Who would hold code-breakers (or “lawbreakers”) at a certain day of reckoning in which those who break such a law—intended to bring order to the Creation of a sinless, orderly Creator—are called to account for their carelessness.

Again, if God is love (as agreed), then He must first love Himself—the Ultimate Singularity and the Ultimate Fullfillment. This means He must love His character first and this is revealed in His sense (“sense” being used at the risk of sounding of irreverent) of order and justice.

Day shows (p. 175) that God is more than willing to show His sense of justice on His Own Son. There is nobody who would argue against God’s love for His Son, yet because of His love for His own character of justice, He poured out His wrath on His Son. One cannot be upset about God’s justice upon the sons of men and at the same time become selectively delighted that Jesus Christ received the judicial penalty of God for the sins of those same sons of men.

Day, John N. Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (April-June 2002): The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics. ________:______,______.

Accuse God?

Lament often contains accusatory language toward God (see Psalm 44:12–15). Should a Christian use this type of language in prayer today?

This is a tough question to answer. I would say that no Christian should speak in such language to God. I will elaborate in three points:
(1). In the way Jesus instructed His disciples to pray, there is little language such as this. The believer’s focus is to be on “deliverance from temptation” and acknowledging “the kingdom and power and glory” of the Father.
(2). When Job made such amazing accusations, God rebuked Him for rebuking God (Job 40:2). Job knew this was a mistake and later acknowledged his real problem was speaking about things he didn’t understand (Job 42:3).
(3). Even David rebuked this behavior in Psalm 4 when He acknowledged his ever-present enemies; acknowledged his dependency on God; and then instructed his listeners to “be quiet and stand in awe before God.”

Psalm 88 and the usage of "grave" (sheol).

Psalm 88: Death and Sheol
With such a breadth of material in the Psalms regarding sheol, it seems important enough to focus on this word in light of the common understanding in our circles of evangelicalism. Acts 2 records Peter’s message at Pentecost where he quotes David (Psalm 16) and applies David’s prophecy recorded there to Jesus. Peter says that David was saying that Jesus was not left in hades. The interesting thing about this is that Peter’s words are written in Greek by Luke. However, Peter was quoting David’s words which were written in the Old Testament (Psalm 16) where we find the word sheol (This is the same word in Psalm 88:3). This is why we know that both sheol and hades (Hebrew and Greek counterparts) refer to the same place—the realm of the dead. If these words meant “a place of burning,” then one must concede that Jesus was in the flames of Hell during the three days of His death.

If one believes that, then there is a different issue altogether that requires more than this time will allow.

What does the psalmist mean when he says: "I am set apart with the dead like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care."
It is important to see that downplaying life after death is not the focus of David, but rather the celebration of life is his focus. That is, David is making much of a point here that his praise to God and God’s salvation out of his crises is before him right now—in this life! “God, I can’t praise you in the realm of the dead (verse 11) and your saving me from my enemies (verse 1) is a moot point if I die. Yet, it seems I am as good as dead” (verse 4).

The temporary opportunity for God to be praised for the deliverance of His people is gone once the saint is dead at the hands of his enemies (6:5).

How do statements like this here and elsewhere in the Psalms fit into an overall understanding of the biblical teaching on what lies beyond the grave?
First, it should be noticed that the King James translators translated Psalm 88:3’s usage of sheol into “grave.” Thus, they too thought of sheol and hades as a general term for “the realm of the dead”—and not necessarily just the place where people go to suffer.

Secondly, Luke’s record of the “Rich Man and Lazarus” in Luke 16 records the rich man going to “Hell” (hades) and being in torments (16:23-24). However, he also records Lazarus being there in “comfort” (16:26).

Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that David is speaking of sheol as a place where people’s bodies go and rot—leaving people with a soul-less existence bearing no “afterlife.” Nor is it a given that when people go to sheol they go there to burn in flames.

Psalm 91: A Psalm of Trust

I can recognize this as a "Psalm of trust" because He is saying quite a bit about how safe he feels in the care of the Lord in verse 1 and how anybody can experience the same (verse 9). He speaks of being safe "under His shadow." He reiterates this confidence both as a statement of volition in verse 2 ("Him I will trust") and with an promise to his reader in verse 4 ("under his wings shalt thou trust"). He says "you will find One Whom you can trust after you spend time under His wings just as I have done." Just as this writer speaks from experience, a Psalm of trust is that which heralds a stedfast confidence in One Who has already proven able.

This Psalm is that which express faith rather than shouts of victory. One who knows the heart of Job mutter "if you kill me, I'll still trust you" (13:15) knows that David is saying "I have nobody else."

Verses 9-10

Is it realistic to say "no evil shall befall thee?" Realize that the writer is saying "nothing happens to the believer" is a very meaningful statement. That is, the believer is not passive. Can the writer say, "Don't worry about it! Nothing is going to happen. Your baby is going to be fine. Society is going to love you. You will have a raise at the job on Monday." Can he promise this? Is he promising this? A thousand times no. He is saying "You are not passively enduring. You are protected. You are cared for. You are monitored, and you are accounted for." Just as Satan said to God, "Your hedge is around Job," so the believer can rest assured that there are those whom Satan desires to sift and whom God protects with His mighty hand.

Nothing "happens" to the believer.

Verses 11-13

Does the angel keep me from any pain? Did the angel which ministered grace to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane deliver Him from the hour of the cup? Then rest assured the same angel which stepped out of the ranks of one of those 12 legions to bring him strength also withheld himself in perfect submission to the will of the Godhead when He allowed this same Jesus to go on and sweat drops of blood, endure the beatings of the all-night trials and morning-long displays of corruptions prior to Himself being "obedient to death--even the death of the cross" (Phil 2).

Do we tread upon the adder? There are times when serpents bruise the heal of the believer just as the serpent bruised the heal of our Savior, but we have been promised that there will be a season in which we shall "shortly crush Satan's head" (Romans 16) just as our Savior did (Genesis 3:15). Is it unreasonable, then, to say "I cannot be bruised?" Oh yes. It has been given to us not only to believe on HIm, but also "to suffer for His sake" (Phil 1).

The Psalmist of 16 does admit that He went to Hell, but he also expresses faith that He will not stay there. The Psalmist of Psalm 27 cries out in faith "The Lord is my Salvation"--after he says, "my enemies came upon me to eat up my flesh." There is a tension between "I am totally protected" and the end of the statement which says "even in my calamity."

Musings about Sunday School

When I was a child, there were a few things about Sunday School that I looked forward to: The prize box, birthday recognition, Christmas program practice, snacks, seeing my friends, etc… The fact that Bible lessons or any kind of systematic catechism do not make the list is simply because all that I remember was a woman who read her script as she was teaching, usually relying on her flannel-graph and continually scolding me for appearing disinterested.

The Sunday School does indeed have the ability to be the “great outreaching arm” of the church (Criswell 1980, 176). As age group-specific classes obtain contacts from the visitation program, “common ground” which would be a major attraction if people from a particular class would go out to bring others into their smaller band of class.

One more “good thing” about the Sunday School is that it can be a “rise or fall” ministry based on the annual certification of teachers. This is very good for the pastor. The pastor can place a goal which he feels is both necessary and flexible before the Sunday School teachers such as an annual training giving the teachers a refresher in a good philosophy of teaching. This can culminate in a consecration service on a Sunday night or something (Ibid, 178).

One of the most frustrating things to observe in many churches is the way that teachers are allowed to “cut their [teaching] teeth” in the primary department. Why in the world would a pastor or his staff allow a beginning teacher to try his or her gifting out on some little guys and gals who are just becoming acquainted with the matters of the faith? That teacher is in many cases the only representation of the truths of the Bible that the little student will get.

Our children, who hear the truths at home, are still very much impressed (positively or negatively) at the teachers they interact with in Sunday School. My children are the most important people in my life after my wife, so I am not comfortable with the idea that we put “2nd stringers” in the children’s Sunday School first. Let new teachers stand before their supportive peers first.

The ability for real intimacy between a teacher and a group of pupils is significant if the opportunity for “weekly contacts” are seized and the young folks or even the old folks are both welcomed and encouraged to attend and share their prayer needs (Ibid). Much can be said about a teacher who visits his or her students in the hospitals, in their homes, or at church functions. Today, this can be accentuated by text messaging, message boards, emails, or postcards.

Although Sunday School can be an incredible tool to pull folks “out of their shells” and to make them more comfortable speaking to others, the discussion time can be monopolized by the talkative ones in the group, and this can intimidate the timid speaker more than it can facilitate open discussion (Ibid, 179).

Oversized or poorly attended groups can also be harmful to the confidence of the participants or to their motivation. If Sunday School is important enough to grow, it is important enough to grow with growing leadership (Ibid).
 
References
Criswell, W.A. 1980. Criswell’s guidebook for pastors. Nashville, TN: Broadman.

Should a Chaplain in the Armed Forces Pray in Jesus' Name?

In order for this question to be answered, the reader must understand that a chaplain has this thing called an "endorsement." The "endorsement" is the "nod of approval" a religious body gives to a man or woman to say "this is our guy/gal to provide religious support within the Department of Defense (DOD)." Without this endorsement, the chaplain would have about 30 days before He is removed from Service.

The Chaplain represents his convictions which are also his endorser’s. If he is “on loan” from this religious body to the Department of Defense, then they must recognize that he has two allegiances: To the DOD (by conveyance, the Constitution) and to the endorser.

Again, the Christian Chaplain represents the government as their designated spiritual point of contact or subject matter expert in matters relating to religion and morals. When he does something in his sector of influence, it is seen as “that which our government approves.”

If Liberty Baptist Fellowship, for example, hasn’t expressed a stance on “praying in Jesus’ name,” then this author has nothing but his preference and has no conflicting allegiances—for the only demand is that of his role as the guardian of the 1st Amendment. At an official function where the Chaplain represents the government and is seen as their “subject matter expert” and “embodiment of a guarantee that not only can I worship how I see fit, but that government also will not give its preferred religion,” that chaplain must also lay down his preference for the integrity of his role as a guardian of the Bill of Rights--his only existing allegiance.

Prooftext from Scripture or not, if the Chaplain has agreed to accession into the armed services and his endorser has no "official stand" on this issue, then he must do what is best in his billet as the guardian of the first amendment--and that is to be sure that he does not lead "soldier x" to believe that the government (or his unit) is presenting "the ideal faith."

"God turned the curse into a blessing unto you"

So says Deuteronomy 23:5 (later quoted in Nehemiah 13:2). The fact is, we desperately need to know somebody is on our team. I have watched those who "sorrow as though there is no hope" (1 Thessalonains 4:13), and I must tell you that I am glad to be one of His.

Gainsayers and critics abound. "Has beens" and "would've beens" are not content to forsake their past apathies and move on...they must also believe that you will not be blessed. They may even whisper words of cheer when they watch you fall. Those of your own household; those of another; they may all watch with anticipation to see if their doubts and "curses" of you will come true.

"What shall we then say to these things?" Shall we despair? Shall we think for even a nanosecond that our God has turned His back upon those that are His? Nay! For my Substitute has already faced this curse. There is not a reason for His back to be towards me. Should we expect His hand of blessing to turn into a hand of chastisement. Again, the penitent man or woman finds no reason for a grudging Father.

O you have stumbled upon this blog--may you find an ever merciful God Who is not willing that any of His should be lost (John 17; 2 Peter 3:9)! Will you seek to be one of His? Will you not trust the once-bleeding hands of the Savior which were nailed to an altar for your sins?

Believer, will you not realize afresh and anew that all of the promises of God are "Yes" and "Amen" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20)? Will we not rest in His work, His promise, His presence?

There is no better time to bow the knee.