Psalm 142

While reading the Psalms I found myself focused upon 142. 

Look on my right hand and see,
For there is no one who acknowledges me;
Refuge has filed me;
No one cares for my soul.

But in his desperation David writes:

I cried out to you, O Lord;
I said, You are my refuge.
My portion in the land of the living
Attend to my cry,
For I am brought low;
Deliver me from my persectuors,
For they are stronger than I.
Bring my soul out of prison,
That I may praise Your name

Tis the Season for Simeon

This time of year we meet the usual suspects: Joseph, Mary, Gabriel, Herod, Zachariah, the Wise Men, etc. Great characters. Great stories. Popular sermon material. A friend of mine is preaching the text found in Luke 2 with one of the lesser considered characters of the Christmas Story—Simeon. This text in Luke 2 is a great example of what I've been asking for years—upon whom should the sermon focus?

Here's the text from Luke 2:

²² When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³ (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), ²⁴ and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

²⁵ Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. ²⁶ It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Messiah. ²⁷ Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, ²⁸ Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

²⁹ "Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
³⁰ For my eyes have seen your salvation,
³¹ which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
³² a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel."

³³ The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him. ³⁴ Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, ³⁵ so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

Here's the key question? Should the sermon be man-centered [anthropocentric] or God-centered [theocentric]? Most would say immediately—God centered. I would submit that most sermons are man-centered. What are most sermons from this text about? Aren't they about the faithfulness of Simeon? Doesn't the sermon have something to do with how Simeon lived and how we should follow his example? Isn't that a man-centered sermon? The answer to that question is yes. The problem with that is obvious. Most people look at Simeon and would say, There's no way I can be like him. There's no real blessing in that, rather people may leave the church more frustrated than when they arrived.

What is this text really about? Isn't it about God? The most important thing about this text is not the traits of Simeon as wonderful as they are. It is the song that Simeon sings. What does it center upon? It is focused upon the faithfulness of God in providing salvation for all people, Gentiles as well as Jews.

Thus the sermon should be centered not upon Simeon but God. Simeon's faithfulness which is obvious will not change anybody's life. God's whose faithfulness in sending His salvation through Christ can change anybody's life at any time in any circumstance. This is also a missionary text in God sent His salvation or ALL people. God has always been faithful and He has always been willing to save ALL people. Now that can change a life.

Always ask this question from a text: What does it say about God/Christ? When you find the answer to that question in the text you'll find out what God intended people to know from it. What God intended people to know from a text is what the pastor needs to preach to the people on Sunday. That will change lives!

 

GIFTS GOD GIVES

One of the great challenges for the preacher is the Christmas season, usually four Sundays between Thanksgiving and Christmas. The challenge is preaching about a story everybody knows in a fresh way. It's a lot harder than you think. There are just so many ways to handle Matthew/Luke chapters 1-2. If I were in the pulpit this year I think I'd do a four-sermon series: Gifts God Gives. These are gifts you can unwrap that He has available—not just at Christmas but every day of the year.

• The Gift of Love—1 John 7-11
  
• The Gift of Grace—John 1:16
  
• The Gift of Forgiveness—1 John 1:8-2:2
  
• The Gift of Eternal Life—John 3:16
  

  
   

Everybody, no matter who and where, is in need of these four gifts. I think it would be an encouraging series and perhaps a bit of a different take on the season. You could give the Angel and Wise Men and bit of a rest and bring them back out next year.

What’s Wrong with the Church

What's wrong with the church? Much has been written and said to attempt to answer that question. The fact is the impact of the church in most American towns and cities is minimal. Why? Let me share a few answers to the question based on years of close-up experience.

First there is the problem of selective ministry. I saw this time and time again in every church I served. I always joked that the number of folks in the waiting room or at the funeral was in direct proportion to how well known someone was. If someone was on the inside everybody came running. If someone was not, it was more like a slow trot or worse. The majority of ministry in the church is done for the benefit of the insiders, the best known and the well connected. The further outside the inner circle of the church one is, the less ministry takes place. I've seen many people leave the church and never come back because of selective ministry, asking the question, Where is the love they all talk about?

Second there is the dismissal of the Great Commission as the primary work of the church. You know the Great Commission—preach the gospel to everybody. Everybody means everybody no matter the color, gender, socio-economic background, country of origin, sexual orientation, etc. Many if not most churches in America simply give lip service to the Great Commission. Precious little evangelism is going on. What little good news is being shared is done by a very few who believe that is their job as believers. Call for a visitation night and see how many show up? If you make folks feel guilty enough from the pulpit on Sunday they may once or twice, but by the third night how many are there? I've used every evangelism program a church can use over the years and none of them have worked over the long haul. Why? They don't work because the Great Commission simply does not matter. Folks get all fired up about going to another country and share the heck out of the Gospel. Those same folks will not speak to the person who is lost across from the street from them. Something is wrong!

Third worship is about music and not about loving God. A great definition of worship is the church busy at the business of loving God, however, ask many a church goer these days about worship and he or she will likely start talking about music. God created music so He's pleased by however it is used to give praise to Him. Why in the world should it matter what kind of music is being played in a service if it's God-honoring? It shouldn't but it DOES! Churches are basically segregated by age today because of music. God cannot be pleased by it. Dare I say it—music style is an idol.

Fourth most pastors are not allowed to be pastors. What is the job of the pastor? It is simply to preach the Word of God and equip Christians spiritually to live out their calling to be salt and light in a tasteless, dark world. Pastors begin their ministry excited to do just that only to find in their first church and afterward that they are not allowed to fulfill their calling. Instead, they become slaves to the whims and personal desires of church members. Pastors are forced to spend their time making sure the egos and needs of members are stroked to the detriment of time in the study and in prayer. They pay dearly if they are late to take care of some perceived need. Many if not most pastors live their lives in fear of not meeting those needs whether they admit it or not.

Fifth there is the problem of church members hating each other. Yes I said hate. Now no one would ever use that word, but I've seen what church members have done to each other and I've heard what they say about one another. The only word to describe what I've seen and heard is hate. It is amazing to me how many people spend week after week listening to sermons and singing songs about God's grace and forgiveness yet are absolutely unwilling to extend either. Now when people have hate in their hearts what kind of worship can take place in that church? What kind of evangelism can be done? What kind of ministry will happen? Will there be any kind of opportunity for spiritual leaders to fulfill their calling? Perhaps this last problem is the foundation for the rest of them. Take care of that one and the others will probably be dealt with as well.

The church Jesus died to build is beautiful. (Read Matthew 18 for just one New Testament expression of what He intended.) What churches people attend are not. I believe in the former and am awfully concerned about the latter.

Preaching Eschatology

As I was reading through 1 and 2 Thessalonians this week, I was reminded again how eschatological the two letters are. Perhaps the first of Paul's extant letters we have, both are written against the backdrop of the 2^nd coming of Christ. Every chapter of 1 Thessalonians has references to it. 2 Thessalonians is famous for the teaching concerning the Man of Lawlessness in chapter 2.

The point I wanted to make here is how Paul uses eschatology pastorally. The section concerning the 'rapture' of the church in 1 Thess 4 was written to encourage believers in the wake of dead loved ones and friends whom they thought would miss the 2^nd coming. Just the opposite was true as Paul writes that the dead in Christ will rise first [1 Thess 4:16]. As Paul wraps up his discussion of the Man of Lawlessness and the judgment of God that will come upon those who follow him, Paul wrote, "But we should always give thanks for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation…" [2 Thess 2:13]. Then he reminds the church of the glory they will have in Christ.

And don't forget the final words of 1 Thess 4, "Therefore comfort one another with these words."

Instead of being comforted, most of the time believers leave a sermon on eschatology scared to death. That is the fault of the preacher who himself probably does not understand the primary role of eschatology in the NT. The realty of the Second Coming and the judgment that is part of it should scare the unbeliever, and Paul does not skirt that truth. Hell is real and lasts a long long time. However, eschatology should not frighten the believer, and preachers should not use the doctrine that way. Instead, eschatology should give believers hope and yes, as Paul wrote, it should comfort the heart of the Christian. Why? Among other things, eschatology reminds us that all is not lost. The present suffering, injustice, and evil will give way to healing, justice, and righteousness. When Jesus comes all wrongs will be made right individually, corporately, and cosmically. What is more comforting and praiseworthy than that?

The goals of the preacher in teaching eschatology should be the same as that of Paul: (1) For believers to hold onto the traditions they have been taught [2 Thess 2:15], and (2) for believers to encourage each other and build up one another [1 Thess 5:11]. Read 1 and 2 Thessalonians and see how Paul uses the teaching of 'last days' then decide to do the same. The church will be blessed and strengthened.

 

Completely Blessed

I was reading Ephesians 1:3-14 again the other day. The passage is packed with theology, most of it pretty heavy. In Greek it is one long sentence, and what a sentence.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ in Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to the good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will; that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,; in whom also having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

I always wanted people to notice the Trinitarian emphasis that Paul makes. You are chosen by the Father. Whatever you think of election it is at the very least God's sovereign initiative in bring you to faith in Christ. You are redeemed by the Son. Redemption is a precious word in the Bible. You have been bought with a price—the blood of Jesus. You are sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the proof that God owns you as a believer and is His down payment of a complete inheritance to come. God in His fullness totally involved in your salvation from beginning to end. The Father chose, the Son paid the price, the Spirit proves.

All of these blessings have the same purpose: "to the praise of His glory!"

 

 

 

THE WELCOME

I have had the opportunity to visit several churches in the past year, not all Baptist (that's been interesting). Most of the churches have one thing in common during their time of worship: the welcome. It's something I did too for many years in the churches I led. You know what the welcome is all about. After a song or two you're asked to turn around and greet as many people as possible in a minute or two or three. The purpose of the opening, at least from a pastor's perspective, is to give visitors the impression the church is friendly. There are two problems with the welcome that I saw as a pastor and now I see even more clearly as a visitor. First, members primarily greet one another and spend little time (if any) greeting visitors. Oh there might be a quick, "Glad to see you," but what I see mostly is people greet each other all around me and not greet me at all. That obviously gives the opposite impression of friendly. Second, visitors HATE the greeting. It makes most people even more uncomfortable than they are already. Visitors want to be as anonymous as possible. It may have taken all the courage they could muster just to show up. They need to be left alone during the service. Greet them before. Greet them after. Leave them alone during. Let God speak to them then.

There are many ways to let people know a church is people-oriented and friendly. The worship service is not one of them. That time should be devoted to a God-focus. That's likely why a visitor showed up to church in the first place. There is some spiritual need that God needs to tend to. He can and will do so if His people will stay out of the way. I would urge churches to rethink the welcome and eliminate it from the service. Work instead on how visitors are made welcome before the service and appreciated afterward.

 

A CHURCH ON ITS KNEES

What separates the church of Acts from the church of today? It is obviously its power. The church of Acts had it; today's church does not. From where did the church's power come? It came from prayer. The church of Acts is a church on its knees. Note how often prayer is recorded by Luke:

• 1:14 in the upper room
  
• 1:24 before selecting the replacement for Judas
  
• 2:42 after Pentecost
  
• 3:1 Peter and John go to the temple at the hour of prayer
  
• 4:24 response to the threat of the religious leaders
  
• 4:31 response of God to the church's prayer
  
• 6:4 the apostles priority is to pray
  
• 7:59 Stephen prays before death
  
• 8:15 Peter and John pray for the Samaritans
  
• 9:11 Saul of Tarsus prays after his heavenly vision
  
• 9:40 Peter prays before raising Tabitha from the dead
  
• 10:9 Peter is praying as God gives him a vision leading to the conversion of Cornelius and his household
  
• 12:5 the church pray for Peter's release
  
• 13:1-3 the church at Antioch prays and God sets apart missionaries
  
• 14:23 Paul and Barnabas pray as they appoint elders to the churches of Asia Minor
  
• 16:25 Paul and Silas pray and praise God in jail
  
• 20:36 Paul pray with the Ephesian elders
  
• 21:5 Paul prays with Christians at Tyre
  

 

At every turn, before every decision, at every fork in the road the church prays. They pray for wisdom, power, strength, help, and for God's will to be done in and through them.

These were no super churches as we see today. They were small. They were made up mostly of the undesirables of society: shepherds, tax collectors, harlots, and sinners of all types. They were misunderstood and persecuted. They were also powerful. Their power came from the time they spent on their knees in prayer.

Power is the primary by-product of prayer. But there are other benefits to the church as well. If a church is on its knees it will be focused. The church will know what is important and what is not. Also, and this is desperately needed, he church will be unified. Luke emphasizes that unity came from prayer in the first chapters of Acts (1:14; 2:42-7; 4:24).

If they were honest with themselves (and most won't be) most churches realize they are impotent but don't know why. The answer lies in their lack of prayer. The church can preach, sing, build buildings, create ministries, raise money, use Twitter and all the technowhizbang gadgets they think will reach today's generation, or think outside the box, but it doesn't pray very much. Until the church understands that and remedies it, all the other stuff will like filthy rags before the Lord of the Lord of the church. What the church needs today are fewer Bible studies (and I'm not against those) and more prayer meetings. Most Christians know enough about the Bible; in fact they need to apply what they already know. It is not more Bible knowledge that is needed; it is more power.

I've heard it said often that we need to go back to the church of Acts. Let's start at the altar!

The Prodigal and the Two Rules

There are two unbreakable rules in biblical interpretation. First is that genre determines interpretive method. As Stein has written, there are rules to the game and genre determines the rules. The second is context determines meaning. Preachers break both rules all too often. A simple lesson in the rules is found in Luke 15, a series of parables Jesus tells the most famous of which is the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Most people believe the primary point of the story is but miss Jesus' point. I'll get to that below. First let's deal with context. Remember there are three parables in the chapter. All three are told by the Lord against the background of vv. 1-2: Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, 'This Man receives sinners and eats with them.' Then Jesus tells three stories (parables): the Parable of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and then the Lost Son.

Context determines meaning. Jesus is eating with undesirables and the pious religious establishment cannot believe it. In the first two parables Jesus plainly says that is why He came—to seek those who do not profess to be religious and lead them to repentance. There is joy in heaven when a sinner repents (there ought to be on earth). The third parable, the most famous one, starts out the same way. There is a son who is lost. However, the father does not seek him out as the shepherd and the woman seek out the lost sheep and coin. Instead he allows him to go out and experience what it's like to be on his own. He finds out to be sure. When the lost boy comes home his father is runs to meet him and throws a party.

Then we come to the part of the story that is not found in the other parables. The elder son who has stayed home and kept the father's commandments is upset that the prodigal is getting a party. He's never had a party. He's jealous. He's angry. Note the father's response: Son you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found. Why doesn't the parable stop with the lost boy coming home? Why is there a pointed conversation between the elder son and his father? Remember the context? The religious leaders are criticizing Jesus for fellowshipping with sinners. They can be found in the elder son. Jesus is telling them that they should be glad He is there to fellowship with sinners. In fact that's what they should be doing. They should be seeking the lost as the shepherd and woman sought the lost sheep and coin. They should be as joyful as heaven that a lost son comes home.

In fact the point of all three parables comes down to this final conversation between the father and his eldest son. This leads to genre, which determines the rules of interpretation. This is a parable. There are not many rules to this game, but one of them is the principle of end stress. In other words, like any good story, the point is found at the end. The primary purpose of all three parables is not to bless lost sinners (although they obviously do) but to confront self-proclaimed religious folks with their hypocrisy. The final plea of the father to the elder son I'm convinced is a plea from Jesus for the religious to see their hypocrisy and repent themselves.

Obviously the parables of Luke 15, especially the last one, have been a blessing to sinners. The Father not only waits for sinners, but runs to meet them. Indeed He even seeks them out. However, context and genre demand that the interpreter pay more attention to that last conversation. In fact, when we speak of the Parable of the Lost Son my question is which one is lost? Isn't it the elder brother?

In any biblical passage genre and context are keys. Preachers often do not understand the former and dismiss the latter. They do so to the detriment of the people in the pew. To preach in biblical authority means to keep both in mind. Only by doing so does one really preach God's Word.

Blessed Sarcasm

Over the years, and I know it's hard to believe, I was accused of using a bit too much sarcasm in the pulpit. Oh blessed sarcasm—it's one of the preacher's favorite tools. Most I know use it fairly regularly. When I did, I was just following the example of the Apostle Paul, who used sarcasm often. He was a master at it. I was reminded of how good he was at biting sarcasm when I was reading through 1 Corinthians recently. For example note 4:8-13 as Paul hits the church hard as it is more enamored with the wisdom of the world than the wisdom of God. The passage reads in part:

For you are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without me—and indeed I could wish you did reign, that we also might reign with you!...For I think God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored…

Of course Paul means just the opposite than his words indicate on the surface. He is using sarcasm. They aren't full. They aren't rich spiritually. They aren't wise, and they aren't strong. Instead they are empty, poor, fools, and weak. And that's the point of sarcasm. You mean the opposite of what you say. I doubt very much the Corinthians missed his point. Not many miss sarcasm today.

Sarcasm can be used in a destructive way, but when used rightly, it can challenge listeners to think and hopefully change harmful attitudes and actions. A preacher should not use it to be a smart aleck, but it is a legitimate rhetorical tool. When the wise preacher understands when to pull the trigger, sarcasm can be a helpful sermonic weapon.

A LESSON IN CONTEXT

There are rules to biblical interpretation. The rule above all rules is: Context determines meaning. It is appalling how often preachers and lay people take individual verses out of context. Primarily we're dealing here with literary context (although the historical is not out of the mix). How is the verse to be read within the context of the paragraph, what comes before and after, and overall argument/story line? When you answer those questions then you find what God intends for you to know and learn. Otherwise you're just making it up as you go along.

I've been reading 1 Corinthians lately and two verses come to mind. First is found in 2:9 when Paul quotes Isa 64:4: "What eye has not seen and ear has not heard nor entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him." This verse is primarily quoted to express the wonderment of what God has in store for His children in heaven. But is that what this text is teaching?

When dealing with a quote from the OT, go to that text in its original context. In this case the verse is couched within a cry for help for God to do in the present for His people what He did in the past so that their adversaries might tremble and God might be glorified. The verse in its original context has nothing to do with heaven. Now what about its meaning in 1 Corinthians? Paul is chiding the church as he does often in the letter for being more enamored with human wisdom rather than embracing God's wisdom. Paul did not come to Corinth armed with human wisdom but with the power of God. The mature would understand this wisdom, hidden from ages past, but revealed in the preaching of the Gospel. Paul then quotes Isaiah 64:4, eye has not seen, ears have not heard, what God has prepared for those who love him. Then he writes, "But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit…that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God:" [2:10, 12]. Paul's argument is that what once God had hidden He now has revealed in His Son to all believers. The unbeliever cannot grasp the wisdom of God but believers can. The OT text is used by Paul to show the believer what he/she has that OT saints did not—an understanding of the deep wisdom of God in Christ. The verse has nothing to do with heaven; it has everything to do with the blessings of God for the Christian now. The verse is not about tomorrow; it is about today!

The second verse I want to briefly mention is found in the great love chapter 13. Paul writes, "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things" [v. 11]. This verse is used by many to call young people to grow up. It has nothing to do with that. The verse is part of a larger discussion about spiritual gifts. The Corinthians were focusing on the more attractive (at least to them) gift of tongues and many looked down on those without that gift. Paul writes in ch 12 that all gifts were important and ch 13 is all about reminding the church that if gifts aren't used with love they are no good at all. Toward the end of ch 13 Paul reminds his readers that one day all gifts will pass away but love will remain. Then he writes, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part will be done away." There's been a lot of discussion about this verse, but I do know why. Paul is obviously saying that in this life our understanding is limited in spite of spiritual gifts, but one day the perfect, the eschaton (the end) will come. One day believers will be ushered into eternity, will receive a new body (discussed in ch 15 of this letter), and then there will be no need for spiritual gifts. As Paul put it in v. 12, "I will know just I also am known." I will know all that God has for me perfectly just as God knows me perfectly (I will never know as much as God—don't forget that!). Our verse is not an admonition to grow up physically, it is a statement of fact that one day every believer will grow up spiritually and will have no need for spiritual gifts (the childish things). It was foolish then for the Corinthians (or us) to argue about spiritual gifts or believer that having a certain gift made one more 'spiritual' than another.

I have been guilty of using the first example to allude to heaven; most preachers I know have too. But it was and is wrong to do so. Why? When I take a verse and place it where God did not, I'm guilty of eisegesis (reading into a text) instead of exegesis (bring out the intended meaning of the text). The text is only authoritative when I interpret it within the context that God placed it. Context determines meaning. Find it. It's a lot harder, but it blesses, strengthens, and teaches a whole lot more.

ISSUES IN ROMANS #7

One of the many debated parts of Romans is the large chunk found in chapters 9-11, Paul's discussion of Israel. This passage likely stems from the tension between Jews and Gentiles in the church. It is likely Gentile Christians were wondering why they should respect Israel given the fact that the majority of them had rejected their Messiah. The Apostle to the Gentiles, himself a Jew, hit this directly in these chapters.
In essence the section breaks down in three parts. In chapter 9 the Apostle is clear that the rejection of Messiah by Israel was the plan of God. Paul writes, "God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden" [v. 18]. Yet God cannot be accused of injustice as the clay has no right to criticize the potter [v. 21]. Paul is just as clear in chapter 10 that Israel's rejection was her own decision. He writes, "For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God's righteousness" [v. 3]. The age old tension between God's sovereignty and human free will is found in these two chapters. Israel's rejection of Jesus was God's plan and it was Israel's choice.
What about the future of Israel? Paul deals with that in chapter 11. The apostle is clear: God has not given up. He has not rejected Israel [v. 1], there is as there has always been a remnant—those like Paul who had accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior [v. 5], Israel's sin of rejection had opened the door for Gentile acceptance of Jesus [v. 11], and that there would at some point be an overwhelming turning to Christ by Jews [v. 26]. Obviously in v. 26 Paul is using hyperbole. Not every Jew will come to Christ, but many will do so. In the meantime Gentiles should not despise Jews but be grateful for them as they are the root of their faith [v. 18].
God still has a plan for the Jews. He is clear in Romans and elsewhere that true Israel is made up of those who accept Christ as Savior [the Church], but because of the Fathers, God is not finished with the Jews. His plan includes a mighty turning of many to Christ. They are the root of faith so Gentiles are to respect them, pray for them, and evangelize them. There are not, never has been, nor will there be two ways to God. There is not a Jewish way and a Gentile way. There is only one way as chapter 10 makes clear—"For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes" [v. 4].
Christians should respect Jews as the root of faith. Christians should pray for the conversion of Jews. Christians should grieve, as Paul did, that Jews by and large had rejected their Messiah. Christians should also, as Paul did, seek the salvation of Jews through evangelism and missions. However, there is nothing in Paul's argument in Romans that gives the geographical land of Israel or its current political state any special significance. Zionism is nowhere found in these chapters.

ISSUES IN ROMANS #6

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law…[Romans 7:7].

This verse begins a much debated passage in Romans. How do you understand the "I"? You know this passage—in a paraphrase—what I wish to do I don't do but the things I don't want to do, that is what I do. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience and by implication all Jews; or, (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam and by implication all people?

Every commentary worth its salt discusses these options and more. I wish to eliminate the first option as undoubtedly un-Pauline. Juxtapose the struggle described in this passage with what Paul writes in the chapter afterward: For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death [8:2]. Indeed the end of chapter 7 is a declaration of the victory believers have in Christ—Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! Later in Romans the Apostle declares that the kingdom of God is all about righteousness, peace, and joy [14:17]. The struggle of chapter 7 hardly conjures up these images. It is hard for me to reconcile Paul's belief of victory in Christ with what he says here so I eliminate option one.

Pastorally, what kind of good news is chapter 7 if Paul is discussing the Christian life? Why would one want to turn to God in Christ if all he has to look forward to is a life of extreme struggle leading to self-condemnation?

While the third option has much to commend it, and obviously includes option one, I think Paul has his pre-conversion life as a Jew attempting to keep the law primarily in his mind. This option is best when one takes the occasion of the letter into consideration. Jew/Gentile tensions are real in the Roman church from later sections of the letter one gets the sense Jews were critical of Gentiles for refusing to embrace some of their customs [he will correct some Gentile attitudes as well]. Paul tells them that all keeping law does is bring a struggle. It is impossible. You may want to do what is good but cannot do it. The law is not sin but neither does it provide power. Deliverance from the struggle comes only in a relationship with Christ. The result of keeping law is self-condemnation. On the other hand, there is no condemnation in Christ (8:1).

In sum, of the three options above, the first one makes most sense in context. Paul has discussed the universality of sin already in chapters 1-3; I believe he is being more specific here. He is hitting at the Jew/Gentile strain in the church by reminding Jewish believers that ultimately keeping law is impossible and they should not despise Gentile believers for embracing that truth.

Psalm 37

I was reading Psalm 37 this morning. It is amazing the depth and breadth of this hymn by David as the King compares the wicked and the righteous. It is an acrostic hymn; in other words, each verse begins with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. I would urge a regular reading of it. Verses 1-8 are full of exhortations. Jesus' quote from the Beatitudes about the meek is found in this Psalm (v. 11). Here are a few more gems:

"The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delights in His way" [v. 23].

"I have been young and I have been old; yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken, or His seed begging for bread" [v. 25].

"Delight yourself also in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart" [v. 4].

And one more—

"Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright; for the future of that man is peace."

I especially like that last one—it is a promise to hold on to.

 

 

 

THE BIBLE’S GREATEST VERSE

John 3:16
I thought I might share outlines of some of my favorite sermons from the last few years.
Max Lucado has rightly stated that John 3:16 is the "Hope Diamond of the New Testament." I would not argue with the many who believe it is the most important verse of the Bible. On this verse we stand upon God's plan for the ages. Let's break the verse down and give it some of the attention it deserves [though admittedly we can't scratch its surface].

• God—it all begins with Him. I think Isaiah 40:12-31 is all the commentary we need for this fact. I would urge you to read the entire passage, but here are just some of them: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand…Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has taught Him? …Behold the nations are as a drop in the bucket…All the nations before Him are as nothing…It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers…He brings the princes to nothing…To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal? Says the Holy One. Well the answer to that question is obviously—No one and nothing! In the beginning God…The greatest of all verses begins where the Bible begins and ends—with God.
• So Loved—God is love [John 4:8]. Because love is His very nature, He must do more than just say He loves. He must demonstrate it. We'll get to that in just a bit.
• The World—who is the object of God's great love? It is the world. "The world" in the 4^th Gospel refers to sinners [3:19; 7:7; 16:20]. God so loved sinners. Let's not keep this too generic, however. It is helpful I think to replace the word with "me". God so loved me—a sinner. Now it's particular. Now it's personal.
• That He gave—love is always demonstrated by giving. You will give to the object of your love. You're going to give freely and abundantly.
• His only begotten son—what is God's gift of love? It is a "who." It is His only begotten. It is His "unique," "one of a kind" son. Of course that is Jesus. It is He 'who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age" [Gal 1:4].
   
  Why did God do this? Why did He give His one and only Son?
   
• That whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life—the purpose statement of the Bible's greatest verse draws an eternal dividing line that cannot be ignored. Now let's work backwards.
   
  Everlasting life—ultimately of course everlasting life is heaven. Jesus said the night before His death that He was preparing a place (John 14:2). Heaven is not a state of mind. It is a place prepared for God's children by Christ Himself. Everlasting life is also a present possession [John 5:24].
  Would not Perish—here's the part most people would like to see omitted from the Bible's greatest verse but cannot. How would you know good news without bad news? The bad news is that there is everlasting punishment. Jesus talked about it just as surely as He spoke of everlasting life [Matthew 25:46]. There is a dividing line. There is a heaven and there is a hell. What determines where eternity will be spent?
  Believes in Him—faith is the key. Faith is not just mental assent; it is a yielding of self to God. It is not just saying I believe; it is handing over one's life to God. Notice "in Him." You must hand your life over to God in Christ. You cannot get to the Father but through the Son.
  Whoever—this is my favorite word of the Bible's greatest verse. Who can believe? Whoever. That means me. That means you. That means anyone. That's good news. Eternal life is not just available to a holy few or a number of people already determined. Eternal life is available to anyone willing to believe in God through His Son whom He gave as a gift of His love to the world.

If I might quote Lucado again—John 3:16 'unrolls the welcome mat of heaven to humanity.' It is the greatest verse in the Bible.
It comes with four realizations:

God loves

God gave

You believe

You live
 

You must decide.

 

                

Issues in Romans #5

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ [5:1 NET].
The issue that is discussed in all the commentaries is whether or not the verb underlined (one word in Greek) is an indicative as it is understood above or a subjunctive ['let us have peace'] as it is read in several important manuscript witnesses [01 A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* lat bo]. Those are some high powered witnesses. However, the indicative is not without its own persuasive lineup [01¹ B² F G P 044 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1739^c 1881 2464].

When one weighs just the external evidence; the subjunctive gets the nod. While the first corrector is often of equal importance as the original hand and there is a good cross section of witnesses for the indicative, the subjunctive reading carries the day. As the NET Bible critique makes clear the "A" rating in UBS⁴ is much too confident. At best the external evidence warrants a "B" rating for the indicative. 

With that said, the indicative is likely the correct reading. Taking the possibility of a hearing error for granted, the strongest internal argument is that Paul has established what the NET notes calls the 'indicatives of the faith.' There is only one imperative and only one hortatory subjunctive used up to this point in the letter. After chapter 6 there are 61 imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. It seems an exhortation is out of place in this part of the epistle. 

The overall argument of the letter quite frankly demands the indicative. In 1:18-3:20 the apostle has been clear that all are sinners and in need of God's righteousness. In 3:21-up to this point—sinners are declared righteous by faith. Both are absolute standings with results. The state of sin results in the litany of OT texts in 3:10-18. The state of righteousness results in peace with God (5:1). Peace is not something to which the believer aspires; it is a result of a righteous standing. To add to the strength of peace as a result of justification Paul adds that believer also stands in the state of grace [5:2]. An indicative in 5:1 just fits the overall argument.

I'm not sure quite frankly that the subjunctive is good theology. Would it not imply something a person must do? The subjunctive would call for the individual to strive for peace or perhaps guard it. To me that would hardly be a Pauline thought. Peace with God is something God Himself provides and protects—not the sinner. As Cranfield notes, "it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing at this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them."

I would not quibble with a "B" rating in the UBS text. I would agree that the external evidence makes all conclusions a little less than absolute, but I believe the internal evidence makes it probable that the indicative is the original reading. The believer is justified and thus has peace with God—now and forever!

[By the way I greatly appreciate the NET Bible notes on textual issues such as this one!]

 

ISSUES IN ROMANS #4

In the first three chapters of his magnum opus Paul focuses on two ideas. First and primarily, all people are in need of the righteousness of God. Every person is a sinner and has fallen short of His glory (3:23). Sinners are hopelessly lost, cannot hope to be righteous on their own (3:11-18), and in fact left to themselves sinners will worship the creation rather than the Creator (1:25). Second, God provides His righteousness to those who turn to His Son Jesus by faith (3:22). The Father placed all His wrath against sin upon His Son (3:25) so that He might be both just (in that God judged sin as He must as One who is righteous) and the justifier (One who can now show mercy upon sinners).

It's time to illustrate the second point particularly and Paul does so in chapter 4 by using one of the Old Testament 'big guns.' The apostle uses Abraham as his example for justification by faith. He focuses upon Gen 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." His primary point, especially to those in the church who were Jewish believers, was that righteousness was credited to Abraham before he was circumcised. Why is that important? Gentiles too could claim Abraham as 'father.' I am sure that fact was news to many a Jew and good news to many a Gentile.

The bottom line for Paul was the person who can look to Abraham as 'father' is the one who believes. It makes no difference whether that person is a Jew or a Gentile. Concerning the result of Abraham's faith Paul wrote: And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised [NET]. Abraham is the father of all believers.

Why does Paul deal with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles at all? When reading chapter 4 one needs to understand a bit of the background of Romans. There seems to have been friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the church. It is likely Jewish believers still looked at Gentiles with the disdain of their upbringing. Jewish Christians probably felt Gentiles in the church were 'lesser' to some degree because of their Jewish pedigree. Paul uses Romans for several purposes, but one was to remind both camps of their brotherhood in Christ. All, both Jews and Gentiles, were sinners. All, both Jews and Gentiles, had to believe in Christ to receive God's righteousness. All, both Jews and Gentiles, could look upon Abraham as the father of the faithful. All believers, both Jews and Gentiles, were family.

The Jew/Gentile friction that seems apparent in the Roman church is the reason for Paul's discussion of Israel in chapters 9-11 (I'll get to that later). This friction seems to be at the forefront of some of the ethical sections of the letter as well. Some scholars believe his primary purpose for Romans is to deal with this. I do not agree, however, one cannot deny that it is an underlying theme in epistle.

By the way, it is worth noting the relationship between the two groups was also on the forefront of Paul's mind as he writes Romans. He is taking an offering from his primarily Gentile churches to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem who were struggling. He hopes the offering will be a bridge built to unite the two groups. One can see that the apostle would be particularly burdened to deal the fellowship problem in Rome.

The hermeneutical principle found in chapter 4 of Romans is the need to understand—as much and as far as possible—the background of a biblical book. The fact that Paul is dealing with a church made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and that it appears each group had problems with the other, can help to clarify some of Paul's argument for the interpreter. Background issues are found in any good testament introduction Bible dictionary or commentary.

Issues in Romans #3

Couched within arguably the most important book in the New Testament is the greatest paragraph ever written—Romans 3:21-26. In 1:18-3:20, Paul spends considerable time discussing bad news: everyone is a sinner. No one is exempt. Whether one is a Jew or Gentile, every person is a sinner and fallen short of the glory of God. By the end of that extended passage one is wondering if there is any hope. There is! Finally, the Apostle gets to the good news, and this passage is brimming with it. It teaches in one paragraph how God's righteousness is bestowed upon the guilty sinner.

The part of the passage that has brought on the most discussion is vv. 21-22: But now the righteousness of God part from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference…[NKJV]. Then there is v. 26: "to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" [NKJV].

Note the underlined prepositional phrases, "faith in Jesus Christ." This genitive phrase can be translated two ways. Traditionally it has been translated as an objective genitive, as in the NKJV. However, an increasing number of scholars argue that the phrase should be translated as a subjective genitive. V. 22 in the NET translation reads: "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe." The NET handles v. 26 similarly: "This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness."

Is Paul focusing upon the sinner's faith in Jesus or Jesus' faithfulness demonstrating God's righteousness? Context determines meaning. At the end of v. 22 there are the words "on all who believe." That fact alone would cause one to lean toward the objective translation. Each time anyone places faith in Christ it demonstrates the righteousness of God.

However, the subjective idea is in the passage too. Paul writes in v. 25: "whom (speaking of Jesus) God set forth as propitiation by His blood." Surely Christ's going to the cross as propitiation is the greatest example in history of faithfulness to God. And there is no denying that without Christ's faithfulness the righteousness of God would not be available to sinful human beings.

That said, it seems the objective translation seems to fit the context best. The entirety of v. 25 reads: "Whom God set forth as propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over sins that were previously committed" [NKJV]. The NET translation is a little clearer: "God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith…" V. 25 makes clear that God's righteousness is accessed by faith. Without a clear object to that faith, perhaps there would be confusion (as there is in much of the world today), but Paul was not unclear. He has already written in v. 22 that the object of faith is Christ.

I would handle v. 26 the same as v. 22. Christ's faithfulness is taken for granted by Paul (and by me) but it seems again that Paul's focus is on the object of faith—God is demonstrated to be both just (He judged sin at the cross) and the justifier every time someone believes.

The larger context of Romans also causes me to lean toward the objective translation. Paul immediately launches into a defense of 'faith in' using the life of Abraham as the primary example. Chapter 5 is all about the blessings that come when one believes and then receives God's righteousness. The believer has peace with God "through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand" [v. 2 NET]. If one wishes to move out even further, there is the famous chapter 10, the capstone of the Romans Road—if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart [v. 9] and "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame" [v. 11].

There is no denying Christ's faithfulness. However, it seems Paul's primary emphasis is on how that righteousness comes to the sinner—it is by faith in Christ. Thus, the objective seems to be the best way to deal with the genitive phrase in Romans 3:22, 26 and similar passages [Gal 2:16, 20, 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9].

 

 

 

Psalm 109 and Good Hermeneutics

How does a New Testament believer handle an Old Testament passage? There are, of course, several things to consider. The primary principle, however, is that one must sift an OT passage through the NT. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles must always be considered before meaning is determined.

 

Take for example Psalm 109, one of the most interesting in the Psalter in my opinion. It is one of the many Psalms of David in which the king prays for God to bless him and to curse his enemies:

 

Set a wicked man over him, and let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also from their desolate place. Let the creditor seize all that he has, and let strangers plunder his labor…let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out [vv.6-11,14].

 

The above verses are just an example of the judgments David hopes the Lord will rain down upon his enemies. At the same time, David asks Yahweh to deal with me for Your name's sake; because Your mercy is good, deliver me [v. 21].

 

Taken in isolation a Christian would be able to defend praying the same way for his enemies. But as mentioned above, an OT passage can never be interpreted without taking the NT into consideration. After all, Christians are not OT believers.

 

When placing Psalm 109 beside the NT what does the interpreter learn? What does the NT teach? Obviously it is very fine for a believer to pray for God to bless him and to protect him. But should a Christian pray for God to curse his enemies in the vein of Psalm 109? The answer to that question is no.

 

You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven…

[Matthew 5:43-45].

 

Jesus taught His follower not to pray against
his enemies but for them. The Lord lived what He taught as He prayed for his own enemies as He was nailed to the cross [Luke 23:34].

 

Thus what Jesus does is what we often see when one takes an OT passage and sifts it through the NT—the NT principle is more stringent. Which is tougher—praying against one's enemies or for them? The answer is obvious. Thankfully God did not leave us to ourselves to fulfill this command. The Holy Spirit within us enables us for one slice of His fruit is love [Gal 5:22]. The Spirit enables the Christian to do what is impossible otherwise.

In sum, do not interpret an OT passage in isolation. Only after taking the NT into consideration has one done Christian hermeneutics. Always place an OT passage beside the NT to discern the meaning of a text for the believer. Remember, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law [Matthew 5:17].

Issues in Romans 2

The thesis of Romans is stated by Paul in 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" [NET]

 

There are two interpretive issues found in the above text. First what does Paul mean by "the righteousness of God." Cranfield swayed many by understanding it as a righteous status given to believers by God. Thus the genitive "of God" is a genitive of source (from God). Others see the genitive as subjective (God justifies). God acts or declares one righteous when he/she turns to Him in faith. Then there are those who take the genitive as simply possessive. Righteousness is an attribute for God.

 

While it is true that righteousness is an attribute of God, it usually wise to rule out the simple possessive genitive if other syntactical categories explain it better. I think we are perhaps splitting hairs between explanations one and two. But I do tend to lean toward Cranfield's stance. It seems Paul deals primarily [but not wholly] with status in Romans rather than source. It is a given that God is the source of righteousness, but the issue in the letter is what it means when a sinner moves from his 'sinful' status to a 'righteous' one. Chapters 1-3 deal with the fact that everyone is in need of this status. Chapters 4-8 focus on the spiritual realities brought about by that status. Chapters 12-15 particularly deal with the expectations of lifestyle brought about by that status.

 

The second issue is what does Paul mean by "from faith to faith" [ek pisteos eis pistin]. Most commentators grapple with the phrase. It has been translated variously: 'by faith for faith,' by faith to faith,' 'through faith for faith,' to share just a few. I prefer the NET translation. That hits it grammatically, but what does it mean? The key I think is found in the Hosea quote that follows, "The righteous will live by faith." True life begins by faith as Romans makes clear [and Paul makes that clear in v. 16]—'from faith.' True life continues by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God [Heb 11:6]. Thus the righteous live by faith from beginning to end. I think that is what Paul means. The righteous status from God available to any person is revealed in the Gospel. It is a status that is acquired by faith and lived out by faith.

 

 

 

 

Issues In Romans 1

In interpreting biblical passages pay attention to the prepositional phrases. I've been reading Romans lately and there are often interpretive issues in the letter that hinge on these little words. The first verse of the letter is an example: From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God [NET]. The last two words of the verse are actually one word in Greek theou—the word is in the genitive case and the NET Bible's translation "set apart for the Gospel of God" is literally correct. However, grammatically the genitive could be handled in one of two ways. It could be a subjective genitive, "the gospel that God brings" or an objective genitive, "the gospel about God."

 

What does Paul mean? Is he writing about a story in which God is the first and last chapter, or, does he have in mind a message that God's authored. Obviously both are true. In fact, that is the thought behind Daniel Wallace's plenary genitive idea. It is both in that case. However, I have always believed that more often than not the plenary genitive is a 'cake and eat it to' category. It is doubtful that Paul had both ideas in his mind.

 

I tend to lean toward the objective genitive in interpreting this phrase. Paul was set apart by God to preach the good news about Him. Romans is Paul's most nuanced and greatest explanation of the Gospel—God's work in His Son to make sinners righteous (justify them). It is a book about God. Paul lets us know that in the first sentence.

 

A second interpretive issue is found in the first paragraph. In the NET Bible verse 5 reads: Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of His name. I have underlined the phrase in question and once again we deal with the genitive case—"obedience of faith." This phrase has been dealt with in four ways: (1) as an objective genitive "obedience to the faith;" (2) subjective genitive "the obedience that faith requires" or perhaps "produces;" (3) attributive genitive "believing obedience;" or (4) a genitive of apposition, "obedience, namely, faith."

 

Again while all four are grammatically possible, chances are Paul just had one of them in mind when he wrote that little genitive phrase. Which is it? Paul believed His ministry to the Gentiles was not just about getting them into heaven in the future. It was a ministry that involved obedience to God's will daily. Thus, I would lean toward (1). Paul believed Gentiles and Jews alike were not only to believe the truth but obey it as well. In fact the first eight chapters of the letter are about believing the truth while chapters twelve through fifteen particularly deal with obeying it.

 

The above are just two examples of paying attention to prepositional phrases. How do you interpret them? Often there is more than one way. Usually one is a better explanation than the others. Context determines meaning more often than not (the cardinal rule of all biblical interpretation).

TRUE FASTING

I have often been asked about the value of fasting in the Christian's life. I read this today from Isaiah 58 and found a very clear answer—from the OT!

⁶ "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
¹¹ The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
¹² Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

It is obvious from the chapter that God is critical of Israel's legalistic fasting. The nation had exchanged the 'weightier matters of the Law' for religious 'function.' One would think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day, well versed in the Law and Prophets would remember this passage, but they did not. They too had substituted the most important for the outward show.

It is always easier to go through religious motions than practice true religion. What was true in the 8^th century before Christ and during His ministry is no less true today. I have a feeling if the prophet were preaching Sunday he would preach the same message.

There's nothing wrong with fasting, but believers need to be reminded of this passage in Isaiah concerning 'true fasting.'

Mark Fragment

More details are emerging from Daniel Wallace concerning a fragment of Mark's Gospel, which he claims can be dated first century. If so, it would be a great find! It would be the earliest Greek mss extant. There's also news about fragments from Paul's letters and an exciting find about a sermon from Hebrews. The work being done by Wallace and his crew in Dallas is outstanding!

REV 13

I know I haven't written in months but I've been busy. I am going to write much more often I hope. With that out of the way, I have been doing an in-depth study of Revelation for several weeks. The symbolism in the book is difficult no doubt. But I've always been amazed at how interpreters like to pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not. For example, 666 must be literally a number tattooed on the hand or forehead and the 144,000 must be 12,000 exactly from each tribe of Israel—no more and no less. Those same interpreters have no problem believing the "Woman" of chapter 12 is symbolic, though there is disagreement on who she is. The fact of the matter is good hermeneutics demand that the interpreter be consistent. If Revelation is apocalyptic (it is a mixed genre of course but no doubt mostly apocalyptic), then passages must be treated that way.

A great example is Rev 11:1-2. John is told to "measure the Temple. There are those who believe this means that John is to measure what will be the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. However, the genre of Revelation must determine interpretation. The Temple John is to measure must be symbolic, but of what? This morning I was reading chapter 13, John's vision of the "Sea Beast," and the "Earth Beast." In v. 6 the Sea Beast blasphemes God name and "His dwelling place, the ones who dwell in heaven." The two phrases in quotation marks are in apposition. The Sea Beast blasphemes God's dwelling place "which is" the ones who dwell in heaven. It is obvious that John is writing about not a place but people. There is no doubt that God is in Heaven, but as the Scriptures teach, He is omnipresent—He is everywhere all the time. But the NT particularly teaches that God indwells His people. Christians are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the special place where God resides in these days. Thus while Rev 11 leaves the question of the Temple open, chapter 13 sheds light on the imagery. Rev 11:1-2 then is a vision of God's protection of His people during the relatively short time in which the Gentiles will 'trample the city' [11:2]—or will persecute but not annihilate God's people.

To borrow from Robert Stein, genre determines the rules of the game. One cannot pick and choose how to treat the images of Revelation. They are ALL apocalyptic and must be treated that way.