The fullest confidence is available to believers in their suffering because of God’s immutable covenant promise by which He has obliged Himself to believers.

But the inspired writer, calling to remembrance the promises by which God had declared that he would make the Church the object of his special care, and particularly that remarkable article of the covenant, “I will dwell in the midst of you” (Exodus xxv. 8), and, trusting to that sacred and indissoluble bond, has no hesitation in representing all the godly languishing, though they were in a state of suffering and wretchedness, as partakers of this celestial glory in which God dwells. . . . What advantage would we derive from this eternity and immutability of God’s being, unless we had in our hearts the knowledge of him, which, produced by his gracious covenant, begets in us the confidence arising from a mutual relationship between him and us? The meaning then is, “We are like withered grass, we are decaying every moment, we are not far from death, yea rather, we are, as it were, already dwelling in the grave; but since thou, O God! hast made a covenant with us, by which thou hast promised to protect and defend thine own people, and hast brought thyself into a gracious relation to us, giving us the fullest assurance that thou wilt always dwell in the midst of us, instead of desponding, we must be of good courage; and although we may see only ground for despair if we depend upon ourselves, we ought nevertheless to lift up our minds to the heavenly throne, from which thou wilt at length stretch forth thy hand to help us.” . . . . As God continues unchangeably the same — “without variableness or shadow of turning” — nothing can hinder him from aiding us; and this he will do, because we have his word, by which he has laid himself under obligation to us, and because he has deposited with us his own memorial, which contains in it a sacred and indissoluble bond of fellowship.

There is always hope, even in the adversities of life, because “the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, to confirm His covenant towards them by watching for their safety.”

– Peter Lillback, quoting Calvin in The Binding of God, pp. 270-271.

Question:

Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, to proceed:

I have read the second part of your book, at-Tibyaan fi Kufri man a’aan al-Amreekaan, the title of which is: “The Crusade Campaign in its Second Phase: War on Iraq”, and I benefited much from what you mentioned from rulings regarding this campaign, like the ruling on supporting America, and the ruling on supporting the Iraqi government, and the ruling on supporting the Muslim nation in Iraq.

Except, there was a matter that was not mentioned despite its importance, and it is: What is the ruling upon doing Jihaad against the Americans, and fighting them outside Iraq, like attacking their interests and bases and hitting them in different places of the world, and this is regarded from Jihaad? And do they have a covenant with us, in those countries were they do not [openly] fight us in? And is the saying of the Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, ‘Whoever kills a person under covenant will never smell the fragrance of paradise”‘ And if we say that they are not under covenant, but fighting them would result in greater disadvantage, [would it then be] legislated to fight them?
Jazakumullah khayr.

Answer:

Wa ‘alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, to proceed:

Undoubtedly then, that the greatest of enemies of Islaam, and the Muslims in this era are those Americans, and if we wished to follow-up on their crimes against Islaam and its people in the recent times we would have spent ages on it; for they have killed nations of Muslims, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone almost two million, and have embargoed nations, and expelled nations, and brainwashed nations, and plundered the riches of the Muslims, and occupied much of their land, and placed tawagheet on the people, and they did in this ummah what no one did in ancient or recent history.

And today, we see them launching the thousands of rockets and tonnes of bombs on the heads of the Muslims everywhere, and they do not differentiate between a child, an old man, and a woman!

And why should they differentiate?!

For the Muslims, in thier eyes, are nothing but a collection of insects, whose extermination from this world is necessary.

So doing Jihaad against those cursed ones, and awaiting for them, and fighting them wherever they may be is: from the most important of obligations, and the greatest of things that can bring you close [to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala]; for they have corrupted the lands, and killed many of the servants, and fought the Muslims everywhere, so there is no doubt that they are the ‘leaders of disbelief’ in this era, without dispute, and Allah, the Most High has said, ‘So fight the leaders of kufr, verily they have no protection’, and if I had ten spears [only], I would have thrown it all at them, and no one else except them, and I swear by Allah: If my chance to do a martyrdom operation against them becomes easy, I will do it without any hesitance whatsoever…

And if Allah raises from amongst this ummah of one billion a thousand – only – from the ‘martyrdomers’ who quake their bases and interests everywhere, they would have defeated them and returned them humilated losers…

So what a shame:
Do those pharoah’s enslave the Muslims, and taste them the severest of punishments everywhere, and then find no resistance, rather they find protection from the tawagheet and their slaves?

And know, my dear brother, that the doubt of the one who prohibits fighting them and killing them in other than the lands in which they fight in is one of two:

The first: The doubt of the covenant:

So they say: They have a covenant with us, and whoever kills a covenant-holder does not smell the smell of paradise as is clear in the hadeeth.

The second: The doubt of the advantages and disadvantages:

So they say: Fighting them causes tribulation upon this ummah that it cannot handle.

So we say in reply:

As for the covenant, then no wallah, there is no covenant between us and them, nay, they are harbiyoon wherever they reside and live, even if they became attached to the coverings of the Ka’bah, for the covenants that the governments did with those crusaders is not recognised in the sharee’ah, rather it is based upon the charters of the false-dietic United Nations, and was signed by individuals who have no conciousness of Allah in their actions, and nothing is more important to those individuals more than preserving their thrones and status, even if the covenant was recognised, they would be considered as having broken that covenant in the tens, nay hundreds even; like their declaring that this is a crusade and fighting us due to our religion, to expelling the Muslims from their lands, to supporting those who expelled them, to violating many of the treaties, to involving themselves [in corrupting] the Islaamic rulings, to supporting the enemies of Islaam everywhere, to following up and spying on the Mujahideen on earth, and killing them, and imprisoning them, to plundering the treasures of the Muslims, and other than this from the matters of which a tenth would be enough to invalidate their covenant had it been shar’ee.

If the covenant between the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam and Quraysh was nullified due to Qurayh’s support for Bakr over Khazaa’ah secretly, and for once only, so what of the actions of America which cannot be counted or numbered in this day and age…

Furthermore, it is not from the shar’ee covenants to allow the Crusaders and give them protection so that they may hit the Muslims however they want…

And praise be to Allah, I have detailed the proofs and statements to establish that there is no covenant between us and those crusaders, and that between us and them is nothing except the sword, as well as refuting many of the doubts casted in this matter in the book Nashr al-Bunood and I will release it soon insha’Allahu ta’ala.

As for the issue of advantages and disadvantages, then it is correct; for the matter if its disadvantages is greater than its advantage then it does not become permissible at that moment, except I notify you of two matters:

First: The advantages and disadvantages here are the shar’ee advantages and disadvantages, not the ones imagined [by some people].

Second: The people who sould look at the benefits towards the Jihaad of such actions and their harms are the Mujahideen, not the sitting ones who don’t even know how to use a gun!

This is what I have to say in this short reply, and I have lengthened the talk about these matters in two books, that I will release soon insha’Allah – if Allah protects me from his enemies -:

One of them is, Nashr al-Bunood, mentioned above.
The second is the third part of at-Tibyaan fi Kufri man a’aan al-Amreekaan.

I ask Allah subhanah, to grant victory to Islaam and its people, and to destroy America and its allies, and to cure our hearts from them, and to remove their envy towards us, and peace and blessings be upon our Messenger Muhammed.

Written by the noble Shaykh, Naasir al-Fahd on the 10th of April, 2003.

“And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age.”  – Matthew 28:20

God’s level of commitment to humanity is mind-blowing.  Even before Creation, God foreknew that Man would sin, and yet God not only chose to create Man, but God had already crafted the plan to redeem Man from sin.  The hands of Christ that created the universe were already nail-scarred.

God is true to His word.  He covenanted with Man that He would triumph over evil.  Back in the Garden of Eden, God promised that He would “put enmity between [Satan] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”  Genesis 3:15.  Later, God made this covenant with Abraham:

“I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”

Genesis 12:2-3.  But Man failed to fulfill its end of the arrangement and rebelled again.  Therefore, God made a new covenant:

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Jeremiah 31:31-34.  This covenant does not change God’s redemption plan.  Actually, the covenant affirms God’s previous covenants despite the fact that Man broke the former covenant.  Again, this shows the heart of God for Man, and in more ways than just that God wants to save humanity.  God’s mission is to exterminate evil, and He intends us to be part of that mission.

Sadly, Man did not trust God enough to partner with Him.  Man turned away from God.  Man was not interested in the mission of God and instead chased after selfish desires.  In the face of Man’s rejection of the covenant, God took it upon Himself to carry the mission forward.  But look!  The way He carries out the mission still includes humanity.  God sent His Son to become human.  It was God who died on the Cross, but also a human.  God said Man would be integral to the redemption plan, and He never strayed from that commitment.  God’s redemption plan shall not fail.

So when Jesus told his disciples that he would be with them always to the end of the age, he was not merely saying nice words before ascending into heaven.  He was reminding them of God’s commitment to the redemption plan.  Jesus’ death and resurrection was the plan’s climax.  However, there is work to be done after the resurrection, and Jesus would continue to see the mission through to the end.  With whom would Jesus partner in bringing the mission to completion?  The Church.  See how committed God is to humanity?

Which brings us to the subject of marriage.  The hue and cry these days among Christian conservatives is that same-sex unions are an affront to the institution of marriage and must be stopped.  They are correct, at least in aim.  What has been lacking though is an articulation of the theology of marriage–and by theology, I don’t mean discourse of an academic nature.  I mean, does marriage really matter to God?  And if it does, why?  Why should anyone care what the Bible says about marriage?  Does God truly care that much about marriage that it should be one of the defining issues around which Christians rally?  Or is the concept of same-sex marriage offensive simply because it is anti-intuitive?

The explanation I’ve often heard is that marriage is an institution created by God, and therefore holy.  True.  That explains “what” marriage is, but it doesn’t answer the “why” question.  Why did God create marriage?  Why is marriage so important?

Marriage is the very expression of God’s love.  You could say that marriage is an object lesson of God’s love for humanity.  God’s covenant relationship with humanity is in the nature of marriage.  The Bible often uses marriage to describe the relationship between God and human to marriage (think Song of Solomon and the prophetic messages of Hosea and Jeremiah, among others).  The relationship between Christ and the Church is likened to that between the bridegroom and his bride.   Ephesians 5:25-32.  Marriage demonstrates the love that God has for man, the crown jewel of His creation.  Marriage is about commitment to a covenant, even when one spouse betrays the other, as Man did to God.  God’s unwavering commitment to His covenant with Man is the model of what the marriage relationship is about.

This tells us that God knows a thing or two about marriage.  Not only did God create marriage, but He expresses His nature through marriage.  So what God says about marriage is pretty important.  He is the most authoritative source there is on the subject.  And He says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman (the rationale for that design is the subject of an earlier post) .  That means that marriage between people of the same gender is not part of His design.  Same-sex marriage is a counterfeit.

What happens when we redefine marriage as a union between two people of any gender is declare that God’s definition of marriage isn’t good enough.  That’s not just a rejection of the institution of marriage.  It’s a rejection of God.  It’s saying, “God, you don’t know what you’re saying about the subject of marriage.  You can have your definition, but I’ll have mine.”  That kind of attitude is the height of arrogance.  It’s exactly that pattern of thought that induced Adam and Eve to sin.  They thought, “What God said about the tree might not be true.  Perhaps there’s an exception.  Let’s do it our way – God is either wrong, or He won’t mind.”  No, what God says matters.  He is committed to His word.  He is committed to us.  His level of commitment should convince us of the truth of what He says and His authority to say it.

Gal.3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

I am reading a book of Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology. He argues that the theology of Paul is about the Second Exodus or New Exodus, a second Pesach. Paul uses the model of the Exodus in his writings, especially in the letter to the Romans, according to Tom Holland.Interesting point is his view on baptism. Baptism which is spoken of in the New Testament is corporate and it is done with the dead of Christ. The community is baptized into Christ’s dead.

“As Moses, in the Exodus out of Egypt, took the people of God, for they were united with him through baptism, so Christ takes those who have been baptized into union with him from the realm of sin and death. This baptism into Christ took place in his exodus, (Luke 9:31) in his coming out of the realm of Sin and death. It was a baptism into his death that all believers experienced, in the same historic moment.” (p.151)

“What I am arguing for is that the baptism passages which we have considered are speaking neither about water baptism nor even of Christ’s baptism into his sufferings, even though these are important related themes, but about a baptism modeled on the baptism of Israel into Moses when Israel came into a covenant relationship with Yahweh through the representative He had appointed.” (p.151)

This brings me to say that water baptism is only a sign to confess one’s conversion and relationship to Yeshua the Messiah, which took place before. Not water baptism, but the conversion makes sense. The choice of man does make sense. Hence I am speaking of the good choice. A good choice comes from HaSjem. He encourage His children-to-be to make a good choice. That choice begins with an out coming of sin and grasping the of the promise of life. (Blood on the doorpost) and it is final made up with a personal covenant between the soul and HaSjem. (Receiving of the Torah) This signing of the contract for eternal life does take a complete amount of time. (7×7 weeks, according to the time between Pesach and Shawuot) It always is done perfect. A half completed contract could not exist. It is a divine process guided by the Holy Spirit. A man is not able to this but by the almighty arm of HaSjem working out great miracles. The enemy, who is also active here, must leave. (Waters)

Real baptism is done by HaSjem with Yeshua. And it has to be done with us. All who are dealing with it, are entering a new covenant, a state of being born-again, dying in the old body of sin and rising up into a new body, full of love and holiness for HaSjem. Water baptism is an old Jewish cleaning ritual, however it has a very rich meaning. In the time of Yeshua it was becoming a sign. In essence it points back to the redemption of the people of Israel through the Red See in connection with Pesach (forgiveness of sin) before and Shavuot (entering the covenant) after it.

To learn more about water baptism, a good article has been written by Ceil Rosen of Jews for Jesus. I’ve found many nice articles, all on Messianic websites and all pointing back to the Mikve and Mayim Chayim and its meaning.

Maimonides said: “By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: ‘No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof’ (Exodus 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: ‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes’ (Exodus 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: ‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings’ (Exodus 24:5)”
This matches with the main parts of the Heidelberg Cathechism: Misery of man (the Law), Deliverance and Thankfulness.

Yeshua did it all, and in him we are being baptized.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  (John.14:6)

Since there is no Wednesday night church this week, let’s talk about something different (although not completely separate).  I love the creation narrative and what it tells us about our relationship to God.  To make the emphasis on the narrative’s poetic nature, I’ve paraphrased it.  This isn’t to say that looking at the passage as anything other than poetry is bad, but in the original language it definitely is in a poetic structure, so I think it would be fun and interesting for us to read it in that way too.

So, here is a quick poetic paraphrase of Genesis 1 – 3.  What does the creation story (without discussing evolution & 7-day creation) tell us about ourselves and our relatioship to God and the world?  And of course, let’s keep and/or connect this in the context of covenant, holiness, redemption, and (as we’ve been talking about in Sunday School and SnL – for the attenders of those) valuing people.

There was a time when God created earth and sky
There was chaos and darkness, but Breath and Life were in conversation
And from it God spoke for light – light is day and dark is night.
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the first day.

God spoke to the waters, calling for sky
The water birthed vapors into space – colliding, collecting, clouding
Between water and water-child the sky gathered
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the second day.

Then God aimed to dry the land
Its razor broke the surface parting waters with earth
God spoke Life into the earth raising vegetation and trees and all things green
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the third day.

God saw still a disorder in the light
God spoke light into organized orbs – the lords of day and night
Dwelling in Space, in the created expanse of sky, were Sun, Moon, and Stars
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the fourth day.

God saw fertility in the water and sky
And spoke life into the seas – the great whale; the minute bacteria
And spoke life into the air where birds now fly
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the fifth day.

God spoke living creatures out of the earth
Then God designed a new animal – “In Our own Image,” God designed
Formed from dirt, filled with Spirit-breath, the human creation awoke
“This is Good.” And evening to morning became the sixth day.

Earth and sky were created and blessed
And their inhabitants within it
The seventh was a day sanctified and consecrated
A day of rest; for God rested from the work of creation.

Now man and woman were made as husband and wife
Pure, naked, and unveiled – they communed unashamed.

The serpent interrupted and spoke to them, concerning
Forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil
“Attempt a taste and you shall not die – the eye of God should be your eye”
They were coaxed and thus persuaded

They then were burdened by their lacking
So that their nakedness brought shame, then hiding
God sought community with them, but they denied God for their shame.
Hence, outside the garden their home became.

What is a Jew?  The oldest document known to Man, written on that subject, is still with us today.  It is called the Old Testament of the Bible!  It explains the only criteria for being a Jew.

The Bible states, a Jew is a human being that believes in the One God, the same God that Abraham believed; and that person, if he is a male of the species, will have to have the foreskin of his penis circumcised on the eighth day after he is born.

Whether he is a foreigner or born of Jewish parents makes no difference in the covenant God made with Abraham.  He must use judgment and justice as a life style and teach his family likewise.  The last part of the criteria is to teach his family judgment and justice.  Let me put them into a list for easy reference:

1.  Believe in one God who created all things.
2.  All male children must be circumcised on the eighth day after birth.
3.  Husbands must teach their family judgment and justice.
4.  Foreigners must be allowed to join the nation.

Let me clear up two important points here:

One:  The Bible goes on to state that anyone born into the nation of Jews, or a stranger joining the nation of Jews, who does not keep the rules, is automatically rejected by God from being a member of the nation and God will kill that person.

Two:  Today’s nation of Israel has laws on their books concerning, Who is a Jew!

The law of Israel totally bypasses the laws outlined in the Jewish Bible and circumnavigates the rules of God.  The nation of Israel will only accept a person as a Jew, if his or her mother was born a Jew.  Therefore, a Gentile mother married to a Jewish father does not spawn a Jewish offspring.  Only two Jews or a Jewish mother and a Gentile father can give birth to a Jewish child.

This is not only absurd, but also contrary to the rules of the Bible.  Their reasoning is, a child adheres to the teachings of its mother and not its father.  Therefore, a Jewish mother will instill Jewish belief into the child.  Whereas a Gentile mother will instill non-Jewish beliefs into her child, which makes the child a Gentile.

The Bible is clear on this point.  It states both parents can be foreigners and become Jewish.  Therefore, their offspring will be Jewish.  So, the Jewishness of a child is solely dependent upon the decision of the parents to become Jews and live as Jews, and the child’s decision when it reaches adulthood to continue believing in the one God of creation.  In this light, even a Jewish mother, born of two Jewish parents, could have decided to reject her Jewishness and live as a Gentile; which would render her children Gentile and not Jews.

The fact is, the covenant was given to Abraham and not Sarah; and it was Abraham’s virtues the Lord cited, which rewarded Abraham’s children by allowing them to be God’s children; and not because of Isaac’s mother, or her being Jewish; because Sarah was also a Gentile like Abraham!

To be continued…

God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. – 2 Corinthians 5:21

It wasn’t the Roman guards that nailed Christ to the cross. It was our sin.

It wasn’t the Roman spikes that held Him there. It was His love for us.

He who was sinless bore the weight of our sinfulness. The wrath of God incurred not on creation, but Creator.

And in the moment that we come to grips with this reality and are compelled to respond, it is then that the Gospel begins to take hold.

No matter how far we’ve fallen….

My sin – oh, the bliss of this glorious thought – my sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul….

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross. – Colossians 2:13-14

What makes a Christian a Christian is this profound reality.

Strength and Honor.

Glory to God!

Jason

——————-

Looking forward to a good week. Lauren Grace spent the weekend with us.  She and the kids have had a great time!  Lacy is coming tonight to spend a couple of days too.  I’ve got no school work this week and am trying to get everything wrapped up early for next Sunday.  We’ll spend Wednesday and Thursday in Mesquite for Thanksgiving.  I’m looking forard to spending time with our family.  Kacey and I are running the Turkey Trot in Dallas Thursday morning.  That’ll be fun.  We’ll head back Thursday evening.  Mason has to be at work at 4:30am on Black Friday.  I’ll be sleeping in….

I’ll never teach the Bible the same way again for one simple reason. I’ve come to believe I was wrong. No, I wasn’t wrong about the gospel. I wasn’t wrong about the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the exclusiveness of the gospel, etc. But I believe I was wrong in a significant way. It was significant because it affected my understanding and application of Scriptures, all the way from Genesis through Revelation. I believed and taught the Scripture from an interpretive system called dispensationalism. For those who may not be familiar with the term, this is a theological system that has, as it’s fundamental basis, the clear and ongoing distinction between Israel and the church. In dispensationalism, God has a plan for Israel and a plan for the NT church. There are, in effect, 2 distinct “peoples of God.” The OT primarily, if not exclusively, concerns Israel and God’s plan for that nation. The NT concerns, primarily, the church (except for the book of Revelation which has much to do with Israel). In dispensationalism, the church age, beginning with Pentecost and lasting till the rapture of the church, is often described as a parenthesis in God’s prophetic program for Israel, a program that will continue when the church is raptured from the world and the 7 year great tribulation begins. At this time the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. However, at the midpoint of the 7 years, the antichrist will instigate a massive persecution of national Israel and will nearly succeed in destroying the Jewish people. However, Jesus will return to bring deliverance to those Jews who remain. They will embrace Him as their Messiah and the Lord will re-establish Israel in the land of Palestine, will re-institute temple worship (including animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood). Jesus will reign, literally, from David’s throne in Jerusalem and the nation of Israel will be exalted above all the nations of the earth. This earthly reign of Christ will be the long awaited “kingdom of God”, which had been postponed at Jesus’ first coming. It will last for 1,000 years, after which will come the final judgment.
That’s a really quick summary of some of the major tenets of dispensationalism. There’s much more to the whole system and there are different variations within the system, but I’m trying to give a real brief explanation. The things I described above represent, I believe, pretty mainstream dispensationalism. I am not including the tenets of some of the more radical strands of dispensationalism. The summary I have given pretty much represents what I was taught and what I believed for many years. It was out of this larger framework that I interpreted many individual passages of Scripture, and I believe I misinterpreted many times.

My change of mind came about approximately over the last 3 years, although it may be more accurate to say it was something that gradually worked on me ever since I began to seriously study the Bible. I now accept and defend covenantalism or covenant theology. While dispensationalism tends to stress discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, covenantalism stresses continuity across the testaments (though not total continuity) and the unity of the one purpose of God. Dispensationalism delineates 2 separate peoples of God, Israel and the church. Covenantalism affirms that there is but one people of God, though the makeup of the covenant people differs significantly from OT to NT. Dispensationalism sees God dealing with mankind under a number of differing  dispensations or arrangements at different times in history. Covenantalism sees God’s relation to all mankind under 2 covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. According to dispensationalists, OT promises concerning the temple, the land, etc. relate to Israel not the church, and God will fulfill these promises literally, in the future, to Israel as a geo-political entity. According to covenantalists, the OT promises to Israel are fulfilled, first of all, in Jesus Christ, and then in the church, which is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Some of those promises are fulfilled now, and others do await a future fulfillment, but all are relevant to the church, which is not a parenthesis in God’s program for Israel but, rather, is the fulfillment of OT Israel – the true “Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16)

I hope, in the future, to be able to fill out some of my convictions and conclusions in more detail with regard to specific Scripture passages and biblical themes. However, I want to summarize, here, just a few of the main factors in my change of heart concerning this matter. It hasn’t been an easy thing for me to work through these issues. It’s been kind of a personal upheaval in my life. As I studied specific Scriptures, read books and gave thought and prayer to these things, I saw some of my presuppositions shattered and had to rethink a lot of things I thought I knew. I also found myself thinking, “If I am really convinced of this, I won’t be able to stay in my church for long and there are many Baptist churches I wouldn’t be able to minister in.” Nevertheless, I wanted to go where God’s Word led me, and I believe that I have a more biblical understanding today, although I have much more to learn.

In this process, there were a few major stepping stones that moved me in a different direction. Here are some of those:
1. I had to rethink my hermeneutic . This is really the major difference between dispensational and covenantal theology. It all comes down to hermeneutics or the guidelines used for Bible interpretation. Dispensationalists and covenantalists use different hermeneutics. They come to the text of Scripture with different presuppositions. I have come to believe that the covenantal hermeneutic is more biblical. Without going into a lot of detail, I previously would have said, “We interpret the Bible like we would interpret any other piece of literature. We interpret according to historical-grammatical-contextual rules of interpretation. We interpret Scripture literally unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise. Also, we interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not the other way around.” Now, I would still agree that we interpret according to the historical-grammatical-contextual method. However, I might add another category – “canonical” (although this really could fall under contextual). I do not believe I paid enough attention, previously, to the canonical aspect of interpretation. In other words, how does this passage fit into the whole of God’s written revelation to us? Psa. 110:1 provides a simple example. In it’s historical setting and immediate context, it is speaking of David, plain and simple. However, the NT writers apply this text to Christ and, so, in its canonical context, the ultimate referent of this verse (and the whole Psalm I believe) is Jesus Christ. Moreover (and this is very significant) I would no longer agree that we interpret the New Testament in light of what we have already learned from the Old. This might seem logical to us, from a human standpoint, but it does not give enough weight to the significance of progressive revelation and the fullness of revelation that has come in Christ, in comparison with the shadowy types of the Old Testament. Vern Poythress used a good analogy when he stated that reading OT prophecy is like seeing the future through an out of focus lens. In other words, what you are seeing is real and true. There’s no error in it. However, it’s the NT that brings it into focus so you can see clearly what, before, was only a blur. As a dispensationalist, I interpreted the OT on its own, somewhat in isolation from the NT revelation. I then took the paradigm I took from the OT and tried to force it into the NT Scriptures. Wherever it didn’t fit, I had to adjust my understanding of the NT to fit what I already decided I knew  from the OT. Case in point: Eph. 2 . I had to reinterpret what Paul wrote here in order to force it to fit my presupposition that Israel and the church are distinct and that God has distinct promises for national Israel that do not apply to the church as such. All the while, I would accuse covenantalists of trying to reinterpret the OT. I was reinterpreting the NT! I now believe it is essential that we do interpret the OT in light of the NT. We don’t simply throw out the rules of historical-grammatical-contextual interpretation, but we do allow NT revelation to shine light on the OT Scriptures.

(to be continued)

Guest who came to dinner?

The Eighteenth Chapter of Genesis is known as the Vayeira. The Vayeira Parsha means that he will command his children and his household after him and that they shall keep the way of God.[i] Previously in the other chapters of Genesis we studied a Memorial Portion called Noach Parsha, which means that “he will command his children and his household after him that they should keep the way of God” – that he would ensure that his children’s children would do charity (tzedakah) and justice (Verse 18). With the reassurance from the scriptures, Abraham kept the way of God. In this chapter, LORD and two angelic beings have revealed themselves to Abraham, and have fellowship with Abraham, in the evening at dinner time. Thus, Abraham has a divine appearance from God. God revealed Himself to Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre (Alon Mamre) – as he sat by the door, probably between 12pm to 5pm, and it was the temperature was hot, outside.

Also in the scripture God reveals to Abraham that Sarai is his chosen wife, a wife of the promise. Sarai like Abram undergo a name change and she will be called Sarah from henceforth.  Nevertheless, Sarah is the wife of the promise, and there can only be one wife. All of our lives ought to be about making someone happy, finding the one true love, our consummate mate, for a man ought to have a wife (helper, not a hindrance), which is a promise from God. Although you may have more than one woman that is totally devoted to you, God only gives you one woman of promise, and you can’t compromise God.

The Lord appeared to Abraham by the tree, while he was inside his tent – but at the door, in Alon Mamre (verse 1). The three men suddenly appeared before Abraham’s eyes as he looked up and were inside his tent, adjacent to where he was sitting (verse 2). Then Abraham hurriedly ran from the tent door to meet the three men and bowed himself to the ground, the he said,

Verse 3”My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Verse 4- Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

Verse 5- And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant.”

Then three men said to Abraham, Verse 5- “So do, as thou hast said.”

Next, Abraham hurried into the tent and said to Sarah and asked her to make cakes. Then again Abraham hurried also and ran to the herd and took perfect calf and gave it to a young man; who hastened to prepare the meat; and the butter and also the milk. The young man served the food under the tree, to Abraham and his guest (verses 6-8). The three men said,

Verse 9, “Where is Sarah thy wife?

Abraham said, Verse 9, “Behold, in the tent.”

One of the three men, Verse 10, ‘And he said, “I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.” And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.’

Sarah was listening behind the tent door and she laughed to herself because she and Abraham were old. Most women Sarah’s age are in post-menopausal state. The conservation of age, in one hundred-fold and so on is documented in the Bible, so she did not how or when she would have a child, because she probably did not believe her lords were capable of delivering a divine message to her. Sarah was about to become a mother of a nation, many nations. This is the second time that Sarah’s name has been called in a blessing which consist of a miracle, Genesis 17:16.

Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (Verse 12)

And the LORD said unto Abraham, “Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?’” (Verse 13)

Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. (Verse 14)

Then Sarah denied, saying, “I laughed not; for she was afraid.” (Verse 15)

One of the three guest, ‘And he said, “Nay; but thou didst laugh.”’ (Verse 15)[ii]

Lastly, the three men rose from Abraham’s tent, and their seats that were near the terebrinth tree in Mamre. The men looked forward to the city of Sodom. So Abraham went with the three guests and sent two on their way (Verse 16). The LORD spoke to Abraham:

And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do (Verse 17);

Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him (Verse 18)?

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him (Verse 19).[iii]

Then the two men turned and continued toward Sodom, and Abraham stood still; before the presence of the LORD. Abraham continued to host his guest in righteousness and justice (Verse 20-21). Abraham advocated for the sons of Ham, and thus his name change was fitting from Abram to Abraham (Verse 23-25).

And Abraham drew near, and said, “Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? (Verse 23).

Peradventure there is fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? (Verse 24)

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked that is far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Verse 25)

Today we have our advocate to go before our Father God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ, a propitiation that died on the cross for all men.

And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. (Verse 26)

And Abraham answered and said, “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which is but dust and ashes (Verse 26):

Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy the entire city for lack of five? (Verse 28)”

And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. (Verse 28)”

Abraham was speaking to God, and if this is so then God replied to Abraham ‘that if he found forty-five righteous souls then he would not destroy the city of Sodom.’ In this chapter, I hear nothing about God’s intentions to destroy the city of Gomorrah. God did not respect the deeds of the sons of disobedience; therefore he destroyed city of Sodom and the city of Gomorrah, which are desolate to this day.

So the story ends, Abraham continued to advocate the fate of the people in the land of Canaan, and he is therefore living up to his name. Abraham acts compassionately as a concerned citizen and Father to the inhabitants of the city of Sodom; which is North of the City of Tyre (Phoenicia) – present day Lebanon, in the land of Canaan. Canaan is a descendant of Ham, in the tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis.[iv]

[ii] Romans 4:19-21

[iii] Romans 4:3; and Romans 4:16-22

[iv] Genesis 10:5-20

Various people are blogging and talking about covenant, specifically soldiers’ covenants in The Salvation Army, and how they sometimes just become ‘church membership’.   (see army renewal and armybarmy blogs most recently)

Other conversations have been around Orders and the pros and cons of following a Franciscan path.

This is the bottom line for me, drawing from my conversations and experience.  You cannot have meaningful covenanted life without vocational discernment. It is intrinsic to the whole deal. The discernment, reflection, investment and development absolutely must come from the community to everyone covenanted. There are no short cuts or ‘lite’ options.  If you don’t have that, then the covenant simply becomes a piece of paper or a word you use to describe yourself that doesn’t mean anything. You can have all the personal holiness and unreserved commitment in the world, it will have nothing to engage with and therefore you may be following Jesus absolutely faithfully, but your journey will not be energised by the covenant.

It’s no good telling people en masse what their vocation is, it has to be personal because faithfulness is worked out in a personal and individual way, as well as communally.

That’s my take on it for what it’s worth. That’s what it would take for salvationists to recover covenant together and that is what the resulting unity as a global missional people will consist of.

I’m opposed to instant coffee.  It just doesn’t compare to the real thing.  Tiersa brought home some Starbucks Via instant coffee for me to try.  It’s not nasty like grandma’s Sanka, but it’s close….

AW Tozer writes against what he calls instant Christianity.  I like his focus on relational faith….

Instant Christianity tends to make faith in Christ terminal and so smothers the desire for spiritual advance.  It fails to understand the true nature of the Christian life, which is not static but rather dynamic and expanding.  It overlooks the fact that a new Christian is a living organism as certainly as a new baby is, and must have nourishment and exercise to assure normal growth.  It does not consider that faith in Christ sets up a personal relationship between two intelligent moral beings, God and the reconciled man, and no single encounter between God and a creature made in His image could ever be sufficient to establish an intimate friendship between them….

Strength and Honor.

Glory to God!

Jason

I often hear of Christians who struggle with depression.

Heck, I’m one of them.

I once ran across a link to a series of audio lectures by a Christian counselor. In order to combat depression, he says, you should make sure that you are taking care of your daily chores…chores like vacuuming, cleaning, and washing clothes.

I decided to give it a shot. I made a deal with God…if I could live righteously for one week, then He would reward me in some specific way the following Sunday.

During the weak, my vacuum cleaner broke; my *as seen on TV* steamer turned out to be junk; and my laundry card stopped working in the machines! (I ended up washing clothes in the bathtub, and drying them on a homemade line strewn across my living room.)

To make matters worse, I became discouraged, stopped my workout routine, and began drinking heavily.

Bad was piled on top of ugly, and by the following Sunday, depression had me firmly in its grip.

God taught me a lesson in all this.

You see; all week, I had the wrong attitude. I was trying to earn God’s blessings through my own righteousness! Imagine that! I’m a strong Calvinist, yet there I was, slaving away…trying to earn merit! I may as well have thrown on a robe and moved to Rome!

When your vacuum cleaner sucks, and your steamer blows…thank God that you have tools of dominion in your possession, and thank Him for the will to use them! (You wouldn’t be discouraged at their bad performance if you weren’t motivated to use them in the first place!) Thank God for adopting you as a covenant child of Christ!

When we finally let go of our desire to earn salvation…when we finally accept the merit of Christ…then we can give up our low self esteem and realize that God alone will sanctify us, set us on our path, and give us purpose in life! I feel sorry for those who are stuck in a theology that demands constant self-loathing due to an inability to live up to a desired standard. That man will never feel good about himself, or life.

Rejoice in your labor under the sun (find your God-given purpose)…and enjoy the little things in life…this is the cure for depression.

Soli Deo Gloria!

So I tell you this and I insist on it in the Lord, you must no longer live as the pagans do, in the futility of their thinking. – Ephesians 4:17

Salvation is – first and foremost – a radical transformation of mind.

Christianity is cognitive before it is experiential. 

Think about it (pun intended): We first consider the Gospel of Christ.  We believe its historical facts and spiritual truths.  We then embrace the Gospel. 

And yet then it is only once we draw near to God through Christ that we begin to experience the Gospel.  We begin to do more than to know about Christ, we begin to know Christ. 

And I believe repentance is a crucial facet in this journey of our experiencing Christ (stick with me for a second).  Repentance means that we begin to think differently.  We begin to think differently about ourselves.  Differently about our sin.  Differently about our lives.  We begin to see God and Christ and ourselves in a whole new light. 

And in doing so, the Gospel, and our transformative relationship encountered in the Gospel, is experienced.

And perhaps it is this disconnect that accounts for some of our inability to powerfully impact others for the Gospel of Christ. 

Strength and Honor.

Glory to God!

Jason

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Tony Petrotta at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on the Exegesis of the Psalms.

Introduction

Psalms is a wonderful prayer book. It is a collection of about 150 psalms in five sub-collections. Psalm 63 belongs to the second book within Psalms. It has been argued by some that Psalms was randomly assembled and created, but it seems that when considered as a whole there is a “rhyme and reason” to its order. The Psalms as a whole touch on a wide range of emotions. Indeed, there are several different kinds of psalms, such as praise, lament, imprecatory, royal, and ascent psalms. Praise psalms are those psalms that praise the Lord. Lament psalms express sorrow and pain. Imprecatory psalms seek divine retribution for wrong done. Royal psalms express the relationship between God and his chosen king. Songs of ascent psalms are those songs that were sung on the way up to Jerusalem. It seems that Psalm 63 follows in the footsteps of Psalms 1 and 2, and, although it is in general a praise psalm, it also has lament and royal elements.

Psalms 1 and 2 seem to be the thesis for the book of Psalms. Psalm 1 contains a strong wisdom motif in its worldview. It bears the idea that the righteous are those who delight in God and meditate on His law all throughout the day and on a daily basis. The wicked are contrasted with the righteous; they they do not last. Why? Because the Lord watches over the way of the righteous. Psalm 63 reflects this idea. The Lord is the help of the psalmist. In Psalm 1, the wicked perish. Psalm 63 bears this idea as well. Those who seek the life of the psalmist have death and misfortune.

Psalm 2 is a royal psalm. It bears the idea that the king is God’s chosen one, but he is conspired against by the other kings of the world. Psalm 63 has this idea of a king who is conspired against. But in Psalm 2, the Lord watches over His king and causes him to prosper. The same idea is in Psalm 63. The king is protected from lies and therefore he gives praise along with the people to whom it is due–God.

Psalms 1 and 2 set the tone for the whole book of Psalms, which is why Psalm 63 shares many similarities with them. Although not every psalm might have such a strong connection, the concepts are shared all throughout the book. It is as though the various psalms were assembled in a meaningful way, but they each interact and interpret each other. And what are the shared concepts? Psalms 1 and 2 instruct the readers to live under the rule and reign of God as they take refuge in him. The book of Psalms instruct the readers how to pray to, worship, and profess faith in God.¹ Psalms teach the readers what it means to trust and live under God’s rule.² Psalm 63 accomplishes just that. But even psalms like Psalm 137 accomplish the same goal. Psalm 137 instructs the reader how to grieve and seek revenge in trust of and submission to God’s rule. All of the psalms are theologically pertinent, and together they teach the reader how to approach God appropriately in prayer, worship, and life.

Since the Psalms are God’s instructions to those who follow him in submission to his reign and in trust and hope of his protection, we would do well to learn to pray them. The Psalms teach us how to pray in a variety of circumstances. Whether good or bad, God wants us to approach Him. But how? Sometimes we do not know how to come to God. The Psalms instruct us in all facets of life how to approach Him. The Psalms are able to teach us how to put trust in God and how to allow Him to be in control over our lives. When we approach the Psalms, we should be asking ourselves, “How does this psalm teach me to trust God? And how does this psalm teach me to submit to God’s rule?”

Exegesis of Psalm 63

Psalm 63:1

d¡Iw∂dVl rwñøm◊zIm - “a psalm of David.” This phrase could mean “a psalm to David.” This translation could mean two things. First, it could mean that the psalm is attributed to David as the author. Second, it could mean that the psalm is dedicated to David. But if the phrase should be rendered “a psalm of David,” then it would mean that David was the author. According to Amos Hakham, this psalm is likely reflecting on one of the times David was in the wilderness, which may or may not make David as the author.³ Jean Calvin took the psalm as David’s circumstantial vows.⁴ So which is it? Did David write it as Calvin thought or did someone else, which is a possibility as Hakham points out? The rest of the psalm will need to be considered in order to determine if David wrote it.

:há∂d…wh◊y r¶A;b√dImV;b w#øtwøyVhI;bŒ - “when he was in the wilderness of Judea.” These words have caused many scholars to see the psalm as a reflection upon David’s trips to the wilderness, thus connecting with 2 Samuel 16:14 or 1 Samuel 22-25. John Goldingay takes it as a connection with 2 Samuel 16:14 over and against 1 Samuel 22-25.⁵ But do these words have to be a geographical reference necessarily?

Robert Davidson suggests that the reference to the wilderness is a spiritual reference and not geographical. Since this psalm has been used in many different ways throughout the centuries, Davidson thinks that it must be a spiritual metaphor. If it were geographical, it would have been tied to a specific use. But the psalm has been diversely applied; a spiritual metaphor accounts for this diversity according to Davidson.⁶

Was David the author? Was this psalm written by David concerning one of the times he was in the wilderness? Again, we will need to examine the rest of the psalm before we can determine if Davidic authorship is genuine, and if it was his own reflection on his time in the wilderness.

Psalm 63:2

yóîrDcVb ∞ÔKVl ;h∞AmD;k y#IvVpÅn —°ÔKVl hWDaVmDx D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a h#D;tAa y¶IlEa —My§IhølTa - “God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you, my flesh yearns for you.” D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a occurs only twice in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the piel imperfect first common singular form of the root rjv. What is the dot for? The dot in the end of the verb, located in the K, is a daghesh forte that strengthens the consonant. hWDaVmDx occurs only twice in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the qal perfect third feminine singular form of amx. h∞AmD;k is a hapax legomena (meaning, it only occurs once in this form in the entire Hebrew Bible). It is the qal perfect third masculine singular form from the root ;hmk. The dot in the beginning of the verb is a daghesh lene. It hardens the k.

The phrase “you are my God” is not consistently rendered in all of the commentators’ translations. Dahood, for example, has “my God, for you I long,”⁷ whereas Davidson has “you are my God.”⁸ The cantillation marks indicate that h#D;tAa belongs with y¶IlEa and not D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a. Dahood’s translation is interesting, but all things considered, it is also incorrect.

D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a is an important verb as it sets the tone for the rest of the phrase. It bears the idea of seeking with eagerness, as related to waiting for the dawn.⁹ Calvin translated it accordingly: “Early will I seek [you].”¹⁰ The word is regularly used for looking for the dawn, but in this context it is translated as “seek” with the idea of longing.¹¹ The psalmist is saying that he longs for God. But this longing is in the imperfect form. The force of this form is incomplete action. In this case, the longing is continual and should be translated as a present form (“I seek”).

The phrase “my soul thirsts for you, my flesh yearns for you” is an additional expression of longing. According to Goldingay, “soul” refers to the being as a whole, specifically a being who longs and desires, while “flesh” refers to the physical being.¹² Sometimes “soul” can be understood in connection with thirst as a reference to the seat of thirst.¹³ The psalmist is desiring God as a person desires water when thirsty. The psalmist is saying, “I am thirsty for you, God.” Furthermore, “yearn” is to be faint with longing.¹⁴ The physical psalmist is faint with desire for God.

This seeking motif is the psalmist’s way of expressing a holistic approach to adoration. The psalmist is basically saying, “I yearn for you with all my emotions and all my limbs.”¹⁵ This longing is quite expressive, and it seems to be an important theme for the psalm.

:Mˆy`Dm_yIlV;b P∞EyDo◊w h™D¥yIx_X®r`RaV;b - “in dry and weary land without water.” Syriac manuscripts have “as” instead of “in.” Symmachus’ Greek translation has “as.” This Greek text may be relying on the Syriac, or perhaps it was perceiving the V;b in the same way as the Syriac manuscripts. V;b can be translated as “as.”¹⁶ Therefore, the variants are explained by the V;b. The V;b is the more likely reading as it is more difficult than V;k, and it accounts for the “as” reading in Symmachus’ Greek translation as well.

This phrase is the reference that connects vv. 1 and 2. The question remains: is this a reference to a geographical location or is this a reference to a spiritual setting? Before we answer this question, we should consider the rest of this psalm.

Psalm 63:3

ÔKy¡ItyˆzSj v®dêO;qA;b NE;kœ - “So I saw you in the holy place.” The verb “I saw” is in the perfect form. The force of the perfect is completed action. Calvin took it as a completed action: “Thus in the sanctuary have I beheld [you].”¹⁷ But the perfect is not always completed action. Dahood took this phrase as a request: “So in your sanctuary may I gaze on you.”¹⁸ Which is it? A request or a reflection? Since the psalm later speaks of blessing God as a result of what had happened, the context suggests that this perfect form is completed action, not a request, and should be understood as a reflection. The psalmist is reflecting on his experience from when he saw God in the holy place or sanctuary.

:ÔKá®dwøbVk…w #ÔK◊ΩzUoŒ twñøa√rIl - “to see your might and your glory.” The psalmist was defining what he saw in the sanctuary when he said this phrase. twñøa√rIl is an infinitive construct stating attendant circumstance and should be translated as “beholding.”¹⁹ This phrase is a reference to the Temple where God’s power and glory are manifested.²⁰ According to Davidson, this psalm was written in the context of corporate worship.²¹ This phrase does support his position. It should be noted that this position does imply that David was not the author of the psalm. David would not have written a psalm that reflected on a visit to the Temple, which was constructed after his life.

Psalm 63:4

:ÔK◊n…wájV;bAv◊y y¶AtDpVc MyGˆ¥yAj`Em ÔK√;dVsAjœ bwâøf_yI;k - “For your lovingkindness is better than life, my lips praise you.” ÔK◊n…wájV;bAv◊y is a hapax legomena. It is the piel imperfect third masculine plural form of jbv.

Here the psalmist continues his thoughts on the adoration of God. He reflects on the glory of God and how His lovingkindness is better than life. A couple of things should be stated about this phrase. First, “lovingkindness” does not entirely grasp the concept of the Hebrew word. dsj is a very important word in Hebrew. It bears the idea of lovingkindness, but it also bears the idea of community, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, grace, and favor. In this case, the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) lexicon translates dsj as “good.”²² This translation is insufficient. It lacks the distinct flavor of a very rich word. In order to help preserve the word’s meaning, we will leave it untranslated as we emphasize the rich depth of dsj.

Second, this phrase is difficult to understand. What does it mean that the Lord’s dsj is better than life? The word for life is a participle; the context requires that the verb stand as a noun. We have translated it as “life” and not “living.” The psalmist is comparing life with the Lord’s dsj. Since dsj is a rich term, it recalls back to mind the Lord’s faithfulness and tender-care for His chosen people, Israel. The psalmist is saying that the Lord’s faithfulness to His people is better than sustained life.²³

The phrase “my lips praise you” has an imperfect form for the verb. The force of the verb is incomplete action. Incomplete action does not necessarily mean that it bears the idea of future action; it could be present tense. In this case, the context suggests that the phrase is in response to the comparison already made. The lips praise as a result of the Lord’s incomparable dsj.

Psalm 63:5

y¡D¥yAjVb ∞ÔKVk®rDbSa N∞E;k - “So I bless you in my life.” Goldingay takes ∞ÔKVk®rDbSa as “I will worship you.”²⁴ However, BDB supports “bless” instead of “worship.”²⁵ Goldingay uses the future to translate the imperfect form here. But this is the only instance he seems to use the future. Everywhere else in his translation he uses the present. Why change here? The context suggests a present translation. The psalmist blesses the Lord because of His dsj.

:y`DÚpAk a¶DÚcRa ÔKVmIvV;bŒ - “in your name I lift up my hands.” The psalmist talks of lifting up his hands. The lifting of hands was an ancient custom, in which praying was done with hands pointed towards heaven.²⁶ As Calvin noted, this is not a reference to praising the Lord, but rather, it is a reference to praying and vowing.²⁷

Psalm 63:6

y¡IvVpÅn o∞A;bVcI;t NRv®dÎw∑ bRl∞Ej wôømV;k - “As with fat and fatness my soul is satisfied.” Here we have figurative language, and it is difficult to translate. bRl∞Ej does mean “fat.” In this case, it is the “fat of beasts for food.”²⁸ Its counterpart NRv®dÎw∑ also means “fat.” It may be a reference to “fatness” or “fertility.”²⁹ These two words need to be understood together. Calvin translated them as “morrow and fatness.”³⁰ His translation does not quite convey the meaning of these two words together. Goldingay translates them together in this way: “As with a rich feast.”³¹ Hakham takes these words together as a contrast with “thirst” from the beginning of the psalm, for the language calls to mind pleasant, rich, nutritious fluids.³² The language notes that the psalmist has found satisfaction. We can conclude that Goldingay’s translation is satisfactory, since the language gives the idea of being rich in nutrition.

:y`IÚp_lR;lAh◊y twGønÎn√rŒ y¶EtVpIc◊w - “and with joyful lips my mouth praises.” twGønÎn√rŒ is a hapax legomena. It is the feminine plural form of hÎnÎn√r.

The psalmist declares that he will praise God with his mouth. His lips are joyful. This phrase implies physical satisfaction that inspired songs of praise as at a sacrificial meal when songs are sung. This indicates that in the psalmist’s viewpoint closeness comes through the sacrificial system.³³

Psalm 63:7

y¡Do…wx◊y_lAo ÔKy¶I;t√rAk◊z_MIa - “When I remembered you upon my bed.” While MIa would normally be translated “if,” in this case it has the sense of “when”³⁴ or “as often.”³⁵ We could render y¡Do…wx◊y_lAo as “upon my couch,” but, given the context, “upon my bed” is a much more suitable translation.

:JK`D;b_h‰…gVhRa tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ - “in the night watch I meditate on you.” tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ is a hapax legomena. It has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the feminine plural form of h∂r…wmVvAa.

tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ is plural. Hakham suggests that it is a plural of emphasis, implying that the psalmist meditates on God for the entire night.³⁶ h‰…gVhRa is the imperfect form, which has the force of incomplete action. It could be future, but it could be present. The verb itself has the idea of making noises. Whether it means to mutter, coo, plan, or ponder, it is clear that some sort of noise is indicated.³⁷ Goldingay translates it in this way: “in the night watches I talk about you.”³⁸ But Goldingay concedes that the talking “is the kind of quiet talking within oneself that one does in the night on one’s bed.”³⁹ This audible sound is one that can only be heard by the one who is “talking.” It is not future action. It is current action that is not yet completed. It is ongoing.

Psalm 63:8

y¡I;l hDtâ∂r◊zRo Dty∞IyDh_y`I;k - “For you were a help to me.” hDtâ∂r◊zRo occurs only three times in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It has the directional h suffix and it is the feminine singular form of h∂r◊zRo.

The psalmist is meditating in the middle of the night on what the Lord was to him. The Lord was his help.

:N`E…nårSa ÔKy∞RpÎnV;k l™ExVb…w - “and in the shadow of your wings I will shout for joy.” l™ExVb…w occurs only three times in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It has two prefix additions. First, it has the conjunctive w. This letter is pronounced as a shureq (…w) in order to make the pronunciation easier between the w and the b. Second, it has the preposition ;Vb. It is the masculine singular construct form of lEx.

Commentators do not seem to agree on the meaning of “shadow of your wings.” Davidson suggests that it is a reference to the Temple cherubim in the Ark of the Covenant that symbolizes God’s presence with his people and his protection over them.⁴⁰ Calvin took it as a reference to the Lord’s protection without any connection to the cherubim.⁴¹ What is particularly interesting is that Hakham, already noting that the Temple is in view earlier on in the psalm, does not see this phrase as a reference to the cherubim, the Ark of the Covenant, or the Temple, but instead, he sees it as a metaphor that compares trust in God to a fledgling bird who hides beneath its mother’s wings.⁴² Since the psalmist has said that God was a help to him, the idea of trust seems favorable. Then again, so does protection. But the metaphor of the mother bird has in view both trust in God and God’s protection, as do the cherubim, which themselves are a metaphor. The decision is difficult, but given that the context concerns the Temple, it is likely that Temple imagery is being alluded to here.

Psalm 63:9

ÔKyó®rSjAa y∞IvVpÅn hâ∂qVb∂;d - “My soul clung after you.” hâ∂qVb∂;d is an important word here. It reflects Deuteronomy 13:5, in which the people are to cleave to the Lord.⁴³ This is the same word used of Ruth when she refused to be separated from Naomi (Ruth 1:4), and it is also used of a man clinging to his wife (Genesis 2:24).⁴⁴ It is the perfect form, and as such the force of the verb is completed action. It should be translated “clung” or “has clung.” The word itself is figurative of loyalty and affection while keeping in close physical proximity.⁴⁵ According to Davidson, the psalmist is essentially saying that God has a firm grip on him and will not let go.⁴⁶ Davidson’s interpretation is good when the next phrase of the verse is considered. But this phrase itself seems to note loyalty to God and not the other way around. The psalmist is declaring that his soul has clung to God and will not let go. It is not until the next phrase that we find out that God also has a firm grip on the psalmist.

:ÔK`RnyIm◊y h¶DkVmD;t y#I;bŒ - “your right hand firmly grasped onto me.” In the former phrase, there was the idea of sticking or clinging. Did that idea come through in this new phrase? Goldingay does not have “firmly grasped,” but instead has “upheld.”⁴⁷ Hakham also translates h¶DkVmD;t as “support.”⁴⁸ Calvin translated it as “sustain,” which has the idea of supporting, and it also fits well with the sustenance motif from the beginning of the psalm.⁴⁹ Dahood translated it as “grasp.”⁵⁰ However, the majority of the commentators do not translate it in the way that Dahood did.

Yet, Dahood’s translation seems to be more desirable for a couple of reasons. First, Hebrew poetry likes balance. By translating h¶DkVmD;t as “grasp,” the two phrases become parallel with each other and attain balance. The psalmist would be reflecting on a reciprocal relationship with the Lord. As the psalmist clings to God, God firmly holds onto the psalmist. Second, by using “sustain,” or something like it, the construction of the phrase has to be ignored. y#I;bŒ is overlooked in order to use “sustain.” But y#I;bŒ seems to be rather significant, since it is in the beginning of the phrase when it would normally be found at the end of the clause. There seems to be a major problem with leaving y#I;bŒ out of the translation in order to use “support.” Dahood’s translation seems preferable.

Psalm 63:10

y¡IvVpÅn …wâvVqAb◊y hDawøvVlœ hD;m#Eh◊w - “But they seek to ruin my soul.” The conjunction ◊w marks off a stark contrast.⁵¹ The psalmist seeks the Lord. These men do not seek the Lord, but rather, they seek the psalmist’s life. “Seek” is not the same word here as in the beginning of the psalm. …wâvVqAb◊y is the piel imerfect form of vqb. In this context, vqb means “to seek to take one’s life.”⁵² As stated before, yIvVpÅn represents the person as a whole. The psalmist is saying that there are people who seek to destroy him, which stands in stark contrast to his own seeking.

:X®r`DaDh twñø¥yI;tVjAt`V;b …wa#øbÎyŒ - “they come to the lowest parts of the earth.” X®r`DaDh twñø¥yI;tVjAt`V;b is a hapax legomena. This construct chain occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The first noun has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the feminine plural construct form of yI;tVjA;t. The second noun has the definite article Dh. The article has a qamets instead of a pathach due to compensatory lengthening, since the a cannot take a daghesh forte. The noun is the feminine singular absolute form of X®rRa.

Is the psalmist saying that the people who seek to destroy him will stop at nothing and will search for him even unto ends of the earth? Or is he stating something else? According to Dahood, the psalmist is making a reference to the netherworld.⁵³ Goldingay suggests that it is a reference to Sheol.⁵⁴ Tate sees this phrase as an indication that the enemies will die a premature death and enter the netherworld as the outcome of their efforts.⁵⁵ However, the text does not indicate that they would die prematurely; it affirms only that their end result will be death. “The lowest parts of the earth” is figurative, but in what sense? Is it figurative simply for death or for the afterlife in Sheol? Evidence is inconclusive, so we will not consider it further. What we should consider is the translation of …wa#øbÎyŒ.

Is the imperfect verb …wa#øbÎyŒ stating a future event, or is it a request? The former would be translated “they will go,” and the latter would be translated “may they go.” Robert Alter translates it as a request.⁵⁶ Martin Rozenberg and Bernard Zlotowitz translate it as a request, although they have “let them go” instead of “may they go.”⁵⁷ Goldingay translates it neither as a future nor as a request, but rather, as a present: “But they . . . go.”⁵⁸ In keeping with the balance of the verse, it seems that Goldingay has the more suitable translation. The first verb of the verse is also an imperfect, and it is translated as a present continuous action: “they seek” or “they are seeking.” Balance indicates that …wa#øbÎyŒ should be translated in a similar fashion.

Psalm 63:11

b®r¡Dj_yéd◊y_lAo …whñüryˆ…gÅy - “they poured him upon the power of a sword.” …whñüryˆ…gÅy is a hapax legomena. It has the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix …wh and it is the hifil perfect third masculine plural form of the root rgn. The n assimilates into the g as a daghesh forte, which is why it does not appear in this form.

This phrase is difficult to interpret for three reasons. First, what is a good translation of yéd◊y? Although “hand of” would be a literal translation of this dual construct noun, “power of” is preferable. The language is figurative, for a sword does not have hands. This word can be translated as “power” when it is used figuratively.⁵⁹

Second, who or what is being poured upon the sword? Tate suggests that it is the psalmist. The people seeking his life want to kill him, and so they want to pour him upon a sword.⁶⁰ Rozenberg and Zlotowitz suggest that …whñüryˆ…gÅy is passive, translating it “May they be split apart by the sword.”⁶¹ In this case, the “who” are the ones seeking the psalmist’s life. But can the singular third person masculine pronominal suffix be collective? Goldingay suggests that the language is strictly metaphorical and is a reference to pouring water or blood onto the ground.⁶²

Third, in what sense is the imperfect being used? Is it future, is it a request, or is it a present verb? Goldingay takes it as present as a balance between vv. 10 and 11.⁶³ Tate takes it as a future of possibility, translating it in this way: “Those who would hand over.”⁶⁴

Although it is difficult, we can at least come up with a working hypothesis and offer a good translation of the phrase. We have already noted that “power of” is a good translation of the figurative use of yéd◊y. It seems that the singular form of the suffix rules out water or blood being poured onto the ground, for both water and blood are plural forms in Hebrew. The suffix must be a reference to the psalmist. And what of the imperfect? It seems as though it is a present continuous form. The people seeking his life are handing him over to the sword, which is another way of saying that they are trying to kill him. The phrase stands parallel to the previous verse, and therefore the imperfects from v. 10 indicate that the imperfect here in v. 11 should be translated as a present.

:…wáyVhˆy My∞IlDoUv t™DnVm - “they are a portion for foxes.” The psalmist declares that the people seeking to destroy him are a portion for foxes. Foxes are those animals that eat the decaying flesh of dead animals. He is saying that their end is death, but their bodies are left for the animals to feed upon, which was considered an awful tragedy.⁶⁵

The imperfect form …wáyVhˆy here can be future, present, or a request. Goldingay translates it as a present.⁶⁶ Tate translates it as a future.⁶⁷ Alter translates it as a request.⁶⁸ But, in keeping with the use of the balance of vv. 10 and 11, we should translate …wáyVhˆy as a present tense, “they are,” as Goldingay does.

Psalm 63:12

wóø;b o∞D;bVvˆ…nAh_lD;k lE;lAhVtˆy∑ My¶IhQølaE;b jºAmVcˆy JKRlR;mAh◊w - “but the king rejoices in God, all who swear to him praise.” My¶IhQølaE;b jºAmVcˆy is a hapax legomena. The first word is the qal imperfect, third masculine singular form of jmc. The second word has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the masculine plural form of MyIhølTa. o∞D;bVvˆ…nAh_lD;k is a hapax legomena. The first word in the chain is the preposition lD;k. The preposition is attached to the second word by a maqqef. The second word is a participle with the definite article prefix. The participle is the nifal masculine singular form of obv.

The psalmist is contrasting the king with the people who sought to ruin him. The imperfect, just as before, can be future, present, or a request. We will keep the balance of the previous verses, as does Goldingay, by translating the verb jºAmVcˆy as “he rejoices.”⁶⁹ However, the imperfect is not the main problem at this point. The focus for the interpreter is on “swear.” Who is doing the swearing and to whom are they swearing?

The psalmist has shifted in this phrase to the third person. He refers to himself as “the king.” The first clause of this phrase stops before the hithpael verb lE;lAhVtˆy. Is “the king” still in view when the psalmist writes, “All who swear to him praise” (italics mine)? Are the people swearing to the king, or are they swearing to God? Goldingay suggests that it is the king who is sworn to.⁷⁰ Hakham suggests that it is God who is sworn to.⁷¹ Since the king is the subject in the first clause of this phrase, it seems most suitable that the king is also the object of the second clause. It is as though the people are joining the king in praising and rejoicing. Goldingay suggests that the “in God” of the first first clause of this phrase is implicit in the second clause as the object of the praise, while “the king” carries over as the object of the swearing.⁷²

:r®q`Dv_yérVbwíød y∞IÚp r#EkD;sˆyŒ y¶I;k - “for the lips of the ones who speak falsely are shut up.” r#EkD;sˆyŒ is a hapax legomena. It is the nifal imperfect third masculine singular of rks.

The imperfect here is treated as a present in order to keep the balance of the verse. Goldingay uses the present to translate this imperfect,⁷³ as does Alter.⁷⁴ The people praise God because the lips of those who speak lies are shut closed. False speakers are stopped from speaking, and therefore the people have reason to rejoice. God is seen as the one who stops their lips from speaking lies, which is why he is praised by the king and his people.⁷⁵

Theological Implications of Psalm 63

How does Psalm 63 teach us to trust God, and how does it teach us to submit to his rule? Psalm 63 is in keeping with the theological tone of Psalms 1 and 2: God reigns and we should trust him. Before we answer these questions, however, we should consider whether or not David was the author of Psalm 63.

The language of Psalm 63 alludes to the sacrificial system of the Temple. As such, David is not likely the actual author. The words of verse 1 like are an attribution to David as a possible scenario of how this psalm could have been used or applied. The psalms have been used in a diverse way throughout the centuries, and Psalm 63 is no exception. It was used by the early Greek church for their introductory psalm for Sunday morning worship and by other church traditions for the Eucharist due to the “feast” motif. Scholars today question whether it was used for the great Jerusalem festival at the Temple before the exile, for a night vigil at the Temple, or for the king in some fashion or another.⁷⁶ Time has demonstrated the flexibility of the psalm. It does not need to be tied down to a specific event to be understood or useful. The “wilderness” language itself is spiritually and theologically significant. It is under spiritually dry times that one finds renewal, much like the Hebrews did when they were in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Those who find themselves in a similar situation can look to Psalm 63 without referencing David or his time in the wilderness. By understanding this psalm without attaching it to David, the wilderness language becomes much more meaningful. It is best to keep them separate.

Psalm 63 teaches us to trust in God’s support. The Lord’s support is clearly highlighted in the word dsj. The Lord is seen as faithful, gracious, and loving in this one word. His dsj is better than life itself. It represents His support by his mighty hand. It represents his protection. Trust in God comes when we reflect on His dsj–his support, protection, and help. The one who trusts in Him sincerely desires for Him. He or she longs to be satisfied by God, so much so that there is a physical passion and a spiritual thirst for Him. This search for satisfaction is highlighted through meditation throughout the night. John Chrysostom said of this psalm that we should at the very least remember God while on our beds and in the morning meditate on Him.⁷⁷ It also involves intense and intentional sticking to God, which results in glorifying and worshipping God through songs of praise and rejoicing.⁷⁸

Psalm 63 teaches us also to submit to God’s rule by letting him be our protection. But if the Lord is our protection, then he is also the one who takes divine retribution on our behalf. As he keeps us safe, he also brings our enemies down and brings dread upon them. It involves relying on God as our help. He will help us by taking care of us and by dealing rightly with those who seek to do us harm.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A translation with commentary. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Brown, Francis, Driver, S., and Briggs, Charles. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an appendix containing the biblical Aramaic (BDB). Based on the lexicon of William Gesenius, as translated by Edward Robinson, and edited with constant reference to the thesaurus of Gesenius as completed by E. Rödiger, and with authorizes use of the German editions of Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Reprint. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1906.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries: Joshua and the Psalms. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc.

Chrysostom, John. On the Epistle to the Hebrews. P. Schaff et al, eds. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (NPNF). 2 series (14 vols. each). Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1887-1894. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952-1956. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994. Querstin F. Wesselschmidt et al, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament. Vol. 8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968.

Davidson, Robert. The Vitality of Worship: A commentary on the book of Psalms. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U.K., and Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and the Handsel Press Ltd, 1998.

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC). Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Revised by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

Goldingay, John. Psalms. 2 vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Tremper Longman III, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Hakham, Amos. The Bible: Psalms with the Jerusalem Commentary. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook.

Holladay, William. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based upon the lexical work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

McCann, Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as torah. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Rozenberg, Martin, and Zlotowitz, Bernard. The Book of Psalms: A new translation and commentary. Northvale, New Jersey, and Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc., 1999.

Tate, Marvin. Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 51-100. 59 volumes. John Watts et al, eds. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.

In The Structure of Biblical Authority,  Meredith Kline wrote, “The covenant is the Psalter’s sphere of existence” (p. 62).  What does that mean? Is this a case where the theology shark is at work? (The theology shark is when one principle or theme of theology swallows everything else – to the detriment of the whole system.)  I don’t think this is an overstatement by Kline, especially since he only spends two pages on the topic (Longman, along with others, also makes this observation, that the psalms have a covenantal aspect to them). Here are Kline’s own words.

“The psalms of praise, whether magnifying the majesty of Yahweh’s person or the wonder of his ways in creation or redemption, were a part of Israel’s tributary obligations; they were the spiritual sacrifices of the lips offered to the Great King. As vehicles of private and public devotion they were a continual resounding of Israel’s ‘Amen’ of covenant ratification.”

The psalms, Kline continues, were confessional responses of God’s people who have heard the awesome deeds of the King as the prologue of the covenant treaty mentioned. “The Psalter served broadly as a cultic instrument in the maintenance of a proper covenantal relationship with Yahweh.”

The Psalter is a jewel of many colors – this is one of the beautiful colors of the psalms, that it is a covenantal hymnbook, so to speak, of and to the great Suzerain and Redeemer, Yahweh.  In that broad sense, the psalms are indeed covenantal, though the term “covenant” (berit) is only found in a small handful of the psalms.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Isaiah 43:19

I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.

1.  Way In

Are you   happy   angry    satisfied    frustrated    excited     confused ?

are you some of each

mostly one or two

Do you wonder what I’m talking about?

maybe I better back up

Maybe you haven’t heard

that Kazy and I are buying a house

and if you haven’t heard before now

it’s because I messed up

you see, my family made a big decision about buying a home

and our decision was a surprise to you

as I told the session Thursday night:

I know the value of process and communication

I have even practiced  both of these

but in this case I didn’t

I let you know after the deal was done

and that’s not a good kind of surprise

Especially in this case – and I am very sorry

because we are buying a house in Piqua

we decided to buy a house in the school district that holds the most promise for our child

and we have decided that that district is in Piqua

I could take a lot of time and tell you about my family’s decision and our thoughts

But all I will say is that I felt the commitment to buy a home as a commitment to the community

the larger community, that I see as only separated by 14 miles of highway

but you don’t want to know about that right now

I have already heard some of your concerns

for me, living 14 miles away, even in the next town is not unusual

I’ve done it in 2 of my previous calls without an issue

colleagues here and in other places do it as well

but it’s not the same for you

you’re used to your pastor living in the manse

or at least in town

you’re not used to your pastor’s spouse being a minister who serves another church in another town

you wonder how I will be able to be part of the community

you are mostly interested in what that means for SFPC: the church and the members of the congregation

So this is what I covenant with you

I will keep the same hours at the office

I will be available to you in the same ways

here in the office

cell phone, e-mail, other ways like FB (you know who you are)

my availability for meetings after hours will be the same

remain involved in community

YMCA (Childcare committee, plus the one I was invited to serve last week)

SCMA (these guys live all over, but their churches are all in Shelby CO)

schools and school activities

Agape, Alpha, Compassionate Care, etc.

work even harder at visiting in your homes

I will listen to your individual concerns

today:

preaching at DLRC at 2:30

attending Hispanic worship at 4pm

but there are other opportunities during the week for you to contact me

and I will  provide an opportunity for a community conversations

otherwise you may contact me anytime

I am used to living in the suburb and working and ministering in the city

in SYR I was involved in the urban areas where my churches were

known and involved there as I was in the suburban neighborhood where we lived and Pauly went to school

in my marriage, at least one of us has always commuted between house and parish

and we have been able to make that work

Just gave you a synopsis of the discussion we had at session Thursday night

I want you to know how proud I was to be at the table with the elders

some of whom were hearing all this for the first time

we acknowledged the challenges in this news

people were honest about their feelings

what made me feel best was that we all stayed at the table

each one took an opportunity to express themselves

the church was well represented

and I am certain that your concern was voiced by at least one of the elders

And I accept the challenge from the Session that:

it will be my responsibility to prove that this arrangement can work

and I pray that you will be encouraged as I begin to do just that

Bridge

So why preach about this?

After all, this format doesn’t give you a chance to respond

but I want to get this news out there

and for as many as possible to hear it from me

as I said, there will be opportunities to talk about this together

There are lots of things changing lately

we live and work differently than some ever believed we would

was a time when not living in the town where you work was unheard of

but we see it more and more

I think the boundaries of what’s considered local are changing

but this may not make change any easier to accept

for some here it may not make much difference where I live

as long as I’m available

for some it may seem like a deal-breaker

so I hope we can acknowledge where we all are emotionally

deal with that where it’s necessary

then move ahead

we can do this

2.  Relate to scripture

Read Isaiah verse

context

we are moving towards Advent

this is a traditional Advent text

God is doing a new thing

every day – since the beginning

God didn’t stop doing new things when he stopped writing the Bible

but every day is a new leg of the journey

and it’s different every day

It’s easier for us to stay comfortable

not take chances on a new thing

to assume:

if it’s new it’s bad

if it’s different, it’s going to mess everything up

I know it’s scary

but we’ve got to step out

and trust that God steps out with us

Bridge

Rear Admiral, Dr. Grace Murray Hopper

b. 1906

PhD Mathematics

led development of COBOL programming language

US Navy ship named for her (USS Hopper)

Quote

“A ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what a ship is built for.”

I’m not saying that God has pre-ordained our buying a house in Piqua

or that this has any connection with biblical prophecy

God has way more important things to think about

But God’s way is a new way

God’s way never lets us languish in what’s familiar and comfortable

furthermore, I am aware that our decision to buy a house in Piqua comes at an awkward time

today is pledge Sunday

this may seem like a gamble to you

well, as somebody reminded me

I have 1½ years left of a 3 year Designated Pastor Call

and I can do my best to make this work…or not

3. So what

talk about reaction to some changes (pick a few)

“A great invention but who would want to use it?”  President Rutherford B. Hayes after a demonstration of A.G. Bell’s telephone 1877

according to a British Parliamentary Committee in 1878, Edison’s light bulb was “good enough for our transatlantic friends…but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific man (sic.)”

“the horse is here to stay, the automobile is only a novelty – a fad”  President of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co.

“That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.” Scientific American 1/2/1909

“While theoretically and technically, television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is impossibility, a development of which we should waste no time dreaming.”  Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926

“Where a calculator like the ENIAC today is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh only 1.5 tons.” Popular Mechanics March 1949

“The world potential for copying machines is 5,000 at most.”  IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, on how the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production,  1959

“With over 15 types of foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn’t likely to carve out a big share of the market for itself.” Business Week 8/2/1968

“Remote shopping will flop, because women like to get out of the house,”  Time magazine, 1966 – writing off e-commerce before anybody ever heard of it

When I was in college (the 2^nd time – mid 80s) I was a commuter student

lived at home, married with children

used a computer to write papers and other assignments

saw a notice at the library

that I could access the catalogue of the university library collection at home – on my computer

got an access code

took forever, eventually, at my desk, I could search for books in the library

around that same time, I got AOL and was soon able to e-mail

opened up a new world – way of being in touch

who knew that in 2009 people would be saying that

e-mail is becoming passé, even phone calls are going by the way

don’t believe me – get in touch with a teenager or young adult

call them, voice mail will probably pick up, they might call back today

but text them, or FB message

you’ll hear back instantly

Is it right?  Is it what you want to hear?

maybe, maybe not

but it’s a fact

if FB were a country with users as citizens, it would be the 5^th largest country in the world

they thought HS and college students would be the biggest users, followed by young adults

but the fastest growing segment of users are over 40

Don’t get me wrong

none of this will ever replace the power and intimacy of personal contact and connections

but I am telling you that there is a new way of networking and connecting

and it’s on-line

and it is not a fad

there is a fundamental change in the way we connect with the world we live in

and Luddites may have a point – by holding on to low tech ways

but if we want to make a difference for the church of Jesus Christ’s sake

we deserve to use the best tools we can get

would you set out to build an office building with sticks lashed together with rope, notched logs, sod, or adobe bricks?

or would you consult an architect or engineer about the current safest, most endurable, strongest materials to use?

the scriptures are timeless, God’s word is alive and fresh to us as it was when it was first told and later put into writing

and the Good News of the Gospel deserves our very best in telling it

we are paying attention to the best tools out there

working at

keeping office equipment up-to-date

keeping up with curricula, books, topics

and current doesn’t mean expensive

internet technology and access is cheaper than many previous ad campaigns

full years web hosting and e-mail service costs less than many yellow page and other term print ad campaigns

and it’s current

not static and cast on paper

we can change it at a moment’s notice

so if you are in this

interested in making a change, getting connected

come to FFF this Wednesday night at 6

not asking you to be on a committee

not a long-term commitment

I want to brainstorm with you about how we can move ahead

and if you have never attended such a session here

I especially want you to come – just one night

bring your ideas – how do you want to connect

with the church?

with the community?

conclusion  (a free-style wrap up followed)

What do yah do when you’re faced with a little bit of adversity? You look at the sidewalk and hope that it tells you something. I found this to be particularly helpful a week or so ago while walking through Downtown Greenville. Here’s what I saw:

Cause Adversity Introduces a Man to Himself.

Pretty fitting, eh? Well, the past couple of weeks have given me some insight as to what I’m doing and why I’m here in Greenville County, South Carolina. I thought about my first two months working for Greer Relief and Resources Agency. I’ve thought a lot about how far I’ve come and how much further I have to go on this endless journey some call life. I see little tidbits of my old self in the mirror from time to time. A relevant example of this in my life would be whenever two people are engaged in a heated political discussion and I have the urge to jump in and interject my opinion. I remember that my Covenant with God takes precedent over my perceived political opinions about certain hot-button issues. I suppose I could say that my political views begin with the Word of God—although the Religious Right-Wing in this country has given that a negative connotation. What I really want to say is that they are “As Conservative as the Word of God, As Liberal as the Love of God.” That, and terms such as “World Citizen,” “Agent of Change,” “Proponent of World Peace,” “Lover of All Mankind,” all accurately describe where I stand politically.

I had an interesting discussion with a fellow VISTA serving in Charleston through the Noisette Foundation, working with the School District, while up in Camp Greenville. We talked in depth about hot-button political issues such as education and health care, and realized that we had very similar views on those issues. He told me about his work with the South Carolina Democratic Party (they do exist in South Carolina, believe it or not), and the discussion was quite lively. There was something he said that really struck me: the biggest problem with society these days is the spread of misinformation. And not just political misinformation, but misinformation of all kinds, because it is the sole cause of so many problems that the world currently faces. The spread of misinformation about education, health care, religion, people, cultures, countries, life all stand in the way of achieving world peace (believe it or not, an idea that is more than just a cliché answer given at many a beauty pageant).

I can assure you that this all was music to my ears when this discussion was taking place, because I feel the exact same way. And you have no idea how badly I wanted to talk about the Revelation at this moment. But, perhaps for the better or worse, depending on the context one wants to view it in, I held back and firmly agreed with his talking points, and decided that I would strive to always be on the quest (even subconsciously) to fight misinformation in this world. For a little while after, I was kicking myself for not talking about the Revelation and bringing the discussion to an articulation of just as intelligent, if not more intelligent, ideas in the quest to fight misinformation. Would it not have been relevant, considering the context of what we’ve witnessed in the past day, week, month, year? We had the Fort Hood shootings just occur in Texas. There exists a large crowd of people who want to point the finger at the perpetrator, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, for being a Palestinian Arab Muslim in instigating the crimes. But, alas, there exists the endless quest to fight misinformation, and we must politely and respectfully say, “I’m pretty sure the Word of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) had very little to do with the atrocities he created. I’m also equally sure that his Palestinian Arab heritage had no bearings as to why the crimes were committed either. It could very well have been Major Billy Joe-Bob, a Tennessee White Southern Baptist who could have committed these crimes. Would his Tennessee heritage and his Southern Baptist faith have been the reasons for committing these crimes?” By doing this, we avoid the awful “us versus them” mentality, and hopefully, circumvent grievous injustices from taking place.

Remember, horrific events in history take place when people remain subdued and misinformed about issues of great moral clarity. We, in this day and age, cannot remain silent about the spread of misinformation. We must not remain silent about the spread of misinformation.

http://bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/

“Divorced from the Institution of the Guardianship”
“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship, the World Order of Baha’u'llah would be mutilated. . .” What did Shoghi Effendi mean by this?

Shoghi Effendi makes this pronouncement in his great expository letter “The Dispensation of Baha’u'llah:”

Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. “In all the Divine Dispensations,” He states, in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia, “the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright.” Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. (The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 148; hereafter, “Paragraph A”)

What does Shoghi Effendi mean by this? Does he mean, if there is ever not a living Guardian, the World Order of Baha’u'llah will be mutilated and all these unthinkable things will happen? Is the World Order mutilated right now, because Shoghi Effendi was not able to name a successor Guardian, and the Universal House of Justice functions as the Head of the Faith without the presence of a Guardian? Faithfulness to the Writings requires that we strive to understand exactly what he meant.