Psalm 51:3  
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is before me continually.


    Modern theology suggests that if we have asked God to forgive us, we have a problem if we do not feel forgiven afterwards.  
    Notice that the psalmist confesses an ever-present sense of sin without any apparent sense of distress because of it.  It is his sin that is distressing him, not the remembrance of it.  That's how it should be.  There would be nothing wrong with a shameful remembrance of his sin every day for the rest of his life.
    But what if we question our forgiveness itself?
    A modern prescription also covers this scenario.  The factor that is probably lacking is our forgiveness of ourselves.  Ah!  That makes sense!  God said He forgave me, but I may still feel guilt because I haven't forgiven myself!
    Wait a minute.  If I am the perpetrator, how can I also be the arbitrator?  If I am forgiving me, doesn't that mean that I'm the one who received offense?  I thought I was the who gave offense with my sin.
    Indeed, we have gotten things quite twisted around if we advise men to forgive themselves.
    The prescription ought to be completely different.  If we don't feel forgiven, we simply haven't put a high enough value on God's forgiveness.  If I need to add any of my own forgiveness to His, I have certainly undervalued His.
    Furthermore, there are no Scriptural examples of self-forgiveness.
    Now it is true that when we sin, we hurt ourselves.  You might say that we offend ourselves.  But since we are the perpetrator of the crime, we cannot rightly be the forgiver also.
    Most of the time, when people feel unforgiven, the problem is that they have not repented.  They know in their minds that they are still in the grip of the sin.  In this case, they are quite right to feel guilty.  A guilty conscience is doing its proper job when we have no real intention of departing from our sin.
    But if someone gets stuck in 'replay' mode and feels trapped by the remembrance of a misdeed from which he has truly turned away, there is no reason to feel abnormal about that.  In fact, a shameful remembrance of my sin is an excellent tool for keeping me fearful of the little monster in me.
    Just remember, Psalm 51, in which David is continually replaying the scenes of the crime in his mind, is a psalm which has many other important elements of forgiveness.  Shame over an old sin will not immobilize us if we simply use it as an occasion to confess our sinfulness and cry out to God for His strength and renewal.

vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv

 
Exodus 34:14  
For you shall worship no other god.
For Jehovah, whose name is Jealous,
is a zealous God

    The same Hebrew word is translated "Jealous" and "zealous" in this verse.  There is no separate word for "jealous" in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. The main Hebrew and Greek words for "zeal" and "zealous" is also the only word for  "jealous" (the Greek word is actually 'zelos').  Apparently, jealousy is simply one specific type of zeal.  The word is used of a husband's jealousy over his wife.  It is also used of Christ's zeal for His Father's house, for instance.
    Now here's the question from our verse.  Is God emotionally insecure?  Why would He be jealous over another god?
    By using a word which is used of a husband's possessiveness over his wife, God is merely indicating His ownership  of us.  By creation, we belong to God.  Our existence rests on His originating act and then His continued sustenance.
    By redemption, Christians are even more beholden to God.  How can the Father fail to take possession of those for whom Christ died?  To see us in the arms of another god would be to deny His Son's redemptive agony.
    Notice that in neither case is God's jealousy based on us.  We are not so attractive that He cannot stand to see us with another.  In point of fact, we with an idol would be an ugly with an ugly.  God is choosing to transform us from an ugly into a beautiful.  God is glorifying His own mercy and grace in taking possession of us.  We are none the less total beneficiaries, of course.
    The standard theological approach to God's jealousy is to deal with it as an 'anthropomorphism'; that is, a description of God using human characteristics which are not really analogous to Him.  But what about jealousy is unbecoming of God?  Rather, our jealousy is made to mirror His when Paul says:

 2 Cor 11:2  For I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present you a pure virgin to Christ.

    What can be better than God having this type of jealousy for us?
    What better emotion can we offer to one another, to be jealous to present each other pure to Christ?  It is nothing other than love put in action.

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss

 
Matthew 6:25  
Because of this, I say to you,
Do not be preoccupied with your soul,
what you eat and what you drink,
nor for your body, what you put on.
Is not the soul more than the food
and the body than the clothing?


    The word translated "preoccupied" in this verse is used sometimes in a negative and sometimes in a positive sense.  When used in the negative sense, it is akin to anxiety, worry, distraction.  "Distraction" is close to a literal rendering.  "Do not be distracted with your soul."
    Notice that the "soul" is related to earthly life.  We would have perhaps thought "body" would have been the word used.  Biblically, though, the soul can simply refer to the human as a whole.  The Bible even sometimes refers to eating food  as feeding our souls.
    Before the verse above, Jesus had said that we cannot serve two masters.  We can love only one master.  If we serve two, we are being false to one.  Guess which master receives the fake loyalty 100% of the time?  God.  If we serve God and possessions, possessions are our only true master.  So in the verse in the box above, Jesus is warning us how easy it is to make the normal 'daily grind' a distraction from God, to make it our master.  
    The daily routine is a very common master over men.  It keeps them from heeding another master.  It even keeps many who call themselves Christians from heeding God.
    The kind of "worry" Jesus is talking about, then, is not a clinical neurosis.  We do not have to feel the least bit 'worried' to experience the distraction Jesus describes.  Many very happy-go-lucky people who whistle their way through life are nevertheless completely distracted by earthly things.  The only evidence necessary to this conclusion- they don't give enough thought to God for Him to be the ruling influence in their lives.
    So, with this broader definition of worry, consider this.  We can worry ourselves into sin as easily as we can fall headlong into it.  Of course, worry itself is a sin, as far as being a distraction; but there are further services that the idol of earthly things is calling us to.  The more preocuppied we are with Earthly Things, the more easily they can draw us into more service, into more idolatry.
    Then there are the indirect effects of worry.  While we are focused on one earthly need, several others sneak in the back door of our sanctuary, propping themselves up as longstanding fixtures.  Or one big earthly concern gains our attention and several smaller ones walk right in the front door, but in its shadow.  Once in place, they begin their feeding cycle, and soon, they completely fill the space of our practical worship (meaning, whom or what we actually worship and serve).
    Jesus puts distraction with earthly things tops on the list of killers of true religion.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Colossians 3:15  
And let the peace of Christ
preside in your hearts,
to which also ye have been called
in one body, and be thankful.


    The peace of Christ is supposed to preside in our hearts, so it is to be our governing principle.  Peace is like the floor of the Christian house.    
    As the floor we walk on, peace provides our stability.  If we do not attend to our peace, however, we will be walking on uneven ground, perhaps even quicksand.
    How do we see to it that Christ's peace presides in our hearts?  Well, Christ must be in our hearts in the first place for His peace to accompany Him there.  But if Christ is presiding in our hearts, certainly He will not forget to bring along His peace.  His peace in our hearts is merely a sense of His sovereignty over us and all things around us.  If He is in charge, nothing can go wrong; we are at peace.
    Again, as to insuring Christ's peace, it must also confine our space.  If we are discontent, we will wander onto other grounds, find other gods than Christ.  Christ's peace within us means that we are happy and contented with Him.  We will feel that our living space is roomy.  Where we run out of space, we know we have come to the edge of safe territory; we are being protected from what is beyond.  The peace of Christ is contentedness with Him and His ways.
    Lastly, as the floor of our house, we must keep the peace of Christ clean; that is, not the peace of Christ itself, but our maintenance of it.  When we maintain it properly, Christ and His peace are clearly in focus.  When our attention wanders from Christ, dust collects on Him in our thoughts and covers Him from our view.  An unkempt spiritual house is a house diverted by our daily routine.  Christ's peace cannot govern there.

    What is the presiding principle in your life?
    It is an effortless matter for that principle to be something other than Christ.
    Our flooring will never accidentally become the peace of Christ; we must intend for it to be so and attend to it being so.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
Acts 17:30  
Truly, then,
God overlooking the times of ignorance,
now strictly commands
all men everywhere to repent


    How are we to come by our principles of evangelism?  What is the Biblical way to reach our neighbor for Christ?
    One of the most important considerations in answer is where in the Bible to look.  
    If we look in the epistles, we are reading the apostles' words to gatherings of people already professing faith in Christ.  There are principles of evangelism in the epistles, to be sure, but these books' main thrust is the very converse of testifying to unbelievers.
    The best book in the Bible for deriving evangelistic tenets is the book of Acts.  In the book of Acts, evangelism is actually taking place.  Evangelistic speeches take up considerable space in the book (about five chapters worth).
    As we study the sermons in the book of Acts, there are topics common to most of them:

 1)  The promises of God in the Old Testament are now fulfilled.

 2)  The Messiah has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

   a.  He did good and mighty works by the power of God.
   b.  He was crucified according to the purpose of God.
   c.  He was raised from the dead by the power of God.
   d.  He now reigns by the power of God.
   e.  He will come again to judge and restore all things.

 3)  All who hear should repent and be baptized.
(This outline is from Nelson's Bible Dictionary)

    Perhaps most noteworthy in our day are phrases and ideas which do NOT occur in any Acts sermon.
    Some of the most prevalent expressions in modern evangelism which are completely absent from the book of Acts are:

 1)  God loves you;
 2)  Jesus died for you;
 3)  All you have to do to be saved is ...

    If the apostles' beliefs had been in line with any of these three ideas, certainly they would have spoken them, or at least something similar to them.  The fact that they didn't calls our use of such phrases into question.
    It would almost seem that modern evangelism was patterned after the epistles, where apostles are telling believers  the consequences of God's love for them and Jesus' death for them.

    What could be the danger of telling unbelievers that God loves them and Christ died for them?
    Even if you believed that these things were true, to pattern your evangelism after actual Biblical evangelism, you would give the story of Christ and the imperative that His coming has placed on men's lives.  Automatically applying God's love and Christ's death to all men is at least 'jumping the gun' in terms of Acts evangelism.  It is putting the cart before the horse.
    In all honesty, though, the apostles do not seem to be simply exercising self-restraint in the Acts sermons.  It seems that they do not believe in God's universal saving love or Christ's universal sacrifice; otherwise, certainly these would  have been the keynotes of their addresses; by rights they should  have been.  
    But at the very least, we should follow the pattern of Acts and place a burden on men by the fact of the coming of Christ.  Sinners do not know how to identify their own burden.  The good news will not be good news to them until we have told them the burden of sin.  Telling them that God loves them and Jesus died for them actually releases this burden before it can even be created.  
    "God loves you and Jesus died for you" has a mainly sentimental impact which we will search in vain to find as the theme (or even a sub-theme) in the sermons in Acts.  Realism was more the apostles' thesis; specifically, that the promised Messiah has come and qualified Himself to be the Judge to whom all men must answer.  This is the real, Biblical message of the Gospel.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Psalm 80:12  
Why have You broken down its walls,
so that it is plucked by all
who pass by the way?


    The Church normally has walls of protection that keep the world out.
    The invading world is pictured by two analogies in Psalm 80:  a boar of the woods and a beast of the field:

 Psalm 80:13  A boar out of the forest wastes it, and the beast of the field feeds on it.

    These two invading animals represent a complete spectrum of occupying forces.  The boar (literally, "swine, pig") of the forest represents untamed aggressors.  The field animal represents more civilized intruders who nonetheless move in and take advantage of unprotected terrain.
    With foreign forces on her soil, the Church has no control over her purity.  Terms are dictated to her by the appetites of invaders.  The kingdom of Heaven on earth is no longer heavenly.

    But why has this happened?
    The psalmist leaves no question as to the immediate culprit behind our exposure to ravagers.  God did it:

 Psalm 80:12  Why have You broken down its walls ...?

    When we are exposed to the enemy, God is the one who has broken down our walls.
    Does this mean that no boar clambered over the wall, taking down pieces in its breach?
    Indeed, the boars might have done the wall-wrecking in total.  But God opened the opportunity and paved the way for them.

    So now we must ask further, what motivated God to so open us to enemy intrusion?  The psalmist already referenced God's anger towards the Church.  If He is angry, we sinned.
    In terms of the wall, were we not peering over it longingly, envying the world in several ways?  God's justice is always fitting.  "You like the world and its ways?  Here, let me give you a better, closer look!  I'll just march them through your living room.  Make way."  Of course, we never like the up-close-and-personal look at the world for long.

    The psalmist knows what we need.  He asks for it three times:

 Psalm 80:3  O God, turn us again, and make Your face shine, and we will be saved!
 Psalm 80:7  O God of Hosts, turn us again, and cause Your face to shine, and we will be saved.
 Psalm 80:19  O Jehovah, God of Hosts, turn us again! Cause Your face to shine, and we will be saved.

    Number one:  we need to be turned back from our present course to face God again.
    Number two:  God's face will then be toward us and can shine on us again.  Until then, His face will only have the stern look of rebuke:

 Psalm 80:16  It is burned with fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your face.

    Of course, if our only choices were which of the two faces of God we'd prefer, we'd know which one to choose.  Unfortunately, as long as the option of peering longingly over the wall at the world's interesting faces exists, we may just keep being called back from our dream world by the nightmare of invading forces.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
Psalm 101:1  
I will sing of mercy and judgment;
to You O Jehovah, I will sing psalms.


    The psalmist said he would sing about both mercy and judgment.
    Mercy seems to be the forgoing of judgment.  Judgment, likewise, seems to be the exclusion of mercy.  But the psalmist had the wisdom to sing about both.
    Christian songs, and hence Christian meditations, should include the themes of God's wonderful mercies and His terrible judgments.  We should think deeply upon both.  We should compare the two in our thoughts.  There is no better base for these meditations than the Psalms themselves.  
    Of the several Hebrew words the psalmist could have used for singing, he chose the one that meant to sing Psalms.  He recognized a growing body of Divinely inspired poetry that was ideally adapted to our learning (Psalm 90 was written long before, by Moses, for instance).
    Psalms is the only book of songs directly from God.  Not only that, but God specifically incorporates Psalms into our church worship and personal use:

 Colossians 3:16  Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and inculcating one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

    "Hymns" are songs of adoration to or about God, and "spiritual songs" are other songs based on Scriptural meditation.  Both of these examples are also found in Scriptures, but they are also newly composed songs in succeeding Church generations.  Psalms are the only category coming only from the Bible.  That is why they are the most important category.
    Why aren't Psalms being sung today?  We should have a collection of musical settings for all 150 Psalms.  Previous generations had them.

    We can tell how far away from Psalms we have drifted by the theology that dominates modern worship songs.  There is nothing like the range of subject matter and emotion in today's songs as there are in the Psalms.  Older hymns better reflected the breadth of subject matter covered by the Psalms, but even the best of them were only written as complements to the Psalms, not replacements of them.  While Psalms were still being sung, hymn-writing, through their influence, was generally better.
    How long has it been since whole Psalms were generally sung in churches?  It's been over a century.  The Church has gone backwards  in Psalm singing, abandoning them in favor of hymns and spiritual songs (including praise and worship songs).  
    But even when Psalms were being sung, they were being paraphrased into poems, then put to standard hymn music.  Chanting the Psalms is a way of singing them which preserves their literal renderings, but it sacrifices tunefulness.  Psalms certainly deserve the best musical compositions we have to offer.  We should be taking literal Psalms and setting them, word-for-word, to music composed for each Psalm individually.  How else can we do them justice?
    And how better can we learn God's justice than the way the psalmist did?  He sang of mercy and justice.  How much easier to meditate on Divine things when we can sing them!


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Psalm 101:2  
I will behave myself wisely in a complete way;
O when will You come to me?
I will walk in the entirety of my heart
in the midst of my house.


    The psalmist had just said that He used the Psalms as broad meditations on the character and works of God:

 Psalm 101:1   I will sing of mercy and judgment; to You O Jehovah, I will sing Psalms.

    Now we see that our behavior is well affected by such meditations.  "I will act wisely in a mature way."
    Furthermore, we see that such meditations give us a desire for God and a humble assessment of ourselves:

 Psalm 101:2  ... O when will You come to me?

    And what is the setting for the blameless behavior to which the psalmist pledges himself?  It is his house:

 Psalm 101:2  ... I will walk within my house with a whole heart.

    The psalmist names his proper domain.
    We all have one.  
    Essentially, our most inner sanctum is our heart, but no one lives life within his heart.  We all walk in some habitat, in some human community, the most immediate being our house. That is the only way we can truly see what is in our hearts.  
    The psalmist doesn't assume that if God comes to Him, it will defy proof.  He assumes that his life must be the proof that God has come to Him.  
    As with all who desire God, the psalmist had already been visited by God.  The psalmist had evidence that God had matured his heart to an acceptable level.  He was beyond the novice stage in the ways of God.  He speaks of the completeness of his heart.  His heart had all the essential elements for service to a holy God.  The proof?  Once again, his certainty, based on experience, that his own house was a domain committed to God.
    Our own houses are the first test of our holiness; they are the foremost measure of our sanctification; they are an ongoing examination of our purity of heart.

    Part of the test for a head of a household is whether he holds those under his authority to a certain standard, and whether he does so with a proper spirit.
    Part of the test for those under another's authority is whether they seek the peace of the household; whether they make their interactions in the household a good glue for its unity.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
2 Timothy 4:2, 3
Preach the Word, ...
For a time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine ...

   A Preacher's Diary

    If I have made an excellent explanation of the text, I have done better than if I had preached excellently on it.  The power of God's Word lies in its being understood.  The preacher must, as much as  possible, be a mere vessel of transference. Paul calls ministers jars of clay who hope to pour the content of God's glory onto/into His listeners/followers.
    What is peculiar about the clay jar is ... nothing; only what it carries.
    It is important who the preacher is, though, for only a sincere, blameless, Christian teacher can be this jar.
    It is more important what the preacher knows about Scriptures than how he preaches it.  How he preaches should merely fit the message: urgency, pleading, convicting, instructing patiently, warning... whatever the passage calls for.
    Once it becomes crucial who is doing the preaching, beyond his uprightness and knowledge, we have moved beyond a modest earthenware pot to  some kind of glorious goblet, thus diminishing its contents.

    Who are the preacher's listeners?
    They are listeners.  They must be put at an advantage, by the preacher's delivery, to listen to THE TEXT.  Pauses, illustrations, thunders are all to bring home the TEXT.
    If it is not God's words that lay hold of us and keep hold of us, how can we be said to "endure sound doctrine", as the verse above describes?  
    Otherwise a preacher preaches himself, and his hearers hear man.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Ezekiel 37:23  
Nor shall they be defiled with their idols,
even with their filthy idols,
nor with all of their transgressions.
But I will save them out of all their dwelling places,
in them where they sinned, and will cleanse them.
And they shall be to Me for a people,
and I will be to them for God.


    God's cleansing actually effects cleanness.  A professing Christian who wants to wallow in the mire has a word written concerning him:

 2 Peter 2:21, 22  For it would have been better for them not to have fully known the way of righteousness, than fully knowing it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.  But the word of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog turning to his own vomit; and, The washed sow to wallowing in the mire.

    God's forgiveness is not just a legal document signed dispassionately, but a washing, a taking to the bath.  And the bath is not for removal of soils only, but also of shames- shames that weigh down the soul but which also wet the bath with sorrow's tears.
    If forgiveness is not a washing, then neither is it a signed and sealed legal transaction.  The Christian who wants the legal deed to cleanness without bathing wants God's hands unmussed.  But God is much more personal and interactive than this imaginary God.
    Preaching should work this proper type of forgiveness in God's people.  Their souls should cry in response, "O Father, cleanse me!  How I am stained!"  

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
James 1:18  
Of His own will He brought us forth
with the Word of truth,
for us to be a certain firstfruit
of His creatures.


    A pastor's Saturday prayer:
    "Father, Your people have been born by Your Word.  You brought them forth by it.
    May Your people be formed by that Word through preaching tomorrow.
    May we take our shape and identification from it."

    James proceeds from describing the Word as the means of our spiritual birth.  He also calls it the means for our daily salvation from sin:

 James 1:21  Therefore putting aside all filthiness and overflowing of evil, receive in meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save your souls.

    But I thought that if I was already brought forth by the Word, I was saved!  What's this about the Word being able to save me?

    Our day-to-day deliverance from sin is not a sure thing.  It is only as sure as:
 1)  Our putting aside all types of spiritual dirtiness, anything that God says soils the soul;
 2)  Our also removing any forms of evil which find 'visible' manifestation in our lives ("overflowing of evil");
 3)  Our reception of God's Word, our invitation of it into our interior;
 4)  Our meek reception of that Word; no arguments, no "what if's". no "laters";
 5)  Our reception of an implanted Word, of permanent, not temporary, affect;
 6)  Our reception of a displacing Word, meaning that when IT is implanted, something else must be uprooted (see #1 and 2 above).

    This rather extensive definition, necessary to describe normal Christian sanctification, is what describes a saved man.  Those who have made a profession of faith in Christ and yet resist His implanted, displacing Word surely call into question whether they have  been brought forth by the Word.
    So the pastor's prayer that the people be formed by God's Word is only a prayer that God's people will respond like God's people.

vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
2 Timothy 2:24  
And it is not necessary
for the Lord's slave to fight,
but be gentle to all,
apt at teaching,
enduring through evil,


    The preacher cannot be cynical about the implementation of God's will in his congregant's lives.  He must be idealistic and positive.
    "We have the opportunity to glorify God by doing thus-and-so, as He has directed us in His Word.  We have the prospect of being thus-and-so, a quality He has spelled out as one which delights Him."
    The preacher's enthusiasm to know and do God's will should be contagious; though it should not be used as a ploy to advance his own agenda.
    There are many ordinary forces ordinarily at work which will break a preacher's enthusiasm and idealism.  That is why Paul tells the preacher in the verse above how to handle difficulties.  He must realize that God is the only one who can ultimately turn men's hearts to righteousness, whether it is to right thinking or right acting where they are deficient.  
    The preacher has to be blameless; it is part of his 'job description' in 1 Timothy 3.  All Christians are called to blamelessness, but the preacher is not qualified as an elder in the Church unless he is blameless (literally, "not arrested").  
    God tells the preacher to be gentle, to NOT fight.  He tells him to keep teaching the truth no matter what opposition faces him.  The real danger is for the preacher to back down in the face of opposition and say, "It's not worth it.  I'm not getting anywhere.  I'll never get anywhere.  These people will never change.  They can have their way.  I'm not trying any more.  I'll just go through the motions from now on."*  
    Preacher, hold on to the truth with bulldog jaws, but apply it gently, even when- perhaps especially when- there is opposition.  God may change the hearts of opponents most wondrously and unexpectedly.  The verse in the box above is followed by this one:

 2 Timothy 2:25  in meekness teaching those who have opposed, if perhaps God may give them repentance for a full knowledge of the truth.

* Notice, not "I'll quit," but "I'll just be a hypocrite like the rest of them."  Of course, this really is quitting.

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss



 
Romans 1:20  
For the invisible things of Him
since the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being perceived
through the things that are made,
even his everlasting power and Divine nature;
that they may be without excuse.


    Three facts- that there is a Creator God, that He is a being separate from creation rather than emanating from it, and that He has unending power- are all plain to men.  However arduously men may deny any or all of these facts, they are only suppressing what they know to be true.  So says Paul in Romans chapter one.
    But what is the starting place for a correct philosophy of God?  Where does theology begin?  In what commencement point does any organized structure of truth have its anchor?
    Is it in God's being, since that is ultimately undeniable to men?

    God's being is undeniable, but it is not the proper inception point for building an accurate doctrine of Him.  Solely from the starting point of God's being, Divine nature, and omnipotence, there are very many wrong avenues man can and will take in depicting Him.  These three facts about God are completely sufficient to make all men accountable before God, but they are insufficient for forming a full idea of His character and works.
    The true starting point for constructing a right theology is the fact that God has revealed Himself.  Knowing that there is a real God is completely useless in actually coming to comprehend Him unless He has decided to communicate with us.
    Therefore, we do not even depend on our inbuilt knowledge of God's existence to assure us that it is true.  Once we have established that God has communicated, we depend on His communication to inform us concerning everything: His existence, power, attributes- everything.
    Even our own human existence and the existence of the world and universe have been questioned by philosophers.  How do I know I exist?  I think, therefore I am?
    For the Christian, the answer is essentially the same as it is for any question:  God tells me I am; therefore I know I am.  Of course, God doesn't set out to prove that we exist, any more that He sets out to prove that He  exists.  But the fact that His communications assume both certainties assure us that they are true.
    SO, men know that there is a God even independent of His testimony of Himself in Scriptures; but to come to know all He intends us to know about anything- about Himself, ourselves, the world, the future, the past- we must come to His Self-revelation in the Bible.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv



 
Isaiah 55:9  
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts.


    Is God smart?
    Most people's immediate response is, "Certainly, yes!  Look at all He made!  Who could be such an inventor but the greatest genius!"
    Ah, well, our question is answered, then.  
    Or is it?

    According to the verse above, God's thoughts are quite above ours.  Once again, most people agree with this.  But the way they agree with it is in seeing God as incomprehensible.  His intelligence is so superior to ours, there is no way for us to really relate to it.  We can't expect God to be logical.  Logic is binding.  God's thoughts can't be bound.

    But that sets us back to asking again:  Is God really smart?  If He is, why can't He make Himself understood?  If we're supposed to believe a written word He's given us, how can we relate to one which obeys no rules of communication or logic?
    The intelligence most people attribute to God is, in reality, more like that of an idiot-savante than a true genius.  God, the idiot-savante, carved the cosmos most wonderfully; but He can't explain it.  He's more the artist than the scientist, more the poet than the essayist.

    In fact, God's intelligence- infinite and transcendent as it is- is as detailed as an electron and, as far as what He's written, quite accessible.  How could the maker of the human mind and the inventor of language fail to make them adequate for communication?
    From the way Jesus speaks, logic is a very God-like tool.  It is orderly.  It assumes order and underlying truth.  Scriptures are apparently so tightly constructed in their logic, that seemingly minor insinuations are considered quite firm:

 Luke 20:37, 38  But that the dead are raised, even Moses pointed out at the Bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  For He is not God of the dead, but of the living. For all live to Him.

    By this, Jesus corrected the faulty understanding of the Sadducees, who didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead.
    Notice the logic Jesus uses.  Moses addressed God as the God of Abraham; therefore, Abraham must still be alive.  The resurrection is therefore a reality.
    Also notice this:  Jesus didn't say, "Hey, I was in Heaven and I saw Abraham.  Take My word for it."  Jesus was quite willing to settle a critical doctrinal point by Scripture, and by a subtle insinuation from it, no less.

    How many modern Christians would miss Jesus' point altogether?
    How many would actually think Jesus was almost being slippery by using such a subtle point?
    We have been well-trained to think that God seeks an exemption from logic and reason.  He's just the boss; you don't question Him.
    True, we don't question His authority, but how can we honor His authority without making heads or tails of it?  How do we know we stand on His authority if we don't know with certainty what He has said?  If He's incomprehensible while attempting communication, He's not God.

    Lay firm hold on Scriptural concepts.  That's what they're meant for.  The Divine mind was able to construct a Word that's an adequate and permanent foundation for all truth for all time.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
Proverbs 22:2  
The rich and poor meet together;
Jehovah is the maker of them all.


    Which is the true humanity?

    Every person exists in several classifications, whether defined by a society or simply by his individual humanness.

    We all have an economic classification:

Under $25,000 a year
Under $50,000 a year
Under $100,000 a year
Over $100,000 a year
Over $1,000,000 a year

    Whatever cutoff points you want to make, we all fit into some financial niche by which we can be evaluated in market terms or standard-of-living terms.

    We all have a societal classification:

Businessman
Housewife
Construction worker
Teacher
Entertainer

    Almost endless titles could be added.  Or we could make just two broad categories, or three.  The point is, we all fit into a category in some format.  One person might not cast negative judgment on any occupation; another would only value higher paying positions (back to the economic categories).

    We all have a religious classification:

Atheist
Agnostic
Theist
Deist
Jew
Muslim
Protestant
Catholic
Buddhist
Hindu

    And, again, many titles could be added.  Or, again, we could make fewer, broader classifications.

    We could, of course, add to economic, societal, and religious classifications in which people differ.  The point is,  each person can be categorized in one of several different ways.
    So, once again, which is the true humanity?
    Should we add another classification?-  Happy / Sad.  If you're happy with what you are, you're OK; if not, you're in trouble.  Whatever categories we come up with, we will eventually end up with some categories for who are the more fortunate humans.

    There is a strong theme in the Bible built around human classifications.  God notes that men cannot help looking on one another with bias.  That's why He gives us specific instructions on how to regard the poor man ... and the rich.

    On a very basic level, there are three categories that each man is richer or poorer in:
Intelligence
Talent
Looks

    These tend to be the categories which really shape others' opinions about us and our opinions about ourselves.  They are also the categories which tend to determine if we will be in the upper classes financially or societally.

    So which is the true measure of humanity?  Which combination of factors?
    Ultimately, the only factor that matters is how God categorizes and evaluates us.
    God does categorize and evaluate us:

 Matthew 25:32  And all nations shall be gathered before Him. And He shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.

    There are only two categories of men, as suggested in this verse, and as the ensuing depiction verifies.  Interestingly, some of the categories men make will be generally found in one of the two categories God makes.

 1)  Those with higher social standing will be mostly in God's "rejected" category:

 1 Cor 1:26  For you see your calling, brothers, that not many wise men according to the flesh are called, not many mighty, not many noble.

 2)  Those with more money will be mostly in God's "rejected" category:

 James 2:5 - 7  Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to those who love Him?  But you dishonored the poor one. Do not rich men oppress you and draw you before the judgment seats?  Do they not blaspheme that worthy Name by which you are called?

 3)  Those with superior intelligence, talent, and looks will be mostly in God's "rejected" category:

 James 1:9, 10  But let the lowly brother rejoice in his lifting up; and the rich one rejoice in his humiliation, because he will pass away like the flower of the grass.

    Notice that James does not compare the poor and the rich, but the lowly and the rich.  This is because men can be "lowly" in several key categories, not just money.  Men can be lowly in intelligence, talent, and looks, too.
    James says the 'have-nots' are at a spiritual advantage.  The rich man must count his plusses as minuses in order to gain anything worthy of rejoicing before God.

    Two questions:
By which criteria, human or Divine, do you basically see men, yourself included?
By what means will you carry God's criteria into your day-to-day evaluations of yourself and others?

vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Psalm 119:28  
My soul melts away for sorrow;
strengthen me according to your word!


    One thing that instigates a destructive emotional breakdown is not allowing constructive emotional breakdowns beforehand.  Developing a 'stiff upper lip' can be disastrous to our emotional health.  It is hypocrisy before God to pretend that everything's alright when it isn't.
    For the Christian, it's important to understand what should cause him depression.  Things that are grievous to God should be grievous to us.  A major part of our Christian maturity is coming in line with God emotionally.  
    But any sorrow we experience- even grieving in the flesh, contrary to the will of God- should still be brought before God:

Philippians 4:6   Be anxious about nothing, but in everything by prayer and by petition with thanksgivings, let your requests be made known to God

    Any  anxiety is a cause in itself for prayer, whether we should be experiencing the anxiety or not.  Anything that weighs our hearts down is a challenge to our joy in the Lord.  Not that we should have no sorrow, but no sorrow should be a "distraction" (the literal Greek meaning of "anxious" in Philippians 4:6).  If a sorrow keeps us from relating freely to God as our caring Father, it is a sorrow that is forbidden.  And the very remedy is prayer.  'Turn the concern to a heavenly yearn.'  By bringing our concern to God, we are automatically taking it out of the realm of a worry.  It may still be a sorrow, but it will be a sorrow sanctified to our good.
    And that is what the psalmist is doing in the box at the top.  He is confessing a deep sorrow and seeking God's strength for it.  Many Christians wouldn't know how to bring such a sorrow before God.  They think God only wants to hear positive things.  Ignorance is a great destroyer.
    Rather than bringing his strength to God, the psalmist brings his lack of strength.  O blessed lack of strength!  But not many saints become so intimate with God that they are completely transparent before Him.  Or else they don't know enough of Scriptures to hear how God answers when our pretenses are finally abandoned.
    The Contrition Psalms (where sorrow is expressed) are a good place to train our minds and hearts to carry our sorrows to God.  Here's a starter list:  Psalms 51, 143, 32, 6, 39, 130, 40, 25, 77, 38.

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss



 
2 Timothy 4:5  
But you be clear-minded in all things,
suffer hardship,
do the work of an evangelist,
fully carry out your ministry.


    Paul here gives a four-fold countermeasure for pastor Timothy in the face of a Christendom that would largely seek pleasant-sounding assurances over sound doctrine.  These measures apply to all pastors, and largely to all Christians.

 1)  Pastors (and all Christians) have to be clear-minded.  They have to think things through from a Biblical vantage point.  They cannot afford to have inaccurate or incomplete views.

 2)  Pastors have to expect to suffer hardship.  The 'bad guys' aren't going to go away, and the people who blindly follow them aren't going to wise up by sunrise.  This means trouble for those who insist on God's viewpoint and lifestyle.  If we're not 'thick-skinned', we'd better order our set today.

 3)  Pastors are supposed to do the work of an evangelist.  That is, they are to be aware of whether or not people they contact are bound to the gospel of Christ.  They are to utilize means to inform and persuade those who are not believers.  Then they are to provide tutelage to those newly planted in the faith.  Non-pastors can be very effective as evangelists as well.  Some men have the spiritual gift of "evangelist" (Eph. 4:11), but the "work of an evangelist" can be carried out by others too.

 4)  And finally, pastors are to fully carry out their ministries.  They are to industriously approach the work of "rightly dividing" Scriptures so they can "preach the Word".  They are to take prayer and spiritual oversight of their congregations very seriously.  
    Much of the pastor's diligence is only directly observed by God.  He can 'get by' on less effort, but there is a point at which he is depriving himself, and therefore his congregation, of the spiritual stature of a "father" of the faith (1 Jn. 2:14).  It is his taking this fourth admonition seriously that keeps him from falling short in his maintenance of himself and his ministry.

    In the face of spiritual ignorance and depleted sanctification in the Church, pastors can easily settle for less than their calling.  Pray for your pastor, and for pastors in general, to do the self-maintenance that makes them obedient to 2 Timothy 4:5.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
James 1:2  
Count it all joy, my brothers,
when you fall into various temptations

    We live in an age of a seemingly universal 'stunted growth' rate among Christians.  Perhaps the truly seasoned, deepened, wizened, blameless saint has been a relative rarity in any age, but today- are we likely to find even one such father of the faith in every town-?  every county?  every state?
    For instance, who can we find that obeys this simple instruction, the opening instruction of James?  Obedience to this command, of course, is not accomplished simply by the willing of it.  But before it can even be initially willed, it must be understood.  And who understands that we are to rejoice before God because we are tempted?
    The word for "temptations" in this verse at its root meaning carries the idea of "testing", and its verb form is used in precisely that way, with no negative connotations, in John 6:6, for instance.
    But it is also the common word for the kind of temptations and tempting which Satan does, and the word is used mostly this way (over 50 times).
    The fact that James means it in the bad way is evident from his use of the word a short time later:

 James 1:13  Let no one being tempted say, I am tempted from God. For God is not tempted by evil, and He tempts no one.

    And yet the same Greek word is used in John 6:6 when Jesus "tests" Phillip:

 John 6:6  But He said this to test him, for He knew what He was about to do.

    So there is obviously a theological difference between "testing" and "tempting", if we want to adopt those English words to depict the difference.  There is no semantic difference per differing Greek words.

    Before we go any further, though, let us stop to note the difficulty of understanding our 'simple' command in James 1:2.  It's no wonder that seasoned saints are uncommon.  The mental groundwork alone is quite demanding.

    For the 'quick answer' to the problem of temptations being either good or bad, we should know that God DOES tempt us, but clearly not in the way James 1:13 describes.  The fact that God tempts us is obvious from John 6:6 above, as well as from Hebrews 11:17,

 Hebrews 11:17  By faith Abraham, being tested [same Greek], offered up Isaac. And he who had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son

    Check out Genesis 22:1.  God is the one who tempted/tested Abraham.

    So what is the theological difference between 'good' tempting and 'bad'?
    Good tempting or testing- the kind God does do- is His normal means of maturing us.  It is His shaping of our outward circumstances to require a certain response from us, resulting in either passing or failing of the 'test'.  This is what God did to Abraham- gave Him a situation which would confirm what state he had reached spiritually.
    Bad tempting- the kind God doesn't do- is the actual changing of our hearts.  This is really the essence of temptation- the inward pull towards evil.  James plainly spells out the source of this kind of temptation right after having excluded God from it in James 1:13,

 James 1:14  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

    The inward pull, then, is something we manufacture completely on our own (apparently the only thing in the universe not manufactured by God).

    So when we ask not to be led into temptation, we are asking that our heart path not go in the direction of sin- that our inward pull would be unsuccessful in causing us to sin.
    So this requests a 'test-free' environment?  No.  This is impossible.  If we were isolated on Bible Island, surrounded only by righteous saints praying for our sanctification, we would still have the inward pull to sin.  Some forms of sin would pull even stronger in that environment.
    By asking God not to lead us into temptation in our inner heart land, we are in effect asking that God search out our hearts for any attractions there that would pull us off course.  If any regard for an idol exists in our hearts, it will veer us off course.  "Show me, God, before it can derail me!"

    Well, we've come a long way from our initial verse and still haven't addressed it.
    We are to reckon it a joy to be tempted BECAUSE that is the only way we will learn our limits.  When we are tempted, then we experience our deficiencies and can take them to God earnestly.  Notice that we are to "consider" temptations a joy.  They are not a joy in themselves.  They work good for us despite themselves.

    In sum, Christians lead mostly one-dimensional, inadequate lives because we ignore our sin nature and its remedy.  Temptation is supposed to become a means of transferring our trust from ourselves to God.
    The average Christian approach is to say, "Pay no attention to that evil desire.  Pretend it's not there and it might go away."  This, of course, plays right into sin's hands, allowing it to do its inducing in the dark, where we cannot meet it in hand-to-hand combat.  As long as avoiding this messy and discouraging activity is the name of our game, obedience to James 1:2 will never be our attainment.

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss

 
1 John 5:16  
If anyone sees his brother
committing a sin not leading to death,
he shall ask, and God will give him life--
to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death;
I do not say that one should pray for that.


    What is the "sin leading to death" John speaks about here?
    First notice that John guarantees life for the brother not "sinning towards death" if we will but pray for him.  This is the last clause of John's amazing assurance that God will give us all that we ask which is according to His will.  John is giving us the one exception to the Guaranteed Yes provision.  God will give us the brother sinning a sin not unto death; not necessarily so for the brother sinning a sin unto  death.
    So what is the sin headed for death?
    John has been contrasting death and life throughout his epistle.  The death and life here would almost certainly be of the same variety- spiritual  life or death.
    Also notice that God is going to give life to the one brother.  That brother is already alive physically, so he can't be talking about physical life; therefore, neither physical death.
    Saying a brother is sinning unto spiritual death does not necessarily mean that he is no longer saved.  To have wandered into the realm of spiritual death, the brother may still have spiritual life in himself, only he is not living according to it.  He is living according to death.  His decisions are apart from God.
    John calls him a "brother" because we have been treating him as one up until now and he may well still be one.  But now that he is behaving according to separation from God (= death), he may turn out to have been a brother in name only.
    There is another Scripture which comments helpfully in this matter:

 Proverbs 12:28  In the road of righteousness is life, and in the journey of its pathway is no death.

    In other words, as long as a Christian is walking a pathway consistent with who he is, he will not experience processes causing the soul's destruction.  If he wanders from or deliberately departs from his natural life path, he can indeed reenter the death paths of the unregenerate.  He begins working contrary to the life that is in him.  OR we find that he is only a dog returning to its vomit or a sow returning to its mire- that he, in fact, was not truly regenerate.
    That is why John discourages prayer for him.  We are only supposed to ask confidently.  A brother all the way over on the Enemy's paths may turn out not to be a brother at all.  OR God may prefer to kill the man rather than allow his continued rebellion if he is  a Christian.  Either way, the prayer is discouraged because he's not guaranteed to return from the paths of death.
    If God brings him back to the paths of life- great!  We will take up our prayer for him again immediately.

    Have you ever had to stop praying for a brother?  We are supposed to be familiar with the scenario before it happens.
    This verse should also breed a proper fear in us as to how dangerous it is to stray from God's doctrines, commandments, or love (the three areas John uses to define regeneration in First John).


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Romans 2:14, 15  
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
by nature do what the law requires,
they are a law to themselves,
even though they do not have the law.  
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts,
while their conscience also bears witness,
 and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them


    Paul here says that Gentiles, who did not have God's Law, still had the "work of the Law" written on their hearts.  That means that, by nature, the concept of right and wrong was imprinted on man's conscience.  Men do not need books or even oral traditions to know that there is such a thing as right and wrong.
    Think about it.  If right and wrong are not an integral part of man, then they are not even real.  If right and wrong are concepts we arrived at on our own, then they can't even rightly be called by those names; or they can just as easily be called by any names with any definitions we please.  
    The theory of Evolution made its entrance into an era of morality.  It deduced that morality was a human invention; therefore, a consistent evolutionist must say that there is no real right or wrong- we just made the concepts up.  Yet who among evolutionists has stopped using  right and wrong to evaluate behavior?  Paul, in our verses above, says that those categories are imprinted within the evolutionist.
    Many eastern religions say that good and evil are mutually dependent and that they are therefore equal; neither one is better than the other.  Yet they, like the evolutionists, still treat good as the right thing and evil as the wrong thing.  Good and evil simply defy reclassification.  Tao can explain good and bad as being part of the ying and the yang, ever balancing one another, but Taoists still instinctively respond to theft as a negative thing.  "Hey, that's not yours!"  
    "Oh yeah?" the evolutionist chimes in, "In the animal kingdom, the bigger dog deserves the bone.  He is supposed to steal.  That's the law of the jungle.  Man has only recently invented laws condemning the big dog for getting his way."  Yet what evolutionist endorses Hitler's right to take the world if he can?  (Evolution was integral to Hitler's racism, by the way.)
    Man naturally resonates strongly to the idea of right and wrong.  The only reason for that is that an outside force imprinted the idea within us.  We may twist the concept and contradict it, but we cannot erase it.
    Even animal instinct- simple compared to our consciences- is impossible to develop on its own.  Undeveloped instincts would have long ago wiped out species who live by them.  It is as plain that a creator had to implant conscience as it is that one had to implant instinct.

    The Christian struggle is to get the conscience back into pristine condition.  But we can only do that if there is a conscience there to transform from its defective state back to God-oriented straightness.

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss



 
1 Peter 1:7  
so that the genuineness of your faith,
which is more precious than gold that perishes,
though being tested with fire,
may be found to praise, honor, and glory
at the revelation of Jesus Christ.


    Our faith is tested by fire.  The fires are the variety of trials we encounter.
    Our faith under trial is not  like an oyster being pried open by a starfish.
    A starfish latches onto an oyster and begins to pull, like our hands opening a hinged box.  Oysters and clams have sufficient muscle power to resist the starfish ... at first.  The starfish's victory comes by applying continuous pressure.  Eventually, the oyster's muscles tire.  It can hold out no longer.  It opens, and its soft inward parts become dinner for the starfish.
    We are prone to think of trials or temptations as destined to uncover our weaknesses.  We can hold out like the oyster, but only for so long.  We feel our own weakness so intimately, we can't imagine remaining blameless even in our outward behavior.  We equate trials' fiery power to that of the starfish- inexorable
    But it is not so.  
    We must answer our fears with the confidence that God does not intend our downfall.

    On the other hand, the pull of temptation does test our muscles of resistance, there to close off our unrighteous desires from expression.  We are like the oyster in that we suppress our wrong impulses from becoming outward deeds.  We are like the athlete, though, in that we need our muscles tested so we can become strong to win the day whenever temptation pulls at us (whether in ongoing temptations or new ones).

    Against the starfish fear that we are doomed to fall, consider:

 1 Corinthians 10:13  No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation, He will also make the way out, so as for you to be able to bear it.

    For the athlete's encouragement:

 Ephesians 6:13  Because of this, take up all of the armor of God that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having worked out all things, to stand.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Psalm 119:27  
Make me understand the way of Your Precepts,
and I will meditate on Your wonders.


    The psalmist requests understanding of the workings of God's mandates.
    Is this right?  Isn't he just supposed to obey, whether he understands or not?
    Furthermore, how can we, mere men, expect to really discover the mechanisms of God's mind?
    The request for understanding of Scriptures is a fairly common one in Psalm 119.  The search for comprehension of God's will is found, directly and implied, in many places in the Bible.  
    So the men who are given to us as examples didn't feel it disrespectful to ask God to open their minds to fathom His rules, beyond merely 'obeying' them.
    IN FACT, it is the person who fails  to make this kind of request who is apparently the impertinent man!  To leave undiscovered what God intends to be grasped is at the least laziness and at the worst stubborn negligence.

    To seek the rationale behind God's regulations fuels our musings of God's interactions with men.  Look at the verse again:

 Psalm 119:27  Make me understand the way of your precepts, and I will meditate on your wondrous works.

    I will meditate on God's singular accomplishments AS I better understand the way His directives work.  An interesting connection, eh?  The psalmist sees a connection between God's activity in human history ("His wondrous works") and God's decrees for man's behavior.  As we see why God tells us to do this and not do that, we will also better perceive how He interacts with individuals and nations.

    Anyway, it is very certain that the psalmist wanted his ruminations on God and His revelation to increase.  Also, he didn't mind 'force-feeding' his reflections.  He knew that he would probably wait in vain for mental deliberations on God to just pop into his head, so he took responsibility for what would be in his mind.  And he foresaw interplay between one class of meditation and another.

    Do we experience frustration in our meditations, perhaps, because we don't allow our minds to roam back and forth between differing vistas of thought?  We attribute a kind of starched uprightness to holy notions, making us march our attitudes in a very straight line, posture perfect, even to think about them.  Apparently, much good will be bypassed this way.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
Psalm 119:18  
Uncover my eyes
and I will see wonders
from Your Law.


    The usual translation of this verse is "Open my eyes", which is not inaccurate.  The actual Hebrew word means to denude, and is used as a common word (some 50 times) for Israel being 'taken into captivity' because of the humiliation associated with exile.
    So "uncover" my eyes is a bit more literal AND conveys a bit more forcefully the idea of my eyes being covered until God does something about it.

    "Grant me vision."  Thus we should pray when we read Scriptures.
    There are many alternate approaches to Scriptures which show that men don't  naturally assume:

 1)  Their natural blindness or- even as Christians with healed eyes- our natural weakness of vision in spiritual things;
 2)  The miraculous power of God in granting us understanding of His Word.

    In fact, isn't it true that any time we come to Scriptures minus either the outright declaration or the implicit understanding of our obscured discernment that we are coming with too high an opinion of ourselves?

    When others ask flippant questions in response to Scriptures or even make disparaging remarks concerning them, we should remind ourselves of the natural blindness men bring to Scriptures.  
    The psalmist shows us that a Christian can never assume an attitude of superiority, as though he had attained his own understanding through superior education or discipline.  As important as schooling and self-control are in learning the Bible, the most important element in spiritual learning is God's direct blessing.  (This blessing, by the way, does not work apart from self-discipline, but with  it.)


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv



 
Psalm 119:13  
I have declared
all the judgments of Your mouth
with my lips

    We have not truly integrated God's Word into our lives until we've spoken His operational principles to others.  Particularly, we should seek to explain both the basis for God's judgments and actual examples of His judgment.
    In a pre-Christian society (on the frontiers of the mission field) or a post-Christian society (like England or America), we are probably giving a sizeable piece of information just to relay the fact that God does judge.  We are representing God powerfully in merely standing by His historical judgments without embarrassment- for instance, conveying the chronicle of God's fiery sentence on Sodom or His watery one in the Flood.  This is often too much for a modern Christian to testify boldly without overreacting and becoming defensive.

    We will find that we don't really understand God's judgments, statutes, precepts, commandments or law generally until we have tried to explain them.  Then what seemed settled in our heads will come out jumbled on our tongues.  With practice, we are able to explain what we think, because our minds begin to work along logical lines, automatically checking our thoughts against others' likely reactions.

    We have an obligation to speak God's judgments in different circumstances.  We will also find that our embarrassment at the truth is exposed when others minimize God's judgments before knowing our stance.  If they say or imply that God's type of judgment is too harsh- say, His disapproval of homosexuality- we might hesitate to side firmly with God's position lest we be thought too harsh.  

    In fact, God's stance against sin and sinners is, in one way, purely a matter between Himself and them.  To agree with God, we need only speak confidently that He is righteous and He will do what is right with everyone.  We will not be called upon to judge anyone, but God will do a perfect job of it.  Sinners whom He judges have not, in the ultimate sense, offended me at all, so I am bound to leave their offense with whom it properly belongs- namely, God.  Of course, it is still an enormous venture to merely relay God's testimony as one of His representatives.

    These are all factors in testifying with our lips to the totality of God's judgments.  The main thing, though, is to see to it that we do so testify.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss



 
1 Thessalonians 5:19  
Do not quench the Spirit.


    The Greek word for "quench" is used ten times in the New Testament.  It has a fairly direct association with fire in all the nine other verses in which it appears.
    The Holy Spirit therefore seems likened to fire.  In the context, Paul has given some other directions which are helpful in understanding the command against quenching God's Spirit:

 1 Thessalonians 5:18 - 22   in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus towards you;
  19 do not quench the Spirit;
  20 do not lightly esteem prophecies;
  21 but prove all things,
  hold fast the right;
  22 hold aloof from every form of wickedness.

    Noting the context, we see that quenching the zeal of the Spirit is associated with unthankfulness (v. 18).  We can quench the Spirit's fiery conviction by deflecting conviction when the Word is preached (v. 20).  We can douse the Spirit's lamp of the Truth in our souls by accepting false doctrine or failing to censure it (v. 22).

    Anything that makes the Word of God unprofitable in our lives would have the general effect of quenching the Spirit.  His fire goes out.

    Let us, then, consider our relation as Christians to God's commands as a specific area where we are in danger of quenching the Spirit.
   Disobeying God's commands- His do's and don't's- weakens our ability to receive God's communications in general, for commands are certainly one variety of God's communications.
    The Word itself, of course, is never weak, but the Holy Spirit can, in righteous judgment, 'grant us our wish' and withhold degrees of the Scripture's light from our understanding.  The light from the 'torch' of the Spirit dims.  The Spirit is quenched.

    Now imagine this process far down the line, with decades of light being further and further withheld.  Imagine the process on a national scale, for God is able to judge whole nations for their response to Him.  Think of America.  Have Christians in America put our the fire of God's Spirit by our response to His commands?  A different fire has mesmerized our eyes.
    If we have effectively extinguished the Spirit's testimony in various ways, mouthing agreement with commands but not following them, we have obstructed the Spirit's ministry to us.  Our slight-of-hand, replacement doctrines, or consensus misbehavior becomes our new rule.  God lets us worship our chosen idols.  A new torch guides our way; a new fire warms us.  But we continue to call it the Spirit's working!

    God is the only one who can overcome our hardness, in any case.  Otherwise, His regular working would exercise further hardening for stifling saints (who stifle the Spirit's testimony and ministry).  We would expect eventual judgment even beyond the deafness of their ears to Truth.  The Holy Spirit will return to these with a fire that is unquenchable.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Genesis 19:25  
And He overthrew those cities,
and all the plain,
and all those living in the cities,
and the produce of the ground.


    God saw to it that four people got out of Sodom safely before He destroyed it with fire.  One of those, because of ignoring instructions, didn't make it all the way to safety.
    The question is:  Was everyone else in Sodom a wicked person, unconverted and past his last chance at repentance?
    Abraham had just made a similar point in talking with God about Sodom:

 Genesis 18:25  Far be it from You to act in this way, to put to death the righteous with the wicked.  Far be it from You.  The Judge of all the earth, shall He not do right?

    God basically answered that He had no intention of killing any righteous men in Sodom.  In fact, if there had been a sufficient number, He would have spared the whole city for their sakes.  Instead, He got one righteous man and his immediate family out.

    So how could a whole nation go bad?  And how could God call all their bills due at one time?
    For one thing, this speaks strongly for the doctrine of election- that if God doesn't convert a man, he will never change.  No one outside Lot's family was elect, so , as far as the eternal outcome, any appointment God made for a Sodomite's death would have ended the same.
    Besides that, though, how could every person in Sodom be bad enough to be executed by fire from Heaven?
    Apparently, God is able to take the 'spiritual temperature' of a nation.  He knows an individual perfectly, but He also knows a nation perfectly.  A nation is made up of individuals, of course, but the point is that God is able to see the common bond that makes all the individuals in a nation alike.  However unique each person is, God also sees similarities that make each person the same as all his whole countrymen.  If there are exceptions, He deals with them as exceptions, as He did with Lot.  But the exception only proves the rule.  Everyone else in Sodom was worthy of a group punishment, both temporally and eternally.
    The same principle applies to any cities or nations whom God told His people to destroy man, woman, and child.  In those cases, God had already seen to the escape of any of His elect from those places.  Sometimes He used situations like that of Rahab the harlot to identify His chosen ones out of an otherwise doomed populace.

    We, of course, are most concerned about our own country.  CERTAINLY, God couldn't destroy our nation yet!  Certainly there are still many, many righteous people for whose sakes He would have mercy on us!
    Rather, are we certainly not skating on thin ice?

 Jeremiah 5:1  Roam around in Jerusalem's streets and see now, and know, and seek in her plazas if you can find a man, if there is one who does justice, who seeks truth; and I will pardon her.

    He's not just looking for someone who's made a decision for Christ.  He's not looking for someone who's just 'keeping his nose clean'.  He's looking for someone who has the Spirit of God, who is therefore actually DOING justice (not just talking about it), who is actually SEEKING truth (not just agreeing with it).  No Jews were found who fit this description in all Jerusalem.

    Now think about us.  First, it should scare us- how apparently like our countrymen we are.  Secondly, if we were really exceptions, Jeremiah's dual description would fit us:  our lives would be described merely as the employment of the principles of justice on the one hand and a dissatisfaction with anything short of the truth on the other.  Be honest, does either of those descriptions fit you?

ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss


 
1 Chronicles 12:33  
From Zebulun, such as went forth to battle,
expert in war, with all the weapons of war,
fifty thousand who could keep rank.
They were not of a double heart.


        Keeping ranks is a crucial quality in an army.  The ability to attack as a unified force rather than as a cluster of separate individuals depends on keeping ranks.  Movements must be coordinated as a group.  Moving together assumes a relationship between individuals in the troop.  There is some sort of imaginary line between  members of the corps.  They are either to stay abreast or only a certain distance apart.  Any subsequent staggering of lines or greater distances between men depends on starting with basic arrangements, following prearranged commands.

    Certainly one reason God includes military details in His Word is that His people can make spiritual application of them.  Saints were already aware of this in the Old Testament (see, for instance, Isa. 59:17).  
    We are definitely in a war:

 Ephesians 6:11  Put on all the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil

    Is there still the necessity for "keeping ranks" in a spiritual army?  Positively so!
    Consider the ways in which keeping ranks is absolutely essential for the Christian army.  An army keeping ranks must:

 1)  Know who their Commander-in-Chief is;
 2)  Know who their immediate head under the Commander-in-Chief is;
 3)  Support their immediate heads (elders and deacons);
 4)  Support the army as a whole and heads of other 'regiments' (churches);
 5)  Know what the war is being fought over;
 6)  Know what is involved in training;
 7)  Know how training corresponds to battle;
 8)  DO the training;
 9)  Expect to experience irritation in the ranks- from boredom, selfish comrades, battle stench, etc.;
 10)  Remember that each soldier's safety depends on unbroken ranks;
 11)  Remember in the heat of battle that a fallen comrade is not a cause for breaking ranks;*
 12)  Remember that one who breaks ranks must be dealt with.

    Of course, all of these illustrations must be adapted to the fact that the Church is not only an army but a family.

    How does the Church do at keeping ranks in our day?
    Terribly!  Each man doing "what is right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25) and refusing to recognize God-ordained authority keeps us miles even from the practice field.
    The only attempts we make at gathering the Church as one man are all at the expense of the Church's very first principles- particularly honoring the truth.

    Everything begins, though, with me seeing my place among the ranks and being willing to hold that place for my own sake, my neighbors' sakes, the army's sake, and for the honor of my Commander-in-chief.

*  Medics stay a relatively short distance from the front lines.  Soldiers in rank leave fallen comrades to them, or perhaps stay with them until the medic arrives.  
    By another analogy, we might say that we are all medics as well as soldiers and when our neighbor falls, our military duty is to heal and restore him.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
Psalm 27:8  
You have said, "Seek my face."
My heart says to you,
"Your face, LORD, do I seek."


    There are two basic responses to the dissemination of truth in the Christian community.  One response diverts  the truth, the other obtains it.

How to Diffuse Publicly Dispersed Truth

    The response to truth which diverts and deflects it, keeping it from lodging fruitfully in the heart, could be called the diffusion of the truth.  
    In this mode of reception, the listener says, "Everyone else is hearing this too.  Everyone else could be similarly convinced.  But we have been similarly convinced before, and we haven't changed yet.  I don't doubt this truth, but I don't see any reason to go out of my way in appropriating it.  I can wait and see what happens in others' lives."  So the effect of Word is diffused over the Christian populace in general, thereby diminishing its direct impact on me.
    This response, though saying it believes the truth heard, obviously doesn't, because, as James tells us, this response belongs to a "hearer only".  He is waiting to affirm the work of God by what happens in others.  In effect, what he is saying is this:  "If I go out on a limb here, I'll stick out like a sore thumb.  If I sit and wait while everyone else sits and waits, at least none of my fellow procrastinators will deride me."
    Hence, everybody is waiting for somebody else to make the first move.  In the meantime, plenty of other bustle is occurring in less meaningful areas which comfort us that God is afoot and we are seeking Him.

How to Secure Truth
    The response to truth which obtains it, implanting it fruitfully in the heart, can be called the securing of the truth.
    Notice the hinge difference between this response and the unprofitable one.  This response says, "I am likely to let this pass.  I must see to it that it remains with me.  The Lord helping me, I will."

    Ah, so both approaches have a good will towards the truth!  But the fruitful receiver differs in that he is:

 1)  Apprehensive,  confident only in how easily he can 'blow it';
 2)  Myopic (near-sighted),  not considering others' reaction to truth as critical.  He looks only at himself critically, because he is also ...
 3)  the Master's servant,  knowing that God will not be comparing him to others at the judgment seat of Christ.  I  heard it; I'm accountable for it: period.

    Well, then, which receiver are you?
    If you are not the second, you are surely the first.  
    The frightening thing is that we diffuse the truth automatically.  It doesn't take any conscious thought.  We naturally  deflect God's arrows of light, because it is painful to expose our darkness.
    This teaching also goes a long way towards explaining how members of a group become alike.  When God judges a group as a group, He really is judging only guilty parties.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss

 
Hebrews 9:14  
how much more shall the blood of Christ
(who through the eternal Spirit
offered Himself without spot to God)
purge your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God?


The Dual Role of Conscience in Our Response to the Cross

    There are two responses our conscience has towards God in light of the sacrifice of Christ.  One flows from God; the other flows back to God.  Their operations might be illustrated thus:
    To explain the above illustration:
    [From God to us] God provides Christ's sacrifice for us; hence, our conscience is put at rest.  We accept Christ's "It is finished" as a token of God's complete satisfaction in His Son's work, and hence of His complete acceptance of us in Him.
    [From us to God] The same blood of Christ which removes our sin's actual guilt also guarantees the removal of our sin itself.  This process begins in this life and is completed at glorification.  The authority of Christ's blood cancels the dominion of sin over us.  Sin can no longer order us as a master orders a slave; we are under a new master: righteousness.  We are enabled to be blameless.  1 John describes this state as our heart not condemning us.  If our "heart does not condemn us'" (1 Jn. 3:21), our conscience approves of our motives.  We recognize the work of the Spirit bringing our hearts in alignment with God's ways.  This is Christian maturity.  John also describes it as becoming "fathers" of the faith (1 Jn. 2:13, 14).

    The God-to-us operation might be generally seen as our justification.
    The Us-to-God offering might be generally seen as our sanctification.

    We can test our justification by our sanctification.  A cleansed conscience, resting in Christ's sacrifice (justification), will produce good fruit (sanctification).  
    If all our consciences do is legitimately condemn us for transgression and evil motives, we have likely never had our "consciences purged" (Hebrews verse in the box at top).  
    If our whole response to a bad conscience is tell it to be quiet because Christ died for us despite our ongoing wickedness, we have twisted the proper role of conscience.  Our conscience is supposed to inform us when we have done or intended evil.

    Our consciences will continue to condemn us, because we will continue to struggle with sin; but in regular Christian growth, our consciences will also approve of us, because "he who does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous."  Our struggle with sin is supposed to become confined to our motives- our inner lives.  Blamelessness is when our outward behavior- our words and our deeds- do not contain direct transgression of God's requirements.

    When will our conscience not condemn us?  When will we be blameless (not to be confused with sinless)?
    Two things will describe us, or rather two aspects of one thing:
 1)  The desire
 2)  and the continuous, sincere attempt
    to be pleasing to God- clean, righteous, good- in every area, both inward and outward.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv


 
1 Corinthians 12:18  
But as it is,
God arranged the members in the body,
each one of them,
as He chose.


      God puts each Christian in the body of Christ where He desires him to be.  He gives each of us a function that will flow with every other Christian's function.  Of course, without love, no gift or placement of the Spirit will function or interact properly.
    If Christians are members of Christ's body, though, does this imply that without our activity, the world cannot know Him?  This notion is fairly prominent in the Church today.
    One extension of this idea is seen in the exhortation, "You may be the only Christ an unbeliever will ever see."  That is, Christ in us is the only communication of Christ available to the world.
    Are either of these ideas correct?  The first one found expression in a song, "We are His hands; we are His feet ..."  The song challenges the listener to interact with the world, for how can Jesus reach the world otherwise?  But is it true that Christ only makes initial contact with the world through us?

    No, Christ has several much more powerful ways of communicating Himself than by using us.  We can confirm His most powerful testimony by imparting the Scriptures to others.  When we do this, we also add our testimony to that of the Holy Spirit, who authored the Word.  Concerning the "Helper", the Holy Spirit, Jesus said:

 John 16:8   And having come, He will bring demonstration to the world, of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, of sin, because they do not believe on Me ...

    One of the Holy Spirit's large tasks is informing the whole world concerning Christ.  We assist Him when we proclaim Christ, but it is the Holy Spirit's work.

    Another way Christ bears witness of Himself is though Creation:

 Romans 1:20  --for from the world's creation the invisible things of Him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, --so as to render them inexcusable.

    What is the witness of a Christian compared to that?
    We could also add the testimony of man's conscience as a means by which God reports concerning Himself to man.  
    So both the testimony of Christ and Christ Himself are communicated to the world independent of us.

    On the other hand, we are commanded to testify to the world.  Our testimony is added to the other means by which Christ represents Himself.  Our testimony should be in harmony with all the other means of Christ's Self-declaration.  If it is, then we ourselves become a magnification of God's witness, because, imperfect as we are, we are re-made in His image.  Our new natures become a sort of personal megaphone by which we broadcast His Word.

    Reaching out to others?  Is He crippled if we won't be His hands?  No, but we are still commanded to go and be His hands and feet.  
    There will be "could have been's" at the Judgment Seat of Christ- testimony and good works He commanded us which we refused or neglected.  Jesus said that God is honored in a special way when we help others:

 Matthew 5:16   So let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father in Heaven.

    But when we view our part in God's work as the crucial piece, we overestimate ourselves and underestimate God's power and diversity.  We will certainly be frustrated with this view of our place, taking too much on ourselves.  The work of God is better achieved with a properly balanced view.


ssvwv]vwv]vtv]vwv]vwvss



 
Psalm 119:10  
I have sought You with my whole heart;
do not let me wander from Your Commands.



    When the psalmist could say that he had given his whole heart to his quest for God, he only just then felt qualified to ask not to be released to his own impulses.
    Most of us would see it the other way around.  We would think we were not fit to seek God fully until our base impulses had been restrained, or until we were provided some great infusion of spiritual energy.

    The proper approach gives our full effort up front.  Conditions are thrown out the window ("I will seek God as long as ...").  Excuses are thrown out the window.  Initial failures are also thrown out the window.
    "I am going to seek God."  Nothing inconsistent with this can be allowed.
    I will read the Bible first thing daily.  I will pray right after that (or before, or before and after).  I will see incidents during the day where my commitment to God is especially tested.  I will work toward a prayerful awareness of God throughout the day.  I will end the day with an examination of myself in His presence.
    Having done all that, I will have reached a threshold.  I will be standing just inside a door.  I will then be able to beseech God to retain me and restrain me from slipping away and losing everything I have attained.
    This dynamic- that we are only marginally qualified for stability when we have given our all- is really only another way of expressing the fact that our sanctification is ultimately a work of God:

 Philippians 2:12, 13  Therefore, my beloved, as ye have at all times obeyed, not only when I was near to you, but now when I am far from you, prosecute the work of your life, more abundantly, with fear and with trembling.   For God is operating in you, both to purpose, and also to perform that which ye desire.

    Most of us would think we had reached the ultimate earthly attainment to merely say we had managed to seek God will all our hearts.  The proper view is that this is just a prerequisite to casting ourselves upon God for His complete aid.
    Think about it.  Most of our whining to God only betrays the fact that we are only partially committed to Him.  Once we are fully committed, then we are fully exposed to the danger of slipping away.  That's the logical time to seek His preserving grace.


vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv]vzv