Isaiah 53:4
Was God sadistically absent? That’s what Robert McClory, professor emeritus of journalism at the Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, asked after Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area of the US.
We may want to try to exonerate the Almighty for permitting disasters that rip apart vulnerable communities. But is God absent in such situations? No, McClory insists. Talking about the Katrina tragedy, he said that God was invisibly present “with the suffering and the dying. He was in the individuals, communities, churches, and schools that organized aid for the victims and took evacuees into their cities and homes. He was with the hundreds of thousands who showed compassion by prayer and financial assistance.”
So it is in our own lives when a heartbreaking tragedy occurs, such as the death of someone we love. We have no completely satisfactory answer to life’s painful problems. We do know, however, that the Lord is present with us, for He said He would never leave us (Heb. 13:5). Jesus’ name “Immanuel” literally means “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).
Even though suffering baffles our minds, we can trust God to be near and to work out His purposes. The storms of our life prove the strength of our Anchor.
Psalm 130:3
Out of the depths” the psalmist cries to God (Ps. 130:1). His problem surfaces: terrible guilt for things done and undone in the past. “If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (v.3).
But, thankfully, God forgives. He does not keep an account of past sins, no matter how many or how grievous they have been. “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). God’s forgiveness then leads us to fear Him (Ps. 130:4). We worship and adore God, for grace and forgiveness cause us to love Him all the more.
But what happens if we slide back into old sins? What if sin lingers? We are to repent and “wait for the Lord” and be patient while God works (vv.5-6). We are not hopeless cases. We can “hope” in the One who will deliver us in His time.
We now have these two assurances: God’s unfailing love—He will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5). And God’s promise of full redemption in due time—He will redeem us from all our iniquities (Ps. 130:8) and present us before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy (Jude 24).
We’re forgiven! We’re free! With the psalmist, let’s worship the Lord as we await His coming. When we’re forgiven, no record is kept of our failures.
Proverbs 30:25
A bug zoo in Philadelphia with more than 100,000 live insects entertains 75,000 visitors a year. The Insectarium’s founder and proprietor says, “I’ve got a million more bugs still in storage.” He points to boxes, cookie tins, and other containers piled floor-to-ceiling, filled with dead bugs from around the globe. Movies, holograms, microscopes, and games keep people of all ages occupied. There’s even a scale to weigh yourself in ladybugs, fireflies, and other creatures.
In Proverbs 30, a wise man named Agur also showcases insects and other small creatures. He calls them small but very wise.
Look at the ant. He’s weak, but his Creator has taught him to use whatever strength he has to prepare for the future. Consider the locust. He has no king, but when his numbers multiply, God has taught him how to line up and move as one. Look at the spider. He too is a lowly creature, but by using the ability God gives him, he rises to high places.
Do you sometimes feel small and insignificant like an insect? When you do, remember that God showcases His wisdom and greatness through even the smallest things. That’s because His “strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). God’s wisdom is given to those who humbly ask Him for it.
Deuteronomy 6:6
A growing number of people find that wearing a pedometer helps them increase their level of daily exercise. The step-counting device is both a recorder and a motivator for them. Knowing how many steps they take encourages them to walk more.
One woman, whose goal was to take 10,000 steps a day, began parking farther away from her workplace and doing more active tasks around the office. Her awareness of the pedometer helped produce a lifestyle change.
Observable reminders have a place in our walk with Christ as well. When God instructed the Israelites to keep His commands in their hearts, He also told them to make visible reminders of the Word: “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deut. 6:8-9). The purpose was not physical decoration but spiritual deliverance: “Beware, lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage” (v.12).
Words of Scripture on a plaque, a memory card, or a calendar can turn our focus toward the Lord throughout the day. These visible reminders of Christ and His Word will encourage our steps of obedience to Him. Store the Bible in your heart, not on the shelf.
1 Corinthians 9:22
What do teenagers mean when they say they’re “chillaxin”? (They’re chilling and relaxing.) What if they ask for some “cheddar”? (That’s cash.) If a teen likes someone’s new clothes, he might just say, “money,” meaning cool. Teenagers have their own lingo that some of us might not understand, and it seems to be always changing.
Believers in Jesus have their own lingo as well. We use common jargon that nonbelievers may not comprehend. For instance, we use the words grace, saved, and repentance. These are all good words, but as we’re sharing our faith, it might be more helpful to say, “God’s gift of unearned forgiveness” instead of grace. Or “rescued from death and given eternal life” for saved. We could say, “to turn away from wrongs” for repentance.
The apostle Paul was willing to be flexible in his ministry in order to reach as many as possible with the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-23). That might have even included the words he used as he explained the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Explaining our faith in easy-to-understand terms may help someone to grasp the meaning of being born again—transformed by Jesus’ love and forgiveness. If we have God’s Word in our mind, He can put the right words in our mouth.
1 Peter 5:7
On May 24, 1883, New Yorkers celebrated the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge, the first steel-wire suspension bridge. This engineering feat, however, was not accomplished without sacrifice. To lay the bridge’s giant foundations in the water, huge watertight chambers called “caissons” had to be used. Men would work in them for 8 hours while under tremendous air pressure.
Returning to normal atmospheric pressure resulted in terrible symptoms later known as caisson disease. It was discovered that a rapid decrease in air pressure releases tiny nitrogen bubbles in the blood. This cuts off the oxygen supply, resulting in nausea, achy joints, paralysis, and even death. Today, scientists know that the use of a decompression chamber allows a gradual reduction of pressure, which prevents the nitrogen bubbles from forming.
Similarly, we need a place to reduce the pressures of life. God has provided a way to “spiritually decompress.” A personal devotional time can be a place where burdens are lifted (Mark 1:35-39). There we can cast all our care upon Him (1 Peter 5:7). By focusing on God’s sufficiency we can experience His peace (Isa. 26:3). Do you have a place of spiritual decompression? Those who wait on the Lord shall renew their strength. —Isaiah 40:31
Who Were the Nicolaitans?
Revelation has many strange symbols and images, but there are also unusual names. In Revelation 2:6, 15, the unfamiliar name blocks understanding. Here in two verses in letters written to two different churches (Ephesus and Pergamum) we discover the Nicolaitans. Presumably the author believed that the readers of the letters would know who they were, but we are not in their position. What were their practices, and why would God hate them?
The earliest identification of the Nicolaitans, found in the church fathers, was as followers of Nicolas of Antioch, a proselyte to Judaism, who was one of the Seven (Acts 6:5). Unfortunately, none of the writers seems to know much about the heresy, and one, in fact, argues that Nicolas himself was orthodox but had been misunderstood. While it is possible that some of this information is accurate (there have been Spirit-filled church leaders who have lapsed into heresy), this looks like an attempt to find some name in Scripture to use to identify this sect. Nicolas may have simply had the misfortune of bearing the wrong name. Still, even if the Nicolas of Acts had nothing to do with the movement, it is probable that some Nicolas was the leader of the group (after all, Nicolas was a reasonably common name).
A second identification common in some theological circles is to look at the Greek etymology of "Nicolaitan" (nikan and laos meaning respectively "conquer" and "people") and argue that this was a group that suppressed the laity in favor of the developing clergy. However, this explanation is determined more by modern concepts of clergy and laity than by any first-century information, for such terminology (such as the use of laos for only a section of the church) was unknown this early. Etymology is a notoriously dangerous way to discover the meaning of a term. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text to support this meaning.
The clue to the real meaning of this term is found in the identification of the Nicolaitans with "the teaching of Balaam" in Revelation 2:14-15. Not only is it possible that "Nikolaitan" is a Greek form of "Balaam" (as understood by the rabbis), but, more important, this interpretation fits both the text and the first-century situation.
John identifies the teaching of Balaam with two problems: "eating food sacrificed to idols" and "sexual immorality." The early church constantly struggled with compromises with paganism, as we see in Paul's long discussion in 1 Corinthians 8--10, as well as in the conclusions reached in Acts 15:20, 29. Both of these center on food offered to idols, Paul's conclusion being that one could eat such food if purchased in the marketplace, but one should not go to a meal in a pagan temple. Following this Pauline rule, however, would cut one off from membership in trade guilds, patriotic celebrations (including ceremonies honoring the emperor, considered essential to good citizenship, although not taken seriously by the upper classes as religious events) and many family celebrations. We can easily see the pressure to rationalize and thereby develop a compromise.
The issue of sexual immorality is more difficult, for it is also mentioned in Revelation 2:20, 22, in the case of Jezebel (an Old Testament code word for a New Testament woman leader of the church in Thyatira, indicating her spirit and God's evaluation, rather than the woman's actual name). On the one hand, sexual immorality was a problem in the early church, as Paul's discussions show (1 Cor 5:1; 6:12-20; compare Heb 13:4). In the middle of a pagan society that accepted the use of prostitutes (although wives were expected to remain faithful), it was difficult to remain obedient on this point and relatively easy to compromise. On the other hand, "sexual immorality" was used in the Old Testament for involvement with pagan deities. For example, the Old Testament Jezebel was not to our knowledge physically immoral--she was likely faithful to Ahab all her life--but she did lead Israel into Baal worship. Since Israel was God's "bride," such involvement with other gods was called "adultery" or "sexual immorality."
Furthermore, the line between the two meanings of "immorality" was difficult to draw. Sexual immorality was involved in the Peor incident (connected to Balaam, Num 25:1-18), but the biggest issue was that the women were Moabites or Midianites, pagan women, and they led the men to eat feasts associated with their gods and then to worship the gods themselves. In other words, the sexual immorality was wrong because it was associated with the worship of other gods, a commonplace in the pagan world in which many temples had prostitutes in them through whom a man could become "joined" to the god.
If, then, John is taking the Old Testament examples as the basis for his discussion, the sexual immorality is figurative, standing for their worship of other deities, which was implied in their attending feasts in idol temples. If, on the other hand, he is using the Old Testament examples loosely, he may be indicating two related problems, attending feasts in idol temples and engaging in extramarital sexual intercourse, probably with prostitutes. The difference between the two explanations is narrow. Both types of problems are condemned elsewhere in the New Testament, however one may interpret this particular passage.
The Nicolaitans, then, appear to be a group that corrupted God's people by suggesting compromise with the culture of the day. Rather than worship God and him alone, they suggested that it was appropriate to engage in patriotic ceremonies (such as feasts associated with the worship of the emperor) and other cultural institutions (for example, trade guilds, something like our modern unions or professional associations, and their worship). It is possible that either as part of these ceremonies or as a separate area of compromise they also permitted the use of prostitutes (perhaps as an accepted part of the "business ethic" of their day). Jesus (who is speaking through John) was not impressed. In fact, he threatened judgment on the church.
While the exact issues are different, similar compromises face the church today. Each society has its own "idols" that it expects all its citizens to worship, whether those idols be the government itself or some values or practices of the society. These "idols" are the places at which the values of the society conflict with total allegiance to Christ. Furthermore, the Nicolaitans are still with us under a variety of names, for there are always people who in the name of being "realistic" or under any number of other theological justifications counsel compromise with the dominant culture. This passage warns us that Jesus will not "buy" these justifications. He demands nothing less than total loyalty to his own person and directions. Anything less than this will put those who compromise in danger of his judgment.
Galatians 5:17
My doctor noticed a small spot on my skin—one that he thought needed some attention. It was a tiny problem that had to be treated so it would not grow into something worse. I hadn’t known it was a problem until he pointed it out.
He prescribed a special cream that, when applied, helped the good cells in my body to come to that spot and fight off the bad ones. In other words, the medication started a little battle between the diseased cells and the good ones.
There’s a similar battle going on inside each of us as believers. It goes like this: Sinful thoughts dwell within us. They need to be treated by the Holy Spirit, who helps us to fight off the bad ideas that are fed by our flesh. The flesh introduces things such as immoral thoughts, impurity, discord, hatred, and jealousy (Gal. 5:19-20). But if we call on the Holy Spirit to come to our rescue, He combats those ideas with the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (vv.22-23).
Are you taking the treatment that calls on the Holy Spirit to fight against the flesh? That’s how we win the battle within. God’s Spirit knows no defeat.
Psalm 116:15
What is the meaning of Psalm 116:15, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints”? God certainly doesn’t value or find enjoyment in the death of His children! If He did, why would the psalmist praise God for delivering him from death? And why did Jesus groan and weep as He saw the grief at Lazarus’ tomb? (John 11:33-35). I agree with scholars who render Psalm 116:15, “Costly in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”
In this world, unless you are a celebrity, your passing will soon be forgotten by all but a small circle of relatives and friends. But Jesus showed us that God shares the sorrow and pain of the bereaved, and that the death of the humblest believer causes His heart great pain.
This thought came to me recently at the funeral of my brother Tunis. His family and his pastor extolled his compassion, kindness, and generosity. Afterward, people who knew him as a businessman spoke well of him. Though his name was just one of many in the newspaper obituaries, his death was a matter of great loss to us who knew and loved him. And it is comforting to know that God did not take his passing without feeling our pain. In fact, I believe He wept with us. God shares in our sorrow.
Ezra 10:2-3: Let Us Send Away All These Women and Their Children!
The marriage problems in Ezra 9--10 began in this way. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 B.C. ), Ezra led a second group of Jewish exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, only to learn that a serious problem existed in the community that had developed under Zerubbabel. Influenced by leaders of this new community, the priests and Levites, along with others in Jerusalem, had intermarried with the pagan population they had found living in the land. When Ezra learned this, he ripped his garments and pulled out his hair in horror and grief. He was dumbfounded as to what to do.
At the evening sacrifice, Ezra fell on his knees in prayer before God, confessing his shame and guilt on behalf of his nation. As he prayed, others joined him in weeping and prayer. Suddenly, Shecaniah, one of the sons of Elam, proposed a solution: the people would acknowledge their sin and make a covenant with God that all pagan wives be put away. Ezra apparently agreed that this was the mind of the Lord, and so an announcement was made that in three days the putting away would take place.
On that third day, the people stood in the rain as Ezra intoned these words: "You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives" (Ezra 10:10-11).
Now according to the list in Ezra 10, only 113 had taken foreign wives (17 priests, 6 Levites, 1 singer, 3 porters and 86 laity). Since the total number of families was something like 29,000, the size of the problem shrinks under closer scrutiny to about 0.4 percent. Nevertheless, the issue was not size but the severing of Israel's marriage covenant with God, which forbade God's people marrying persons outside the covenant.
Even before Israel had entered into the land, they had been warned not to intermarry with the inhabitants (Ex 34:11-16; Deut 7:1-5). Such intermarriage would inevitably result in idolatry. Though there were many intermarriages throughout Israel's history, apparently many of these involved proselytes. The outstanding examples, of course, are Ruth, Rahab and Moses' Cushite wife. But many others cannot be explained as converts; they often appear to be tolerated and left in the midst of God's people. Ultimately, this was one of the factors that led to God's judgment and the Babylonian captivity.
What did Ezra do with these wives? The word translated "to send away" or "to cause to go out" in Ezra 10:3 is not the usual word for divorce. Nevertheless, that is what appears to have happened. Even more surprising, their solution is said to agree with the law!
Divorce was permitted under certain circumstances in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Could it be that Ezra unlocked the meaning of that mysterious phrase "for something unseemly, shameful" or, as the NIV translates it, "he finds something indecent about her"? This could not refer to adultery, as the law provided the death penalty in that case (Deut 22:22). Thus it had to be something else that brought shame on God's people. What could bring greater shame than the breaking of the covenant relationship and the ultimate judgment of God on all the people? Perhaps Ezra had this passage in mind when he provided for the divorce of these unbelieving wives.
There are many questions that remain. Were the ostracized children and wives provided for? Were any attempts made to win them to faith in the one true God? No direct answers are given to these and similar questions, perhaps because these matters were not germane to the main point of revelation.
Those attempting to show that Ezra rendered a questionable decision say he lost his prestige and influence in the community as a result of this decision. However, when the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah is restored to its proper sequence, according to the textual claims and the most recent historical studies, Ezra was once again before the public during the revival of Nehemiah recorded in Nehemiah 8.
Are we left then with an argument for divorcing unbelieving spouses today? No! In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 says that if the unbeliever is willing to continue living with the believer, then they must not divorce, for the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believer! However, should the unbeliever finally and irremediably desert the believer, the believer "is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace" (1 Cor 7:15). The object is to win the unbelieving spouse to Christ. But when an unbeliever chooses to desert his or her partner and marriage vows, then reluctantly the believer may let that one go, that is, sadly accept the divorce, with the right to be married to another.
1 Peter 3:8-9
How do we react to hostile criticism? If it causes us to strike back angrily at our critics, we need to learn from colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758).
Regarded by scholars as an insightful philosopher, Edwards was vindictively attacked by the ruling body of his church in Northampton, Massachusetts. They felt he was wrong to teach that a person needed to be born again before taking part in the Lord’s Supper.
Although he was dismissed from his church, Edwards still maintained a loving and forgiving attitude. One supportive member wrote of him, “I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance . . . , but he appeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of the reach of his enemies.”
Edwards was simply copying the example of the Lord Jesus. When the Savior was insulted, He did not repay with an insult. When He was falsely denounced, He remained silent, “as a sheep before its shearers is silent” (Isa. 53:7).
Do you have an inner peace even when criticized? As you ask the Holy Spirit for His help, you can, as Edwards did, respond in a Christlike way to false accusations or gossip. The worst criticism of you can bring out the best in you.
1 Peter 3:8-9
How do we react to hostile criticism? If it causes us to strike back angrily at our critics, we need to learn from colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758).
Regarded by scholars as an insightful philosopher, Edwards was vindictively attacked by the ruling body of his church in Northampton, Massachusetts. They felt he was wrong to teach that a person needed to be born again before taking part in the Lord’s Supper.
Although he was dismissed from his church, Edwards still maintained a loving and forgiving attitude. One supportive member wrote of him, “I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance . . . , but he appeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of the reach of his enemies.”
Edwards was simply copying the example of the Lord Jesus. When the Savior was insulted, He did not repay with an insult. When He was falsely denounced, He remained silent, “as a sheep before its shearers is silent” (Isa. 53:7).
Do you have an inner peace even when criticized? As you ask the Holy Spirit for His help, you can, as Edwards did, respond in a Christlike way to false accusations or gossip. The worst criticism of you can bring out the best in you.
Matthew 11:28
After a long journey from Hong Kong, which involved a 7-hour layover compounded by a 3-hour delay, we arrived in Chicago. We missed the last flight to Grand Rapids, our destination, by just 20 minutes. The airline arranged hotel rooms for us, and we took a shuttle for a short night’s rest. We must have been a pretty sorry sight to the hotel staff. One of them looked at us, shook his head, and simply said, “Distressed travelers.” Perhaps in the travel industry that is a common term, but it was new to me. And it felt appropriate after 2 hard days of travel.
That experience was, for me, something of a metaphor for life. We are pilgrims in this world, traveling to a heavenly home that will be beyond description. Along the way, however, the cares and burdens of the journey can rob us of our hope and joy. We become distressed travelers in desperate need of encouragement and refreshment. The Lord calls to weary pilgrims like us, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Only He can give us rest for our souls to strengthen us for the road ahead.
Are you distressed in your journey? Lean on Him! His love and care are there to restore your heart. As you travel life’s weary road, let Jesus lift your heavy load.
1 Corinthians 3:14
I like to read, and I enjoy buying books. But I don’t like it when publishers refer to me as a “consumer.” The word consume can mean “do away with completely” or “spend wastefully.” It brings to mind forest fires that devour acre after acre of vegetation, leaving behind only scorched remnants of trees and homes. When we read books, we don’t consume them in that sense, for they don’t cease to exist after we’ve used them. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They become a part of us; they change us.
This is especially true of the Bible. When the words of Scripture remain in us, they keep us from taking the destructive way of sin (Ps. 119:11). Jesus said that when His words abide in us, we will bear much fruit (John 15:5-8). In other words, we will be creators, not consumers; givers, not takers.
The apostle Paul referred to Christians as “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor. 3:9), who are to build things that cannot be consumed in the fire of God’s judgment of their works (vv.13-15). Later he urged readers to excel in gifts that build up the church (14:12).
As Christians, let’s be known not for the goods we consume but for the good fruit we produce. A selfless life reaps an eternal harvest.
A Prophecy of Christ?
Well, the originally the 1611 edition of the KJV of the Bible rendered it this way:
Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuven weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall euen in troublous times. And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood. (Dan 9:25-26)
The reason the 1611 edition put "Messiah the Prince" (Hebrew: mas ah nag d) at the end of the "seven sevens" was because the Hebrew text has an athnach at the end of this clause, which sometimes indicates a break in the thought. But neither a comma nor an athnach is sufficient in and of itself to require the conclusion that Daniel intended a break in thought at this point and a radical separation of the seven sevens from the sixty-two sevens, thus making two appearances of Messiah, one at the end of 49 years and the other at the end of 434 years. Of course there is always the possibility that the sixth-century Jewish scholars, the Masoretes, who supplied the vowel points to the original consonantal text as well as the accents that serve as a form of punctuation at times, were in error. But if the Masoretic athnach be retained, it may serve not to indicate a principal division of the text, as the 1611 edition of the KJV took it (which translation was in vogue up until 1885), but to indicate that one was not to confuse or to absorb the seven sevens into the sixty-two sevens. The point is that a violent separation of the two periods with a projection of two Messiahs is out of harmony with the context. Therefore, we contend that only one Anointed One is being addressed in this passage.
But what led Daniel to start talking about groups of sevens anyway? Daniel had been having devotions in the recent writings of Jeremiah (Dan 9:2) when he realized that Jeremiah's predicted seventy years of captivity in Babylon had almost expired. Thus it happened that while he was praying, confessing his sin and the sin of his people, God answered his inquiry as to what was going to happen in the future. There would be an additional seventy sevens for Daniel's people and for the holy city in order to do six things: (1) "to finish transgression," (2) "to put an end to sin," (3) "to atone for wickedness," (4) "to bring in everlasting righteousness," (5) "to seal up vision and prophecy" and (6) "to anoint the most holy [place?]" (Dan 9:24). That would embrace everything from Daniel's day up to the introduction of the eternal state. What an omnibus plan!
But first the seventy sevens must take place. Now the Hebrew people were accustomed to reckoning time in terms of sevens, for the whole sabbatical cycle was laid out that way; accordingly, to equate the "sevens" with years was not a major problem for Jewish listeners. But these seventy sevens were divided up into three segments: (1) the first seven sevens were for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which was consummated forty-nine years after the decree to rebuild the city was announced; (2) sixty-two additional sevens bring us to the time when Messiah the Prince will come; and (3) a remaining seven concludes the full seventy sevens as they were given to Daniel.
While the first two segments appear to be continuous, making up the first sixty-nine (7 62 69), Daniel 9:26 describes a gap after the first sixty-nine sevens. In this gap, Messiah will "be cut off," a reference to the death of Messiah around A.D. 30, and the city and sanctuary of Jerusalem will be destroyed, a prediction of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Given the forty-year spread between these two events, it is enough to indicate that the final seven in the seventy will not come in sequence with the other sixty-nine.
When was this "decree" or "word" to restore and rebuild Jerusalem issued? This constituted the terminus a quo, or the beginning point for this prophecy. One of three points has been variously adopted by interpreters for this terminus a quo, with a slight edge going to the third one. First, the decree was the one Cyrus issued in 538/37 B.C. (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5). Second, the decree was the one Artaxerxes announced in 458 B.C. , when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:11-26). Third, it was the decree that the same Artaxerxes proclaimed in 445 B.C. , when Nehemiah returned. Since it was Nehemiah who rebuilt the walls, while Cyrus's decree focused on rebuilding the temple and Ezra focused on reestablishing proper services at the temple, 445 B.C. is favored as the terminus a quo.
The terminus ad quem (ending point) of the first sixty-nine sevens is usually put during the life of the Messiah; some preferring his birth (5/4 B.C. ), others the beginning of his ministry at his baptism ( A.D. 26/27) and some his triumphal entry into Jerusalem ( A.D. 30).
So is this prophecy accurate in what it said about the coming Messiah, given in the sixth century B.C. to Daniel? Yes it was. It correctly said that Messiah the Prince would come and that he would die. Some have argued that it was possible to give the exact date for the announcement of Messiah's kingdom by supposing that a "prophetic year" consists of 360 days (instead of 365 days of the solar year). This is based on the fact that during Noah's flood, the 150 days equaled five months. There is no need, however, to make such an extrapolation. It is enough to know that there are some 483 years (69 7 = 483 years) from 445 B.C. to A.D. 30-33, when Christ was crucified.
1 Thessalonians 3:12
What makes a church successful? A big turnout on Sunday morning? A multimillion-dollar budget? A state-of-the-art building?
We all know those things aren’t the criteria that define a successful church. Whether your church has stadium-size crowds or just a few in attendance, numbers are not the measure God uses for success. He looks at the heart of the church.
The apostle Paul planted an important church in Thessalonica, the capital city of Macedonia. He showed his desire for the church members there when he wrote: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all . . . , so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness” (1 Thess. 3:12-13). With these words, Paul showed us two characteristics that are vital for a successful body of believers—love for one another and holiness.
Congregations, church buildings, and budgets come in different sizes. The true measure of success is demonstrated by followers of Christ who love God and each other, and are committed to living holy lives. Our challenge can be found in the words of the prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (6:8). A small church with a big vision has greater impact than a big church with a small vision.
Jeremiah 8:7
It’s not often that police must break up a brawl between a bear and a tree. The fight began with a playful insult and an accidental bump. Suddenly the bear talked! Then the tree talked back! Soon a guy in a bear suit was mixing it up with someone dressed as a tree. Police had to pull the two apart. The two mascots for Stanford and University of California had stopped entertaining and started fighting.
Bears and trees weren’t made to fight. Neither were we. Yet, throughout history people who were created to love and serve each other have often added insult to injury.
The amazing thing, according to the prophet Jeremiah, is that even those who know God’s law can hurt one another without regret. “No man repented of his wickedness,” he reported (8:6). “They were not at all ashamed” (v.12). Jeremiah also expressed God’s astonishment that even creatures of the wild reflect more wisdom than those who say “peace, peace” while doing harm (vv.7,11).
The One who designed birds to migrate at His command (v.7) does not merely call attention to our wrongs. He offers to fill our emptiness with the fullness of Himself. The alternatives are good: grace for bitterness, wisdom for foolishness, peace for conflict. Repentance not only says “I’m sorry,” it also says “I turn from my sin.”
Jeremiah 8:7
It’s not often that police must break up a brawl between a bear and a tree. The fight began with a playful insult and an accidental bump. Suddenly the bear talked! Then the tree talked back! Soon a guy in a bear suit was mixing it up with someone dressed as a tree. Police had to pull the two apart. The two mascots for Stanford and University of California had stopped entertaining and started fighting.
Bears and trees weren’t made to fight. Neither were we. Yet, throughout history people who were created to love and serve each other have often added insult to injury.
The amazing thing, according to the prophet Jeremiah, is that even those who know God’s law can hurt one another without regret. “No man repented of his wickedness,” he reported (8:6). “They were not at all ashamed” (v.12). Jeremiah also expressed God’s astonishment that even creatures of the wild reflect more wisdom than those who say “peace, peace” while doing harm (vv.7,11).
The One who designed birds to migrate at His command (v.7) does not merely call attention to our wrongs. He offers to fill our emptiness with the fullness of Himself. The alternatives are good: grace for bitterness, wisdom for foolishness, peace for conflict. Repentance not only says “I’m sorry,” it also says “I turn from my sin.”
Romans 16:1-2
When a special delivery letter is handed to us at the door, it usually means we are receiving something very important. According to many Bible scholars, Phoebe was the one who hand-delivered a letter of immeasurable value to the church in Rome—Paul’s inspired doctrinal masterpiece. It points out how a lost and sinful humanity can find redemption through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Phoebe, whose name means “bright and radiant,” lived in Cenchrea, a harbor village in eastern Corinth where Paul had stopped during his third missionary journey. Because of her kindness to him, he wrote to the Romans, “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may . . . assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also” (16:1-2). Phoebe had assisted others in getting out the Word of God.
All of us are “spiritual mail carriers.” We have the good news that Paul wrote about so many centuries ago. And like Phoebe, we should assist in delivering it by word and deed to people around us who need its life-giving message. We serve God by sharing His Word with others.
Philippians 1:3
On a cold, dreary November day, I attended the funeral of a friend. During the eulogy, the widow began to sob loudly. At that point, the pastor spoke odd words meant to comfort: “That’s okay. Someday you’ll be able to forget.”
Able to forget? The widow’s expression made it clear that she had no desire to forget. Cherished memories of her husband provided a comfort and joy she intended to cling to, anticipating a heavenly reunion someday.
One of the most precious gifts God has given us is the ability to remember. There are plenty of hurts and disappointments in life that we should forget. But good memories become a treasure chest of priceless reminders of relationships shared and joys experienced.
Paul felt that way about his time spent with the church in Philippi: “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you” (Phil. 1:3). His ability to remember his friends in Philippi brought him great comfort as he awaited trial in Rome, prompting him to joyfully pray for them. You could never have convinced him that comfort was found in being able to forget, because he rejoiced in being able to remember.
God gives us cherished memories. Cling to them when sorrows come. Never let today’s burden erase yesterday’s blessing.
2 Kings 23:3
In May of 2001, English evangelist J. John spoke in Liverpool, England, on the eighth commandment: “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19). The results of his preaching were dramatic.
People’s hearts were changed. One author reports that large amounts of stolen goods were returned, including hotel towels, hospital crutches, library books, cash, and more. One man, who is now in the ministry, even returned towels he had taken from the Wimbledon tennis championships years ago when he worked there.
Something similar happened with King Josiah in the 18th year of his reign. Because of the long line of evil kings, the record of God’s laws had been lost. So when Hilkiah found God’s law and Shaphan read it to King Josiah, the king tore his clothes in grief and immediately began making religious reforms in his own life and throughout the nation. With just one reading of God’s Word, he changed the course of the nation (2 Kings 22:8–23:25).
Today, many of us own Bibles, but are we changed by the truths found there? We are called to read, hear, and obey His Word. It should cause us, like Josiah, to take immediate action to bring our lives into harmony with God’s desires. Open your Bible prayerfully; read it carefully; obey it joyfully.
Hebrews 11:8
During a baseball game in the summer of 2006, Boston Red Sox centerfielder Coco Crisp made a spectacular play. David Wright of the New York Mets hit a ball toward left centerfield. The ball was moving away from Crisp as he raced after it. Just as it began to fall to the ground, Crisp dove headlong toward it. With his body flying through the air, he stretched his gloved hand as far as possible—and caught the ball. Some called it the best catch they had ever seen.
What were his thoughts as the ball sliced through the air? Crisp said, “I didn’t think I could get there. I decided to go for it. I took a leap of faith.”
In Hebrews 11, we read of what Abraham discovered “by faith.” God called him to leave his country and family and go “to a land that I will show you” (Gen. 12:1). By faith, Abraham obeyed.
Is God calling you to do something difficult? Perhaps to take a missions trip to help people in need. Or to witness to someone throwing her life away with bad decisions. Or to show kindness and love in a relationship that needs encouragement. If you aren’t sure you can do it, ask God to help you. Then, trusting your loving heavenly Father, dive toward that goal. It could be the best play of your life. When God presents you with a challenge, take a leap of faith.
Colossians 3:13
When Bill Husted walked into his 40th high school reunion, he shook hands and hugged people for 20 minutes before realizing there were two high school reunions in the building that day and he was at the wrong one.
Husted, a technology writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, used that experience to illustrate one of his enduring axioms of computer troubleshooting: Check the obvious first. Before you replace the sound card, make sure the volume control is not turned down. If the modem isn’t working, check to see if it’s connected.
“Check the obvious first” can be a good principle for spiritual troubleshooting as well. Colossians 3:12-17 lists a dozen spiritual qualities that indicate a healthy soul. Prominent among them are compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, love, and thankfulness.
Before criticizing our church or other Christian groups, we might ask the Lord to reveal our own shortcomings. Prior to ripping out the wires of relationships, we could check to see if patience and forgiveness are connected in our own heart.
It’s good to look inside our heart—to check the obvious first—even when it feels as if all our problems are caused by others.Christlike love is patient with the faults of others.
What Happened on the Threshing Floor?
Some commentators on this text have suggested that Ruth's bold move that night on the threshing floor went beyond the normal boundaries of propriety and included sexual relations with Boaz. Their argument is that harvest time the world over is a time of celebration of the rites of fertility. At these times the ancients allowed themselves more license than usual. During this harvest celebration, then, after Boaz had imbibed enough wine to make himself drunk, Ruth approached him in order to force him into marriage.
Others have interpreted Boaz's "feet" as a sexual euphemism for the male reproductive organ. If this were the meaning, then the story would be making a discreet reference to fleshly indulgence.
But these suggestions are unnecessary; it seems that the author chose his words carefully so as to avoid any possible innuendo.
To begin with, it is extremely unlikely that Boaz was drunk after the good meal he had eaten. The text simply says that he "was in good spirits." His mood was mellow, and his demeanor was upbeat. And why not? He had the results of all his hard labor right there on the threshing floor with him. But his feasting brought on drowsiness, so he retired to one side of the pile of grain that had been threshed. It is doubtful that he would have guarded this pile of grain by himself, that there would have been no other workers present who would awaken at the crack of dawn to get back to work alongside him.
Later, after Boaz had fallen asleep, Ruth went and carefully uncovered his feet and apparently crawled under his cover, lying perpendicular to his feet. There are no sexual overtones in the reference to his feet, for Boaz was startled at midnight when his feet suddenly touched the woman's body.
Ruth immediately made her objective clear when she requested, "Spread the corner of your garment over me." She was using the accepted idiom meaning "Marry me"--other passages in which the same expression is used are Ezekiel 16:8, Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20, and Malachi 2:16. No doubt the idiom reflected the custom, still practiced by some Arabs, of a man's throwing a garment over the woman he has decided to take as his wife. The gesture is a symbol of protection as well as a declaration that the man is willing to enter into sexual consummation with his chosen partner.
Boaz had prayed in Ruth 2:12 that Ruth might be rewarded by the Lord under whose wings she had taken refuge. Ruth now essentially asked Boaz to answer his own prayer, for "garmentcover" and "wing" are from a similar root in Hebrew.
Ruth's reason for this action is expressed in her appeal to Boaz as a "kinsman-redeemer." That is a legal status. Under Jewish law, then, her request was not particularly unusual.
That Boaz handled himself honorably can be seen in his revelation that there was someone who actually had prior claim over Ruth and her inheritance, since he was a closer relative. However, if he should prove unwilling to take responsibility in the matter (and he was), then Boaz would marry Ruth.
Remarkably, Ruth seems willing to marry even this other relative sight unseen, again subordinating her own happiness to her duty of raising up an heir to her deceased husband and to Naomi. In doing so she demonstrates again why this book singles her out as a most worthy example of what Proverbs 31 refers to as a "virtuous woman" or a person "of noble character."
The charges against Ruth and Boaz are false and without foundation. While the couple's encounter did occur in the context of darkness and sleep, the text does not present their behavior as morally questionable or even particularly abnormal within the social and moral conventions of the godly remnant of those days.
Romans 12:11
Modern furnaces have taken the work out of keeping warm in cold climates. We simply set the timer on the thermostat, and the house is warm when we get up in the morning. But in former days, fire was carefully tended and fuel supplies were closely monitored. Running out could be deadly.
The same is true spiritually. If we think our “spiritual fire” can be ignited as easily as a modern furnace, we risk losing our fervor for the Lord.
In ancient Israel, the priests were instructed not to let the fire on the altar go out (Lev. 6:9,12-13). This required a lot of work, not the least of which was collecting firewood in a land not known for its dense forests.
Some scholars see the fire on the altar as a symbol for the flame of our devotion for the Lord. Spiritual passion is not something to be treated lightly or taken for granted. It will grow cold if we fail to keep it supplied with fuel.
The apostle Paul addressed the subject of spiritual fervor in his letter to the Romans (12:1-2,11). To keep the fire of our devotion burning strong, we must continue the hard work of stocking our fuel supply with hope, patience, steadfast prayer, generosity, hospitality, and humility (vv.11-16). Our love for Jesus is the key to spiritual passion.
Ecclesiastes 1:1: Is "the Teacher" Solomon?
Even though the heading for this book of Ecclesiastes does not name the author of this book, can we assume from the fact that he is the "son of David" and a "king in Jerusalem" that he is Solomon? Or is there a certain genre of writing that allows for such attributions without intending them to be taken literally?
The main speaker in this book of Ecclesiastes is called qohelet, meaning "teacher" or "preacher," a feminine participle from a verbal root meaning "to assemble." But at that point the agreement ceases.
The well-known conservative scholar of the nineteenth century, Franz Delitzsch, declared in a much-quoted opinion, "If the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history to the Hebrew language." However, Fredericks devoted a careful inspection of all the linguistic arguments for dating the book late and concluded that they were unpersuasive. The other approach to show that the book is late is to try to show affinities in thought between Hellenistic thought and Ecclesiastes. This would mean that the book originated in the Greek period, but this method also has been beset by problems. These so-called affinities can be shown to be just as easily related to far earlier thought and literary forms than the late Greek period.
So this leaves us with deciding if indeed the text could have come from Solomon. Evangelical scholars such as Moses Stuart, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Young and Kidner have all challenged the view that Solomon wrote the book. But much of that was on the strength of the allegedly late language and concepts. Now that that obstacle has fallen, at least since Fredericks's study in 1988, it is worth looking at the idea of Solomonic authorship one more time.
The only immediate son of David who was also king over Israel in Jerusalem would be Solomon. But against his authorship it is argued that in Ecclesiastes 1:12 the king is represented as saying, "I . . . was king over Israel in Jerusa-lem." But far from declaring that he was no longer king, Solomon is saying "I have been king," for the action of the Hebrew verb begins in the past and continues up to the present. The argument shifts to Ecclesiastes 1:16, where the writer compares himself advantageously to "anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me." Since David was the only Hebrew ruler to precede him in Jerusalem, the words hardly seem appropriate in Solomon's mouth. The reference could very well be to the line of Canaanite kings who preceded Solomon in Jerusalem, such as Melchizedek (Gen 14:18) and Adonizedek (Josh 10:1).
But the most convincing telltale signs that Solomon is "the Teacher" are the allusions to circumstances that fit only Solomon's life and experience: (1) his unrivaled wisdom (Eccles 1:16; compare 1 Kings 3:12); (2) his unsurpassed wealth (Eccles 2:4-10, compare 1 Kings 7:1-8); (3) his huge retinue of servants (Eccles 2:7-8, compare 1 Kings 9:17-19); (4) "there is no man that does not sin" (Eccles 7:20, compare 1 Kings 8:46); (5) not a god-fearing woman in a thousand (Eccles 7:28, compare 1 Kings 11:1-8); and (6) his weighing, studying and arranging proverbs (Eccles 12:9, compare 1 Kings 4:32). This forms a very convincing case that Solomon is "the Teacher."
Proverbs 3:25
All of us have had bad dreams. Perhaps we were falling from a high building, fleeing from a hideous creature, or standing before an audience and forgetting our speech.
My wife had a nightmare recently. She dreamed she was in a small room when two men appeared out of the mist. Fear overwhelmed her. Just as the men were about to grab her, she said, “Let me tell you about Jesus.” Immediately she was awakened by the sound of her own voice. The name Jesus had freed her from fear.
We read in John 6 that Jesus’ disciples were afraid when in the dimness of nightfall they saw a strange figure walking on the stormy sea of Galilee. But the mysterious figure was not part of a bad dream—He was real. Matthew reports that they “cried out for fear” (14:26). Then the disciples heard a familiar voice: “It is I; do not be afraid” (John 6:20). It was Jesus. Their fears were calmed, as well as the sea.
The Savior speaks the same assurance to us today amid the many fears along our Christian journey. Solomon said, “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe” (Prov. 18:10).
Fears will come, but we are assured that Jesus is always a light in the darkness. You need not fear the darkness if you are walking with the Light of the World.
Malachi 2:16: God Hates Divorce
In all Scripture, Malachi 2:16 is at once one of the most succinct and most contested statements on the permanence of marriage. The difficulty comes, in part, from the Hebrew text, which some have pronounced the most obscure in the Old Testament. Further problems come from trying to fathom the Old Testament's position on marriage and divorce. Many have (wrongly) assumed that Malachi voiced an opinion that contradicts earlier statements in Scripture.
The section opens with a double question that amounts to a double premise: (1) all Israel has one Father--God, and (2) God created that nation (Mal 2:10). Sadly, however, the population was dealing treacherously with each other and thereby profaning the covenant God had made with their fathers. Malachi 2:10-16 discusses Israel's disloyalty to their national family (Mal 2:10), spiritual family (Mal 2:11-12) and marriage partners (Mal 2:13-16), evidenced by spiritual harlotry, mixed marriages with unbelieving partners, adultery and, finally, divorce.
In Malachi 2:11-12, Israelites are charged with unashamedly marrying women who worshiped other gods. Such religiously mixed marriages flew right in the face of warnings to the contrary (Ex 34:12-16; Num 25:1-3; Deut 7:3-4; 1 Kings 11:1-13). But there were more accusations: "Another thing you do" (Mal 2:13). They had caused the Lord's altar to be flooded with such tears and mourning that the Lord refused to accept further sacrifices. The tears resulted from broken marriage vows to which the Lord was a party, being a witness at every wedding. Put very simply, God said, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16).
Two key words dominate this text: the word one (which occurs four times in Mal 2:10, 15) and the word breaking/broken faith (which appears five times in Mal 2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16).
The identity of the "one" in Malachi 2:10 is not "Abraham, your father" (Is 51:2), as Jerome and Calvin thought, or the patriarch Jacob, whom Malachi did mention elsewhere very frequently (Mal 1:2; 2:12; 3:6). Instead, it is God, who created Israel (Is 43:1). Thus those who have the same Father should not be dealing so treacherously with each other.
But who is the "one" in Malachi 2:15? Again it is not Abraham (as if the sentence read: "Did not one, that is to say, Abraham, do so [take a pagan Egyptian named Hagar to wife]?" with the prophet conceding the point and replying, "Yes, he did!" But Abraham is never called the "one," nor could his conduct in "putting away" Hagar be the issue here, since the divorced wives in Malachi's context were covenant wives, not pagan wives.
The subject of Malachi 2:15 must be God, and "the one" must be the object of the sentence, not its subject. As such, the "one" would parallel the "one flesh" of Genesis 2:24, for returning to God's original instructions would be a natural way to dispute covenant-breaking divorces. In a similar manner, our Lord referred to Genesis in Matthew 19:4-6: " `Haven't you read,' he replied, `that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"?' " (see also Mk 10:7-9).
Even though the Hebrew does not explicitly indicate that the first clause of Malachi 2:15 is an interrogative or that he refers to God, both possibilities fit the context, previous Scripture and normative Hebrew grammar and syntax observed in other passages.
The resulting thought would be as follows: Why did God make Adam and Eve only one flesh when he could have given to Adam many wives or to Eve many husbands? Certainly God had more than enough creative power to furnish multiple sex partners! So why only "one"? Because God was seeking a godly offspring, a process incompatible with multiple partners.
The two examples of faithlessness this passage raises are divorce and being unequally married to unbelievers. Both violate God's holy law. Marriage's covenant status is seen in other Old Testament passages, such as Genesis 31:50, Proverbs 2:17, Ezekiel 16:8 and Hosea 1--2. Genesis 2:24 most clearly defines marriage: It consists of "leaving" one's parents and "cleaving" to one's wife. The leaving and cleaving go together and in that order. Marriage, then, is a public act (leaving), in order to establish a permanent relationship (cleaving), and is sexually consummated (becoming one flesh). Any violation of this covenant is a breach of promise made in the presence of God and each other.
So fundamental and inviolable is the union created by this marriage covenant that nothing less than a rupture in sexual fidelity can begin to affect its durability (note Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-12). That such a rift may lead to one of the two grounds for breaking the marriage covenant (1 Cor 7 treats the other one) is hinted at in Jeremiah 3:8, where God "gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." In effect, God divorced Israel. But note the grounds!
Accordingly, the Bible is not silent, either on divorce or on the reasons it may be granted. But when God still says that he hates divorce, we gather how strongly he desires to see marriage covenants succeed.
The Mosaic legislation never encouraged, enjoined or approved of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Instead, it merely prescribed certain procedures if and when divorce tragically took place. The main teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 forbids a man to remarry his first wife after he had divorced her and either he or she had remarried in the meantime. Unfortunately, the AV (King James), the ERV, the ASV and some others have adopted a translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that adds to the confusion. On their incorrect rendering, divorce is not just permitted or tolerated, it is commanded when some "uncleanness" is present! But in fact the conditional if which begins in Deuteronomy 24:1 continues through verse 3 with the consequence of the conditional sentence coming in verse 4 (contrary to all the incorrect renderings noted above). No Old Testament law instituted divorce; Hebrew law simply tolerated the practice while condemning it theologically.
Those objecting that the absolute statement of Malachi 2:16 precludes all arguments for a biblically permissible divorce do not take Scripture holistically. God is certainly able to qualify his own teaching with further revelation in other contexts. For instance, in Romans 13:1-7 God states that citizens must obey the civil powers that be, yet he qualifies that absolute in Acts 5:29: Citizens should obey God rather than any sinful civil law.
God's hatred of divorce is further expressed in the statement "one who covers his garment with violence." The "garment" refers to the ancient custom of spreading a garment over a woman, as Ruth asked Boaz to do to claim her as his wife (Ruth 3:9; see also Deut 22:30; Ezek 16:8). Thus to cover one's bed with violence was to be unfaithful to the marital bed and one's nuptial obligations. The symbol of wedded trust, much like our wedding ring, became the agent of violence toward these wives.
Jonah 2:2
The story of Jonah is one of the most discussed and fascinating accounts in the Bible. But for all the debate, one thing is sure: Jonah did a lot of soul-searching in that smelly underwater hotel.
All of us can identify. Sometimes life just goes badly. When it does, like Jonah we need to ask ourselves some hard questions.
Is there sin in my life? In light of Jonah’s blatant disobedience, God had to do something drastic to catch his attention and lead him to repentance.
What can I learn from this situation? The wicked people of Nineveh were enemies of God’s people. Jonah thought they should be judged and not given a second chance. He obviously needed a lesson in sharing God’s compassion for the lost. “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster” (Jonah 3:10).
Can I display God’s glory in this? Often our suffering is not about us but about people seeing the power of God working through our weakness. Jonah found himself in a helpless situation, yet God used him to lead a pagan nation to repentance.
Next time you find yourself in a “belly-of-a-whale” problem, don’t forget to ask the hard questions. It could mean the difference between despair and deliverance. We learn lessons in the school of suffering that we can learn in no other way.
Romans 10:14
Recently, I met the man who introduced me to Jesus 35 years ago. Warren Wiersbe, former pastor of Moody Church in Chicago and Bible teacher for the Back to the Bible ministry, had preached the gospel at a Bible conference in 1972. It was the first time I heard the good news of God’s love for me as shown in Jesus’ death on the cross. The Spirit opened my eyes and heart that night, and I received Jesus Christ as my Savior (John 1:12).
We praise the Lord for people like Warren Wiersbe who faithfully preach the gospel and introduce others to Christ. According to the apostle Paul, they have beautiful feet: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom. 10:15).
But spreading the gospel isn’t just the responsibility of Bible teachers and pastors. All who know Jesus can share on a personal level with friends, co-workers, family members, and strangers. It’s our privilege and duty. Otherwise, how will people “believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (v.14).
Let’s make our feet beautiful by bringing the good news of Jesus to others. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news! —Isaiah 52:7
Tempted in Every Way?
Well, Hebrews states twice that Jesus was tempted, for the author first writes, "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb 2:18), and now he states that Jesus "has been tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb 4:15). Yet many Christians argue that Christ really could not have been tempted "just as we are." After all, he was the sinless Son of God. Would not his very existence as God mean that his experience of temptation was at most that of watching a strong enemy smash himself on an impregnable castle? Was there ever any feeling of the desirability of sin that makes temptation so difficult for us?
Actually, these verses are difficult because they involve two issues, the nature of temptation and the nature of Christ. The first we have experience with; with the second we as human beings have no experience, and we must rely on the simple statements of Scripture.
The Greek term for "temptation" could also be translated "test." Human beings are tested to see if we will obey God when the chips are down (see Gen 22:1, the classic example of passing a test). We are tested to see if we will remain faithful when there is nothing to win (for example, Job 1--2). We are tested to see if our hearts are truly for God or whether we are trying to serve two masters (Jas 1:14-15; compare Jas 4:3-4). Jesus experienced all of these things. In Matthew 4 Jesus faces three tests, parallel to the tests of Israel in the wilderness: (1) When he appears to be starving will he, like Israel, demand that God feed him? He passes the test and refuses, being willing to trust God to the point of death if necessary. As long as God has said, "Fast," he will fast. (2) Could he be certain that God would care for him? Why not test God to be sure that he would come through? Jesus passes this test because his trust in God is unshakable. He will not put God to the test, for he has genuine faith. (3) Will God really give him the kingdoms of this world? Does that not look impossible, since Satan controls them? Is not God's way an unlikely and difficult one? One little compromise is all it will take to bring the kingdom without pain. Jesus again passes the test because he refuses to compromise with evil, however enticing or even spiritual it may seem. Thus Jesus demonstrates he is God's true Son, as Israel in the wilderness proved to be a false son. These three examples are precisely the same types of tests that we as human beings face.
But what makes us fail the test? James (Jas 1:14) and Paul (Rom 7:17) trace the cause to a principle within us that James calls "desire" and the Jews called the "evil impulse," or yeser. None of the writers believe that this is guilt-producing in the sense that simply to have it made one guilty. Rather it was just "desire"--or what a psychologist might call a "drive." Food is desirable because I am hungry; shelter is desirable because I am cold. But hunger also makes my neighbors' food desirable. Likewise their house or clothing might be desirable if I were cold. As we see in observing a baby, drive or desire has no moral boundaries. Part of becoming godly is to learn when to say yes to desire and when to say no. Err on the side of saying no too often and one might become an ascetic, refusing God's good gifts, or possibly even die. Err on the side of saying yes too much and one becomes a libertine, breaking God's boundaries in some way or another. Satan's destructive purposes are served by either error.
Did Jesus have desire? The answer, found in Hebrews, is that he "has been tempted in every way, just as we are." Matthew 4:2 states that he was hungry. The drive or desire was present. Likewise we assume that all other normal human drives were present. He felt thirst, weariness, sexual desire, loneliness and all else that we feel. Some of these he felt to the extreme. Think of the loneliness that he felt when he cried out from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus was, according to this text and the witness of the New Testament in general, fully human.
The one exception to human experience we find in Jesus is that he did not sin. In Matthew 4 he never gives in, but passes each of the tests. In Gethsemane he struggles mightily, but in the end says, "Not my will, but yours." At the cross he surely felt the impulse of pain and anger as he was stripped naked and nailed to the crossbar, but his response is "Father, forgive them." To each situation, Hebrews asserts, he gave the proper response in the sight of God. He was without sin. Could he have sinned? Scripture never enters into such philosophical speculation. But it certainly implies that there was virtue in not sinning and that the test was real, which seems to imply the possibility of failing. One point, however, Hebrews makes crystal clear: whether Jesus could sin or not, the issue in the end is academic. He did not sin.
Although the church through the ages often practically has denied the humanity of Christ, picturing him as more divine than human, it has refused to allow that distortion doctrinally. The creeds assert that there were not two natures, as if the human nature would feel something and the divine nature would give the right response. There was also no attenuation of the human nature so that he experienced human feelings in some less intense manner than other human beings. He was, the creeds assert, fully incarnate, everything that we as human beings are, except that he never sinned. While the creeds are not Scripture, they safeguard what the author of Hebrews is attempting to express: Jesus experienced testing just as all of us do.
The reason for this dogmatic statement is important. According to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus can "sympathize with our weaknesses." He can do this, the argument runs, because he has experienced the same type of weaknesses. He may be exalted at God's right hand now, but he fully and experientially understands all that human beings are going through. "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb 2:18). One must have experience with a situation to be helpful in the sit- uation, but even then one will not be helpful unless the experience is successful. A person who failed a test is hardly the one to coach another on how to prepare for the test. Jesus took the very same test as we do, indeed, a more intense form of the very same test. But he passed. He "was without sin." He did not fail in any way. As a result he can in fact respond with true sympathy to human beings now suffering under testing, for he truly "feels with," having himself felt the same pain and impulses. He can also show by example the successful way through the test.
The Incarnation is a mystery, but the witness of Hebrews is that it was real. There is no way Jesus was not like us, except in our sinning. Offensive as this may be to the mind, which prefers a Greek view of a God untouched by real human feelings and testings, it is comforting to the heart, which is precisely why the author of Hebrews taught it.
One might object that a major part of human experience is that of guilt, which Jesus could not share because he did not sin. Such a response would be correct when one considers Jesus' life, but it breaks down at the cross. There Jesus did take sin upon himself--even if it was not his own--experiencing fully what it means to be guilty before God. In fact, because he knew God so well, it is likely that he experienced our guilt far more keenly than we do. Therefore there is truly no human experience other than the act of sinning with which Jesus cannot identify.
Revelation 21:5
I was enjoying my son’s high school soccer game when the relative calm and normalcy of that warm September afternoon was shattered by a sound both distinctive and alarming—the sound of sirens. The shrill whine seemed out of place at such a pleasant moment, and it demanded my attention. According to singer Don Henley, a siren usually means that “somebody’s going to emergency” or “somebody’s going to jail.” He’s right. In either case, someone’s day, perhaps including the law enforcement or rescue personnel, just took a turn for the worse.
As I lost my attention on the game and thought about the siren fading into the distance, it occurred to me that sirens are a reminder of a powerful reality: Our world is sadly broken. Whether the siren tells us of criminal activity or personal tragedy, it reminds us that something is desperately wrong and needs to be made right.
At such times, it helps to remember that God sees our world in its brokenness and has pledged that one day He will wipe away the old and “make all things new” (Rev. 21:5). That promise encourages us in the hardships of life, and it provides the whisper of His comfort—a whisper that can drown out even the sound of sirens.
Psalms 37:25-26: The Psalmist Has Never Seen the Righteous Forsaken?
One wonders where the psalmist has been all his life if he has never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. David must surely have seen good people in great difficulties!
But this misses the psalmist's point. He did not question that the righteous may be temporarily forsaken, needy and poor. Rather, he observed that nowhere can it be shown that the righteous have experienced continued desertion and destitution.
David himself had plenty of opportunity to complain that God had forgotten him. For example, he had to beg rich Nabal for bread. Therefore, it is important to note that David carefully sets his statement in the context of life's long haul, for he had been young and now he was much older.
Thus, what looks like desertion to those taking a short view of life is actually only a passing phase. A full trust in God will prove the reverse when life has been viewed from his perspective.
This acrostic psalm was designed to meet the very temptation assailing anyone in such dire circumstances. It contrasts what ultimately endures with the transitory. However, this does not mean God has not also provided, in some measure, relief even in this pres- ent life. As our Lord would later teach, those who seek first the kingdom of God will have all other things given to them according to their needs.
In fact, our Lord taught us to ask for our daily bread. Thus what is a command is also a promise. He invites us to pray for that which he wishes to give to us.
God does not abandon his people; he cares for them and provides for them. For those who have lived long enough in this world to see that God does finally right wrongs and avenge gross injustice, the psalmist's declarations ring true even if the short term offers many temporary exceptions.
If we are sure that God's watch-care includes his concern for even the small sparrows, should we think he will allow his children to go unloved and uncared for in this present age? While some may experience a temporary sense of being forsaken, that cannot and will not be their continued experience.
If it be objected, as I have already conceded, that some wrongs and deprivations never appear to be righted in this life, two further points must be made. First, the truth expressed here is proverbial in form. Proverbs gather up the largest amount of experience that fits the case without pausing to speak to the exceptions or to nuance the general teaching with the fewer, but real, objections. Such is the very nature of proverbs and the way we must understand them. If we press contemporary or biblical proverbs into being exhaustive treatments of every topic they comment on, our teaching and practice will become simplistic and reductionistic.
Second, the psalmist deliberately mentions the second generation as being the recipients of God's blessing. Thus, while some Third World peoples struggle with poverty, famine and starvation, out of the ashes of such real sorrow and pain often comes a whole new opportunity for the children who survive. The point is this: in the long haul, God does not forsake his own whether they have little or much; their children will be blessed!
Psalm 119:11
Madame Marie Curie holds her place in history as a pioneer in the study of radioactivity. In 1903, she was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize, capturing the honor in physics. Then, in 1911, she received a second Nobel Prize, this one in chemistry.
Such a wonderful contribution did not come without tremendous sacrifice. Madame Curie died of leukemia caused by prolonged exposure to radioactive materials. Even today, scholars who wish to read her handwritten journals and lab papers must wear protective clothing because these archives are still radioactive.
No one today would approach radioactive material without protection. But many seem unconcerned about exposure to the dangers of sin. Psalm 1 warns us against sinful attitudes, speech, and behavior (vv.1,4-6).
Obedience to God’s law is a spiritual safeguard from sin and its deadly consequences. The psalmist also wrote, “Your Word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You” (119:11).
Madame Curie didn’t know about the serious health dangers of exposure to radioactivity. But God has given us ample warning about the dangers of sin. Let’s apply daily what we read in His life-giving Book. Thy Word is a lamp to my feet,A light to my path alway,To guide and to save me from sinAnd show me the heavenly way. The Bible will tell you what is wrong before you have done it!
1 Timothy 5:8: Worse Than an Unbeliever?
The point of 1 Timothy 5:8 is rather clear. Failure to care for the needs of particular individuals is tantamount to rejection of one's faith. And a person of faith who acts in such a way as to deny that faith in practice is worse than those who never profess faith in the first place.
What creates difficulties for us is the rigorous tone of this instruction and the finality that seems to be attached to one's failure in following the instruction. A related difficulty--in light of Paul's insistence that salvation is by faith and not by works--is the close connection in this text between a very particular action and one's faith, and therefore one's salvation.
A careful look at Paul's argument in its larger context and within his thinking about faith and its fruits should alleviate the difficulties.
Our verse is part of a longer passage (1 Tim 5:3-16) in which Paul is concerned about the place and care of widows in the church. In the ancient world, partially due to patriarchal family and social structures, widows were often among the most weak and vulnerable members of society. It is clear from the Old Testament that God has a special concern for the least, the little ones, the oppressed, the powerless. And that concern includes widows (Deut 10:18; 24:17; Ps 68:5; Is 1:17). From Luke's account of the ministry of Jesus and the early church (Lk 7:11-15; 18:2-8; 21:1-4; Acts 6:1; 9:39), we see that concern for widows naturally continued in the "new Israel," that the Christian community saw care for widows as a special responsibility, and that groups of widows in the churches were particularly involved in good deeds of charity for others in need.
The larger passage, of which this text is a part, reveals this abiding concern for widows. It also shows that particular circumstances called for greater clarity regarding the church's responsibility in this area. Paul distinguishes between "widows who are really in need" (1 Tim 5:3) and those who have family able to care for them (1 Tim 5:4). Given the fact that the early churches, on the whole, were constituted of people who were from the lower socioeconomic strata (see 1 Cor 1:26-28), their economic resources cannot have been extensive. Thus the need arose to channel limited resources to meet the most urgent situations of deprivation. It may even be that the church's compassion for widows was expressed so consistently that charity became something to be expected, even when there was no real need.
In any case, Paul's instruction is that the primary responsibility for the care of widows rests on members of the immediate family (children or grandchildren, 1 Tim 5:4). Only when that assistance is not available, when the widow is "left all alone" (1 Tim 5:5), does the larger community become responsible.
Paul grounds that instruction in two ways. Such action is, first of all, "pleasing to God" (1 Tim 5:4). The imperative to care for parents was derived in Judaism from the fifth commandment ("Honor your father and your mother," Ex 20:12), and obedience to the commandment was understood to bring with it God's blessing. Second, Paul grounds his instruction in a truth stated over and over in the Word of God; namely, that one's faith, one's beliefs, must find expression in concrete action and relationships. Thus, following a harsh rebuke against the emptiness and shallowness of Israel's worship (Is 1:10-16), Isaiah calls on the people to "seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case for the widow" (Is 1:17). A right relationship with God is expressed in the doing of justice, the loving of kindness (Mic 6:6) and the demonstration of steadfast love (Hos 6:6). The truest expression of the worship of God is when God's people are involved in letting "justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24).
This central Old Testament conviction is also at the heart of the message of Jesus and his followers. We shall be known by the fruit we bear (Mt 7:16, 20) and thus bring glory to God (Jn 15:8). The world will know that we are Jesus' disciples if we genuinely love one another (Jn 13:35). If God's forgiving, reconciling work does not find expression in our relationships, then our worship of God is empty (Mt 5:23-24). The fruit of the Spirit in us, says Paul, expresses itself in kindness and the practice of goodness (Gal 5:22). New life in Christ (Col 3:1-3) is to express itself in a life clothed with compassion and kindness (Col 3:12). Faith that is not evidenced in deeds is judged to be dead, inauthentic faith (Jas 2:14-17). Religion that is "pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress" (Jas 1:27).
Within this larger New Testament perspective, Paul's directive for the care of widowed mothers or grandmothers by children or grandchildren must be understood. They should "learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family" (1 Tim 5:4). The reality of our relationship with God most naturally flows over into our human relationships. And the members of our immediate families are the first ones to feel the impact of our relationship with God. The expression "Charity begins at home" is rooted in the conviction that if love of neighbor does not express itself concretely in our closest relationships, then our claim to love God ("our religion") is a lie (1 Jn 4:19-21).
This is why Paul judges a person who does not provide for family members to have "denied the faith" and to be "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). Though this judgment seems harsh in relation to this particular failure in practical Christian behavior, Paul's concern throughout the letter that Christian life be above reproach from outsiders (1 Tim 2:2; 3:1-7; 5:14; 6:1) helps us to understand his strong word. The phrase "to be worse than an unbeliever" implies that even unbelievers are expected to care for those of their own households. Believers who neglect this responsibility are thus acting "worse than" unbelievers. Whenever that happens (see also 1 Cor 5:1-2), the church is not being God's alternative community in a broken, fragmented world. And such a life in the world represents a denial of the faith.
2 Corinthians 12:9
Physical therapy is a painful necessity after knee-replacement surgery. Part of my routine involved my therapist pulling my knee back into a bent position and holding it taut. “Good stretch?” Mason would ask encouragingly. “No,” I winced, “not that good!”
I soon learned, however, how important it is to stretch one’s muscles and joints—sometimes causing discomfort—to gain full range of motion.
That wasn’t the first time I’ve been “stretched” outside my comfort zone. God has sometimes urged me to share my faith with someone I didn’t know very well, or to give an offering that was far beyond what I usually give, or to confront someone about a situation.
Abraham’s life illustrates the importance of faith when God asks us to move beyond our comfort zone. “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called . . . . He went out, not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11:8).
While we stretch our spiritual muscles, we may feel discomfort. But God assures us, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Our adequacy—our sufficiency—is found in Him (3:5).
When you boldly step out in faith and obedience to God, you may be surprised at how a “good stretch” can strengthen your spiritual life!
Revelation 2:13: Where Does Satan Live?
This verse seems a little strange, for it mentions that Satan had his "throne" in the city of Pergamum in Asia Minor. We are accustomed to thinking about Satan as traveling everywhere in the world (Job 1:7; 2:2); is there really a locality in which Satan himself lives? Does he have an actual throne? And is it visible? Should this affect our own decisions on our place of residence? How did the church in Pergamum experience what John is writing about?
On the one hand, it is clear that Satan, as a finite being, must have a localized existence. Unlike God, he is not omnipresent, so he must be somewhere (and not be everywhere) at any given point in time. But Satan is also a spiritual being, probably the one identified in Ephesians 2:2 as the "ruler of the kingdom of the air." This means that he does not appear to be physically localized in our material sense, but rather lives in the spiritual world (or heavenlies) through which he has access to the physical world. Although we do not fully understand the relation-ship of the spiritual to the physical, we would be surprised to discover that Satan had limited himself to a specific physical locality by setting up his throne in a given city. Indeed, what we find elsewhere in Revelation is that when he rules on earth he does so through a human being whom he controls (see Rev 13:2).
On the other hand, Pergamum is a place known to us from history. It was an independent city until 133 B.C. , when its last king willed it to Rome. It thereafter became the capital city of Roman Asia, the seat of the proconsul who as the senatorial governor of the province had an almost unlimited power for the period of his office. By 29 B.C. the city had become the center of the imperial cult with a temple erected to "the divine Augustus and the goddess Roma." The city also had a great temple to Zeus Soter (Savior Zeus), and its citizens worshiped the serpent god Asclepius, who was the god of healing. This history gives a rich background for identifying the city with Satan.
Any of the images we have mentioned would have served Satan well. Asclepius as a serpent (found on the coat of arms of the city and used as a symbol of medicine today) would remind one of Satan as the serpent and dragon in Revelation. The altar of Zeus was said to have been thronelike, the temple dominating the city. He was, after all, the king of the Greek gods. But the central image in this passage appears to have been that of Roman rule.
The key to this identification is the reference to Antipas, a Christian martyr. Given that the proconsul did have the power to put people to death, this probably indicates official persecution (although it may have been localized). Where else but at the center of imperial rule would the church be more likely to come into direct conflict with Rome? Imperial rule was not separated from imperial cult. While educated people did not take the cult seriously--they looked on it as a patriotic ceremony, much as pledging allegiance to the flag is seen in the U.S.A. today--the church saw in it a clash between the call of Christians to worship God alone and the demand of the state to have one's ultimate allegiance. What is more, the state always kept a watchful eye on unsanctioned societies. The growth of the Christian community and its influence in the lower classes, especially among slaves (who had been known to revolt in Rome itself), was threatening. Here was a group who called Jesus, not Caesar, Lord, a group that could not be controlled. The clash was inevitable. Antipas had been martyred. And in the aftermath of his martyrdom the church must have lived in fear, for they were located in the very seat of Roman power and could hardly escape the notice of Rome.
This throne of Caesar, then, is the throne of Satan. Satan is not identified with Rome totally; he is independent of all of his tools. But in Revelation 13 it is Roman rulers through whom Satan works, and Roman power is in this sense the throne of Satan. It is the means through which Satan rules and controls that area, in this case Asia Minor. It is therefore also the means through which he persecutes the church of God.
The relevance of this passage to Christians today is obvious. While there may not be any recent martyrs in some Christian localities, many, if not most, Christians live under governments that claim absolute allegiance ("My country, right or wrong"). John reminds us that all such claims fly in the face of absolute obedience to Christ. They are satanic in origin. To the extent that the country decides to enforce its claim, either ceremonially or in action, a clash with a faithful church is inevitable. The closer one is to the center of government, the more certain the clash and the more inescapable the consequences. As Satan's throne appears behind whatever the architectural fa ade of our capital may be, the Christian will be forced to decide whom he or she serves. John lets us know that the decision is difficult, but he is encouraging us to be faithful, even if it means following in the footsteps of Antipas.
A secondary application is also probable. Paul speaks eight times of "principalities and powers," which are part of the demonic hierarchy of Satan's kingdom (see Eph 6:12). Some such forces are on occasion identified with a particular people or land (see Dan 10:13). Thus, some demonic spirits appear to be localized, an idea that is confirmed by the experience of many Christian workers. This means that some areas may be more directly under the control of such powerful beings than are others, or that the being that controls a given area may himself be more powerful than the one controlling another area. Paul lists various articles of armor with which Christians are armed for battle with such beings (Eph 6:13-18). He does not mention direct prayer against them (such as "binding them" or "casting them out"), but rather exemplary Christian faith and conduct, such as the conduct that probably got Antipas in trouble and the faith that sustained him through his martyrdom.
If this analysis is accurate, then some Christians should recognize that they live in very difficult territory. Such a recognition is not a call to move, but an acknowledgment that the situation they face is tougher than normal and therefore the virtues they must arm themselves with are more than normal. At the same time, this verse reminds us that Christ is in total control of these powers. Even our martyrdom is under his control. Although our area of the battle may be tough, there is no danger of losing. The important thing is that we, like the believers in Pergamum, hold out and remain faithful, even in the face of death itself.
Colossians 1:3
In 1947, Nadia from Bulgaria and Millicent from the United States became pen pals. For years they swapped photos, school experiences, and dreams. Then their letters stopped when government policy banned personal contact with the West.
After many years of political upheaval and change, Millicent, on a whim, sent a letter to the last address she had for Nadia. To their delight, the letter got through. Before long, they discovered that both had married doctors and both collected seashells. Forty-eight years after their first letter, the two friends finally met at Miami International Airport, where Millicent exclaimed, “Nadia! I would know you anywhere!’’
The letters of the apostle Paul overflow with affection and gratitude for his friends. In his letter to the Colossians, he wrote: “We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you” (1:3). His letters also encouraged their walk with Christ (v.10).
Any friendship can be a gift from God. But nothing runs deeper than the relationships of those who share a bond in Christ. In fact, Jesus commanded His disciples: “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). In Him, friendships are treasures that will last forever.
