I receive a blog from Floyd and Sally McClung, missionaries and church planters in South Africa (pretty SUPER involved down there), and they are asking for prayer for enough money to be provided to build this new training facility they need to train new church planters at their school in South Africa. Already a ton of money has poured in, but a little more is needed. So, besides asking you to join me, and more importantly them, in praying for this money to be brought in, I was praying that Floyd and Sally and the rest of the All Nations team in Cape Town would have peace about this money coming in. And, after thinking on some of Floyd's words, "But… with 21 more days to go until 45 students arrive for our next church planting/leadership training school, it's getting close to the deadline. I know God is never late so we are trusting for a complete miracle," I realized that they already are at peace. They believe, truly believe, that God's will will be done in this time, and that gives them peace. That's cool.
I kind of wish I believed that much.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
An Interesting Occurence
Lately I've been reading through the Gospel of John and the book of Exodus, reading a chapter of John one day, and a chapter of Exodus the next (etc.), or at least trying to. Right now, I am in Exodus 8 and John 7. My original goal with Exodus was an overarching ambition to learn of God's character through a reading of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, also called The Law by later Jews, being Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). My goal in reading John was to relearn what it means to follow Jesus and what His life and death and resurrection means to us, and I picked John because I feel as though I've never really focused on it before. It seems like, to me at least, Matthew is the most common of the Gospels, and I have gone through both Luke and Mark before.
Anyhow, with these goals in mind, I began this "ambitious" reading discipline at the beginning of Fall Finals Week (originally it was a chapter of each every day, but that was a little much it seemed like). What I think that I have found, well, been revealed to and had my eyes opened to, is that I have been learning a lot more about myself than about God.
This is a two-way road for me. It both annoys me, and gives me some hope. It annoys me because I already have a tendency, or maybe even lifestyle, to make everything about me, so to find that I'm learning about myself in the Scriptures almost seems like I'm doing something wrong. On the other hand, it gives me hope, because the very thing I seem to be learning about myself is the very same struggle I seem to have been having in the past few weeks, months, [years?].
Lately, it has really been tough to believe, and not only that, but to even know what that means, or to even think about why I ought to. Now, I'm sure that I can find lots of different arguments on why I should or why I shouldn't believe, and I have thought through a lot of these, and argued with myself quite often, and usually have a little debate or logic session going on in my head. What I have been finding is that I don't know that I can do it alone. I don't know that even if I had been giving perfect, flawless, should-be-convincing reasons, that I would believe.
Here's where the Scripture comes in. As I'm reading through John, I'm reading about all of these people who are either told by Jesus or shown by Jesus the power and majesty and truth of Himself and His Father and the Holy Spirit. Take for example the woman at the well in chapter four of John. Jesus asks this woman for a drink, and she makes a cursory cultural denial, basically saying that they shouldn't even be talking. Jesus responds by saying, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." She responds by saying, "Great, where can I get this water, and how are you going to pull it out of the well, you don't have a bucket. Also, does that mean that you're better than Jacob, who built this very well for us?" He answers, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirst again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." She still thinks He's talking about physical water, so she asks Him for some of this water so she "won't get thirsty and have to to keep coming here to draw water." Then Jesus reveals some of His power. He reveals to her that He is able to prophesy, that He is fully aware that she has five husbands. She says that He must be a prophet, and quickly changes the subject to another kind of controversial cultural topic, where the true worshipers of the God of Isaac ought to worship. Jesus reveals to her that a time is coming when people will worship the Father in spirit and truth, not necessarily on a certain mountain, but rather with sincerity of heart. He also speaks of a salvation that is from the Jews. She says, rather passively, that she knows "that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Jesus' response? "I who speak to you am he." Throughout this entire dialogue, this woman either doesn't realize the depth of what Jesus is saying, or she continually tries to shift the focus off of controversial issues that will force her to think about and consider what she believes and cause her to actually make a decision one way or another about truly following God, rather than some age-old routine-ridden religion. Although He reveals to her His power, her discourse continues to flee from Him, and this describes the very situation I seem to be in.
Now, what He shows and tells her may not be considered spectacular, for anyone can say that they are the salvation of the earth, and it is possible that someone might be able to find out that this woman has five wives, but He does continue to do miracles. In some instances, there is belief brought about, but in others there is still unbelief. In John 6:25-59, Jesus is confronted by the crowd of people that He feeds miraculously in John 6:1-15. The crowd continues to press Him for information about "the works God requires," about a miraculous sign that they might believe in Jesus as He commands in response to the question, "what is the work of God," about even the fact that Jesus claims to be the "bread that came down from heaven" even though he was the "son of Joseph, whose father and mother [they] know." Jesus greets them by basically saying that they didn't come looking for Him because what He did was miraculous, but because He gave them food, and goes on to urge them not to work for food that spoils (earthly food) but rather to work for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give them, us. Oh, and to not forget, He is approved by the Father. The people have a hard time believing and understanding that Jesus, the Son of Man, is the giver of eternal life. They ask Jesus to provide some miraculous sign so that they may believe, and go on to kind of suggest that it would be bread from heaven, possibly misunderstanding what Jesus says about "bread that cam down from heaven." What they do not realize, or possibly want to ignore, is that Jesus already did a miracle for them. He fed 5,000 men, not including the women and children that would have been there, from 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. That would be one one thousandth of a loaf of bread for each person, and even less fish (i.e. not enough!!!) without the miracle of Jesus, let alone the fact that He even provided leftovers! These people are unwilling to believe, to open their eyes to deeper things because they are so preoccupied with what they will eat, with what they can see, with what they can believe easily. Even after Jesus gives them a miracle, even after He explains who He is and what He is and how they may have eternal life, they simply grumble about technicalities that they, and I, probably don't really get, and ask for more miracles, missing the miracle He already did, the symbolism of that miracle (isn't it a coincidence that He gave them bread and then called Himself the bread of life?), and the depth and truth of what He was saying!! They repeat the pattern the woman at the well (presumably) left (presumably because we aren't told whether she ended up believing or not). Later in John 6, it says that many disciples left because of this hard teaching.
Now, how about Exodus? In Exodus 6-8 (thus far), the Lord is using Moses and the Israelites to display His glory, and He is also using Moses and Aaron to free His people from oppression. Moses asks Pharaoh for a few days for the Israelites to be freed from their work so that they may go out into the wilderness to worship and offer sacrifices to the True God. Pharaoh's heart is hardened when Aaron's staff becomes a snake, because Pharaoh's sorcerers do that as well. His heart is hardened when the Lord turns the Nile into blood through Aaron, because Pharaoh's sorcerers do so as well. Finally, it seems as if Pharaoh may let the Israelites go and worship when the Lord sends the plague of frogs. Moses strikes a deal with Pharaoh, that he will pray to the Lord to take the frogs out of the land, even at a specific time, and Pharaoh will allow the Israelites to go worship in the desert. As soon as Moses prays to the Lord and the Lord answers by killing all the frogs, Pharaoh's heart is hardened and he goes back on the deal, not allowing the Israelites to worship in the desert. Pharaoh does this TWO MORE times, with the plague of gnats, and with the plague of flies. He continues to deny the Lord God's people and the Lord God's messenger despite the blatantly obvious display of the power of the God of Jacob, because the consequences of the miracles continue to be taken away by the Lord. He tells Moses thrice that Moses and the Israelites will be able to go worship in the desert so that he can get rid of the plagues the Lord brings, but as soon as those plagues are gone, he hardens his heart and refuses to let them go. What this reveals is two things: a deniability of the power and truth of God and a refusal to believe, in that he sees obvious works of God but plays them off in his head and some mere mystery (or he just can't rationally make the connection that if God can send frogs, He can probably do a lot more, which may be possible as Pharaoh would think about God's in the sense of certain areas, such as the sun god. But, God denies this possibility by bringing various plagues and miracles); and also a use of God for the goodness and power of God, not a love of God because He is God and He has been good to us and loved us first.
Now, how do these all fit in? What I see in these three stories, and in my own experience, is that the human heart is so bent on refusing things that make us uncomfortable, take away our control and possibly our "happiness", and threaten everything that we hold to be true and have based our lives on, that even when we are given miracles and signs and emotions and feelings and intellectual arguments and dreams and miracles of other sorts and all of these other forms of rational and "seemingly irrational" convincings of truth, we will continue to, or at least some of us will, deny that truth merely on the basis of our own comfort, control, and "happiness" by accusing those convincings of a flaw in some way, even if it is the most illogical of ways. Even when we are showed point blank something that we ourselves asked to be shown so that we can believe, we still deny.
So what does this mean? How does this affect us? I think it is important to believers and non-believers alike. I think that it means to believers that first of all, we can't believe on our own, we desperately need the Lord's help to open our eyes, and second of all, maybe we should be a little more fair, a little more tolerant, and little more loving to people who cannot see, and also to people who have different viewpoints, theological or not, that we do, for perhaps they are right and we simply refuse to see. Now, don't take that to mean that everything anyone says is true, because you must, absolutely MUST, think about things, pray about things, meditate on things, check things with the Bible and with those wiser than yourself, but it does mean that perhaps we can try and be a little more fair and tolerant of views that differ from us, perhaps even going as far as to giving them the respect of listening to them and considering them. Now, to non-believers, the message is much the same. As Jesus says, all who ask, knock, and seek will be given unto. (Matthew 7:7-12). To me, it seems that Jesus is saying that this is not just for prayer requests of a new house, or a healed relative, but also for prayer requests of belief. For no matter how much we try and believe through our actions and no matter how much we are shown, it seems that our eyes are closed, and to open them is only the work of God. Perhaps some have more open eyes than others, and perhaps all who come to God have noticed some thing about Him that attracts them to Him, but in the end, it is the work of God that we might believe.
At least, I think so.
Lord I believe, help my unbelief.
Lord I believe, but would you help me see.
(a song of Mike Crawford)
Later
Upon further thinking, and an hour of differential equations, I didn't think this post was quite long enough.
Anyhow, my thought as I walked back from class, and, admittedly, the thought hit me in the middle of class, was that perhaps this entire post is simply a regurgitation of the same "show me a miracle and I'll believe" mindset, just with a different taste. Maybe, in my saying that it is only God that can open our eyes, I am saying the same thing, saying "God do it for me, because I can't do it." Is this the same thing as saying "show me a miracle, then I'll believe?"
After kind of fleshing this out in the above paragraph, maybe this is a false proposition, because in the end it boils down to either God doing it, or yourself doing it. Maybe what I was truly convicted of was a motive. Maybe the same motive that hits the hungry crowd hits me, the motive of an easy belief. They want Jesus to make it even more blatantly obvious than He already has and spell out every single different aspect of their salvation because they want their belief to be easy. Perhaps what I was and am being convicted of is that I've been saying "Lord, build belief in me and open my eyes" not because I truly want to see, but because it is the easiest option, I get the eternal life of belief in Christ, and also don't really have to work.
We can boil it down even further, to the exact same motive, a motive of control. In asking Jesus to spell out the exact facts of salvation and display His power and make it so that they can believe easily, the crowd wants to have control, they want to be able to say, "Yes, I can believe in this in myself because He has made it extremely obvious and has fixed it all for me," whereas when I say, "Lord, build belief in me and open my eyes," in a lazy mindset, I am really only saying, "I don't really want control of this, in fact it's real easy just to not worry about this, and by praying that You'd open my eyes but only so that I can have an easy salvation means that I still really have control, because then I can still go about my own ways." Perhaps.. perhaps.
What are your inputs on this? Is it truly the same thing to say, "Lord, do this for me, for I cannot do it alone," or ought it boil down more to motives?
Anyhow, with these goals in mind, I began this "ambitious" reading discipline at the beginning of Fall Finals Week (originally it was a chapter of each every day, but that was a little much it seemed like). What I think that I have found, well, been revealed to and had my eyes opened to, is that I have been learning a lot more about myself than about God.
This is a two-way road for me. It both annoys me, and gives me some hope. It annoys me because I already have a tendency, or maybe even lifestyle, to make everything about me, so to find that I'm learning about myself in the Scriptures almost seems like I'm doing something wrong. On the other hand, it gives me hope, because the very thing I seem to be learning about myself is the very same struggle I seem to have been having in the past few weeks, months, [years?].
Lately, it has really been tough to believe, and not only that, but to even know what that means, or to even think about why I ought to. Now, I'm sure that I can find lots of different arguments on why I should or why I shouldn't believe, and I have thought through a lot of these, and argued with myself quite often, and usually have a little debate or logic session going on in my head. What I have been finding is that I don't know that I can do it alone. I don't know that even if I had been giving perfect, flawless, should-be-convincing reasons, that I would believe.
Here's where the Scripture comes in. As I'm reading through John, I'm reading about all of these people who are either told by Jesus or shown by Jesus the power and majesty and truth of Himself and His Father and the Holy Spirit. Take for example the woman at the well in chapter four of John. Jesus asks this woman for a drink, and she makes a cursory cultural denial, basically saying that they shouldn't even be talking. Jesus responds by saying, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." She responds by saying, "Great, where can I get this water, and how are you going to pull it out of the well, you don't have a bucket. Also, does that mean that you're better than Jacob, who built this very well for us?" He answers, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirst again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." She still thinks He's talking about physical water, so she asks Him for some of this water so she "won't get thirsty and have to to keep coming here to draw water." Then Jesus reveals some of His power. He reveals to her that He is able to prophesy, that He is fully aware that she has five husbands. She says that He must be a prophet, and quickly changes the subject to another kind of controversial cultural topic, where the true worshipers of the God of Isaac ought to worship. Jesus reveals to her that a time is coming when people will worship the Father in spirit and truth, not necessarily on a certain mountain, but rather with sincerity of heart. He also speaks of a salvation that is from the Jews. She says, rather passively, that she knows "that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Jesus' response? "I who speak to you am he." Throughout this entire dialogue, this woman either doesn't realize the depth of what Jesus is saying, or she continually tries to shift the focus off of controversial issues that will force her to think about and consider what she believes and cause her to actually make a decision one way or another about truly following God, rather than some age-old routine-ridden religion. Although He reveals to her His power, her discourse continues to flee from Him, and this describes the very situation I seem to be in.
Now, what He shows and tells her may not be considered spectacular, for anyone can say that they are the salvation of the earth, and it is possible that someone might be able to find out that this woman has five wives, but He does continue to do miracles. In some instances, there is belief brought about, but in others there is still unbelief. In John 6:25-59, Jesus is confronted by the crowd of people that He feeds miraculously in John 6:1-15. The crowd continues to press Him for information about "the works God requires," about a miraculous sign that they might believe in Jesus as He commands in response to the question, "what is the work of God," about even the fact that Jesus claims to be the "bread that came down from heaven" even though he was the "son of Joseph, whose father and mother [they] know." Jesus greets them by basically saying that they didn't come looking for Him because what He did was miraculous, but because He gave them food, and goes on to urge them not to work for food that spoils (earthly food) but rather to work for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give them, us. Oh, and to not forget, He is approved by the Father. The people have a hard time believing and understanding that Jesus, the Son of Man, is the giver of eternal life. They ask Jesus to provide some miraculous sign so that they may believe, and go on to kind of suggest that it would be bread from heaven, possibly misunderstanding what Jesus says about "bread that cam down from heaven." What they do not realize, or possibly want to ignore, is that Jesus already did a miracle for them. He fed 5,000 men, not including the women and children that would have been there, from 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. That would be one one thousandth of a loaf of bread for each person, and even less fish (i.e. not enough!!!) without the miracle of Jesus, let alone the fact that He even provided leftovers! These people are unwilling to believe, to open their eyes to deeper things because they are so preoccupied with what they will eat, with what they can see, with what they can believe easily. Even after Jesus gives them a miracle, even after He explains who He is and what He is and how they may have eternal life, they simply grumble about technicalities that they, and I, probably don't really get, and ask for more miracles, missing the miracle He already did, the symbolism of that miracle (isn't it a coincidence that He gave them bread and then called Himself the bread of life?), and the depth and truth of what He was saying!! They repeat the pattern the woman at the well (presumably) left (presumably because we aren't told whether she ended up believing or not). Later in John 6, it says that many disciples left because of this hard teaching.
Now, how about Exodus? In Exodus 6-8 (thus far), the Lord is using Moses and the Israelites to display His glory, and He is also using Moses and Aaron to free His people from oppression. Moses asks Pharaoh for a few days for the Israelites to be freed from their work so that they may go out into the wilderness to worship and offer sacrifices to the True God. Pharaoh's heart is hardened when Aaron's staff becomes a snake, because Pharaoh's sorcerers do that as well. His heart is hardened when the Lord turns the Nile into blood through Aaron, because Pharaoh's sorcerers do so as well. Finally, it seems as if Pharaoh may let the Israelites go and worship when the Lord sends the plague of frogs. Moses strikes a deal with Pharaoh, that he will pray to the Lord to take the frogs out of the land, even at a specific time, and Pharaoh will allow the Israelites to go worship in the desert. As soon as Moses prays to the Lord and the Lord answers by killing all the frogs, Pharaoh's heart is hardened and he goes back on the deal, not allowing the Israelites to worship in the desert. Pharaoh does this TWO MORE times, with the plague of gnats, and with the plague of flies. He continues to deny the Lord God's people and the Lord God's messenger despite the blatantly obvious display of the power of the God of Jacob, because the consequences of the miracles continue to be taken away by the Lord. He tells Moses thrice that Moses and the Israelites will be able to go worship in the desert so that he can get rid of the plagues the Lord brings, but as soon as those plagues are gone, he hardens his heart and refuses to let them go. What this reveals is two things: a deniability of the power and truth of God and a refusal to believe, in that he sees obvious works of God but plays them off in his head and some mere mystery (or he just can't rationally make the connection that if God can send frogs, He can probably do a lot more, which may be possible as Pharaoh would think about God's in the sense of certain areas, such as the sun god. But, God denies this possibility by bringing various plagues and miracles); and also a use of God for the goodness and power of God, not a love of God because He is God and He has been good to us and loved us first.
Now, how do these all fit in? What I see in these three stories, and in my own experience, is that the human heart is so bent on refusing things that make us uncomfortable, take away our control and possibly our "happiness", and threaten everything that we hold to be true and have based our lives on, that even when we are given miracles and signs and emotions and feelings and intellectual arguments and dreams and miracles of other sorts and all of these other forms of rational and "seemingly irrational" convincings of truth, we will continue to, or at least some of us will, deny that truth merely on the basis of our own comfort, control, and "happiness" by accusing those convincings of a flaw in some way, even if it is the most illogical of ways. Even when we are showed point blank something that we ourselves asked to be shown so that we can believe, we still deny.
So what does this mean? How does this affect us? I think it is important to believers and non-believers alike. I think that it means to believers that first of all, we can't believe on our own, we desperately need the Lord's help to open our eyes, and second of all, maybe we should be a little more fair, a little more tolerant, and little more loving to people who cannot see, and also to people who have different viewpoints, theological or not, that we do, for perhaps they are right and we simply refuse to see. Now, don't take that to mean that everything anyone says is true, because you must, absolutely MUST, think about things, pray about things, meditate on things, check things with the Bible and with those wiser than yourself, but it does mean that perhaps we can try and be a little more fair and tolerant of views that differ from us, perhaps even going as far as to giving them the respect of listening to them and considering them. Now, to non-believers, the message is much the same. As Jesus says, all who ask, knock, and seek will be given unto. (Matthew 7:7-12). To me, it seems that Jesus is saying that this is not just for prayer requests of a new house, or a healed relative, but also for prayer requests of belief. For no matter how much we try and believe through our actions and no matter how much we are shown, it seems that our eyes are closed, and to open them is only the work of God. Perhaps some have more open eyes than others, and perhaps all who come to God have noticed some thing about Him that attracts them to Him, but in the end, it is the work of God that we might believe.
At least, I think so.
Lord I believe, help my unbelief.
Lord I believe, but would you help me see.
(a song of Mike Crawford)
Later
Upon further thinking, and an hour of differential equations, I didn't think this post was quite long enough.
Anyhow, my thought as I walked back from class, and, admittedly, the thought hit me in the middle of class, was that perhaps this entire post is simply a regurgitation of the same "show me a miracle and I'll believe" mindset, just with a different taste. Maybe, in my saying that it is only God that can open our eyes, I am saying the same thing, saying "God do it for me, because I can't do it." Is this the same thing as saying "show me a miracle, then I'll believe?"
After kind of fleshing this out in the above paragraph, maybe this is a false proposition, because in the end it boils down to either God doing it, or yourself doing it. Maybe what I was truly convicted of was a motive. Maybe the same motive that hits the hungry crowd hits me, the motive of an easy belief. They want Jesus to make it even more blatantly obvious than He already has and spell out every single different aspect of their salvation because they want their belief to be easy. Perhaps what I was and am being convicted of is that I've been saying "Lord, build belief in me and open my eyes" not because I truly want to see, but because it is the easiest option, I get the eternal life of belief in Christ, and also don't really have to work.
We can boil it down even further, to the exact same motive, a motive of control. In asking Jesus to spell out the exact facts of salvation and display His power and make it so that they can believe easily, the crowd wants to have control, they want to be able to say, "Yes, I can believe in this in myself because He has made it extremely obvious and has fixed it all for me," whereas when I say, "Lord, build belief in me and open my eyes," in a lazy mindset, I am really only saying, "I don't really want control of this, in fact it's real easy just to not worry about this, and by praying that You'd open my eyes but only so that I can have an easy salvation means that I still really have control, because then I can still go about my own ways." Perhaps.. perhaps.
What are your inputs on this? Is it truly the same thing to say, "Lord, do this for me, for I cannot do it alone," or ought it boil down more to motives?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Home
I'm reading through a terrific book right now, The Prodigal God by Tim Keller. In it he is going through the parable of the prodigal son, or what he calls the parable of the two sons, and discussing two philosophical camps, the "I'll do it my own way and be happy about it" camp and the "I'll do it how it's supposed to be done and be happy" camp. He reveals that Jesus has not come to say, "You who are doing it your own way will go to hell, you who are doing whats supposed to (culturally, morally, religiously etc.) be done will go to heaven," no, he says that Jesus is saying to both of these camps, the wayward son who goes off to find his own pleasure and the elder son who sticks by his father's side, that their hearts are in the wrong. Both of the sons in the story merely desire the father's wealth, not the father. Jesus is not just pointing out the moral wrongdoing of the people who go against moral standards, but also to the hardened hearts of those who only keep those moral standards for selfish reasons. He goes on to describe how this parable is truly a good picture of the Bible's message as a whole, the message that we, as humans, are exiled, and only in God can we find our true home, our true fulfillment, our true joy.
This description of how we as humans, and the world as a whole, are exiled really strikes me. Following God because you find in Him your home, your joy, your all, just seems so much fuller, so much different than anything I've experienced before. It seems so different from the cycle I fall into so often, a cycle of sinning, trying to be sorry, and trying to repent, and then repeating. This is surely not fulfilling. What I've been finding is that not only can I not really repent very well, I've found that I believe far less than I thought I did, that the emotional highs and lows that I succumb to, often cause in fact, are not the fulfillment Christ described, that I don't really know how to be sorry to God, not just sorry to the consequences, that I really don't know how to even begin believing, yet I've been living this cycle thinking I'm getting somewhere. And I'm not.
But, there is hope. Hope that God will teach us, change us, help us in our unbelief.
Lord, surely we cannot follow You, understand You, love You, without Your help. Please, come and show us, come and mold us, come and change us.
This description of how we as humans, and the world as a whole, are exiled really strikes me. Following God because you find in Him your home, your joy, your all, just seems so much fuller, so much different than anything I've experienced before. It seems so different from the cycle I fall into so often, a cycle of sinning, trying to be sorry, and trying to repent, and then repeating. This is surely not fulfilling. What I've been finding is that not only can I not really repent very well, I've found that I believe far less than I thought I did, that the emotional highs and lows that I succumb to, often cause in fact, are not the fulfillment Christ described, that I don't really know how to be sorry to God, not just sorry to the consequences, that I really don't know how to even begin believing, yet I've been living this cycle thinking I'm getting somewhere. And I'm not.
But, there is hope. Hope that God will teach us, change us, help us in our unbelief.
Lord, surely we cannot follow You, understand You, love You, without Your help. Please, come and show us, come and mold us, come and change us.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Creature
Lately the question, "why ought I follow Christ" has been on my mind. My answers have ranged from, "well, in the first few chapters of John alone, John the Baptist says that He is the 'Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,' Jesus says He alone can give living water, can give fulfillment, and He says that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life," to, "Well, I have some great friends who follow Him, and look how their lives have changed and seem fuller, my parents follow Him, doesn't something seem bigger about their lives?" Now, the first set of answers, the things that talk about how Jesus is our hope, it doesn't seem right, noble, whatever, for us to follow Him to get eternal life, or to have a full life now. I feel like I would only be following Him selfishly then. As to the second set of answers, first off, do their lives really seem that much fuller? Well, if I really tried to look at their lives and the lives of people who don't follow Christ, and looked unbiasedly and as though I cared, I think I would find that those who are actively following Christ, who are seeking Him out, probably have fuller lives. Regardless, the second set of answers just don't seem to be enough.
Our family has two little dogs, both micro miniature dachshunds (yes, they average out to about 7 pounds each..). One of these dachshunds, the younger one, thinks that she is the alpha dog in the house, and, because of this complex, does everything she can to humiliate the other dog/prove her superiority. Lately, she had been getting real nasty, taking her chew toy over next to the older dog and provoking him, which she would follow up by snapping at him. Not very nice. She had proven herself to be an overall kind of selfish and mean dog, which didn't result in her being happy, I don't think. None of us liked this obviously, as she was blatantly abusing the elder dachshund, but we didn't quite know what to do. My mom emailed a few people that might know what to do, and a helpful dog trainer replied, saying that not only should we not just give the dogs chew toys whenever they wanted, but that we needed to show the dogs who was boss. My dad did a little research and found about the same, that the reason so many little dogs get snappy, irritable, and have this Napoleon-like syndrome is not because they are little dogs, but because their owners treat them as toys, and not as the animals, creatures, that they are. So, lately, we haven't been allowing them to have bones when they're not in their kennels, been forcing them to walk either behind or beside us on our walks as to display our "alpha-ness," and have just been generally trying to teach them that we are in control, and not they. The result? Both dogs have been interacting with each other and us better, the younger dog that had been trying to prove her alpha-ness has been stopping and hasn't been being snappy or mean to the other dog, and in general, both dogs have been behaving better.
As I was walking the dogs with my sister today, I was casually thinking about this, and something one of my friends had been talking about lately hit me, the idea of creature-hood, that we, as humans, must realize that we are creatures, we are God's creatures, and must submit to His will and His control, not only that, but we must give Him our lives, as He has created us to be creatures that listen, no, love, Him.
So as I was thinking about this idea, about my question of "why," and about our dogs' behaviors, a thought hit me that maybe, maybe a good clue to why we ought to follow God would be found in this: just as Maggie, the younger dog that had been being snappy, is now behaving better under our actual control, and, I think, happier, perhaps we as humans, when we get past ourselves and admit that God is in control and we are as pups to an owner, will begin to become happier. Maybe the reason that so many people fight for control, for power, for anything, the reason people are selfish, the reason that there is so much war and fighting and strife, is because people don't realize they're creatures of God. Maybe this holds some clue to why we ought to follow Jesus. Because in Him, things make more sense, people are more loving, things just seem right. In a true relationship with Jesus, barring the sin that is inevitable, people will not fight and be selfish and cause strife, because they have realized that they are creatures. They are not in control, and when they try and rest control from the very one who gives them life, they become evil.
There's a great quotation from, "The Narrative of Frederick Douglass," in which Douglass is takling about the experience he had with one of his slaveholders. This slaveholder's wife started teaching Douglass to read, as she thought would be good of her, but as soon as her husband found out, he put an immediate stop to it. Here's a description of how his mistress, the slaveholders wife, digressed as she immersed herself in slavery. "My mistress was, as I have said, a kind and tender-hearted woman; and in the simplicity of her soul she commenced, when I first went to live with her, to treat me as she supposed one human being ought to treat another. In entering upon the duties of a slaveholder, she did not seem to perceive that I sus-tained to her the relation of a mere chattel, and that for her to treat me as a human being was not only wrong, but dangerously so. Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me. When I went there,she was a pious, warm, and tender-hearted woman. There was no sorrow or suffering for which she had not a tear. She had bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that came within her reach. Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these heavenly qualities. Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness. The first step in her downward course was in her ceasing to instruct me. She now commenced to practise her husband's precepts. She finally be- came even more violent in her opposition than herhusband himself. She was not satisfied with simply doing as well as he had commanded; she seemed anxious to do better. Nothing seemed to make her more angry than to see me with a newspaper. She seemed to think that here lay the danger. I have had her rush at me with a face made all up of fury, and snatch from me a newspaper, in a manner that fully revealed her apprehension. She was an apt woman; and a little experience soon demonstrated, to her satisfaction, that education and slavery were incompatible with each other."
I don't know that you took the time to read that, but if you did, I'm sure you see where I am going. As Douglass' mistress displays so well, when human beings take total control of other human beings, when they have power they ought not have, something evil in them happens. Perhaps this is a clue to God, a clue to the fact that we are not meant to be in control, to make our own rules, because when we do, look what happens! I make my own rules every day, rules that are in direct opposition to the one who has created us, and I don't think it's made me happier. At the very best, it's made me more neutral, made me rather apathetic and lazy, more prone to give way to feelings of at the very best not caring about much anything. As Douglass' mistress begins to become more and more evil the more and more she takes control of Douglass' life, as she becomes more and more corrupted the more she practices this corrupt thing, I think that we too, as humans, only lead ourselves into more and more sin the more that we do as we ought not do, the more that we say no to our creator and our creaturehood, the more we make ourselves the own king and loves of our life.
But surely we cannot choose Him, cannot follow Him, cannot fully understand our creaturehood and His Glory without His help. At least, I surely cannot.
Come, Jesus, come, and open our eyes, for if what you say is true, we, I, am far more desperate than I thought.
Ugh.
Our family has two little dogs, both micro miniature dachshunds (yes, they average out to about 7 pounds each..). One of these dachshunds, the younger one, thinks that she is the alpha dog in the house, and, because of this complex, does everything she can to humiliate the other dog/prove her superiority. Lately, she had been getting real nasty, taking her chew toy over next to the older dog and provoking him, which she would follow up by snapping at him. Not very nice. She had proven herself to be an overall kind of selfish and mean dog, which didn't result in her being happy, I don't think. None of us liked this obviously, as she was blatantly abusing the elder dachshund, but we didn't quite know what to do. My mom emailed a few people that might know what to do, and a helpful dog trainer replied, saying that not only should we not just give the dogs chew toys whenever they wanted, but that we needed to show the dogs who was boss. My dad did a little research and found about the same, that the reason so many little dogs get snappy, irritable, and have this Napoleon-like syndrome is not because they are little dogs, but because their owners treat them as toys, and not as the animals, creatures, that they are. So, lately, we haven't been allowing them to have bones when they're not in their kennels, been forcing them to walk either behind or beside us on our walks as to display our "alpha-ness," and have just been generally trying to teach them that we are in control, and not they. The result? Both dogs have been interacting with each other and us better, the younger dog that had been trying to prove her alpha-ness has been stopping and hasn't been being snappy or mean to the other dog, and in general, both dogs have been behaving better.
As I was walking the dogs with my sister today, I was casually thinking about this, and something one of my friends had been talking about lately hit me, the idea of creature-hood, that we, as humans, must realize that we are creatures, we are God's creatures, and must submit to His will and His control, not only that, but we must give Him our lives, as He has created us to be creatures that listen, no, love, Him.
So as I was thinking about this idea, about my question of "why," and about our dogs' behaviors, a thought hit me that maybe, maybe a good clue to why we ought to follow God would be found in this: just as Maggie, the younger dog that had been being snappy, is now behaving better under our actual control, and, I think, happier, perhaps we as humans, when we get past ourselves and admit that God is in control and we are as pups to an owner, will begin to become happier. Maybe the reason that so many people fight for control, for power, for anything, the reason people are selfish, the reason that there is so much war and fighting and strife, is because people don't realize they're creatures of God. Maybe this holds some clue to why we ought to follow Jesus. Because in Him, things make more sense, people are more loving, things just seem right. In a true relationship with Jesus, barring the sin that is inevitable, people will not fight and be selfish and cause strife, because they have realized that they are creatures. They are not in control, and when they try and rest control from the very one who gives them life, they become evil.
There's a great quotation from, "The Narrative of Frederick Douglass," in which Douglass is takling about the experience he had with one of his slaveholders. This slaveholder's wife started teaching Douglass to read, as she thought would be good of her, but as soon as her husband found out, he put an immediate stop to it. Here's a description of how his mistress, the slaveholders wife, digressed as she immersed herself in slavery. "My mistress was, as I have said, a kind and tender-hearted woman; and in the simplicity of her soul she commenced, when I first went to live with her, to treat me as she supposed one human being ought to treat another. In entering upon the duties of a slaveholder, she did not seem to perceive that I sus-tained to her the relation of a mere chattel, and that for her to treat me as a human being was not only wrong, but dangerously so. Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me. When I went there,she was a pious, warm, and tender-hearted woman. There was no sorrow or suffering for which she had not a tear. She had bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that came within her reach. Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these heavenly qualities. Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness. The first step in her downward course was in her ceasing to instruct me. She now commenced to practise her husband's precepts. She finally be- came even more violent in her opposition than herhusband himself. She was not satisfied with simply doing as well as he had commanded; she seemed anxious to do better. Nothing seemed to make her more angry than to see me with a newspaper. She seemed to think that here lay the danger. I have had her rush at me with a face made all up of fury, and snatch from me a newspaper, in a manner that fully revealed her apprehension. She was an apt woman; and a little experience soon demonstrated, to her satisfaction, that education and slavery were incompatible with each other."
I don't know that you took the time to read that, but if you did, I'm sure you see where I am going. As Douglass' mistress displays so well, when human beings take total control of other human beings, when they have power they ought not have, something evil in them happens. Perhaps this is a clue to God, a clue to the fact that we are not meant to be in control, to make our own rules, because when we do, look what happens! I make my own rules every day, rules that are in direct opposition to the one who has created us, and I don't think it's made me happier. At the very best, it's made me more neutral, made me rather apathetic and lazy, more prone to give way to feelings of at the very best not caring about much anything. As Douglass' mistress begins to become more and more evil the more and more she takes control of Douglass' life, as she becomes more and more corrupted the more she practices this corrupt thing, I think that we too, as humans, only lead ourselves into more and more sin the more that we do as we ought not do, the more that we say no to our creator and our creaturehood, the more we make ourselves the own king and loves of our life.
But surely we cannot choose Him, cannot follow Him, cannot fully understand our creaturehood and His Glory without His help. At least, I surely cannot.
Come, Jesus, come, and open our eyes, for if what you say is true, we, I, am far more desperate than I thought.
Ugh.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas.
This makes me want to throw up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081226/ap_on_re_us/santa_shooting
It seems too fake, too terrible.
But what hits me, and the more I think about it, the more I'm saddened and disgusted, but what hits me is how destroyed and mutilated these families must feel. How terrified and completely exposed to evil they must feel. What's more, how could one man possibly be so twisted and scarred that he might be led to do something like this? My conclusion to these two thoughts is that as Christians we must seek to love families such as these, but also to love, deeply and truly and meaningfully, men such as these, people such as these, that are so desperate and hopeless and twisted that they would massacre as this.
What's more is that in our American world this shocks and awes us, this makes us tremble and "want to throw up" yet we don't even realize that horror such as this is commonplace in places such as the Sudan, in the Darfur region, where war and genocide and hopelessness has torn people's lives apart. If we are going to say that Christ brings a message of hope for the hopeless, and this is certainly meaning that we, everyone on earth, as sinners receive the hope of forgiveness, but something in me, something in Christ, says that it cannot just be so "spiritual." The hope of Christ cannot just manifest itself in the words of our preachers. It must be carried out, yes, into the suburbs, although this may look different than it does now, but it also must be carried into the places of horror and death, and that can not mean hitting people in the head with the Bible, it must mean showing them the hope of Christ both to have full life, know God, in this world and in the next, the continuation.
And still I carry on with my selfish sin, hardened heart, listening to what I like, what feels good.
But that's not the point, is it?
On the radio earlier today, in the Spirit of Christmas, someone was talking about the freedom Christ offers, and my thought was such, "Well, sure, if you don't sin, but if you keep on sinning, that's not a ton of freedom now, is it?" That thought is kind of shaming now, but I think that there may be some good things drawn from it. First of all, I seem to assert that the point of us following Christ is to "not sin." The point of following Christ is glorifying God, and yes, sinning certainly is defiant of the love of God and therefore, not glorifying to Him, but it's so much more. I don't quite know where to go know, but I guess that it just seems so.. me-oriented to complain of Christ like that. Christ has given me freedom. He has said to me, "Oh no no, my son, you do not understand. You do continue to sin, and that must stop, but what you do not realize is that I continue to love you and forgive you. You don't quite understand that, do you? No matter, it remains."
That is what the freedom of Christ means. Yes, it is partly that we are freed from sin and are freed from its addictive chains, for surely He will change our hearts, at least I do hope that He will, but it also means that we are freed from sin's wages, and even more so, we are allowed to know God, and pleasure I know far too little of, a joy that I do not take joy in so often. It is not a feeling of happiness, if it were, then, well, I would take joy in Christ some of the time, that's for sure, but probably not very constantly. It has to be something more than a feeling, and I may be in the process of finding out what that is. Lord help us, for we are lost little lambs, dumbstruck in a world of mud pies and back alleys, knowing nothing of vacations at the sea, nor anything of hope, nor even knowing why we might need hope or grace or a savior. Lord, help us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081226/ap_on_re_us/santa_shooting
It seems too fake, too terrible.
But what hits me, and the more I think about it, the more I'm saddened and disgusted, but what hits me is how destroyed and mutilated these families must feel. How terrified and completely exposed to evil they must feel. What's more, how could one man possibly be so twisted and scarred that he might be led to do something like this? My conclusion to these two thoughts is that as Christians we must seek to love families such as these, but also to love, deeply and truly and meaningfully, men such as these, people such as these, that are so desperate and hopeless and twisted that they would massacre as this.
What's more is that in our American world this shocks and awes us, this makes us tremble and "want to throw up" yet we don't even realize that horror such as this is commonplace in places such as the Sudan, in the Darfur region, where war and genocide and hopelessness has torn people's lives apart. If we are going to say that Christ brings a message of hope for the hopeless, and this is certainly meaning that we, everyone on earth, as sinners receive the hope of forgiveness, but something in me, something in Christ, says that it cannot just be so "spiritual." The hope of Christ cannot just manifest itself in the words of our preachers. It must be carried out, yes, into the suburbs, although this may look different than it does now, but it also must be carried into the places of horror and death, and that can not mean hitting people in the head with the Bible, it must mean showing them the hope of Christ both to have full life, know God, in this world and in the next, the continuation.
And still I carry on with my selfish sin, hardened heart, listening to what I like, what feels good.
But that's not the point, is it?
On the radio earlier today, in the Spirit of Christmas, someone was talking about the freedom Christ offers, and my thought was such, "Well, sure, if you don't sin, but if you keep on sinning, that's not a ton of freedom now, is it?" That thought is kind of shaming now, but I think that there may be some good things drawn from it. First of all, I seem to assert that the point of us following Christ is to "not sin." The point of following Christ is glorifying God, and yes, sinning certainly is defiant of the love of God and therefore, not glorifying to Him, but it's so much more. I don't quite know where to go know, but I guess that it just seems so.. me-oriented to complain of Christ like that. Christ has given me freedom. He has said to me, "Oh no no, my son, you do not understand. You do continue to sin, and that must stop, but what you do not realize is that I continue to love you and forgive you. You don't quite understand that, do you? No matter, it remains."
That is what the freedom of Christ means. Yes, it is partly that we are freed from sin and are freed from its addictive chains, for surely He will change our hearts, at least I do hope that He will, but it also means that we are freed from sin's wages, and even more so, we are allowed to know God, and pleasure I know far too little of, a joy that I do not take joy in so often. It is not a feeling of happiness, if it were, then, well, I would take joy in Christ some of the time, that's for sure, but probably not very constantly. It has to be something more than a feeling, and I may be in the process of finding out what that is. Lord help us, for we are lost little lambs, dumbstruck in a world of mud pies and back alleys, knowing nothing of vacations at the sea, nor anything of hope, nor even knowing why we might need hope or grace or a savior. Lord, help us.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Prodigal God
I picked up The Prodigal God by Tim Keller a little bit ago and it has certainly made me think.
I was going to share a few quotes from it that describe the condition I and many others, I do believe, have, but was surprised by another thought, an answer to prayers of sorts.
For clarification, the book is about the story of the Prodigal Son, or rather, as Keller calls it, the parable of the two sons. in it, he goes into a description of the parable and goes on to discuss the conditions of the two sons, primarily the elder son, the morally right. In a rather revealing commentary to me, he discusses how jaded both sons are to God, that the sin of the sons is not merely doing good or doing bad, as if it were, the elder son would be justified, rather, it is a wish to have control. Well, here, he explains it better.
So, as I have been reading through this book, my kind of off and on prayer has been, "Well, God, if I'm in this condition, how do I fix it? How am I changed so that I do things out of a love for you, not out of a want for my own good? For surely, even though You promise good to those who come to you, our hearts must be changed so that they desire You above all things, even our own good!"
What was His answer? Well, I certainly expected a lengthier wait for any response from God, as it seems that with regards to His work I always seem to think I'll have to wait years for things to change. But He hit me with a thought. If the end of man is to glorify God, then our lives should be spent trying to seek out how we can do that, correct? With the hopeful consent of a dear friend, I shall borrow an analogy. If we are to be mirrors reflecting God's own glory, sin has fogged our mirror. What Jesus has come to do is un-fog those mirrors. His blood on the Cross and continued work in our lives is the Windex, if you will, to clean our mirrors that they may shine brightly the glory of He Who Created Us. (He Who Must Be Named? A Harry Potter joke..) Therefore, my question of, "How can I fix myself, how can I get out of this moralistic attitude?" must be addressed with a why? Why do I want to get out of this moralistic attitude? Is it merely because I know it's the right thing to want, or because true life is found in Jesus and to truly follow Jesus I must truly love God, and that cannot come of moralism?
Regardless, the answer that I came to was that perhaps it is not something I am obligated to fix. Perhaps I must make every effort to seek God truthfully and honestly, keeping in line with His commands and following His wisdom, but at the very heart of it all, depending on Jesus to cleanse me. Perhaps my job is not to worry about changing my heart beyond prayer. Perhaps I simply must continue to attempt to know God, but instead of relying on my own good, relying on the good of Jesus, the blood that He spilled in order for my mirror to be unfogged, my life to be full of what it's supposed to be, and believing that He is big enough, faithful enough, gracious enough to change me.
Whew.
I was going to share a few quotes from it that describe the condition I and many others, I do believe, have, but was surprised by another thought, an answer to prayers of sorts.
For clarification, the book is about the story of the Prodigal Son, or rather, as Keller calls it, the parable of the two sons. in it, he goes into a description of the parable and goes on to discuss the conditions of the two sons, primarily the elder son, the morally right. In a rather revealing commentary to me, he discusses how jaded both sons are to God, that the sin of the sons is not merely doing good or doing bad, as if it were, the elder son would be justified, rather, it is a wish to have control. Well, here, he explains it better.
Here, then, is Jesus' radical redefinition of what is wrong with us. Nearly everyone defines sin as breaking a list of rules. Jesus, though, shows us that a man who has violated virtually nothing on the list of moral misbehaviors can be every bit as spiritually lost as the most profligate, immoral person. Why? Because sin is not just breaking the rules, it is putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord, and Judge just as each son sought to displace the authority of the father in his own life.Not only this, he goes on to explain that he believes the condition of the elder son, the moralist, is a much more desperate condition than the one who is "doin' all the wrong." This, the condition of the moralist and self-righteous yet still self-seeking "Christian" is surely what I have been.
So, as I have been reading through this book, my kind of off and on prayer has been, "Well, God, if I'm in this condition, how do I fix it? How am I changed so that I do things out of a love for you, not out of a want for my own good? For surely, even though You promise good to those who come to you, our hearts must be changed so that they desire You above all things, even our own good!"
What was His answer? Well, I certainly expected a lengthier wait for any response from God, as it seems that with regards to His work I always seem to think I'll have to wait years for things to change. But He hit me with a thought. If the end of man is to glorify God, then our lives should be spent trying to seek out how we can do that, correct? With the hopeful consent of a dear friend, I shall borrow an analogy. If we are to be mirrors reflecting God's own glory, sin has fogged our mirror. What Jesus has come to do is un-fog those mirrors. His blood on the Cross and continued work in our lives is the Windex, if you will, to clean our mirrors that they may shine brightly the glory of He Who Created Us. (He Who Must Be Named? A Harry Potter joke..) Therefore, my question of, "How can I fix myself, how can I get out of this moralistic attitude?" must be addressed with a why? Why do I want to get out of this moralistic attitude? Is it merely because I know it's the right thing to want, or because true life is found in Jesus and to truly follow Jesus I must truly love God, and that cannot come of moralism?
Regardless, the answer that I came to was that perhaps it is not something I am obligated to fix. Perhaps I must make every effort to seek God truthfully and honestly, keeping in line with His commands and following His wisdom, but at the very heart of it all, depending on Jesus to cleanse me. Perhaps my job is not to worry about changing my heart beyond prayer. Perhaps I simply must continue to attempt to know God, but instead of relying on my own good, relying on the good of Jesus, the blood that He spilled in order for my mirror to be unfogged, my life to be full of what it's supposed to be, and believing that He is big enough, faithful enough, gracious enough to change me.
Whew.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Psalm 5
So, I was just reading through Psalm 5.
It's pretty cool, the first few verses (not trying to downplay these, they just aren't what I was wanting to talk about) talk about the faithfulness of God "In the morning, O Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation." The author (or would we call the author God? well, that's a whole 'nother discussion), David, goes on to pray that God, as a God who does not take pleasure in evil, who cannot stand the arrogant, who hates all who do wrong, would banish those whose "throat is an open grave", who with "their tongue [..] speak deceit." My question was, how do we respond to this? Do we look at God who takes out His wrath on the evil because we pray for it, and are we to be people who pray for God to take out His wrath on evildoers? My immediate response was, "well no, of course not, for I was once evil, and He did not take out His wrath on me." But I don't realy know how to think about God's justice in this sense, because He certainly does punish those who do wrong, that's fairly Biblical, but are we, as Christians, to be people who desire that?
Another thought hit me as I was thinking about this.
Let me quote verses 7-10.
7 But I, by your great mercy,
will come into your house;
in reverence will I bow down
toward your holy temple.
It's pretty cool, the first few verses (not trying to downplay these, they just aren't what I was wanting to talk about) talk about the faithfulness of God "In the morning, O Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation." The author (or would we call the author God? well, that's a whole 'nother discussion), David, goes on to pray that God, as a God who does not take pleasure in evil, who cannot stand the arrogant, who hates all who do wrong, would banish those whose "throat is an open grave", who with "their tongue [..] speak deceit." My question was, how do we respond to this? Do we look at God who takes out His wrath on the evil because we pray for it, and are we to be people who pray for God to take out His wrath on evildoers? My immediate response was, "well no, of course not, for I was once evil, and He did not take out His wrath on me." But I don't realy know how to think about God's justice in this sense, because He certainly does punish those who do wrong, that's fairly Biblical, but are we, as Christians, to be people who desire that?
Another thought hit me as I was thinking about this.
Let me quote verses 7-10.
7 But I, by your great mercy,
will come into your house;
in reverence will I bow down
toward your holy temple.
8 Lead me, O LORD, in your righteousness
because of my enemies—
make straight your way before me.
9 Not a word from their mouth can be trusted;
their heart is filled with destruction.
Their throat is an open grave;
with their tongue they speak deceit.
10 Declare them guilty, O God!
Let their intrigues be their downfall.
Banish them for their many sins,
for they have rebelled against you.
Now, the thought that hit me was that in verse 9, David refers to "their mouth," "their heart," and "their throat." He is talking about "[his] enemies," so I would think that he would refer to 'their mouthS' not, "their mouth," or 'their hearts,' not "their heart." Maybe this is just a literary technique I am not aware of, or perhaps I'm simply more grammar ignorant that I had before thought, but it seems as thought David is talking about a group of people, not certain people. Perhaps he is not condemning people specifically, but people who are in sin? That wouldn't make much more sense either.
Regardless, the beauty of a blog?
You guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
