It is said that confession is good for the soul. This is certainly true for the author of our epistle. Here we may conclude by summarizing what confession is and how it is "good for the soul." Confession is, first, the acknowledgment of sin--not the acknowledgment that there is sin, or that sin is wrong, but that "we have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed." Second, then, confession means that we know God as light, as the measure of truth and righteousness by which we fall short. Third, when we confess our sin, we adopt a stance of dependence toward God. Precisely the refusal to confess their sin branded the secessionists as those who scorned the saving work of God on their behalf. Fourth, confession implies a turning to God, a desire to conform ourselves to God's character. Confession does not mean that we say, "I did it again; that's just the way I am." Confession means that we say, "Forgive me, for I have done it again; but I don't want to do it again. Please help me to live within the light of God's truth." Confession is a resource to bring our whole life into conformity with God's will.
Finally, we must always remember that confession is both personal and corporate. In confessing our sins, we acknowledge our place in the company of confessed sinners. Together we stand, on common ground, before God who accepts and forgives all of us. Confession can never be something by which we gain the upper hand over another brother or sister. It certainly is no mark of superiority to confess our sins. It is, rather, simply an acknowledgment of who we are. What God wants of us, then, is sincere commitment to walking in the light and honest confession of our sin.
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Condemnation of Perverters of the Gospel (1:8-10)
Condemnation of Perverters of the Gospel (1:8-10)
Galatians 1:8-10
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul places all advocates of a gospel that differs from his gospel under condemnation. Adherence to the true gospel is the final test of true authority. Even the authority of a messenger from heaven or the authority of Paul himself must be tested by loyalty to the gospel. It is important to note that Paul holds himself accountable to this ultimate measure of authority. His apostolic authority is not arbitrary; it is valid only as long as he is faithful to the true gospel.
In the history of the church we can observe two extremes in the use of authority. Sometimes those who have leadership roles do not exercise their God-given authority; leaderless churches drift into compromise and divide into competing factions. This was the condition of the Corinthian church. But on the other hand, some persons in leadership roles attempt to exercise absolute control over the church and place themselves above any criticism; enslaved churches lack freedom to grow in faith and love. This was the condition of the Galatian churches. The intruders campaigned for the exclusive devotion of the Galatian Christians (4:17).
The extremes of anarchy and tyranny can be avoided in the church only when we implement Paul's combination of authority and accountability. Leaders in the church should lead with authority, because God is the ultimate source for their position; but they should also lead with humility, because God has set the final standard in the truth of the gospel, by which all are judged. Leaders must be held accountable to this final standard by those who are led.
In verse 9 Paul repeats his previous instruction, which eternally condemns anybody for preaching a gospel other than what the Galatian converts had originally accepted from Paul. Paul's double condemnation sounds terribly harsh and severe in our ears. It expresses an absolute intolerance for anyone who differs from his gospel. How can we seek to maintain harmony in a context of religious pluralism, we might respond, except by showing tolerance for all religious alternatives? Doesn't Paul himself argue for a tolerant acceptance of differences in other situations?
We need to understand that Paul was willing to accommodate himself to differences in matters such as what foods to eat or what days to celebrate (Rom 14--15; 1 Cor 8--10), but when the central truth of the gospel was at stake, he drew a clear line and refused to compromise. He was unyielding in his defense of "the truth of the gospel" (2:5, 14), because he wanted to protect the freedom of God's people. Paul did teach that Christians should "live at peace with everyone" (Rom 12:18); but when anyone negated the core of the gospel, especially the significance of the cross, he did not hesitate to forcefully refute that person, as we see here in Galatians and in his other letters (see 2 Cor 11:13-15; Col 2:8). While we should seek to maintain harmony in a context of religious pluralism by showing tolerance and respect for people of other religious persuasions, this should not lead us to compromise in any way the exclusiveness of the true gospel of Christ.
Of course our unwillingness to compromise the truth of the gospel will sometimes make us quite unpopular. In verse 10 Paul recognizes that his double condemnation of all who preach a gospel different from his gospel will certainly not be seen as an attempt to please people. His rhetorical questions call for a negative answer: "No, Paul, you are obviously not trying to win human approval, but God's." Perhaps Paul had been accused of trying to please people by preaching a gospel that did not require Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. But now after pronouncing judgment on all who preach a perversion of his gospel, he considers himself to be cleared of any accusation that his ambition is to please people. Such an ambition would indicate that he was not a true servant of Christ. By his loyalty to the gospel despite opposition, Paul proves his complete submission to the lordship of Christ. As a faithful servant to Christ, he is a rebuke to the Galatian believers who are so quickly deserting the One who called them and turning to a different gospel (1:6).
True servants of Christ will not win popularity contests with people who "gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Tim 4:3). But even when they are unpopular, true servants of Christ are marked by unswerving loyalty to Christ. We can still hear the clear gospel message today because courageous men and women suffered greatly for their uncompromising defense of it in years past. They resisted immense pressure to renounce their faith in Christ, and they boldly declared, as Martin Luther did, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
Galatians 1:8-10
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul places all advocates of a gospel that differs from his gospel under condemnation. Adherence to the true gospel is the final test of true authority. Even the authority of a messenger from heaven or the authority of Paul himself must be tested by loyalty to the gospel. It is important to note that Paul holds himself accountable to this ultimate measure of authority. His apostolic authority is not arbitrary; it is valid only as long as he is faithful to the true gospel.
In the history of the church we can observe two extremes in the use of authority. Sometimes those who have leadership roles do not exercise their God-given authority; leaderless churches drift into compromise and divide into competing factions. This was the condition of the Corinthian church. But on the other hand, some persons in leadership roles attempt to exercise absolute control over the church and place themselves above any criticism; enslaved churches lack freedom to grow in faith and love. This was the condition of the Galatian churches. The intruders campaigned for the exclusive devotion of the Galatian Christians (4:17).
The extremes of anarchy and tyranny can be avoided in the church only when we implement Paul's combination of authority and accountability. Leaders in the church should lead with authority, because God is the ultimate source for their position; but they should also lead with humility, because God has set the final standard in the truth of the gospel, by which all are judged. Leaders must be held accountable to this final standard by those who are led.
In verse 9 Paul repeats his previous instruction, which eternally condemns anybody for preaching a gospel other than what the Galatian converts had originally accepted from Paul. Paul's double condemnation sounds terribly harsh and severe in our ears. It expresses an absolute intolerance for anyone who differs from his gospel. How can we seek to maintain harmony in a context of religious pluralism, we might respond, except by showing tolerance for all religious alternatives? Doesn't Paul himself argue for a tolerant acceptance of differences in other situations?
We need to understand that Paul was willing to accommodate himself to differences in matters such as what foods to eat or what days to celebrate (Rom 14--15; 1 Cor 8--10), but when the central truth of the gospel was at stake, he drew a clear line and refused to compromise. He was unyielding in his defense of "the truth of the gospel" (2:5, 14), because he wanted to protect the freedom of God's people. Paul did teach that Christians should "live at peace with everyone" (Rom 12:18); but when anyone negated the core of the gospel, especially the significance of the cross, he did not hesitate to forcefully refute that person, as we see here in Galatians and in his other letters (see 2 Cor 11:13-15; Col 2:8). While we should seek to maintain harmony in a context of religious pluralism by showing tolerance and respect for people of other religious persuasions, this should not lead us to compromise in any way the exclusiveness of the true gospel of Christ.
Of course our unwillingness to compromise the truth of the gospel will sometimes make us quite unpopular. In verse 10 Paul recognizes that his double condemnation of all who preach a gospel different from his gospel will certainly not be seen as an attempt to please people. His rhetorical questions call for a negative answer: "No, Paul, you are obviously not trying to win human approval, but God's." Perhaps Paul had been accused of trying to please people by preaching a gospel that did not require Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. But now after pronouncing judgment on all who preach a perversion of his gospel, he considers himself to be cleared of any accusation that his ambition is to please people. Such an ambition would indicate that he was not a true servant of Christ. By his loyalty to the gospel despite opposition, Paul proves his complete submission to the lordship of Christ. As a faithful servant to Christ, he is a rebuke to the Galatian believers who are so quickly deserting the One who called them and turning to a different gospel (1:6).
True servants of Christ will not win popularity contests with people who "gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Tim 4:3). But even when they are unpopular, true servants of Christ are marked by unswerving loyalty to Christ. We can still hear the clear gospel message today because courageous men and women suffered greatly for their uncompromising defense of it in years past. They resisted immense pressure to renounce their faith in Christ, and they boldly declared, as Martin Luther did, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Enûma Eli
The Enûma Eliš is the Babylonian or Mesopotamian creation epic. It was first discovered by modern scholars (in fragmentary form) in the ruined library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq), recovered by Henry Layard in 1849.
The Enuma Elish has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Akkadian on seven clay tablets, each holding between 115 and 170 lines of text. The majority of Tablet V has never been recovered, but aside from this lacuna the text is almost complete. A duplicate copy of Tablet V has been found in Sultantepe, ancient Harran.
This epic is one of the most important sources for understanding the Babylonian worldview, centered on the supremacy of Marduk and the existence of mankind for the service of the gods. Its primary original purpose, however, is not an exposition of theology or theogony, but the elevation of Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, above other Mesopotamian gods.
The Enûma Elish has existed in various versions and copies from Babylonia as well as from Assyria. The version from Ashurbanipal's library dates to the 7th century BC. The story itself probably dates to the 18th century BC on account of the fact that this is the time when the god Marduk seemed to have a prominent status. Some scholars date it later (14th to 12th centuries BC.)
The Enuma Elish has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Akkadian on seven clay tablets, each holding between 115 and 170 lines of text. The majority of Tablet V has never been recovered, but aside from this lacuna the text is almost complete. A duplicate copy of Tablet V has been found in Sultantepe, ancient Harran.
This epic is one of the most important sources for understanding the Babylonian worldview, centered on the supremacy of Marduk and the existence of mankind for the service of the gods. Its primary original purpose, however, is not an exposition of theology or theogony, but the elevation of Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, above other Mesopotamian gods.
The Enûma Elish has existed in various versions and copies from Babylonia as well as from Assyria. The version from Ashurbanipal's library dates to the 7th century BC. The story itself probably dates to the 18th century BC on account of the fact that this is the time when the god Marduk seemed to have a prominent status. Some scholars date it later (14th to 12th centuries BC.)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
An isolated leader
NIV: Advancement Is Meaningless
Ecclesiastes 4: 13 Better a poor but wise youth than an old but foolish king who no longer knows how to take warning. 14 The youth may have come from prison to the kingship, or he may have been born in poverty within his kingdom. 15 I saw that all who lived and walked under the sun followed the youth, the king's successor. 16 There was no end to all the people who were before them. But those who came later were not pleased with the successor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
From New Bible Commentary: An isolated leader. Some ambiguous pronouns in v 14 mean that this passage can be read in several ways. The NIV is probably correct. The elderly king of v 13 was wise once (as no longer suggests) but lost his wisdom. The word for poor refers to humble origins. Youth ranges in age from teens to forties. In v 14 his refers to the king. A young man arises; he had everything against him but the king became isolated (implied in v 15). The isolation of the older man led to the success of the younger. The younger man was successful for a while (15). In v 16 before them means ‘were their subjects’. For the younger man also popularity was not lasting. [p. 613] He repeated the cycle. Two main points that are true universally arise from the story: that isolation is part of the painfulness of human experience, and that the new generation did not solve the problem of the older generation (see 1:9-11).
Ryan's reflections.
leaders come and go. every generation complain about the leaders of their time; and they seem to always think they have the know-how or answers to solve problems. "wait till you become a leader youself.... wait till you become a father yourself" while there may me some truth, the point of reflection is : it is meaningless. there will surely be something people will not be satisfied with - either with the current life or with the life to come. (assume one believes and go to heaven!) leaders come, leaders go... no one can outlast God. It is still God who decides who shall reign, who shall end well, and who shall end badly. He is sovereign ; if there is anything to ask... (see ecc 3:14-15)
Ecclesiastes 4: 13 Better a poor but wise youth than an old but foolish king who no longer knows how to take warning. 14 The youth may have come from prison to the kingship, or he may have been born in poverty within his kingdom. 15 I saw that all who lived and walked under the sun followed the youth, the king's successor. 16 There was no end to all the people who were before them. But those who came later were not pleased with the successor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
From New Bible Commentary: An isolated leader. Some ambiguous pronouns in v 14 mean that this passage can be read in several ways. The NIV is probably correct. The elderly king of v 13 was wise once (as no longer suggests) but lost his wisdom. The word for poor refers to humble origins. Youth ranges in age from teens to forties. In v 14 his refers to the king. A young man arises; he had everything against him but the king became isolated (implied in v 15). The isolation of the older man led to the success of the younger. The younger man was successful for a while (15). In v 16 before them means ‘were their subjects’. For the younger man also popularity was not lasting. [p. 613] He repeated the cycle. Two main points that are true universally arise from the story: that isolation is part of the painfulness of human experience, and that the new generation did not solve the problem of the older generation (see 1:9-11).
Ryan's reflections.
leaders come and go. every generation complain about the leaders of their time; and they seem to always think they have the know-how or answers to solve problems. "wait till you become a leader youself.... wait till you become a father yourself" while there may me some truth, the point of reflection is : it is meaningless. there will surely be something people will not be satisfied with - either with the current life or with the life to come. (assume one believes and go to heaven!) leaders come, leaders go... no one can outlast God. It is still God who decides who shall reign, who shall end well, and who shall end badly. He is sovereign ; if there is anything to ask... (see ecc 3:14-15)
Servant of the Lord
I. In the Old Testament
a. The ‘Servant Songs’
B. Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah (1892) distinguished four passages which have since been regarded as the ‘Servant Songs’: Is. 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12. Some scholars (e.g. S. Mowinckel) have gone so far as to assign these passages to a separate author and period from the surrounding text. Modern scholarship is generally agreed, however, that they are an integral part of Isaiah 40ff., with many echoes in neighbouring passages. The term ‘servant’ ({eb≈ed≈ occurs as frequently outside Duhm’s selected passages as within them (e.g. Is. 41:8f.; 43:10; 44:1f., 21; 45:4; 48:20), with reference to the nation of Israel. It is also used in the OT for individuals in a close relationship with God, such as the Patriarchs, prophets and kings, and particularly Moses and David (e.g. Gn. 26:24; Ex. 14:31; Dt. 34:5; 2 Sa. 7:5; Is. 20:3; Am. 3:7). But in the ‘Servant Songs’ a distinctive conception of ‘servanthood’ comes into sharper focus, so that without divorcing these passages from their context most scholars continue to speak of a ‘Servant figure’ as a distinct element in the prophet’s message; and the most distinctive element in this figure is that of obedient, undeserved suffering, leading to death, as the means of taking away the sin of his people and ‘making many to be accounted righteous’.
For a fuller treatment of the character and mission of the Servant in the context of the message of Is. 40ff., see *Messiah, I. b. 1.
b. The identity of the Servant
The following are the main lines of interpretation suggested.
1. Collective. The explicit description of Israel as God’s ‘servant’ both in the ‘Servant Songs’ (Is. 49:3) and in the surrounding text leads many to regard the Songs as a description of the prophet’s ideal for Israel, identifying the Servant either as the nation as a whole or, more probably, a pious remnant within the nation, with a mission to Israel (49:5f.), involving suffering to redeem the whole nation (53:4–6, 8, 11f.).
2. Individual. The language about the Servant is often strongly individual, describing the birth, suffering, death and eventual triumph of what is apparently a person rather than a group. Various historical identifications have been proposed, such as Moses, Jeremiah, Cyrus, Zerubbabel or the prophet himself. But the traditional interpretation, Jewish and Christian, is that the Servant is an ideal individual figure of the future, God’s agent in redeeming his people, i.e. the *Messiah. In later Palestinian Judaism this was the dominant interpretation (Hellenistic Judaism was apparently more favourable to a collective interpretation), so that the *Targum of Jonathan on Is. 53, while clearly embarrassed by the idea of Messianic suffering to the extent of drastically reconstructing the text to eliminate this implication, still explicitly identifies the Servant as the Messiah (see text in Zimmerli and Jeremias, The Servant of God2, pp. 69–71; and for other early Jewish interpretations, ibid., pp. 37–79).
3. Cultic. Some Scandinavian scholars find the background to the Servant in the Babylonian myth of the dying and rising god *Tammuz and its associated liturgy. The Servant would then be a mythological concept rather than a historically identifiable figure or group. The existence of such myth and ritual in Israel is, however, highly debatable.
4. ‘Corporate personality’. Interpretations 1 and 2 above reflect important characteristics of the texts: both collective and individual aspects are clearly present in the Servant figure. Most scholars today tend, therefore, to look for an exegesis similar to H. W. Robinson’s concept of ‘corporate personality’, i.e. the recognition that in the OT an individual (e.g. king or father) may represent and embody the group of which he is the head, so that he both is that group and yet can also be placed over against it as its leader. So the Servant is Israel (49:3), he sums up in himself all that Israel represents, and yet he is an individual with a mission to Israel (49:5f.) and his experiences on their behalf are the object of the nation’s interest (53:1–6). The close juxtaposition of 49:3 and 49:5f. shows that these two aspects of the Servant are inseparable. The individual character of the Servant is most clearly expressed in 52:13–53:12, so that in this passage ‘what began as a personification (has) become a person’ (Rowley), and here all the emphasis is on the vicarious nature of his suffering as a substitute for his people. But this role is only possible because he is Israel, as its representative head.
II. In the New Testament
Some recent scholarship (esp. M. D. Hooker; also C. K. Barrett, C. F. D. Moule) has argued that the Servant figure was a minor element in the NT understanding of Jesus’ redemptive work, and that the OT ground for his role of suffering and rejection was found rather in the ‘son of man’ of Dn. 7. It is pointed out that relatively few formal quotations from Servant passages occur in the NT, and that several of these quotations are of parts of the Songs which do not speak explicitly of suffering, or at least of redemptive suffering.
It is not legitimate, however, to restrict consideration to formal quotations, as allusive references are if anything even more impressive evidence of the influence of the Servant figure, and even where the words alluded to are not directly concerned with redemptive suffering, it is hard to believe that these passages could be referred to with no thought of their most distinctive theme and of its relevance to the mission of Jesus. Above all, it is indisputable that Is. 53 is by far the clearest indication of Messianic suffering in the OT, so that even if no explicit allusions to the Servant occurred, it would be very likely that this was the main source (together with certain psalms and parts of Zc. 9–13) of the repeated conviction that the Messiah must suffer, because ‘it is written’ of him. No such role of Messianic suffering is explicit in Dn. 7, nor did contemporary Jewish exegesis find it there.
In fact the explicit evidence of the influence of the Servant figure (esp. Is. 53, where the redemptive element is emphatic) is far from negligible.
[1083]
a. In the teaching of Jesus
Is. 53:12 is explicitly quoted in Lk. 22:37. There are further clear allusions to Is. 53:10–12 in Mk. 10:45 and 14:24. Mk. 9:12 probably echoes Is. 53:3, and other possible allusions have been found in Mt. 3:15 (cf. Is. 53:11), Lk. 11:22 (cf. Is. 53:12; not a very likely allusion) and in the use of paradidosthai (‘be delivered’) in Mk. 9:31; 10:33; 14:21 (cf. Is. 53:12). In addition the voice at Jesus’ baptism (Mk. 1:11), outlining his mission in terms of Is. 42:1, must have influenced Jesus’ thinking.
Note the concentration in these allusions on Is. 53, and particularly on vv. 10–12 where the redemptive role of the Servant is most explicit. In Mk. 10:45 and 14:24 in particular the vicarious and redemptive character of Jesus’ death is stressed, in terms drawn from Is. 53.
b. In the rest of the New Testament
The actual title ‘servant’ (pais) is confined to Peter’s speech in Acts 3:13, 26 and the prayer of the church in Acts 4:27, 30, but the influence of the Servant figure is clear also in 1 Pet. 2:21–25; 3:18, suggesting that it featured prominently in Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ mission. Paul’s explanations of Christ’s redemptive work often contain ideas, and sometimes verbal allusions, which suggest that he too saw Jesus’ work foreshadowed in Is. 53. (See e.g. Phil. 2:6–11; Rom. 4:25; 5:19; 8:3f., 32–34; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21.) The use of ‘lamb of God’ by John (1:29, 36) also probably shows the influence of Is. 53:7. Heb. 9:28, ‘to bear the sins of many’, echoes Is. 53:12.
There are also a number of formal quotations from Servant passages, with reference to Jesus and the gospel, viz. Mt. 8:17; 12:18–21; Jn. 12:38; Acts 8:32f.; Rom. 10:16; 15:21. None of these is with specific reference to Jesus’ redemptive work, and some focus on other aspects of his mission, but all testify further to the early church’s conviction that the Servant figure, and particularly Is. 53, was a divinely ordained pattern for the Messianic mission of Jesus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. For the whole article: W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God2, 1965 (= TDNT 5, pp. 654–717).For section I: H. W. Robinson, The Cross of the Servant, 1926, reprinted in The Cross in the Old Testament, 1955, pp. 55–114; I. Engnell, BJRL 31, 1948, pp. 54–93; C. R. North, 4, 1948; J. Lindblom, 4, 1951; H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, 1952, pp. 1–88; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956, pp. 187–257; H. Ringgren, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 1956, pp. 39–53.For section II: J. L. Price, Int 12, 1958, pp. 28–38; C. K. Barrett in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays in memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, pp. 1–18; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959, pp. 51–82; M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 1959; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, pp. 77–88; C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, 1967, pp. 82–99; R. T. France, TynB 19, 1968, pp. 26–52, and Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, pp. 110–132; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 1, 1971, pp. 286–299.
a. The ‘Servant Songs’
B. Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah (1892) distinguished four passages which have since been regarded as the ‘Servant Songs’: Is. 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12. Some scholars (e.g. S. Mowinckel) have gone so far as to assign these passages to a separate author and period from the surrounding text. Modern scholarship is generally agreed, however, that they are an integral part of Isaiah 40ff., with many echoes in neighbouring passages. The term ‘servant’ ({eb≈ed≈ occurs as frequently outside Duhm’s selected passages as within them (e.g. Is. 41:8f.; 43:10; 44:1f., 21; 45:4; 48:20), with reference to the nation of Israel. It is also used in the OT for individuals in a close relationship with God, such as the Patriarchs, prophets and kings, and particularly Moses and David (e.g. Gn. 26:24; Ex. 14:31; Dt. 34:5; 2 Sa. 7:5; Is. 20:3; Am. 3:7). But in the ‘Servant Songs’ a distinctive conception of ‘servanthood’ comes into sharper focus, so that without divorcing these passages from their context most scholars continue to speak of a ‘Servant figure’ as a distinct element in the prophet’s message; and the most distinctive element in this figure is that of obedient, undeserved suffering, leading to death, as the means of taking away the sin of his people and ‘making many to be accounted righteous’.
For a fuller treatment of the character and mission of the Servant in the context of the message of Is. 40ff., see *Messiah, I. b. 1.
b. The identity of the Servant
The following are the main lines of interpretation suggested.
1. Collective. The explicit description of Israel as God’s ‘servant’ both in the ‘Servant Songs’ (Is. 49:3) and in the surrounding text leads many to regard the Songs as a description of the prophet’s ideal for Israel, identifying the Servant either as the nation as a whole or, more probably, a pious remnant within the nation, with a mission to Israel (49:5f.), involving suffering to redeem the whole nation (53:4–6, 8, 11f.).
2. Individual. The language about the Servant is often strongly individual, describing the birth, suffering, death and eventual triumph of what is apparently a person rather than a group. Various historical identifications have been proposed, such as Moses, Jeremiah, Cyrus, Zerubbabel or the prophet himself. But the traditional interpretation, Jewish and Christian, is that the Servant is an ideal individual figure of the future, God’s agent in redeeming his people, i.e. the *Messiah. In later Palestinian Judaism this was the dominant interpretation (Hellenistic Judaism was apparently more favourable to a collective interpretation), so that the *Targum of Jonathan on Is. 53, while clearly embarrassed by the idea of Messianic suffering to the extent of drastically reconstructing the text to eliminate this implication, still explicitly identifies the Servant as the Messiah (see text in Zimmerli and Jeremias, The Servant of God2, pp. 69–71; and for other early Jewish interpretations, ibid., pp. 37–79).
3. Cultic. Some Scandinavian scholars find the background to the Servant in the Babylonian myth of the dying and rising god *Tammuz and its associated liturgy. The Servant would then be a mythological concept rather than a historically identifiable figure or group. The existence of such myth and ritual in Israel is, however, highly debatable.
4. ‘Corporate personality’. Interpretations 1 and 2 above reflect important characteristics of the texts: both collective and individual aspects are clearly present in the Servant figure. Most scholars today tend, therefore, to look for an exegesis similar to H. W. Robinson’s concept of ‘corporate personality’, i.e. the recognition that in the OT an individual (e.g. king or father) may represent and embody the group of which he is the head, so that he both is that group and yet can also be placed over against it as its leader. So the Servant is Israel (49:3), he sums up in himself all that Israel represents, and yet he is an individual with a mission to Israel (49:5f.) and his experiences on their behalf are the object of the nation’s interest (53:1–6). The close juxtaposition of 49:3 and 49:5f. shows that these two aspects of the Servant are inseparable. The individual character of the Servant is most clearly expressed in 52:13–53:12, so that in this passage ‘what began as a personification (has) become a person’ (Rowley), and here all the emphasis is on the vicarious nature of his suffering as a substitute for his people. But this role is only possible because he is Israel, as its representative head.
II. In the New Testament
Some recent scholarship (esp. M. D. Hooker; also C. K. Barrett, C. F. D. Moule) has argued that the Servant figure was a minor element in the NT understanding of Jesus’ redemptive work, and that the OT ground for his role of suffering and rejection was found rather in the ‘son of man’ of Dn. 7. It is pointed out that relatively few formal quotations from Servant passages occur in the NT, and that several of these quotations are of parts of the Songs which do not speak explicitly of suffering, or at least of redemptive suffering.
It is not legitimate, however, to restrict consideration to formal quotations, as allusive references are if anything even more impressive evidence of the influence of the Servant figure, and even where the words alluded to are not directly concerned with redemptive suffering, it is hard to believe that these passages could be referred to with no thought of their most distinctive theme and of its relevance to the mission of Jesus. Above all, it is indisputable that Is. 53 is by far the clearest indication of Messianic suffering in the OT, so that even if no explicit allusions to the Servant occurred, it would be very likely that this was the main source (together with certain psalms and parts of Zc. 9–13) of the repeated conviction that the Messiah must suffer, because ‘it is written’ of him. No such role of Messianic suffering is explicit in Dn. 7, nor did contemporary Jewish exegesis find it there.
In fact the explicit evidence of the influence of the Servant figure (esp. Is. 53, where the redemptive element is emphatic) is far from negligible.
[1083]
a. In the teaching of Jesus
Is. 53:12 is explicitly quoted in Lk. 22:37. There are further clear allusions to Is. 53:10–12 in Mk. 10:45 and 14:24. Mk. 9:12 probably echoes Is. 53:3, and other possible allusions have been found in Mt. 3:15 (cf. Is. 53:11), Lk. 11:22 (cf. Is. 53:12; not a very likely allusion) and in the use of paradidosthai (‘be delivered’) in Mk. 9:31; 10:33; 14:21 (cf. Is. 53:12). In addition the voice at Jesus’ baptism (Mk. 1:11), outlining his mission in terms of Is. 42:1, must have influenced Jesus’ thinking.
Note the concentration in these allusions on Is. 53, and particularly on vv. 10–12 where the redemptive role of the Servant is most explicit. In Mk. 10:45 and 14:24 in particular the vicarious and redemptive character of Jesus’ death is stressed, in terms drawn from Is. 53.
b. In the rest of the New Testament
The actual title ‘servant’ (pais) is confined to Peter’s speech in Acts 3:13, 26 and the prayer of the church in Acts 4:27, 30, but the influence of the Servant figure is clear also in 1 Pet. 2:21–25; 3:18, suggesting that it featured prominently in Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ mission. Paul’s explanations of Christ’s redemptive work often contain ideas, and sometimes verbal allusions, which suggest that he too saw Jesus’ work foreshadowed in Is. 53. (See e.g. Phil. 2:6–11; Rom. 4:25; 5:19; 8:3f., 32–34; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21.) The use of ‘lamb of God’ by John (1:29, 36) also probably shows the influence of Is. 53:7. Heb. 9:28, ‘to bear the sins of many’, echoes Is. 53:12.
There are also a number of formal quotations from Servant passages, with reference to Jesus and the gospel, viz. Mt. 8:17; 12:18–21; Jn. 12:38; Acts 8:32f.; Rom. 10:16; 15:21. None of these is with specific reference to Jesus’ redemptive work, and some focus on other aspects of his mission, but all testify further to the early church’s conviction that the Servant figure, and particularly Is. 53, was a divinely ordained pattern for the Messianic mission of Jesus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. For the whole article: W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God2, 1965 (= TDNT 5, pp. 654–717).For section I: H. W. Robinson, The Cross of the Servant, 1926, reprinted in The Cross in the Old Testament, 1955, pp. 55–114; I. Engnell, BJRL 31, 1948, pp. 54–93; C. R. North, 4, 1948; J. Lindblom, 4, 1951; H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, 1952, pp. 1–88; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956, pp. 187–257; H. Ringgren, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 1956, pp. 39–53.For section II: J. L. Price, Int 12, 1958, pp. 28–38; C. K. Barrett in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays in memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, pp. 1–18; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959, pp. 51–82; M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 1959; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, pp. 77–88; C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, 1967, pp. 82–99; R. T. France, TynB 19, 1968, pp. 26–52, and Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, pp. 110–132; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 1, 1971, pp. 286–299.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Providence - new bible dictionary - JI Packer
Providence . No single word in biblical Hebrew or Greek expresses the idea of God’s providence. pronoia is used for God’s purposive foresight by Plato, Stoic writers, Philo, who wrote a book On Providence (Peri pronoias), Josephus, and the authors of Wisdom (cf. 14:3; 17:2) and 3, 4 Macc.; but in the NT pronoia occurs only twice (Acts 24:2; Rom. 13:14), both times denoting, not God’s care and forethought, but man’s. The cognate verb pronoeoœ, too, is used only of man (Rom. 12:17; 2 Cor. 8:21; 1 Tim. 5:8).
Providence is normally defined in Christian theology as the unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing bounty and goodwill (Ps. 145:9 cf. Mt. 5:45–48), he upholds his creatures in ordered existence (Acts 17:28; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), guides and governs all events, circumstances and free acts of angels and men (cf. Ps. 107; Jb. 1:12; 2:6; Gn. 45:5–8), and directs everything to its appointed goal, for his own glory (cf. Eph. 1:9–12). This view of God’s relation to the world must be distinguished from: (a) pantheism, which absorbs the world into God; (b) deism, which cuts it off from him; (c) dualism, which divides control of it between God and another power; (d)indeterminism, which holds that it is under no control at all; (e) determinism, which posits a control of a kind that destroys man’s moral responsibility; (f) the doctrine of chance, which denies the controlling power to be rational; and (g) the doctrine of fate, which denies it to be benevolent.
Providence is presented in Scripture as a function of divine sovereignty. God is King over all, doing just what he wills (Pss. 103:19; 135:6; Dn. 4:35; cf. Eph. 1:11). This conviction, robustly held, pervades the whole Bible. The main strands in it may be analysed as follows.
a. Providence and the natural order
God rules all natural forces (Ps. 147:8f.), all wild animals (Jb. 38–41), and all happenings in the world, great and small, from thunderstorms (Jb. 37; Ps. 29) and plagues (Ex.7:3–11:10; 12:29ff.; Joel 2:25) to the death of a sparrow (Mt. 10:29) or the fall of a lot (Pr. 16:33). Physical life, in men and animals, is his to give and to take away (Gn. 2:17; 1 Sa. 1:27; 2 Sa. 12:19; Jb. 1:21; Pss. 102:23; 104:29–30; 127:3; Ezk. 24:16ff.; Dn. 5:23, etc.); so are health and sickness (Dt. 7:15; 28:27, 60), prosperity and adversity (‘evil’, Am. 3:6; cf. Is. 45:7), etc.
Since the regularity of the natural order is thought of as depending directly upon the divine will (cf. Gn. 8:22), the Bible finds no difficulty in the idea of an occasional miraculous irregularity; God does what he wills in his world, and nothing is too hard for him (cf. Gn. 18:14).
God’s providential government of the created order proclaims his wisdom, power, glory and goodness (Pss. 8:1, RV; 19:1–6; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19f.). The man who in face of this revelation does not acknowledge God is without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
The Bible presents God’s constant fulfilling of his kindly purposes in nature both as matter for praise in itself (cf. Pss. 104; 147) and as a guarantee that he is lord of human history, and will fulfil his gracious promises in that realm also (cf. Je. 31:35ff.; 33:19–26).
b. Providence and world history
Since the Fall, God has been executing a plan of redemption. This plan pivots upon Christ’s first coming and culminates in his return. Its goal is the creation of a world-wide church in which Jew and non-Jew share God’s grace on equal terms (Eph. 3:3–11), and through this the reintegration of the disordered cosmos (Rom. 8:19ff.), under the rule of Christ at his second coming (Eph. 1:9–12; Phil. 2:9ff.; Col. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:24ff.). Through Christ’s present reign and future triumph, the OT prophecies of God’s Messianic kingdom (cf. Is. 11:1–9; Dn. 2:44; 7:13–27) are fulfilled. The unifying theme of the Bible is God’s exercise of his kingship in setting up this kingdom. No foe can thwart him; he [980] laughs at opposition to his plan (Ps. 2:4), and uses it to his own ends (cf. Acts 4:25–28, quoting Ps. 2:1f.). The climax of history will be the overthrow of those who fight against God and his kingdom, as the book of Revelation shows (Rev. 19, etc.).
Paul analyses the steps in God’s plan in terms of the Jew-Gentile and law-grace relationships in Gal. 3; Rom. 9–11; cf. Eph. 2:12–3:11.
c. Providence and personal circumstances
God told Israel as a nation that he would prosper them while they were faithful but bring disaster on them if they sinned (Lv. 26:14ff.; Dt. 28:15ff.). The attempt to understand the fortunes of individual Israelites in the light of this principle raised problems. Why does God allow the wicked to prosper, even when they are victimizing the just? And why is disaster so often the lot of the godly?
The first question is always answered by affirming that the wicked prosper only for a moment; God will soon visit them and take vengeance (Pss. 37 passim; 50:16–21; 73:17ff.), though for the present he may forbear, in order to give them further opportunity for repentance (Rom. 2:4f.; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 2:21). The NT identifies the day of God’s visitation with the final judgment (cf. Rom. 2:3ff.; 12:19; Jas. 5:1–8).
The second question is tackled in several ways. It is asserted: (i) that the righteous will be vindicated when the day of visitation for the wicked comes (Ps. 37; Mal. 3:13–4:3); (ii) that meanwhile suffering is valuable as a God-given discipline (Pr. 3:11f.; Ps. 119:67, 71); (iii) that suffering, faithfully borne, even if not understood, glorifies God and leads to blessing in the end (Jb. 1–2; 42); (iv) that communion with God is the supreme good, and to those who enjoy it outward impoverishments are of no ultimate importance (Ps. 73:14, 23ff.; Hab. 3:17f.).
In the NT the fact that believers suffer ill-treatment and adverse circumstances is no longer a problem, since it is recognized that fellowship in Christ’s sufferings is fundamental to the Christian vocation (cf. Mt. 10:24f.; Jn. 15:18ff.; 16:33; Acts 9:16; 14:22; Phil. 3:10ff.; 1 Pet. 4:12–19). This recognition, in conjunction with the OT principles mentioned above, completely disposed of the ‘problem of suffering’ for the first Christians. Knowing something of their glorious hope (1 Pet. l:3ff.), and of the strengthening and sustaining power of Christ (2 Cor. 1:3ff.; 12:9f.), they could contentedly face all situations (Phil. 4:11) and rejoice in all troubles (Rom. 8:35ff.), confident that through adversity their loving Father was disciplining them in sanctity (Heb. 12:5–11), developing their Christian character (Jas. 1:2ff.; 1 Pet. 5:10; cf. Rom. 5:2ff.), proving the reality of their faith (1 Pet. 1:7), and so ripening them for glory (1 Pet. 4:13). In all things God works for the spiritual welfare of his people (Rom. 8:28); and he supplies them with whatever material things they need throughout their earthly pilgrimage (Mt. 6:25–33; Phil. 4:19).
Belief in providence determines many of the basic attitudes of biblical piety. The knowledge that God determines their circumstances teaches the faithful to wait on him in humility and patience for vindication and deliverance (Pss. 37; 40:13ff.; Jas. 5:7ff.; 1 Pet. 5:6f.). It forbids them to grow despondent or despairing (Pss. 42–43), and brings them courage and hope when harassed (Pss. 60; 62). It inspires all prayers for help, and praise for every good thing that is enjoyed.
d. Providence and human freedom
God rules the hearts and actions of all men (cf. Pr. 21:1; Ezr. 6:22), often for purposes of his own which they do not suspect (cf. Gn. 45:5–8; 50:20; Is. 10:5ff.; 44:28–45:4; Jn. 11:49ff.; Acts 13:27ff.). God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which he has ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents, in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them (cf. Dt. 30:15ff.). A distinction, however, must be drawn between God’s allowing (or ‘giving up’) sinners to practise the evil that they have preferred (Ps. 81:12f.; Acts 14:16; Rom. 1:24–28), and his gracious work of prompting his people to will and do what he commands (Phil. 2:13); for in the former case, according to the biblical rule of judgment, the blame for the evil done belongs entirely to the sinner (cf. Lk. 22:22; Acts 2:23; 3:13–19), whereas in the latter case the praise for the good done must be given to God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10).
Providence is normally defined in Christian theology as the unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing bounty and goodwill (Ps. 145:9 cf. Mt. 5:45–48), he upholds his creatures in ordered existence (Acts 17:28; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), guides and governs all events, circumstances and free acts of angels and men (cf. Ps. 107; Jb. 1:12; 2:6; Gn. 45:5–8), and directs everything to its appointed goal, for his own glory (cf. Eph. 1:9–12). This view of God’s relation to the world must be distinguished from: (a) pantheism, which absorbs the world into God; (b) deism, which cuts it off from him; (c) dualism, which divides control of it between God and another power; (d)indeterminism, which holds that it is under no control at all; (e) determinism, which posits a control of a kind that destroys man’s moral responsibility; (f) the doctrine of chance, which denies the controlling power to be rational; and (g) the doctrine of fate, which denies it to be benevolent.
Providence is presented in Scripture as a function of divine sovereignty. God is King over all, doing just what he wills (Pss. 103:19; 135:6; Dn. 4:35; cf. Eph. 1:11). This conviction, robustly held, pervades the whole Bible. The main strands in it may be analysed as follows.
a. Providence and the natural order
God rules all natural forces (Ps. 147:8f.), all wild animals (Jb. 38–41), and all happenings in the world, great and small, from thunderstorms (Jb. 37; Ps. 29) and plagues (Ex.7:3–11:10; 12:29ff.; Joel 2:25) to the death of a sparrow (Mt. 10:29) or the fall of a lot (Pr. 16:33). Physical life, in men and animals, is his to give and to take away (Gn. 2:17; 1 Sa. 1:27; 2 Sa. 12:19; Jb. 1:21; Pss. 102:23; 104:29–30; 127:3; Ezk. 24:16ff.; Dn. 5:23, etc.); so are health and sickness (Dt. 7:15; 28:27, 60), prosperity and adversity (‘evil’, Am. 3:6; cf. Is. 45:7), etc.
Since the regularity of the natural order is thought of as depending directly upon the divine will (cf. Gn. 8:22), the Bible finds no difficulty in the idea of an occasional miraculous irregularity; God does what he wills in his world, and nothing is too hard for him (cf. Gn. 18:14).
God’s providential government of the created order proclaims his wisdom, power, glory and goodness (Pss. 8:1, RV; 19:1–6; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19f.). The man who in face of this revelation does not acknowledge God is without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
The Bible presents God’s constant fulfilling of his kindly purposes in nature both as matter for praise in itself (cf. Pss. 104; 147) and as a guarantee that he is lord of human history, and will fulfil his gracious promises in that realm also (cf. Je. 31:35ff.; 33:19–26).
b. Providence and world history
Since the Fall, God has been executing a plan of redemption. This plan pivots upon Christ’s first coming and culminates in his return. Its goal is the creation of a world-wide church in which Jew and non-Jew share God’s grace on equal terms (Eph. 3:3–11), and through this the reintegration of the disordered cosmos (Rom. 8:19ff.), under the rule of Christ at his second coming (Eph. 1:9–12; Phil. 2:9ff.; Col. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:24ff.). Through Christ’s present reign and future triumph, the OT prophecies of God’s Messianic kingdom (cf. Is. 11:1–9; Dn. 2:44; 7:13–27) are fulfilled. The unifying theme of the Bible is God’s exercise of his kingship in setting up this kingdom. No foe can thwart him; he [980] laughs at opposition to his plan (Ps. 2:4), and uses it to his own ends (cf. Acts 4:25–28, quoting Ps. 2:1f.). The climax of history will be the overthrow of those who fight against God and his kingdom, as the book of Revelation shows (Rev. 19, etc.).
Paul analyses the steps in God’s plan in terms of the Jew-Gentile and law-grace relationships in Gal. 3; Rom. 9–11; cf. Eph. 2:12–3:11.
c. Providence and personal circumstances
God told Israel as a nation that he would prosper them while they were faithful but bring disaster on them if they sinned (Lv. 26:14ff.; Dt. 28:15ff.). The attempt to understand the fortunes of individual Israelites in the light of this principle raised problems. Why does God allow the wicked to prosper, even when they are victimizing the just? And why is disaster so often the lot of the godly?
The first question is always answered by affirming that the wicked prosper only for a moment; God will soon visit them and take vengeance (Pss. 37 passim; 50:16–21; 73:17ff.), though for the present he may forbear, in order to give them further opportunity for repentance (Rom. 2:4f.; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 2:21). The NT identifies the day of God’s visitation with the final judgment (cf. Rom. 2:3ff.; 12:19; Jas. 5:1–8).
The second question is tackled in several ways. It is asserted: (i) that the righteous will be vindicated when the day of visitation for the wicked comes (Ps. 37; Mal. 3:13–4:3); (ii) that meanwhile suffering is valuable as a God-given discipline (Pr. 3:11f.; Ps. 119:67, 71); (iii) that suffering, faithfully borne, even if not understood, glorifies God and leads to blessing in the end (Jb. 1–2; 42); (iv) that communion with God is the supreme good, and to those who enjoy it outward impoverishments are of no ultimate importance (Ps. 73:14, 23ff.; Hab. 3:17f.).
In the NT the fact that believers suffer ill-treatment and adverse circumstances is no longer a problem, since it is recognized that fellowship in Christ’s sufferings is fundamental to the Christian vocation (cf. Mt. 10:24f.; Jn. 15:18ff.; 16:33; Acts 9:16; 14:22; Phil. 3:10ff.; 1 Pet. 4:12–19). This recognition, in conjunction with the OT principles mentioned above, completely disposed of the ‘problem of suffering’ for the first Christians. Knowing something of their glorious hope (1 Pet. l:3ff.), and of the strengthening and sustaining power of Christ (2 Cor. 1:3ff.; 12:9f.), they could contentedly face all situations (Phil. 4:11) and rejoice in all troubles (Rom. 8:35ff.), confident that through adversity their loving Father was disciplining them in sanctity (Heb. 12:5–11), developing their Christian character (Jas. 1:2ff.; 1 Pet. 5:10; cf. Rom. 5:2ff.), proving the reality of their faith (1 Pet. 1:7), and so ripening them for glory (1 Pet. 4:13). In all things God works for the spiritual welfare of his people (Rom. 8:28); and he supplies them with whatever material things they need throughout their earthly pilgrimage (Mt. 6:25–33; Phil. 4:19).
Belief in providence determines many of the basic attitudes of biblical piety. The knowledge that God determines their circumstances teaches the faithful to wait on him in humility and patience for vindication and deliverance (Pss. 37; 40:13ff.; Jas. 5:7ff.; 1 Pet. 5:6f.). It forbids them to grow despondent or despairing (Pss. 42–43), and brings them courage and hope when harassed (Pss. 60; 62). It inspires all prayers for help, and praise for every good thing that is enjoyed.
d. Providence and human freedom
God rules the hearts and actions of all men (cf. Pr. 21:1; Ezr. 6:22), often for purposes of his own which they do not suspect (cf. Gn. 45:5–8; 50:20; Is. 10:5ff.; 44:28–45:4; Jn. 11:49ff.; Acts 13:27ff.). God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which he has ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents, in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them (cf. Dt. 30:15ff.). A distinction, however, must be drawn between God’s allowing (or ‘giving up’) sinners to practise the evil that they have preferred (Ps. 81:12f.; Acts 14:16; Rom. 1:24–28), and his gracious work of prompting his people to will and do what he commands (Phil. 2:13); for in the former case, according to the biblical rule of judgment, the blame for the evil done belongs entirely to the sinner (cf. Lk. 22:22; Acts 2:23; 3:13–19), whereas in the latter case the praise for the good done must be given to God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10).
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Isaiah 40:29-31
2. (29-31) Receiving the strength of the LORD.
He gives power to the weak, and to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall, but those who wait on the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.
a. He gives power to the weak: After explaining all the greatness and glory of God, now Isaiah explains another benefit we can receive from our God - He gives us His great power!
i. Notice who God gives power to: the weak, and to those who have no might He increases strength. Those who are proud and confident in their own wisdom and strength will receive no strength from God.
b. Even the youths shall faint and be weary: Those who thought themselves strong find themselves weak. God's strength is reserved for those who know they are weak, and know they have no might.
c. But those who wait on the LORD shall renew their strength: How do we receive this strength from the LORD? We receive it as we wait on the LORD. The idea behind wait on the LORD is not a passive sitting around until the LORD does something. Yes, God gives us strength; but we don't expect it to come as if He were pouring it into as you sit passively. He brings it to us as we seek Him, and rely on Him, instead of our own strength. If we are weak, it is because we do not wait on the LORD!
i. We are also told that we renew our strength. It is strength that was once received when we first came to the LORD in weakness and no might. Then, that strength is renewed as we wait on the LORD. Renew is "from a basic meaning 'to change' . . . [it] comes to mean 'to put on afresh': here, 'keep putting on fresh strength.' (Motyer)
d. They shall mount up with wings like eagles: This is the measure of strength the LORD gives us - strength to soar above everything else.
e. They shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint: This is the purpose of the strength the LORD gives us - strength to move forward and progress for Him. It isn't strength to show off, but strength to go forward in.
i. Weak in Isaiah 40:29 and faint in Isaiah 40:30 are the same Hebrew word, which means "failure through loss of inherent strength." Weary in Isaiah 40:30 is a different word, which means "exhaustion because of the hardness of life" (Motyer). If we are worn out for either reason, God is here to give us strength - if we will wait on Him!
f. Notice the order, because it seems strange. First we mount up with wings like eagles. Then we run. Finally we walk. Does it seem out of order? Not at all. First, we recognize that we soar up into heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6). Then we set ourselves on the course to run the race (Hebrews 12:1). Then we are in the good place to walk the walk (Colossians 2:6).
He gives power to the weak, and to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall, but those who wait on the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.
a. He gives power to the weak: After explaining all the greatness and glory of God, now Isaiah explains another benefit we can receive from our God - He gives us His great power!
i. Notice who God gives power to: the weak, and to those who have no might He increases strength. Those who are proud and confident in their own wisdom and strength will receive no strength from God.
b. Even the youths shall faint and be weary: Those who thought themselves strong find themselves weak. God's strength is reserved for those who know they are weak, and know they have no might.
c. But those who wait on the LORD shall renew their strength: How do we receive this strength from the LORD? We receive it as we wait on the LORD. The idea behind wait on the LORD is not a passive sitting around until the LORD does something. Yes, God gives us strength; but we don't expect it to come as if He were pouring it into as you sit passively. He brings it to us as we seek Him, and rely on Him, instead of our own strength. If we are weak, it is because we do not wait on the LORD!
i. We are also told that we renew our strength. It is strength that was once received when we first came to the LORD in weakness and no might. Then, that strength is renewed as we wait on the LORD. Renew is "from a basic meaning 'to change' . . . [it] comes to mean 'to put on afresh': here, 'keep putting on fresh strength.' (Motyer)
d. They shall mount up with wings like eagles: This is the measure of strength the LORD gives us - strength to soar above everything else.
e. They shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint: This is the purpose of the strength the LORD gives us - strength to move forward and progress for Him. It isn't strength to show off, but strength to go forward in.
i. Weak in Isaiah 40:29 and faint in Isaiah 40:30 are the same Hebrew word, which means "failure through loss of inherent strength." Weary in Isaiah 40:30 is a different word, which means "exhaustion because of the hardness of life" (Motyer). If we are worn out for either reason, God is here to give us strength - if we will wait on Him!
f. Notice the order, because it seems strange. First we mount up with wings like eagles. Then we run. Finally we walk. Does it seem out of order? Not at all. First, we recognize that we soar up into heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6). Then we set ourselves on the course to run the race (Hebrews 12:1). Then we are in the good place to walk the walk (Colossians 2:6).
Friday, August 22, 2008
Miriam and Aaron oppose Moses.
New Bible Commentary [p. 181] A third rebellion followed at Hazeroth, the next camp site. Moses had married a Cushite wife, probably Ethiopian (in Gn. 10:6 Cush means Ethiopia), and this was probably his second wife (his first wife was Zipporah, a Midianite; Ex. 2:16-21). Making this an excuse, Miriam and Aaron spoke against him. They desired equality with him as leaders of Israel. Miriam seems to have been the main culprit and she bore the punishment. It may seem strange that she, being a woman, should have challenged the authority of her brother. However, she was a prophetess and leader of the Israelite women (Ex. 15:20-21).
Again, we read that the Lord heard their hostile words. His response was to confirm his choice of Moses (6-8) and then to judge Miriam and Aaron (9-10). There are many parallels between Miriam’s rebellion and Israel’s craving for meat (ch. 11:4-35). On both occasions, God’s provision (the manna; Moses’ leadership) was rejected, and in response, God confirmed Moses’ position (by giving him elders and by his word) and judgment fell (the plague; Miriam’s leprosy). The author comments about Moses’ humility (3). True humility consists in a commitment to obeying God’s will to the point of self–denial. Such self–sacrifice can leave a man vulnerable and forced to cast himself on God to protect and sustain him. Further, as he strives to serve God, he discovers his own weaknesses and failings, and in that way reaches a proper view of himself. Humility is not a negative quality (devaluing of self) but a positive commitment to service, supremely exemplified in Christ (Phil. 2:3-8). Moses showed humility in continuing to lead Israel through the desert for forty years, even though it was a burden. He did not defend himself but turned to God, who defends and helps the humble (Pss. 147:6; 149:4; Mt. 5:5; 1 Pet. 5:6). On this occasion, the Lord left Miriam and Aaron in no doubt as he upheld his servant Moses. Thus, Numbers records three ‘complainings’ before Israel was half way to Canaan.
Again, we read that the Lord heard their hostile words. His response was to confirm his choice of Moses (6-8) and then to judge Miriam and Aaron (9-10). There are many parallels between Miriam’s rebellion and Israel’s craving for meat (ch. 11:4-35). On both occasions, God’s provision (the manna; Moses’ leadership) was rejected, and in response, God confirmed Moses’ position (by giving him elders and by his word) and judgment fell (the plague; Miriam’s leprosy). The author comments about Moses’ humility (3). True humility consists in a commitment to obeying God’s will to the point of self–denial. Such self–sacrifice can leave a man vulnerable and forced to cast himself on God to protect and sustain him. Further, as he strives to serve God, he discovers his own weaknesses and failings, and in that way reaches a proper view of himself. Humility is not a negative quality (devaluing of self) but a positive commitment to service, supremely exemplified in Christ (Phil. 2:3-8). Moses showed humility in continuing to lead Israel through the desert for forty years, even though it was a burden. He did not defend himself but turned to God, who defends and helps the humble (Pss. 147:6; 149:4; Mt. 5:5; 1 Pet. 5:6). On this occasion, the Lord left Miriam and Aaron in no doubt as he upheld his servant Moses. Thus, Numbers records three ‘complainings’ before Israel was half way to Canaan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
