Light-work

Knowing God and The Big Picture

If you are taking the class on Knowing God currently being offered at Harvest, here is the lesson for pages 8-10 in the workbook, Knowing God Makes All The Difference.

 

If you prefer to view this video at a higher resolution, please click here.

Priorities, Part 1: As Easy As 1-2-3?

Every now and then we need to slay a sacred cow at light-work. Today is one of those days. Fire up the grill and bring on the bovine!

My beef is with this quote: “In conclusion, the scriptural order of priorities is God, spouse, children, parents, extended family, brothers and sisters in Christ, and then the rest of the world.” I pulled this sentence from a popular website that offers answers to questions about the Bible. The author echoes the sentiments of many. Everyone’s list might be a little different, but the notion of a hierarchy of responsibilities has become a pervasive staple of populist Christian thought. To do what matters most, we rank everything in importance and only proceed to the next priority after first addressing the one prior.

In such prioritized schemes, which I will call “123” (pronounced “1, 2, 3"), God is always listed first: He is like the first step on the walkway. But from there, the hierarchy may be arranged differently. Is family second? Church third? Job fourth? What about our responsibilities as citizens? Where do they fit? How about evangelism and missions? Is that a subset of church? And why is church listed fourth and not considered part of “God First?” Regardless of how one fusses over the details of what is ranked where, Christians everywhere assume that living by some ordering of 123 is both biblical and helpful for making decisions.

Let’s acknowledge two virtues of 123. First, it raises an important question. Because we enjoy a great deal of discretionary time, we face hundreds of daily choices about how to use our time and resources. Often, we must choose between competing claims. For a follower of Jesus Christ, a method by which to make wise decisions in this labyrinth of choices would be profoundly valuable. 123 attempts to solve this problem by introducing a series of filters intended to identify “what matters most.” Although 123 does not effectively answer the question, “what should we do,” it is on the right track for identifying the challenge.

The Apostle Paul affirms the importance of answering the question of what we should do: “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15–16). Paul’s point is that making the most of the time requires intentional application of wisdom principles. Unless one walks in wisdom, the natural pull of a day will be toward evil. Paul is calling us to address the very problem 123 raises.

There is a second characteristic of 123 that I can also commend. Regardless of what are ranked as priorities two, three, four, etc., in various 123 schemes, God is consistently ranked as “first.” This agrees with Scripture: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5). Loving God alone with our whole being is indeed doing what matters most.

But on two counts, I find 123 lacking. First, I can find no biblical basis for the ranking of priorities beyond God first. Is there a passage that teaches some descending order of priority from spouses to children to parents to extended family to brothers and sisters in Christ to, finally, the world. Here is my challenge to the vast global network of light-workers. Show me the verse?

Second, I find the 123 system impractical. Take priority one, God, and priority two, spouse. If I do not proceed to stage two until I have met all my responsibilities in stage one, then when will I ever be free to do anything for my wife? When will I have fulfilled my responsibility to God and be ready to move on to tier two? The 123 system creates a conundrum: I will never do anything in areas that are lessor priorities because I can never satisfy all that is required in the top tier.

Despite mouthing allegiance to 123, we don’t operate from this philosophy anyway. We sometimes choose to seek the good of our children even when it curtails good we might do for a spouse. We elect to do good to a complete stranger even though it might crimp our plans with the kids. (Sounds like something a good Samaritan might do!) In other words, we might give lip service to 123 but are not actually and consistently using it.

123 lacks clear biblical support apart from it’s affirmation of God first. As a decision-making tool, it is hopelessly flawed and impractical. Surely, there is a better way.

Bible Sea Salt

Sea salt is all the rage. Surely you have seen some of the Campbell Soup ads that boast lower sodium levels because they now use sea salt. The claim that sea salt gives you more salty flavor from less salt sounds great - lower sodium, better taste. For a basic fact check, here's a relevant link to Dr. Gourmet.

The science behind the claims may be weak, but I am struck by a similarity to a trend in preaching. The typical "teaching time" in the American church appears to be about "improving flavor with less doctrine." We rate sermons by how interesting the speaker is, not so much by how well his/her message is connected to what the Bible teaches. We like sermons with lots of stories, relevant examples, pithy principles, humor, and transparency. How often does a sermon that get's a "10" in all of the above categories get a rotten tomato for its failure to teach what the Bible itself teaches about a topic?

I decry the view that the Bible is boring and that we must jazz it up with other stuff in order to avoid boring people with it. I profoundly disagree with the mantra, "Don't teach 'em theology or you'll put them to sleep." I am not proposing that we bore people with the Bible. God forbid! But the science behind the claim, "we avoid boring people with the Bible by using it less," is flat wrong.

A doctrine is simply a compilation of what the whole Bible teaches on a subject. I like doctrine! Here's why. First, the Bible majors in the majors. If the Bible doesn't have anything to say on a topic, then its not that important. But when the Bible has a lot to say about a subject, pay attention! Doctrine, what the Bible teaches on a subject, shows me what matters.

Second, no one verse gives the whole picture on any given topic. When I identify all the verses that relate to a topic, determine what they teach about that topic, and then compile that teaching into a logical and cohesive summary, I have really got something. This sum of what the Bible teaches on a topic will allow me to answer relevant questions with a complete information packet.

Third, the ultimate author behind the Bible is God. So I have every motivation to get it right when it comes to understanding what He wants me to know. Sure, I can take a verse and run with it. But how sure can I be that He will someday say "well done!" if I ran with one verse while neglecting twenty others? On any given topic, I want to understand everything that God says matters because HE matters.

Is something Paul said a justification for a lot of feel-good talk with a little Bible sprinkled in? "Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person"(Col 4:6). Note this: Without an understanding of grace that affects what you say, your speech won't be seasoned with salt. The doctrine of grace, the sum of what the whole Bible teaches on this core topic, is the wellspring of speech that aptly answers to opportunity. The only way to minister Bible Sea Salt is to understand doctrine. So seek doctrine, learn doctrine, preach doctrine. That's what believers do who are worth their salt!

Lest We Forget the Prodigal's Brother

The Prodigal Son is the celebrity sinner, the poster child for stories of failure and forgiveness. For parents of wayward teens, his tale gives them reason to hope. For those who have wandered far from God, the prodigal's return is a prototype for making a fresh start with God. I am not trying to take anything away from his "great comeback" story, but the prodigal is a secondary player in the parable that is named after him.

Parables are intended to make a point, and clues as to the nature of that point will often be found in context, in this case Luke 15. The entire chapter consists of three linked parables, "The Lost Sheep," "The Lost Coin" and "The Prodigal Son," that all answer to the need identified in verses 1-3:

Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” So He told them this parable, saying . . . (Luke 15:1-3).

Jesus' three stories are intended to turn the tables on His critics. The religious big-wigs are grousing because Jesus is ministering to riffraff. Instead of celebrating that losers are flocking to the One person who can help them, they're grumbling that Jesus doesn't dust them away like so much shoulder lint.

So Jesus recounts a trio of parables that swell in a crescendo of celebration. First he talks about the recovery of a lost sheep. Yes, this sheep was only 1% of the flock, but surely it's recovery would be reason for joy. Then he talks about finding lost wealth. Even though it was only 10% of someone's life savings, who wouldn't host a party to celebrate its recovery? Finally he talks of a lost son. If you celebrate when one sheep (out of a hundred) is found, or one coin (out of ten) is found, then what kind of celebration would attend the return of a lost son?

Right as Jesus' audience is catching the party vibe, a new character shows up, the prodigal's whining brother. He is the one in the harsh spotlight crashing the party, the party-pooper with an attitude, and the embarrassing spokesman for Jesus' complaining critics. I draw your attention to the prodigal's brother because he is the punch line in Luke 15. THE PRODIGAL'S BROTHER is the one Jesus wants us to examine and understand.

I confess that I see in myself much that reminds me of the prodigal's brother. I have not lived a life of rebellion or moral abandon. I came to Jesus at an early age, began living for Him in earnest as a teen, and have sought to stay true to Him to this day. (Don't misunderstand me. I am just as much a sinner as the most profligate prodigal - no difference. And my steady pursuit of Christ has not kept me from presenting a pitiful picture of what it means to be His follower on occasions without number.) Despite my failures, flaws, and growing pains along the way, however, I am a fair example of the classic "good kid."

So when I observe the prodigal's descent into the depths of loose living, I can't identify. But when I hear his brother protesting, “Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours” (Luke 15:29), I hear in his words the voice of my own dissenting heart. I have expressed words like his, words of disappointment in God for His seeming lack of appreciation.

There are prodigals and there are prodigal's brothers. The prodigal's obstacle is his sense of unworthiness to lay claim to the heart of his father. The obstacle of the prodigal's brother is his sense of entitlement, an insistence upon God's approval for his faithfulness. In its advanced stages, "Prodigal's Brother Disease" (PBD) can rob a man of his joy. He can become a spiritual scrooge who mutters "Bah, humbug" on occasions when even angels are pulling out all the stops.

The religious leaders called out by Jesus have a pronounced case of PBD. It has achieved a level of spiritual toxicity that is acute, perhaps from which there is no recovery. But for anyone who seeks to be faithful (at risk) and who is willing to learn (teachable) from their sad story, there is hope in timely self-screening (self-examination) and treatment (repentance).

Are you a prodigal? Come home to a Father whose grace is greater than your sin. Are you a prodigal's brother? Then serve without strings before it robs you of joy. Stay faithful to God without getting sucked into thinking that God owes you recognition. Your faithfulness matters. Never forget what Jesus says to the prodigal's brother, “And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours’” (Luke 15:31). Staying true to God WILL BE WORTH IT. That is no less true for the fact that we party strong when a prodigal comes home.

Where's the Application?

One of the advantages of attending the "National" version of Camp Logos is the opportunity to beam aboard the mother ship, HQ for Logos Bible Software in Bellingham, WA (pictured at left). We were able to tour the rapidly expanding facilities and chat with staff.

I found a conversation with Michael Heisner, Academic Editor, most interesting. I'll tell you about what struck me, but first a little background. Logos has created the premier Bible study software. The resultant program is amazingly robust and capable of marshaling a plethora of biblical resources before the user. How does it do it? I cannot imagine the amount of time and effort that has been invested in this endeavor.

So here's my question for Mr. Heisner: "How does Logos software assist the Bible student to translate what the Bible teaches (the interpretation) into specific implications for living (the application)?" He replied, "He's pretty much on his own."

Isn't there an irony here? Don't take this as a criticism of Logos, because I am grateful for what they have created. But I find it an interesting commentary on the state of our engagement with the Bible that so much attention is given to interpretation and so little to application. I realize this is not a new theme at L-W - here's a link to a previous post on the subject. Click here to call up a copy of "The Growth Chain" that illustrates the connection between interpretation and application. When we see how God's Word changes us - interpretation is a  vital link in that process. But so is application and it warrants more than the subjective methodology of being "pretty much on your own." Where is the rigorous thinking, objective methodology, and maybe even robust software to help us move from interpretation to personal transformation?

A Letter From Camp

Rochelle and I attended "Camp Logos" last week. This is the "authorized" training seminar for users of Logos Bible Software. In two days, Morris ("Mo") Proctor did a great job of unlocking the deep magic of this sophisticated Bible study tool.

I have been using Logos for years, but I was amazed at how much I didn't know. EVERYONE who wants to study the Bible will benefit by using a Logos package: Prices range from $260 for the Bible Study Library to $1380 for the Scholars Library Gold Edition. Yes, I know this represents a lot of money - but when you understand that you are purchasing a set of books at prices significantly below their print counterparts, and that these books are profoundly more accessible in Logos, it makes the cost easier to swallow.

I am also convinced that ANYONE who uses Logos software should come to camp! Here is the current schedule from the MPSeminars website. A beginner will not be overwhelmed (but will be challenged). An advanced user will be collecting gems in every session. This trip to camp gave me something way better than s'mores, camp songs, and an Indian bead bracelet. I can't wait to put what I have learned to use in my lesson preparation and personal study. Viva Camp Logos!

Where has the time gone?

Houston, we have a problem! If the word "day" in chapter one of Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, and if the genealogies of Genesis are complete or anything close to complete, then creation week occurred several thousand years ago. But there is tons of evidence (literally!) which suggests that earth is old: The scientific consensus is that earth has been around for over four billion years. So, is earth recent or old? Science and the Bible can't both be right, can they?

There are two ways to remove (or diminish) this conflict between science and the Bible. One involves the gap theory. There is variety among gap theorists about where they see some missing time. But they all agree that time is missing, namely, a significant period about which nothing (or next to nothing) has been recorded in the Bible. The popularity of this view increased when the Scofield Reference Bible successfully promoted it.

I admit to some skepticism for the mere fact that this proposal is so convenient. It has been discerned "in the nick of time" to rescue the biblical creationist from his discomfort at sounding like a "flat earth" advocate, someone with a blind and unassailable insistence on what amounts to nothing more than scientific clap-trap. Now, a gap proponent can have his 24 hour days and old earth, too. Nice!

Let's give this theory a fair shake. The most popular variety proposes a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Here's how it reads:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (Gen. 1:1-3).

A gap theorist would say that Gen. 1:3 is the hack mark where the 144 hour clock starts ticking. Verse one describes the original creation that occurred PRIOR to the "recreation" that occurred in 144 hours. There are lots of speculations and surmisings that attempt to connect the dots. One of the more popular connects the fall of Satan to this period of pre-history. It is suggested that his rebellion against God resulted in some sort of cataclysm which rendered the original creation "formless and void." Despite all the huff and puff, I remain unconvinced that this view can travel from "possibility" to "fact."

It is true that there are some missing minutes in the Bible. A dramatic example is found in Isaiah 61:2.  Between the first and second line, there is a time gap spanning two thousand years. How do I know this? I wouldn't, if Jesus hadn't read the passage and pointed this out in Luke 4:16ff. This benefit is not available for "the gap" in Genesis 1:1-3. There is no clear statement from God that an otherwise invisible gap is embedded there. Without this, I cannot say with CERTAINTY that such a gap exists, although I can allow for the possibility.

There are some grammatical issues with the gap theory, but I APPRECIATE the fact that this view takes the Bible seriously. It is not trying to meddle with its language to achieve some forced compliance with what science is saying. It treats a "day" as a day.

There are several passages in the Bible that tell us about pre-history, passages that discuss conditions before space and time. Here's one in John 17:5. Jesus and the Father were both there before space and time, so it is not surprising to overhear it mentioned in their conversation. Jesus requests, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). Jesus was there before the world came into existence. He KNOWS how things came about. I wish He would tell me more, but I must trust Him in this as in all things. I must trust Him that He has told me what I NEED to know.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 2 of 2

Watch a world class illusionist and you will find yourself asking, "How did he do that?" The illusionist will smile in smug silence, unwilling to reveal his secrets. When God created our world from nothing, it transcended the grandest illusion. This was the real thing and it went beyond breathtaking. Unlike the illusionist, God has been quite forthcoming about how He did it. God's diary of the process is available in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

At face value, this account describes a series of 24 hour days of creative activity followed by a seventh day of inactivity. If God created the world in 144 hours, and the genealogies of Genesis are comprehensive or without major gaps, then this world began a few thousand years ago. There would be little reason to think otherwise except for a preponderance of physical evidence suggesting the earth is billions (if not millions) of years old. So one of the ways to ease the tension of this conflict between the Bible and science has been to reappraise the biblical account. In this second look, bible students have found what seem like credible reasons for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to be understood as "ages" or "epochs" spanning millions of years. Will this dog hunt?

There are several reasons why "day" in the creation account of Genesis should be understood as a literal 24 hour day.

1. "Day" is here used with a number. It is true that "day" in a prophetic passage like Zech 12:3 refers to something other than a 24 hour day. But this figurative usage for "day" never occurs when a number modifies it.
2. The phrase "evening and morning" seems irrelevant to anything other than a literal day. In Dan. 8:14 , "2,300 evenings and mornings" is even used as a synonym for "2,300 days." If "days" are ages, how can we meaningfully attach the terms "morning" and "evening" to segments of such days?
   
3. In Genesis 20:11 & 31:17, God is doing the talking. He says that He created the world in "six days." In every instance where day is used in the plural, it refers to 24 hour days. (There is one possible exception in Hosea 6:2 - but this may be attributed to the dynamics of Hebrew poetry.)

There is some other evidence, but I wouldn't weight it too highly: First, Adam's naming of the animals only seems a feasible accomplishment if we are dealing with 24 hour days. Second, the days of creation are the pattern for Israel's week of work (six days) followed by rest (seventh day). Creation week's function as a pattern is strengthened if it consists of seven literal days.

There is no doubt in my mind that the language of Genesis one is descriptive of 24 hour days. Yes, yes, I know this raises many questions. Patience, Grasshopper - all in good time. For now, there is something poignant to be learned here and I don't want you to miss it. In science's reconstruction of earth's history, man is rendered a minuscule and late-coming dot on the vast time-line of history. I love this line from Derek Kidner, "The scientific account of the universe...overwhelms us with statistics that reduce our apparent significance to vanishing-point" (Genesis, p. 57).

The biblical account treats the grand work of creation as a mere prologue before we get down to the real business at hand, filling the planet with a people who will rule it for God. This puts things in their proper perspective. God is willing to tell us how He did it when He created our world. But now it's time to tell us what we most need to know, to tell us about sin, sacrifice, redemption, and restoration. It may not be the big bang. But it IS the big story and something God says we MUST understand.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 1 of 2

Did God create the world in six twenty-four hour days? How do I know, I wasn't there? No one was. Even my (and your) great-great grandfather, Adam, didn't come on the scene until 90% of the creative work was completed. So our only reliable first-hand field report is going to come from God. He is well-qualified to file this account. He wasn't just THERE. He was the One making it all happen. So when He tells me what went down in "creation week," I can take His summary as gospel.

Had he chosen to keep it all a secret, I would be consigned to grope for the truth on my own. But He has not been silent! A comprehensive overview of the process has been provided in Gen. 1:1-2:3. God zooms in to allow us a close-up view of day six in Gen. 2:4-25. And there are numerous references to creation week scattered throughout the Bible in passages like Job 38:1-11. Obviously God WANTS us to know what He did. He hasn't told us all we would LIKE to know, but He has fully supplied what we NEED to know.

This doesn't mean God is opposed to our doing some additional study. He has provided an unassailable  framework for understanding creation in the biblical account, but invites us to "do science" to supplement this understanding. The thesis of Privileged Planet (book and DVD both highly recommended) is intriguing - earth has been ideally designed and positioned in the Milky Way to serve as a celestial observation platform. From it's transparent gas atmosphere to its position in galactic "open space" - it is as if God wants us to check out what He has done. Here is one caveat: The biblical account of creation provides guard-rails to protect us when "good science goes bad." The quality, purity, and reliability of information from the Bible is superior to what science can deliver.

Some may not like this, thinking that science must be "unfettered from religious presuppositions." This notion is at the heart of the objections to intelligent design. It is OK to examine a piece of flint and declare, "This is an arrowhead made by an ancient hunter." It is NOT OK to examine our planet and declare, "This is the work of an intelligent designer." The first statement is about science, but the latter is treated as a religious statement and, therefore, unsuited for scientific examination. This is the kind of compartmentalization that drives me bonkers.

The man who believes there is some great divide between science and the Bible and who refuses to allow the Bible to provide guidance to his scientific studies is in a "catch-22." The more his studies lead him to the truth, the closer he gets to the God of truth whom He wants to avoid. Such a man will not be helped by understanding the biblical account of creation.

But for those who understand that the pursuit of truth is best left unconstrained by this kind of compartmentalized thinking, we can learn much by asking, "What does the Bible say about how the world came into existence?" To do this, we must understand how language works as an instrument of communication. Some critics of a twenty-four hour day viewpoint think it relies on what they term a "literal" or "wooden literal" approach to interpretation. "Literal" interpretation sounds like, and "wooden-literal" interpretation undoubtedly is, an approach to Scripture that does not recognize metaphors and figures of speech. A "wooden-literal" interpretive method would not recognize this statement from Jesus as a figure of speech called hyperbole: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:9). Before we start gouging eyeballs (creepy!), might I propose an alternative?

I find it helpful to distinguish between literal interpretation and normal interpretation. Normal interpretation proposes that normal language behaves, well, normally. (This is the kind of profound insight you have come to expect at Light-work! Never underestimate our power to discern the obvious!) Normal interpretation treats the language of the Bible as a normal mode of human communication, one which, at times, is intended to be understood literally. At other times, it may employ a figure of speech  or a literary device like an extended metaphor. (The extended metaphor is one of my personal favorites - I probably rely on it way too much, like the two buses in the previous post.)

The key to interpreting normal language is identifying the literary markers which tell us when something is supposed to be understood literally, when it is to be understood figuratively, or when it is a joke. So when we look at Genesis one, we must pay attention to words and the connections between them. But we also must pay attention to literary markers which tell us if the author wants to be taken literally.

Is it fun to say "Hacha?"

"Mr. Fleming, is it fun to say 'Hacha'?" I was about seven years old and helping my Dad in the yard. The neighbor boy, Scott, (about my age) had posed this question. Dad replied, "Yea, I suppose it's a pretty fun word." At the dinner conversation that night, Mom and Dad reconstructed the back story. Scott had probably heard and used an inappropriate term and his parents had suggested "hacha" as a "fun" alternative. So that's how "hacha" got on the list with such worthies as "jalalabad."

Sometimes a single word is a good substitute for a whole passel. We can say "God is one in essential character; God is denominated as 'Father," 'Son,' and 'Spirit;' Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons." Or we can just say "trinity" which is shorthand for the previous three statements. The word "perspicuity" (sounds like a combination of perspiration and ingenuity) has two things going for it - it's fun to say (I think so) and marvelously economical. So what does it mean? And how does it relate to biblical inspiration, authority, and sufficiency?  Perspicuity refers to the quality of being clear or lucid. When we talk about the perspicuity of Scripture, we are describing the capacity of the Bible to be clear in what it teaches. Because the Bible is perspicuous, what it teaches is accessible and understandable.

The Apostle John got this. In 1 John 2:27, he says, As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. John is not diminishing the value of good teachers, but establishing limits to our dependence on them. There were some who claimed, "What the Bible teaches is beyond your comprehension. You need teachers (like us!) who can unlock its secrets and mysteries, something you could never do on your own." John says this is hogwash. What the Bible teaches can be understood.

Some of what the Bible says may be hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), but careful consideration (2 Tim. 2:7) and accurate handling (2 Tim. 2:15) will yield results. We can understand what it says and identify God-approved living. This is possible because of the perspicuity of Scripture. So let's see how this connects to what we said yesterday.

The Bible teaches what a man with a heart for God needs to know. Think of this as a select  body of information within the broader field of "all truth." So truth which lies outside the circle of what the Bible teaches may be nice to know, valuable to know, even important to know - but it does not rise to the level of necessary to know for godly living.  Here is the really cool thing - the circle of perspicuity matches the circle of sufficiency. The Bible is CLEAR about what the man of God NEEDS to know.

Don't miss the point about targeted clarity here. 1 John 2:27 tells us that the lucidity of the Bible's teaching is only apparent to those who have received an anointing from God, i.e., genuine believers. To those who are opposing Christ or attempting to work a deal with God by buying salvation, the Bible will be singularly opaque. The Bible is clear about what the MAN OF GOD needs to know.

When we talk about the role of men (or any other class) and how God wants them to act, our first source of information ought to be the Bible. The sometimes rigorous work of discerning what it CLEARLY TEACHES will yield the fruit of understanding what a man who seeks to please God MUST KNOW. If we cannot say, "This is what the Bible teaches" then we also cannot say, "This is what you MUST KNOW."

So whenever someone says hacha or jalalabad, be sure to tell them about perspicuity. It will be fun - but is it necessary?

Me Tarzan, Me Spiritual! Postscript

There is a marvelously useful term that can help us sort through comments posted in the "Me Tarzan" series. It's a fun word to say, like "Hacha," but before we whoop it up, let's get some background. The doctrine of divine inspiration includes the topics of the authority of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. All three (inspiration, authority, and sufficiency) are mentioned and connected in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, which states: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Here's how each of these three topics connect to phrases in these two verses.

1. Inspiration - All Scripture is inspired by God. Although written by human authors, the entire Bible has its ultimate origin in God. It is like breath from his mouth.
2. Authority - [All Scripture is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training in righteousness. Because of its quality as God inspired, the Bible has the clout to tell us what to do. It can outline how life ought to be lived ("teaching"), it can tell us when we have gotten off track ("reproof"), it can tell us how to get back on track ("correction"), and it can show us how to stay on track ("training in righteousness").
3. Sufficiency - so that they man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. The capacity of Scripture to provide authoritative guidance extends to "every good work." Stated negatively - There is nothing good a man can do which doesn't find its essential basis in the Bible. Stated positively - If you want to do anything good, the only source of adequate guidance is the Bible. Any man with a heart for God ("man of God") can receive what he needs ("may be adequate") to do everything God expects of him ("for every good work") if he will mine the mother-lode, the Scripture.
   

So, when we talk about any topic, including how men should think, speak, and act, the Bible is the source of information for every good work. This is not to say that all truth about men is found in the Bible. But it is to say that all ESSENTIAL truth for men with a heart for God is found in the Bible. God inspired the Bible and thereby placed within it what He believes all men must understand if they are going to become the kind of men of whom He would say, "That's my kind of man."

So when we analyze any resource, including one that wants to help men, it is legitimate to evaluate the quality of that resource by how closely it draws from Scripture. Do not hear me saying that a secular study on "the way men think" has no value. But the closer the connection between a resource and what the Bible teaches on the topic, the greater my confidence that I am being exposed to what I NEED TO KNOW. Okay, so what about this "Hacha" word? Patience, Grasshopper!

The Real Fifth Gospel of Jesus

Sometimes a mystery is solved with tenacious sleuth-work. At others, it is about the plain dumb luck of being at the right place at the right time. Then there are times that a mystery is solved because facts slap you in the face for being stupid enough to see a mystery in the first place. When National Geographic is touting The Gospel of Judas as the "lost gospel" and the Gospel of Thomas is being dubbed the fifth gospel, I marvel at what producers and authors would have us believe is tenacious sleuth work.  To me, it is much ado about nothing while facts full of portents are ignored.

In a previous post, we suggested how a typical documentary would build a case for the "mysterious fifth gospel" beginning with Jesus' statement in John 16:12:  "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (verse 12). We noted how Luke makes a statement in the preface to Acts informing us that the Gospel of Luke represents what "Jesus began to do and teach." The obvious implication is that Luke's second volume, Acts, represents an account of things that Jesus continued to do and teach. So Jesus WAS teaching after His ascension.  There is more He had to say than just what is in the four Gospels, as His statement in John 16:12 plainly declares.

Now here comes the obvious. Jesus gave the answer to the question raised in John 16:12 with a statement in the very next verse! John 16:13 declares:  "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." Jesus had "many more things" to communicate to His disciples. They could not bear them because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. This deficiency was remedied on Pentecost, and the Spirit began His work of "disclosing" what Jesus "continued" to speak, a "fifth gospel," if you will, that imparted to the disciples the "many more things" for which they were not ready on Good Friday. 

This body of "many more things" has come to us packaged in written form in the New Testament. The Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent what Jesus "began to teach." The remainder of the New Testament represents the "many more things" that Jesus taught. You could say that the New Testament has two primary divisions:  "Beginnings" and "More Things." You could also name them "The Four Gospels" and "The Fifth Gospel." 

(I admit that the term "fifth gospel" has been so sensationalized that the phrase probably is not salvageable for us. But if you can get past the associations, the phrase does well capture the idea that the four gospels and the remainder of the New Testament are BOTH "the teaching of Jesus.")

This is PROFOUND truth for anyone who wants to make disciples. When Jesus defines disciples as those who are observing ALL that Jesus has commanded, this requires them to be devoted to "Beginnings" and "More Things." This is our essential curriculum. If we are going to help disciples "observe all that I [Jesus] commanded you," then we must not neglect any portion of the New Testament. This is what makers of disciple makers give to others. You won't find it in the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas, but you will find it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John plus the "fifth gospel" which spans Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation.

Who's Talking, God or Me? Pt. 3 of 3

This is really weird!  I'm reading a passage in the Bible that has nothing to do with me and suddenly a verse pops off the page.  It's like someone has been reading my mail!  Or my Mind!!  Is God talking to me?  It could be!  God can communicate with us lots of different ways.  But because we are not very good at recognizing His voice, it is a really good idea to ask, "What confirmation do I have that this is God talking to me and not just me talking to myself?"

The best possible confirmation is Scripture.  Remember the Bereans?  Some guy named Paul came to town declaring, "I have a message for you from God."  So where did they go for confirmation?  The book of Acts answers, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11 - NASB).  Here's the best possible way to confirm that what has popped off the page is something God is saying to me:  Find the message repeated elsewhere in His Word.  So, I ought to examine the Scriptures to see if there is a clear biblical basis for what I think God is asking me to do in the verse that pops.  If there is, it's time to take action.

Here is a rich and interesting "confirmation principle."  It comes from Jesus who declared, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself (John 7:17 - NASB).  It is NOT POSSIBLE for a man who is resisting God to receive confirmation.  My only hope of certainty about the source of a message (from God or not?) lies in meeting a prerequisite.  I must have already issued God a blank check.  I must  hold my heart in a place where it can say, "I am willing to receive from your hand whatever You want to give me, even if it is not what I would choose for myself."  The man whose heart says this is a candidate for confirmation.  The man who cannot say this will not be able to confirm the source of something that might well be from God.  How scary is that - to have a word from God in your possession, but to be unable to validate that it is from God?

Let's extract two other insights from this passage.  How can you know whether you have issued God the aforementioned blank check?  Once again, we are brought back to Scripture.  The man who is "willing to do His will" is the man who is obedient to everything he already understands from Scripture.  There is not an issue of glaring disobedience in his life that voids his blank check.

Second, notice the "if/then" elements in Jesus' statement.  "If anyone is willing, . . . [then] he will know."  This is God's announcement of a partnership.  Remember (see yesterday's post) that the Moses, Balaam, and Belshazzar accounts all reveal something about our God.  He is aware of men's need for confirmation and willing to take steps to address it.  This is something truly marvelous about our God.  It fills me with joy and wonder.  God WANTS me to know what He thinks!  Most important people don't consider me worth their attention.  But God does!  In John 7:17, there is an implicit promise from God:  If I am willing to do His will, He will take care of the confirmation problem.

When we get down to it, God's commitment in this regard is a life saver.  (Literally!)  No man has within himself the capacity to validate God's Word.  Only God can do that!  So, when God says that the man who is willing to do his will is a guarantied recipient of confirmation, He is pledging Himself to provide that confirmation.  How will He do that?   That's HIS department, so I can't say - but I know that the means could be as varied as a stick that becomes a snake, a talking donkey who can explain danger, and access to a man of God who knows how to read the handwriting on the wall.

There are more confirmation principles, but I imagine I have said enough to stir up the pot.  If the pot gets to bubbling, I might add a post-script next week.  Have a great Thanksgiving!

Who's Talking, God or Me? Pt. 2 of 3

Suppose you are reading a passage that seems to have nothing in common with a situation you are facing. But when you read a certain verse, the words are written in neon.  They appear to speak DIRECTLY to a situation you are facing.  Could the breath-taking "connection" between this verse and your circumstances be God's doing?  Is He the one behind the connection and is He trying to tell you something?

The first thing we MUST admit is our ability to fool ourselves.  There is something inside of us that wants God's stamp of approval on the things that self wants.  The liability of this suspect motive can be compounded by the fact that we aren't that smart.  Our minds are capable of finding a reasonable explanation for nonsense.  So we have the limitations of two of Dorothy's friends all rolled into one:  We have neither the heart nor the brain.  We aren't equipped to declare, "This IS God speaking."

So, while we admit the possibility that God COULD be speaking in the neon verses, our healthy distrust of our heart and mind requires us to seek some external confirmation.   This heart and mind limitation comes as no shock to God.  So, we can take some refuge in the knowledge that IF God is speaking through our neon verses, He is aware of our need for something FROM HIM that we cannot supply ourselves, the confirmation that He is the one speaking.

In Part 1, I mentioned three examples of "unorthodox" modes of divine communication, a burning bush, a talking donkey, and handwriting on a palace wall.  In all three instances, these "neon experiences"  were not encountered in isolation.  There is a "ministry of confirmation" which God provided to the recipients of these messages.  Let's check 'em out.

At the burning bush incident recorded in Exodus 3-4, Moses was commissioned by God for a tough assignment.  Was Moses exasperating God by his list of objections?  Perhaps, but God DID give to Moses confirmation that this commissioning was not a mirage.  A rod that became a snake (and could be returned to its original state) and a hand that became leprous (and could be returned to a healthy condition) were graphic elements to this ministry of confirmation.

In the case of Balaam, his talking donkey experience was confirmation of previous instances where God spoke.  Check out Numbers 22.  In round one, God "came to Balaam" and said, "Do not go with them; you shall not curse the people."  In round two, God "came to Balaam at night" and said, "Go with them, but only say what I tell you."  This was followed by a "three-peat" of  "when good donkeys go bad."  The climax was being rebuked by his donkey and then reprimanded by the angel of the Lord.  Clearly God was unhappy with Balaam, but God DID leave no room for human error about the fact that God was the one doing the talking.

The "handwriting on the wall" incident recorded in Daniel 5 is interesting for the way in which God used two individuals as separate halves of a decoding mechanism.  Belshazzar received a written message from God at a party.  The meaning of the message hung in doubt until Daniel, a man of devotion to God and a man with a proven track-record of sorting out divine mysteries, was ushered to the scene.  Daniel explained what was a message TO the king but FOR everyone else.  The credibility of Daniel vouched for the authenticity of the message, as did the events of that evening.

Here is the take-away from these accounts.  If God wants to speak to us through a neon passage, He is more than aware of our limitations of heart and mind and of our need for confirmation that HE is the one speaking.  These passages show us that He is willing to provide that confirmation, to someone who balks at receiving a tough assignment from God (Moses), to someone who is toying with "doctoring up" his orders (Balaam), and even to someone whose party was "the last straw" of defiance against God (Belshazzar).  If God is willing to provide confirmation in these accounts, then how much more so when someone has a heart for the things of God.  It seems reasonable that if God wants to speak through a neon verse, that blinking neon will be accompanied by something else to assure us we are not just seeing things.

Who's Talking, God or Me? Pt. 1 of 3

JG strikes again!  She made a comment in the Jer. 29:11 series that raises a whole new issue.  She wants to know if God can direct you using a passage that "isn't particularly relevant to your situation, but the wording is such that it seems to grab your attention.  Maybe there are words or phrases that describe what you are feeling or dealing with, words that only you and God would recognize as significant."

The short answer is, "Of course, He can!"  God is perfectly capable of guiding and directing us through an infinite array of methods.  A burning bush, a talking donkey (not from Shrek!), and handwriting on a palace wall come to mind.  So if God is able to use shrubs, livestock, and billboard calligraphy to get our attention, it seems perfectly reasonable that He could use a passage from the Bible to direct us, even a passage that was written for a different purpose to a different people facing a different situation.  God does not answer to us, and He is free to use His Word as He sees fit.  God is able to provide individual guidance for us on His terms and to crystallize that guidance in language that echoes biblical terminology from passages only indirectly related to our situation.

God's ability, however, is not the problem.  OUR ability is.  How do we KNOW that God is the One speaking, when "the wording is such that is seems to grab [our] attention?"  Yes, God can speak through a passage in the manner JG describes, but how can we distinguish the times when He is speaking from the times we mistakenly think He is speaking?  There are quite a few threads we must trace to unravel this ball of string. 

Let's start with a sober assessment of our capacity for self-delusion.  It is possible to be absolutely convinced that God is saying something to us and to be wrong!  Let me bring a few sample verses and comments to the table as evidence.

• Prov. 14:12 - There is a way which seems right to man, but its end is the way of death.  We are capable of believing that we are making a right choice when, in fact, we are progressing down a path that moves us away from God.  (This is the meaning of "the way of death" in Proverbs.)
• Jer. 23:25 - I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, 'I had a dream, I had a dream.'  It is possible to have a dream and to use that dream, either unwittingly or consciously, as evidence that "God has spoken to me."   By such means, a man attempts to put words in God's mouth. 
• Jer. 5:31 - The prophets prophesy falsely, . . . and My people love it so!  It is possible for men to applaud when God's words are misrepresented; they actually prefer a message other than God's.
• Jer. 42:6 - Whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, we will listen to the voice of the Lord our God to whom we are sending you, so that it may go well with us when we listen to the voice of the Lord our God.  This really sounds convincing!  But in context, these words are the people's mis-representation of themselves.  They didn't want divine direction, they wanted God's endorsement.  This little charade was a means to get God to back a plan of their own invention, to get his stamp of approval on what they had already determined to do (see Jer. 41:17-18).

The bottom line is that verses like these tell us about what men are capable of, and it's not pretty.  We have every reason to distrust our ability to identify God's voice.  So let's start our discussion (more next week) by affirming this, JG.  God can speak to us as He chooses, but we have good reasons, biblical reasons, to be suspicious of our ability to distinguish His voice from the desires of self.  There is something inside us that wants to cloak personal desires in robes of respectability by draping them with biblical terminology.  Proceed with caution!

Hermeneutics by Embarassment - Postscript

This word "hermeneutics" keeps showing up at Light-work, so what does it mean?  There are lots of definitions.  A basic one is "the art and science of biblical interpretation."  This is what we were taught in seminary.  We were supposed to follow-up by saying, "It's an art because it requires skill; it's a science because it uses objective principles."  You could also substitute this phrase, "method of interpretation," in place of the word, "hermeneutics."  Hermeneutics is not limited to the study of the Bible, by the way, but Bible study is where hermeneutics gets a good workout.

"Hermeneutics" is important for what it says but should also be appreciated for what it doesn't say.  The word declares that there should be a method to our interpretive endeavors.  But by itself, it doesn't identify what that method should be.  So this noun is often modified or supplemented by adjectives and phrases that announce the "brand" of interpretation that will be used.  Here are some "branded" phrases:  "Protestant Biblical Hermeneutics,"  "The Grammatical-Historical Method," "Literal Interpretation," and "Allegorical Interpretation."  If I coin a phrase like "hermeneutics by embarrassment," I am referring to a method of interpreting the Bible in which I filter out anything the Bible says that might put me at odds with the thinking and values of my culture.

Why do we need to spend a lot of time and energy evaluating various methods of biblical interpretation?  Why do we even need a method - can't we just read the Bible and go?  These questions might seem justified until we peer into an invisible process that is going on right now!  At this very moment, you are using a "method of interpretation" to extract meaning from the words in this post.  But you don't think about your method.  You just USE it.  We are communicating, you and I, without having to think much about the process, because we share a culture, a time, and a common language.  Our heritage gives us a shared set of rules about how to encode and decode verbal information.

What if we seek to understand a message from a different time and culture, a message written in a foreign language and presented in unfamiliar literary forms?  Now we must give conscious attention to a process that we have taken for granted.  We have to think about how we should extract meaning from the document, exactly how to get at what the author intended to say.  And if that message is from God, then the stakes have gone to the moon that we get it right!  Drum roll, please.  Enter the different brands of interpretive method, all vying for our acceptance as the best way to get at the goods from God.  At a site like Light-work that straddles the intersection of life and truth, discussion of the method by which we get at what God is saying will come up often.  Using my level of embarrassment to limit what God may say won't!

Hermeneutics by Embarassment

"For years now, I've been wondering what might convince such prophecy specialists [like LaHaye and Lindsey] to recognize that the eschatology they are foisting on the world is simply embarrassing to the church."  So says Paul Maier on his slip-cover endorsement for a new book by Hank Hanegraaff.  Someone was kind enough to give me his book last Sunday - I'll talk about it after I've read it.  But for now, I can't let Mr. Maier's dust-jacket musings pass without comment, albeit for reasons that probably have little to do with Mr. Hanegraaff's diatribe (and much more to do with something alarming in our midst).

I don't disagree with Mr. Maier that the Left Behind series has many "Left Bedeviled" with its specificity about dizzying details of our supposed imminent future.  (Perhaps we'll talk about eschatology in a future post.  I have a different take on what's coming.)  It's a small thing, but I am curious why he thinks that selling books constitutes "foisting?"  Now I agree that when my kids went to college, "foisting" was probably an apt descriptor for compulsory "buying" of textbooks.  But where's the "foist" in merely stocking Left Behind at Wal-Mart?

But enough trifling!  I find it more than just quibble-worthy he believes "embarrassment" deserves status as a guide to biblical interpretation.  It is not a new notion.  In 1973, Virginia Mollenkot wrote a letter to His magazine making a case for a feminism framed by popular thought.  She decried a biblically defined complementarity and then sounded this alarm:  "By continuing on such a course, evangelicals will only add fuel to the widespread secular concept that the Christian church is an outmoded institution."  At least she is upfront about it, advocating the use of embarrassment as hermeneutic.  To wit, if our understanding of a passage prompts displeasure or disparagement from society, jettison the notion like extra baggage on a foundering ship.  The Bible doesn't teach, or shouldn't be allowed to teach, what might embarrass the church!  Shame on us for daring to believe anything society finds hard to swallow!

In Nazi Germany, all manner of biblical truths were out-of-step with the Fuhrer's marching minions, so  the hermeneutic of embarrassment helped churchmen keep in time.  It makes we wonder as I hear the hermeneutic of embarrassment finding its voice today, what unpopular truths will be "left behind?"  As we near the end, will our culture's success at embarrassing us over what we believe be the means of "foisting" a false faith upon us?

Is Jer. 29:11 YOUR Promise? Pt. 4 of 4

Jeremiah upset the applecart in Jer. 29:11.  All around him were people who had an angle on things.  The way they had it figured, recent reverses suffered at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar were merely temporary setbacks - Happy days would be here again soon.  Unfortunately for them, God's plan, the only plan that matters, was not drawn from the same script.  In God's plan, the losers were the ones with a future.  The "lucky ones" would lose it all.

Let's be clear about the intended recipients of Jer. 29:11 - this promise was given to Jewish exiles living in Babylon in the first half of the 6th century BC.  The fulfillment of the promise was offered to and experienced by SOME of their progeny about 70 years later.  No one reading today's post at light-work.com is on the "intended recipients" list.  So here we are two and half millennia later, wondering how this promise has implications to help equip men and women of God (like us) for every good work.

Hermeneutics is "the art and science of biblical interpretation" and there is no shortage of texts, classes, and seminars on the subject.  But when it comes to the challenge of application, which is "the identification of specific ways in which the interpretation of a biblical passage has implications for those in the immediate audience and beyond," we are not so fortunate.  I have been interested in this topic for years and have collected everything I can find, but it ain't much.  We need a good book on the subject, maybe with the title:  "Applineutics:  How should we then live, in light of what the text means?"  Alas, this definitive and, I am sure, much needed resource will have to wait.  For now, "A few humble thoughts about how to apply Jer. 29:11," will have to suffice.

(1) One interpretation, many applications.  Although Jer. 29:11 was intended to say one thing to its original audience, there can be many implications which arise from this passage, both to the original audience and those outside this circle.  Here's the basic interpretive core of the verse:  God says to a small group generally regarded as losers that, in His plan, they have positive prospects for the future.  How one thinks, what one says, and what one does can be shaped in a whole host of ways by this solitary point.  For example, the exiles are given a sound basis in this verse to make a change in how they think, namely, to replace discouragement with hope. 

(2) If I am not the immediate recipient for a message, then I cannot directly apply it to myself.  I was not there in Babylon to receive Jeremiah's letter.  Neither was my father or grandfather.  So when God says, "I know the plans I have for you," I am NOT the "you" he is addressing.  I have no right to say this:  "God says in Jeremiah 29:11 that He has a plan for my welfare."  It is TRUE that God has a plan for my welfare, but Jeremiah 29:11 is not the place to go to prove it.

(3) All biblical passages can give me insight into one of the four "grand" topics - God, man, the relationship of God to man, and the relationship of man to man.  Jeremiah 29:11 teaches us some glorious truths about God.  He is not bound or constrained by conventional logic or the popular view.  He is Lord of the impossible.  What men would consider a disaster can become in His hands the means of blessing for His people.  This ministers encouragement to me - God, my God, is the same God who gave a future to those who seemed to have none.  I have a sound basis to hope even if things look thoroughly hopeless when my hope is in God.  When I compare this promise to actual historical events that occurred around 535 BC, I can see that God came through just as he promised!  The promise of my God is reliable even when it's unbelievable!   

(4) Passage A (in which I am NOT the immediate audience) can serve as an illustrative echo of passage B (in which I am included in the immediate audience).  In 1 Corinthians 15:58 (passage B) Paul says:  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58 - NASB95).  Because of what Paul says in the forward in 1 Cor. 1:2, Paul is making this promise to all men everywhere who call on the name of Jesus.  So 1 Cor. 15:58 is written to ME!  There may be no shortage of voices crowing, "Spending your life for Jesus is a waste of time."  In moments of discouragement, I might even FEEL justified saying, "What's the use?"  But 1 Corinthians 15:58 turns this notion on its ears and declares, "It WILL be worth it."

Jeremiah 29:11 (passage A) becomes illustrative reinforcement of 1 Corinthians 15:58, especially because of the ironic element they share.  Jeremiah's promise shows us that just because someone thinks it's hopeless, doesn't mean it is.  When God is factored into the equation, MEN'S estimates of what can and can't happen are irrelevant.  The promise of Jer. 29:11 was fulfilled just as God purposed.  So I have in Jer. 29:11 a GREAT reason to trust Him when He promises ME in 1 Cor. 15:58 that serving Jesus will be worth it, despite any man's opinion to the contrary.

Is Jer. 29:11 YOUR Promise? Pt. 2 of 4

Okay, so in Part 1 we agreed to identify what Jeremiah was saying to his original audience (the "interpretation") before we try to determine its implications for us (the "application").  But, this procedure assumes there is something for us in Jeremiah 29:11.  Is this a legitimate expectation?  I saw an advertisement for a cutesy plaque to hang in baby's room that says, "It's all about ME!"  Aren't we doing something similar when we exclaim that every passage in the Bible has something to say to ME?"  It stretches the limits of credulity (I like saying "credulity" - don't you?) to think that we can read someone else's mail, someone who lived millenia ago in a completely different culture, and propose he is saying something to US!

Normally, this would indeed be a credulity-buster.  (That was fun, too!)  But the nature of the Bible is anything but normal.  Unlike any other human literary production, this book has God's stamp on it that says, "These are my words to you."  Here's a key passage:  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17 - NASB95).  The Bible is "God-breathed," meaning that God is its source.  Because of this fact, the Scriptures are capable of a wide range of powerful influences ("teaching," "reproof," etc.) making it possible for any "God's man" to receive from them all he needs to do what is right in every situation.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that God intended for us to get something out of Jeremiah 29:11.  It would indeed be arrogance of the first order to assume Jeremiah. 29:11 was written for our benefit, except that God says it was!

Look at the left column on the chart.  It describes how God is working along every step of the growth chain which is His truth delivery system for our hearts and hands.  He is the One who declared the truth, who inspired authors of the books of the Bible to capture in words what He said,and who has superintended the process by which those original writings are made accessible to us.  As we read God's Word, He opens our minds to grasp what the human authors said to their original audiences, then He opens our eyes to see ways the message has implications for us, and finally, He empowers our hearts to respond by translating those implications into action.

By the way, there are a batch of theological terms that go with each step in the growth chain.  You can use them to impress your friends and neighbors.  (They are fun to say, too, like saying "credulity!")  I have aligned these terms with the relevant steps on the growth chain and put them together on a very handy 3-column chart you can download. 

Because of God's role, it is not just legitimate to say Jeremiah 29:11 has something to say to us, it is of vital importance to figure out what that something is.  So let's look at the interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11 (what Jeremiah intended his original audience to understand) in part 3.  Then we'll discern the implications for us in part 4.   As we do, we are divinely authorized to explore Jeremiah 29:11 for valid principles and insights that outfit us for every good work.

Is Jer. 29:11 YOUR Promise? Pt. 1 of 4

I love it when someone asks what I've been dying to answer.  Bravo, JG!  She wants to know if we can "claim" Jeremiah 29:11.  The verse says:  "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.'"  Is God promising you and me, today, in this verse, to insulate us from calamity?  Is He declaring in Jeremiah 29:11 that only what promotes our welfare lies ahead?

It all depends on what the meaning of "you" is.  (Where have I heard something like that before?)  Since the Bible was written for our benefit, it's natural to understand  "you" to mean "us" - If "you" includes us, then surely we can claim this promise.  But if "you" does not, then what? 

This is a really good question with far-reaching implications.  It is not just about this often quoted promise but the methodology by which we interpret and apply passages from the Bible.  So, I would like to provide an answer that is bigger than the question. 

The first thing we need to do is understand something of the process by which our lives are transformed by the truth.  I call it "the growth chain."  I have put together a chart to the left that I hope you will find helpful.  I have also prepared a PDF file of the "growth chain" that you can download if you want a hard copy.

The first six elements of the growth chain we often take for granted.  1)  God spoke to men in the past.  For example, He spoke to Moses from a burning bush.  2) We wouldn't know what God said, had not Moses and other writers recorded the message.  3) Neither would we have access to this message had not men made copies of the writer's originals, 4) copies that were assembled into collections called the Old and New Testaments.  5) The original text has been preserved in these copies and 6) can be identified by evaluating variances among manuscripts.

The next three steps are where most of us jump in.  7) At step seven, "interpretation," we seek the intended meaning for the original text.  The term "hermeneutics" is associated with this process of determining what the human author sought to communicate to his original audience.  8) The next step, "application," asks the question, "What are the ways in which the message to the original audience has implications for those who are outside that circle?"  9) To complete the growth chain, it remains for us to act on the application, to translate the application into changes in how we think, what we say, and what we do?

I realize that this is an extremely compressed summary.  (I went to four years of graduate school to unpack this little chart!)  But the key insight you need to take away is this:  You should not attempt to apply a passage until you first interpret that passage.  So, our first assignment in Jeremiah 29:11 is to determine exactly what Jeremiah was communicating to his original audience - let's do the work of interpretation.  THEN, we'll ask about how this message has implications for US.

I will tell you straight out that it drives me a little crazy when the above sequence is violated.  You CANNOT apply what you have not first interpreted.  So let's see if we can't avoid some craziness and do it right!  We'll pick this up again later next week starting with interpretation.