The life of Abraham - Part 2
Genesis 12:10-20
Abram’s problem10-13
Abram is forced by his need into a situation that would prove difficult for him. There is a famine in the land and Abram is forced to go down to Egypt to get food. The famine were he was living was so severe that he had to go down their to stay for a while. This puts Abram into a difficult position. The problem consisted of three parts.
1. Sarai was a beautiful women
2. Pharaoh would want to have Sarai
3. Abram would be killed
Abram did not like this situation but there was nothing he could do about the situation as he needed the food that their was in Egypt. We too can find ourselves in difficult situations that which we can not alter or help. What is important to realise is that God is still in control of the situation and we should turn to him for help. This was the thing that Abram did not do.
Abram’s solution 13-16
Abram did not turn to go to get direction or ask for help rather he came up with his own plan about how he could solve the problem before him. This plan involved:
1. Lying and manipulation, Sarai would have to lie for Abram in order to ensure that people thought that Sarai was Abram’s sister.
2. Blessing for Abram, he would be treated well because Sarai was his sister. He would not die ever.
3. But it would also mean that the blessing of God thorugh Sarai would not come to pass as Abram would no longer have Sarai as his wife.
This is what happened, Sarai lied Abram was blessed and Abram no longer had a wife through which Gods promise to him would one day be fulfilled. So often we become like Abram when a situation becomes difficult we try to use our own understanding to be able to figure out what we should do. This leads often to using other people for our own advantage. This does lead to blessings like Abram we get a lot out of it. But God want us to trust in him and not rely on our own understanding, because when we do this often like Abram it leads to forfeiting Gods plan for our lives.
Abram’s faithful God 17-20
What we see though is that despite the faithlessness of Abram to trust God to help him and provide for him in this situation, God was still faithful to him. The lord came and inflicted Pharaoh and his household, because he had taken Sarai from Abram. The result of this was that Pharaoh gave back Sarai and the two of them left with all the blessing that Abram had acquired.
This incident shows that when we do not include God things go wrong for us. But God does not look at us and say “This is your own mess sort it out”, but rather graciously and undeservedly he comes and provides a solution and helps us. We can be confident in two things firstly that we will mess up and fall away from the purpose God has for us. Secondly that God is sovereign (in control) enough to be able to come and work out a solution so that we can be brought back into his purpose for us.
It is also likely that Abram must have learnt a real lesson during this time. Whilst Sarai was away he must have wondered if he would ever see her again. This must have been a rather painful experience for Abram. The question has to be asked then, why did God not tell Abram to carry on with his plan? The answer is surely this; that it was in this time of being outside of what God wanted that God was able to teach Abram greater trust in him. When God blessed Abram and gave him back his wife, Abram must have learnt a valuable lesson to trust in God and not lean on his own understanding. Have you learnt this lesson yet?
Friday, 31 August 2007
The life of Abraham - Part 1
Background
Genesis 11:27-32 we see the background to the Abraham story. We see that Abram had a father called Terah and two other brothers one called Nahor the other called Haran. Haran then dies leaving behind his son Lot. The responsibility now lies on the others to look at this son Lot. We see later on that Abram must have taken large responsibility to look after this son Lot. Maybe Abram took Lot under his wing to make up for his lack of a son, for Lot was probably the right age to be his son. Key to the story is the fact that Sarai is barren and she had no children.
Another important part of background information is that Abram and family had already known what it was like to be a people on the move. His father Terah had already decided once that he was going to move to Canaan (the very land Abram would be given for his descendents). But his father came to Haran (the place) and decided to settle there. Here was a man who set out to do one thing but ended up settling for something else. Perhaps the writer of Genesis was highlighting a lesson for the people of Israel here that it is possible to head out to go to one place, but instead settle somewhere else. How true this would be of the generation who did not enter Canaan the promised land but instead wondered the desert for forty years.
We too can be like Terah and set out with all intense and purposes to do something but instead settle for something else instead. How this contrasts Abraham who set out to receive what God had for him and though he made some mistakes he did not settle for anything other than what God had promised him. This is the background to the story and points and key ideas here will surface later on as the story progresses.
The call of Abram 12:1-3
What we see about the call to Abram is that God said it to him in other words it was something that Abram had to hear. We see and important lesson here that if we are to enter into Gods purposes for us we need to be taking time to hear what he has to say. We have to be patiently waiting on God to speak. But also expectant that he could just break in and say something to us (as probably was the case with Abram).
God calls Abram into his purposes, 5 features dominate the call of God to Abram:
1. The call required cost. Abram and his family had settled in Haran, it would have come at great cost for Abram to leave. Not only that but it would also looked a little strange that some a God who had not statue or idol and so was unknown was being obeyed. People in the world around him would have thought this a crazy decision. Not only that but it would have also meant a breaking with the past leaving his fathers household. Abram had to leave the past behind him no doubt at great personal cost to him. When God calls us to do things the reality is these three things may happen (a) it will cost us (b) it may appear strange to others (c) it may mean having to break with the past. (But note just because something produces these three things does it mean that it is the call of God).
2. The call required being led into the unknown. Abram was to go to the land that God would show him. This implies that he did not know where he was going but was reliant upon God to give him the answers. Hebrews 11:8 shows us this clearly that Abraham did not know where he was going. Abram did not sit down plan out on a map and calendar where he would be and when he simply did not know. God did not give Abram all the answers when he called him but rather called him and left him with a lot of questions. When God asks us to do something or makes a promise to us we often are not going to know all the answers or how it is going to all work out, this was certainly the case with Abram. This is why it was by faith that Abram acted and not from the overflow of his own understanding. Abram was not in control but God was.
3. The call required God to act in the supernatural. God was going to make Abram into a great nation. This Abram was the same one who had no children and whose wife was barren. If Gods purposes were to be worked out in Abram’s life then God was going to need to act in a miraculous way. Often when God calls us to something he leads us to the place of dependency where we need him to act or else what he has called us to wont happen.
4. The call required obedience. Abram had to physically get up and go. God did not ask him to plan about how to go to another land, or talk about how to go to another land. God did not even get Abram to produce his own pod-cast series entitled “10 steps to becoming a blessed nation”. God called him to act. Not that planning or talking about anything is wrong but when it becomes a substitute for obedience then it is.
5. The call would lead to great blessing. God was going to do great things for Abram. Abram I am sure would have just wanted a son and he would be overjoyed. But Abram was part of a larger purpose then that God was calling Abram to be a blessing to the nations. God right at the start makes clear that his heart is to bless the nations Abram was being caught up to share in that purpose. What is the larger vision the bigger purpose that you want to be involved in. God does not want to call us into isolated little things but instead to call us into his plan to bless the nations. Whatever we do to serve the church and to bring in Gods kingdom no matter how small we are blessing the nations, because it is through the people of God that God blesses the nations.
The response of Abram 12:4-5
We can see 3 interesting things in Abram’s response:
1. Perfect obedience to what God had said. Abram left as God had told him, what God had said Abram did. He did not just hear God speak to him but he obediently obeyed what God said to him. We need to make sure that if we enter into what God is calling us to that we listen and obey whatever God is saying to us.
2. A get out plan. Abram took Lot with him, there is a sense here that this guy Lot had become a bit like the son he never had. Perhaps Abram thought he should take Lot with him to make sure that he had someone younger then him who was kind of related who could help fulfil Gods purposes. The problem with this was as we see later that this ended up backfiring and they had to split. So often we have our Lots when God calls us to something we have our own little get out plans, we need to be in control so much that we feel as if we need to have something to back up God just in case he does not pull through for us.
3. Full resource commitment. Abram took all the possessions and people that he had acquired and been blessed with. Here we see that Abram was being fully committed to what God had called him to do he was putting all his resources into it. He did not leave a little back in Haran just in case things did not quite work out for him, but he gave everything into what God had called him to do. When God calls us to something we need this same level of whole hearted response.
The intimacy of Abram 12:6-9
Abram was travelling around, according to Hebrews 12 not really knowing where he was going when God appeared to him. God told him two things firstly he confirmed to him that he would have offspring and secondly he showed him that his offspring would have land he was standing on. Abram’s response was to build an alter. This was an act of worship from Abram a response to the appearing of God. What is interesting to note though is that the Canaanites were there. In other words the very land God had promised Abram’s offspring was already occupied. We see then that Abram’s worship was an act of faith he worshipped despite in the natural there being contradictions to what God had said.
Abram response to what God was saying was not arrogance or pride that he was going to be blessed but was rather humble worship. His worship was also done despite the circumstances an act of faith. We need to allow this same sort of worship to govern our lives as we enter into all that God has for us.
Abram continued travelling and again sets up another altar God this time it says he called on the name of the lord. In other words Abram prayed. We see here that as Abram moved around and journeyed he turned himself to prayer and worship. Abram ensured that he was in constant fellowship with God as he walked out the call of God in his life. As we move in Gods purposes for us we too need to ensure that we remain in fellowship and communion with him. As it is in this place that we can gain direction, find refreshment and develop faith. Intimacy is crucial for journeying in our destiny.
Background
Genesis 11:27-32 we see the background to the Abraham story. We see that Abram had a father called Terah and two other brothers one called Nahor the other called Haran. Haran then dies leaving behind his son Lot. The responsibility now lies on the others to look at this son Lot. We see later on that Abram must have taken large responsibility to look after this son Lot. Maybe Abram took Lot under his wing to make up for his lack of a son, for Lot was probably the right age to be his son. Key to the story is the fact that Sarai is barren and she had no children.
Another important part of background information is that Abram and family had already known what it was like to be a people on the move. His father Terah had already decided once that he was going to move to Canaan (the very land Abram would be given for his descendents). But his father came to Haran (the place) and decided to settle there. Here was a man who set out to do one thing but ended up settling for something else. Perhaps the writer of Genesis was highlighting a lesson for the people of Israel here that it is possible to head out to go to one place, but instead settle somewhere else. How true this would be of the generation who did not enter Canaan the promised land but instead wondered the desert for forty years.
We too can be like Terah and set out with all intense and purposes to do something but instead settle for something else instead. How this contrasts Abraham who set out to receive what God had for him and though he made some mistakes he did not settle for anything other than what God had promised him. This is the background to the story and points and key ideas here will surface later on as the story progresses.
The call of Abram 12:1-3
What we see about the call to Abram is that God said it to him in other words it was something that Abram had to hear. We see and important lesson here that if we are to enter into Gods purposes for us we need to be taking time to hear what he has to say. We have to be patiently waiting on God to speak. But also expectant that he could just break in and say something to us (as probably was the case with Abram).
God calls Abram into his purposes, 5 features dominate the call of God to Abram:
1. The call required cost. Abram and his family had settled in Haran, it would have come at great cost for Abram to leave. Not only that but it would also looked a little strange that some a God who had not statue or idol and so was unknown was being obeyed. People in the world around him would have thought this a crazy decision. Not only that but it would have also meant a breaking with the past leaving his fathers household. Abram had to leave the past behind him no doubt at great personal cost to him. When God calls us to do things the reality is these three things may happen (a) it will cost us (b) it may appear strange to others (c) it may mean having to break with the past. (But note just because something produces these three things does it mean that it is the call of God).
2. The call required being led into the unknown. Abram was to go to the land that God would show him. This implies that he did not know where he was going but was reliant upon God to give him the answers. Hebrews 11:8 shows us this clearly that Abraham did not know where he was going. Abram did not sit down plan out on a map and calendar where he would be and when he simply did not know. God did not give Abram all the answers when he called him but rather called him and left him with a lot of questions. When God asks us to do something or makes a promise to us we often are not going to know all the answers or how it is going to all work out, this was certainly the case with Abram. This is why it was by faith that Abram acted and not from the overflow of his own understanding. Abram was not in control but God was.
3. The call required God to act in the supernatural. God was going to make Abram into a great nation. This Abram was the same one who had no children and whose wife was barren. If Gods purposes were to be worked out in Abram’s life then God was going to need to act in a miraculous way. Often when God calls us to something he leads us to the place of dependency where we need him to act or else what he has called us to wont happen.
4. The call required obedience. Abram had to physically get up and go. God did not ask him to plan about how to go to another land, or talk about how to go to another land. God did not even get Abram to produce his own pod-cast series entitled “10 steps to becoming a blessed nation”. God called him to act. Not that planning or talking about anything is wrong but when it becomes a substitute for obedience then it is.
5. The call would lead to great blessing. God was going to do great things for Abram. Abram I am sure would have just wanted a son and he would be overjoyed. But Abram was part of a larger purpose then that God was calling Abram to be a blessing to the nations. God right at the start makes clear that his heart is to bless the nations Abram was being caught up to share in that purpose. What is the larger vision the bigger purpose that you want to be involved in. God does not want to call us into isolated little things but instead to call us into his plan to bless the nations. Whatever we do to serve the church and to bring in Gods kingdom no matter how small we are blessing the nations, because it is through the people of God that God blesses the nations.
The response of Abram 12:4-5
We can see 3 interesting things in Abram’s response:
1. Perfect obedience to what God had said. Abram left as God had told him, what God had said Abram did. He did not just hear God speak to him but he obediently obeyed what God said to him. We need to make sure that if we enter into what God is calling us to that we listen and obey whatever God is saying to us.
2. A get out plan. Abram took Lot with him, there is a sense here that this guy Lot had become a bit like the son he never had. Perhaps Abram thought he should take Lot with him to make sure that he had someone younger then him who was kind of related who could help fulfil Gods purposes. The problem with this was as we see later that this ended up backfiring and they had to split. So often we have our Lots when God calls us to something we have our own little get out plans, we need to be in control so much that we feel as if we need to have something to back up God just in case he does not pull through for us.
3. Full resource commitment. Abram took all the possessions and people that he had acquired and been blessed with. Here we see that Abram was being fully committed to what God had called him to do he was putting all his resources into it. He did not leave a little back in Haran just in case things did not quite work out for him, but he gave everything into what God had called him to do. When God calls us to something we need this same level of whole hearted response.
The intimacy of Abram 12:6-9
Abram was travelling around, according to Hebrews 12 not really knowing where he was going when God appeared to him. God told him two things firstly he confirmed to him that he would have offspring and secondly he showed him that his offspring would have land he was standing on. Abram’s response was to build an alter. This was an act of worship from Abram a response to the appearing of God. What is interesting to note though is that the Canaanites were there. In other words the very land God had promised Abram’s offspring was already occupied. We see then that Abram’s worship was an act of faith he worshipped despite in the natural there being contradictions to what God had said.
Abram response to what God was saying was not arrogance or pride that he was going to be blessed but was rather humble worship. His worship was also done despite the circumstances an act of faith. We need to allow this same sort of worship to govern our lives as we enter into all that God has for us.
Abram continued travelling and again sets up another altar God this time it says he called on the name of the lord. In other words Abram prayed. We see here that as Abram moved around and journeyed he turned himself to prayer and worship. Abram ensured that he was in constant fellowship with God as he walked out the call of God in his life. As we move in Gods purposes for us we too need to ensure that we remain in fellowship and communion with him. As it is in this place that we can gain direction, find refreshment and develop faith. Intimacy is crucial for journeying in our destiny.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
God as Father in the Old Testament
Exodus 4:21-23
The main aim of this narrative is to show that: God is instructing Moses on the importance of communicating to Pharaoh the relation between himself and his people. God is showing Pharaoh that Israel is not a servant to him but rather a son who he feels greatly for.
21 The lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt see that you perform all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go”.
We see here that God is making sure that Moses performs “all the wonders” that God gives him the power to do. God is stressing the importance of the wonders. This is because the wonders have great significance. God also reveals to Moses that Pharaoh will be unresponsive to letting the people go. Douglas Stuart sees this as God assuring “Moses that he was totally in control of Pharaoh in ever way”. God was controlling Pharaohs resistance.
22-23a Then say to Pharaoh, “This is what the lord says Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you let my son go so that he may worship me”
Having explained to Moses the importance of doing all the signs God begins to elaborate on one particular sign in particular the killing of the firstborn. God sets the context for this sign by saying how Israel is his firstborn son. “The firstborn son in the ancient world was the one specially favoured with the inheritance the one who would represent the father in many ways as he came into maturity and the father gave him more and more responsibility” (Douglas Stuart: 2006) Israel was this firstborn son to Yahweh. God then wants Pharaoh to be reminded that he wants his son to be free from slavery in order to be able to worship him. It has already be shown that God had “heard their groaning” (2:24) and that he “was concerned about them” (2:25). God had compassion on his son and wanted him to be free.
But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your first born
Because of Gods love for his firstborn and desire to see him freed, he now says that he will kill pharaohs firstborn because he refuses to let Gods firstborn go. What we see here is that God links his firstborn with pharaohs firstborn, so that Pharaoh can experience the same thing that God experiences about his firstborn. This is why it is important for Moses to perform all wonders, as this killing of the firstborn is a revelation to pharaoh of Gods feelings towards his people. In other words when Pharaoh experiences the grief of losing his firstborn he will be able to understand the grief that God feels for his enslaved son, and thus Gods desire to see him leave. Due to the link between pharaohs firstborn and Gods firstborn Pharaohs grief acts as a communication to Pharaoh of his own affections for his people.
So what we see here is a God who is moved with incredible love and compassion towards his son his people filled with great desire for his son his people. The fathers pain because the son is not able to worship the father and is in slavery can only can only be understood in terms of a father loss over his firstborn son. The Egyptians pain over the loss of their first born was described in terms of “loud wailing” (12:30). So we see here the incredible depths of affection the father God has for his people. It is important that the writer of the Exodus includes this as when the Israelite people look back to there past they will question what did God feel about their slavery? The answer will be like a father moved with pain over the loss of a son. We see a God who is moved as a father with great affection for his people.
Deuteronomy 32:5-6 and 18
5-6 They have acted corruptly towards him to their shame they are no longer children, but a warped and crooked generation. Is this the way you repay the lord o foolish and unwise people. Is he not your father your creator who made you and formed you?
Here we see “the activity of a father who formed them into a believing community” (Raymond Brown: 1993). God is described as being a creative father, that is the activity of God in rescuing his people out of Egypt created them to be his people his son. So we see that Israel’s identity was as a son of God. When God redeemed them from Egypt it created them to be his son. Israel’s identity was a son of God, this is what they had made them and formed them to be, to be part of Gods people meant being a son of God.
This song “however anticipates times in their history when these rich privileges will be forgotten” (Raymond Brown: 1993). The people have because of their sin disannulled the right to be the children of God, “they are no longer children”. Instead the peoples identity has completely changed they are “warped and crooked”. Sin damages the relationship with the father.
But the fatherhood of God is held up as motive not to sin. There sin is seen to be a foolish and unwise way to repay God because he is there father. In other words it is the fatherhood of God that exposes the folly of sin. It is as we see God as father that we see how foolish sin is. The Israelite identity as a son of God was to shape the way they thought and ultimately effect their behaviour. We see here that an understanding of God as father should ultimately effect peoples behaviour.
18 You deserted the rock who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.
The people had neglected the God who had fathered them. God not only gave them birth that is brought them into existence as the people of God but also lead them though the wilderness. It is in this wilderness journey that we understand Gods fathering. We get an understanding of what this fathering means as we begin to examine the preceding verses. We see that this fathering involved:
Ÿ Shielding guarding his people from harm (v10)
Ÿ Caring for them (v10)
Ÿ Leading them (v12)
Ÿ Feeding and nourishing them (v13)
Gods fathering was immensely active and practical; it was crucial for getting them through the wilderness wonderings. This was the God of the Israelites, the one who had sustained through the bareness of the desert. We see here then an image of God who sustains and supports his people in the midst of trial, because he is a caring loving father.
Hosea 11:1-4
What we see with the prophet Hosea here is God great intimate fatherly care. We see one who is filled with great love for his rebellious son.
1 When Israel was a child I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son.
What God is referring to here is the beginning of his peoples existence. It was whilst they were still developing as the people of God that God was filled with love towards them. The love here is depicted as being like that a father has for a child. McCkomiskey writes that the prophet moves “back through time to halcyon period of Israel’s early history. It was a time marked by the greatest event in her national experience - the exodus from Egypt. Hosea pictures Israel in this period as an infant, dependent on an adult for care and training. The analogy is one of deep tenderness. The picture of divine love in this section is almost unparallel in the old testament as Yahweh is pictured as a loving father and Israel as his infant son.”
It was the compassion of a father filled with love which found expression in the deliverance of the people from slavery in Egypt. The prophet is looking to stir an awareness for the great fatherly love of Yahweh by reminding the people of their past salvation.
2 But the more I called Israel the further they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baal’s and the burned incense to images.
The call out of Egypt was not the only call that God offered the people of Israel. He beckoned them a number of times throughout their relationship together. But instead of responding to God drawing they went further a way. The idea here is that the more the father calls the further they go. This going away from Yahweh find expression in the worship of other Gods an insult to the sufficiency of Yahweh as there loving father, an abuse of what the father had blessed them with and direct rebellion against what God had commanded. It is important to realise that the call here is linked to the call out of Egypt, as Gods calling to his people was from the overflow of his fatherly love, for the good of his people.
McCkomiskey expresses the sentiment perfectly “like a loving father who beckons to his child because he wants to express his love to the child, Yahweh beckoned to Israel, but Israel was an uncaring son who ran insolently away from him”.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk taking them by the arms; but they did not realise it was I who healed them.
Here we have the beautiful imagery of a loving father teaching and helping his child to be able to walk for the first time. This father is not distant and aloof though but is intimately with the child “taking them by the arms”. Tenderly the father supports the child as they develop. This is what God had been to Israel but they did not recognise that it was God “who healed them. It was God who had always helped them and tenderly cared for them in times of trouble. But the people did not realise this and instead attributed this help to other things namely the Gods of the other nations. Israel did not understand that it was the father who cared for them and loved them. So as a result they rebelled against him to pursue other Gods.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from there neck and bent down to feed them.
The imagery here is of an animal being led and looked after, made to work, being fed and being freed from harsh labour. The idea here is that God was never a harsh task master who demanded obedience from low level slaves. Rather God treated his people with care and gentleness the leading and obedience required was drawn out from them by kindness and love. Kindness and love were what God used to motivate and cause his people so obey him. “Yahweh is not like those who treat their beasts of burden in an uncaring way, but like those who ease the yoke of an animal when they see it causing pain”. God never tried his people to hard but was always available to help them. Finally God provided for all their needs giving them the provision to sustain them.
We see therefore a loving father who has been abundantly and kind and caring towards his son. He is not an overbearing task master but rather a intimately loving and caring father, whose kindness and love are what he uses to draw people to obey him.
Jeremiah 3:19-20
What we see in these verse is excellently summarised by Brueggemaann here he sees “Yahweh speak wistfully as a disappointed father who had high expectations for his son”.
19a How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.
God is looking back to a time prior the rebellion of his people. He says that it would have made him very happy to treat the people like sons. God would get pleasure and enjoy treating the people as sons. From the outworking of this desire and delight he would have given them a fantastic inheritance greater then any other nations. The idea here is of someone who treats someone like a son and giving them the best presents and gifts that they could possibly enjoy. The image is of someone wealthy taking someone from poverty and sharing there abundant wealth to them moved by the delight of a father. God wanted to be Israel’s glad hearted father.
19b-20 I thought you would call me “father” and not turn away from me. But like a women unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me oh house of Israel.
God though that in response to this that they would call him father. That is as God acted as the dotting delighting dad the people would call him father. And from the overflow of the affection of a son to a father they would not turn away from him. But instead the people have turned away from God and been unresponsive to his love. This is the thrust of what God is saying when he refers to them as being like a wife unfaithful to her husband. “After such proofs of a fathers love, God expected that Israel would be a true cleaving to Him show some return of filial affection” (Keil & Delitzsch:1866).
We see here a God who longs to treat his people as sons as that gives great pleasure to his heart. He desires greatly that his people respond to him by calling him father.
Isaiah 63:15b-16a
In these verses there is an appeal to receive and experience Gods tenderness and compassion based upon the fact that God is his peoples father. Or in other words because God is his peoples father he exercises his tenderness and compassion.
15b Your tenderness and compassion are withheld from us.
Here is the situation that the people find themselves in. Gods tenderness which “is passion as felt inwardly moving” and compassion which is “overflowing love” (Motyer: 1993), are not experienced by Gods people. It appears that God is holding these things back from his people.
16 But you are our father
The appeal here is to go to show his tenderness and compassion towards them because he is the peoples father. Young paraphrases “we beseech Thee look down upon us with favour because thou are our father.” It is because God is their father that they ask him to no longer withhold his tenderness and compassion, because these are the attributes of a loving father which God is to them.
We see therefore the basis for experiencing Gods tenderness and compassion is because he is a father. He has passion moving inwardly within him for us and overflowing love from him to us, because he is our father.
Psalm 103:13
This verse shows us that the compassion of an earthly father provides a paradigm (a way of understanding and viewing) the compassion of God.
13 As a father has compassion on his children so the lord has compassion on those who fear him.
In the same way that a human father is moved with compassion towards his children so God is moved with compassion towards his people. The Hebrew term for compassion “refers to the natural love of a parent, here of a father” (Allen: 2002). The psalmist is wanting people to understand that the compassion God feels is like that of an earthly parent for a child.
To properly understand the affections of God it is necessary to examine that which is good in an earthly parent, in order that we can begin to relate to what God feels about us.
Jeremiah 31:20
In these verses we see Gods fatherly affections being outworked to those who have rebelled against him.
20a Is not Ephraim my dear son the child in whom I delight. Though I often speak against him, I still remember him.
Here God speaks about his rebellious people and he says about them even in their rebellion and sin that they are my dear son that is he values them incredibly highly. They are not the son he wished he never had but are rather dear to him. Also they are the child in whom he delights; despite the weakness and frailty of his people there rebellion and sin God still feels delight in them.
This does not undermine the fact that God speaks against them, that is through the prophet God condemns their wickedness and disciplines their rebellion. But this does not undermine their value to him as well as his delight in them. For God still remembers him, that is God is still faithful to his people despite their sin and rebellion.
20b Therefore my heart still yearns for him I have great compassion for him
The result of all this is that Gods heart still despite their wickedness, yearns for his rebellious son. God is moved to compassion for him even in his rebellion. It is important to note that this is all possible because of Gods unfailing unconditional love to those whom he has chosen to be his people. This response of God “is not because of his conduct, as if he caused him joy by obedience and faithful attachment, but consequence of the unchangeable love of God, who can not leave his son, however much grief he causes his father” (Keil & Delitzsch:1866).
The unconditional steadfast love of God whereby he chooses to love us is the basis of his fatherly value of us and delight in us, even in our sin and rebellion.
Exodus 4:21-23
The main aim of this narrative is to show that: God is instructing Moses on the importance of communicating to Pharaoh the relation between himself and his people. God is showing Pharaoh that Israel is not a servant to him but rather a son who he feels greatly for.
21 The lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt see that you perform all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go”.
We see here that God is making sure that Moses performs “all the wonders” that God gives him the power to do. God is stressing the importance of the wonders. This is because the wonders have great significance. God also reveals to Moses that Pharaoh will be unresponsive to letting the people go. Douglas Stuart sees this as God assuring “Moses that he was totally in control of Pharaoh in ever way”. God was controlling Pharaohs resistance.
22-23a Then say to Pharaoh, “This is what the lord says Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you let my son go so that he may worship me”
Having explained to Moses the importance of doing all the signs God begins to elaborate on one particular sign in particular the killing of the firstborn. God sets the context for this sign by saying how Israel is his firstborn son. “The firstborn son in the ancient world was the one specially favoured with the inheritance the one who would represent the father in many ways as he came into maturity and the father gave him more and more responsibility” (Douglas Stuart: 2006) Israel was this firstborn son to Yahweh. God then wants Pharaoh to be reminded that he wants his son to be free from slavery in order to be able to worship him. It has already be shown that God had “heard their groaning” (2:24) and that he “was concerned about them” (2:25). God had compassion on his son and wanted him to be free.
But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your first born
Because of Gods love for his firstborn and desire to see him freed, he now says that he will kill pharaohs firstborn because he refuses to let Gods firstborn go. What we see here is that God links his firstborn with pharaohs firstborn, so that Pharaoh can experience the same thing that God experiences about his firstborn. This is why it is important for Moses to perform all wonders, as this killing of the firstborn is a revelation to pharaoh of Gods feelings towards his people. In other words when Pharaoh experiences the grief of losing his firstborn he will be able to understand the grief that God feels for his enslaved son, and thus Gods desire to see him leave. Due to the link between pharaohs firstborn and Gods firstborn Pharaohs grief acts as a communication to Pharaoh of his own affections for his people.
So what we see here is a God who is moved with incredible love and compassion towards his son his people filled with great desire for his son his people. The fathers pain because the son is not able to worship the father and is in slavery can only can only be understood in terms of a father loss over his firstborn son. The Egyptians pain over the loss of their first born was described in terms of “loud wailing” (12:30). So we see here the incredible depths of affection the father God has for his people. It is important that the writer of the Exodus includes this as when the Israelite people look back to there past they will question what did God feel about their slavery? The answer will be like a father moved with pain over the loss of a son. We see a God who is moved as a father with great affection for his people.
Deuteronomy 32:5-6 and 18
5-6 They have acted corruptly towards him to their shame they are no longer children, but a warped and crooked generation. Is this the way you repay the lord o foolish and unwise people. Is he not your father your creator who made you and formed you?
Here we see “the activity of a father who formed them into a believing community” (Raymond Brown: 1993). God is described as being a creative father, that is the activity of God in rescuing his people out of Egypt created them to be his people his son. So we see that Israel’s identity was as a son of God. When God redeemed them from Egypt it created them to be his son. Israel’s identity was a son of God, this is what they had made them and formed them to be, to be part of Gods people meant being a son of God.
This song “however anticipates times in their history when these rich privileges will be forgotten” (Raymond Brown: 1993). The people have because of their sin disannulled the right to be the children of God, “they are no longer children”. Instead the peoples identity has completely changed they are “warped and crooked”. Sin damages the relationship with the father.
But the fatherhood of God is held up as motive not to sin. There sin is seen to be a foolish and unwise way to repay God because he is there father. In other words it is the fatherhood of God that exposes the folly of sin. It is as we see God as father that we see how foolish sin is. The Israelite identity as a son of God was to shape the way they thought and ultimately effect their behaviour. We see here that an understanding of God as father should ultimately effect peoples behaviour.
18 You deserted the rock who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.
The people had neglected the God who had fathered them. God not only gave them birth that is brought them into existence as the people of God but also lead them though the wilderness. It is in this wilderness journey that we understand Gods fathering. We get an understanding of what this fathering means as we begin to examine the preceding verses. We see that this fathering involved:
Ÿ Shielding guarding his people from harm (v10)
Ÿ Caring for them (v10)
Ÿ Leading them (v12)
Ÿ Feeding and nourishing them (v13)
Gods fathering was immensely active and practical; it was crucial for getting them through the wilderness wonderings. This was the God of the Israelites, the one who had sustained through the bareness of the desert. We see here then an image of God who sustains and supports his people in the midst of trial, because he is a caring loving father.
Hosea 11:1-4
What we see with the prophet Hosea here is God great intimate fatherly care. We see one who is filled with great love for his rebellious son.
1 When Israel was a child I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son.
What God is referring to here is the beginning of his peoples existence. It was whilst they were still developing as the people of God that God was filled with love towards them. The love here is depicted as being like that a father has for a child. McCkomiskey writes that the prophet moves “back through time to halcyon period of Israel’s early history. It was a time marked by the greatest event in her national experience - the exodus from Egypt. Hosea pictures Israel in this period as an infant, dependent on an adult for care and training. The analogy is one of deep tenderness. The picture of divine love in this section is almost unparallel in the old testament as Yahweh is pictured as a loving father and Israel as his infant son.”
It was the compassion of a father filled with love which found expression in the deliverance of the people from slavery in Egypt. The prophet is looking to stir an awareness for the great fatherly love of Yahweh by reminding the people of their past salvation.
2 But the more I called Israel the further they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baal’s and the burned incense to images.
The call out of Egypt was not the only call that God offered the people of Israel. He beckoned them a number of times throughout their relationship together. But instead of responding to God drawing they went further a way. The idea here is that the more the father calls the further they go. This going away from Yahweh find expression in the worship of other Gods an insult to the sufficiency of Yahweh as there loving father, an abuse of what the father had blessed them with and direct rebellion against what God had commanded. It is important to realise that the call here is linked to the call out of Egypt, as Gods calling to his people was from the overflow of his fatherly love, for the good of his people.
McCkomiskey expresses the sentiment perfectly “like a loving father who beckons to his child because he wants to express his love to the child, Yahweh beckoned to Israel, but Israel was an uncaring son who ran insolently away from him”.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk taking them by the arms; but they did not realise it was I who healed them.
Here we have the beautiful imagery of a loving father teaching and helping his child to be able to walk for the first time. This father is not distant and aloof though but is intimately with the child “taking them by the arms”. Tenderly the father supports the child as they develop. This is what God had been to Israel but they did not recognise that it was God “who healed them. It was God who had always helped them and tenderly cared for them in times of trouble. But the people did not realise this and instead attributed this help to other things namely the Gods of the other nations. Israel did not understand that it was the father who cared for them and loved them. So as a result they rebelled against him to pursue other Gods.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from there neck and bent down to feed them.
The imagery here is of an animal being led and looked after, made to work, being fed and being freed from harsh labour. The idea here is that God was never a harsh task master who demanded obedience from low level slaves. Rather God treated his people with care and gentleness the leading and obedience required was drawn out from them by kindness and love. Kindness and love were what God used to motivate and cause his people so obey him. “Yahweh is not like those who treat their beasts of burden in an uncaring way, but like those who ease the yoke of an animal when they see it causing pain”. God never tried his people to hard but was always available to help them. Finally God provided for all their needs giving them the provision to sustain them.
We see therefore a loving father who has been abundantly and kind and caring towards his son. He is not an overbearing task master but rather a intimately loving and caring father, whose kindness and love are what he uses to draw people to obey him.
Jeremiah 3:19-20
What we see in these verse is excellently summarised by Brueggemaann here he sees “Yahweh speak wistfully as a disappointed father who had high expectations for his son”.
19a How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.
God is looking back to a time prior the rebellion of his people. He says that it would have made him very happy to treat the people like sons. God would get pleasure and enjoy treating the people as sons. From the outworking of this desire and delight he would have given them a fantastic inheritance greater then any other nations. The idea here is of someone who treats someone like a son and giving them the best presents and gifts that they could possibly enjoy. The image is of someone wealthy taking someone from poverty and sharing there abundant wealth to them moved by the delight of a father. God wanted to be Israel’s glad hearted father.
19b-20 I thought you would call me “father” and not turn away from me. But like a women unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me oh house of Israel.
God though that in response to this that they would call him father. That is as God acted as the dotting delighting dad the people would call him father. And from the overflow of the affection of a son to a father they would not turn away from him. But instead the people have turned away from God and been unresponsive to his love. This is the thrust of what God is saying when he refers to them as being like a wife unfaithful to her husband. “After such proofs of a fathers love, God expected that Israel would be a true cleaving to Him show some return of filial affection” (Keil & Delitzsch:1866).
We see here a God who longs to treat his people as sons as that gives great pleasure to his heart. He desires greatly that his people respond to him by calling him father.
Isaiah 63:15b-16a
In these verses there is an appeal to receive and experience Gods tenderness and compassion based upon the fact that God is his peoples father. Or in other words because God is his peoples father he exercises his tenderness and compassion.
15b Your tenderness and compassion are withheld from us.
Here is the situation that the people find themselves in. Gods tenderness which “is passion as felt inwardly moving” and compassion which is “overflowing love” (Motyer: 1993), are not experienced by Gods people. It appears that God is holding these things back from his people.
16 But you are our father
The appeal here is to go to show his tenderness and compassion towards them because he is the peoples father. Young paraphrases “we beseech Thee look down upon us with favour because thou are our father.” It is because God is their father that they ask him to no longer withhold his tenderness and compassion, because these are the attributes of a loving father which God is to them.
We see therefore the basis for experiencing Gods tenderness and compassion is because he is a father. He has passion moving inwardly within him for us and overflowing love from him to us, because he is our father.
Psalm 103:13
This verse shows us that the compassion of an earthly father provides a paradigm (a way of understanding and viewing) the compassion of God.
13 As a father has compassion on his children so the lord has compassion on those who fear him.
In the same way that a human father is moved with compassion towards his children so God is moved with compassion towards his people. The Hebrew term for compassion “refers to the natural love of a parent, here of a father” (Allen: 2002). The psalmist is wanting people to understand that the compassion God feels is like that of an earthly parent for a child.
To properly understand the affections of God it is necessary to examine that which is good in an earthly parent, in order that we can begin to relate to what God feels about us.
Jeremiah 31:20
In these verses we see Gods fatherly affections being outworked to those who have rebelled against him.
20a Is not Ephraim my dear son the child in whom I delight. Though I often speak against him, I still remember him.
Here God speaks about his rebellious people and he says about them even in their rebellion and sin that they are my dear son that is he values them incredibly highly. They are not the son he wished he never had but are rather dear to him. Also they are the child in whom he delights; despite the weakness and frailty of his people there rebellion and sin God still feels delight in them.
This does not undermine the fact that God speaks against them, that is through the prophet God condemns their wickedness and disciplines their rebellion. But this does not undermine their value to him as well as his delight in them. For God still remembers him, that is God is still faithful to his people despite their sin and rebellion.
20b Therefore my heart still yearns for him I have great compassion for him
The result of all this is that Gods heart still despite their wickedness, yearns for his rebellious son. God is moved to compassion for him even in his rebellion. It is important to note that this is all possible because of Gods unfailing unconditional love to those whom he has chosen to be his people. This response of God “is not because of his conduct, as if he caused him joy by obedience and faithful attachment, but consequence of the unchangeable love of God, who can not leave his son, however much grief he causes his father” (Keil & Delitzsch:1866).
The unconditional steadfast love of God whereby he chooses to love us is the basis of his fatherly value of us and delight in us, even in our sin and rebellion.
Monday, 30 July 2007
An examination of the theology of healing from the Early Churches Hymns for the Anointing of the Sick
The study will examine hymns that have been translated and selected by the rev John Brownlie published in 1913 from the book entitled Hymns of the Early Church. (The three hymns to be studied are taken from the chapter Anointing of the sick.) The hymns are translations of Greek and Latin hymns sang by the early church. This study will try to understand the theology of healing behind the hymns, and so as a result get a glimpse into the early churches understanding of healing. All three hymnns can be accessed through the following link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brownlie/earlyhymns.d7.html
Healing is rooted in Jesus acting; it is Jesus’ power that heals the sick “O gracious Christ thy power reveal” also “The Lord has power to heal”. Healing then is seen to be an activity of the lord Jesus Christ. The basis for such belief is that Jesus healed the sick during his earthly life; “Thou, Lord, didst journey long ago, Where sick and sorrowing lives were spent; And Thou didst heed the call of woe, And joy and health from heaven were sent.” Here the belief is that when Christ became incarnate he travelled around and had compassion on those who called out to him (“call of woe”); and health and healing came.
But this healing activity was not just limited to his earthly life but; “Thou hast power to-day as then.” Jesus has the same power today as he did when on earth, or in other words he heals today as he did when he first came to earth. But not only does he have the same power but is also moved with the same compassion as then; “and thou with love art loving still”. Jesus still has the same love for the sick as he did during his earthly life.
The continuation of the healing activity of Jesus was expected to continue into the present because Jesus was present among them; “Still art thou with the sons of men”. Jesus was present (presumably this was understood to be by the Spirit) in order to heal, “thy healing mission to fulfil”. They expected Jesus to continue his mission of healing the sick into the present as he did during his earthly ministry.
Healing is the outworking of Christ’ compassion and sympathy, the cry for healing is because “for you o lord compassionate art”. This compassion and sympathy is rooted in the fact that Christ experienced the pain of physical sufferings during his life; “for thou didst wear our feeble flesh”. The fact that he will quickly aid is a result of the fact that “for thou dost deeply feel the stripes upon us laid thou who wast wounded by the rod uplifted in the hand of God”. That Christ suffered such tremendous suffering on the Cross means he is able to sympathise with the weakness of the sick and is an encouragement that he will heal.
Conclusion
The most obvious observation is how Christ cantered the healing was viewed to be. They believed that the healing came from Christ it was his power, the same power he exercised during his earthly ministry. They believed that because Christ was compassionate and sympathised with our weaknesses (due to his incarnation) he was more then willing to heal.
The study will examine hymns that have been translated and selected by the rev John Brownlie published in 1913 from the book entitled Hymns of the Early Church. (The three hymns to be studied are taken from the chapter Anointing of the sick.) The hymns are translations of Greek and Latin hymns sang by the early church. This study will try to understand the theology of healing behind the hymns, and so as a result get a glimpse into the early churches understanding of healing. All three hymnns can be accessed through the following link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brownlie/earlyhymns.d7.html
Healing is rooted in Jesus acting; it is Jesus’ power that heals the sick “O gracious Christ thy power reveal” also “The Lord has power to heal”. Healing then is seen to be an activity of the lord Jesus Christ. The basis for such belief is that Jesus healed the sick during his earthly life; “Thou, Lord, didst journey long ago, Where sick and sorrowing lives were spent; And Thou didst heed the call of woe, And joy and health from heaven were sent.” Here the belief is that when Christ became incarnate he travelled around and had compassion on those who called out to him (“call of woe”); and health and healing came.
But this healing activity was not just limited to his earthly life but; “Thou hast power to-day as then.” Jesus has the same power today as he did when on earth, or in other words he heals today as he did when he first came to earth. But not only does he have the same power but is also moved with the same compassion as then; “and thou with love art loving still”. Jesus still has the same love for the sick as he did during his earthly life.
The continuation of the healing activity of Jesus was expected to continue into the present because Jesus was present among them; “Still art thou with the sons of men”. Jesus was present (presumably this was understood to be by the Spirit) in order to heal, “thy healing mission to fulfil”. They expected Jesus to continue his mission of healing the sick into the present as he did during his earthly ministry.
Healing is the outworking of Christ’ compassion and sympathy, the cry for healing is because “for you o lord compassionate art”. This compassion and sympathy is rooted in the fact that Christ experienced the pain of physical sufferings during his life; “for thou didst wear our feeble flesh”. The fact that he will quickly aid is a result of the fact that “for thou dost deeply feel the stripes upon us laid thou who wast wounded by the rod uplifted in the hand of God”. That Christ suffered such tremendous suffering on the Cross means he is able to sympathise with the weakness of the sick and is an encouragement that he will heal.
Conclusion
The most obvious observation is how Christ cantered the healing was viewed to be. They believed that the healing came from Christ it was his power, the same power he exercised during his earthly ministry. They believed that because Christ was compassionate and sympathised with our weaknesses (due to his incarnation) he was more then willing to heal.
Saturday, 28 July 2007
Prophecy in 1 Timothy 1:18-19a
“Timothy my son I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you so that by following them you might fight the good fight holding onto the faith and a good conscience”
Timothy is going to face and is facing a number of challenges for example men teaching false doctrines (1:3) people shipwrecking their faith (1:19) impeccable standards to live by (3:1-12) the threat of deceiving spirits (4:1) to name a few. Paul’s purpose is “to restore the evangelical witness of a church plagued by proto-gnostic teaching. This teaching advocated a disordered view of the universe took advantage of disordered households to propagate its teaching and left in its wake a disordered church” It is into this situation that this verse comes serving as part of Paul’s purpose to strengthen and restore the church.
The first question that needs to be addressed is what the instruction is that Paul gives timothy. Mounce sees the instruction as being, defending the true gospel message. Indeed Towner sees the link between this and verse 3 were Paul talks of the “commission given to timothy…to oppose the false teachers”. This is in keeping with Marshall who sees this verse as resuming “the charge the author began to give in 1:3 before he diverged into a discussion of the heretics, the right use of the law and his own credentials to proclaim the gospel.”
What we see here then is that Paul is affirming that Timothy has a distinct role to play in having to refute the heresies within the church as well as to establish the truth of the gospel that he has been entrusted to preach. This commission is said to be “in keeping with the prophecies once made about him”. This clearly shows that Timothy had prophecies spoken over his life that link to the fact that he should refute heresy and establish the truth of the gospel. The purpose of this phrase is to “motivate by establishing the context of authority for the present command” (Towner: ). That is the phrase looks back to the commissioning content of the prophecies “once made about” him to enable him to realise and outwork his calling to establish the truth of the gospel.
Mounce sees that the prophecies made about Timothy dealt with “identifying Timothy with having the necessary spiritual gifts to do the task”. So Paul is reminding timothy that he was prophetically identified to be the man who had sufficient gifting and was chosen by God to be able to fulfil this instruction given to him. (It is interesting that it was also not just one prophecy but multiple prophecies spoken concerning Timothy.)
Fee summarises theses prophecies nicely when he writes that they “were spontaneous utterances of the Spirit through those so gifted in the community, which would commission - or confirm - Timothy as one whom God has singled out for itinerant ministry”
Timothy is then tasked with following these prophecies made about him; he is to draw from the prophecies spoken over his life, outworking the prophecies in the circumstances that he finds himself in. The prophecies are to strengthen and enable him in the circumstances that he is in as Fee remarks “the appeal is for Timothy both to remember the origins of his present ministry many years earlier as the singular work of the Spirit and by that remembrance to keep at the task in Ephesus, despite the obvious difficulties that entails.” These prophecies are to enable him to do three things (as the words “you might” suggest):
“Fight the good fight” Marshall sees that the “charge to timothy is to one called to ministry to engage in conflict with false teachers”. If Marshall is right which I believe he is Timothy’s task is to fight for sound doctrine by refuting the heretical false teaching that has pervaded the church.
“Holding onto the faith and a good conscience ” Mounce sees this as a charge to timothy to “watch both himself as his teaching”. This is in fitting with the rest of the book where the predominant warnings to Timothy are to watch his conduct as we see in 4:12 “set an example for believers in speech in life in love and in purity” as well as to watch his doctrine as we see in 4:1 that “some will abandon their faith and follow deceiving Spirits” and 4:7 “have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales”. Both these two themes come together in 4:16 when Paul writes “watch your life and doctrine closely preserve in them because if you do you will save both yourself and your hearers”.
The prophecies spoken to Timothy are then to form a means by which Timothy is to preserve in the struggle he faces in Ephesus to refute heresy and establish the truth of the gospel as well as enable him to live a holy life with sound doctrine. This is because the prophecies confirm that Timothy is the man for the job in the church adequately equipped for the role.
5 Points of application
1. Prophesy is crucial for helping people in challenging situations. Timothy faced a challenging situation a real fight, previous prophecies were to be a help to Timothy in this situation.
2. Prophecy does not undermine doctrine but rather can help to encourage and stimulate true doctrine. The prophecies spoken to Timothy were to help him to preach and teach correct doctrine in difficult circumstances and encourage him that he was capable of refuting heresy.
3. Prophecy must not be neglected but rather should be followed and drawn upon. The prophecies spoken to Timothy were only to be any value to Timothy as he followed them.
4. Prophecy is a source of help in enabling people to live holy lives. Timothy was to draw upon the prophecies in order to hold a clear conscience through holy living.
5. Multiple prophecies can be spoken into or over a person or situation. There was not one prophecy spoken to Timothy but multiple prophecies all were to be drawn upon to help him in his calling.
“Timothy my son I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you so that by following them you might fight the good fight holding onto the faith and a good conscience”
Timothy is going to face and is facing a number of challenges for example men teaching false doctrines (1:3) people shipwrecking their faith (1:19) impeccable standards to live by (3:1-12) the threat of deceiving spirits (4:1) to name a few. Paul’s purpose is “to restore the evangelical witness of a church plagued by proto-gnostic teaching. This teaching advocated a disordered view of the universe took advantage of disordered households to propagate its teaching and left in its wake a disordered church” It is into this situation that this verse comes serving as part of Paul’s purpose to strengthen and restore the church.
The first question that needs to be addressed is what the instruction is that Paul gives timothy. Mounce sees the instruction as being, defending the true gospel message. Indeed Towner sees the link between this and verse 3 were Paul talks of the “commission given to timothy…to oppose the false teachers”. This is in keeping with Marshall who sees this verse as resuming “the charge the author began to give in 1:3 before he diverged into a discussion of the heretics, the right use of the law and his own credentials to proclaim the gospel.”
What we see here then is that Paul is affirming that Timothy has a distinct role to play in having to refute the heresies within the church as well as to establish the truth of the gospel that he has been entrusted to preach. This commission is said to be “in keeping with the prophecies once made about him”. This clearly shows that Timothy had prophecies spoken over his life that link to the fact that he should refute heresy and establish the truth of the gospel. The purpose of this phrase is to “motivate by establishing the context of authority for the present command” (Towner: ). That is the phrase looks back to the commissioning content of the prophecies “once made about” him to enable him to realise and outwork his calling to establish the truth of the gospel.
Mounce sees that the prophecies made about Timothy dealt with “identifying Timothy with having the necessary spiritual gifts to do the task”. So Paul is reminding timothy that he was prophetically identified to be the man who had sufficient gifting and was chosen by God to be able to fulfil this instruction given to him. (It is interesting that it was also not just one prophecy but multiple prophecies spoken concerning Timothy.)
Fee summarises theses prophecies nicely when he writes that they “were spontaneous utterances of the Spirit through those so gifted in the community, which would commission - or confirm - Timothy as one whom God has singled out for itinerant ministry”
Timothy is then tasked with following these prophecies made about him; he is to draw from the prophecies spoken over his life, outworking the prophecies in the circumstances that he finds himself in. The prophecies are to strengthen and enable him in the circumstances that he is in as Fee remarks “the appeal is for Timothy both to remember the origins of his present ministry many years earlier as the singular work of the Spirit and by that remembrance to keep at the task in Ephesus, despite the obvious difficulties that entails.” These prophecies are to enable him to do three things (as the words “you might” suggest):
“Fight the good fight” Marshall sees that the “charge to timothy is to one called to ministry to engage in conflict with false teachers”. If Marshall is right which I believe he is Timothy’s task is to fight for sound doctrine by refuting the heretical false teaching that has pervaded the church.
“Holding onto the faith and a good conscience ” Mounce sees this as a charge to timothy to “watch both himself as his teaching”. This is in fitting with the rest of the book where the predominant warnings to Timothy are to watch his conduct as we see in 4:12 “set an example for believers in speech in life in love and in purity” as well as to watch his doctrine as we see in 4:1 that “some will abandon their faith and follow deceiving Spirits” and 4:7 “have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales”. Both these two themes come together in 4:16 when Paul writes “watch your life and doctrine closely preserve in them because if you do you will save both yourself and your hearers”.
The prophecies spoken to Timothy are then to form a means by which Timothy is to preserve in the struggle he faces in Ephesus to refute heresy and establish the truth of the gospel as well as enable him to live a holy life with sound doctrine. This is because the prophecies confirm that Timothy is the man for the job in the church adequately equipped for the role.
5 Points of application
1. Prophesy is crucial for helping people in challenging situations. Timothy faced a challenging situation a real fight, previous prophecies were to be a help to Timothy in this situation.
2. Prophecy does not undermine doctrine but rather can help to encourage and stimulate true doctrine. The prophecies spoken to Timothy were to help him to preach and teach correct doctrine in difficult circumstances and encourage him that he was capable of refuting heresy.
3. Prophecy must not be neglected but rather should be followed and drawn upon. The prophecies spoken to Timothy were only to be any value to Timothy as he followed them.
4. Prophecy is a source of help in enabling people to live holy lives. Timothy was to draw upon the prophecies in order to hold a clear conscience through holy living.
5. Multiple prophecies can be spoken into or over a person or situation. There was not one prophecy spoken to Timothy but multiple prophecies all were to be drawn upon to help him in his calling.
Friday, 27 July 2007
Overwhelmed by the Spirit of God: An analysis of the accounts of John Wesley and George Whitfield
In Jan. 1, 1739 John Wesley recorded these words:
Mr Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefield, Hutchins, and my brother Charles, were present at our love- feast in Fetter Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About Three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, in so much that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of His Majesty, we broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”
During this time of prayer this group of people had a remarkable experience of Gods presence and power. I will now begin to analyse this experience and then draw out a number of inferences for us to day.
the power of God came mightily upon us
These first words seem to suggest that something external suddenly became present to them, this is what the words “came mightily upon us” seems to suggest, for something that was currently present and active would not come upon it would be realised. So what they experienced was the Spirit externally manifesting his power and presence, to an extent that they were personally effected. What Wesley describes as come upon us is the power of God. What is important to note here is that being able to describe what happened and what came upon them, as the power of God, suggests that they had a tangible experience, so much so that they could describe it, as they would not be able to describe and articulate something not felt or experienced.
in so much
The power of God mightily coming upon them was abundant in its nature. The Spirit did not gently rest on the group but their was a “so much” of his presence.
that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground
The effect of the Spirit activity was so abundant and so tangible that the effect here describes that it effected their speech “many cried out for exceeding joy”. A verbal reaction was produced because of the effect of the Spirit. It was not a gentle and sensitive moment but rather was a crying out implying an noisy affair. Secondly the experience effected them physical “many fell to the ground”. The experience had such an overwhelming effect upon them that they were physically unable to cope with the intensity of the moment and so fell down.
As soon as we were recovered a little
The effect of the Spirit on the group was something that they are said to have “recovered” from. Therefore we can see that what happened must have had a distinguishably tangible effect upon them. As it would be unnecessary to need to recover from something that has no effect upon you. Also we can see that the intensity of the moment was such that it was an event that had to be recovered from.
from that awe and amazement
The thing that needed to be recovered from was the sense of “awe” and “amazement”. These things are reactions to distinct and remarkable events. So what was experienced by the group was not something that was indistinct or even unspectacular but was rather an amazing event that was spectacular and awesome in nature.
at the presence of His Majesty
This had been what had caused the above reaction there was a sense of God being present. But what was experienced was not the presence of one who is gentle and sensitive but rather one who is majestic.
we broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”
The result of this experience was that they began to worship God in unison “with one voice”. The praise of God was spontaneous “we broke out”. The choice of song is also interesting as it was praise to God not self adulation at their experience. Also the song placed the Lordship and supremacy of Christ as a its central theme.
Whitfield wrote of this experience:
“It was a Pentecostal season indeed.” And he adds, concerning those meetings, that, “sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer. Often we have been filled as with new wine, and often I have seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence, and cry out, ‘Will God, indeed, dwell with men upon earth? How dreadful is this place! This is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven !’ ”
“It was a Pentecostal season indeed.”
Whitfield is here describing the event as being like what the disciples experienced on the day of Pentecost Whitfield could be described as the first Pentecostal that is one who understood his experience to mirror that which the disciples experienced in Acts. But this acts 2 like experience was not an isolated event but was rather part of a “season” of such like events I.e. their were a number of experiences like the one Wesley describes.
sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer
Prayer was at the centre of their experience but not just quick prayer but intense committed prayer “whole nights” in prayer. There was no the occasional gathering of prayer but rather numerous gatherings “nights” of prayer.
Often we have been filled as with new wine
The group had been “filled as with new wine” by that he means that they had intoxicating sensational experiences of Gods Spirit. But this was not a once in a lifetime experience but was rather “often”. For the group tangible experiences (as how could they report on something if it was not tangible or discernible) were a frequent occurrence.
and often I have seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence
Another frequent experience of the group (again the use of the word often) has been that they have found themselves “overwhelmed” that complete overcome and besieged with an experience. The experience that had that effect on them was “the Divine Presence”. That is they had a real sense of God being physically with them.
and cry out, ‘Will God, indeed, dwell with men upon earth?
There response was again to “cry out”. What they exclaimed offers real insight into what they were experiencing during these times a real sense of God being physically near and tangibly dwelling with them.
This is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven !’ ”
Their experience of God was such that they felt as if they were in the very dwelling place of God his “house”. They also felt as if they were very near heaven itself that is they were having heavenly experiences.
Inferences and questions to ponder
Inference one: that the Holy Spirit mediates incredible experiences of God. The group experienced overwhelming heaven filled awakenings to the nearness of God awesome Majesty that were of an intoxicating nature. The Holy Spirit does not just do a gentle neat and orderly work but also wants to blow us away with experiences that are so overwhelming that we need to recover from them! Have you had such experiences of Gods Spirit? Are you pursuing such experiences of Gods Spirit?
Inference two: that such experiences are not just to happen once. The groups experiences were often and the group itself were in an season of multiple experiences. Often some Pentecostal and charismatic Christians look back to a singular “baptism” in the Spirit experience and believe that is it. Doctrinally lead to believe that this is the height of Pneumatic experience they often do not have similar or even richer deeper experiences of Gods Spirit because they simply do not believe they are available and so become less open . But the key we see from this is that their is an abundant experience of Gods Spirit an “often“ of the Spirit. Do you believe that there is more? Are you pressing in for more? What is stopping you from believing that there is more for you?
Inference three: such experiences are not microwaveble. The experiences of God that they had came from spending long nights in prayer on a frequent basis. God has not sped up for the microwave generation who want the instant quick result the one who wants to meet with God must submit to his timetable and not impose their timetable on God. Are you prepared to do what it takes to encounter God? Have you imposed your time table upon God? How can you acknowledge Gods sovereignty in this matter?
Inference four: that an experience of God causes reactions. The group were made to lie down filled with awe cried out worshiped because of the nature of what they had experienced. The activity of Gods spirit will cause reactions from people some orderly like worship others messy like being forced down. How have you reacted to the presence of the Spirit? What do you think of the reactions people have to the Spirit?
In Jan. 1, 1739 John Wesley recorded these words:
Mr Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefield, Hutchins, and my brother Charles, were present at our love- feast in Fetter Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About Three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, in so much that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of His Majesty, we broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”
During this time of prayer this group of people had a remarkable experience of Gods presence and power. I will now begin to analyse this experience and then draw out a number of inferences for us to day.
the power of God came mightily upon us
These first words seem to suggest that something external suddenly became present to them, this is what the words “came mightily upon us” seems to suggest, for something that was currently present and active would not come upon it would be realised. So what they experienced was the Spirit externally manifesting his power and presence, to an extent that they were personally effected. What Wesley describes as come upon us is the power of God. What is important to note here is that being able to describe what happened and what came upon them, as the power of God, suggests that they had a tangible experience, so much so that they could describe it, as they would not be able to describe and articulate something not felt or experienced.
in so much
The power of God mightily coming upon them was abundant in its nature. The Spirit did not gently rest on the group but their was a “so much” of his presence.
that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground
The effect of the Spirit activity was so abundant and so tangible that the effect here describes that it effected their speech “many cried out for exceeding joy”. A verbal reaction was produced because of the effect of the Spirit. It was not a gentle and sensitive moment but rather was a crying out implying an noisy affair. Secondly the experience effected them physical “many fell to the ground”. The experience had such an overwhelming effect upon them that they were physically unable to cope with the intensity of the moment and so fell down.
As soon as we were recovered a little
The effect of the Spirit on the group was something that they are said to have “recovered” from. Therefore we can see that what happened must have had a distinguishably tangible effect upon them. As it would be unnecessary to need to recover from something that has no effect upon you. Also we can see that the intensity of the moment was such that it was an event that had to be recovered from.
from that awe and amazement
The thing that needed to be recovered from was the sense of “awe” and “amazement”. These things are reactions to distinct and remarkable events. So what was experienced by the group was not something that was indistinct or even unspectacular but was rather an amazing event that was spectacular and awesome in nature.
at the presence of His Majesty
This had been what had caused the above reaction there was a sense of God being present. But what was experienced was not the presence of one who is gentle and sensitive but rather one who is majestic.
we broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”
The result of this experience was that they began to worship God in unison “with one voice”. The praise of God was spontaneous “we broke out”. The choice of song is also interesting as it was praise to God not self adulation at their experience. Also the song placed the Lordship and supremacy of Christ as a its central theme.
Whitfield wrote of this experience:
“It was a Pentecostal season indeed.” And he adds, concerning those meetings, that, “sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer. Often we have been filled as with new wine, and often I have seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence, and cry out, ‘Will God, indeed, dwell with men upon earth? How dreadful is this place! This is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven !’ ”
“It was a Pentecostal season indeed.”
Whitfield is here describing the event as being like what the disciples experienced on the day of Pentecost Whitfield could be described as the first Pentecostal that is one who understood his experience to mirror that which the disciples experienced in Acts. But this acts 2 like experience was not an isolated event but was rather part of a “season” of such like events I.e. their were a number of experiences like the one Wesley describes.
sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer
Prayer was at the centre of their experience but not just quick prayer but intense committed prayer “whole nights” in prayer. There was no the occasional gathering of prayer but rather numerous gatherings “nights” of prayer.
Often we have been filled as with new wine
The group had been “filled as with new wine” by that he means that they had intoxicating sensational experiences of Gods Spirit. But this was not a once in a lifetime experience but was rather “often”. For the group tangible experiences (as how could they report on something if it was not tangible or discernible) were a frequent occurrence.
and often I have seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence
Another frequent experience of the group (again the use of the word often) has been that they have found themselves “overwhelmed” that complete overcome and besieged with an experience. The experience that had that effect on them was “the Divine Presence”. That is they had a real sense of God being physically with them.
and cry out, ‘Will God, indeed, dwell with men upon earth?
There response was again to “cry out”. What they exclaimed offers real insight into what they were experiencing during these times a real sense of God being physically near and tangibly dwelling with them.
This is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven !’ ”
Their experience of God was such that they felt as if they were in the very dwelling place of God his “house”. They also felt as if they were very near heaven itself that is they were having heavenly experiences.
Inferences and questions to ponder
Inference one: that the Holy Spirit mediates incredible experiences of God. The group experienced overwhelming heaven filled awakenings to the nearness of God awesome Majesty that were of an intoxicating nature. The Holy Spirit does not just do a gentle neat and orderly work but also wants to blow us away with experiences that are so overwhelming that we need to recover from them! Have you had such experiences of Gods Spirit? Are you pursuing such experiences of Gods Spirit?
Inference two: that such experiences are not just to happen once. The groups experiences were often and the group itself were in an season of multiple experiences. Often some Pentecostal and charismatic Christians look back to a singular “baptism” in the Spirit experience and believe that is it. Doctrinally lead to believe that this is the height of Pneumatic experience they often do not have similar or even richer deeper experiences of Gods Spirit because they simply do not believe they are available and so become less open . But the key we see from this is that their is an abundant experience of Gods Spirit an “often“ of the Spirit. Do you believe that there is more? Are you pressing in for more? What is stopping you from believing that there is more for you?
Inference three: such experiences are not microwaveble. The experiences of God that they had came from spending long nights in prayer on a frequent basis. God has not sped up for the microwave generation who want the instant quick result the one who wants to meet with God must submit to his timetable and not impose their timetable on God. Are you prepared to do what it takes to encounter God? Have you imposed your time table upon God? How can you acknowledge Gods sovereignty in this matter?
Inference four: that an experience of God causes reactions. The group were made to lie down filled with awe cried out worshiped because of the nature of what they had experienced. The activity of Gods spirit will cause reactions from people some orderly like worship others messy like being forced down. How have you reacted to the presence of the Spirit? What do you think of the reactions people have to the Spirit?
Prophecy in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
Do not put out the Spirits fire do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
The letter of 1Thessalonians is written to a church which is experiencing incredible trial and suffering they welcomed the message of the gospel “with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” but in “severe suffering” (1:6). This suffering has continued as Paul makes clear in 3:2-4 “We…sent Timothy to strengthen you in your faith so that no one would be unsettled by these trails. You know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact when we were with you we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way as you well know.”
Paul’s concern in the midst of this suffering is that the Thessalonians might have been tempted by the tempter, so the original preaching of the apostles was in vain (3:5). Paul has had it confirmed that they have not neglected there faith (3:6). So the letter is addressed by Paul to a group of people who are suffering in such a way that they could be drawn away from the faith. So Marshall concludes “Paul’s concern is…to encourage a congregation that was suffering outside pressure to abandon their faith and to develop their Christian way of life”. It is into this context that these verses come.
Immediately the question has to be raised as to what “the Spirits fire” means. Morris sees it as being in conjunction with the symbolic use of fire for the Spirit elsewhere in the new testament where he sees the “spirits presence aptly symbolised by fire. The positive injunction fan into flame the gift of God” (2 Tim1:6), is another way of expressing the truth concerned here”. If Morris is right here in speaking of the link between these references and this verse here, then the Spirit fire could be seen to be: the Spirits empowering activity; as the reference to Acts is where the disciples were clothed with power with the Timothy reference speaking of the Spirits empowering activity as being like a flame that needs to be fanned in order that the gift may increase.
The Spirits fire is clearly the empowering charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit as Wanamaker notes “Paul is not primarily concerned with the role of the Holy Spirit in ethical reorientation as in Gal. 5:22-24. Rather he is concerned about charismatic signs, so - called charismata or gifts of the Spirit”. This empowering charismatic presence of the spirit is being quenched or put out. The metaphorical language being used here seems to imply that the empowering charismatic presence of the Spirit is not being allowed to occur within the congregation it is being prevented.
The idea is of a blazing fire being quenched by water this implies that within the Thessalonian church their was a large measure of the empowering charismatic presence of the spirit as you can not put out something that is not there. This is fitting with the Thessalonians earlier experiences of conversion where the gospel came “not simply with words but also with power with the holy spirit and deep conviction” (1:5). Their very emotional experience was effected by the Spirit as “they welcomed the message with joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1:6). So the Thessalonians had enjoyed a rich measure of the Holy Spirits empowering presence at the beginning of their Christian walk as a corporate body. But this experience was under threat.
Discerning the reason for this lies upon trying to establish the link between treating prophecies with contempt and putting out the Spirits fire. In my view there are three possible ways of understanding the link between the two phrases. Firstly that the two phrases are saying the same thing with Paul using parallelism to make the same point in two different ways, so what he would be saying here is that putting out the Spirits fire is the same as treating prophecies with contempt. In other words the Spirits fire is prophesy and so by showing contempt towards prophecy they are putting out the spirits fire. A second link could be that prophesy is causing the spirits fire but is not the Spirits fire itself. So here Paul would be saying don’t treat prophecies with contempt as it is putting out the Spirits fire. The third possible link could be that Paul sees prophecy as an example of the Spirits fire that is being put out. In this one Paul would be saying don’t put out the spirits fire for example do not treat prophecy with contempt.
I think the first interpretation can be ruled out on the basis that the Spirits fire is a more broad reference to the Spirits activity then just prophecy. This is because Paul’s pneuamatology is broader then just prophecy. The third interpretation can be ruled out because the link between the Spirits activity and the use of prophecy is to strong to be describing prophecy as just an example of the Spirits fire. This leaves interpretation two that the Spirits fire is being caused by the use of prophecy and that the putting out of the fire of Gods spirit is a direct result of showing contempt towards prophecy. I believe then that we can conclude that by showing contempt for prophecy the spirits fire was being put out.
The next question that has to be raised is why prophecy was being shown such contempt. The most likely reason was their was abuse of the charismatic activity of the Spirit that people sought to restrain the gift of prophecy and in the process of this restraint ended up treating prophecy with contempt and so putting out the Spirits fire. This excess could be hinted at in 2 Thessalonians were Paul is having to instruct the church not to be “unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy or report or letter supposed to have come from us saying that the day of the lord has arrived”. This seems to imply that the Thessalonian church were open to eschatological prophecies concerning the time of the lords return. This idea is picked up by Morris who writes “we know that there was much interest in the Parousia among the Thessalonians and we know that through the history of the Church such interest has commonly gone hand in hand with prophetic outbursts. One result has been that the more staid have rejected the advent speculations and the prophecy that has gone with them”.
It is unclear whether Morris is right but his argument does build credibility that prophesy was being shown contempt because of excess. Another argument might be that the prophesy and the Spirits fire were so evocative and tangible that people already suffering temptation to return to their former ways, may be wanting to play down the supernatural elements of the faith and so remove the excesses which they find offensive and threatening to this desire. A further argument is put forward by Wanamaker who sees a link between the leaderships concern for control and the dampening of the Spirits fire he views leadership as being those most likely to be concerned about the abuse of prophecy and other charismata.
The most likely reason has to be fear over the excesses of the Spirit this is because the following verses seem to address how to deal with the abuse of prophecy and are targeted towards those who are showing it contempt, implying they are showing it contempt because of their fear of abuse. What Paul attempts to do in the next verses is best summarised by Fee who writes “Paul’s own deep appreciation for the central role of the Spirit in individual and corporate life will not allow for correcting abuse by demanding disuse. Rather the antidote for abuse is proper use”. So what Paul attempts to do in the following verses is to set out how prophecy should occur within the church.
The first thing that should be noted is that Paul does not associate, not showing contempt for prophecy, with a free for all, “anything goes attitude.” As Morris comments “What Paul has said in the previous verse might be misconstrued as an injunction to accept without further ado any utterance by a person who claimed to be a prophet speaking by the Spirit”. Rather the first thing he says is “test everything”. Prophecy is to be subject to testing, the extent of what should be tested is clearly covered by the word “everything”, implying that nothing that is said should be left without being tested. The word also seems to allude to more then just prophecy and could be to do with anything associated with the Spirits fire.
The key question here is how should the prophecy or the Spirits fire be tested according to the context of Thessalonians? Firstly Paul offers no clear cut criteria for testing Prophecy, but what we do have is in 2 Thessalonians 2 a means for standing firm in the midst of “counterfeit miracles signs and wonders” (v9) and a “powerful delusion” (v11). As well as a means for not being alarmed by “prophecy” that was false (v2). We see the means in verse 13 where Paul writes “so then brothers stand firm,” how does Paul expect this to happen “and hold on to the teaching we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter”. The key here is that the apostolic writings or sound doctrine were to provide the means for the Thessalonians to remain sure in there faith with false spiritual activities taken place around them. So it would be fair to conclude with Fee who writes that the “test is the apostolic proclamation/teaching of Christ. This is a test that has to do with the theological doctrine or content of the utterance”. So certainly the theological content of the message should provide a means for testing the fire of the Spirit but obviously this is only applicable were possible.
Paul gives them two more instructions first he says “hold on to the good” within the context what Paul must be saying here is that “after the testing work has taken place what has been deemed to be good must be held on to”. What is designated as good must be firmly accepted and honoured to be good as Wanamaker writes concerning the “deeds and words tested and found acceptable and beneficial for lives of the individual and the community. They are to be accepted and made normative for Christian self understanding and behaviour”.
But in contrast “avoid every kind of evil” implies a strong rejection of that which has been found to fail testing. The phrase could also be construed to cover a broader context with more then Spirits activity being covered. The two imperatives denote strong action to be taken over what is tested this enhances the value placed on prophecy and shows that prophecy is something that is not worth being shown contempt.
Points of application
1. The Spirits empowering charismatic presence can occur within a context of suffering a pressure. This demonstrates that the activity of the Spirit does not eradicate these things but rather we can experience Gods power in our weakness. The Thessalonians were experiencing great suffering and pressure to give up there faith but even in this place they experience great blessings from Gods Spirit.
2. There is a broad diverse activity of the Spirits empowering presence. The Thessalonians experienced the fire of Gods Spirit a broad charismatic empowering presence of Gods Spirit.
3. That how prophecy is treated has an effect upon the active presence of Gods spirit. Because the Thessalonians showed contempt towards prophecy the Spirits fire was being put out.
4. That prophecy should be tested and controlled. Paul told the Thessalonians that Prophecy needed to be tested not that they could say what ever they liked.
5. There should be ever a positive or negative reaction towards prophecy. Prophecy should not simply be ignored or overlooked but people must react to the working of the Spirit. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians ever to reject what was happening or to accept it wholeheartedly as being something good.
6. A grounding in scripture is important as a means of being able to test and stand firm in the midst of supernatural activity. One of the ways that the fire was to be tested for the Thessalonians was be grounded in the apostles teaching.
Do not put out the Spirits fire do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
The letter of 1Thessalonians is written to a church which is experiencing incredible trial and suffering they welcomed the message of the gospel “with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” but in “severe suffering” (1:6). This suffering has continued as Paul makes clear in 3:2-4 “We…sent Timothy to strengthen you in your faith so that no one would be unsettled by these trails. You know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact when we were with you we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way as you well know.”
Paul’s concern in the midst of this suffering is that the Thessalonians might have been tempted by the tempter, so the original preaching of the apostles was in vain (3:5). Paul has had it confirmed that they have not neglected there faith (3:6). So the letter is addressed by Paul to a group of people who are suffering in such a way that they could be drawn away from the faith. So Marshall concludes “Paul’s concern is…to encourage a congregation that was suffering outside pressure to abandon their faith and to develop their Christian way of life”. It is into this context that these verses come.
Immediately the question has to be raised as to what “the Spirits fire” means. Morris sees it as being in conjunction with the symbolic use of fire for the Spirit elsewhere in the new testament where he sees the “spirits presence aptly symbolised by fire. The positive injunction fan into flame the gift of God” (2 Tim1:6), is another way of expressing the truth concerned here”. If Morris is right here in speaking of the link between these references and this verse here, then the Spirit fire could be seen to be: the Spirits empowering activity; as the reference to Acts is where the disciples were clothed with power with the Timothy reference speaking of the Spirits empowering activity as being like a flame that needs to be fanned in order that the gift may increase.
The Spirits fire is clearly the empowering charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit as Wanamaker notes “Paul is not primarily concerned with the role of the Holy Spirit in ethical reorientation as in Gal. 5:22-24. Rather he is concerned about charismatic signs, so - called charismata or gifts of the Spirit”. This empowering charismatic presence of the spirit is being quenched or put out. The metaphorical language being used here seems to imply that the empowering charismatic presence of the Spirit is not being allowed to occur within the congregation it is being prevented.
The idea is of a blazing fire being quenched by water this implies that within the Thessalonian church their was a large measure of the empowering charismatic presence of the spirit as you can not put out something that is not there. This is fitting with the Thessalonians earlier experiences of conversion where the gospel came “not simply with words but also with power with the holy spirit and deep conviction” (1:5). Their very emotional experience was effected by the Spirit as “they welcomed the message with joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1:6). So the Thessalonians had enjoyed a rich measure of the Holy Spirits empowering presence at the beginning of their Christian walk as a corporate body. But this experience was under threat.
Discerning the reason for this lies upon trying to establish the link between treating prophecies with contempt and putting out the Spirits fire. In my view there are three possible ways of understanding the link between the two phrases. Firstly that the two phrases are saying the same thing with Paul using parallelism to make the same point in two different ways, so what he would be saying here is that putting out the Spirits fire is the same as treating prophecies with contempt. In other words the Spirits fire is prophesy and so by showing contempt towards prophecy they are putting out the spirits fire. A second link could be that prophesy is causing the spirits fire but is not the Spirits fire itself. So here Paul would be saying don’t treat prophecies with contempt as it is putting out the Spirits fire. The third possible link could be that Paul sees prophecy as an example of the Spirits fire that is being put out. In this one Paul would be saying don’t put out the spirits fire for example do not treat prophecy with contempt.
I think the first interpretation can be ruled out on the basis that the Spirits fire is a more broad reference to the Spirits activity then just prophecy. This is because Paul’s pneuamatology is broader then just prophecy. The third interpretation can be ruled out because the link between the Spirits activity and the use of prophecy is to strong to be describing prophecy as just an example of the Spirits fire. This leaves interpretation two that the Spirits fire is being caused by the use of prophecy and that the putting out of the fire of Gods spirit is a direct result of showing contempt towards prophecy. I believe then that we can conclude that by showing contempt for prophecy the spirits fire was being put out.
The next question that has to be raised is why prophecy was being shown such contempt. The most likely reason was their was abuse of the charismatic activity of the Spirit that people sought to restrain the gift of prophecy and in the process of this restraint ended up treating prophecy with contempt and so putting out the Spirits fire. This excess could be hinted at in 2 Thessalonians were Paul is having to instruct the church not to be “unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy or report or letter supposed to have come from us saying that the day of the lord has arrived”. This seems to imply that the Thessalonian church were open to eschatological prophecies concerning the time of the lords return. This idea is picked up by Morris who writes “we know that there was much interest in the Parousia among the Thessalonians and we know that through the history of the Church such interest has commonly gone hand in hand with prophetic outbursts. One result has been that the more staid have rejected the advent speculations and the prophecy that has gone with them”.
It is unclear whether Morris is right but his argument does build credibility that prophesy was being shown contempt because of excess. Another argument might be that the prophesy and the Spirits fire were so evocative and tangible that people already suffering temptation to return to their former ways, may be wanting to play down the supernatural elements of the faith and so remove the excesses which they find offensive and threatening to this desire. A further argument is put forward by Wanamaker who sees a link between the leaderships concern for control and the dampening of the Spirits fire he views leadership as being those most likely to be concerned about the abuse of prophecy and other charismata.
The most likely reason has to be fear over the excesses of the Spirit this is because the following verses seem to address how to deal with the abuse of prophecy and are targeted towards those who are showing it contempt, implying they are showing it contempt because of their fear of abuse. What Paul attempts to do in the next verses is best summarised by Fee who writes “Paul’s own deep appreciation for the central role of the Spirit in individual and corporate life will not allow for correcting abuse by demanding disuse. Rather the antidote for abuse is proper use”. So what Paul attempts to do in the following verses is to set out how prophecy should occur within the church.
The first thing that should be noted is that Paul does not associate, not showing contempt for prophecy, with a free for all, “anything goes attitude.” As Morris comments “What Paul has said in the previous verse might be misconstrued as an injunction to accept without further ado any utterance by a person who claimed to be a prophet speaking by the Spirit”. Rather the first thing he says is “test everything”. Prophecy is to be subject to testing, the extent of what should be tested is clearly covered by the word “everything”, implying that nothing that is said should be left without being tested. The word also seems to allude to more then just prophecy and could be to do with anything associated with the Spirits fire.
The key question here is how should the prophecy or the Spirits fire be tested according to the context of Thessalonians? Firstly Paul offers no clear cut criteria for testing Prophecy, but what we do have is in 2 Thessalonians 2 a means for standing firm in the midst of “counterfeit miracles signs and wonders” (v9) and a “powerful delusion” (v11). As well as a means for not being alarmed by “prophecy” that was false (v2). We see the means in verse 13 where Paul writes “so then brothers stand firm,” how does Paul expect this to happen “and hold on to the teaching we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter”. The key here is that the apostolic writings or sound doctrine were to provide the means for the Thessalonians to remain sure in there faith with false spiritual activities taken place around them. So it would be fair to conclude with Fee who writes that the “test is the apostolic proclamation/teaching of Christ. This is a test that has to do with the theological doctrine or content of the utterance”. So certainly the theological content of the message should provide a means for testing the fire of the Spirit but obviously this is only applicable were possible.
Paul gives them two more instructions first he says “hold on to the good” within the context what Paul must be saying here is that “after the testing work has taken place what has been deemed to be good must be held on to”. What is designated as good must be firmly accepted and honoured to be good as Wanamaker writes concerning the “deeds and words tested and found acceptable and beneficial for lives of the individual and the community. They are to be accepted and made normative for Christian self understanding and behaviour”.
But in contrast “avoid every kind of evil” implies a strong rejection of that which has been found to fail testing. The phrase could also be construed to cover a broader context with more then Spirits activity being covered. The two imperatives denote strong action to be taken over what is tested this enhances the value placed on prophecy and shows that prophecy is something that is not worth being shown contempt.
Points of application
1. The Spirits empowering charismatic presence can occur within a context of suffering a pressure. This demonstrates that the activity of the Spirit does not eradicate these things but rather we can experience Gods power in our weakness. The Thessalonians were experiencing great suffering and pressure to give up there faith but even in this place they experience great blessings from Gods Spirit.
2. There is a broad diverse activity of the Spirits empowering presence. The Thessalonians experienced the fire of Gods Spirit a broad charismatic empowering presence of Gods Spirit.
3. That how prophecy is treated has an effect upon the active presence of Gods spirit. Because the Thessalonians showed contempt towards prophecy the Spirits fire was being put out.
4. That prophecy should be tested and controlled. Paul told the Thessalonians that Prophecy needed to be tested not that they could say what ever they liked.
5. There should be ever a positive or negative reaction towards prophecy. Prophecy should not simply be ignored or overlooked but people must react to the working of the Spirit. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians ever to reject what was happening or to accept it wholeheartedly as being something good.
6. A grounding in scripture is important as a means of being able to test and stand firm in the midst of supernatural activity. One of the ways that the fire was to be tested for the Thessalonians was be grounded in the apostles teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
