Meditations on the Proverbs 1:23

Proverbs 1:23

"If you turn at my reproof, behold I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you."

What a beautiful promise to those who repent. God extends this to everyone who has ears to hear. Do not be simple and disregard this word or a fool and hate its wisdom. Do not disregard this word. You cannot know his word apart from his spirit. Note the parallel: I will pour out my spirit; I will make my words known to you. God must grant you his spirit in order for you to understand his word. Yet this is the paradox. How can a man turn at the Lord's reproof unless he understands the Lord's rebuke ... yet according to this passage, he cannot know the Lord's words of reproof apart from the spirit which he lacks. Thus, must initiate repentance. To turn at his reproof is evidence that He is working in us, lest we retain our hardened hearts.

O that the Lord would be merciful.

Meditations on the Psalms 21:6

Psalm 21:6

"You make him glad with the joy of your presence"

Do we find delight in being with God? It is a joy to be in the presence of those whom we love. We want to be around them and with them. How much more should this be true of the God of the universe, the one who created us. What a blessing it is to dwell with the Most High. When we fell, we were cast out of the presence of God. We were no longer permitted to walk with God in the Garden. How our hearts long to return to the Lord, for as St. Augustine has said:

You have made us for yourself. And our hearts are restless until they rest in you.

Meditations on the Proverbs 1:17

Proverbs 1:17

"For in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird."

The Proverbs not only deserve our pondering, but they demand it. For the gems of these sayings are not scattered about the surface for anyone to pluck, but they are buried deep within for those who patiently seek them. The Proverbs are meant for us to understand "the words of the wise and their riddles." And to this task I now set my mind to think.

A father has been counseling his son (v8, 10, 15) to be aware of the schemes of the sinner. Their folly is plain to see, therefore do not "walk in the way with them" (v16). To illustrate this point he then says, "for in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird." No bird that has any sense will fall prey to a trap that is laid before him. Therefore, the father is pointing out the "net" that these sinners are laying and counseling his son not to walk into it. If the birds have enough sense not to ensnare themselves with such a trap, follow their example. STAY CLEAR OF THESE MEN!

Meditations on the Psalms 17:15

Psalm 17:15

"As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness;

when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness."

What I find fascinating about this passage is how David compares himself with the "men of the world" (v14). Their portion is in this life (they have wealth, children, and an inheritance) but David's portion is the Lord himself. What is shocking is that wealth, children, and an inheritance are considered blessings from the Lord, yet David follows these blessings to their intended culmination, namely the worship of God. We must be more satisfied in God than in his gifts, in His Presences than with his presents.

But only those who are blameless will ascend his holy hill (Ps 15). Only those who are pure in heart shall see behold his face (Mat 5:8).

O Lord, make me pure. Hear a just cause, O Lord; attend to my cry! Give ear to my prayer from lips free of deceit! From your presence let my vindication come! Let your eyes behold the right! You have tried my heart, you have visited me by night, and have tested me, and you will find nothing; I have purposed that my mouth will not transgress.

Meditations on the Psalms 15:2

Psalm 15:2

"He who walks blamelessly and does what is right ..."

The previous Psalm just condemned all men as fools who have rejected God and do no good. Under such judgment, who then can sojourn in the LORD's tent or dwell on His holy hill (v1)? No one! For one of the requirements to ascend the mountain of the Lord is to do what is right! Yet "there is none who does good, not even one" (14:3).

Rather than being discouraging, this Psalm ought to evoke a sense of desperation. "If you do not save me I will perish! If you do not set your face toward me for good, I am ruined!" It reminds me of James 3:7 "For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison." There are mainly two responses to this text: 1) Since I cannot control my tongue I am not responsible for what I say. 2) Since I cannot control my tongue I am condemned by everything I say. Only if God, the tongue maker, has grace upon me, will I be able to tame it.

I see this same idea in Psalm 14 and 15. All men are condemned, disqualifying anyone from dwelling on God's holy hill. Only the righteous can ascend ... thus God must impart this righteousness to us, lest we remain in our foolish rejection of God.

Meditations on the Psalms 14:1

Psalm 14:1

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' ... there is none who does good."

Is the final comment categorical or linked to a subset of all people? In other words, is there no human being that does good, or is there no "fool" who does good? I think the evidence seems to point in favor of the latter conclusion for two reasons.

First, David is describing the characteristics of a fool, one who denies the evidence and existence of God. To reject the fountain of all goodness, truth, and beauty is foolish and strips the man of any ability to know and do good. One may object and say that there are many atheists who live morally upright, that God is not necessary in order to live a "good" life. But one must ask the question, "Who sets the standard for determining 'goodness?'" If God is the definition of what is good, then to reject him is to sever oneself from any ability to understand goodness.

Second, David also remarks later that "God is with the generation of the righteous" (v5). Therefore, there is a group of people who have not rejected God, who are righteous. What does it mean to be righteous if not to "do good?" God has a people for himself (v7), who call upon the LORD (v4), and have made Him their refuge (v6).

However, the second verse seems to extend the bounds "foolishness" to include all people. The term "the children of man," (v2) is a technical word for all humanity (see 11:4; 12:1, 8; 33:13; 53:2), including the fool and wise, the wicked and the righteous. As God observes humanity he searches to see if any "understand" or "seek" him (another translation reads, "walk wisely"). But there is none (v3). They have all turned aside and become corrupt, forsaking the way of wisdom and the path of righteousness.

Nonetheless, there seems to remain a distinction between the evildoers and the righteous (v4,5). Perhaps the previous verses did not include God's people, but is only a description of the "fool" who rejects God? This would be my conclusion if it were not for Paul who does see this Psalm as including God's people (the Jews) when he writes in Romans 3:9-12:

"What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

'None is righteous, no, not one;

no one understands; no one seeks for God.

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good, not even one.'"

All are under sin. All have acted foolishly. All have rejected God. All have become corrupt. All have severed themselves from the fountain of all goodness, truth, and beauty. Therefore, to seek God, to walk wisely, and to call upon the LORD cannot originate from us. They are gifts of God. Let all who possess these gifts rejoice and be glad.

Meditations on the Psalms 13:1

Psalm 13:1

"How long, O LORD?"

If there was ever a Psalm that captured the aching heart of a desperate man this is it. The journey in this Psalm is one that many have begun, but few have finished. It is easy to cry out to God when one is afflicted, "How long, O LORD?" But it is quite anther thing to come to rest in his steadfast love while the affliction remains.

I believe David wrote this in one siting, or at least within a short amount of time. I don't think that he wrote the first portion while in the affliction and then after he was delivered he penned the final stanza. I think he was able to compose it all in one situation.

David begins the Psalm with a litany of questions:

1. Will you forget me forever?
2. How long will you hide your face?
3. How long must I take counsel in my soul?
4. How long must I have sorrow in my heart all the day?
5. How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

Then he pleads for God to act and gives his arguments:

1. Consider and answer me
2. Light up my eyes

1. Or else I will die
2. Or else my enemy will boast that he has prevailed
3. Or else my foes will rejoice because I am shaken

Then comes the turn in the Psalm. David petitions God, then pleads with him to act, and finally commits himself to the LORD

1. I have trusted in your steadfast love
2. My heart shall rejoice in your salvation
3. I will sing to the LORD

Notice David's final argument for why he is doing all this: "because He has dealt bountifully with me" (v6). In what ways has the LORD dealt bountifully with David seeing as how he is in the midst of an affliction? He has just cried out to God to save him from death and console his sorrowful heart? How then can he testify of God's bounty?

I think it is because by faith, David knew the answers to his petitions:

• The LORD will not forget me forever
• The LORD will not hide his face from me forever
• I will not forever take counsel in my soul
• This sorrow in my heart will come to an end
• My enemy will not exalt over me forever.

Though he experiences sorrow and suffering in the moment, he knows that it will not be forever, thus he is sustained in the midst of the affliction because the LORD has dealt bountifully with him, giving him sustaining grace.

Meditations on the Psalms 12:6

Psalm 12:6

"The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in the furnace on the ground purified seven times."

The word of the Lord can be trusted. There is no imperfection, no impurity, no inconsistency. God's word has been tested as silver. The history of God's provision is evidence that his word can be trusted. It has stood the test of time. Contrast this with the words of man who "utters lies to his neighbor" and speaks "with flattering lips and a double heart" (v2). By the power of his tongue he is convinced that he will prevail for he boasts that there is no one above him who can counter his words (v4). But the LORD will "arise" and guard the righteous from the perverse speech and wicked threats of this generation (v5,7).

Friday Night Evangelism: Acts 3:1-21

Review

What was method we that Peter used when evangelizing at Pentecost that we talked about?

What’s the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

Read Acts 3:1-21

Compare and Contrast

Notice the pattern of the event in Acts 3 with Pentecost:

1. The narrative begins with the disciples seeking prayer (1:13-14; 2:1; 3:1)

2. A supernatural event takes place (2:1-4; 3:1-8)

3. The people respond in amazement (2:5-12; 3:9-11)

4. Peter stands up to preach and explain the purpose of the event (2:13-36; 3:12-26)

5. He uses inductive arguments to demonstrate 1) the identity of Jesus, 2) the reliability of the resurrection, 3) the people's culpability in murdering him, and 4) that this was God's plan.

In either event which comes first, the miracle or the message? The miracle. In Pentecost, the Holy Spirit first baptized the disciples with fire so that they spoke in different native tongues and then Peter stood up to preach. Here Peter and John heal the lame man and then Peter preaches to the people. There are instances where Peter does preach before the Holy Spirit comes upon the people in power (Acts 10), but here are two examples of doing miracles before the message is delivered.

In these instances, the supernatural event that not only drew a crowd, but demonstrated the truthfulness of the message preached. Not even the rulers and elders could deny the fact that the lame man was healed (Acts 4:16). One can disregard an argument, but it is more difficult to dismiss a lame man being healed. This does not mean that sound arguments are unnecessary. On the contrary, the sound arguments are the intended end of the miracles. In other words, miracles happen so that one will believe the message.

If the Apostles needed miracles in order to support their message, what makes us think that we can do without them? Are we more eloquent or convincing than the very men who walked and talked with Jesus?

What did the Disciples have?

So what did Peter and John have that they were able to impart to the lame man: “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you." (Acts 3:6) I believe they had the authority to heal and the faith that this man would be healed. This same authority is given to us, because the same Spirit is given to us: For the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself (Acts 2:39). We, like the Apostles have been given the authority to heal “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (3:6) or “by faith in his name” (3:16a) or with “the faith that is through Jesus” (3:16b).

And notice whose faith it was. Not the lame man’s, but Peter and John. The lame man was asking for a handout, but the apostles gave him healing. The lame man was asking for daily bread, but the apostles gave him the Bread of Life.

Let us not neglect the power that God has imparted to us in this age.

Men of Crane's Roost, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made this man well?

The God of all creation, the God of heaven and earth, the God who formed you and me, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you have denied by choosing to live according to your own way. You have denied the Holy and Righteous One and through your sins you have killed Jesus, the Author of Life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. And his name – by faith in his name – has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

And now friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your ancestors. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets in the Bible, that Jesus would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets in the Bible long ago.

Objections from Unbelievers:

“Jesus may have been a real historical person, but I doubt he was raised from the dead. That doesn't happen.”

I chose this objection because Peter uses the resurrection as an argument to demonstrate Jesus’ authority and to explain the supernatural events of Pentecost (2:24-32) and in tonight’s passage (3:15).

Witnesses: women

Empty Tomb: no body; no refutation

Boldness: Disciples became bold to the point of death

Additional Resources

Objection #1: Signs and Wonders are not for today.

Two articles/sermons from a 13-part series by John Piper:

- Are Signs and Wonders for Today?

- Gifts of Healings and Workings of Miracles

Book

Christ the Healer

Objection #2: Jesus' resurrection is not true.

A short video of Cliffe Knechtle defending the resurrection

A website devoted to answering objections

A short three part article on the Resurrection

Books

More than a Carpenter

The Case for Christ

Meditations on the Psalms 11:3

Psalm 11:3

"If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

If the foundation of a house is destroyed, how will it stand? But what is the foundation spoken of here? I believe that is the intended question. In other words, what is the foundation upon which one is standing or living? The Lord tests the children of man (v4). How? By shaking one's foundation. If it is man centered, then it will be destroyed and one will receive "fire and sulfure and a scorching wind" (v6). But if the foundation of the righteous is in the Lord, whose throne is in heaven, then it will remain and they will behold his face (v7).

God is for our Good that we may be Good

Jeremiah 24:6-7

"I [the LORD] will set my eyes on them for good,

and I will bring them back to this land.

I will build them up,

and not tear them down;

I will plant them,

and not uproot them.

I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD,

and they shall be my people

and I will be their God,

for they shall return to me with their whole heart."

It begins with God. If God does not set his eyes on us for good, then we will never return to the land, we will never be built up, but town down, we will never be planted, but uprooted, we will have posses a heart to know that He is the LORD. We will never be his people nor He our God. For we will never return to God with our whole heart.

Friday Night Evangelism: Acts 2:12-41

Read Acts 2:12-41

Peter’s Argument

As the Spirit falls upon the disciples who begin to speak in tongues, the people are naturally inquisitive and asked, “What does this mean?” Some explain it through natural means, “They are drunk.” But Peter stands up and addresses their response with a reasonable rebuttal saying, “They are not drunk, since it is only the third hour of the day.” In other words, men typically don't get drunk in the morning, that is reserved for in the evening. Then after dismantling their objection, he gives a reasonable answer to their question.

Note the logic of Peter's argumentation. He builds an extensive case, referencing three OT passages, which finally culminates in demonstrating the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus.

First, Peter argues that the prophet Joel had already attested to this phenomenon. Peter knew that his audience was Jewish, thus he builds his defense upon the Hebrew scriptures:

This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel (v16)

Second, he argues that God attested about Jesus' authority by way of his miracles. And these miracles were not unfamiliar to the people:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and sings that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know (v22)

Third, he argues that the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion were no accident, but were according to the meticulous plan and foreknowledge of God. Even the peoples' wicked act of murdering Jesus was included in this plan:

This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men (v23)

Fourth, he argues that God raised Jesus from the dead to vindicate Jesus' authority:

God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (v24)

Peter then quotes David in the Psalms, who prophesied that God would not abandoned him to the grave:

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption (v27)

But Peter notes that David cannot be speaking about himself, for he most certainly died and was buried and his remains are still in the tomb. Rather, David foresaw the resurrection of the Christ who would not experience corruption.

Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. (v30-31)

Finally, Peter argues that since Jesus was raised up, exalted at the right hand of God and received the promise of the Holy Spirit, that he poured out his Spirit upon the disciples, evident by the tongues.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Therefore, according to Peter, all of this demonstrates that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. And this is the one whom the people killed:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

Inductive and Deductive Argumentation

I want to belabor this point because I think this passage is a clear example of how we should reason when building an argument. There are mainly two forms of arguments, inductive and deductive. Can some one explain the difference between the two?

Inductive – specific to general

“I notice that when I throw the ball up, it always falls back down, so I guess that the next time I throw it up, it will fall back down again.”

Deductive – general to specific

“Newton's Law states that whatever goes up, must come down, so if you throw the ball up, it will come down again.”

• Which form of argumentation does Peter mainly use? Inductive
• Give me examples of his inductive reasoning.

An Overview of Peter's Argument to defend the Lordship of Jesus (Acts 2:12-41)

1) Tongues and prophecy → (sites Joel 2:28-32)

• because (immediate grounds)

2) Jesus was resurrected and ascended → (sites Psalm 16:8-11)

• because (ultimate grounds)

3) Jesus is Lord and Christ → (sites Psalms 110:1)

OBJECTION: Jesus never claimed to be God. While Jesus may have been special in many ways, and perhaps one of the world's greatest moral teachers, he was just a human being. In fact, Jesus himself never actually claimed to be God!

· IF I SAY, “I AM GOD” THEN I BLASPHEME, FOR I AM NOT THE WAY, THE TRUTH, OR THE LIFE.

1. I SAY: Prophets spoke for God: “Thus says the Lord ...”, but Jesus spoke as God: “truly, truly, I say to you ...” or “You've heard it said, but I say to you ...”

2. I AM: God was identified as the great I AM (Ex 3:14), Jesus attributes himself as the great I AM (Jn 8:24, 58; 13:19)

3. BLASPHEMY: Many times the Jewish people attempted to kill Jesus for blasphemy, that is, claiming to be God. John comments that the people were seeking to kill him because he was “calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (Jn 5:18). And later, Jesus told his disciples that there was no distinction between himself and God the Father. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:29). His hearers understood what he was saying and picked up stones to kill him “for blasphemy, because he, being a man, was making himself God” (Jn 10:33).

4. THE WAY: Jesus told his followers that when they saw him, they saw God; if they knew him, they knew God, and if they loved him, they loved God (Jn 14:6-9; 23)

5. THE LIFE: Jesus predicted his death and his resurrection (Mat 12:40; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The tomb is empty because contrary to all other "good moral teachers" he is alive.

Jesus did, in fact, repeatedly use words to claim that He was God. If we recognize the fact that Jesus was a great moral teacher, shouldn't we accept the fact that He would not, therefore, lie about His own identity and nature? If we trust the teaching of Jesus, we need to accept His teaching about His own Divinity.

Further study

• This is a great article with a different perspective on Lewis' Lord-Lunatic-Liar argument.
• Greg Koukl from Stand To Reason presents a great layout of Jesus' Unique Claims.
• A superb website addressing the major objections to Christianity. Here he presents the arguments for the Person of Jesus Christ.

Body and Spirit

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." James 2:27

As I was riding my bike into work this morning I was meditating on James 2. When I came to this verse I couldn't help but think of how this verse appears to debunk the notion of an eternal soul, or as Paul would say, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2Cor 5:6-8).

James seems to argue that to be absent from the body is to be dead. So, which is it?

I think there is a viable alternative to seeing these passages as conflicting with one another. This is not the only place where Paul and James have an apparent contradiction. One thing to remember is that we are reading these passages with presuppositions. We assume we know what James or Paul mean by words like "body," "spirit," "faith," "works," or "dead." Therefore, we read into the text what we think the words mean, but what we think, may not be what they mean. Take for instance the word "dead." Typically we think of a dead person as one who is physically deceased, inactive, non-existent. But scripture does have other interpretations for "dead." One can be physically alive while being spiritually dead in their sins:

"You were dead in you trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among who we all once lived in the passions of our flesh ..." (Eph 2:1-3)

This is a noteworthy passage, because Paul here is saying that you can be physically alive (living in the flesh) while spiritually dead (dead in trespasses for following the spirit of disobedience).

Could this be what James has in mind? Can a physically alive person who does not have the spirit be, in fact, spiritually dead? The argument that James is making is about faith and works, that true faith is evidenced by works. A man who bears no fruit has no faith ... though he may attest to many things. A man who has no spirit is dead ... though he may accomplish many things. Therefore, this interpretation is possible: The death that is spoken of hear is spiritual death and not a physical death. A man devoid of the spirit can do many things, but in the end, it is worthless, for he had no faith, evidenced by his lack of spiritual fruit.

As to 2Corinthians ... I will have to address that at another point:

Hearing or Speaking Tongues?

In Acts 2 Luke records the Pentecost event. I was recently taught from this chapter that the disciples were speaking different foreign languages, that is, languages that were native to those who heard them (v8). Someone afterward challenged me to rethink my conclusion. They suggested that the disciples were not speaking foreign languages, but a heavenly tongue. This is indicated by the fact that Luke says, "Each one was hearing them speak in his own language" (v6). In other words, the miracle was not that the disciples were speaking the language of the Parthians and Medes etc., but that the foreigners were hearing them in their own language.

I could understand how this argument might be plausible for two reasons:

Luke records that each person was hearing the disciples speak in his own language

Both the narration of Luke (v6) and the confession of the men (v8) note that they were hearing the disciples. As the disciples spoke in some heavenly language, the Holy Spirit enabled them to hear the group of disciples speaking their native tongue.

Luke records that each person was hearing them (the disciples) speak in his own language

Notice that Luke does not say, "Each one was hearing one of the disciples speaking in his own language" (v6). Luke uses the plural them (auton) which seems to indicate that not one, but the group of them were speaking (or perceived to be speaking) one's language.

Although these are plausible arguments I don't think the miracle was the men hearing the disciples, but the disciples speaking to the men:

1) Luke records that the disciples spoke in other tongues (v4)

The disciples were not speaking one heavenly language, but several languages. Granted, they could have each been speaking their own heavenly tongue, but the reader must bring that to the text. The natural reading of the text (given the context) is that they were speaking different foreign languages that were known to those hearing.

2) Luke records that the Spirit was influencing the disciples speech, not the peoples' hearing (v3)

The Spirit gave the disciples the ability to utter different languages, but it says nothing about the Spirit giving the people the ability to hear (interpret). The emphasis of the passage is on the Holy Spirit being poured out upon the disciples, not so much the foreigners. The spiritual gift seems to be tongues, not interpretation.

3) The passage of Joel indicates prophecy, not interpretation (v11, 17)

The prophecy of Joel is not that the Spirit would be poured out upon the people to hear other tongues (interpretation), but that the Spirit would give them the ability to prophecy, that is, to proclaim the mighty works of God (v11).

The miracle of Pentecost was that the Spirit was poured out upon his sons and daughters that they may prophecy of the mighty works of God. The Spirit enabled them to accomplish the kingdom work. This same promise is open for us today. Oh that the Spirit would be poured out among us that we may utter in foreign tongues the mighty works of God.