“And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father called them. And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.” (Gen. 26:18-19)
After his death, the wells that Abraham’s servants had dug for him were stopped up again by the Philistines. Verse 15 says that these enemies of God had “filled them with dirt.” In other words, the pure, clean water had been contaminated by the dirt of this world.
When Isaac, Abraham’s son, came to these wells, he immediately set about re-digging them. He did not consider them old and outdated, nor did he fear that his own individuality would be jeopardized if he reopened them. The young man was wise enough to know that water is too important a commodity to risk for the sake of pride. He needed that water, and if God chose to supply it through his own father, he would die of thirst if he rejected it.
Abraham had already given names to the wells. What would have been the harm if Isaac had chosen to give them different names? A well is a well and water is water, however you choose to identify them. But, no; Isaac did not need to disassociate himself from his father in order to appear independent.
It is not surprising then that after Isaac re-dug and found sustenance from the wells of his father, he found his own (v.19), with not just water, but “springing water.”
Sometimes young people are so obsessed with blazing their own trails that they start out without even a compass. No wonder they often lose their way. Fortunately, some are able to retrace their steps, re-dig some old wells, if you will, and experience again what it is to drink cool, clear, pure water—living water.
We search the world for truth; we cull
The good, the pure, the beautiful,
From graven stone and written scroll,
And all old flower-fields of the soul;
And, weary seekers of the best,
We come back laden from the quest,
To find that all the sages said,
Was in the Book our mother’s read.
John Greenleaf Whittier
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Why Am I Thus?
"And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb....." (Genesis 25:22, 23)
Of all questions, it would seem to me that "Why” is the least helpful. In many cases, it calls for speculation. It's not like "What, Where, or When” that call for definite answers. And often, answers to the question “Why?” are prelude to excuses, which, in turn, are more likely to produce stagnation than change. Like Rebekah, we often ask "Why am I the way I am?" We have the idea that if we dig around in our past, or scrutinize our emotions, somehow, we will gather enough data to effect a change. But, in reality, we're much more apt to find reason to believe our questionable behavior is inevitable. Personally, I think analysis should be restricted to the laboratory!
In Genesis 25, Rebekah, pregnant with Isaac's child, knows there is far more activity going on inside of her than is normal. Her womb feels more like a battlefield than a birth chamber! God's answer to her concerning the conflict within her is the same answer he gives to us concerning our own inner conflicts. In her case, it was because she had "two nations" within her; in our case, it's because we have "two natures" within us. Our sinful flesh may manifest itself in different ways, in different people, but the remedy is the same for all of us. Paul says in Romans 6 that the outcome of the battle is determined upon which of these two natures we obey. We, with the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, have the edge in this personal conflict…if we choose to take advantage of our advantage.
You and I are the way we are because we are descendents of Adam. But we are also “children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3:26.) And there, friends, is the source of the conflict… and the means of the VICTORY!
Of all questions, it would seem to me that "Why” is the least helpful. In many cases, it calls for speculation. It's not like "What, Where, or When” that call for definite answers. And often, answers to the question “Why?” are prelude to excuses, which, in turn, are more likely to produce stagnation than change. Like Rebekah, we often ask "Why am I the way I am?" We have the idea that if we dig around in our past, or scrutinize our emotions, somehow, we will gather enough data to effect a change. But, in reality, we're much more apt to find reason to believe our questionable behavior is inevitable. Personally, I think analysis should be restricted to the laboratory!
In Genesis 25, Rebekah, pregnant with Isaac's child, knows there is far more activity going on inside of her than is normal. Her womb feels more like a battlefield than a birth chamber! God's answer to her concerning the conflict within her is the same answer he gives to us concerning our own inner conflicts. In her case, it was because she had "two nations" within her; in our case, it's because we have "two natures" within us. Our sinful flesh may manifest itself in different ways, in different people, but the remedy is the same for all of us. Paul says in Romans 6 that the outcome of the battle is determined upon which of these two natures we obey. We, with the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, have the edge in this personal conflict…if we choose to take advantage of our advantage.
You and I are the way we are because we are descendents of Adam. But we are also “children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3:26.) And there, friends, is the source of the conflict… and the means of the VICTORY!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Remember (if we must) Lot's Wife
“But his wife [Lot’s] looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” (Gen.19:26) “Remember Lot’s wife.” (Luke 17:32)
Why, I wonder. Surely it would be more helpful and instructive for us to remember Lot. We know far more about him than we do about his unfortunate wife. Her story was told in fifteen words; the sad story of a woman whose only crime appears to have been that she hastily looked back over her shoulder at the destruction of her home and city. Seems innocent enough. And for this she was turned into a pillar of salt. Evidently, she was the only one of the four (Lot, his wife, and two daughters) who did look back. But then they were specifically instructed not to (v. 17), which gives us our first clue as to why she was penalized when she did.
In order to understand this woman a little more, it might be helpful to look at her daughters, for they often (but not always) are a reflection of their mother. If we use this gauge, we will find no redeeming quality here. Both girls married men who had little respect for their father, and even less for the warnings of God (v. 14). And not two days later, we are faced with the repulsive picture of Lot and his two daughters engaged in drunkenness and incest. No, these were not the kind of girls who would rise up and call their mother “Blessed.”
But what of Lot then? Does he not bare some of the blame for this dysfunctional family? Yes, he does. But I can’t help thinking of another wife whose husband was prominent in their city (Prov. 31:23). But, unlike Lot’s wife, this woman had a husband with a contented heart who considered himself a blessed man; while it says of Lot that every day he lived in Sodom, his soul was “vexed” (2 Pet. 2:8). It would not be too much of a stretch, I think, to assume that he stayed (and possibly went) because of his wife, whose heart, we know from this story was ever and always in Sodom.
Are we coming closer now to the reason for her seemingly harsh judgment? In reality, I wonder if it was not so much a punishment as simply giving her what she wanted. Though it was destined for destruction, Sodom held her heart as tightly and as surely as the cords of sin hold a man or woman to this world. Little wonder then, that when she slackened her pace, and fought for one last, longing look back, God stopped her in her tracks—forever.
Nothing is said about anyone mourning for this woman. Lot did not weep for her as Abraham did for Sarah. And, frankly, if God had not told me otherwise, I would gladly have ignored such a foolish woman. But, alas, God said to remember her. So, here’s an idea: If God directed you or me to turn our backs on something or someone in this life, would we do it? without looking back?
Why, I wonder. Surely it would be more helpful and instructive for us to remember Lot. We know far more about him than we do about his unfortunate wife. Her story was told in fifteen words; the sad story of a woman whose only crime appears to have been that she hastily looked back over her shoulder at the destruction of her home and city. Seems innocent enough. And for this she was turned into a pillar of salt. Evidently, she was the only one of the four (Lot, his wife, and two daughters) who did look back. But then they were specifically instructed not to (v. 17), which gives us our first clue as to why she was penalized when she did.
In order to understand this woman a little more, it might be helpful to look at her daughters, for they often (but not always) are a reflection of their mother. If we use this gauge, we will find no redeeming quality here. Both girls married men who had little respect for their father, and even less for the warnings of God (v. 14). And not two days later, we are faced with the repulsive picture of Lot and his two daughters engaged in drunkenness and incest. No, these were not the kind of girls who would rise up and call their mother “Blessed.”
But what of Lot then? Does he not bare some of the blame for this dysfunctional family? Yes, he does. But I can’t help thinking of another wife whose husband was prominent in their city (Prov. 31:23). But, unlike Lot’s wife, this woman had a husband with a contented heart who considered himself a blessed man; while it says of Lot that every day he lived in Sodom, his soul was “vexed” (2 Pet. 2:8). It would not be too much of a stretch, I think, to assume that he stayed (and possibly went) because of his wife, whose heart, we know from this story was ever and always in Sodom.
Are we coming closer now to the reason for her seemingly harsh judgment? In reality, I wonder if it was not so much a punishment as simply giving her what she wanted. Though it was destined for destruction, Sodom held her heart as tightly and as surely as the cords of sin hold a man or woman to this world. Little wonder then, that when she slackened her pace, and fought for one last, longing look back, God stopped her in her tracks—forever.
Nothing is said about anyone mourning for this woman. Lot did not weep for her as Abraham did for Sarah. And, frankly, if God had not told me otherwise, I would gladly have ignored such a foolish woman. But, alas, God said to remember her. So, here’s an idea: If God directed you or me to turn our backs on something or someone in this life, would we do it? without looking back?
Friday, January 18, 2008
Following Orders
"And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." (Gen. 20:16)
On two recorded occasions, Abraham chose to hide the fact that Sarah was his wife. Both times, he put her in a compromising position for fear of his own life. In this chapter, the innocent victim of his hoax was Abimelech, king of Gerar, who, as it turned out, was actually the one whose life was in jeopardy (v.3). These lapses in Abraham's overall exemplary life are unfortunate. But I want us to look briefly at Sarah's role; for, after all, she was reproved.
On the surface, it would seem that Sarah, too, was a victim, since she was simply following orders. But it's obvious, the whole deception, from beginning to end, was wrong. I would contend, when it comes to sin, you do not follow orders. Ask Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; ask Peter and John in Acts four. Each of these was compelled (unsuccessfully) by those in authority over them to go against God.
The Bible teaches, especially in I Timothy 2, that every woman should have a man in a place of leadership in her life. If she is married, her husband is her head; if she is single, she should look to her father and/or a godly elder in the church to give her guidance.
Notwithstanding this vital truth, Sarah--who appeared to be simply following orders--was still reproved. Could I offer three workable principles that I think would help to reconcile these two (seemingly) opposing arguments? I've been suggesting them to women for many years now.
1. Don't use God as an excuse to disobey your husband.
2. Don't use your husband as an excuse to sin against God.
3. Know the difference!
On two recorded occasions, Abraham chose to hide the fact that Sarah was his wife. Both times, he put her in a compromising position for fear of his own life. In this chapter, the innocent victim of his hoax was Abimelech, king of Gerar, who, as it turned out, was actually the one whose life was in jeopardy (v.3). These lapses in Abraham's overall exemplary life are unfortunate. But I want us to look briefly at Sarah's role; for, after all, she was reproved.
On the surface, it would seem that Sarah, too, was a victim, since she was simply following orders. But it's obvious, the whole deception, from beginning to end, was wrong. I would contend, when it comes to sin, you do not follow orders. Ask Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; ask Peter and John in Acts four. Each of these was compelled (unsuccessfully) by those in authority over them to go against God.
The Bible teaches, especially in I Timothy 2, that every woman should have a man in a place of leadership in her life. If she is married, her husband is her head; if she is single, she should look to her father and/or a godly elder in the church to give her guidance.
Notwithstanding this vital truth, Sarah--who appeared to be simply following orders--was still reproved. Could I offer three workable principles that I think would help to reconcile these two (seemingly) opposing arguments? I've been suggesting them to women for many years now.
1. Don't use God as an excuse to disobey your husband.
2. Don't use your husband as an excuse to sin against God.
3. Know the difference!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
What Do You Hear?
"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.” (Matt.17:22,23)
As the old saying goes, "People hear what they want to hear." When I read these verses today, the last five words grabbed my attention. "And they were exceeding sorry." Exceeding sorry? Sorry that Jesus would rise from the dead on the third day? No, you say, they were sorry that Jesus would be betrayed and killed. Oh, but there could be no resurrection without the death. It would be as if you had a very painful tumor, and the doctor told you he was going to put you to sleep, cut the tumor out and rid you of the pain, once and for all. Would you leave his office sorrowful because of the operation, or rejoicing because of the prognosis?
If we're not careful, we can fine-tune our ears to the negative, and every situation will be seen in the worst possible light. Mourn the wickedness of man at Calvary, gaze in horror at the Cross; but do not make the mistake of lingering there past three days. For in a nearby garden there is an empty tomb, and when you see and comprehend all its implications, your sorrow will turn to rejoicing, and your future will seem as bright as the promises of God.
Two men look out the same prison bars;
One sees mud and the other sees stars.
— Frederick Langbridge
As the old saying goes, "People hear what they want to hear." When I read these verses today, the last five words grabbed my attention. "And they were exceeding sorry." Exceeding sorry? Sorry that Jesus would rise from the dead on the third day? No, you say, they were sorry that Jesus would be betrayed and killed. Oh, but there could be no resurrection without the death. It would be as if you had a very painful tumor, and the doctor told you he was going to put you to sleep, cut the tumor out and rid you of the pain, once and for all. Would you leave his office sorrowful because of the operation, or rejoicing because of the prognosis?
If we're not careful, we can fine-tune our ears to the negative, and every situation will be seen in the worst possible light. Mourn the wickedness of man at Calvary, gaze in horror at the Cross; but do not make the mistake of lingering there past three days. For in a nearby garden there is an empty tomb, and when you see and comprehend all its implications, your sorrow will turn to rejoicing, and your future will seem as bright as the promises of God.
Two men look out the same prison bars;
One sees mud and the other sees stars.
— Frederick Langbridge
Monday, January 14, 2008
Our Schemes or God's Will
"And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. " (Gen.16:2)
Welcome to the world of surrogate mothers! Of course, what Sarai did seems tame compared to the synthetic, genetic maneuvering that goes on today. Either way, it's still trying to make an end run around the will of God. Did Sarai even hear herself saying, "The Lord hath retrained me from bearing"?
God had told Abraham in Genesis 15:4 that he would produce an heir from his own seed, but evidently, Sarai feared she was too old to carry it. Did she think that the God who was able to enliven the seed of an old man was incapable of bringing it to fruition in the shriveled womb of an old woman?
Bob Jones, Sr. used to say, "It's never right to do wrong to get a chance to do right." Sarai got her "son" by means of her handmaid, Hagar, and he was a heartache to her, Abraham, and Isaac, the son of promise who came later. And the world today lives in the shadow of the enmity that still lies between those two brothers.
The end doesn't always justify the means, and never when the means are wrong; because, more often than not, questionable means produce undesirable ends. God's will can always be done in God's way. If not, it isn't His will.
Faith is living without scheming.
Welcome to the world of surrogate mothers! Of course, what Sarai did seems tame compared to the synthetic, genetic maneuvering that goes on today. Either way, it's still trying to make an end run around the will of God. Did Sarai even hear herself saying, "The Lord hath retrained me from bearing"?
God had told Abraham in Genesis 15:4 that he would produce an heir from his own seed, but evidently, Sarai feared she was too old to carry it. Did she think that the God who was able to enliven the seed of an old man was incapable of bringing it to fruition in the shriveled womb of an old woman?
Bob Jones, Sr. used to say, "It's never right to do wrong to get a chance to do right." Sarai got her "son" by means of her handmaid, Hagar, and he was a heartache to her, Abraham, and Isaac, the son of promise who came later. And the world today lives in the shadow of the enmity that still lies between those two brothers.
The end doesn't always justify the means, and never when the means are wrong; because, more often than not, questionable means produce undesirable ends. God's will can always be done in God's way. If not, it isn't His will.
Faith is living without scheming.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Clean Hands and a Dirty Heart
"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt.15:2,3)
Am I more fearful of transgressing the tradition of the elders or the commandments of God? Evidently, from what Jesus said, the former is a distinct possibility. These scribes and Pharisees were more concerned with adhering to a man-made standard than obeying a Divine law of God (v. 4-6). Individuals whose spiritual lives reflect these kinds of priorities worship in vain, according to verse nine, because they rank the commandments of men in the same category as doctrine. It's not what we consume that defiles us, but, rather, what is already there. Those things that have been allowed to remain, fester, and spew forth (v.17,18). You'll find some of these listed in verse nineteen. So, what is worse, questionable hygiene or bad thoughts?
Our older son once told me of a conversation he had with a Christian lady who was concerned about a practice of many conscientious Christians that is frowned upon by some more strict individuals (and churches) in the Body of Christ. At one point, Andrew said to the dear lady, as kindly as he could, "Of course, you realize the Bible doesn't teach against this." "Oh, yes," was her reply, "I know; but don't you think God holds us today to a higher standard?" Such reasoning would be comical were it not so sad. His answer to her was, "No, I don't think God holds us to a higher standard than His Word."
And there's the problem. When our standards are esteemed to be equal with God's, we have succumbed to rank humanism. The truth is, the hand-washing spoken of by the Pharisees had become a part of their religious ritual. If we're not careful, practices and abstinences that may be healthy, practical, and beneficial can become incorporated into Biblical principles. And when man-made standards are elevated to the level of God's law, God's law is lowered to the level of man-made standards. I think I’ll say that again: When man-made standards are elevated to the level of God's law, God's law is lowered to the level of man-made standards.
This brings me back to my original question. Am I more fearful of transgressing the tradition of the elders or the commandments of God? Are you?
Externals are often used to prop-up a weak inner life.
Am I more fearful of transgressing the tradition of the elders or the commandments of God? Evidently, from what Jesus said, the former is a distinct possibility. These scribes and Pharisees were more concerned with adhering to a man-made standard than obeying a Divine law of God (v. 4-6). Individuals whose spiritual lives reflect these kinds of priorities worship in vain, according to verse nine, because they rank the commandments of men in the same category as doctrine. It's not what we consume that defiles us, but, rather, what is already there. Those things that have been allowed to remain, fester, and spew forth (v.17,18). You'll find some of these listed in verse nineteen. So, what is worse, questionable hygiene or bad thoughts?
Our older son once told me of a conversation he had with a Christian lady who was concerned about a practice of many conscientious Christians that is frowned upon by some more strict individuals (and churches) in the Body of Christ. At one point, Andrew said to the dear lady, as kindly as he could, "Of course, you realize the Bible doesn't teach against this." "Oh, yes," was her reply, "I know; but don't you think God holds us today to a higher standard?" Such reasoning would be comical were it not so sad. His answer to her was, "No, I don't think God holds us to a higher standard than His Word."
And there's the problem. When our standards are esteemed to be equal with God's, we have succumbed to rank humanism. The truth is, the hand-washing spoken of by the Pharisees had become a part of their religious ritual. If we're not careful, practices and abstinences that may be healthy, practical, and beneficial can become incorporated into Biblical principles. And when man-made standards are elevated to the level of God's law, God's law is lowered to the level of man-made standards. I think I’ll say that again: When man-made standards are elevated to the level of God's law, God's law is lowered to the level of man-made standards.
This brings me back to my original question. Am I more fearful of transgressing the tradition of the elders or the commandments of God? Are you?
Externals are often used to prop-up a weak inner life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)