Randy Green's Blog, page 483
April 4, 2012
Violin Music – Part 2
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter [2 Corinthians 7:10-11].
We stopped yesterday on the topic of godly sorrow vs. worldly sorrow. We were in the midst of analyzing godly sorrow. Let’s continue there now.
If I have true godly sorrow, I won’t shuffle the feet and mumble under my breath, “If I’ve ever done anything to hurt you, I didn’t mean to.” That is no apology. Suchlike talk doesn’t express repentance and seek forgiveness. It doesn’t own up to my responsibility for wrongdoing. It is not prompted by godly sorrow, dear friends. Its motivation is to convince myself that I am a godly person and in that way to make myself feel better, but without any real belief that I’ve done wrong.
We understand godly sorrow all the better by comparing it with worldly sorrow. In the case of worldly sorrow I do throw a pity party and invite everyone I know to play me violin music. I even play some choice tunes on the violin myself! I bemoan my fate and rue the day I was born. I paint pictures of gloom and doom and wallow in the mire of self-pity.
The longer the party lasts, the closer to death I am driven…while the chauffeur driving me to that destination plays more violin music on the car radio! Worldly sorrow, you see, isn’t really sorry for anything related to the person enduring the sorrow, unless it be his own pathetic condition. He experiences only self-pity, not pity for others.
In the second verse of our quoted text, Paul itemizes several details we can employ to know whether our sorrow is godly or worldly. Let’s list them:
1. what vindication of yourselves
2. what indignation
3. what fear
4. what longing
5. what zeal
6. what avenging of wrong
After presenting this list, Paul noted the results of those six details: In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.
Here’s the context for the two verses. The Christians in Corinth faced sin in their church. Were they complicit in the sin or no? Paul challenged them to judge the sinner and absolve themselves of complicity in the sin.
The Corinthian Christians were wounded by Paul’s castigation of both the sin and the sinner, but even more by his castigation of them for winking at the sinner in his sin. They saw the error of their ways and demonstrated they were not participants in the sin by judging the sinner and prompting him to repent and be forgiven. In doing so they “vindicated themselves”.
After receiving Paul’s rebuke they became “indignant” about the sin and “feared” God’s judgment on them, as well as on their sinning brother. They “longed” for his repentance and restoration, and accordingly they “avenged” the wrong, doing so with “zeal”. In doing all this (i.e., “in everything”), you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.
Do you see how pity parties demonstrate worldly, not godly, sorrow? Do you see how violin music only leads us to cry in our beer, but never to repent and be forgiven for our sin? Godly sorrow puts the onus on us for sinning against God and doing wrong to God and/or man.
Worldly sorrow, contrariwise, feels sorry for self. We are misunderstood. It’s our parents fault: they didn’t raise us right. It’s the world’s fault: we’re poor, we’re women, we’re minorities. And then there’s the ace card: the devil made us do it…etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Let’s keep this distinction in mind and heart, the next time we are hurting. Sometimes it is the fault of others, but even then it’s our choice whether to experience godly sorrow or worldly sorrow. Wallow in self-pity or do what is in our power to make things right, that’s our choice. And in all things we must be sure to give glory to God, rather than seek our own revenge. Can I get an amen?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Joshua: Volume 6 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We stopped yesterday on the topic of godly sorrow vs. worldly sorrow. We were in the midst of analyzing godly sorrow. Let’s continue there now.
If I have true godly sorrow, I won’t shuffle the feet and mumble under my breath, “If I’ve ever done anything to hurt you, I didn’t mean to.” That is no apology. Suchlike talk doesn’t express repentance and seek forgiveness. It doesn’t own up to my responsibility for wrongdoing. It is not prompted by godly sorrow, dear friends. Its motivation is to convince myself that I am a godly person and in that way to make myself feel better, but without any real belief that I’ve done wrong.
We understand godly sorrow all the better by comparing it with worldly sorrow. In the case of worldly sorrow I do throw a pity party and invite everyone I know to play me violin music. I even play some choice tunes on the violin myself! I bemoan my fate and rue the day I was born. I paint pictures of gloom and doom and wallow in the mire of self-pity.
The longer the party lasts, the closer to death I am driven…while the chauffeur driving me to that destination plays more violin music on the car radio! Worldly sorrow, you see, isn’t really sorry for anything related to the person enduring the sorrow, unless it be his own pathetic condition. He experiences only self-pity, not pity for others.
In the second verse of our quoted text, Paul itemizes several details we can employ to know whether our sorrow is godly or worldly. Let’s list them:
1. what vindication of yourselves
2. what indignation
3. what fear
4. what longing
5. what zeal
6. what avenging of wrong
After presenting this list, Paul noted the results of those six details: In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.
Here’s the context for the two verses. The Christians in Corinth faced sin in their church. Were they complicit in the sin or no? Paul challenged them to judge the sinner and absolve themselves of complicity in the sin.
The Corinthian Christians were wounded by Paul’s castigation of both the sin and the sinner, but even more by his castigation of them for winking at the sinner in his sin. They saw the error of their ways and demonstrated they were not participants in the sin by judging the sinner and prompting him to repent and be forgiven. In doing so they “vindicated themselves”.
After receiving Paul’s rebuke they became “indignant” about the sin and “feared” God’s judgment on them, as well as on their sinning brother. They “longed” for his repentance and restoration, and accordingly they “avenged” the wrong, doing so with “zeal”. In doing all this (i.e., “in everything”), you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.
Do you see how pity parties demonstrate worldly, not godly, sorrow? Do you see how violin music only leads us to cry in our beer, but never to repent and be forgiven for our sin? Godly sorrow puts the onus on us for sinning against God and doing wrong to God and/or man.
Worldly sorrow, contrariwise, feels sorry for self. We are misunderstood. It’s our parents fault: they didn’t raise us right. It’s the world’s fault: we’re poor, we’re women, we’re minorities. And then there’s the ace card: the devil made us do it…etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Let’s keep this distinction in mind and heart, the next time we are hurting. Sometimes it is the fault of others, but even then it’s our choice whether to experience godly sorrow or worldly sorrow. Wallow in self-pity or do what is in our power to make things right, that’s our choice. And in all things we must be sure to give glory to God, rather than seek our own revenge. Can I get an amen?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Joshua: Volume 6 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
April 3, 2012
Violin Music – Part 1
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter [2 Corinthians 7:10-11].
I believe each of us can remember times like this:
I went to visit a friend. He appeared a bit bummed out, hair disheveled, grizzled whiskers look, sunken eyes with hanging bags—an all-around haggard appearance. His clothes matched his face too: raggedy, patches showing, obviously in search of the lost iron.
I was taken aback and queried, “What gives, bro? You look the mess!”
Wrong question to ask. Wrong question indeed. I spent the next who knows how long getting an ear full. I don’t believe there was a topic in all creation I didn’t hear about!
He began, “Oh, man, the world is all wrong. I just cannot catch a break. The TV’s on the blink, the car needs repairs, my cat was run over, and the dog chewed up my shoes.”
If you think that was it, sorry to disappoint you! He continued, “I lost my job, and the bill collectors rented the house next door so as to be near me. My wife went back to her mother and took the kids. What’s next?!”
Admit it. You’ve encountered such a scenario once or twice yourself, haven’t you? Well, guess what? You were invited to a pity party with lots of violin music. All you needed to do to attend was to join in with the sympathizing. Your attendance was much appreciated, but it probably accomplished nothing worthwhile.
Pity parties are usually thrown because the one issuing the invitations feels sorry for himself. He might very well have a right to do so. That per se isn’t the problem with pity parties. The problem is they just don’t accomplish anything…unless it be to drive people to drinking!
When problems attack, either we can sit around and mope or else we can do something constructive about them. Moping and throwing pity parties only compounds the problems by dwelling on the problems as if they last forever and are unsolvable. The accompanying violin music merely serves the same function as Job’s three “friends”!
The Apostle Paul addressed this very issue in the two verses quoted at the beginning of this study. He even followed Biblical Hebrew poetic convention in doing so. He employed parallelism in his narrative form of writing, antonymous parallelism to be exact. Let’s diagram it:
A. the sorrow that is according to the will of God
B. produces a repentance without regret
A. the sorrow of the world
B. produces death
Notice the two “A’s” and the two “B’s” at the front of each of those four lines. The “A’s” depict two opposite types of sorrow, while the “B’s” portray two opposite results of sorrow. On the one hand there is godly sorrow, on the other worldly sorrow.
Godly sorrow is demonstrated by its result, viz., repentance. This repentance brings with it no regrets for having to repent, and no regrets for being made sorrowful in the first place. This type of sorrow doesn’t throw pity parties and invite everyone to play violin music.
If I have true godly sorrow, I accept that I did something wrong and was made sorrowful because of it. In consequence I own up to my sin and repent. I receive the sorrow as justly deserved. I am thankful that it accomplished its desired effect in me, viz., my repentance and restoration into fellowship with the Lord and with anyone whom I wronged.
We are out of time today, so we will pause and return to the topic on the morrow. Enjoy some quiet time with the Lord Jesus now, okay?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Joshua: Volume 6 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I believe each of us can remember times like this:
I went to visit a friend. He appeared a bit bummed out, hair disheveled, grizzled whiskers look, sunken eyes with hanging bags—an all-around haggard appearance. His clothes matched his face too: raggedy, patches showing, obviously in search of the lost iron.
I was taken aback and queried, “What gives, bro? You look the mess!”
Wrong question to ask. Wrong question indeed. I spent the next who knows how long getting an ear full. I don’t believe there was a topic in all creation I didn’t hear about!
He began, “Oh, man, the world is all wrong. I just cannot catch a break. The TV’s on the blink, the car needs repairs, my cat was run over, and the dog chewed up my shoes.”
If you think that was it, sorry to disappoint you! He continued, “I lost my job, and the bill collectors rented the house next door so as to be near me. My wife went back to her mother and took the kids. What’s next?!”
Admit it. You’ve encountered such a scenario once or twice yourself, haven’t you? Well, guess what? You were invited to a pity party with lots of violin music. All you needed to do to attend was to join in with the sympathizing. Your attendance was much appreciated, but it probably accomplished nothing worthwhile.
Pity parties are usually thrown because the one issuing the invitations feels sorry for himself. He might very well have a right to do so. That per se isn’t the problem with pity parties. The problem is they just don’t accomplish anything…unless it be to drive people to drinking!
When problems attack, either we can sit around and mope or else we can do something constructive about them. Moping and throwing pity parties only compounds the problems by dwelling on the problems as if they last forever and are unsolvable. The accompanying violin music merely serves the same function as Job’s three “friends”!
The Apostle Paul addressed this very issue in the two verses quoted at the beginning of this study. He even followed Biblical Hebrew poetic convention in doing so. He employed parallelism in his narrative form of writing, antonymous parallelism to be exact. Let’s diagram it:
A. the sorrow that is according to the will of God
B. produces a repentance without regret
A. the sorrow of the world
B. produces death
Notice the two “A’s” and the two “B’s” at the front of each of those four lines. The “A’s” depict two opposite types of sorrow, while the “B’s” portray two opposite results of sorrow. On the one hand there is godly sorrow, on the other worldly sorrow.
Godly sorrow is demonstrated by its result, viz., repentance. This repentance brings with it no regrets for having to repent, and no regrets for being made sorrowful in the first place. This type of sorrow doesn’t throw pity parties and invite everyone to play violin music.
If I have true godly sorrow, I accept that I did something wrong and was made sorrowful because of it. In consequence I own up to my sin and repent. I receive the sorrow as justly deserved. I am thankful that it accomplished its desired effect in me, viz., my repentance and restoration into fellowship with the Lord and with anyone whom I wronged.
We are out of time today, so we will pause and return to the topic on the morrow. Enjoy some quiet time with the Lord Jesus now, okay?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Joshua: Volume 6 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
April 2, 2012
Affluenza and Penuritis – Part 2
Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is my portion, that I not be full and deny You and say, “Who is the Lord?” or that I not be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God [Proverbs 30:8-9].
Yesterday we noted the concept of parallelism in Proverbs 30:8-9. Let’s diagram the two verses now and see what this means.
The location of the verse break between v.8 and v.9 is unfortunate. The first parallel ideas are marked off by the semicolon and read, Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches. Here’s the diagram:
A. deception
B. lies
B. poverty
A. riches
Note the letters “A” and “B” before each of those four words. The two “A’s” go together, as do the two “B’s”. The parallelism is between the “A’s” and the “B’s”. It is not a comparison but a contrast, making this antonymous parallelism. On the one hand is affluenza, on the other penuritis. They are opposites.
The remainder of vv.8-9 define how the two “A’s” and the two “B’s” fit together. Following our diagram “riches” are “deceptive” to the writer, while “poverty” leads to “lies”. Let’s consult the remaining words of the verses and see just what the writer’s was alluding to.
The phrase “feed me with the food that is my portion” goes with both ideas expressed in the remainder of verses 8-9. The phrase is the writer’s prayer to the Lord that He give him only his daily bread, no more and no less. The phrase “the food that is my portion” refers to what he requires for each day, one day at a time. Now let’s diagram the remaining two concepts.
A. I am full
B. I am in want
A. I deny my need for the Lord
B. I steal and so profane the Lord’s name
Remember, the phrase “feed me with the food that is my portion” goes with both of these ideas.
If the Lord allowed the writer to experience affluenza, instead of giving him just the amount he needed (i.e., “my portion”), then he would be full. In this case he would have no need, which leads sinful man to depend on himself, thus denying his need for the Lord. That is how the two “A’s” of v.8 fit together with verse 9. His riches deceive him, you see.
Contrariwise, if the Lord, allowed the writer to experience penuritis, instead of giving him just the amount he needed (i.e., “my portion”), then he would be tempted to steal and thereby blaspheme the name of the Lord upon him. This is how the two “B’s” in v.8 fit together with verse 9. His hunger and other needs would be a temptation to him to take matters into his own hands and fill his needs by hook or by crook.
Moses broached these selfsame concepts in Deuteronomy 8:16-18. I suggest you turn there in your Bibles and read it. This is an ongoing concern with sinful man, bringing with it the infestation of either affluenza or penuritis. I doubt any of us would consciously volunteer as Guinea pigs for medical research into the two diseases.
I have a wonderful idea. Let’s make use of the writers own words and invoke them as our prayer to the Lord right now. How about it?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
Yesterday we noted the concept of parallelism in Proverbs 30:8-9. Let’s diagram the two verses now and see what this means.
The location of the verse break between v.8 and v.9 is unfortunate. The first parallel ideas are marked off by the semicolon and read, Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches. Here’s the diagram:
A. deception
B. lies
B. poverty
A. riches
Note the letters “A” and “B” before each of those four words. The two “A’s” go together, as do the two “B’s”. The parallelism is between the “A’s” and the “B’s”. It is not a comparison but a contrast, making this antonymous parallelism. On the one hand is affluenza, on the other penuritis. They are opposites.
The remainder of vv.8-9 define how the two “A’s” and the two “B’s” fit together. Following our diagram “riches” are “deceptive” to the writer, while “poverty” leads to “lies”. Let’s consult the remaining words of the verses and see just what the writer’s was alluding to.
The phrase “feed me with the food that is my portion” goes with both ideas expressed in the remainder of verses 8-9. The phrase is the writer’s prayer to the Lord that He give him only his daily bread, no more and no less. The phrase “the food that is my portion” refers to what he requires for each day, one day at a time. Now let’s diagram the remaining two concepts.
A. I am full
B. I am in want
A. I deny my need for the Lord
B. I steal and so profane the Lord’s name
Remember, the phrase “feed me with the food that is my portion” goes with both of these ideas.
If the Lord allowed the writer to experience affluenza, instead of giving him just the amount he needed (i.e., “my portion”), then he would be full. In this case he would have no need, which leads sinful man to depend on himself, thus denying his need for the Lord. That is how the two “A’s” of v.8 fit together with verse 9. His riches deceive him, you see.
Contrariwise, if the Lord, allowed the writer to experience penuritis, instead of giving him just the amount he needed (i.e., “my portion”), then he would be tempted to steal and thereby blaspheme the name of the Lord upon him. This is how the two “B’s” in v.8 fit together with verse 9. His hunger and other needs would be a temptation to him to take matters into his own hands and fill his needs by hook or by crook.
Moses broached these selfsame concepts in Deuteronomy 8:16-18. I suggest you turn there in your Bibles and read it. This is an ongoing concern with sinful man, bringing with it the infestation of either affluenza or penuritis. I doubt any of us would consciously volunteer as Guinea pigs for medical research into the two diseases.
I have a wonderful idea. Let’s make use of the writers own words and invoke them as our prayer to the Lord right now. How about it?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
April 1, 2012
Affluenza and Penuritis – Part 1
Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is my portion, that I not be full and deny You and say, “Who is the Lord?” or that I not be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God [Proverbs 30:8-9].
In growing up today young people are faced with a situation never before faced by American youth. The medical term for it is affluenza. It runs rampant through a goodly percentage of the population.
And then there are those young people with the opposite medical condition, viz., penuritis. This condition also permeates a goodly percentage of the population. It is much less appreciated by those infected than is affluenza to those with its condition. Though it doesn’t usually result in death, it does universally result in dearth.
It wasn’t long ago that growing up meant finishing high school and, for some folks, going to college and beyond. The goal in either case was to acquire the skills needed to enter the work force and become a productive citizen of society. Which position in the work force a person sets his sights on determined what education was required.
Until just recently the predominance of young people knew what they would become after the educational years were concluded. Some knew they would work at a local factory, others at an office as clerical or administrative staff, and still others became brain surgeons or mad scientists!
It doesn’t work that way much anymore, not since the affluenza infestation. The CDC has yet to get a handle on this plague. Affluenza is characterized by a superfluity of options and the concomitant choices to be made in life. It is so overwhelming that it leaves our young folks’ heads spinning. The end result is that they become insensitive to decision-making, wallowing their lives away in indecision.
In the case of penuritis the infected youths also become insensitized to decision-making, but for very different reasons. These young folks don’t face the problem of having too many options to choose from. They have too few!
The young people infected with penuritis reconcile themselves to the fact they will never have the opportunity to better themselves. Such choices are not available to them. The bottom rung of the ladder is their lot in life. Whether they are relegated to this because of society or because of their own mental prison, it is still their lot in life.
The writer of Proverbs 30 employed Biblical Hebrew parallelism to express these two extremes. He recognized the dangers involved in both maladies and prayed to be delivered from each.
The term parallelism has to do with poetry. Today we rhyme words at the end of lines to form poetry. The Hebrews back in the day rhymed ideas between lines to create their poetry. We will diagram the two verses in our next study. But for now we must take our leave and spend some time alone with the Lord Jesus. See you tomorrow!
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
In growing up today young people are faced with a situation never before faced by American youth. The medical term for it is affluenza. It runs rampant through a goodly percentage of the population.
And then there are those young people with the opposite medical condition, viz., penuritis. This condition also permeates a goodly percentage of the population. It is much less appreciated by those infected than is affluenza to those with its condition. Though it doesn’t usually result in death, it does universally result in dearth.
It wasn’t long ago that growing up meant finishing high school and, for some folks, going to college and beyond. The goal in either case was to acquire the skills needed to enter the work force and become a productive citizen of society. Which position in the work force a person sets his sights on determined what education was required.
Until just recently the predominance of young people knew what they would become after the educational years were concluded. Some knew they would work at a local factory, others at an office as clerical or administrative staff, and still others became brain surgeons or mad scientists!
It doesn’t work that way much anymore, not since the affluenza infestation. The CDC has yet to get a handle on this plague. Affluenza is characterized by a superfluity of options and the concomitant choices to be made in life. It is so overwhelming that it leaves our young folks’ heads spinning. The end result is that they become insensitive to decision-making, wallowing their lives away in indecision.
In the case of penuritis the infected youths also become insensitized to decision-making, but for very different reasons. These young folks don’t face the problem of having too many options to choose from. They have too few!
The young people infected with penuritis reconcile themselves to the fact they will never have the opportunity to better themselves. Such choices are not available to them. The bottom rung of the ladder is their lot in life. Whether they are relegated to this because of society or because of their own mental prison, it is still their lot in life.
The writer of Proverbs 30 employed Biblical Hebrew parallelism to express these two extremes. He recognized the dangers involved in both maladies and prayed to be delivered from each.
The term parallelism has to do with poetry. Today we rhyme words at the end of lines to form poetry. The Hebrews back in the day rhymed ideas between lines to create their poetry. We will diagram the two verses in our next study. But for now we must take our leave and spend some time alone with the Lord Jesus. See you tomorrow!
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
March 31, 2012
A Tale of Two People
Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law [Proverbs 29:18].
Charles Dickens is one of the finest novelists ever. He has a way with words to which few have ever attained, or ever will. We come away from reading his novels deeply stirred. The range of emotions Dickens evokes encompasses all which are known to man…and a few yet to be discovered! You just must dive in and relish the time spent in a Dickens novel.
One of his novels, A Tale of Two Cities, is particularly graphic in its historical exposé. The tale begins with the all too familiar words, It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Indeed, the remainder of the novel demonstrates the veracity of the statement.
The times involved occurred circa the American Revolution, but the location was not America. It was England and France during the French Revolution. The French peasants were driven to abject penury by the French aristocracy, until finally all hope was lost for the peasants. With nothing else to lose, they revolted.
The history of the French Revolution—and Dickens’ novel paints the scene with personalized detail—but the French Revolution stands in stark contrast to the American Revolution. This contrast is best understood by the verse quoted to start this study. The verse takes the Biblical Hebrew poetic form of parallelism.
Today we rhyme words at the end of lines to create poetry. The Hebrews back in the day rhymed ideas between lines to create their poetry. The rhymed ideas were in some sense “parallel” to each other. If they were comparable, they formed synonymous parallelism. If they stood in contrast or were opposites, they formed antonymous parallelism.
In the case of Proverbs 29:18 the two rhymed lines are contrasts. Hence they form antonymous parallelism. Let’s diagram the two lines now.
A. where there is no vision
B. the people are unrestrained
B. happy is he
A. who keeps the law
Notice the “A” or “B” before each line. The two “A’s” are antonyms, as are the two “B’s”. Let’s analyze the “A” lines first.
On the one side are those who have no vision of reality. They see no hope for the future. They haven’t a clue as to how to conduct their lives under the conditions in which they find themselves.
On the other side are those who know the Word of God (i.e., the law) and embrace it as God’s revealed truth. The Word of God, you see, is their vision. They have vision and they conduct their lives according to their vision. Accordingly they have hope for the future as well as for the present.
Now let’s see how these two types of people function, how their vision or lack thereof works itself out in life. This is the substance of the two “B” lines.
The people without vision “are unrestrained”. Nothing exists to hold their visceral inclinations in check. They are up one minute and down the next. We might label their lifestyle “roller coaster living”. Sometimes when we observe suchlike folks, we cannot help but be certain they are manic-depressive!
What a drag and a drudgery it is, to go through each day with no idea of right and wrong. Everything is relative and dependent on how they feel at the moment. What they feel like doing defines “right”, while what hampers them from doing what they feel like doing defines “wrong”. This is what it means to be “unrestrained”.
Not so for the people who embrace the Word of God however! We are not “unrestrained” at all. We willingly accept the Bible as the definition of right and wrong and restrain ourselves accordingly. In doing so we are “happy”. We have the joy of the Lord for our strength, and nowadays that is an enviable position to be in.
The first category of people, those without a vision, portrays the peasants of the French Revolution. The second category of people, those who obey the Bible, depicts the people who made up the American Revolution. This explains why American democracy has lasted so long, while French democracy has succumbed to European socialism long long ago: France = no vision; America = vision.
So which category of people describes you? Does your daily living correspond with your verbal identification? Only daily time alone with the Lord and His Word can make us real in our daily living, dear friends. Let’s commit to a rigorous spiritual regimen with the Lord daily and stick to it. To God be the glory!
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
Charles Dickens is one of the finest novelists ever. He has a way with words to which few have ever attained, or ever will. We come away from reading his novels deeply stirred. The range of emotions Dickens evokes encompasses all which are known to man…and a few yet to be discovered! You just must dive in and relish the time spent in a Dickens novel.
One of his novels, A Tale of Two Cities, is particularly graphic in its historical exposé. The tale begins with the all too familiar words, It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Indeed, the remainder of the novel demonstrates the veracity of the statement.
The times involved occurred circa the American Revolution, but the location was not America. It was England and France during the French Revolution. The French peasants were driven to abject penury by the French aristocracy, until finally all hope was lost for the peasants. With nothing else to lose, they revolted.
The history of the French Revolution—and Dickens’ novel paints the scene with personalized detail—but the French Revolution stands in stark contrast to the American Revolution. This contrast is best understood by the verse quoted to start this study. The verse takes the Biblical Hebrew poetic form of parallelism.
Today we rhyme words at the end of lines to create poetry. The Hebrews back in the day rhymed ideas between lines to create their poetry. The rhymed ideas were in some sense “parallel” to each other. If they were comparable, they formed synonymous parallelism. If they stood in contrast or were opposites, they formed antonymous parallelism.
In the case of Proverbs 29:18 the two rhymed lines are contrasts. Hence they form antonymous parallelism. Let’s diagram the two lines now.
A. where there is no vision
B. the people are unrestrained
B. happy is he
A. who keeps the law
Notice the “A” or “B” before each line. The two “A’s” are antonyms, as are the two “B’s”. Let’s analyze the “A” lines first.
On the one side are those who have no vision of reality. They see no hope for the future. They haven’t a clue as to how to conduct their lives under the conditions in which they find themselves.
On the other side are those who know the Word of God (i.e., the law) and embrace it as God’s revealed truth. The Word of God, you see, is their vision. They have vision and they conduct their lives according to their vision. Accordingly they have hope for the future as well as for the present.
Now let’s see how these two types of people function, how their vision or lack thereof works itself out in life. This is the substance of the two “B” lines.
The people without vision “are unrestrained”. Nothing exists to hold their visceral inclinations in check. They are up one minute and down the next. We might label their lifestyle “roller coaster living”. Sometimes when we observe suchlike folks, we cannot help but be certain they are manic-depressive!
What a drag and a drudgery it is, to go through each day with no idea of right and wrong. Everything is relative and dependent on how they feel at the moment. What they feel like doing defines “right”, while what hampers them from doing what they feel like doing defines “wrong”. This is what it means to be “unrestrained”.
Not so for the people who embrace the Word of God however! We are not “unrestrained” at all. We willingly accept the Bible as the definition of right and wrong and restrain ourselves accordingly. In doing so we are “happy”. We have the joy of the Lord for our strength, and nowadays that is an enviable position to be in.
The first category of people, those without a vision, portrays the peasants of the French Revolution. The second category of people, those who obey the Bible, depicts the people who made up the American Revolution. This explains why American democracy has lasted so long, while French democracy has succumbed to European socialism long long ago: France = no vision; America = vision.
So which category of people describes you? Does your daily living correspond with your verbal identification? Only daily time alone with the Lord and His Word can make us real in our daily living, dear friends. Let’s commit to a rigorous spiritual regimen with the Lord daily and stick to it. To God be the glory!
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
March 30, 2012
Tweedledee and Tweedledum – Part 2
Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive with them [Proverbs 28:4].
We ended our last study by noting how folks without a basis for absolute morality end up praising the wicked. Let’s continue at that point and ask, “Huh? Why would they do that?”
It’s like this. In the Bible the Lord defines who are “the wicked”. He doesn’t base wickedness on whether or not anyone drinks, smokes, or curses. Those are only a small sampling of the fruits of wickedness, not the source.
Determining who is wicked and who is not is a question of morality. If we have a relative understanding of morality, we believe it changes with the situation—which leaves us with no real morality at all. If we have an absolute understanding of morality, we need someone who is always absolute to legislate what true morality is.
Voilà! the Bible, God’s Word, fits the bill. God alone is always absolute. He alone can define absolute morality. This is where the Biblical distinction between the wicked and the righteous comes into play, dear friends.
God defines the “wicked person” as “those who forsake the law”, i.e., those who reject the Bible in order to live as they please. Suchlike folks are those who eat fruit from the kogae tree, rather than from the life tree. They determine right and wrong based upon how they feel about the matter, not upon any outside source.
Contrariwise, the Biblical definition of the righteous is “those who keep the law”, i.e., those who reject man’s dithery efforts to determine right and wrong in favor of the Lord’s express teachings in the Bible. Because the righteous reject man’s claims to determine morality, they clash with the wicked, who by definition insist on tossing out the Bible in favor of making their own decisions of what is moral and what is not.
So what has this to do with politicians and who to vote for come November? Well, if a candidate talks a good spiel, don’t be taken in! Listen for him to present his position vis-à-vis the Bible. Does he want to spend us into bankruptcy, under the guise that it is immoral not to feed and clothe everyone in this country (and outside of it too)?
Where in Scripture does the Lord call for government to do these things? Scripture calls for each individual to willingly help others, but only as he sees fit and to the extent he is able. Calling for government to forcibly take our money from us and give it to whomever the government feels deserves it—this is anti-Bible. It is the social gospel and it is socialism. Beware the antichrist lurking nearby!
Does the politician disguise himself in the garb of “women’s rights”, to justify the murder of innocent lives in the womb? The Bible condemns the practice of abortion as murder.
Does he favor unconditional divorce and want the government to pay for all the social injustices which derive from the destruction of the family? The Bible defines marriage as a lifetime contract, for better or for worse.
Does he espouse homosexuality under the smokescreen of alternate lifestyles and natural inclinations? The Bible denounces it as sin of the most debasing kind.
If we vote for proponents of anti-Bible morality and behaviors, we will continue to move ever deeper into the morass of antichrist living. We’ve already reached extreme social depths the way it is. This makes it excruciatingly difficult to reverse course. Only a Holy Spirit revival in the house of God will suffice. Nonetheless, with God all things are possible. So vote, but first listen carefully to what the candidates say…and don’t say.
And before we listen to politicians harangue us, let’s be sure we listen to the Lord in His Word so we know truth from error. See you at the polls in November.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
Categories: Church Age
We ended our last study by noting how folks without a basis for absolute morality end up praising the wicked. Let’s continue at that point and ask, “Huh? Why would they do that?”
It’s like this. In the Bible the Lord defines who are “the wicked”. He doesn’t base wickedness on whether or not anyone drinks, smokes, or curses. Those are only a small sampling of the fruits of wickedness, not the source.
Determining who is wicked and who is not is a question of morality. If we have a relative understanding of morality, we believe it changes with the situation—which leaves us with no real morality at all. If we have an absolute understanding of morality, we need someone who is always absolute to legislate what true morality is.
Voilà! the Bible, God’s Word, fits the bill. God alone is always absolute. He alone can define absolute morality. This is where the Biblical distinction between the wicked and the righteous comes into play, dear friends.
God defines the “wicked person” as “those who forsake the law”, i.e., those who reject the Bible in order to live as they please. Suchlike folks are those who eat fruit from the kogae tree, rather than from the life tree. They determine right and wrong based upon how they feel about the matter, not upon any outside source.
Contrariwise, the Biblical definition of the righteous is “those who keep the law”, i.e., those who reject man’s dithery efforts to determine right and wrong in favor of the Lord’s express teachings in the Bible. Because the righteous reject man’s claims to determine morality, they clash with the wicked, who by definition insist on tossing out the Bible in favor of making their own decisions of what is moral and what is not.
So what has this to do with politicians and who to vote for come November? Well, if a candidate talks a good spiel, don’t be taken in! Listen for him to present his position vis-à-vis the Bible. Does he want to spend us into bankruptcy, under the guise that it is immoral not to feed and clothe everyone in this country (and outside of it too)?
Where in Scripture does the Lord call for government to do these things? Scripture calls for each individual to willingly help others, but only as he sees fit and to the extent he is able. Calling for government to forcibly take our money from us and give it to whomever the government feels deserves it—this is anti-Bible. It is the social gospel and it is socialism. Beware the antichrist lurking nearby!
Does the politician disguise himself in the garb of “women’s rights”, to justify the murder of innocent lives in the womb? The Bible condemns the practice of abortion as murder.
Does he favor unconditional divorce and want the government to pay for all the social injustices which derive from the destruction of the family? The Bible defines marriage as a lifetime contract, for better or for worse.
Does he espouse homosexuality under the smokescreen of alternate lifestyles and natural inclinations? The Bible denounces it as sin of the most debasing kind.
If we vote for proponents of anti-Bible morality and behaviors, we will continue to move ever deeper into the morass of antichrist living. We’ve already reached extreme social depths the way it is. This makes it excruciatingly difficult to reverse course. Only a Holy Spirit revival in the house of God will suffice. Nonetheless, with God all things are possible. So vote, but first listen carefully to what the candidates say…and don’t say.
And before we listen to politicians harangue us, let’s be sure we listen to the Lord in His Word so we know truth from error. See you at the polls in November.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
Categories: Church Age
March 29, 2012
Tweedledee and Tweedledum – Part 1
Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive with them [Proverbs 28:4].
I am writing this in the spring of 2012. This is an election year. Who will be President of the United States is at stake. Also at stake is who will control Congress. Of course there are also state and local elections, which will affect us considerably as well.
Who should I vote for? It is rather difficult to keep abreast of all the candidates running for office. Basing my decisions on party labels doesn’t exactly instill me with confidence in the results either! After years and decades of voting for the “lesser evil”, I am about petered out with choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Thankfully, the Word of God affords us insight into this apparent Catch-22. The writer of Proverbs 28 leaves no wiggle room, when it comes to the eligibility of potential elected officials. He presents his analysis in the traditional manner of the Biblical Hebrew poetry. He employs parallelism, in this case antonymous parallelism.
Today we rhyme words at the end of lines as our expression of poetry. The Hebrews rhymed ideas between lines. They restated in line 2 the same concept(s) of line 1, only using different words to do so. This is known as synonymous parallelism. If the two lines present opposite concepts, it is antonymous parallelism.
Let’s diagram Proverbs 28:4 for purposes of illustrating this:
A. those who forsake the law
B. praise the wicked
A. those who keep the law
B. strive with them (i.e., with the wicked)
The two parallel lines each consist of “A” and “B”. They express opposite concepts, so the two “A’s” are opposites as also are the two “B’s”. The “A” lines identify two opposite sorts of fellows, while the two “B” lines expose their pattern of behavior. In this light let’s vet the two classifications of people in the text.
One category consists of people who reject the Bible. They want nothing to do with the Lord being their God. They can run their lives just fine without You, God, thank you very much. Of course when it comes to elections, they don’t want this stated in black and white like that. Egads! It would expose them for what they are and the godly folks wouldn’t vote for them!
The other category of people is comprised of those who embrace the Bible. They want the Lord to rule in their lives and in everyone else’s life too. The Lord’s rule over anyone’s life must be willingly given, so they don’t want to force anyone to be religious or to verbally praise the Lord. They realize this must come from the heart first and foremost, not from the mouth alone.
When it comes to elections, suchlike folks are desirous of seeing their country operate on godly principles. Extravagant spending beyond our means with increasing debt and interest payments beyond our ability to repay—this is one example of a principle denounced by the Lord in Scripture. Ergo, the righteous candidates will stick with the Bible and insist on balancing the budget…sooner rather than later!
Biblical morality must needs be promoted, so they desire a social climate in which fidelity in marriage is promulgated, abortion is eradicated, and homosexuality is no longer viewed as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. No persecution will be tolerated, but false teaching about these moral issues won’t be winked at either.
Here’s the thing. On the one hand there are those who want to determine right and wrong based on their own reasoning. Of course man’s reasoning is in a constant state of flux, so right and wrong today is not the same right and wrong of tomorrow or yesterday! Folks who view reality in such a fashion “praise the wicked”.
Oh, dear. We are out of time again. We must stop now to be alone with the Lord a space, before our eyes become too heavy and sleep overtakes us. We will continue this topic tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I am writing this in the spring of 2012. This is an election year. Who will be President of the United States is at stake. Also at stake is who will control Congress. Of course there are also state and local elections, which will affect us considerably as well.
Who should I vote for? It is rather difficult to keep abreast of all the candidates running for office. Basing my decisions on party labels doesn’t exactly instill me with confidence in the results either! After years and decades of voting for the “lesser evil”, I am about petered out with choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Thankfully, the Word of God affords us insight into this apparent Catch-22. The writer of Proverbs 28 leaves no wiggle room, when it comes to the eligibility of potential elected officials. He presents his analysis in the traditional manner of the Biblical Hebrew poetry. He employs parallelism, in this case antonymous parallelism.
Today we rhyme words at the end of lines as our expression of poetry. The Hebrews rhymed ideas between lines. They restated in line 2 the same concept(s) of line 1, only using different words to do so. This is known as synonymous parallelism. If the two lines present opposite concepts, it is antonymous parallelism.
Let’s diagram Proverbs 28:4 for purposes of illustrating this:
A. those who forsake the law
B. praise the wicked
A. those who keep the law
B. strive with them (i.e., with the wicked)
The two parallel lines each consist of “A” and “B”. They express opposite concepts, so the two “A’s” are opposites as also are the two “B’s”. The “A” lines identify two opposite sorts of fellows, while the two “B” lines expose their pattern of behavior. In this light let’s vet the two classifications of people in the text.
One category consists of people who reject the Bible. They want nothing to do with the Lord being their God. They can run their lives just fine without You, God, thank you very much. Of course when it comes to elections, they don’t want this stated in black and white like that. Egads! It would expose them for what they are and the godly folks wouldn’t vote for them!
The other category of people is comprised of those who embrace the Bible. They want the Lord to rule in their lives and in everyone else’s life too. The Lord’s rule over anyone’s life must be willingly given, so they don’t want to force anyone to be religious or to verbally praise the Lord. They realize this must come from the heart first and foremost, not from the mouth alone.
When it comes to elections, suchlike folks are desirous of seeing their country operate on godly principles. Extravagant spending beyond our means with increasing debt and interest payments beyond our ability to repay—this is one example of a principle denounced by the Lord in Scripture. Ergo, the righteous candidates will stick with the Bible and insist on balancing the budget…sooner rather than later!
Biblical morality must needs be promoted, so they desire a social climate in which fidelity in marriage is promulgated, abortion is eradicated, and homosexuality is no longer viewed as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. No persecution will be tolerated, but false teaching about these moral issues won’t be winked at either.
Here’s the thing. On the one hand there are those who want to determine right and wrong based on their own reasoning. Of course man’s reasoning is in a constant state of flux, so right and wrong today is not the same right and wrong of tomorrow or yesterday! Folks who view reality in such a fashion “praise the wicked”.
Oh, dear. We are out of time again. We must stop now to be alone with the Lord a space, before our eyes become too heavy and sleep overtakes us. We will continue this topic tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
March 28, 2012
Rude Awakenings – Part 2
A sated man loathes honey, but to a famished man any bitter thing is sweet. [Proverbs 27:7].
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice early in the morning, it will be reckoned a curse to him [Proverbs 27:14].
Yesterday we descanted on Proverbs 27:7 and arrived at a good many conclusions. The analysis which preceded applies equally to v.14 of Proverbs 27. Imagine being in a sound sleep, dreaming about the greatest time of your life and living it all over again. Add to this the typical embellishments contained in sweet dreams, and you find yourself in third heaven!
Suddenly the time of your life comes to an end, as you hear someone’s voice blurting out like clanging cymbals and blaring trumpets. You jump to attention, none too happy for the rude awakening. You come to an abrupt realization, “Well I’ll be… It’s Damsel Daisy, my best girl! But what is she doing on my front porch at 4:30 AM, strumming her guitar and singing me love songs?”
So you ask her as much, but in a not so kind voice. Her response, “Oh, honey, I just finished writing this song for you, and I couldn’t wait for you to hear it. Do you like it?”
What do you think your retort would be? Could you honestly give it a rave review? Methinks not! You’d bellow, “It sucks, girl! Get back home with yourself and leave me be! If you want my opinion about a song ever again, make an appointment first!” And then you’d slam the door and return to bed, yearning for a repeat of your fantastic dream.
You see, even when your most favorite person comes to your home, even when your sweetie comes to sing your praises, it’s not automatically a good thing. It depends on the context. Every situation—and every book and every Bible verse—occurs within a context, not in a vacuum. Should we leave out the context we might arrive at the wrong destination. We may very well draw the wrong conclusion.
Such is the message of Proverbs 27:14. Let’s diagram it.
A. a person who blesses
B. a loud voice early in the morning
A. a friend who is blessed
B. a curse to him it is reckoned
The parallel ideas are “A” with “A” and “B” with “B”. There is a person who blesses and his friend whom he is blessing. The two occur parallel to each other. Even though a blessing is pronounced, the twofold context makes the blessing not so much a blessing.
1. a loud voice
2. early in the morning
Hence the blessing so-called was instead “reckoned a curse”. The style is antonymous parallelism. Without a context, all actions and words are incapable of being understood aright. Apart from their context we can only offer guesses in our interpretation of them.
Let’s learn the lesson from verses 7 and 14 of Proverbs 27. Let’s not accept Bible teaching which leaves out the context. Otherwise we are swallowing man’s guesses hook, line, and sinker. And that just will not do, will it?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice early in the morning, it will be reckoned a curse to him [Proverbs 27:14].
Yesterday we descanted on Proverbs 27:7 and arrived at a good many conclusions. The analysis which preceded applies equally to v.14 of Proverbs 27. Imagine being in a sound sleep, dreaming about the greatest time of your life and living it all over again. Add to this the typical embellishments contained in sweet dreams, and you find yourself in third heaven!
Suddenly the time of your life comes to an end, as you hear someone’s voice blurting out like clanging cymbals and blaring trumpets. You jump to attention, none too happy for the rude awakening. You come to an abrupt realization, “Well I’ll be… It’s Damsel Daisy, my best girl! But what is she doing on my front porch at 4:30 AM, strumming her guitar and singing me love songs?”
So you ask her as much, but in a not so kind voice. Her response, “Oh, honey, I just finished writing this song for you, and I couldn’t wait for you to hear it. Do you like it?”
What do you think your retort would be? Could you honestly give it a rave review? Methinks not! You’d bellow, “It sucks, girl! Get back home with yourself and leave me be! If you want my opinion about a song ever again, make an appointment first!” And then you’d slam the door and return to bed, yearning for a repeat of your fantastic dream.
You see, even when your most favorite person comes to your home, even when your sweetie comes to sing your praises, it’s not automatically a good thing. It depends on the context. Every situation—and every book and every Bible verse—occurs within a context, not in a vacuum. Should we leave out the context we might arrive at the wrong destination. We may very well draw the wrong conclusion.
Such is the message of Proverbs 27:14. Let’s diagram it.
A. a person who blesses
B. a loud voice early in the morning
A. a friend who is blessed
B. a curse to him it is reckoned
The parallel ideas are “A” with “A” and “B” with “B”. There is a person who blesses and his friend whom he is blessing. The two occur parallel to each other. Even though a blessing is pronounced, the twofold context makes the blessing not so much a blessing.
1. a loud voice
2. early in the morning
Hence the blessing so-called was instead “reckoned a curse”. The style is antonymous parallelism. Without a context, all actions and words are incapable of being understood aright. Apart from their context we can only offer guesses in our interpretation of them.
Let’s learn the lesson from verses 7 and 14 of Proverbs 27. Let’s not accept Bible teaching which leaves out the context. Otherwise we are swallowing man’s guesses hook, line, and sinker. And that just will not do, will it?
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
Rude Awakenings – Part 1
A sated man loathes honey, but to a famished man any bitter thing is sweet [Proverbs 27:7].
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice early in the morning, it will be reckoned a curse to him [Proverbs 27:14].
Do you like candy? No, I don’t mean just kiddie candy. I mean do you like candy of any kind? I bet you do! Many a poor slob is addicted to chocolate, for instance. It is such a common thing nowadays that a new word was coined to depict it, viz., chocaholic.
Have you ever known anyone whose favorite pastime was to spend his time resisting the urge to eat his favorite candy? Didn’t think so. Such a critter doesn’t exist! The savor of chocolate (or whatever the favorite candy might be) is desirable, not repulsive.
But you know what? Even to a chocaholic the mere sight of chocolate can at times be repulsive. I mean, give him an inexhaustible supply of the stuff and permit him to stuff his face until he pukes it all up! Think he finds it “desirable” then? If so, then think again.
This is the point made by the writer of Proverbs 27, dear friends. When a man is “sated”, i.e., when he is overly full of food of any kind, then even “honey” (or chocolate) is loathsome to him. He is so full that his stomach cannot handle anything more, even things he normally cannot resist.
The other side of the coin is that, when a person is starving, he will eat anything, even things he cannot normally stomach (i.e., “bitter” things). His body is in dire need of nutritional succor. His sense of taste under those conditions is a simple luxury which he cannot afford to appease. His life is at stake!
Did you catch the antonymous parallelism which occurs in verse 7? This refers to a style which exists with Biblical Hebrew poetry. Instead of rhyming words at the end of lines, the Hebrews rhymed ideas between the lines. When the ideas were comparable, the style wore the identifier synonymous parallelism. When they presented contrasts, the jargon antonymous parallelism applied. Here’s a diagram of verse 7.
A. a sated man
B. loathes honey
A. a famished man
B. considers something bitter to be sweet
A “sated man” is the opposite of a “famished man”. To loathe something sweet is the opposite of to relish even things that are bitter. Voilà! antonymous parallelism.
But there is something more to be gleaned from this verse, dear friends, something we have repeatedly taught over the years. Rule #1 for Bible study states, a text without a context is a pretext. This truth reverberates into a crescendo in the two Bible verses with which we began this study.
A chocaholic craves his chocolate. He demands more and he demands it more frequently! Notwithstanding this addiction, when he is sated, when he is surfeited, suddenly he cannot stomach chocolate. Is he no longer a chocaholic then? Absolutely not true! The context explains why temporarily he can no longer brook chocolate.
See! A text (or any situation) has to be understood in its context, or fatal misunderstanding can follow. If not understood in context, when we observe a chocaholic vomiting at the sight of chocolate, we might be tempted to pat ourselves on the back for curing him. Yikes! We are beside ourselves a short while later, should we observe him chasing his favorite chocolate bar around the room!
Alas, but we’ve come to the end of the road for today. Not to worry though. By tomorrow road construction will be completed and we will be able to continue down this avenue. Let’s spend time awhile with Jesus, while we await the morrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice early in the morning, it will be reckoned a curse to him [Proverbs 27:14].
Do you like candy? No, I don’t mean just kiddie candy. I mean do you like candy of any kind? I bet you do! Many a poor slob is addicted to chocolate, for instance. It is such a common thing nowadays that a new word was coined to depict it, viz., chocaholic.
Have you ever known anyone whose favorite pastime was to spend his time resisting the urge to eat his favorite candy? Didn’t think so. Such a critter doesn’t exist! The savor of chocolate (or whatever the favorite candy might be) is desirable, not repulsive.
But you know what? Even to a chocaholic the mere sight of chocolate can at times be repulsive. I mean, give him an inexhaustible supply of the stuff and permit him to stuff his face until he pukes it all up! Think he finds it “desirable” then? If so, then think again.
This is the point made by the writer of Proverbs 27, dear friends. When a man is “sated”, i.e., when he is overly full of food of any kind, then even “honey” (or chocolate) is loathsome to him. He is so full that his stomach cannot handle anything more, even things he normally cannot resist.
The other side of the coin is that, when a person is starving, he will eat anything, even things he cannot normally stomach (i.e., “bitter” things). His body is in dire need of nutritional succor. His sense of taste under those conditions is a simple luxury which he cannot afford to appease. His life is at stake!
Did you catch the antonymous parallelism which occurs in verse 7? This refers to a style which exists with Biblical Hebrew poetry. Instead of rhyming words at the end of lines, the Hebrews rhymed ideas between the lines. When the ideas were comparable, the style wore the identifier synonymous parallelism. When they presented contrasts, the jargon antonymous parallelism applied. Here’s a diagram of verse 7.
A. a sated man
B. loathes honey
A. a famished man
B. considers something bitter to be sweet
A “sated man” is the opposite of a “famished man”. To loathe something sweet is the opposite of to relish even things that are bitter. Voilà! antonymous parallelism.
But there is something more to be gleaned from this verse, dear friends, something we have repeatedly taught over the years. Rule #1 for Bible study states, a text without a context is a pretext. This truth reverberates into a crescendo in the two Bible verses with which we began this study.
A chocaholic craves his chocolate. He demands more and he demands it more frequently! Notwithstanding this addiction, when he is sated, when he is surfeited, suddenly he cannot stomach chocolate. Is he no longer a chocaholic then? Absolutely not true! The context explains why temporarily he can no longer brook chocolate.
See! A text (or any situation) has to be understood in its context, or fatal misunderstanding can follow. If not understood in context, when we observe a chocaholic vomiting at the sight of chocolate, we might be tempted to pat ourselves on the back for curing him. Yikes! We are beside ourselves a short while later, should we observe him chasing his favorite chocolate bar around the room!
Alas, but we’ve come to the end of the road for today. Not to worry though. By tomorrow road construction will be completed and we will be able to continue down this avenue. Let’s spend time awhile with Jesus, while we await the morrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
March 26, 2012
Silver Jewelry and Missing Noses – Part 2
Take away the dross from the silver, and there comes out a vessel for the smith. Take away the wicked before the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness [Proverbs 25:4-5].
We paused in our last lesson by noting that v.4 and v.5 of Proverbs 25 were written in the form of synonymous parallelism. Let’s continue in that vein now.
The two verses of Proverbs with which we have to do in this study present comparable things, so they are in the form of synonymous parallelism. Let’s diagram the two verses for clarity’s sake.
A. take away the dross from the silver
B. and there comes out a vessel for the smith
A. take away the wicked before the king
B. and his throne will be established in righteousness
Notice the letters “A” and “B” which precede each line. The first “A” and “B” diagram verse 4, while the second “A” and “B” do the same for verse 5. The phrases which are preceded by “A” are parallel, and that by way of comparability (i.e., synonymously). The phrases preceded by “B” are also comparable. Let’s vet this issue now.
The “dross” of v.4 is comparable to the “wicked” of verse 5, while the “silver” of v.4 is comparable to the “king” of verse 5. By the same manner silver is purified and made fit to serve its purpose (i.e., for jewelry products, etc.), in this way is a king made fit to serve his purpose of ruling his subjects righteously.
Silver is purified by removing the dross, and a king’s rule is purified (i.e., made righteous) by removing the wicked (i.e., the unrighteous) from his presence. When the wicked are dispatched out of the king’s presence, they cannot influence him to rule in an unrighteous manner.
This teaching is a reaffirmation of the Biblical doctrine of separation. You’ve heard the expression, “What we eat is what we are.” It is equally true that those with whom we choose to associate establishes who we are. Bad company corrupts good morals (cf., 1 Corinthians 15:33).
In order not to be duped into living for self and the world and the devil, the Word of God calls for us to come out from their presence and live apart from them (i.e., separation). I direct you to read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 for a straightforward presentation of this spiritual truth.
This leaves us standing at a crossroads, dear friends. Now that we’ve been confronted with the Word of God about separation from the world and its ways, what response will we make to what He just taught us? Will we say “Amen, Lord!” and make necessary changes in our lifestyle? Or will we leave it in the church building or the prayer closet and continue on as before?
What say ye? Shall it be living for self or shall we live for the Lord in accordance with the Bible? Only one way is right, as Proverbs 25:4-5 taught us today. I trust you will make the right choice.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We paused in our last lesson by noting that v.4 and v.5 of Proverbs 25 were written in the form of synonymous parallelism. Let’s continue in that vein now.
The two verses of Proverbs with which we have to do in this study present comparable things, so they are in the form of synonymous parallelism. Let’s diagram the two verses for clarity’s sake.
A. take away the dross from the silver
B. and there comes out a vessel for the smith
A. take away the wicked before the king
B. and his throne will be established in righteousness
Notice the letters “A” and “B” which precede each line. The first “A” and “B” diagram verse 4, while the second “A” and “B” do the same for verse 5. The phrases which are preceded by “A” are parallel, and that by way of comparability (i.e., synonymously). The phrases preceded by “B” are also comparable. Let’s vet this issue now.
The “dross” of v.4 is comparable to the “wicked” of verse 5, while the “silver” of v.4 is comparable to the “king” of verse 5. By the same manner silver is purified and made fit to serve its purpose (i.e., for jewelry products, etc.), in this way is a king made fit to serve his purpose of ruling his subjects righteously.
Silver is purified by removing the dross, and a king’s rule is purified (i.e., made righteous) by removing the wicked (i.e., the unrighteous) from his presence. When the wicked are dispatched out of the king’s presence, they cannot influence him to rule in an unrighteous manner.
This teaching is a reaffirmation of the Biblical doctrine of separation. You’ve heard the expression, “What we eat is what we are.” It is equally true that those with whom we choose to associate establishes who we are. Bad company corrupts good morals (cf., 1 Corinthians 15:33).
In order not to be duped into living for self and the world and the devil, the Word of God calls for us to come out from their presence and live apart from them (i.e., separation). I direct you to read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 for a straightforward presentation of this spiritual truth.
This leaves us standing at a crossroads, dear friends. Now that we’ve been confronted with the Word of God about separation from the world and its ways, what response will we make to what He just taught us? Will we say “Amen, Lord!” and make necessary changes in our lifestyle? Or will we leave it in the church building or the prayer closet and continue on as before?
What say ye? Shall it be living for self or shall we live for the Lord in accordance with the Bible? Only one way is right, as Proverbs 25:4-5 taught us today. I trust you will make the right choice.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Deuteronomy: Volume 5 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
