Tag Archives: Bible

What is a small group?

Published in Nate's Blog on September 29, 2011
What is a small group?

What is a small group?  Sometimes people call it a “home bible study.”  I can’t speak for anyone else, but that term just doesn’t cut it for my small group.

My small group is about more than a “home” – it’s about being a family.  In a home, it’s possible to cover up the foibles.  When I know someone is coming to my home, I take time to pick up the toys, to sweep the floor, to clean the bathroom, to tidy up.  So when my visitor arrives, they see a house in order – but it’s not really real.  It’s a façade, a show, a pretending that I have it all together.  By contrast, when you are in a family, you get to see everybody up close, warts and all – and you love them anyway!  That’s what a small group provides – the opportunity to love and be loved, to know and be known, in all of our imperfections.

My small group is about more than the Bible – it’s about a safe place.  Let’s face it.  In some ways, the Bible is a hard book to understand.  It can be confusing.  And it’s easy to say, “I’ll just leave that stuff to the experts, I’ll never be able figure it out.”  By contrast, a small group is a safe place where we are encouraged to interact with the Bible.  But we aren’t left on our own.  By sharing our own experiences of how God impacts our lives with the rest of our group, we find more understanding of the truths of the Bible than we would ever figure out on our own!

My small group is about more than a “study” – it’s a place to experience fellowship.  In a study, many times the material studied will make it into our mind (intellectually), but it never makes it into our heart where it can flow out through our actions.  By contrast, a small group is a place where fellowship happens.  A healthy small group provides opportunities to put your study into practice through service.  It provides opportunities to connect on levels other than simply the intellectual; where social, physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are also met.

Sometimes a small group is called a “home bible study”.  But it’s about so much more than a home bible study – it’s where life happens together.  Regardless of what we call it, a small group is a place where we do life together with people who desire to follow the same path that we are journeying – a path that leads to life in Jesus Christ.

I absolutely LOVE our small group!  It is my favorite time of the week, period.  My small group has been a lifeline for me more than once.  I hope everyone who reads this gets the opportunity to be a part of something like it.  It’s amazing.

Tagged: , , , , 1 Comment

Discipleship

Published in Nate's Blog on April 4, 2010
Discipleship

A portion of my job description as Associate Pastor revolves around Christian Education programming, and by extension, our student ministry at Jenison Christian Church.  Discipleship is a key objective of our student ministry at Jenison Christian Church.  Discipleship is the process, within your community of believers, of becoming more like Jesus than you were the day before.

  • It’s a pursuit, a journey, an adventure.  It’s not the mountaintop experience; it’s the hike on the way to the summit.
  • It never takes place in a vacuum, socially or spiritually, but rather in the interaction between fellow travelers who have the same intended destination.
  • It is the purpose for which Jesus gathered twelve men around him at the beginning of his three-year ministry – so that by spending time with Him, they would take on His attributes, His character qualities, His patterns of thinking, and His relationship with God.

Senior high students watch and discuss The Truth Project on Sunday nights so that they will be encouraged and empowered to think and act like Jesus Christ.  They volunteer for the Haiti Food Pack and the West Michigan Food Bank so that they can become like Jesus in service.  On Wednesday nights, junior high students read and talk through Crazy Love, by Francis Chan, so that they can become more obedient to the commands of Jesus, and thereby grow in faith and love and in looking like Him.  And we intentionally structure specific ministry times so that our students can be exposed to Godly adults and role models who will demonstrate the actions and thoughts and words of Christ in everyday situations.

Often, we think of progressing in the Christian faith as a series of bullet points to be memorized and recited at will.  But discipleship is about growing and changing so much more than the mind.  It’s about changing the body and the spirit and the soul and, yes, the mind too.  It’s about changing the inner core – the secret heart, the very being of an individual – into something that is more like Jesus than it was the day before.  What an incredible adventure we are on as we seek to help people become passionate followers of Jesus Christ!  Thank you for serving with us!

Tagged: , , , , , 2 Comments

Your view of “labor”

Published in Nate's Blog on March 15, 2010
Your view of “labor”

What’s your view of “labor”?

In the video series we watched last night (the Truth Project), Dr. Del Tackett made several statements about labor and working that made me raise my eyebrows.  He might be right (he’s obviously a lot more intelligent than I), but on the other hand maybe he’s wrong.  At the very least, I didn’t like what he did hermeneutically with a couple of scripture passages…

He purports that God has ordained the following economic system:  a three part system including God, Stewards, and Stuff, in which God owns all the “stuff”, God designates stewards to be accountable for the “stuff, and the stewards steward the “stuff.   He then purports a lesser/lower version of the same system (a three part system including owners, workers, and stuff – Owners own the stuff, owners designate employees to be accountable for the stuff, and the employees steward the stuff, while owners are responsible for the well-being of their employees)

Something strikes me as wrong, even though when I look at the diagrams he drew, it seems hard to argue with it.

Perhaps more than anything, it felt like Dr. Tackett was suggesting that God has ordained a system of capitalism, even though the word “capitalism” never appeared as far as I remember in the 60 minute presentation.

I don’t have any problems with capitalism.  I’m not a socialist, I’m not a communist, I’m not a liberal politically-speaking;  I’m fiscally and socially conservative, and I have been and remain a capitalist.

But I’m not sure that God is as concerned about a country’s economic system as some on the Christian right want Him to be, Dr. Tackett’s arguments notwithstanding.

Granted, there are plenty of hints in the Scripture that point toward working hard, investing well, and doing long-term financial planning.  But there are plenty of hints in the Scripture that point toward sharing, giving generously without expectation of repayment or reward, and living communally.

I am loathe to endorse the idea that God prefers capitalism over socialism or communism.

In fact, I could probably make the argument that more people become followers of Christ living in a communistic system than in a capitalistic system, as miserable as a communistic system is.  Actually, they probably become followers of Christ in large part BECAUSE they live in the misery of a communistic system.  And isn’t becoming a follower of Christ more important in the long-term than what economic system people live in?

Scripturally, I didn’t like what he did with:

1.  Ephesians 6:5-8 – he took Paul’s commands to masters and slaves and applied them to the owner/worker relationship.  I’d have to study the passage, but it certainly feels like a stretch.  On the face of it, I’d rather default to a position that Eph. 6:5-8 is a passage that is no longer culturally relevant.

2.  Leviticus 23:22 (leaving the gleanings in the field for the poor) – he asserted that a) the poor need work, not a handout, and b) it is the duty of owners/employers to provide work opportunities for them.  Essentially, he argued that those who own businesses are obligated to provide opportunities for those who are unemployed and/or poor.

Ok, again, this might be right.  I don’t know.  But this is where the capitalistic side of me rears up and says that Americans live in a system in which virtually anyone who desires to succeed and to provide for themselves and their family can do so (excluding the physically disabled and the mentally disturbed).  I have extremely mixed feelings on the (b) idea above.

Anyway….

Here’s a recent article about Glenn Beck’s recent comments on economic and social systems.  I’m not a Glenn Beck fan, but I’m not his biggest detractor either.  Mostly I just thought it was interesting that his brou-ha-ha came up at the same time that we watched this edition of the Truth Project…  Check out the article here.

What’s your view on labor?

Tagged: , , , , 5 Comments

Whose worldview?

Published in Nate's Blog on September 28, 2009
Whose worldview?

We’re working through a curriculum called The Truth Project with our senior high kids this year.  Del Tackett is the virtual facilitator and our own Dave and Amy Barber are our on-site coordinators – they’re doing a great job.

Last night’s session discussed, among other things, two worldviews.  (A “worldview” is simply a way of describing how a person looks at life as they know it, and the parameters by which that person tries to make sense of reality.)

A materialistic worldview sees the universe as a box, and inside the box are three things: matter, energy, and man.  There is nothing outside of the box, and everything in life must be viewed and explained in terms of what is inside the box.  A Christian (or perhaps I should just say “theistic” worldview also sees the universe as a box, with this crucial difference – that there is a God who exists outside of the box, and has chosen to come down into the box at various points in history.  This God is concerned about what happens in the box.

It’s interesting stuff that got me thinking, and as we got into last night’s session dealing with the origin and purpose of philosophy and ethics, a variety of questions came to mind…

~Where do we go to answer the “universal” questions of life?  The answer that most Christians would give (obviously, I think?) is that we seek answers in the Bible.  And yet what interests me about this point is the fact that the Bible was written “in the box” – not outside of the box.  And on top of that, it almost always answers question in terms of particulars – not in terms of universals.  Almost all of the books of the Bible, especially in the New Testament, were addressed to a particular people, in a particular place, at a particular time, and in a particular circumstance!  Dr. Tackett says that we ought to go to God for the answer to these questions – and yet the way God has chosen to speak to us has come THROUGH particular philosophies and particular times and places.

What was the worldview of Jesus?  He grew up in a particular culture, a place, a time, a circumstance.  What impact did his time/place/circumstance have on his worldview?  Would we say he had a Jewish worldview? If so, was that OK?  Or did he need to repent of that worldview in order to grasp a more “godly” worldview?

What was the worldview of a good Jew?  What was the worldview of a true Jew, one who would be saved upon his death?

What was the worldview of a good Gentile proselyte, who would be saved upon his death?

Would Dr. Tackett approve of the modern worldview?  Can the gospel work through the modern worldview?

In referring to post-modernism and its philosophical wake, RC Sproul suggested that this might be the most “anti-intellectual” period in the history of the church.  Really?  REALLY???

Is it possible for the gospel (good news) to work through other worldviews?  Can a Christ-follower also be a Marxist?  Communist?  Socialist? Nazi?  Fascist? Postmodern? Modern?

I’m just asking…….  Discuss.

Tagged: , , , , 2 Comments

Some quotes from NT Wright

Published in Nate's Blog on September 25, 2009
Some quotes from NT Wright

Tuesday I finished reading an interesting paper by Nikolas Thomas Wright entitled “How can the Bible be authoritative?”  It was written originally for a lecture series and presented as a paper for Vox Evangelica in 1991.  Here’s a link to the whole thing.  (It’s about 13,000 words, but it’s worth it.)  And thanks for the FaceBook heads-up, Jas…

I pulled a few of my favorite quotes out of it for your enjoyment…

“It is not enough to translate scripture into timeless truths.”

“This is how the gospels are to become authoritative. They are to become authoritative because, as they tell the story of who Jesus was for Israel in judging and redeeming Israel, so we continue that story—this is the great message of Luke, is it not—in being for the world what Jesus was for Israel. That is how the translation works. And that is why we need narrative, not timeless truth. I’m not a timeless person; I’ve got a story. The world’s not a timeless world; it’s got a story. And I’ve got a responsibility, armed with scripture, to tell the world God’s story, through song and in speech, in drama and in art.”

“We must allow scripture to teach us how to think straight, because by ourselves we don’t; we think bent, we think crooked. “

“The Bible is not an end in itself. It is there so that, by its proper use, the creator may be glorified and the creation may be healed. It is our task to be the people through whom this extraordinary vision comes to pass.”

I remember preaching a sermon maybe 10 years ago that got more funny looks from listeners than any other sermon I ever preached.  The sermon subject was idols – What’s your idol? was the general theme.  We talked about various idols in our lives, and then I remember talking about how we in the evangelical ranks in general, and the Restoration Movement in particular, can so easily tend to fall into some sort of “Scripture-olatry”.  We can begin to worship the Scripture as though it is somehow holy in and of itself.  It’s easy for us who attempt to hold to a high view of Scripture to put too much stock in the actual words themselves.  It was at this point that I began to get the funny looks from the congregation.

[Aaaauuugggghhh, how do I say this right?  The second half of that last paragraph can be so easily misconstrued.  Ummmmm....]

The Bible is God’s word.  It is inspired by Him.  It is breathed by His Spirit.  It is without error in the originals.

But it is God Himself who holds all authority.  It is God Himself to whom belongs the power and the glory.  God does not serve the Scripture; the Scripture is subservient to God.  We live under the Scripture, yes; but only insofar as it illuminates the narrative of God’s ongoing story.  The Scripture does not rule our lives; God rules our lives.

It’s been 10 years, and I still can’t explain it very well without making people think I’m a heretic.  That’s a great commentary on my ability to explicate.  Anyway, I like what NT Wright has to say about it.  Take the time to read that link above if you get the chance.

And as always, I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Tagged: , , , , , , 4 Comments

29 random thoughts on 40 Days of Acts – part 3

Published in Nate's Blog on September 23, 2009
29 random thoughts on 40 Days of Acts – part 3

Our church is doing 40 Days of Purpose, based on the book of Acts.  Our first homework assignment was to read Acts in one sitting.  Here is Part 3 of my random thoughts on Acts.  Part 1 can be found here….  Part 2 can be found here…

21.  Another comical passage in the Scripture – Paul preaches Eutychus to death at midnight; raises him from the dead; and THEN KEEPS PREACHING UNTIL MORNING.  Strange way to practice church growth….

22.  I love this translation from the NIV – 21:5 – “…there on the beach we knelt to pray.”  It rolls off the tongue, it feels poetic.  I just plain like it.

23.   I love the parts of the Bible that throw wrenches into the thinking of all the systematic theologians.  I like to categorize things just as much as the next guy, but so many times it seems to me that when I read the Bible, I’m always attracted to the parts that don’t fit someone’s pre-supposed agenda – ie. the four unmarried/virgin daughters who prophesied (21:9).  I like the parts that don’t fit, that don’t make sense, that don’t work in the theological charts that we create to make sense of it all.  Sometimes it’s ok to leave the mystery in something, ya know what I mean?

24.  And while we’re at it, here’s another story that I’ve never understood – Acts 21:17-26.  Paul joins in the purification rites of four other men (presumably Jews) and goes to the temple to give notice of when his days of purification would end, and as part of this an “offering” would be made for them.  What sort of offering, that is the question…  Here we have the (arguably) most prominent Jewish Christian who continues to participate in some sort of sacrificial offering system, EVEN AFTER THE SACRIFICIAL DEATH OF CHRIST.  Chew on that one…

25.  Don’t you wonder what King Agrippa decided when presented with the gospel (26:28-30)?  I do.  Also, I wonder if Paul “studied his agrippa.”  LOL.  I love that film.

26.  Acts 27:21 – Is there a better “I told you so” in the Bible than this?  LOL.   I think not…

27.  I seem to remember various commentaries and Bible dictionaries referring to the question of whether or not Paul actually appeared before the Roman Emperor as being unanswerable.  I guess I can’t argue with that, as Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome; other books of the Bible don’t give us a whole lot of chronological help on this part of Paul’s life; and extra-biblical sources aren’t much more helpful on this subject either.  What I DO know is that in 27:24, an angel told Paul, “You must stand trial before Caesar.”  Period.

28.  There’s very few things in the world like arriving at your destination and meeting old friends there who have traveled a long way to get there, and even more – who you had not expected to see.  It’s just pure joy.  (Acts 28:15)  I remember my dad and mom driving several hours to watch me play a basketball game in college – I didn’t know they were coming.  It was AWESOME.

29.  OK, here’s one of the oddest ways to end a book that I could ever have imagined.  Acts 28:26-27, where Paul quotes Isaiah 6.  A book that started with an incredible bang, with miracles, signs, wonders, Holy Spirit sightings, power, conversions, and great numbers – and it ends with a nasty quote aimed at the original people of God, the Israelites – “be ever hearing but never understanding; ever seeing but never perceiving”.

Tagged: , , 2 Comments

Random thoughts on Acts, part 2

Published in Nate's Blog on September 22, 2009
Random thoughts on Acts, part 2

Our church is doing 40 Days of Purpose, based on the book of Acts.  Our first homework assignment was to read Acts in one sitting.  Here are some of my random thoughts on Acts.  (Part 1 can be found here…)

11.  Is Cornelius a Greek version of Mary?  10:30 ff. reminds me of the angel appearing to Mary to announce the conception of Jesus – except here the angel announces the impending birth of the Holy Spirit inside the lives of you and I who are, like Cornelius, Gentiles.

12.  Acts 11:12 – the Holy Spirit tells Peter to totally ignore the Old Testament Law.  How bizarre this must have been for Peter.  What if the Holy Spirit prompted one of us to totally ignore the New Testament covenant?  I’m just asking……….

13.  Why did God allow James to be killed, but allow Peter to live — all within the space of chapter 12?

14.  Acts 12:15 – The Jewish believers in Jerusalem are the mirror opposite of the Gentile Cornelius.   Cornelius prayed for guidance, lived out God’s promise, and acted in faith by calling his family together ahead of time to meet Peter.  The Jewish believers were all gathered together to pray for Peter’s release from prison, and then when he was released (miraculously), they were surprised and thought it was his angel at the door!  Good grief…..

15.  Acts 13:38-39 would be an awesome sermon.

16.  Somehow Paul could “see” that a person had the faith to be healed. (14:9)  What the HECK?

17.  Acts 15:40 says that after Paul and Barnabas split up over John Mark, Paul and Silas were “commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord” – but thereby seems to imply that Barnabas, who takes John Mark with him to Cyprus, was NOT commended.  Hmmmmmmmmmm……

18.  Maybe the answer to this is WAAAAAAY simpler than I always suspected – but I always wondered why immediately after agreeing on four simple requirements for new Gentile believers in chapter 15, Paul is recorded as insisting that Timothy, a believing Gentile with a Greek father and a Jewish mother, be circumcised?  And this isn’t even taking into account the fact that Paul insisted that another Gentile, Titus, should NOT be circumcised!

Here’s what John Piper says, FWIW….

19.  Here’s a question for you.  Why did Paul wait “many days” to cast the fortune-telling spirit out of the girl who was following them? (16:18)  Why not do it immediately?  Why not do it after a couple days?  What made him wait “many days”?

20.  Here’s one I’ve never noticed before in this story (16:25ff).  Paul and Silas in jail, the earthquake hits, the doors fly open, the jailer is ready to commit suicide, Paul says “Don’t do it!”, the jailer washes their wounds, God washes his spiritual wounds (how do you like that :-) ), they have a meal at the jailer’s house – but HERE’S the thing.  They’re still prisoners!  He’s feeding a meal to PRISONERS at his house.  And not only that, but this is even weirder – (Is that a word?) – the jail officials KNOW that the prisoners have gone to the jailer’s house, and orders him to release them quietly.  OK, this is just odd.

Tagged: , , 2 Comments

Random thoughts on Acts, part 1

Published in Nate's Blog on September 21, 2009
Random thoughts on Acts, part 1

Our church is doing 40 Days of Purpose, based on the book of Acts.  Our first homework assignment was to read Acts in one sitting.  Here are some of my random thoughts on Acts.  Parts 2 and 3 to follow later this week…

1.  The downward progression (digression? regression?) of miraculous, visible, supernatural action on the part of God and His Holy Spirit in the book of Acts is stunning.  The beginning of Acts is “blow your socks off” amazing in its wealth of miracles, signs, and wonders.  By my count, there are at least 12 references to God’s supernatural work just in the first 6 chapters of Acts!  But just as stunning is the last 12 chapters, which include only 6 references to the supernatural – Paul’s work in Corinth referenced in ch. 19, Eutychus’ restoration to life in ch. 20, the prophecy of Agabus in ch. 21, Paul’s vision in ch. 27, the viper episode and healing of Publius’ father in ch. 28.

I ask myself, “why?”

Is it nothing more than a simple observation that the beginning of a life, an organism, an organization, a church, is quite often the most vibrant and growing period of that life/organism/organization/church?  I wonder….

2.  What is the meaning of the second half of 5:20 – “Tell the people the full message of this new life”.

3.  Why is it ok for Peter to commit civil disobedience (5:29), yet Paul commands civil obedience to the authorities (Romans 13)?

4.  The supernatural goings-on in the first 5 chapters of Acts are fantastic – but it’s not until 5:41, when the apostles were all flogged and released, that they are recorded as “rejoicing.”  It’s not the miracles, the healings, the giving of the Spirit that causes them to rejoice – it’s getting beat up!

5.  Stephen was one of those chosen to minister food to the widows – but the only thing he’s recorded as doing is wonders, signs, debating, gospel preaching, and getting killed.

6.  One of my absolute favorite Bible phrases of all time – “YOU STIFF-NECKED PEOPLE, WITH UNCIRCUMCISED HEARTS AND EARS!  YOU ARE JUST LIKE YOUR FATHERS: YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT!” (Acts 7:51)  That’ll preach….

7.  Stephen, Peter, and John all accuse the Sanhedrin of killing Jesus – but only Stephen is put to death.  What the heck?  Or to put it another way – Why did God allow Stephen to be martyred, but allow Peter and John to live – in spite of the fact that they both did basically the same thing?

8.  What is it that kept the apostles from scattering in 8:1, when every other Christian was scattered to the four winds?

9.  Simon “believed and was baptized” (8:13) – and yet his heart was still “full of bitterness and captive to sin.” (8:21)  What the heck?  And don’t give me the line that “he didn’t truly believe” at first.  That’s hogwash.  It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion to 8:13 than that Simon believed and was baptized.

10.  “Cornelius was expecting them.” (10:24)  He not only prayed for guidance from God, but then lived out God’s promise to him in the vision.  And acted on it by calling his family together even before Peter arrived at his house!

Tagged: , , 3 Comments

Random Thoughts on Chronicles

Published in Nate's Blog on September 11, 2009
Random Thoughts on Chronicles

1.  What do the following men have in common -  Jashobeam, Eleazar, Abishai, Benaiah, Uriah?

…thinking….

…thinking….

…thinking….

…thinking….

They are all included in the list of King David’s mighty men in I Chronicles 11.  Wouldn’t you have liked to be one of David’s mighty men?  (That is, assuming you are indeed a man.  Bek and Tab, you are not eligible to apply.)  This list is awesome, and makes me wonder, “why don’t more Christian people name their sons after someone in this list?”  I am going to broach this to my wife and lobby hard to have a son (if we are so fortunate in the next year or two) that we will name Benaiah, or Azmaveth, or Sibbecai.

2.  How many of you knew that Uriah the Hittite, he of David and Bathsheba fame, was one of those mighty men?  Maybe we could name our son Uriah, and then when he nails a 3 pointer in someone’s face in 7th grade hoops, he could say, “in your eye-uh”!  Kudos to Jim Borton for this pun that I remember him making nearly 20 years ago…

3.  The mighty Gadite warriors in chapter 12 had “the faces of lions” and they were “as swift as gazelles in the mountains”.

4.  David had at least 20 named children (19 sons and 1 daughter).   My speculation is that it’s likely that David had more than 100 children.  Consider – Aside from Bathsheba, most of his wives are recorded as bearing him only one son.  It’s highly likely that they bore him multiple children, including sons and daughters.  Also, none of his concubines are named, and none of the children of his concubines are named.  He may have had as many as 20 concubines or more!  Do the math.  Yikes!  Don’t complain about the chaos at your house if you have children!

5.  Kenaniah was appointed to be in charge of the singing because “he was skillful at it.”

6.  As Steve pointed out in his message last Sunday (or the Sunday before?) – David begged God to allow him to build a house (temple) for God, but God insisted instead on building a house for David; an everlasting house and a throne that would be established forever.  And we are the beneficiaries of that house, in the person of Jesus Christ, the son of David.

Tagged: 3 Comments

II Kings 14:3

Published in Nate's Blog on June 9, 2009
II Kings 14:3

I finished reading the books of Kings about a month ago and meant to write this post several weeks ago, but it’s been a little hectic.  We bought a house on April 30 and it has been an exciting ride since then!  We’ve done a ton of cleanup and unpacking, minor repairs, landscape touch-up, and decoration planning.  Jenny will be doing the wallpaper teardown and re-painting in the next month or so (we hope) and at that point the house will be pretty much totally presentable!

But I digress….

Kings is an interesting book that tells the history of Israel and Judah through the lens of the various kings of the two countries.  Kings uses a basic formula for describing the reign of each king.  It begins with a chronological note specifying who was king in the other nation (either Israel or Judah) and what year of their reign the opposite king was in when the king in question began his reign.  It continues with the name of the king and their lineage – specifically their father.  Then it typically tells how many years they reigned.  Quite often the writer then gives a summary statement of each king in terms of their relationship to God before going into a kind of summary of the king’s reign, noting highlights and/or lowlights of their kingship, and closes with a summary statement of both his death and the name of the king who followed him in succession.

So a typical intro section on a king might look like this…

“In the 5th year of the reign of Nat-Han, king of Granrapid, Ben-Hamin son of Johan, king of Clin-ton began to reign.  He was 31 when he became king, and he reigned in Clin-ton for 2 years.  Ben-Hamin did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Johan had done….”

I was struck in particular by the the descriptions of each king’s relationship to God.  The description is frequently black and white – either the king “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord (Asa, Joash, Jehoshaphat, etc.) or the king “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoahaz, etc.) Quite often there is a qualificative (my blog software, WordPress, suggests that “qualificative” is not a word but I don’t care, I think it is…) or a comparative statement – ie. “Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done”  (I Kings 15:11).  Or in the negative sense – “Baasha did evil in the eyes of the LORD, walking in the ways of Jereoboam and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit” (I Kings 15:34).

It is the qualifier that makes II Kings 14:3 so very fascinating.  Speaking of Amaziah, king of Judah, the writer says that “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done” (italics mine).  When I came across this statement, I had two simultaneous thoughts….

1.  What a bizarre sort of description for Amaziah.  How unfair the writer is to him!  It makes the official in me want to blow the whistle and call “foul!”  How would you like for your summary life statement to include a comparison to one of the greatest kings of Israel?  It’s just not right!  It’s not fair.

2.  What kind of man must David have been?   He must have been something very, very special.  There was something otherworldly about his life that made him stick out both to Israel and to the Lord.  There was something about the quality of his life or his love or his devotion or his character or his passion or maybe all of the above that separated him from everyone else.  And I suppose it probably still does separate us from him.  What quality of being, of existence, or perhaps of obedience is it that made David so unique?  Why aren’t there more men like him?

And a third thought comes to mind in closing – what will the summary statement of YOUR life look like?

Tagged: , , No Comments