BUT ITS MY PARTY

At the turn-of-the-century (August 1999) I had a birthday party at my house with my family and some others. During that party my wife and children gave me a djambe which is a type of drum. They all started to sing and I played along with them with my drum. After the first song one of the women there asked if I could play any softer, so I just put my drum aside. Her husband was obviously upset and remained upset the rest of the evening. The others played and sang at my birthday party but I was not welcome to play my drum in my own house.

This helps you to thin out your guest list for future events.

DOES IT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS

I went to a men’s Bible study at a church I once attended where the pastor trotted out his “the primary purpose of the Old Testament is to show Jesus Christ” routine.  I don’t dispute it is A purpose of the Old Testament but I wonder about being the PRIMARY purpose.  It makes it seem that anything else we get out of reading the Old Testament is of lesser value - - value that is inferior.  Therefore any other application we can draw, since it is inferior, can be lightly esteemed or even discarded.  According to this man such applications are more or less worthless.

Why then should we have an Old Testament study if the only answer of worth must be “How does this demonstrate Christ?”

What do I do with a scripture that says, “All Scripture is given for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”?

So, now that I know (according to this pastor) that the Bible is only about Christ, what good is the rest of it?  All I really have to do is see how it relates to Christ, then close the book and forget about the rest since it is minor anyway.  Once I know the one important fact - - that the writing is somehow showing me about Christ - - what else do I need to know?

If I want to find out about homosexuality I should read contemporary books about homosexuality.  The Bible may define the homosexual act as wrong but, so what, since that is not the main intent of the Scriptures, which is to reveal Christ, not necessarily to teach us what is right and what is wrong.

It it permissible for me to ask of the Bible, “does it mean what it says”?

Here are three statements encountered from that particular Pastor:

Statement 1. “Because the culture today is different from the culture of Biblical times we can think of things differently than what the Scriptures say.”

This depends upon what the overarching intent of the Scripture is.  Although some things are definitely different between past and present cultures, other things are comparable.  The role of family, for example, existed and was important in the past as it is today.  While I may not tend sheep as many in ancient Biblical lands did, I can learn from the role of the shepherd basic, important character traits like faithfulness, watchfulness and diligence.  A problem arises when we try to relieve ourselves from the types of personal and social responsibility that is called for in the Scriptures:  for example a life-long marriage to one person.  Because in this present day culture it is easy and acceptable to get divorced does not mean it is an option to choose because it is convenient.  Because today’s society embraces sexual intercourse between people of the same sex does not relieve us from the prohibition of that activity as expressed in the Bible.

Statement 2. “The primary purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal Christ and other revelations are of lesser importance.”

Of course the revelation of Christ is important - - crucial - - to the eternal life of any person, but to say other lessons that could be learned from the Scriptures are of “lesser” importance seems to be a semantical trick.  We know that knowing Christ is vital, yet we still need to know other things like:  we should not kill, we should not steal, we should not commit adultery, etc.  Clearly we must first breathe to stay alive after which we need to do other things like drink water and eat food.  I can not (or at least I should not) pick up The Book, learn about Christ, and then toss it aside as if it’s all I really need.  There is so much more of inestimable value to be found, if we will but pay attention.

Statement 3. “The context of certain Scriptures eliminate the reader from taking the plain meaning of the text as for himself.”

Without an example of a specific scripture this statement makes no sense.  It seems to me you have to first know the plain text meaning of the words you read.  Then you compare what knowledge you have of the context to the meaning of the text.  From the comparison of the text and context you arrive at a conclusion about the intention of what was written.  Whatever conclusion the reader arrives at has meaning for the reader.  What I think this pastor was really wanting to say is that he only is capable of interpreting the meaning.   The average parishioner must look to him, the seminary graduate, for the correct interpretation.  He once said, "The Holy Spirit teaches your pastor, and your pastor teaches you."  The Pharisees said that too.

SENSES

The Scripture speaks of the “Lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.”  I notice there is no mention of the “Lust of the ear” or the “Lust of the nose.”  Is this because there is some special property of vision?  Is there some way that this particular sense has more power to be damaging? Is it wired more directly into emotions and passions not being filtered first through the thinking mind?

A nude body is of the eye, but music is of the ear.  You can sexually arouse yourself by seeing images of nudes.  You can even imagine morally damaging visual scenes.  But can not sexually arouse yourself through music absent any visual image.  Today’s options include music videos.  If you heard the music without ever seeing the video could you get the same impressions (thoughts, emotions and feelings) as you could be seeing the video?

You can get impressions through the lyrics of music.  The lyrics can carry sexual messages.  Lyrics can be carried and reinforced by music, but the music does not carry the message.  Music without lyrics can  not carry the visual image.  The song “The Stripper” by itself will not convey the image of a stripper, the listener has to have, if fact, seen a stripper’s performance.  The imagery of the stripper, once seen, can be overlaid on the music in the listener’s mind.

Can the music alone give all people the same visual impression?  I’ll bet not.  I’ll bet ten different people could get ten different visual impressions from a piece of music – even one with lyrics, but if all ten saw a video with the music they would all get the same impression - - that of the videographer, not necessarily of the one who composed the music or wrote the lyrics.

The song, “the Song Remembers When” talks of a song being able to evoke a strong memories of a past event.  But it was an event that had a host of other senses tagged to it - - not the least of which is what was seen when the event occurred.  These are the events inside the head of the listener, not of the song writer. The lyricist has his memories, visual or otherwise, and the listener has his; they are not the same.

CHOICES THAT SEEM PREDESTINED

I don’t hold with the theological doctrine of Predestination.  But there is a reason to find value in the theory of the “Predestination” position - - not as the sole position, but as a balance for the “Free will” or “Decisional” position.

Joseph said to his brothers, “You decided to do evil to me, but God used it for good.”  God had determined that Abraham’s seed would go into Egypt and grow there.  Joseph’s brothers on their own volition decided first to murder Joseph, but then to sell him into slavery.  Although their free choice was for evil, by God’s sovereignty the results of it turned out for good:  God’s good, Joseph’s good, the brothers’ good, Israel’s good, and even our good.

To say God made Joseph’s brothers decide to do murder is to say that he made his creatures do something which is against the nature of God himself.  They must have chosen to do the evil.  God, being good by definition, converted the evil into good.  But God, being in existence at all times (past, present and future), knew before the bad happened that it was going to happen.  He did not preclude the brothers’ bad decision.

We should not be afraid to make choices, or be made to think that our choices have no real meaning or effect because some others are fully persuaded about predestination.  “If God has predetermined things what choice do we have, is there really any choice at all, why bother?”  Because, as Joseph’s brothers did, we have options before us that we can choose.  But we should also know that God has all firmly in his control and in the end his will will work for the good.  And if God has all in control, we can see he will be more than willing to give us the power to accomplish his will.  And if we fail to accomplish his will God will make it come out his way anyway in spite of the mess we make.

If Joseph’s brothers can choose evil, then so can we.  But, as an extension to this, we can also choose good.

At some time we are going to be in a place where we will have to choose - - we will not have the luxury of passing the choice by.

EMOTION CHANGES DNA

I Read an article that said emotions from negative social activity, like being rejected or ignored, actually changes our DNA.  They cause emotional or psychological results that can eventually express as physical results.  I quote a portion of this article:  “Within 40 minutes, they and other researchers have found, these experiences affect the expression of individual genes, determining which parts of our DNA are turned on or off . . . they have found, [these experiences] can change how DNA behaves.”

So we are to believe that emotion changes DNA.  I have been taught that DNA is a chemical structure within a cell.  It is supposed to resemble a helix, a double coil, having rungs like a ladder.  The "rungs" of the ladder are our genes.  The article states our emotions are supposed to change these genes.

I suppose if someone, who I thought liked me now says he hates me, has made my genes change.  How could you know my genes have changed?  How can this be proved? Will a piece of skin be taken from me, frozen, sliced up, dyed and microscopically analyzed to show the changes?  This presupposes a skin sample was taken before the "rejection" so it could be compared to the one taken after the "rejection" that the differences could be observed.  Do I need to take a blood test, will that work? 

Remember, this all takes place within 40 minutes so we can not allow for the possibility that the emotional trauma may have physical manifestations resulting in lack of care for physical maintenance or safety.  Even if we allowed 40 hours could not eating or lack of sleep (resulting from the despondency) change my genes?

This seems absurd to me.  I doubt if sad (or angry, or happy) emotions can express directly as physical gene changes.  I don't believe it has any bearing in truth.  This statement seems to be a contrivance to have something exciting and provocative  to write about

Maybe time and physical / psychological experiments will prove me wrong, but until then I'll file this away in the "Wacco" bin.

WHAT A FAST IS, IS NOT

ACCORDING TO ISIAH 58
According to Isaiah 58 this is what a fast in not:
- - Finding pleasure (we do it to get something that will give us pleasure)
- - Exacting our our labors ( we require God to pay something back for our inconvenience)
- - For strife and debate (we are at odds with someone and want God to take our side against them)
- - Smite with the fist of wickedness (we want harm to come to someone else)
- - Make our voice to be heard on high (we want our will to prevail in the courts of heaven)
- - To afflict our soul (a time to make ourselves uncomfortable, perhaps thinking we deserve it)
- - Bow down the head as a bulrush (it is not good for us to be happy, we must be sad to please God)
- - Spread sackcloth and ashes under us (make a public demonstration of our discomfort)

What a fast is:
- - Loose the bands of wickedness (from ourselves, from other people)
- - Undo the heavy burdens (things that are too difficult for us or others to bear)
- - Let the oppressed go free (we help the oppressed gain freedom, or release ourselves from oppression)
- - Break every yoke (the things that are controlling us or others, the things for which we need to give up control)
- - Deal your bread to the hungry (do with a little less in order to feed some hungry)
- - Bring the cast out poor into your house (give up space, privacy)
- - Cover the naked (do with less clothing so that others can have at least some clothes)
- - Not hide yourself from your own flesh (endure some inconvenience for the aid of your relatives)
- - The yoke (do away with the unhealthy associations where others are bad for you and where you are bad for others)
- - Putting forth the finger (Stop looking at others for blame and ignoring your own, sidestepping responsibility)
- - Speaking vanity (Stop talking so much about things that have no lasting eternal value)
- - Draw out your soul to the hungry (seek for a few opportunities to feed the poor)
- - Satisfy the afflicted soul (rather than than thrusting the non-repentant aside provide spiritual aid for them)

BE NOT SILENT

There is the old saying:  "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree -- the harder you beat them, the better they be.”

My Wife has written a book, Submission Is Not Silence.  I think some people react to the title itself without knowing its content.  Some have said things like “submission is good”, “submission is commanded by the Bible”, “wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord”  When they stop there, never expanding on what they mean, it becomes obvious they have either have not read, or have not fully read my Wife's book.  She never says submission is bad.  She says some forms of submission as administered by some authorities or some men is oppressive, and that it is not good to be silent about it.

She says it is not good to be silent about or to endure truly oppressive submission.  For example it is not good for a woman to submit to being beaten by a man.  She should speak and tell him it is wrong to beat her when reasoning could accomplish what he wants.  If that did not work she should report him to the authorities.  In this country the authorities view wife-beating as a crime, and it is.

It is obvious certain submission is good, and we all submit much of the time.  We all stop for traffic lights.  We drive (in the USA) on the right side of the road.  We don’t speak in church when the pastor is speaking.  We don’t beat up people because they disagree with us or annoy us. 

Some have said "Submission is in the Bible” inferring anything objecting to absolute submission is to speak against the Bible.  When submission is oppressive and harmful it needs to be opposed.  That’s what World War II was about.  Even God does not force absolute submission; we are all free to say, “There is no God”.  A woman should not remain silent if she has an idea that may be better, and she certainly should not remain silent if she is being abused.  Hence the title of my wife’s book:   Submission Is Not Silence.  If some had read beyond the title page they would have realized that.

The saying may be cute, and it may roll off the tongue, but it’s not true that, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree -- the harder you beat them, the better they be.”

SEVEN TIMES AROUND

On Memorial Day in 1998 I was trying to replace the rack-and-pinion of an old Oldsmobile.  It was a very frustrating job with many time stoppers, the culmination of which was trying to get the clamp from the steering wheel apparatus back onto the shaft of the rack-and-pinion assembly.  Working until 10 pm that night I remembered all the old Navy language.  During my sleep (which was uncomfortable because of a sore bruised back from laying on the concrete) I had a dream.  In it I saw the clamp slipping easily onto the shaft and two holes matching up.

When I continued the job two days later I started by walking around the car seven times praying.  After a little fiddling I noticed a notch on the side of the shaft which looked as if it was supposed to accommodate the pinch bolt.  I rotated the steering wheel to match this notch and the clamp “fell” onto the shaft just like in the dream.

I think God was speaking to me about this.  I Think he gave me the dream to encourage me and to show me the nature of how the two parts would come together.

When I walked around the car seven times, like Joshua marched around Jericho, I felt silly and I wondered if it was doing any good.  Maybe those marching around Jericho also felt silly and wondered if it was doing any good - - yet the walls fell down, and the clamp fell onto the shaft.

The Bible software I use shows me the phrase “seven times” occurs 33 times:  Gen_33:3, Lev_4:6, Lev_4:17, Lev_8:11, Lev_14:7, Lev_14:16, Lev_14:27, Lev_14:51, Lev_16:14, Lev_16:19, Lev_25:8, Lev_26:18, Lev_26:21, Lev_26:24, Lev_26:28, Num_19:4, Jos_6:4, Jos_6:15, 1Ki_18:43, 2Ki_4:35, 2Ki_5:10, 2Ki_5:14, Psa_12:6, Psa_119:164, Pro_24:16, Dan_3:19, Dan_4:16, Dan_4:23, Dan_4:25, Dan_4:32, Mat_18:21, Mat_18:22, Luk_17:4.

FROM PROMISE TO LAND

Psalm 105 speaks of remembering and rejoicing in what the Lord has done.  It speaks of the progress of the Children of Israel from Abraham’s time to the promised land.  He gave the promise to Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  He preserved Israel in the places where they were and in the places where they were to come.  He sent Joseph before them to prepare a place in Egypt.  He brought them to Egypt and developed them into a great number.  He delivered them from slavery.  He brought them to the promised land. 

Promise, Start, Develop, Transition, Delivery

For Israel these elements applied to:
- - The initial stage (the giving of a promise, beginning of a concept)
- - Start of an undertaking (the founding patriarchs)
- - Development of the undertaking (growth in Egypt)
- - Moving of the undertaking toward its purpose (delivery from slavery)
- - Formalizing and establishing the purpose  (bring into the promised land)

Can we look at broad pictures like this and see comparisons in our own lives and families?

- - The initial stage
- - Start of an undertaking
- - Development of the undertaking
- - Moving of the undertaking toward its purpose
- - Formalizing and establishing the purpose

STANDING AGAINST SCORNING

According to Proverbs 21:11:  “When the scorner is punished the simple is made wise:  and when the wise is instructed he receiveth knowledge.”   A scorner is someone who unjustly speaks words of disgust against someone or something else.  He disapproves.  He belittles.  This is not a healthy situation and it is a good thing to correct it.  The scorner needs to be publicly told his words are damaging and are not helpful.  Apparently when this reproof happens the simple person now perceives the scorning for what it is.  When they make this perception - - that scorning is a damaging activity - - they become wiser than they were.  Once someone becomes wise they can increase in knowledge.

Several things happen when you publicly stand against scorning:  a scorning is stopped, exposed for what it is, and people are instructed toward wisdom.  The scorner is also spotlighted for what he is.

WRITE IT DOWN

Sometimes I think what I write is not worth writing if it is not related to Scripture or somehow addressing my relationship with God.  I am tempted to think that I should not write it. 

Yet my innermost thoughts are open to God and he knows most of them are neither related to Scripture nor to Him.  If my innermost thoughts are open to him then whatever I write is even more open because it is recorded, it takes a solid form - - writing does not vanish like thoughts do.  Whatever I am should be as open to me as it is to God.  In other words, I should be able to remind myself of the ground I have covered.  That written thought might serve as a sort of marker or mile post from which I can determine a correction (or confirmation) of the direction my life is taking.  It won’t do to restrain myself if the restraining holds back my development. 

The writing time would be a problem if it encouraged a direction away from God.  But, even then, having it on paper might make the mistake so obvious that it identifies it as something that should be avoided. 

When I re-read these things later I find important markers that help to direct (or redirect) myself.

OLD PRINCIPLES STILL APPLY

When we have a difficulty or question about Scripture what should we do?  We can ask:  what does the Scripture tell us to do (think, act, etc.), what do we want to do (think, act, etc.), and how are the two different?  Then we can ask:  is there an honest way to resolve the differences?  If there is no honest resolution, what are we gong to change; our ways, or the meaning of the Scripture?  This sort of question can come about when we notice the differences between the culture of Biblical times and our present time.

It is not that we should ignore the cultural setting in which God sets forth his principles, but if God has set forth a principle in one culture, and the principle was true (by definition God’s principles are always true) then it will be true in any other culture or time.  The application of the principle may take different forms between cultures.

We cannot change the principle.  If we do we are saying God wrote an irrelevant book:  we are saying sections of it have gone out of date and have lost their meaning.  Therefore we are effectively saying we can determine on our own, and without God’s input, what is the best way for us to act.  If we throw out part of God’s word, what other parts can we throw out?  Which of God’s principles can we selectively disregard?

We do not throw out any part of Scripture.  We ask God for wisdom to know how his principles apply in our times.

POSITIONING

God has provided a certain position for each of us.  It’s as true for us as it is for the big shots.  In 2 Tim 1 we see this example in Paul the apostle’s case.  His positioning came from God through his family, they served God “. . . from [his] forefathers . . .”  His father served God, his Grandfather served God, his nation served God.  Paul grew up in a family that served God. (v3)  Timothy also had a line of faith starting with his Grandmother Lois. (v5)  While many of us do not have this long family tradition, God still cares for us and gives us a position too.

God has a plan for us, a calling which is not according to our works, but according to his own purpose.  God had this plan in place before we ever started to plan our own lives.  It was in place “. . . before the world began. . . .”  Paul was called to be a preacher, apostle, and teacher of the gentiles. (v11)  Timothy had “. . . that good thing . . .” (v13)  God has given you “a good thing” too.

Do we make plans for ourselves which may not be in accordance with God’s plan?  David  tried, he wanted to build the Temple but God wanted his son, Solomon, to build it instead.  What was God’s reason?  As we see in 1Ch_28:3,  "But God said unto me [David], Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood."  Would David pay too much attention to the construction of the building and not to the construction of the nation?  We don’t know.  We know it was not in God’s plan for David.

Some of where we are in life is a result of God’s plan.  The more we have been trying to be sensitive toward God, the more likely we have not disturbed the positioning God has made for us.  Our positioning is close to where it should be.  The more self centered and worldly we have been the more likely we have made the position less effective.

How do we know what God’s plan is for us personally?  By:
- Word of God
- Prayer
- Circumstances
- Other people
- Observation
- Opportunities

SELF-FULFILLING INTRODUCTIONS

I have heard phrases used, particularly contained in PBS programs such as “Nova” or “Front Line”, which I call “self-fulfilling introductions”.  These statements are intended to give an air of established truth to the content that follows them.  The introductory phrases appear to give authority to what comes next, as if to say, “let there be no question about this”.  They provide appearance of a reliable source, albeit an unnamed and unexplained source.  Here are some examples:

 - Research has shown . . .
 - Extraordinary new light indicates . . .
 - Science now knows . . .
 - New evidence has shown . . .
 - There is a new revelation that . . .
 - We now know . . .

One reason for using these phrases may be that the explanation about the nature of the source would be too lengthy to explain in a limited time and would distract from the subject to be presented.  However, there may be other reasons for the self-fulfilling introduction:

- What is to come is really based on theory, not fact.
- The source information does not clearly relate to the presented subject.
- The name of the source might be embarrassing or hard to justify.
- There is really no thorough knowledge about the subject.
- The presentation to follow is intended to argue or favor only one side of an issue that has opposing views.  Example:  Evolution vs. Creation.

Most of the time I like these shows.  If I didn’t like them, I would not watch them.  I do find, however, the pervasive use of the concept of evolution-as-fact annoying.  We must always be careful of what we take for truth and be aware of where it is coming from.  I suggest we modify such self-fulfilling phrases to:


 - Research suggests . . .
 - Extraordinary new light may indicate . . .
 - Science now seems to support . . .
 - New evidence may show . . .
 - There is a new revelation proposing that . . .
 - Some now think . . .

SETTING THE RIGHT COURSE

Consider  2 Tim 3.  These verses written in Scripture centuries ago speak in the current day of some people who are wicked and also are in the church.  It seems to me the list found in these verses can apply equally to the lofty legalist as to the flamboyant charismatic.  It's easy to see the aberrance of some charismatics because they are in the open.  Less apparent are those who have the “form of godliness but deny the power thereof”.  They look good but they aren't good.

When we recognize them we avoid them by our:

- continuing in things learned and assured (proved) (v14)
- learning things having come from good sources (v14)
- life long learning from the Scriptures (v15)

The Scriptures are good for:

- Doctrine  - The teaching of and systematic way of thinking
- Reproof - “You are wrong, stop!  Repent!”
- Correction - “You are going off course.  This is what you must do to correct.”
- Instruction in righteousness – Showing what are the right actions and thoughts

The progression should be as follows:

- First we must know the basic truth – doctrine
- We must stop the wrong activity – reproof
- We must show the way to correct the activity – correction
- We must show the right way to do things – instruction

Here is the Instruction:  2Timothy 3:1 to 7:

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away . . .”

IT’S THE MIDDLEMAN’S JOB

Exo 20:19  “And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

The people were distancing themselves from God.

1Sam 8:10-11, 18-20:  “And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a KING.  And he said, This will be the manner of the KING that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.  And ye shall cry out in that day because of your KING which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.  Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a KING over us;  That we also may be like all the nations; and that our KING may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”  (emphasis added)

When people sought for a king God was displeased with them  They wanted someone to take responsibility of doing the work of governing.  They did not want the responsibility themselves and they apparently did not want to be responsible directly to God.  The government (king) would be the middleman between them and God.  They were distancing themselves from direct relationship with God They wanted to point to the government for the common provision and the common security, they themselves did not want to bother with it.  If there was lawlessness it would be the king’s fault, if there was general immorality it would be the king’s fault.  The king would pay for their health care and for their education.  The king would be responsible for their mental health after earthquakes.

This is a common mark of irresponsibility:  “Let the government do this or that for me . . .”   Or, “It’s not my fault, it’s the government’s fault.”

But people do not want God, they want a king.  “We will not have this man to rule over us . . .” was a cry for distance from their best source of wisdom and strength.

However, God wants each individual within himself to know and obey his law (that is Gods law).  Every man is to know what God’s law is and every man should keep God’s law.  We should do our diligence to hear directly from God.   We can not distance ourselves from responsibility by setting up middlemen.

WHEN IT COMES TO DOUBT

From the first part of Psalm 11 are questions one would ask about raising doubts in a believer (or perhaps it is a question of doubt the believer himself is asking)  The rest of the psalm answers the question (vs 4-7)

We get doubts about what we commonly fear:
- - You should retreat (v1)
- - The wicked are working (v2)
- - They do it in secret, no one sees (v2)
- - If the foundations are destroyed what can the righteous do? (v3)

The answers . . .
- - Got still reigns in heaven (v4)
- - God sees all (v4)
- - God tries everybody, but he hates the wicked (v5)
- - God will punish the wicked (v6)
- - God sees the upright.

GOOD WELLS AND BAD WELLS

From Proverbs 10:32:  “The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.”  The righteous shows kind consideration when he speaks.  He knows what is acceptable because he has studied the other person and knows something of their state.  He knows how different words would affect him.

The wicked also knows of the other but speaks away from the appropriate answer (froward means away from).  So the wicked shows hurtful consideration, the desire to oppose.

Verse 11:  “The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life, but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked”  A well has an opening from which something must be drawn out.  What good is inside the righteous must be drawn out.  He is not quick with his answers.  When he gives answers they are healthful, as water is healthful.

If there is any healthful thing within the wicked, it is inaccessible because the well is covered.  He does not want to give out health but harm.  Obvious to all who see is the violence that covers his mouth.  It is always on top, always presenting to people.

COURT IS IN SESSION

Psalm 9:7:  “But the Lord shall endure forever:  he hath prepared his throne for judgment.”

I wonder, if man were not sinful would God not have to set up his throne for judgment?  If there were no sin his throne would be needed only for ruling; it would not be needed for discovering sin and pronouncing punishment for the wicked.  But since the wicked exist, God is preparing his throne for a time when they will be brought to account for transgressing his will.  God will outlast any hope of the wicked for covering up, or justifying, or getting past their wicked deeds.  There will be no hope the deeds will be forgotten or overlooked.  From the time a wicked act is performed God’s judgment throne is ready to pronounce a punishment.  Court is in session and the sinner is on the docket.

While the judgment is inevitable we must also remember “. . . the needy shall not always be forgotten:  the expectation of the poor shall not perish forever. . .” as said in v18.  We should consider afresh how we ourselves deserve judgment, but have been excused.  Jesus paid our fines.

TRAINING SPIRITUAL CHILDREN

What do we do to bring up spiritual children?  I think there at least three areas:  Devotions, Training and Example.

Devotions:  When I say devotions I mean reading the Bible as a family, aloud, all together in one place at regular, consistent times.  The Bible is the primary source of our knowledge about who and what and why God is, and what he requires.  There are other means such as at church or Sunday school or TV ministries, but how do you know what they are saying is what the Bible says?  You must read the Bible to know what it says so you can compare it to what the other sources are telling you.  Remember the Bible says, “In the beginning was the Word . . .”

Training:  We can interpret what the Bible is saying to us and our children as we are reading it to them.  We can direct them to other reliable Bible teachers.  We can assure they are among upright, wholesome friends, families and other teachers.  We can oversee what types of media (books, movies, TV, internet, etc.) they consume.  We can encourage them when they demonstrate good character and correct them when they don’t.  We can support them as they engage in activities such as sports, band, theater, etc. and converse with them about their experiences.

Example:  The most effective method is to be a good example.  They will learn as they see us talk among ourselves in the family and with others in public.  They will learn about character as they see our character.  They will learn what is fair and reasonable as they view us being fair and reasonable.  We show them what good works are by doing good works ourselves.  It won’t be so hard to “do as we say” as we ourselves do as we say.  They will learn about giving as they see us giving and as they experience what we give to them.