Category Archives: Mixed messages

Here Am I

Posted on by

In response to an article on page 26, of Magazine 219, January 2018.

The very first thing we notice in analysing this article is that the writer of it has deliberately overlooked an earlier event in the life of Jacob, in Genesis 31:11, when it is recorded that he said, “Here am I”.

One has to ask why anyone would ignore such a mention and base a new chapter in this Here Am I series on only the later, 2nd recorded occurrence.

As usual, where error is found, it is sure to manifest itself in multiples rather than in isolation. One has to read only to the 3rd paragraph to find why the writer wants us to focus on this one particular instance of ‘Here am I’. Clearly, the writer subscribes to the fallacious theory, found still in a few conservative circles, which delights in portraying Jacob as an unspiritual scoundrel, out of the will of God until he is transformed at Peniel.

To admit that Genesis 31:11 has Jacob saying to God, “Here am I”, would greatly weaken, if not almost negate, the flimsy foundations of the man-made hypothesis that sadly the writer seemingly adheres to.

How is it that even a ‘conservative’ writer could believe he is permitted to be dishonest – as he conceals vital relevant background references when building the platform for the viewpoint he wishes to present? Worse than it just being poor exegesis, it is actually dishonest.

Haven’t we heard in the past: A text out of context is a pretext? If the context containing Jacob’s first recorded ‘Here am I’ is deliberately ignored, isn’t the following ‘Here am I’ out of context? Then, don’t the subsequent foundational points of view presented become a pretext?

Further to the obvious deliberate omission referred to above, there are 3 statements made in the Here Am I article that beg to be addressed in this short response.

Statement #1
Jacob was the name associated with his… low spiritual state. (3rd paragraph Here Am I)

A look at the evidence does not support Jacob’s alleged ‘low spiritual state’.

In Genesis 25:29-34 Jacob valued the birthright and proposed a valid, legally binding, openly negotiated agreement with his brother Esau, who willingly accepted. In contrast, it is recorded in verse 34 that Esau despised his birthright. In verse 32 Esau has already displayed his carnal disregard toward it. Note that it is recorded that Esau ‘sware’ and ‘sold’ his birthright; a deliberate, legal transaction.

Some try to find support for Esau but in doing so ignore what God says of him: Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13); …profane person (Hebrews 12:16). Esau supporters need to be careful that they do not be seen as those who call evil good, and good evil.

When we come to Genesis 27 many people immediately accuse Jacob of being sly, dishonest and evil. Yet they never offer any supporting comments that God ever made to that effect. There aren’t any.

Note 2 other things relating to chapter 27:
1. You cannot get the blessing unless you have the birthright. For all those who still think Esau should have inherited the blessing – how could he, without the birthright? In allowing for it, such Esau-supporters would all be in breach of the rules! Esau-supporters would commit an offence, in breaching birthright protocols, to support one who God said He ‘hated’!

2. In the record of what took place, Jacob displayed an honourable heart and attitude:
a) He obeyed, honoured his mother (8).
b) He appealed to reason. (11-12)
c) The plan to get the blessing was his mother’s – not Jacob’s. Clearly, she was acting on the basis of prior knowledge through revelation from God as recorded in Genesis 25: 22-23 and mentioned by Paul in Romans 9:11-12.

One wonders why Isaac pursued his plan to back his ‘profane’ son when God had already revealed that His plan and purpose was for the elder to serve the younger (Genesis 25: 22-23). We are told that Esau’s wives were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah (26:34-35). It is not as if Isaac didn’t already know about Esau’s rebellious and profane heart – he (Isaac), too, was suffering the fruits of it, thanks to Esau’s relationships.

Furthermore, when Isaac commented in chapter 27, “The voice is Jacob’s voice” (27:22), was he, in fact, recognising that the reply of “the LORD thy God brought it to me.” (27:20) was made from words that Jacob was known to use – whereas Esau would never use such spiritually-oriented words or make such a reference to God?

Why do the knockers of Jacob never question Isaac and his ‘blindness’ to the purposes of God? Had Isaac been true to the revelation of Genesis 25:22-23, this chapter 27 would surely have happened so differently.

In chapter 28 Isaac is quite happy to pass on to Jacob what was promised to Abraham and himself (28:3-4). Such substance would be of no consequence or value to a man of ‘low spiritual state’. But Jacob was a man who valued the spiritual elements of the birthright (which is why it is recorded in Romans 9:13 ‘Jacob have I loved’) – he would understand the import of what Isaac was passing on to him.

The next 10 paragraphs are from another Paradise Publishing article on Jacob in Genesis 28, with a few alterations:

When we come to verse 13 of chapter 28 we have the LORD speaking to Jacob. He passes on the same message as He had given to Abraham and Isaac. Verse 15 is a promise of His enduring preservation and help. Jacob responds immediately.

Jacob’s response is a spiritual one. It reveals the heart and mind of the man, Jacob. As the one of the twins who was spiritually-minded, he had been entrusted with carrying the genetic line of the Messiah; his “profane” twin having declared his utter disdain of the things of God. Spiritual elements were an integral part of the birthright, and Genesis 25:34 records, thus Esau despised his birthright.

Verses 20 and 21 of chapter 28 highlight Jacob’s absolute reverence for the purposes of God, as seen in the way Jacob reviews the Abrahamic Covenant that has been entrusted to him, as it was to Isaac, his father. It is fresh in his mind, especially seeing the Lord has just reiterated parts of it, as recorded in verses 13 to 15. These are not the words of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

In verses 20 & 21 Jacob is not questioning God’s ability to protect or provide – quite the opposite: he is affirming his absolute trust and dependency on God, and what God has just told him in the dream. He recounts several parts of the message from the dream (which is in substance Abrahamic Covenant) and so states it. His ‘vow’ is in essence an echo of what the Lord has just revealed to him, showing his humble acceptance of it and preparedness to be part of it. His attitude is similar to that of Mary when she said,” Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” (Like 1:38)

It is unfortunate that there are a few who choose to twist the widely accepted meaning of verse 20, probably in an effort to substantiate their shabby speculative denigration of Jacob, whom they see as a villain for most of his life. How anyone could ever find reason to come to the defence of a profane Esau (when God says “Esau have I hated”) and denigrate Jacob on every occasion possible (when God says “Jacob have I loved”) seems totally contrary to Scripture. Alas there are a few, even within some conservative evangelical circles, that seem to glory in promulgating this deprecating line of irrational reason, calling evil good and good evil; which so doing is ill-spoken of in Isaiah 5:20; Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. . .

What then did Jacob mean when he said “If God will be with me…”?

Just because the verse reads “If…” it doesn’t have to mean that Jacob is doubting or questioning God. ‘If’ can often be used to mean ‘Since’ or ‘Seeing that’. In keeping with all that we know of Jacob and his total dependency on the Lord and his honouring of the Covent entrusted to him, it is most likely that he was meaning Since’ or ‘Seeing that’…

Here is an example of how we might use ‘If’ in modern times:

A businessman stands looking out of his 2nd storey office window. He comments to his receptionist, “If it’s a blue car, and it’s around midday, and it comes north and turns left at the traffic lights, then the lady that comes to the door will be my wife.”

There is no doubt in the mind of the businessman that the person about to arrive is his wife. He is not questioning whether he wants her to be or not – he is saying that in view of all of those things being as they are, he knows assuredly who will be knocking at the door shortly. He is convinced already.

Jacob is no different. He basically says, “Seeing that You have promised me all of these things (and lists the very things that God has just showed him) then You will be my God . . . as you have promised me … so what have I to fear.”

How did God think of Jacob? Pretty highly; from what we read in verses 13 to 15. How many others in Scripture were afforded the kind of promises that God gave Jacob that day? There are good reasons why He did. This was not unexpected at all. We must remember that Jacob’s mother had been shown the future of Jacob before he was born. The one of whom questions might be asked, if ever one might, is Isaac. Rebekah knew what God’s perspective was for Jacob. She was under no delusion. So what happened to Isaac that he couldn’t go along with God’s pre-revealed plan of action?

God’s plan had always been to use Jacob. He never used profane people (like Esau) to bring about particular pieces of His spiritual plan. God may have chosen to use a heathen king to get His temple built – that was just a building. But He chose not to allow even His unique servant, Moses, to lead the people into Canaan due to one event where he did not sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Numbers 20:12) No, the impression we get regarding Jacob is not that of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

In further chapters of Genesis we see Jacob acting in a godly manner:
Genesis 30:2 Am I in God’s stead?
Genesis 30:27 The LORD hath blessed me for thy sake, Laban said.
Genesis 30:30 The LORD hath blessed thee since my coming, said Jacob.

In chapter 31:
The LORD tells Jacob to return home. (3)
Jacob testifies, ‘The God of my father hath been with me’. (5)
Jacob acknowledges God in his life. (9)
God explains how He has helped Jacob and tells him what to do. (11-13)
Rachel and Leah acknowledge God’s part and mind in relation to Jacob. (16)
God warns Laban not to harm Jacob. (24)
Jacob testifies of God’s help and goodness to him. (42)

In Genesis 32:1 Jacob is provided similar protection and revelation of it as afforded other favoured servants of God. e.g. Elisha in 2 Kings 6:17

Verses 9-12 record Jacob’s lovely prayer. O that more would pray as Jacob did in verse 10. These are not the words of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

Statement #2   At last he is ready to hear God’s voice and to heed his calling.
(7th paragraph Here Am I)

Apparently the Here Am I writer is at liberty to ignore all the instances during Jacob’s life just outlined and discussed above. Even just considering these four occasions on which God spoke and Jacob responded: Gen 28:13-15; 31:3; 31:11-13; 32:29-30, we see that Jacob has been hearing from God and responding for 53 years (see Jacob’s Chronology page[i]).

Statement #3  . . .his only act of faith recorded in the hallway of faith, Hebrews 11, was from this episode in his life. (8th paragraph  Here Am I)

Many of us are increasingly wary of such Pharisaic comments made by people in relation to Hebrews 11. The Holy Spirit has chosen to mention certain things and purposely left out much that could have been said. One can’t help noticing that even David, the man after God’s heart, only gets a mention of his name. Others, like Elijah, are not even named. Does that insinuate something? No, it does not!

The comment made in reference to Hebrews 11 in this Here Am I article actually amounts to a waste of print. It says nothing of any consequence; and offers nothing of edification while possibly implying something quite negative and groundless. It is not the only paragraph, in this article, guilty of a rather weak attempt at application.

An additional point of interest
Joseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes. (2nd to last paragraph)

In addition to the meaning given, that  Joseph would be present at Jacob’s death, it is interesting to note from the writings of historical researchers that Joseph was also famous in his time for a number of things not recorded in Scripture.

One of these was that he was known for having knowledge and remedies in matters of health. One area specifically mentioned is eyesight. Apparently God blessed him with not only prophetic knowledge relating to famine and plenty but Joseph was also credited with the design, and overseeing the construction of, grain storage facilities, pyramids and such like. He was equally renowned for matters relating to health.

Some have suggested that the verse Joseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes may mean that Jacob would have his eyesight restored by visiting Joseph.

To those who will immediately get upset by any ‘outside information’ being considered, let me ask, ‘How do you know that the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 24:2, about the temple being destroyed, were ever fulfilled? It’s not in Scripture! Yet we hear countless preachers telling us that the army of Titus came through in AD70. How do they know that?

In conclusion, it seems incredulous that a believer writing an article could feel at liberty to malign one of God’s key characters in the Bible through concealing or deliberately ignoring strategic verses. Even worse, it appears this is done to enable the writer to conform to a pre-determined man-made view that he wishes to promulgate.

It seems, therefore, that the whole basis of the Jacob article in the Here Am I series is groundless. Sadly, it is based on a false assumption and therefore lacks credibility.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case in this particular magazine, as good as it it, as may be seen by reading some responses that refute and correct other erroneous aspersions, as shown on this website.

 

For a companion article from Paradise Publishing dealing with Jacob please read the Jacob in Genesis 28.20 article on this website.

[i] Jacob’s Chronology page is available for download on this website.

20 August 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

Any contradictions I’ve read on calendars over the years usually seem to come about when writers quote from New Age versions and not the true Bible. Something of this nature happened again on the 20 August 2013 calendar.

The ideas behind what the writer K C U shared were probably fair enough but right in the middle of the comment we read:

The whole world lies in the wicked one.
(1 John 5:19 most New Age ‘versions’)
and in the same breath the writer is quoting from a passage that also says:

and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20)

The present ‘god of this world’ would like to think that we are all in his power, as in the New Age version of verse 19. But this verse is not a discussion about that. What verse 19 really says is: And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. [not in the wicked one as the New Age bibles will say.]

This is quite in keeping with what verse 18 says when it points out: We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The believer is not as the unbeliever who freely does the works of the “wicked one” (v18 not 19). The believer is begotten of God and keepeth himself, and because of this that wicked one toucheth him not. (italics quoted from verse 18) In complete contrast to the believer, those who are not believers, i.e. the whole world, that group lieth in wickedness. (italics quoted from verse 19)

The context of this is the earlier group of verses (16 & 17) that speak about sin. The believer’s new life in Christ is not characterised by sin as is the life of the unbeliever (v18). Then verse 19 says that the believer knows that they are of God, but the whole world (speaking of unbelievers) lieth in wickedness. Now get this: the unbeliever is so busy living in wickedness, as described in the context of verses 16-18 (and what verse 19 puts as lieth in wickedness) that they don’t even know who their master is. Think about it – you know that’s the truth because if they did really know, they would do something about it. And they don’t.

For some thoughts on something similar see 16 August 2012 Calendar Reading.

8 August 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

The opening line of the comment written by VM on the 8 August 2013 calendar is:

Chapters of genealogies with all their names are recorded forever in God’s Word.

While we know what the writer means, we also recall the words of the apostle Paul:

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (1 Timothy 1:4)

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)

Sincere believers often fall into the trap of using the ‘worlds’ terms instead of the ones used by the Scriptures. Paul clearly exhorts believers to not give heed to and to avoid genealogies. So what is the correct thing for believers to do when it comes to such a matter?

When the Scriptures speak of such lists of names the term used is generation or generations.
Some examples are found in: Genesis 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12 etc, Matthew 1:1

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was careful to show the dangers that exist when people use man-made records to try to give foundation to teaching in the local church.

Clearly, God put the records of many names in Scripture for a purpose. He refers to them by the term ‘generations’ and so should we. We should never be seen to be in contradiction of the Scriptures.

10 June 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

This relates to the daily reading written by MM on the 10 June 2013 calendar.

The text chosen by the writer was Habakkuk 3:18. The writer chose to use an ESV rendering of ‘I will take joy’. However my Bible says I will joy in the God of my salvation.

“Now that’s pin-pricking; only one word different,” I hear someone say. But is it just that trivial?

Please consider one simple thing that was obviously beyond the writer of the page: Certainly, there is only one word different. Let’s consider that word, ‘take’. It is being used as a verb here. The believer is exhorted in the writer’s comments to ‘take joy’. That word ‘take’ is the verb, is the action. The word ‘joy’ in that statement is a noun. It is what is being taken.

Now consider what the real Bible says: ‘I will joy’. Here the word ‘joy’ is a verb. It is something you could do. Nobody needed the ESV to make the point that MM was trying to make. In fact, the ESV doesn’t technically make it anything like as well as the true Scriptures. Does that surprise me? Not a bit.

Once again we have well-meaning people writing well-intentioned thoughts but in doing so changing the meaning of the Scriptures.

Sorry Mr or Madam MM, but you haven’t convinced me that your ESV is worth being burnt at the stake for. Start using the King James Bible and you’ll soon discover that the real meanings of verses are stated so plainly that you don’t need the work of man to run to. God has already provided a perfect Bible – just use it.

11 December 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

There are two things in the comments written by Mr H on the 11 December 2012 calendar that I would like to comment on.

1. The comment that “Looking back usually results in grumbling against God” seems rather narrow and ill-founded when we consider these points:

·         While the people who were around to see all that took place as God brought them out of Egypt remembered what the LORD had done for them they basically followed the LORD. It was those who never had anything to ‘look back’ to who caused the problems that brought in the Judges, for example. See Judges 2:7  And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel. and compare Judges 2:10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.

·         It may be true that Moses said to them, “your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD (Ex 16:8)” but the verse from Exodus that Mr H sites here is being used weakly to connect the ideas of ‘looking back’ and murmuring against God. The context of Exodus 16 is rather a different time and less specific group of people to those mentioned in Numbers 11:4-5 which is really the people and time under consideration, according to the text printed on the calendar page. If the verses in Numbers 11 don’t have the goods to make the pre-meditated case dreamed up by the writer, how is it permissible for him to just try to hook it up with another unconnected verse two books earlier in Exodus?

·         The aspect of ‘looking back’ that was at fault is that the people had the wrong focus. Had they thought about the wonderful deliverance brought about by the LORD then they might well have been grateful. It is when people focus on their own temporal preferences at the expense of what God has done for them that a problem exists. But ‘looking back’ itself can hardly be condemned.

·         The one example of ‘looking back’ that really stands out is this: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:24) Part of focussing on the Lord Jesus in remembrance of Him involves ‘looking back’ surely.

·         Isaiah 51:1. . . look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Is that ‘looking back’? I think so!

·         Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works . . . Is that ‘looking back’? Rather!

·         What is wrong with ‘looking back’? Nothing.

Once again we have well-meaning people writing well-intentioned thoughts but not doing it in such a way that the Scriptures used can adequately support what the writer would like to get across. There was nothing wrong with them ‘looking back’ but there was everything wrong with them murmuring, especially when it was really against God.

However the writer has tried to make a connection between the mixed multitude [bad company] and murmuring against God. But bad company is not the root-cause of murmuring, although it may help fuel it. My advice – start again [writing the comment].

2. The second thing I notice on the page for 11 December 2012 is the pathetic ‘rendering’ of 1 Corinthians 15:33 [‘bad company ruins good morals’]. This narrow rendition of the verse is used because it suits the writer’s fallacious interpretation outlined on the calendar page. So writers can just choose whatever version they like to back up their ideas? Isn’t that rather hypocritical? What if the real meaning of a verse doesn’t suit the writer? Do they just find a version that does? Well that wouldn’t be too hard – you could even get one that says the opposite, as we have found sometimes!! But doesn’t it make a mockery of the idea that Scriptural verses are meant to be some sort of authority?

Do you know what 1 Corinthians 15:33 really says? Try this: evil communications corrupt good manners. Wow! That is another example of the Bible being light years ahead of history as we know it. Just think – that was written 2000 years ago and how up to date that is. “Evil communications” – they are with us all over the place in this day and age. What do they bring about? Exactly what the verse says – literally and on a broader scale too. Just look around at the younger generation especially. Why would you want to change what it really says?

No, the verse says much more than what Mr H’s version is going to narrow us down to. Just give the verse some thought and you might be surprised to see how much more it is really saying.

Sorry Mr H, but I wouldn’t go back to using either of the versions on your calendar page. They are letting you down. Start using the King James Bible and you’ll soon discover the difference. Maybe comparing Scripture with Scripture might start making sense too.

O and Oh usage in Scripture

Posted on by

I believe writers of Scripture have made a distinction when it comes to the use of Oh and O. I see a difference in the way they use these two distinct, in my view, words.

And I do not believe it is OK to interchange the two words. I would go as far as saying I am appalled with the apparent ignorance of some writers in allowing such an oversight to creep into their writings. Don’t they think about what they allow on their pages?

There is a pattern to how the King James translators, scholars of English certainly, but commissioned by God to preserve His Holy Scriptures in the then ‘coming’ world language of English, and so clearly ‘helped’ in doing so to produce an error free, better than Elizabethan English text. What they came up with was God’s English. Their usage of Oh and O is consistent.

Consider this usage:

— “O” is used in front of a name to give the effect of sincerity and solemnity or intensity or just real feeling. e.g. Psalm 71:1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust:

– “Oh” is really more of an exclamation that people give when in trouble, despair, excitement, hope, anticipation etc. e.g. Psalm 6:4 …oh save me … 

Choice Gleanings Calendar for 14 October 2012 has this text:
I will extol thee, Oh Lord. Psalm 30:1

I would be interested in seeing the Bible that this was copied from. Or is it a ‘typo’? But who doesn’t copy verses these days by doing a copy and paste?

In all fairness, I have seen this type of substandard attention to detail before. I well remember a so-called ‘Christian’ school that had the following verse on its letterheads and promotional pages:

Teach me Thy way, Oh Lord.

Nobody raised an eyebrow for ten years until it was pointed out by some alert teacher, I think, and they changed it. 

I will extol thee, Oh Lord should read I will extol thee, O Lord.

Teach me Thy way, Oh Lord should read I Teach me Thy way, O Lord.

4 January 2010 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

From the archives is this one that I hope I had previously sent to the calendar publisher. It once again illustrates how all too often we make deficient connections, interpretations and applications from passages of Scripture.

Mr P’s verse and comment on 4th January 2010 appear to be poorly matched.

A department store near us recently held its “Grand Opening”.
Thronging crowds waited 10 to 12 hours to be first inside. Through
His substitutionary death on Calvary, Jesus opened wide the gates
of heaven, yet so many have no interest and stand afar off.
God loves us and is not willing that anyone should perish.
He offers salvation freely to anyone who will receive Jesus
Christ as their Saviour. Will you accept His offer today?
– J P

The comment “yet so many have no interest and stand afar off” comes across as being a reference to those in the verse he used: “And all His acquaintance, and the women that followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.” Luke 23:49

But is that fair? Where would you expect them to be?

It’s true that of some it is recorded that they “stood by the cross” (Jn 19:25). Yet one of them named in John 19:25, Mary Magdalene, is mentioned by Matthew as being part of the group that were “beholding afar off” (Matt 27:55) and by Mark, “looking on afar off” (Mk 15:40). Did she move between the two locations? How many others might have done the same and also been up close at some time?

Is it significant that Matthew and Mark’s comments refer only to women, and Luke’s makes specific mention of women? Where would be the most decent and appropriate place for women to view from in such a scene? Hardly up too close! Definitely not right out in front. Why? Because, contrary to pretty much every scene painted or portrayed by people, the Lord Jesus was naked. Surely, by standing at a distance, those women showed their true devotion and reverential respect, while still allowing for a few of them to discretely visit at the foot of the cross if they chose; whether they be closely related or grateful followers.

The comment by Mr P is fair enough on its own – but not matched up with the Luke 23:49 verse. Surely a more fitting verse could have been used in conjunction with the comment written. Luke 23:49 is hardly a good choice and does certainly not necessarily imply “no interest”.

Some cross-references to consider:

Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 15:40-41
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

John 19:25-26
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

1 October 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

Parts of the comments written by Mr H on the 3 October 2012 calendar make a fair enough point when taken at face value.

It’s amazing what things some unsaved people have said in the past. Even more amazing, maybe, that today people would still quote them.

I have to say though, that I, never the less, cannot fathom why anyone would want to quote from what the unsaved have quoted when they have the Lord to quote or at least His servants whose words the Holy Spirit has chosen to put on record.

Why would any believer put any credence or value on the words of a man who would speak to his nation to motivate them into action and participation in a godless World War that was responsible for the murder of countless believers, let alone a myriad of unsaved who were sent prematurely into a lost eternity?

Please, Mr H, why couldn’t you just have used the quote itself? (The words weren’t those of the King; he quoted them after all.)

“I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, ‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown’. And he said to me, ‘Put your hand in the hand of God and that shall be to thee better than a light and safer than a known way.’”

Would the quoted words on their own have made a point?

What purpose was there in even mentioning the King? As head of the Church of England (which he would have been by definition), with all due respect, how could he possibly have not been sadly lost and misguided, spiritually; acting, as he would have to as head of that church, contrary to the clear teachings of the Scriptures? I am at a loss to know how it would benefit the reader for him to even get a mention on a Choice Gleanings calendar.

Is it a bit ironical that a search using the calendar writer’s name brings up his writings on ‘What is happening in UK assemblies?’ Well, let’s start right here with the matter of sending mixed messages to the flock. If there’s a decline in the condition or state of assemblies, as his writings suggest, there is a reason for it. If the flock are fed truth along with the world’s values then what else would we expect? Maybe writers of the calendar should be leading the way by example not exacerbating the problem.

Any king, of whatever nation, who can implore people to participate in a war, has a nerve to then use any mention of God as some kind of hope to be offered to those same people. This is the kind of humanism that young people get fed in institutions of education. Is it any wonder the UK assemblies, and others worldwide, are in a worrying condition when light and darkness are portrayed together?

Brethren, we need to face it. The only way forward is God’s way and young people need to be presented with a Biblical world-view not a secular one.

Magazine No 187

Posted on by

I write with regard to Magazine No 187.

 The Editorial states:  Elisha . . . instructs a stick (2 Kings 6:1-7) to be thrown into the water to locate an axe head, after a mistake.

 The choice of the word “mistake” may suit the thought being presented but it is a poor choice. There was no mistake made by the unfortunate user of the borrowed axe head. It was what anyone today would call an “accident”. There was no deliberate wrong doing involved; it was just one of those things that don’t go according to plan, through the fault of nobody.

 Once again we have an Editorial, no less, presenting a less than good enough standard in terms of theological purity. Alas, these things never come alone; where there’s one there’s usually more.

 Spiritualising the Scriptures is one thing, but anyone who does so had better get their exegesis correct or they could get themselves into big trouble with contradictions or inconsistency.

 Two lines down we read: One day we may have to cross Jordan.

 The implication is clearly that Jordan is a figure of death. Crossing Jordan has never been a picture of death. Canaan cannot be a picture of heaven. It does not match up. If Canaan is heaven I wouldn’t want to go there.

 How is it some of us have had to tolerate this same naive and ill-founded interpretation by two UK writers in separate conservative publications within a few weeks of each other? Do we wonder why the young ones are no longer seen in so many assemblies? Maybe Hebrews 5:12 could be applied to some UK writers.

 Mr John Ritchie wrote a little book called From Egypt to Canaan. How could his writings be ignored in the UK? A more recent UK writer, Roy Hession has written an excellent book about the Epistle to the Hebrews called From Shadow to Substance. This book has many refreshing truths explained simply; the Jordan and Canaan aspects included.

 Many over the years have fallen into this ‘Canaan is heaven’ trap – but certainly not all. Some well-known expositors of the word are very forthright in correctly pointing out these crucial details that put a different perspective on such naïve and grossly inaccurate interpretations:

– Egypt is a picture of “the world” [as in 1 John 2:17].
– The King of Egypt is a picture of Satan, mastermind of ‘the world’ (see 2 Cor 4:4).
– Israelite slaves in Egypt are a picture of people living in the ‘world’ controlled by Satan (Eph 2:2)
– The Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt pictures believers redeemed from Satan’s power and brought into God’s Kingdom (Col 1:13)

So far so good. The magazine Editor would agree, I’m sure.

I can’t help but notice that no death was involved up till now, on the part of those redeemed.

Now comes the crunch: Why were the Children of Israel delivered?

They were delivered in order for them to get into Canaan.

And what is Canaan a picture of then?

Canaan cannot picture heaven as many think! – because there were giants in Canaan. There were walled cities. There were sinful people living in Canaan who God asked to be wiped out. Achan, one of the very Children of Israel, sinned in Canaan. That’s not heaven, brother.

And if Canaan is not heaven then Jordan is not death.

To insist that Canaan pictures heaven would be suicide as far as a man’s spiritual integrity goes. No, admit it – it does not match.

So what is Canaan a picture of?

Canaan (the Promised Land) is a picture of the believer’s life of ‘walking in the Spirit’ (Gal 5:16). The believer’s walk is to be characterised by his fellowship with the Lord, living in obedience under the Lordship of Christ; living a life of victory while facing the same kinds of attacks, pressures, enemies and obstacles the Children of Israel did in Canaan; as many would say, against the world, the flesh and the devil.