God Dwarfs the Nations
By one account, there were twenty nations already at war before Russia made it twenty-two. This latest aggression has produced daily heart-numbing scenes of death and devastation, leaving us in speechless grief over man’s brutality to man.
Yet I marvel over Russian citizens emboldened to take to the streets in protest against their leaders, fully aware that there likely will be a high retaliatory price to pay. And I’m amazed at the video of a steel-spined Ukrainian family singing the Ada Habershon and Keith and Kristyn Getty hymn “He Will Hold Me Fast”—all the while in the crosshairs of super-power aggression.
A Prophecy for Then and Now and Always
Isaiah 40 was written for ancient Israel and for every believer ever since who has ever been threatened by evil powers. Originally proclaimed to God’s people when violently displaced by a wicked nation (Isa. 39:5–6), Isaiah 40 comforts us (Isa. 40:1–2) by reminding us that God dwarfs the nations in at least four ways.
First, the nations matter nothing to God’s existence. Every nation—whether of the geopolitical sort or of the ethnic and tribal variety—is an inconsequential drop that dribbles from the rim of a ten-gallon bucket (Isa. 40:15). The spillage is so trivial that it isn’t even noticed. In other words, to note the prophet’s changing metaphor, God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth while all the nations on every continent crawl about the planet like the grasshoppers they are (Isa. 40:22).
You Might also like
-
Why Do We Think New Is Better?
The fact of the matter is that the Christian faith is very old, and that is what the Church has been called to preserve and transmit to future generations. Let us not get caught up in the cultural frenzy of “newness” in our Christian ministry.
New and improved! Fresh! The latest! Exciting!
You don’t have to go far in our society today to witness claims of having the newest, latest product. One would not think of buying something old, stale, and “so yesterday.”
This applies to commercial products that are marketed by clever advertisers, but, unfortunately, it also often applies to church ministry, theology, and worship. Old is bad, and new is good. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard otherwise conservative people tell me, “We just need some fresh, new music in our worship.”
Why is it that we automatically assume new is better, anyway?
C.S. Lewis addressed this question in his 1954 De Descriptione Temporum on the occasion of his appointment to the Chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University:
Between Jane Austen and us, but not between her and Shakespeare, Chaucer, Alfred, Virgil, Homer, or the Pharaohs, comes the birth of the machines. This lifts us at once into a region of change far above all that we have hitherto considered. For this is parallel to the great changes by which we divide epochs of pre-history. This is on a level with the change from stone to bronze, or from a pastoral to an agricultural economy. It alters Man’s place in nature. The theme has been celebrated till we are all sick of it, so I will here say nothing about its economic and social consequences, immeasurable though they are. What concerns us more is its psychological effect.
How has it come about that we use the highly emotive word “stagnation,” with all its malodorous and malarial overtones, for what other ages would have called “permanence”? Why does the word at once suggest to us clumsiness, inefficiency, barbarity? When our ancestors talked of the primitive church or the primitive purity of our constitution they meant nothing of that sort. . . .
Why does “latest” in advertisements mean “best”? Well, let us admit that these semantic developments owe something to the nineteenth-century belief in spontaneous progress which itself owes something either to Darwin’s theorem of biological evolution or to that myth of universal evolutionism which is really so different from it, and earlier…
Read More
Related Posts: -
Did the Puritans Agree on Eschatology?
Were the Puritans aligned in their eschatological views? Not quite. This article examines various Puritan theologies of eschatology that emerged between the 17th and 18th centuries, focusing on seven prominent Puritan writers and their unique perspectives. We’re going to look at Owen, Goodwin, the Mathers (father and son), Edwards, Turreting and Wittsius.
Each of these Puritan writers offers unique interpretations of eschatology that draw on specific passages from the Bible, particularly the book of Revelation. Their arguments, however, were not without their weaknesses. For example, premillennialists like Cotton Mather faced the challenge of reconciling their beliefs with passages that suggest a more spiritual interpretation of the end times, while postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards grappled with the problem of evil in a world where Christ’s reign was believed to be imminent.
Consider this article an opportunity to reflect on the diversity of positions within a group of Christians often thought of by some as homogenous; within the Puritan movement, there was substantial variety even as these men agreed on the central tenets of the gospel.
John Owen’s Progressive Revelation
John Owen (1616-1683) believed in the progressive revelation of God’s truth. In his work “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom” (John Owen, “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom,” in Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World (1651) in Works, 8:312-39.), Owen posited that the Second Coming of Christ would be preceded by the triumph of the gospel, which would occur through the gradual conversion of people around the world. This understanding of eschatology is rooted in the idea that God’s purpose and plan for humanity are revealed incrementally throughout history, culminating in the full realization of God’s kingdom on earth.
Owen’s eschatological perspective can be seen as a response to the pessimistic outlook of many of his contemporaries, who believed that the world was in a state of irreversible moral decline. By contrast, Owen emphasized the transformative power of the gospel and the potential for spiritual renewal in the hearts of individuals. He argued that as more people embraced the message of Christ, the world would gradually be transformed and prepared for Christ’s return.
One of the main strengths of John Owen’s progressive revelation is its emphasis on the unfolding nature of God’s plan for humanity. This view aligns with the broader biblical narrative, which demonstrates a pattern of God revealing His intentions and purposes over time through various covenants, prophetic messages, and ultimately, through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Owen’s approach to eschatology is rooted in the understanding that God’s truth is gradually disclosed, which is consistent with the structure of Scripture.
Despite the optimism of Owen’s eschatology, critics have noted that his reliance on the progressive revelation of God’s truth leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, some have questioned how the triumph of the gospel can be measured and when it will be sufficient to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. Additionally, Owen’s interpretation can be challenged by biblical passages that suggest a more sudden and cataclysmic end to human history, such as the descriptions of the “day of the Lord” found in both the Old and New Testaments (see Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Oba 15; Zeph 1:7,14; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 6:17; 16:14).
Thomas Goodwin’s Premillennialism
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) focused on the millennial reign of Christ. He argued for a literal interpretation of the 1,000-year reign described in Revelation 20:1-6, positing a physical resurrection of some saints and a spiritual reign of Christ as a precursor to the millennium and then Christ’s physical return and the final judgment (Works, 1:521). In The World to Come (1655), he detailed his arguments in favor of this interpretation, which is commonly known as premillennialism.
Goodwin’s understanding of the millennium is rooted in a belief in the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, particularly the visions described in the book of Revelation. He contended that the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth was a crucial component of God’s plan for humanity, during which time believers would enjoy a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity (Goodwin, 1672). By adhering closely to the text, Goodwin’s view provides a straightforward understanding of the end times, which can be appealing to those who seek a concrete and unambiguous eschatological timeline (Goodwin 1672). Goodwin’s eschatology emphasized the future vindication of the faithful and the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.
However, critics of Goodwin’s premillennialism have noted that his interpretation relies on a mostly literal reading of Revelation, which is a highly symbolic and apocalyptic text. Although Goodwin acknowledged that many things in Revelation were symbolic of events, places, or people in church history, his was a historicist reading that leaned heavily literal. Some argue that the 1,000-year reign should be understood metaphorically, representing a spiritual reality rather than a physical one. By interpreting the 1,000-year reign in a strictly literal sense, Goodwin’s view may struggle to account for the broader context and purpose of the book of Revelation, which is intended to convey spiritual truths through symbolic imagery. Additionally, critics argue that Goodwin’s interpretation overlooks other passages in Scripture that suggest a more spiritual or metaphorical understanding of the end times.
Increase Mather’s Postmillenialism
Increase Mather (1639-1723) was known for his postmillennialist beliefs. He argued that the millennial reign of Christ would be a spiritual reign characterized by the conversion of the Jews and the triumph of the gospel. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (Mather, 1669), he detailed his interpretation of the end times and the significance of the Jewish people in the unfolding of God’s eschatological plan.
Read More -
Who and How to Show Hospitality
The first step to start practicing hospitality biblically is to change your mindset. Rather than thinking of hospitality as a noun, an event, a specific party, think of hospitality as a verb. The Apostle Paul in Romans 12:13 uses a hunting word: “pursue” hospitality. Chase hospitality down. Run after hospitality. Take aim and diligently follow hospitality.
Last week, we took some time to define Biblical hospitality. We looked at the Biblical definition of hospitality and how Christians should understand hospitality biblically. Today, we are going to continue our discussion by focusing on the command and opportunities we have to pursue hospitality. Our culture has perfected the consumer good of hospitality. A western definition of hospitality is very much observable in the hotel and service industry. Hospitality can seemingly be purchased with a 5 star hotel with room service, comfortable beds, free robs and a gorgeous view. Thankfully, the Bible has much to say regarding what hospitality is in practice for the individual and wider Christian community. Let’s start by looking at 1 Peter chapter 4.
8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. 9 Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. 10 Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. 11 If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:8-11)
Who?
Hospitality today is often delegated as something that women do. It is often conceptualized as a noun. A thing that only certain people should do because they are good or gifted at it. That is not how the Bible speaks about hospitality. Hospitality is not a gift some of us have, it is a command for all of God’s People. Notice how Peter is speaking broadly in verse 8 about love? Then later on in verse 9 connects love to hospitality. If hospitality is NOT a command for the whole Christian community, then neither is love. That would certainly be contradictory to a whole host of Old Testament and New Testament passages. Love is commanded, and one of the manifestations of love is hospitality.
There are some of us who are gifted in hospitality and some of us have to work a little bit harder. Just because something is hard, is not a valid reason for excusing ourselves from the command. 1 Peter 4 says we are to love each other deeply. As a body of Christ we are commanded to love one another and one of those aspects of loving others is through hospitality. Showing hospitality to others is a command from God, which can be really hard for some (introverts like me). Yet, despite the difficulty, demonstrating (embodying), offering hospitality is a central byproduct of the Christian life.
Elders are called to be exemplars of the Christian faith in their living. The two New Testament lists that speak extensively and prescriptively regarding the qualifications for servant leadership in the body of Christ include hospitality (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). Think about that for a moment. In lists that are primarily about moral makeup and character, hospitality is included. Morality, from the 1st century apostolic teachings, included how a person treated an outsider. It was immoral for a Christian to neglect hospitality. This doesn’t just mean Elders are the only ones called to hospitality. This is an argument that strengthens the general command for all of God’s people. The Elder is to demonstrate and live in a manner that points others in the way of living that is Christ honoring. All the church should follow the example of the elders in so far as they are living exemplary lives for Christ. Therefore, as Elders are living in a Christ-like way by pursuing hospitality, so too the general Christian community is to live in a morally upright way by also pursuing hospitality.
We can look at verse 9 and see that Peters tells us to “offer hospitality without grumbling.” This makes a lot of sense when we see hospitality as a command rather than a gift relegated to a designated specialist part of the Christian community. If hospitality was only for those who were good and enjoyed being hospitable, Peter wouldn’t have needed to add in this remark about not grumbling. We have many examples in our culture of what grumbling looks like when showing hospitality, one of which is Al Bundy (The father from the 80s and 90s American Sitcom). He was hardly the most hospitable TV character. You can see the grumbling about hospitality in many online gathering spaces (like Facebook groups, Twitter, Reddit) as well. People don’t want to have others into their homes, so instead they go somewhere else. They allow somewhere else, or someone else to offer the hospitality, typically a restaurant, coffee shop or institute. God has called us to live by a different ethos than the world, to offer hospitality without grumbling.
As we continue to read Peter, we can see that we are told to use our gifts well (verse 10). Hospitality is a gift. Some of us are gifted undeniably with this gift. Yet the call to pursue hospitality is not negated by the reality that some are gifted specifically. All pure Christian hospitality originates with a motivation that comes from thankfulness in what God has given. We show love for God by extending generous charity towards others out of the abundance that God has given to us. Notice that Peter isn’t talking about physical things at the moment.
Read More
Related Posts: