Category Archives: Old Testament

Posted on

What does revival look like? The Spirit Speaks (application)

(picking up after last week’s post)

What did revival look like in 1 Samuel? First, it affected even the wider culture, even those who would not have been seeking God on their own.

Second, there can be times when the corporate presence of God is so strong that it affects even those around us. That is, its effects are not exclusively individualistic, though it begins with individuals whose hearts are for God. In terms of personal responsibility, we want to live our individual lives in the light of God’s presence. But sometimes God’s Spirit impacts even those around us through what we do or even how we worship.

I never visited “the Toronto Blessing,” and my illustration here need not reflect on everything that happened there. But I had a friend who visited it to check it out. He tells me that as he was approaching the entrance of the building he spoke to someone beside him, whom he didn’t know. “Do you think this is for real?” he asked. The other man shook his head. “I’m just coming to prove how fake it is.” The moment their feet touched the threshold, the other man dropped flat on his face, and my friend jumped back. “Is he dead?” he asked himself, terrified. Anna Gulick, a neighbor who participated in the Asbury Revival of 1970, said that even a block away from the campus, one could feel the presence of God so strongly that one could barely speak, so in awe was one of God’s holiness.

Third, we can see one of the ways that hearing from God spread from one boy, Samuel, to many others over the course of a generation. In a time when few were hearing from God (though some were—cf. 1 Sam 2:27-36), God sovereignly reached out to a boy consecrated by others for his service. Samuel began hearing from God and became widely known for this as he grew to be a young man (3:19-21). Still, Israel was following its institutional leaders, who were either corrupt (Eli’s sons; 2:12-17, 22, 25) or compromised and ineffective (Eli himself; 2:22-25, 29), and they led the entire nation into judgment (1 Sam 4). After twenty years, Samuel was in a position to summon Israel back to the Lord (7:2-6).

But many were thereafter drawn to Samuel, and learned from his experience of God. As we see in 1 Sam 19, Samuel was mentoring many younger prophets. Although God’s Spirit speaks perfectly, we humans do not always hear perfectly. Samuel, who had a perfect batting average in prophecy (3:19), could oversee younger prophets and help guard against them going astray. (In the first-generation churches of the Pauline mission, Paul has to appeal instead to peer review; 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19-22.)

Was this generation a one-off? Or did God work this way at other times? In a generation when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord (1 Kgs 18:4, 13) and replaced them with her prophets of Baal (18:19), Elijah thought that he alone was left a prophet of the Lord (18:22; 19:10, 14). (Technically, 18:4, 13, suggest that he was wrong, though he was probably the only one still speaking for God publicly.)

But by the time that Elijah is about to be taken to heaven in a chariot of fire, the land abounds with prophets (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7; cf. 1 Kgs 20:35). Although 1-2 Kings does not specify Elijah’s time mentoring these prophets, we do see his successor Elisha leading them (2 Kgs 4:38; 6:1; 9:1; cf. 2:15; 4:1).

I believe that this suggests that God can raise up leaders who not only experience the Spirit but who lead others into this experience, who over the course of a generation transform their generation by the spreading of the Lord’s message.

We shall see something similar or related in the Book of Acts, in (hopefully) future installments on this theme. Prophetic revival is not, however, the only way that God works, as if he is limited to a single method. God also works through societal transformation through godly leaders, as we see through King David or King Josiah or William Wilberforce. (I will take Josiah as my example for this.) God also brings revivals of worship, as we shall see in 1-2 Chronicles. God also works in other ways than what we might call revival in any sense—e.g., through promises of progeny to patriarchs (Abraham and Sarah) or through preserving people in famine (Joseph).

What does revival look like? And who gets to define it as such? There have been times in my life when I experienced such a deep spiritual connection with certain brothers and sisters that when we encountered each other even in a casual situation we began to overflow with worship and soon prophesying. Sometimes in a small group we would take turns prophesying. (Apologies to my cessationist brothers and sisters here, but with some of you I have experienced the same joy of us excitedly discussing Scripture; we all agree that God speaks through that, at least!) Essentially, we worshiped God, experienced his Spirit strongly, and I shared what I felt that he was speaking and encouraged others in the group to do the same. We sometimes kept going for a couple hours. Of course, in that small setting we could also offer course corrections without embarrassment if the others felt that someone went off biblically or said something that interfered with the sense of the Spirit’s approval (cf. 1 Cor 14:29). But it wasn’t something we worked up; it flowed naturally from the overflow of the experience of God’s Spirit among us. Whether you want to call that prophecy, as I would, or just worshiping and listening for God’s voice, seems to me just a matter of semantics.

I don’t think that a small group experiencing God’s voice together is what people mean by revival. But what happens if it spreads?

When I came here to teach at Asbury Seminary I learned more about the two twentieth-century revivals at Asbury College (now University), which of course impacted the seminary as well. When Anna Gulick shared with me her own experience of the 1970 revival, it triggered my memories of experiences I had at a Pentecostal Bible college (now part of a university) maybe ten years later. More than once the Spirit so moved us during worship in chapel that we couldn’t stop worshiping without neglecting his awesome presence (and who would do that?) Classes had to be canceled, and the Spirit of worship and prayer settled on the campus for days. Through Spirit-led leadership, we regularly sent out mission teams. We didn’t know to call that “revival.” But we cherished it, and expected that it would happen periodically.

What is the long-range impact? That’s much harder to measure. Out of the Asbury Revival did come a generation of servants impacting the world for Christ, such as Ajith Fernando. I have kept up with a couple of my friends from those small, usually spontaneous prophetic prayer meetings; one went to share Christ with an unreached people group, and the other facilitated training for over a million believers in a closed country. Not all my colleagues from Bible college even persevered in the faith, but many are now doing ministry all over the world and leading in cutting-edge mission. While we’re called to evaluate fruit, however, only God’s perspective in eternity will show us the fruit that comes from the true moving of God’s Spirit.

Whether we want to call something revival or use some other terminology, may we embrace whatever God’s Spirit wants to do among us. When our hearts are so tender before him that we want what he wants, willing to interrupt our otherwise-appropriate schedules when he invites us into special times of intimacy with him, when we refuse to limit what God might do if he wishes … call it what you will. Just welcome, embrace, and passionately desire his presence.

Posted on

What does revival look like? Part I: The Spirit Speaks

Many of us pray for revival, but what are we expecting? How would we recognize that God is answering our prayer?

Since our usual definitions of revival are largely shaped by movements of the past few centuries, rather than from a particular passage in Scripture, it’s possible that we are blending together a few different biblical models of how God works. That is, God works in various ways, and we have clustered some of those ways under particular expectations of what we mean by revival.

Having said that, there are times in history when God expressed his presence in such a way as to transform a generation, and if we are praying for such transformation, these are worth looking at. We cannot determine what shape the answer to our prayers will take—Hannah was simply praying for a son from a desperate heart, not for revival. Revival was in God’s own heart when he answered Hannah’s prayers with the boy Samuel. God is sovereign, stirring us to prayer and answering prayers in ways that sometimes make us uncomfortable. Catholics were praying for a new era of the Spirit just before the Pentecostal revival broke out among ultra low-church Protestants. Many Pentecostals were suspicious when the Spirit began moving among mainline Protestants and among Catholics. And Peter was certainly taken by surprise when his sermon was interrupted by God’s Spirit falling on uncircumcised gentiles.

Moreover, keep in mind that the long-range measure of impact may take a generation—or even eternity—to evaluate. Nevertheless, those experiencing God’s presence in these dramatic ways were not waiting for such full-scale evaluations, but were embracing what God was doing in them and through them at that time. So let’s look at one example of a revival that changed a generation. Because even this part I (on 1 Samuel) is longer than most of my posts, I will divide it into two sections.

When Samuel was a boy, the word of YHWH was rare and visions were infrequent (1 Sam 3:1). But by the time that Samuel is an old man, prophets are traveling in bands, prophesying all together with their worship instruments (10:5-6, 10). The Spirit of the Lord could come on someone else who came among them so that he too began prophesying, although afterward he might act mostly the same at the beginning (10:10-13).

By “prophesying together” I do not mean that they were prophesying in unison, but that they were all experiencing the Spirit’s inspiration and were expressing this inspiration from God rather than, or more than, paying attention to each other. Or possibly they were taking their turns (if we think of something more orderly, as in 1 Cor 14:31). The point is, that the word of YHWH was no longer so infrequent. (For the sake of some readers who are accustomed to hearing “inspiration” used in a narrower, more technical sense, I add a parenthetical digression here: I do accept Scripture as inspired [2 Tim 3:16] and as uniquely canonical. But I am using the term here in the broader sense of the Spirit moving people to speak or act for God. The English term has wider usage, of course, than even how I am using it here.)

What changed between 1 Samuel 3 and 1 Samuel 10? The author may take for granted that we already know, but he nevertheless provides a window into what was happening. Later we see Samuel presiding over a group of prophets who are prophesying (1 Sam 19:20). The Spirit of God was so strong among them that when Saul sent messengers to apprehend David, the messengers, overwhelmed with the Spirit, began prophesying. This happened also with the next two groups of messengers that Saul sent (19:20-21). Finally, Saul himself went to capture David, and was so overwhelmed by God’s Spirit that he too cast off his honorable robes and, on the ground, prophesied all day and night (19:23-24).

Keep in mind that this same Saul had lost the royal anointing of the Spirit earlier, replaced by a spirit sent for judgment (16:14). Saul had been “prophesying” by this bad spirit (18:10), and had wanted to kill David as this spirit was tormenting him (19:9-10). But when he came to where God’s prophets were prophesying, the Spirit of the Lord was so strong in that place that Saul fell down and began prophesying by God’s Spirit.

This account provides us with several insights. First, just because someone can prophesy doesn’t mean they’re super “spiritual”; it might just mean that they’re in a place where God’s Spirit is moving. There may be some leaders today living in sin who experience God’s anointing not because they are walking with God but because their mission is bathed in prayer by others. Their anointing is not permanent; compare those whose gifts leave them because of persistent sin, as in Judg 16:1-20). In times of revival, even the wicked may be affected, though they may still be wicked when the anointing “wears off.”

More next week …

Posted on

Elijah in Mark 1:2

In Mark 1:2-3, Mark speaks of the messenger who prepares the way for YHWH. Mark links together two verses from the prophets addressing one who would prepare the way for YHWH’s coming. One is Malachi 3:1; the other isIsaiah 40:3. Mark may have learned the verses separately (cf. Matt 11:10//Luke7:27), but he follows good ancient Jewish interpretive procedure in linking verses that share a common theme, and especially common language. Both passages speak of one who will “prepare the way” of YHWH. (In their contexts, they share some other common wording; Isaiah’s “my messenger,” God’s own people, act as deaf and blind in Isa 42:19.)

Mark blends them so thoroughly that he names only the better-known prophet when he attributes them: Isaiah. This is helpful in focusing the reader’s attention on the larger context of this section of Isaiah, as noted in the preceding post on Mark 1:1.

But what about Malachi? Does Mark think at all of Malachi’s context? Malachi expects consuming fire when YHWH comes (Mal 3:2; 4:1), an expectation also held by John the Baptist in Matt 3:11//Luke 3:16. But Malachi returns to the preparer in Mal 4:5-6: this is the prophet Elijah, who will turn or restore people’s hearts, preparing them lest YHWH strike the land when he comes. (Jesus uses the Greek version’s term for “restore” for John’s mission as Elijah in Mark 9:12; it applies to Jesus’s healings in Mark 3:5 and 8:25.)

This verse prepares us to recognize John the Baptist as the promised preparer for YHWH. Sure enough, John is recognizable as Elijah in Mark’s introduction. He does not call down fire on his challengers or on a sacrifice on a mountain. What he does do is come at the Jordan (Mark 1:5), in the wilderness (Mark 1:4), and, most distinctively, wearing a leather belt around his waist (Mark 1:6). Elijah had ascended just past the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:6, 13), had spent time in the wilderness (1 Kgs 19:4), and, most importantly, is depicted specifically as wearing a leather belt around his waist (2 Kgs 1:8). However common or uncommon such belts may have been, the only passage in the Old Testament mentioning a leather belt is 2 Kgs 1:8, and the only passages in the New Testament mentioning it are those introducing John (Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6). Both use exactly the same two terms; this is the New Testament’s only use of the term translated “leather.”

Why is it so significant that John fills a role like Elijah? If John fulfills Malachi 3:1, then John prepares the way for YHWH. But Mark identifies John as preparing the way for the Spirit-baptizer (Mark 1:8), for Jesus. In the Old Testament, only YHWH may pour out YHWH’s own Spirit. Mark thus recognizes that Jesus is YHWH himself, the one who baptizes in the Spirit (Mark 1:8). Ergo: Jesus is Lord.

Posted on

Good News about Jesus Christ and the introduction to Mark’s Gospel—Mark 1:1

Mark titles either his Gospel or its opening words with,“the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, God’s Son.” So even a previously uninformed reader knows Jesus’s identity from the start, even as it unfolds only gradually in the narrative. It’s no surprise when the Father honors Jesus as his Son in Mark 1:11. What is more of a surprise for the uninformed reader will be how little his human contemporaries recognize him, and how the Gospel will climax in and elaborate the crucifixion of God’s Son.

“Good news,” or euangelion, applied to all sorts of things in Greek, but given Mark’s signaled interest in Isaiah in v. 2, it probably evokes the promised good news of Israel’s restoration emphasized there. In v. 3, Mark will note the herald of Isa 40:3 who prepares the way for YHWH, who leads his people through the wilderness in a new exodus, bringing them back to their land from exile and restoring them. Many Jews had resettled in the land, but they still awaited the full restoration of their people, along with the renewed creation God had promised (such as new heavens and new earth, Isa 65:17; 66:22). Isaiah goes on to speak of this way-preparing herald in terms of the remnant of God’s people, announcing good tidings to the rest of them (Isa 40:9, the standard Greek translation twice using the verb euaggelizô).

The next use of this verb in standard Greek translation of Isaiah appears in Isa 52:7, speaking of the messenger who “brings good news” (euangelizomenou) about peace for God’s people, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) involving salvation and God’s reign. In this context in Isaiah, this is good news that judgment has ended, and God is restoring his people. Isaiah 52:7 speaks of this as the good news, or gospel, of peace, of salvation, and of God’s kingdom.

That Mark wants to emphasize good news is clear because it frames Mark’s introduction. Mark treats John the Baptist as the optimum model of this herald, this way-preparer for YHWH, as he prepares the way for Jesus. (This should also let the biblically informed reader of Mark know something further about Jesus’s identity: he is YHWH.) But after John the Baptist’s arrest in 1:14, Jesus begins the public ministry that Mark’s Gospel addresses. Mark describes it this way: “Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming God’s good news, by saying: ‘The time has been fulfilled! God’s kingdom has drawn near! Turn your lives around and depend on the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15).

That Mark’s understanding of this good news evokes Isaiah is also clear because of the mention of God’s kingdom, or God’s reign, as part of this good news (1:15). Remember Isa 52:7: part of this good news is, “Our God reigns.” Other Scripture praised God’s kingship as most evident in the conspicuous day of God’s justice (e.g., Ps 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1). It would be the kingdom that would shatter temporary earthly kingdoms with an eternal one (Dan 2:44), the kingdom of the Son of Man (Dan 7:14) and his people (7:18, 27). Jesus, too, places no trust in such temporary kingdoms and rulers (Mark 13:8-9).

Jesus uses “kingship” language to describe the content of his parabolic teaching (Mark 4:11, 26, 30; 9:47); it contrasts with the pseudo-royal governor of Galilee (6:14, 22-27) who executes God’s herald (6:27). Disciples see a foretaste of kingdom glory (8:38—9:1) in Jesus’s transfiguration (9:2). As Jesus enters Jerusalem, the crowds hail the promised kingdom of the Davidic king (11:10)—although they may overplay the Davidic part (12:37). Jesus announces to his disciples that they will share in the expected messianic banquet with him in God’s kingdom (14:25)—though separation between them must intervene.

Here we can begin to catch the irony of this “kingdom” from a human vantage point. But Jesus declares that this kingdom belongs to children (10:14-15) and to those who love their neighbor (12:34). He brings it not to prestigious and powerful people such as Herod Antipas, Jerusalem’s high council, Pilate, or to those proud of their wealth (10:23-25), but to people who are disabled (such as blind beggars), who are socially marginalized (such as tax collectors), and to others who are the antithesis of social prestige. (One prestigious person, Joseph of Arimathea, does somehow get the kingdom message closer to right than his colleagues; 15:43.)

But from here on out, Mark’s Gospel uses royal language almost exclusively in one way: for Jesus as the rejected king of his people, crowned with thorns and enthroned on a cross (Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32, 43). We should have suspected as much, when already in the introduction the kingdom herald John was arrested (1:14), and in the last verse about “king” Herod Antipas Mark gets beheaded (6:27). The kingdom of this world was not ready to give up its worldly power.

Yet Jesus will return to Galilee to meet his disciples (16:7), so the preaching of the good news will start again, and spread among all nations (13:10), even in the face of hostility (13:9-11).

The fulness of the kingdom will come. Jesus’s signs of and teaching about the kingdom will prevail. But Mark is realistic about this world. This world’s kingdom’s will not surrender until the Son of Man returns (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). In Daniel, the reign of the Son of Man (the human one [Dan 7:13-14], contrasted with the preceding kingdoms depicted as beasts [7:3-8]) is linked with the triumph of the consecrated ones of the Most High (7:22, 27)—after suffering (7:21, 25). Let no one deceive you: suffering continues in this present age. But also let no one deceive you that this age is all there is. The fullness of our promised home is yet to come.

Posted on

Genocides

When brothers and sisters in Christ complain about how their people have been treated, we should listen.

“Weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15)

“If one member of Christ’s body suffers, then every other part suffers with it” (1 Cor 12:26)

 

In the past, U.S. crimes against humanity include the slaughter and displacement of Native American peoples and participation in the African slave trade that decimated cultures and in which perhaps a third of the captives died on the transatlantic voyage. Thank God for those who stood up against it.

 

Most people today say, “We would have stood against such abuses.” But how often do we look the other way today?

 

“If we had lived back when our ancestors did, we wouldn’t have killed the prophets like they did” (Matt 23:30)

 

The twentieth century witnessed genocide after genocide: the German genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples (1904-1908), the Ottoman extermination of Armenians in the next decade, the subsequent Nazi extermination of millions of Jews (along with others, including Roma people), mass murders under Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin and Pol Pot. The world cried, “Never again!” after the genocide in Rwanda, even though many people knew very well that it had simply spilled over into Congo, eventually leading to millions more deaths. (Cf. my article https://www.evangelicalsforsocialaction.org/foreign-policy/we-cannot-say-we-did-not-know/.)

 

If we had lived back when our ancestors did, would we have spoken for justice? We do live in a time like our ancestors. Documented ethnic and religious cleansing is going on today, for example in parts of Nigeria and Central Africa, in multiple countries.

 

Proverbs 24:11-12 (NRSV):

“If you hold back from rescuing those taken away to death,

those who go staggering to the slaughter;

if you say, “Look, we did not know this”—

does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it?

And will he not repay all according to their deeds?”

 

God have mercy.

Posted on

Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11

Ananias and Sapphira wanted to look sold out to God like so many others in the heat of revival. Others, moved by God’s Spirit, were selling property to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 4:31-35), including a disciple named Barnabas (4:36-37). But instead of being sincere in their devotion, Ananias and Sapphira faked it—and God struck them each dead (Acts 5:1-11).

It wasn’t because they didn’t give everything—what they did with the money was still their own choice (5:4). (It was not like the Qumran sect, where everybody who wanted to join contributed their goods, though they could get them back at the end of a year if they decided to leave.) It was because they pretended to be what they were not. God does not want pretend revival; hypocrisy can corrupt the entire movement, if not exposed and expunged (Luke 12:1-2). Like a little yeast that spreads throughout the loaf (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9) or cancer that metastasizes throughout the body (cf. 2 Tim 2:17), fake commitment can infect the entire community and turn real revival into fleshly imitation revival, a toxic substitute for the real thing.

Some of the wording of Acts 5 recalls wording from Joshua 7. Achan kept for himself some of the things from Jericho that had been devoted to the Lord for destruction. Perhaps because of Jericho’s devotion to false gods, everything in Jericho was spiritually polluted, and had to be destroyed (Josh 6:17-18, 21; cf. Exod 22:20; Deut 7:25-26; 13:17), except perhaps for what could be purified by fire and consecrated to the Lord (Num 31:22-23; Josh 6:19, 24). By violating this ban and bringing what was spiritually impure into the camp, Achan removed God’s hand of protection, leading to the deaths of other people (Josh 7:5).

The situation could be remedied only by destroying what was corrupted—now including Achan. Achan’s family surely knew about him hiding the loot under the tent floor, yet they went along with him in the secret, valuing the wealth or family ties above God’s commandment. In contrast to Rahab, who hid Israelite spies on her roof and rescued her family, Achan hid loot under his tent and brought death to his family. After the assembly executed them, they burned them with fire to remove the spiritual impurity.

Obviously church discipline in the New Testament is different: its harshest form involves exclusion from the community, but not physical execution, and the excluded person is welcomed back if they repent. As for spiritual impurity, Jesus showed repeatedly that holiness can remove impurity, rather than the reverse (e.g., Mark 1:41; 2:16-17; 5:30; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34), a reality that continues among those in whom Christ lives. Of course, that does not permit voluntary participation in things associated with idolatry or evil spirits (1 Cor 10:20-21).

Yet God struck dead Ananias and Sapphira, presumably for the same reason that he struck dead Aaron’s two sons who offered strange fire on the altar (Lev 10:1-2) or Uzzah who, probably more innocently, touched the ark to steady it (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chron 13:9-10). (It is not only readers today who are unhappy about this; David was upset about Uzzah [2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chron 13:11], and Aaron was naturally upset about his sons [Lev 10:16-20]. One of his grandsons, Phinehas, afterward proved quite zealous for holiness [Num 25:7, 11].) God’s holiness is not to be trifled with.

Now, God striking people dead is not common in the Old Testament, and it is even rarer in the New Testament. This is the only example in the Gospels and Acts, where God’s character is regularly revealed in Jesus as he compassionately heals the sick and delivers those who are demonized. But it still has something to teach us, especially when we pray for revival. In deeper intensity with the Spirit, we become more aware of God’s holiness, and more aware of what it means to be consecrated to him. We desire to honor his holiness, to draw deeper in his presence. Just as poison is bad for the body, some things are spiritually toxic for our personal or communal spiritual welfare. A life or community sensitive to God’s holiness will be allergic to spiritual toxins.

Ananias’s and Sapphira’s death struck fear into the hearts of everyone, even the Christians (Acts 5:11). As a result of this and other signs, people were scared to join the movement unless they were really serious about following Christ—no fake devotion was welcome (5:13). No nominal Christians in that setting! But because Jesus’s movement was pure and without hypocrisy, more people ended up joining the movement in the long run (5:14).

May we desire ever deeper holiness, and may those around us be drawn to such holiness. That comes not by legalism—that’s just fake holiness. It comes by the Spirit, who reveals to us the holy and awesome God, maker of heaven and earth, who has graciously chosen to dwell among us.

Posted on

Conflict part 3: conflict within families

Sometimes conflict arises even in one’s family. And here I am not thinking just of extremely dysfunctional families like Joseph’s (yes, your brothers selling you into slavery is certainly dysfunctional). Who is closer, and to whom is one more vulnerable, than a person whom one loves deeply and whose words matter most? The biblical patriarchs sometimes experienced passionate marital disagreements:

Gen 16:5 (ESV): “Then Sarai said to Abram, ‘May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!’”

Gen 21:10-11 (NIV): Sarah “said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.” (But God told him to listen to Sarah.)

Or Gen 30:1-2 (NIV): “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” Jacob became angry with her and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?””

Avoiding open conflict, Rebekah simply accomplished her plan for Jacob behind Isaac’s back, since he did not listen more directly to her revelation about the elder serving the younger.

The ideal, of course, is 1 Pet 3:7: husbands be sensitive to your wives so that nothing hinders your prayers (for God heeds the righteous, not the evil, 3:12).

Again, divine wisdom warns us about harmful words:

Prov 12:18: “Rash words are like thrusts from a sword, but the wise person’s tongue brings healing.”

Prov 18:21 NIV: “The tongue has the power of life and death …”

What about needless conflict in the family and its health consequences? Although framed from the man’s perspective in Proverbs, the principles should apply both directions.

Prov. 12:4, NRSV: “A good wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.”

14:1, NRSV: “The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.”

17:1, NRSV: “Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife.”

21:9, NRSV: “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a contentious wife.”

Parent-child relationships can also be stressful (although as parents it may help work some spiritual maturation in us!):

Prov 10:1 (NASB): “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”

Prov 15:20 (NRSV): “A wise child makes a glad father, but the foolish despise their mothers.”

Prov 17:25 (NRSV): “Foolish children are a grief to their father and bitterness to her who bore them.”

Prov 23:24 (NRSV): “The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who begets a wise son will be glad in him.”

Prov 27:11 (NRSV): “Be wise, my child, and make my heart glad, so that I may answer whoever reproaches me.”

Prov 28:7 (NRSV): “Those who keep the law are wise children, but companions of gluttons shame their parents.”

Eph 6:4: “Fathers, do not stir up/stoke your children’s anger …”

The Bible shows us that conflict happens within families. But it also invites us to a higher ideal of resolving differences with mutual love, respect, and servanthood. For example:

Prov 31:28 (ESV): “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her”

Eph 4:26-27 (NIV): “… Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.”

Eph 4:29: “Don’t speak what harms others. Instead speak what is good for them, building them up and meeting their needs …”

Eph 4:32 (NIV): “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

Eph 5:2, 21: “Act in love … submitting to one another out of respect for Christ”

Eph 5:25 (NRSV): “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

Mark 10:43-44 (NRSV): “… whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.”

John 13:14 (NRSV): “So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.”

(P.S., on an anticlimactic note about these lists of verses, I mix and match some translations on my computer more based on ease of access than based on recommending one translation over another.)

Posted on

Conflict part 2: other conflict

The previous post addressed necessary conflict to stand for justice or truth on behalf of the Lord or others. But that post was mostly to qualify what I planned to write in this one. It was recent studies of conflict being bad for health that motivated me to think right now about some biblical teaching about conflict.

The sort of conflict addressed in these studies seems to be especially interpersonal conflict with those with whom we are in relationship—family members, coworkers, employers or employees, etc. It often has to do with simply personal ways of seeing things, or miscommunication or misunderstanding that need to be clarified.

Even so, conflict can be defined more than one way. Constructive dialogue over disagreement, with a high level of trust that makes unnecessary feelings of being threatened, seems healthy. (That’s what we’re supposed to do in academia, though sometimes disagreements get personal.)

Hostile conflict, by contrast, seems toxic. (This would be especially true for those of us who, as children, sometimes experienced violence in a context of hostility and anger. It my case that at least got me readier for subsequent experiences of being beaten for my faith, sometimes with apparently lethal intent.) Sometimes even such direct conflict with those close to us becomes unavoidable, when some challenge our faith or matters of justice and truth with hostility (e.g., Matt 10:34-37). Even in such situations, though, Jesus exhorts us not to take it personally (Luke 10:16).

When possible, it is ideal to deescalate conflict, control one’s anger, and calm another’s anger (though not at the expense of simply avoiding addressing something important that must be addressed). Scripture often addresses this issue. For example,

Prov 10:12 (NRSV): “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses”

Prov 12:16 (NRSV): “Fools show their anger at once, but the prudent ignore an insult”

Prov 13:10 (ESV): “By insolence comes nothing but strife, but with those who take advice is wisdom”

Prov. 14:29 (NRSV): “Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but one who has a hasty temper exalts folly”

Prov 15:1 (NRSV): “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger”

Prov 15:18 (NRSV): “Those who are hot-tempered stir up strife, but those who are slow to anger calm contention.”

Prov 16:28 (NRSV): “A perverse person spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends”

Prov 16:32 (NRSV): “One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and one whose temper is controlled than one who captures a city.”

Prov 17:14 (ESV): “The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out”

Prov 18:6 (ESV): “A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating”

Prov 19:11: “Those with good sense are slow to anger, and it is their glory to overlook an offense”

Prov 20:3 (NRSV): “It is honorable to refrain from strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel.”

Prov 22:10 (NRSV): “Drive out a scoffer, and strife goes out; quarreling and abuse will cease.”

Prov 26:21 (ESV): “As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife”

Prov 29:8 (NIV): “Mockers stir up a city, but the wise turn away anger”

Prov 29:11 (NRSV): “A fool gives full vent to anger, but the wise quietly holds it back”

Prov 29:22 (ESV): “A man of wrath stirs up strife, and one given to anger causes much transgression”

Prov 30:33 (ESV): “For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.”

Rom 12:18 (NIV): “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (even further, cf. 12:14: bless those who persecute you)

Among fellow believers (Col 3:12-15, NRSV): “As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful”

After all (Matt 5:9), “It will be well with those who make peace!” And (James 3:18, NIV), “Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness!”

If studies are right, conflict might raise levels of stress that harm the other person’s well-being. Sometimes that is the point of the spirit behind it:

Matt 5:21-22: “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”

1 John 3:15: “All who hate a brother or sister are murderers”

Prov 15:4 (NIV): “The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit.”

Yet counselors warn that hostile attitudes hurt especially those who hold them. Negative attitudes we hold inside hurt; Proverbs speaks of the pain of wounded hearts. Prov 15:13 (NIV): “A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but heartache crushes the spirit.” Prov 18:14 (NRSV): “a broken spirit—who can bear?”

Forgiveness and grace toward others releases our own hearts as well, though that is not the primary biblical point of forgiveness. Angry words or actions can cause long-term harm in more tenuous relationships:

Prov 12:18 (NIV): “The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.”

Prov 13:3 (NRSV): “Those who guard their mouths preserve their lives; those who open wide their lips come to ruin.”

Prov 18:19 (NIV): “A brother wronged is more unyielding than a fortified city”

Prov 20:2 (NIV): “A king’s wrath strikes terror like the roar of a lion; those who anger him forfeit their lives.” (It may not be a good idea to offend bosses, either …)

Part 3 will look briefly at conflict within families.

Posted on

Conflict part 1: conflict when needed

Current research shows that conflict is bad for our health (presumably especially for us sensitive people). Recently I have read that marital conflict even correlates with earlier mortality in men.

Of course, there is conflict and then there is conflict. Some conflict is inevitable, or at least necessary. Although we want to avoid conflict when possible, conflict is sometimes forced on us, and we have to deal with it. This first post deals with that sort of conflict; the next will deal with the sort that we should avoid or resolve as quickly as possible.

If Jesus wanted to bring grace to people who felt oppressed, he was going to have to confront religious and political elites. Paul was ready to dialogue with people, but when some proved more interested in winning a point than being open to truth, he was ready to call their bluff and move on.

We all respond differently to conflict. Some of my friends (such as Michael Brown) are skillful debaters and enjoy good give-and-take. Me: not so much (though I relish intellectual dialogue when it is friendly). I am shaped more by my background of learning to stay on the ground when being beaten, since the most frequent abusers typically got tired after awhile and quit. I do not like conflict, but neither do I care to see truth neglected or justice disregarded. Some conflicts become inevitable:

Prov 25:26, NRSV: Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain, are the righteous who give way before the wicked.

Prov 24:10-12, NRSV: If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength being small; if you hold back from rescuing those taken away to death, those who go staggering to the slaughter; if you say, “Look, we did not know this”— does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it? And will he not repay all according to their deeds?”

John the Baptist was certainly no reed shaken by the wind (Matt 11:7//Luke 7:24).

In the Gospels, no sooner has the Spirit descended on Jesus than the Spirit propels Jesus into the wilderness to face testing by the devil. The Spirit does not equip us for a life of continual ease, but to do God’s work and endure any opposition that it may require.

Still, graciousness is ideal even in important conflicts, when possible (2 Tim 2:23-25, NRSV):

“Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth”

Prov 15:1 (NIV): “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

Rom 12:14, 17-18 (NIV): “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse … Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

Sometimes the conflict isn’t worth it.

Prov 23:9 (NASB): “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.”

Prov 29:9 (NIV): “If a wise person goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace”

Prov 17:10 (NRSV): “A rebuke strikes deeper into a discerning person than a hundred blows into a fool.”

We have to discern whether it is worth it or not (Prov 26:4-5, NRSV):

“Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself. Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes.”

Posted on

Moses speaks like God to Pharaoh—Exodus 7:1-7

God’s commission seemed impossible to Moses, but God reiterated his call (Exod 6:28-30). Before sending him back, he addresses Moses’s fears.

Not only was God far more confident than Moses that Moses would be effective in his commission, but he assured him with strong words. Pharaoh, who considered himself a god, might not want to heed mortals. But as the true God’s messenger, Moses would speak to him as the voice of God, with Aaron being his prophet (Exod 7:1). (Contrary to the views of a few later confused readers, it is clear that God speaks figuratively in terms of Moses and Aaron representing him rather than being him; see v. 2.) In plagues announced through Moses, God would even strike the gods of Egypt (Exod 12:12; Num 33:4), including the household of Pharaoh himself.

Because God knows what he can do through us when he calls us, he can have confidence in his calling for us and our consequent effectiveness. Our effectiveness, of course, comes from him, and is limited to the sphere of our calling, which is not always “success” by the world’s standards. What matters is that it is success by God’s standards. God rarely calls people to do what we can do solely by our own strength; he delights to show his power through vessels that, on their own, appear weak and lowly.

But if such words gave Moses a sense of encouragement, God’s next words would remind him that more tests awaited. Yes, Pharaoh would send God’s people from his land (Exod 7:2). But first God would harden Pharaoh’s heart to not listen, so God could display his wonders in the land (7:3-4). Undoubtedly Moses, like most of us, would prefer for God not to harden Pharaoh’s heart; after all, softening his heart would make things much easier.

But the easier way is not always better. The Lord here declares his reason: Pharaoh’s resistance allows God to respond with signs of judgment—so that the Egyptians might know that he is the Lord (7:4-5; cf. 14:4, 18). God had raised up and allowed to remain this particular, resistant Pharaoh (9:16), and would continue to harden (cf. 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4) a heart that also chose to be hard (8:15, 32; 9:34).

When we face others’ resistance to God’s plans, we can take courage that God is sovereign, and also take courage that God has a purpose even in events that seem hard for us. For that matter, the delay would be helpful even for the Israelites, who also needed to face testing to learn that the Lord is God (10:2; 16:12).

God knew whom he had chosen; he knew what Moses could be better than Moses did. Thus Moses and Aaron obeyed his command to go again before Pharaoh (7:6).