The elders of the Jews said of the centurion, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” – Luke 7:4

The centurion said of himself, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.” – Luke 7:6

Jesus said “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” – Luke 7:9

This could easily be handled as a text on humility. The centurion said he was unworthy, the Jews said he was worthy. Isn’t that how humility works? It isn’t what you say about yourself but what others say about you. Well sort of, but Jesus’ reply shows that it isn’t about humility in this case. In an interesting turn, this story is about authority!

The centurion was a man who understood authority. A centurion commanded a squad of 80 troops and some commanded cohorts which consisted of 480 troops. That is a lot of authority. And when Jesus comes to heal the centurion’s servant, the centurion response comes from what he knows. He understands that Jesus has authority over the sickness and death and life. The centurion understood that if Jesus issued the command for disease and death to depart that they would. This is why Jesus responds the way he did. He didn’t say “I haven’t seen this kind of humility in Israel” because though the centurion was being humble, it was his faith in Jesus’ authority that was most noteworthy.

The next string of stories continue to show the extent of Jesus’ authority. He raises a boy from death. When John’s disciples ask if he is the one, he point to the miracles he’s done. He shows his authority to forgive sins when a “sinful woman” washes, kisses and anoints his feet.

Just as it would be an oversimplification to say that the centurion story was only about authority, it would likewise be wrong to say that these other are only about authority. Each story has major and minor themes and applications in the book. I just found it interesting how the word “worthy” showed up twice and then how it really wasn’t the point!

Justin Taylor posted an excerpt from an essay on the New Covenant by D. A. Carson. I really like Carson on a lot of things and count myself blessed to have sat under his teaching at Trinity, but this is one of the areas I don’t agree with him on. I am a credobaptist (one who believes the proper subjects for baptism are those who credibly profess faith in Jesus) and so it is a bit painful to disagree with Carson on this point as I might seem to disagree with his basic premise. So I need to take care. Here goes.

In discussing what make the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant, Carson says:

[When Israel’s] leaders sinned, the entire nation was contaminated, and ultimately faced divine wrath. But the time is coming, Jeremiah says, when this proverb will be abandoned. “Instead,” God promises, “everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes his own teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30). This could be true only if the entire covenantal structure associated with Moses‘ name is replaced by another.

I agree but disagree. Is this really the difference between the covenants? That each will be held accountable for their own sins? I mean right off, there is a problem with saying that when the king sinned, the entire nation faced divine wrath. What about Elijah and Ahab? Ahab was a skunk and Elijah thought he was the only one left but God reminded Elijah that he’d kept 700 who had not bowed to Baal. Did Elijah face God’s wrath for Ahab’s sin? Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of flame, Ahab got hit by a “random” arrow (1 King 22) and Jezebel got eaten by dogs (2 Kings 9).

As to the idea of each being held accountable for their own sin being a unique New Covenant feature, consider 2 Chronicles 25:1-4. King Amaziah ascends to the throne because his father Joash had been assassinated. How does he handle it?

And as soon as the royal power was firmly his, he killed his servants who had struck down the king his father. But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not die because of their children, nor children die because of their fathers, but each one shall die for his own sin.” (2 Chr. 25:3-4)

Amaziah didn’t do what newly enthroned kings usually do: kill all potential opposition. Instead he handed out justice by executing those who had killed his father but he also obeyed God by not killing their families. This is an Old Covenant king obeying Old Covenant law and not exacting justice on children for their father’s sin. In this sense, Carson is wrong, a new covenantal structure was not required. At least not in the manner he’s speaking of.

To be fair,  there is sense in which this kind of thing did happen. Reading through Kings and Chronicles makes that case. There was a good king and the people did what was pleasing to the Lord. There was a bad king and the people did what was not pleasing to the Lord. Or think of what happened to Achan and his family after the fall of Jericho in Joshua 7. ¹Something to keep in mind with Achan is that he had hidden the stolen treasure in his tent. Not a place the family wouldn’t have known about it so they shared some guilt in this too. Or the way David avenged Saul’s killing of the Gibeonites in 2 Samuel 21 as another example.

The problem is in that the Old Testament is not clear on how this worked. In Exodus 20:5 God said “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.” And then there’s Deuteronomy 24:16 which Amaziah cited. And the example of Achan. And on and on. It can be a fuzzy picture in the Old Covenant. But when we come to the New Covenant we have a much clearer picture. When Ananias and Sapphira sin against the Holy Spirit in Acts 5, each is called before Peter and made to answer for their sins.

So I don’t think the distinction is as clear cut as Carson makes it out to be. Carson wants to throw out the previous covenant and replace it with the New Covenant. That doesn’t seem to mirror the way the Bible deals with that relationship.

I don’t want to pile on Carson here because I think that overall he’s excellent but on this issue, I don’t agree with him. Since he sees a fairly sharp distinction between the New Covenant and the previous covenants, he handles Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, in an odd way. My old internet friend and now philosophy professor Greg Welty took on Carson’s exegesis of Matthew 5 pretty thoroughly here. I believe Greg sent that to Carson after he wrote it. My take on Matthew 5 (like Welty’s) is that it isn’t Jesus overturning the Old Covenant law and establishing the New Covenant law. One of the significant things that indicates that is that Jesus keeps saying “you have heard it said.” Had Jesus been talking about the Old Covenant law, he would have said “It is written” or something like it. I mean, this is exactly what he says in Luke 6:3 when he cites an Old Testament example of David doing something “illegal”. Furthermore, where does it say in the Law  ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ (Matt 5:21)? Surely the law says you shall not murder but Jesus didn’t quote the Law when he spoke of the judgment. This comes from some other source, apparently an oral source for understanding the law.

What I think Jesus is doing in Matthew 5 is not overturning Old Testament law but overturning the Pharisees’ teaching and tradition on the Law. Their teaching on it made it doable. Jesus explains to them that they’ve made it too easy. What we need is not additions to the Law to save us by keeping us from violating it, we need a Savior to perfectly fulfill the Law on our behalf. The way Matthew 5 applies to us is to give us a clear understanding of the true nature of the true law, not a distorted version that we can perfectly obey, and its intent is to lead us to call out to Jesus to save us. He is the covenant keeper while we are covenant breakers.

I know Carson wouldn’t disagree that Jesus is our covenant keeper and so the disagreement is not that severe. Carson is still one of the good guys!

“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry…how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the presence which is not lawful for any but the priest to eat?” – Luke 6:3-4

This always gives me pause. What exactly is Jesus up to here? Is he condoning what David did in 1 Samuel 21 or is he kind of pushing it in the Pharisees’ faces? I’ve gone back and forth on this. This morning I’m “forth”. This confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees comes in the middle of a string of controversies about obedience to commandments. At the end of chapter 5, the issue is fasting, then comes our current story about “harvesting” on the Sabbath, then the appropriateness of Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath. Given this kind of context, I don’t think the issue is so much David’s breaking the law as it is the appropriate place of obedience to the law. That’s kind of vague. Hopefully I can clarify some.

David was not a sinless man. God remembers and scripture reminds us about his sin with Bathsheba and at the end of 2 Samuel we hear of his sinful presumption in numbering Israel. However, the story in 1 Samuel 21 that Jesus cites is not mentioned again except here and Jesus doesn’t seem to condemn David as much as confront the Pharisees. So I’m back to thinking that Jesus isn’t holding up David’s “sin” in a manner aimed at embarrassing the Pharisees. Besides, the Pharisees’ hope was more in Moses than in David. (John 5:45)

Let’s return to the context of this story. Luke, of all the Gospel writers, seems to me to be thing one who tried to bring together all of the events of Jesus’ life in an orderly fashion, paying attention to this timing of the events. (Luke 1:1-4) However, biography as we’re used to it is a fairly recent literary invention. Luke was an excellent historian but he wasn’t writing a research paper or a detailed biography. He was writing an accurate account of Jesus’ ministry for the purpose of discipling Theophilus which is a purpose more than mere historical accuracy. With that in mind, I think that Luke picked these stories to place together on purpose. The theme running between the issues of fasting and picking grain and healing on the Sabbath have to do with ceremonial observance. The issues faced in these stories are a bit complex but important. Why did the Pharisees expect Jesus’ disciples to fast? That isn’t addressed so Jesus addresses it for them. Would it be better for Jesus’ disciples to observe the Sabbath (as the Pharisees define it) and grow weak and hungry as they followed their Master or to snatch a few handfuls of grain to eat? Could that really be considered working on the Sabbath?

The last one of the series gets me the most. Jesus healed a man and the Pharisees figure they have to “do something” about him! This kind of healing was clearly a work of God; it wasn’t something a man could fake or the result of a psychological condition. The power of God was at work in making a shriveled hand whole. This isn’t Bruce Almighty! God didn’t abdicate his power to a man and then allow the man to use it any way he wanted. This is God at work through the man Jesus Christ and the Pharisees decide that something must be done about it?! What they’re really saying is that God Himself has violated the Sabbath and that they’re in the position to correct him. Amazing hubris.

So draw all of these together for a moment. Is the law, primarily the Sabbath, meant to be observed above need or mercy? Obviously not. Eating some grain from the field you’re walking through isn’t the same as harvesting. It is meeting you basic human need of the moment. It isn’t building wealth or storing up for the future. Is there any way that healing a person on the Sabbath can be considered as a sinful Sabbath violation? Isn’t mercy actually in keeping with the Sabbath principle? So now to the verses at hand. Would God be pleased for Ahimeleck to see David starving as he fled for his life from Saul and deny him the only bread available? Really, that would have cost David his life. He couldn’t have continued to flee Saul without something to sustain him.

The Law is good but a strict, wooden application of the Law is not. Had Jesus’ disciples been walking through the field with sickle and scythe in hand I’m sure he himself would have corrected them. There is wisdom needed here. It isn’t like we always take an easy breezy approach to God’s commands any more than we should take a rigid, inflexible stance either. The disciples (and me with them) thought they had gotten Jesus’ emphasis on acts of mercy and kindness when a woman poured out over $1,000 worth of expensive, scented oil on his feet. Surely a better use of this would have been to sell it and provide for the poor, right? Isn’t that what Jesus had been preaching and teaching? ¹So Judas was the exception here. He just wanted to cash in the group purse so he could snag some for himself. Not really. Not exactly. The more important, needful thing was that Jesus be prepared for burial since his death would come so quickly that there wouldn’t be time.
In the end, Jesus’ explanation of which is the greatest commandment is still the guiding rule. Love God. That means to obey him and to love the things he loves. Love fellow human being. That means to provide and care for them. It does not give us permission to bludgeon them with the first. And together the first and the second remind us that it isn’t loving to tolerate and condone sin.

Painting

I can’t paint or draw. I wish I could and I love it when my wife and daughters do, but I can’t. I took drafting for two years in high school and I think straightedge and ruler is about the extent of my capability in that direction. But I do admire art. A lot. I’ve visited the Getty in LA and the Art Museum here in Chicago and could have spent all day staring at some of the paintings. I have the same problem with poetry. Wish I could do it, love reading it well done, am pathetic on my own.

So I came across a link to an article by Joe Carter at First Things about Thomas Kinkade “Painter of Light™” and I stopped to read. Glad I did. There are many evangelicals who love Kinkade “Painter of Light™” and others who can’t stand his stuff. Here I must admit one of my weaknesses. Years ago I saw some of Kinkade’s “Painter of Light™” stuff and thought it was nice. I didn’t fell compelled to whip out the MasterCard and slap down the big bucks but I was positively disposed to it. I didn’t think too critically about it and it was “Christian” and popular. After I saw more and more of his work I rather soured on it. Just not my kind of work. I think I can be easily initially swayed but I’m glad I don’t give in too easily.

So that brings me to Joe Carter’s piece. At first I thought it would be a slam on Kinkade “Painter of Light™” but you really need to read it. Joe is amazingly fair and critical. I don’t want to give too much away but Kinkade “Painter of Light™” isn’t the hack he is sometime pictured as by his detractors. Joe also, I think, helps vindicate my initial reaction. I hope so anyway.

‘n Stuff

I came across this video last week and really appriciated it. I think classical music is wonderful and wish more people would slow down to listen. When I catch it, I always appriciate Exploring Music with Bill McGlaughlin on NPR because Bill doesn’t look down his nose, pronounce this piece beautiful and make you feel like a dope if you don’t get it. He walks you through what’s going on and explains what you’re hearing.

So anyway, here‘s the video. Take the time to watch all of it, you may find out that you like classical music too!

Read 2 Kings 1-4 the other morning. Some pretty serious prophet action going on there with the passing of the mantle from Elijah to Elisha and Elisha doing some pretty heavy prophet work. He made a poisoned stew safe to eat, parted the river Jordon with Elijah’s robe, provided an endless source of oil for a widow and raised a boy from the dead. It is easy to read that section of Kings and just be blown away by the power of the prophet. And then miss the point of the whole thing.

We should be dazzled by Elisha’s performance here. I mean, it was really impressive! But the role of the prophet, a true prophet anyway, is never to draw attention to himself. So if we’re dazzled by Elisha and we don’t see beyond him we’re missing the point. So, smarty theology nerd, what IS the point of this section then? Well thank you for asking Mr. Head Voice Person! I happened to have spent most of my bus ride the other morning thinking about that very question. Yea. I know. I’m in your head, remember? Shhh. What. Ever.

What I think is going on here is tied to the story that opens the book. Ahaziah, King of Israel fell and was injured. He sends some men to inquire of a Philistine god whether he will live or not. Elijah interrupts the king’s messengers’ journey with the question “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub?” You can tell this question is important because it is repeated verbatim two more times in this chapter. The rest of that story is bad news for Ahaziah: he’s toast. But the episode sets up the next few chapters. As we watch Elisha go, we should have the same question echoing in our ears. Is there no God in Israel? Elijah was carried in to heaven by chariots of fire. Is there no God in Israel? The battlefield Israel and Judah drew up in against Moab is flooded when there was no rain and that lead to their ultimate victory. Is there no God in Israel? These miracles are intended to answer Elijah’s question for us.

I think I’m on the right track here because the same basic question is picked up again in chapter 5. Naaman comes to Israel to be cured and Israel’s king thinks he’s being set up by the king of Syria. Elisha tells the king that he will come so that Naaman “may know that there is a prophet in Israel.” (2Ki 5:8) The prophet is supposed to represent God to the people. If there is a prophet in the land, there is God in the land. Prophets don’t operate apart from God.

Now at this point we can click our tongues and wag our heads at those goofy Israelites. They just didn’t get it did they? Perhaps if we were there we’d’ve done better! Well, this is the part where the lesson gets personal. We’re more sophisticated than they were in those days. They had numerous regional gods who supposedly ruled over different territories. If another god seemed more powerful than yours, go make him happy and maybe things’ll go your way. But monotheism has pretty much routed those lesser gods. ¹I think this is because of Jesus’ victory on the cross and in his resurrection. Sacrifices in temples were made to demons. (1 Co 10:20) Jesus defeated these lesser things and paraded them in humiliation. (Col 2:15) I think this is why polytheism is not the major world force it once was. Today we see naturalism attempting to put monotheism to flight in a similar manner. So if we can’t run to Baal-zebub for answers, where do we run?

Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of naturalism? Naturalism has the answers. Or most of them anyway. We are the product of our DNA and of our environment. Period. Medical science is picking our DNA apart to explain why we’re fat or thin, healthy or sick, shy or extroverted. Couple that with psychology’s quest to understand how cold parents or intolerant society have molded you to be who you are. Will I succeed? A DNA test and some time with the therapist will reveal all!

I’m not saying that everything naturalism says is wrong; much of what we’ve discovered about creation is right and a lot of it is helpful. The problem comes when we set up a false dichotomy between what is natural and what is supernatural. As if DNA and environment were the only way you got the traits you have. Or if these two processes operate on their own. No, God is the one who caused your DNA to produce a human being. God is the one who mixed your mother’s DNA and environment and your father’s DNA and environment in such a way as to create your DNA and environment. The natural doesn’t operate apart from the supernatural so don’t rush to naturalism for answers to questions about who you are and why you are the way you are. Their answers will be incomplete.

Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of youth? Will I live or die? That was Ahaziah’s question to Baal and judging from the magazines lined up in the supermarket, it is a question we’re asking today. Or consider these lines from Don Henley’s song The End of The Innocence:

For this tired old man that we elected king
Armchair warriors often fail
And we’ve been poisoned by these fairy tales

The line is a slam against Ronald Regan and seems to long for a younger man in office. As if youth means that you’d be a better leader. We live in a culture of celebrity  and young people dominate the world of celebrity. But beyond young people, youth itself seems to hold out so much promise for us. Botox, face lifts, tummy tucks, hair implants, diet fad, all of it promises to keep us in a state of perpetual youth.

A friend of mine from seminary is from Kenya. While he was working on his PhD, he was thrilled to see a few gray hairs appear on the side of his head. In African culture gray hair is a sign of wisdom. You listen to the gray hairs, they’re the ones who’ve been around and they know. Remember, some young kids came out to make fun of Elisha’s bald head and 42 got torn up by bears. The Biblical patter is not to seek out youth but to heed the aged. That is the consistent plea in Proverbs. Youth is not the answer.

Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of technology? Oh, this on hits a little too close to me. I’m a bit of a technology geek so if this has the weakest charges and application you’ll know why.

Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors placed on an circuits will double every two years. That means a huge increase in computing power on a regular basis. So far it has been pretty accurate. And today everything has a computer in it from a greeting cards to toasters to toys. Technology seems to have almost unlimited power and it is everywhere. Surely this is somewhere to turn to answers to our problems and concerns! And the future of technology looks like it is heading toward implants. We’ll be integrating technology into our bodies. Cell phone headsets will be implanted under our skin. We will be instantly connected to the world without having to carry around blocks of plastic and this will improve our lives. Surely technology can deliver.

But can it answer? Doesn’t technology merely echo our thoughts and beliefs back at us? After all, someone programmed it and there is that “ghost in the machine” effect. Technology has no soul, it is ignorant of anything other than what is plugged into it. Unless there is a human behind it it cannot answer us well. And then that depends on the human and so we’re not really much better off.

Again, this isn’t to say that technology is evil. There are many wonderful benefits to smart phones and programmable microwave ovens and computer managed automobile engines.  The danger comes when we think that technology can answer all of our problems. Only God can do that and even the technology we prize is a gift from his hand. When we worship idols of our own fashioning, there is the very real danger we will become just like them. (Ps 115:4-8) It is possible that the internet is making us stupid.

I’ve been through the little book of Philemon a few times in the past and I’ve heard different teachers draw different principles from it. Fellowship. A Biblical perspective on slavery. Things such as those. This morning when I read it something different caught my attention. It has to do with the nature of the New Covenant.

Philemon is a short, personal letter from Paul to a man named Philemon on behalf of an apparent runaway slave of his named Onesimus who has become a Christian under Paul’s ministry. Paul feels compelled to send Onesimus back to Philemon to right the wrong done. What stood out to me this time through was how Paul does that and what his expectations are. He tells Philemon “though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you.” (9) Paul has this expectation that Philemon will choose to do what is right and just “of your own free will.” (14) ¹Interesting that my print version of the ESV says “free will” but the on line version says “of your own accord”. Paul doesn’t seem to think that he needs to wield his Apostolic authority to get Philemon to do the right thing. ²Some take Paul’s mention if his authority in verse 9 as a kind of veiled threat. I used to read it that way. I suppose it could be, but I’m kind of doubtful. Threats don’t seem to fit with Paul’s attitude in this letter.  Paul is trusting that Philemon’s heart is such that he will not act as a Roman slaveholder who has been wronged, but as a Christian toward a brother. In short, Paul doesn’t rely on law but on grace.

The nature of the New Covenant is not that there are some, many or most members who are full of the Holy Spirit, but all. (Rom 5:5; 8:14-16) We have all been sealed with the Holy Spirit. (2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13, 4:30) Our hearts have been circumcised. (Rom 2:29, Phil 3:3, Col 2:11) Because of this there is a rather different approach to how wrongs are dealt with than we see in the Old Covenant. Yes, there were cases where grace was exhibited. Joseph and his brothers comes to mind. But there were times when tribes would war over a wrong. I think of how Israel nearly attacked the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manesseh when they erected an altar of remembrance just after the conquest of the Promised Land in Joshua 22. Or the horrible story of how Israel waged war on the tribe of Benjamin for the atrocity that took place at Gibeah in Judges 19-20.

There are those who prefer to flat line redemptive history so that there really isn’t any difference between the Old and New Covenants. They will stress more of the positive examples from the Old Testament and remind us that there are those in the New Covenant who are covenant breakers likewise. Admittedly, the church was not a state in the New Covenant as Israel was before the Babylonian captivity. That may be but the attitude, approach and method of conflict resolution seem to operate out of very different expectations in the New Covenant.

I’m coming up on one year of running in a few days and for the past couple of months I’ve been thinking about why I started to begin with. There were a number of reasons but the one that kind of kicked me the most was that I was reading J. Oswald Sanders’ book Spiritual Leadership and he asked “Have you ever broken a bad habit? To lead others, you must master your appetites”. He then suggests:

Why not take on some points of weakness and failure you are aware of and, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of discipline, concentrate on strengthening those areas of weakness and correcting faults.

Seminary was significant and difficult but it was something I had wanted to do for years. What difficult thing had I done that I wasn’t already predisposed to? Not much really. Another thing to mention here is that I noticed many of the spiritual leaders I admired were running. Could there be a connection between physical activity and spiritual maturity?

I was surprised to find the answer to that question on line in a short piece from Men’s Health. The piece is on weight loss tricks but it deals with exercise as well:

3. PRAY THE FAT AWAY

Christian men who report feeling greater intimacy with God through prayer are more likely to be physically active than other men, according to research from Cornell University. “Studies have shown that those who have more social support move more, and being closer to God may give men that support,” says lead researcher Karen Kim. Another possible reason: “General religion in the United States encompasses theological teachings about the body as a temple, which may also lead to the consumption of a healthier diet and increased physical activity,” she adds. Amen to that.

So apparently there IS a connection. How about that?  I was surprised to find this coming from Men’s Health magazine. So much of their content is horrible advice about sex. But I am trying to lose weight and there are some good tips in the article. Plus, it is on line so I don’t have to buy the juvenile sex tips to get the good stuff.

Okay, so what else motivated me to start? A bunch of fairly random things. I watched my daughter run one day and recognized in her easy stride the things I’d been doing wrong in mine. Bunched shoulders.  Tense body. Then I watched as my senior pastor melted pounds off. Every Sunday he was noticeably thinner. Then the Sanders book. My mom dieted and lost a few pounds. A good friend was working to qualify for the Boston Marathon by the age of 50. I had put on weight in seminary that I’d kept saying I would lose but never did. Joe Thorn was blogging on running at the time and pointed me to some good resources for getting started. That’s part of what got me started and once I got going I seemed to be hooked. Right around the anniversary of my first 5k I’ll be running my first half marathon. It is really helpful to see progress.

I was just reading Solomon’s prayer of dedication when the temple he built was finished and it reminded me of somethings. I think this post is going to be more of a rambling brain dump than an organize, coherent post. You may want to avert your eyes! :)

So Solomon dedicated the temple and prayed a very important prayer to God, recorded in 1 Kings 8. I can say that this was an important prayer because in chapter 9 God visits Solomon and says “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you have made before me.” He goes on to promise to heed Solomon’s request if he and the people will walk with him. That is the kind of answer to prayer I think we’d all like to get!

But it was the content of the prayer that snagged my attention. Solomon begins by blessing God (12-21); an appropriate thing to start with. What I thought was neat is that Solomon says to God, “I have indeed built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever.” (13) So it seems like he expected God to live in the temple. But it was only pagan gods who lived in temples, not Yahweh. Solomon knows this: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” (27) God is not contained in the temple, he is everywhere. I don’t think Solomon is correcting himself here, he is just speaking in broad terms. I mean, he started out by saying that he’d built God an exulted house when it was Hiram who’d done it. (chapter 7). This is just how the author of 1 & 2 Kings speaks. Solomon ordered the work and so Solomon built the house even though it is unlikely he wielded a single tool. The temple is a house for God but God doesn’t live in it exclusively. Same thing.

The other thing that got me thinking was even more significant. A bulk of Solomon’s prayer is taken up with requests that if the people sin and then turn and pray toward the temple that God would hear them. (31-40, 46-50) This is just laden with Christological significance to a theology nerd like me.

Prayer is to be directed to the temple and Solomon asks that God hear it when it is. In chapter 9 when God visits Solomon, he promises “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you have made before me. I have consecrated this house that you have built, by putting my name there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time.” God will listen! Jesus tells us that anything we pray in his name will be done. (John 14:13, et. al.) Facing the temple and saying a prayer isn’t a magic incantation that will oblige God. Neither is tacking “In Jesus’ name”on at the end of a prayer. To pray toward the temple is more that a compass direction, it is to pray in accordance with the temple, with faith. To pray toward the temple is to have faith that God will meet sinful people there, forgive their sin and hear their prayers. The same thing is true with praying in Jesus’ name. It is to ask in accordance with who he is and what he stands for.

Yea, a bit rambling but I thought the connection was interesting.

Last night the congregation of Lakeland Evangelical Free Church affirmed me as an elder. It is really humbling to me. The group of men who lead our church are godly and wise and I feel like I should just sit silently in their presence and learn. That isn’t what they’ve called me to do but these are some really great men! I feel kind of small but it isn’t me and my natural abilities that fit me for this calling, it is Jesus work in me. Here’s something from Oswald Sanders’ Spiritual Leadership:

Spiritual leadership blends natural and spiritual qualities. Yet even the natural qualities are supernatural gifts, since all good things from from God. Take personality, for instance. [Field Marshall] Montgomery said that “the degree of influence will depenon the personality, the ‘incandescence’ of which he is capable, the flame which burns within, the magnetism which will draw the hearts of others toward him.” Both natural and spiritual qualities reach their greatest effectiveness when employed in the service of God and for His glory.

Yet spiritual leadership transcends the power of personality and all other natural gifts. The personality of the spiritual leader influences others because it is irradiated, penetrated, and empowered by the Spirit, the Spirit’s power flows through him to others.

Spiritual leadership requires superior spiritual power, which can never be generated by the self. There is no such thing as a self-made spiritual leader. A true leader influences others spiritually only because the Spirit works in and through him to a greater degree than in those he leads.

Sobering. Humbling. Empowering.