Abraham's Reward in Genesis and the NT

by Felipe Diez (Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com)

 

        "After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” ² But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” ³ And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” ⁴ And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” ⁵ And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” ⁶ And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:1-6)

 

Abram’s faith, arriving to him as a result of a trusting relationship with Yahweh and His promises, is a well-known theme in the book of Genesis. This essay will examine the implications of what Genesis 15:1-6 teaches with regard to the term “reward” and the other events surrounding these few verses, such as Abram’s mentioning of Eliezer the servant, the fact that the Lord calls Himself a “shield,” and what signified the stars in the Ancient Near Eastern sky. A sustained exegesis of each of the six verses will be provided, as well as some words concerning Biblical Theology. The essay will focus mostly on verse 1. It is important to note that the word “reward” in verse 1 is sometimes accompanied by other words in other translations to form phrases such as “your very great reward” (NIV), “your exceedingly great reward” (NKJV), or simply “your reward shall be very great” (NASB). The Hebrew word that is translated in these various ways is “sakar” (shkr). Its simple definition is “wages,” but it can also be used to mean “reward” and even “hire.” Sakar is a masculine noun, very well suited to refer to the Lord, since He is often called Father. Other instances of uses of sakar in the Old Testament will be mentioned as well as the existence of other Hebrew words that can also be translated “reward” in order to help paint a picture of this theme. This essay is descriptive, but will argue for an interpretative case. It is exegetical in nature, but will go further than to simply translate the chosen verses.

The Hebrew word for “reward” (sometimes translated as “wages” or “repay”) occurs about 28 times in the Old Testament. This does not count for other usages of “wages” that may possess more obscure definitions. The most basic definition for the term translated “reward” or “wages” is something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, or hardship. “Sakar” (your reward) along with “ishlm” seem to be the most used words for “reward” and “wages” with the aforementioned definition although a secondary definition is also possible: “a sum of money offered for the detection or capture of a criminal, the recovery of lost or stolen property.” This definition accounts for few of the verses used in the OT for “reward” and is, then, not the one in view with regard to the verse in Genesis. Some other OT examples of the first definition of “reward” (Hebrew “ishlm”) are found in 2 Samuel 3:39

“And today, though I am the anointed king, I am weak, and these sons of Zeruiah are too strong for me. May the LORD repay the evildoer according to his evil deeds!" (NIV).

The NKJV, following the tradition of the KJV, translates the same verse containing “ishlm” as “reward” instead of “repay” here:

“And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.”

Another verse where “ishlm” occurs is in Ruth 2:12:

“May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." (NASB).

The NIV translates the first few words of this verse as ‘May the Lord repay.” Other than the main verse of study in this essay (Gen.15:1) “After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward,” there is another verse that uses “sakar” (shkr) instead of “ishlm.” It is Numbers 18:31 “You and your households may eat the rest of it anywhere, for it is your wages for your work at the Tent of Meeting (NIV). Here, the Hebrew word is “sakar.” The NKJV, again, translates this same Hebrew word as “reward” in the same verse. Other Hebrew words that are translated “repay,” “reward,” or “bribe” are nebizbah, pelluah, and shalmon, although these occur with less frequency out of the total 28 verses in the OT translated “reward.” Shalmon occurs in Psalm 5:15. An instance of “nebizbah” used in the second definition to mean “recovery of stolen goods or property” happens in Daniel 6:14 “When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him." (This verse is not included in the total 28 instances of “reward” in the OT).

The genre of the passage is "prose narrative concerning a vision." It describes a short but meaningful conversation between Abram and God. It is covenantal in that it involves a promise and a vision to authenticate the scope of the promise. There is symbolism in the passages that aid the reader in understanding past revelation and how it continues – progressively providing more information concerning God’s management of Abram’s life and future. The Lord presents Himself for the third time to Abram, this time as a “shield” and a “reward.” It is not a human shield or a monetary reward that Abram will be protected by or receive as some recompense, but the present tense in verse 1 “I am your shield; your very great reward” strikes the reader as something that God is (Sovereign) and what He signifies (a reward in and of Himself). Chapter 15 is a new passage, however, the phrase “after this,” in the first part of verse 1 gives a clue that the following verses may contain some information that takes into account the preceding story. Previously, Abram had interacted with the King of Sodom, and had refused an offer to keep treasures of war for himself, so as to remain unstained by that King’s nefarious influence. In the ancient Near East world, a king signified protection (shield) from all manner of harm. A powerful ally would have served a landless sojourner such as Abram well. The Lord’s dealing with Abram states explicitly that no other King but Him would provide Abram with protection, nor would he be comforted with extra riches as a reward. God’s relationship to Abram would be his comfort and estate. Neither should Abram be afraid of any ruler but the Lord.

As is usual in the lives of the patriarchs, there are complaints of something lacking, and in Abram’s case, it was a male child who would be his heir. Abram is quick to attribute this perceived problem to the Lord’s doing in verse 3 “you have given me no children.” Eliezer of Damascus was Abram’s only link to an heir. He was probably a beloved slave, such as those who would be purchased in the ancient world if a man was childless. Some commentators suggest that Abram could have obtained Eliezer during his journey southward to Haran. In Genesis 24:2, there is a servant who remained “unnamed.” Some speculate that this could have been Eliezer himself. Studies of ancient Near Eastern texts (Code of Hammurabi) strongly suggest that a childless male could make one of his male servants an heir. It appears this way in verse 2. At any rate, this was not God’s plan (verse 4), for Abram was promised a child even at his old age. This was another one of his complaints to God, which eventually resulted in the birth of Ishmael, who was not destined to be the carrier of the seed (Abram’s descendants). The Lord has Abram contemplate the night sky. There were probably many thousands of bright starts in the ancient night sky. This, along with the grains of sand of the beaches, was to be the analogy concerning the number of descendants that Abram would have (verse 5). God would surely and sovereignly bring all of this to pass, even if Abram could not fathom it. In earlier encounters, similar things were spoken by the Lord to him. Three visions, an important number in ancient culture, constituted a well-rounded set of events that ensured, in totality, the veracity of the vision as well as the divine reputation of the enactor.

 

An exceedingly important verse is the final one in this study “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” This verse not only has New Testament implications (as do the others), but very personal issues that concern every believer. The fact that Abram believed God is a sovereign result of God’s good and reliable character – that He fulfills all promises – yet even though Abram faltered in many ways, he is credited with trusting the Lord so as to be called righteous (just). There is a two-way relationship between God and the patriarchs – one of mutual trust, although it is God who is perfect and finally responsible for carrying out the task. His divine condescension is proof that He is kind and caring toward His creatures. He works in the lives of those who believe and trust in His promises as well as Himself. Since God is not separated from what He proclaims (in the Bible), one is not a believer who does not trust in God’s promises, for then she does not trust in God’s character.

 

The theological content of these six verses supply a dense narrative of information with regard to the Abrahamic covenant. God is to be regarded as Lord over Abram in every sense. God, who is the protector of His people, does not want them to trust in kinds or in chariots, but in the Lord Himself. Him being the shield, He sets a hedge over those whom He calls. There is surely a rewarding content to this covenant. There is land and offspring – greatly coveted items in the ancient world and even today. But Abraham would not see the result of this promise nor would he meet the Christ. Not even Moses was able to enter the land. In a sense, Abram was not rewarded by the items themselves (except for the birth of Isaac), but with righteousness for having believed God. This was experienced by Abram, and the source of this righteousness is God Himself, therefore verifying the words of the vision in verse 1: “I am your shield; your very great reward.” That relationship with God which affects all those who believe is a form of protection from the final consequences of unbelief – spiritual death. A vision from God was not experienced by every person, and an important question must be asked: Why does God single people out and leave others to perish? Even among His children, why do some receive more information than others and a closer relationship with God? An exposition of answers to these questions is beyond the scope of this essay, but some passing mention can be given soon with regard to the theological implications of not only national election (Israel), but a very personal and individual election and favoritism in the Lord toward people of various kinds and in various manners.

 

The fact that Eliezer and Ishmael were not to be counted as heirs, and the youngest (Isaac) received that favored treatment (not based on anything he did) gives us a picture on divine election not based on personal merit. This kind of theology can be explored in the NT when discussions of merit and righteousness are had. Where did Abram’s righteousness come from if not himself? Was God fully responsible for Abram’s belief, or was it a synergistic relationship where God initiated the content of this faith and Abram responded with a “yes?” If this synergistic model is true, then was it possible for Abram to have probably held to unbelief, thus ending the possibility of the promise being fulfilled? Absolutely not! If Abraham was treated as he was because of who he was or what he did, there would be a type of favoritism with God. But does God react to something in a person to then promise them something? When Isaac and subsequently Jacob were born (elect and then elect of the next generation), they were counted as heirs, and God’s promise to have the older serve the younger is seen here (as opposed to Ishmael and Esau, respectively, as those reprobated). Joseph, then, with his tragic moments carried through by his brothers against him, and with Potifar’s wife and Pharaoh, preserved the promised lineage. It was the Lord who ultimately planned these occurrences for the benefit and carrying out of the promises made in Genesis to Abram. God is faithful and His word does not fail, despite attempts by many Jews to raise questions concerning belief:

 

“It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” (Rom.9:6-8)

 

These verses are both inclusive and exclusive, and deal with the ramifications of Abram’s third encounter with God. The non-believing Israelites throughout all its history were in fact not those in God’s overarching plan of salvation. Some have argued that this election is to service and membership, not to salvation, but an examination of other texts proves this interpretation to be reactionary and insufficient. If God’s promise to Abram was predicated on human belief and then ratified upon that belief, and not otherwise, then what does the Apostle Paul mean with this?

 

“For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom.9:9-13)

In other words, was God’s election of the Hebrews out of Egypt an act based on foreseen faith and inherent righteousness?

“It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Deut.9:5)

Abram, the previous idolater, had been chosen for a very special mission and had been given the necessary equipment to believe – to be able to trust God’s promises, therefore God Himself. His descendants refer to believing Israelites and also believing gentiles, which seem to comprise most of God’s children. This is a tremendous amount of grace bestowed to ill-deserving humans. Galatians has a great deal to say concerning Abraham and faith.

 

“So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (6-9)

 

Abraham is undoubtedly a model for proper faith in both the Old Testament and the New. Believers can look up to him and understand that his greatness and importance as a patriarch is due to his obedience as we take into account human responsibility, but ultimately Abram’s story is a result of God raising up this man whom He elected (foreknew) from before the foundation of the world (Rom.8), promising him love and possessions, and sustaining him through his difficult journey. We can expect, as believers, to have similar difficulties in our faith, and could be comforted with the fact that God’s faithfulness in Abram’s life is a result of His omnipotence and everlasting love toward His remnant (true Israel) elect in both the OT and the New.

SOURCES

 

Beale G.K. Handbook on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Exegesis and        

Interpretation (Baker Academic, 2012).

Brotzman R. Ellis. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. (Baker

Academic, 1993)

 

Everett F. Harrison, Pfeiffer F. Charles. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press.

Chicago, IL, 1962

 

Horton, Michael. Introducing Covenant Theology. (Baker Books. Reprint Edition, 2009)

 

Mann, Thomas W. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the

Pentateuch. Atlanta: (John Knox Press, 1988).

 

Julius Scott Jr. On Church And Culture

The whole orientation of the New Testament writers assumes that the present condition of society is abnormal. The Biblical doctrine that God’s creation was originally "good" establishes that. But the effects of sin are not limited to nature and the individual. Society too is not now as it was meant to be. Along with the natural order, the structures within which humans live and relate to each other do not recognize, honor, and serve God and do not submit to his rule and will. Furthermore, the Biblical writers teach that this abnormal condition of society will not continue. The New Testament is alive with the reality that Christ’s atonement was directed to all that was affected by sin, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). The sovereignty of God and the in-breaking of his rule subjects society to his redeeming influence. To say the least, Christ does transform culture, although not necessarily directly in this phase of Salvation History. He transforms people in culture and they, in turn, spread the claim and implications of his rule over society. But, "as it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him" (Heb 2:8). The tension between "Christ and Culture in Paradox" and "Christ the Transformer of Culture" will reach resolution at the consummation. The time will come when God will "subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21), when "at the name of Jesus every knee [shall] bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue [shall] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10–11).

The redemption and reconciliation purchased by Christ includes all of creation, "God so loved the world"—in all its parts: natural, societal, and human persons. Thus, the fact and scope of salvation prohibit Christians from being unconcerned about all that is about him or her. We have learned something of the nature of the present context and relationship between church and society, but we have not answered the question of this chapter.

Witness of the Church to the Saving Work and Lordship of Christ

Both in "The Great Commission" of Matthew 28:18–20 and in his parting words, recorded in Acts 1:8, Jesus made clear that the church is to bear witness to society of the nature of the spiritual situation, including its rebellion against God and the fact of his saving work and Lordship. We noted this command when summarizing the mission and task of the church. A part of the church’s relation with society is its prophetic role; a role which will often result in resentment and hostility by society. Nevertheless, the church has the responsibility to relate to society in this way.

In describing the root cause of the difference between the false and the true prophet, Jeremiah records God’s stating that the true prophet has "stood in the council of the Lord" (23:18). That is, the true prophet has been made aware of the very person and character of God. The prophet’s word must be based on the awareness of God’s nature. Then, God continues, speaking of the false prophets, "If they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (23:22). The true prophet speaks against sin in order to turn hearers away from it. So too the true church calls attention to societal (as well as individual) sins, denounces them, and calls for repentance. This is precisely what Paul did before Felix, the representative of Roman society and government, as "he argued about justice and self-control and future judgment" (Acts 24:25).

Church history is replete with accounts of those who have taken this responsibility seriously, and delighted in doing so. But denunciation of sin and warning of judgment must come from those who have learned that the greatest of the spiritual endowments is love (cf. 1 Cor 13:13). Tears, not glee, befit the preacher of impending doom who would follow him who wept over Jerusalem. Another side of the relation between the church and society must be her compassion for those blinded and bound by the evil one, even though the object of that compassion is her persecutor.

The church bears witness, not only to society’s sin and eventual judgment, but also to the fact of the presence of the Kingdom of God. It joyfully affirms that light has shined in the face of Jesus Christ who has brought forgiveness and freedom from enslaving evil. It also proclaims the victory won by the death and resurrection of Christ and the fact of the coming consummation.

The church is responsible to bear witness, to announce the good news to society. Hers is not the responsibility for the response. Little matter if, after being faithful in discharging her duty, the church suffers a like fate from those who killed the prophets, or receive a response similar to that of Felix to Paul’s witness, "Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity I will summon you" (Acts 24:25).

The church is to relate to society as witness with all the available methods appropriate to the message she gives. These include words, the preachment, but also behavior. Included too are deeds which show to the world Christian concern, love, justice, and mercy even in the face of the exact opposite from society. There is also the witness through lifestyle, of which we have spoken. Yes, it may evoke hostility and abuse; it may also bring admiration, conviction, and conversion.*

*Scott, J. J., Jr. (2008). New Testament Theology: A New Study of the Thematic Structure of the New Testament (267–270). Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor.

Gilley, Horton and Wells On Consumerism And The Church

 The premise of all marketing is that the consumer must be pleased; he must be kept happy; he must be given what he needs, or has been programmed to think he needs, if we are to succeed. This premise works very well for say, McDonalds, but can it be adopted by the church? Certainly it can, but is not the church - and more importantly the gospel message - in danger of being distorted in the process? Listen to these words by Wells:

"The fact is that while we may be able to market the church, we cannot market Christ, the gospel, Christian character, or meaning in life. The church can offer handy childcare to weary parents, intellectual stimulation to the restless video generation, a feeling of family to the lonely and dispossessed – and, indeed, lots of people come to churches for these reasons. But neither Christ nor his truth can be marketed by appealing to consumer interest, because the premise of all marketing is that the consumer’s need is sovereign, that the customer is always right and this is precisely what the gospel insists cannot be the case" (emphasis mine).

Michael Horton summarizes things well: "By the time we are finished, we have entirely transformed the communion of saints. We did not even have to officially jettison the Bible, as the modernists did earlier this century. We did not have to say that Scripture failed to provide answers for the modern world or speak to the real needs of contemporary men and women, as the liberals said. All we had to do was to allow the world to define the church instead of allowing the Word to define it" (emphasis mine).  

 When we speak of marketing the church we are not referencing such things as advertising church events, excellence in programming, being kind to visitors, or providing ample parking. No one is arguing the importance and value of such things. Marketing, as practiced by the new-paradigm churches, goes much further because its focus is on what the consumer (unchurched Harry) wants and thinks he needs, rather than on what God wants and what he says Harry needs. In other words, market-driven churches are built upon the foundation of polls, surveys and the latest techniques instead of upon the Word of God.

 In order to market a church to the unsaved consumer, he must be given what he wants. Since unsaved consumers do not desire God, or the things of God, they have to be enticed by something else. Thus the temptation arises for a church to change, or at least hide, who they are so that they appeal to unchurched Harry. Additionally, the church is tempted to alter its message to correspond with what Harry wants to hear and thinks he needs. The end result is a felt-need gospel that appeals to Harry’s fallen nature in an effort to entice him to come to Christ, the ultimate felt-need supplier, so that he is fulfilled and feels better about himself.

 But, "Can churches really hide their identity without losing their religious character? Can the church view people as consumers without inevitably forgetting that they are sinners? Can the church promote the gospel as a product and not forget that those who buy it must repent? Can the church market itself and not forget that it does not belong to itself but to Christ? Can the church pursue success in the market place and not lose its biblical faithfulness?" I believe the answers to these questions are self-evident.*

*Gilley, Gary (2012-05-16). This Little Church Went to Market (Kindle Locations 512-519,542-558). Evangelical Press. Kindle Edition.

Wars and Battles

James 4:1-3:  What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. (NASB 1995).

This is not speaking of the results of personal sanctification causing outbreaks of sin in the body of an individual member, but rather the outbreaks of sin in individual members that affect the entire membership of a local body of that catholic body of Christ which comprises membership in the New Covenant.

Notice what James does say: These sins are quarrels and conflicts; these sins are the result of the wrongful lusts, or desires or passions, of individual members that are causing schisms, or divisions, to the point of the apostle calling them quarrels and conflicts. The sins described are plural, as is the damage to the body local.

Quarrels are rightly described as wars in the KJV: These are serious and protracted conflict(s), often involving a series of attacks (Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (495). New York: United Bible Societies), while conflicts are serious conflicts, either physical or non-physical, but clearly intensive and bitter (Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (494). New York: United Bible Societies).

The foundation of these things are the pleasures of those members who are causing the corporate strife, and so damaging the other members of the local body of Christ, both of those other members who are under attack and the corporate body as a whole; the testimony of Christ among the body and in the world are also damaged by these pleasures.

This points to so many of the problems in so many modern versions of Christianity that deny the Scriptural and historical Christianity that the Bible proclaims and verifies, but what is sad is that those members causing the problems actually get real and true pleasure out of causing such discord and active enmity among the local body of Christ. This is the source: the perverted passions of the flesh which always love evil and do anything to cause pain and suffering to others, knowingly; the Greek word is where we get out English words hedonist and hedonistic.

Even worse, this pleasure in causing pain for others is set actively against the Head of the body, Jesus Christ. This is knowingly crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to an open shame, for to treat the members of His body in this way is to treat the Lord, Savior and King in the same manner (Matthew 25:41-45). Such is the emptiness of these members’ profession of Christ, that they are taking opportunity to do Him damage at every turn by hurting those for whom He died. Their end is destruction, their appetite is their god is their belly (physical satiation of carnal desires) and they glory (jubilantly exult in) their shame (those things they are doing which should result in disgrace and disgust – Philippians 3:18-19). Such are enemies of the cross of Christ, and following the old human adage misery loves company, they gladly, with a vicious joyousness, spread their misery among the body with abandon, as the arrows of their apparent hatred for the Lord they falsely profess are shot against His body again and again.

James calls these members murderers, by stating the fact that what they are doing, in word and dead, is murder. If our Lord were to arrive in the flesh before them (sans His fearsome glory, which will not happen until His second advent), they would be among those crying “Crucify Him!” They fire their deadly bullets of strife at His body’s members to show what which they truly think of the Lord and Head of that body.

They justify doing these things because they ask and do not receive. They do not receive because they ask to spend that which they would like to receive on the same carnal, hedonistic pleasures that they feed by actively working to hurt the body of Christ of which they are supposedly members.

In summation of the above, those James is speaking about are what is often called (wrongly, I might add) carnal Christians in many of today’s modernistic churches. This is to say that they are not Christians at all; their view of God and God’s covenant people is shaped by their own selfish desires, which they never find fulfilled, and consequently, they attack the members of Christ’s body, which we have seen is the same as to attack the Lord Himself.

Nevertheless, as we close, we must remember this: even those who have not yet tasted and seen the goodness of the Lord are admonished to repentance within this very chapter (James 4:6-10), for it is always the intention of the Lord that those who experience the riches of His good kindness, forbearing, kind mercy and patient endurance be led, by such kindness, to repentance (Romans 2:4). The attacks of these may yet be turned to worship of the true God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, if He, in His great mercy, grants them that new heart of faith and repentance that turns to Him. The ministry will echo God’s will in these matters, as will the entire assembly of the saints (Philippians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26); however, while they are attacking, they are to be shunned, and not allowed to foment strife and division within the body of our blessed Lord (Romans 16:17-18), for our Lord has ordained these means to protect His sheep for His name’s sake.

SDG - Bill

More On Worship From Peter Masters

Contemporary worship, however, is fully aesthetic in purpose and practice. God is the audience and the worshippers are performers. Skilful instrumentalism is part of the offering of worship. We repeat, that many evangelical churches have, in this way, gone back to Rome, but they have actually surpassed Rome both in intricacy and decibel count. At the dawn of world history Abel’s offering was accepted by the Lord because it was the very act God had commanded – a humble offering representing the need for atonement. Cain’s offering, however, was rejected, because it presented his own skill, labour and artistry. It was a ‘works’ offering. To parade before God our skills as an act of worship is surely nearer to the offering of Cain than that of Abel.

 Christians who have begun to savour new worship sometimes ask – ‘But what shall we do with our gifts if we cannot express them in worship?’ Here is the heart of the matter. Worship is not the exercise of our gifts, but the exercise of our hearts and minds. For many people this is the lost genius of worship, the principle which has disappeared from sight – that worship is not the presentation to God of skill or beauty, or of personal gifts, but the communication of the soul with God, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Worship is not an aesthetic activity. Incidentally, the desire to ‘express our gifts’ in worship opens the door to elitism, because not many people have musical gifts to display. Where will it end? If someone’s ‘gift’ is to play the bagpipes, and another’s is to play cricket, are we to fit these into the service of worship also?*

*Masters, Peter (2012-01-11). Worship in the Melting Pot (Kindle Locations 134-145).  . Kindle Edition.

Sandy's Hooks Part Two

Here I wrote about my skepticism of the Sandy Hook skepticism. Now, I want to make an additional remark and give to you, (not written by me) ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists. Basically, a psychological profile of what conspiracy theorists are generally like.

For the argument: If the Sandy Hook incident was indeed a grand sham, it would be impossible to conduct, given the infinite amount of people that would have to partake of it. The conspiracy theorists argue that this was nothing more than a mini-Hollywood movie. Listen Charlie, this didn't take place in some remote area, with people whose names can be changed on a whim; this occurred in a REAL American school, in a REAL American city. The school would have had to explain to the teachers, families, staff, local police, local firefighters, and anyone else who lived anywhere near that area (or even farther given the sensitive law enforcement scenario) that such an incident would take place on school grounds, and that they would have to keep their mouths shut or else. The community who knew the children, the families who knew the families involved and the children, friends who knew the families (and possibly the friends who knew them), the co-workers of the families involved, the churches who knew the families involved, would all have to be in on it as well (or the original families would have had to create this master plan where funerals are non existent, they send the children to some Russian border school, and for some reason or another, people stop being people, and never confess to anyone). They would have to for some reason or another, lie to their friends and the world. And we believe that there hasn't been a peep out of anyone who actually knows them or the community?

Or, lets say that these people are indeed actors. Their families would have to keep this a secret. Their friends, families, co-workers, and all the people that they've ever met, would have to keep silent on who they really are. Furthermore, the community would also have to lie about the existence of these people, the names that were released, would have had to been made up. And oh, if they were indeed all actors, the community and surrounding communities would have had to be controlled with an iron fist, so no questions are ultimately asked, or visits are made.

This my friend, leads to a massive conspiracy, not known by only Obama and his cronies, but by hundreds if not thousands of individuals.


As for the characteristics, here they are:

(sorry about the funky background color of the text)

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

-awretchsaved

Michael Horton On Worship

Another notable reformation of new covenant worship occurred with the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The gospel having been eclipsed by humanly devised doctrines and practices, the Reformers knew that the power was in the preaching of the gospel— not only in the sermon but in the entire service. The service, they recognized, was not primarily about human action but centered on divine action. God was not only central as an object of worship but also as a subject— an actor, who reconstitutes strangers and aliens as his own redeemed people each week.

 As at Pentecost, the encounter with God was seen by the Reformers to occur only because God had descended— in the incarnation, obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ, and in the descent of the Spirit. The apostles did not program a “revival” but were led by the direct commands of the ascended Christ, who gave them not only salvation as a free gift but also the gift of being made witnesses to Christ.

 The medieval church had accumulated many innovations in both doctrine and worship, and the average layperson knew little about the Scriptures. Worship services introduced morality plays, stirring music to excite a sense of mystery and majesty, and relied on images, “the ‘books’ for the unlearned,” as the saying went. The Heidelberg Catechism of the Reformed Churches thundered back, “No, we should not try to be wiser than God. He wants his people instructed by the living preaching of his Word— not by idols that cannot even talk.”[ 8] If the people were not up to speed in their biblical maturity, the answer was to get them up to speed, not to accommodate to a degenerating condition. Calvin called worship, as he called creation and redemption, “the marvelous theater” in which God descends to act before a watching world. As many writers have observed, this stands in contrast to much of worship today, whether it takes its cue from high culture or popular culture. It is that presence of the Spirit through his ordained means that makes the worship service a theater of grace in which Christ and all his benefits are communicated to those who were once “not a people”— living aimlessly without any definable plot to make sense of or give a sense of significance to their fragmented lives.

 As our age, commonly labeled “postmodern,” furthers and even celebrates this fragmentation and the loss of any stabilizing identity, our response must be neither one of mindless conservatism nor an equally mindless accommodation. Scottish minister P. T. Forsyth issued the following warning just after the turn of the twentieth century:

 "There are few dangers threatening the religious future more serious than the slow shallowing of the religious mind. . . . Our safety is in the deep. The lazy cry for simplicity is a great danger. It indicates a frame of mind which is only appalled at the great things of God, and a senility of faith which fears that which is high. Men complain that they are jaded and cannot rise to such matters. That may mean that the matters of the world absorb all the energies of the great side of the soul, that Divine things are no more than a comfort. And, if so, it means much for the future of religion, and much which is ominous. And the poverty of our worship amid its very refinements, its lack of solemnity . . . is the fatal index of the peril.[ 9]"

Part of this peril, of course, is due to a changing view of the church’s relationship to the world. It was once the conviction of most churches, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, that the church was a mother who cared for her children. Now, it is increasingly the case that churches across the denominational landscape regard themselves as department stores in a shopping mall that must sell a product to choice-obsessed consumers.

*Horton, Michael (2003-05-01). Better Way, A (pp. 15-16). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.