Personal Thoughts

²⁵ .. husbands, … love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her.… ³¹ As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” ³² This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one… Ephesians 5:25, 31-32

Parables and other forms of the metaphor are very much a part of our cultural imagination. One analogy often overlooked is why God chose to create the marriage bond monogamous between one man and one woman. God would create for Adam only Eve to form a “oneness” that culturally has been all but lost since their quest to discover what “evil” was all about. Jesus regretfully lamented on divorce, “because of the hardness of men’s hearts” [Mark 10:5]. 

Divorce along with same-sex unions, and polygamy were not God’s design because God intended the marriage union as a metaphor representing “Christ and the Church” [Ephesians 5:32]. The mystery of marriage “oneness” is a spiritual bond. Perhaps this bond is only recognizable after decades of working through confrontations, arguments, and misunderstandings. Perhaps, a couple only after many years begins to recognize their love has climbed somehow to a higher level unseen in all the busyness of life. Nonetheless, in later years, to their utter surprise, even without the flowers and weekly dinner dates, something has happened to “cement” [the Bible word ‘cleave’] them together. 

Husbands are enjoined to love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” [Ephesians 5:25]. Somewhere alone in the memory of our first parents, we can assume, is a moment when such a love as this made sense to them. But a spiritual depravity would rob us of the insight to see that this “oneness” in marriage is worth pursuing.

Most husbands since “the Fall” might only complain about the lack of submission and respect wives show—missing Paul’s point entirely. Nonetheless, this metaphor serves to highlight the mystery which only begins to reveal its secrets to those few couples whose love has endurance and longevity.

Some husbands enjoy the leadership role when society is passing out accolades but they cringe away and hide in the shadows when the task requires sacrifice. Yet, Christ’s love for His Church put Him in the fore when evil needed to be defeated which, as we know,  led to His crucifixion.

There is, or should be, a consciousness that almost instinctively moves a man to risk all for family. Little boys dream of such adventures with punches thrown in defending fair maiden. But this seed of manliness must be culturally watered to germinate and the gardener is another man, a “father.” A true lover, a man who knows the secret of an enduring romance, is the only one who can cultivate in a boy both the desire to defend love and the tenderness to recognize that love when the time comes.

In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself – Ephesians 5:28

This verse interpreted:  If a married man cares about his own happiness, he will focus on hers. Happy Valentines Day!

Objective Biblical Truth is defined as an interpretation of Scripture that is universally valid, absolutely true, and unassailably correct. Interpreting scripture is known as the study of hermeneutics but scholars maintain three principles which are, themselves, presumed reasonable paving the way to a true understanding of scripture:

1. All interpretations of scripture are biased. We filter our understanding of the message of scripture through our understanding of life, of culture, of personal experience, and of education.
2. There is no understanding of scripture other than such that is mediated by this bias. All interpretation of scripture is in fact in part subjective. Most Christians accept without question denominational distinctives as full gospel even though these teachings are designed to distinguish one church from another—divide and not unite.
3. But, and this is important to note, bias is changeable by a continued study of the Biblical text. Through continuous contact with God’s Word either through devotional reading or personal study true believers (and not just church attenders) develop a life changing affection for the Word. They experience what they are studying because it is the responsibility of the Spirit to guide believers [John 16:13] into all objective truth, truth that is “universally valid, absolutely true, and unassailably correct.”

It is this third point that supports my contention that there is an objective truth to learn which God is sharing through the Spirit’s ministry with all His church, every believer, who prayerfully and studiously pursues it [Jeremiah 3:15; Luke 1:77; John 16:8-15]. But this is a process since the Word of God frequently confronts personal bias which through humility can be challenged and overcome [John 8:32].

It is called the “hermeneutical spiral” which is actively changing lives in every open Bible study not assembled to promote a set of doctrines but open to discuss and understand the text. Granted, some scriptures seem more culturally significant than eternally meaningful; for example, when Jesus sent His disciples out by twos without a purse or an extra pair of shoes [Mark 6:8; Luke 10:4]. Later, the Savior condescended to even carrying weapons [Luke 22:36] which probably is not related to their mission to spread the news of the coming Kingdom. Many labor through the prophets which seem boringly and woefully repetitious and some of the Psalms make more sense  to octogenarians than the youth.  But these are all “The Scriptures.”

The Spirit is teaching His church and using each to minister this truth to the others, but it requires a dedicated commitment and hunger to know God, accompanied by a lifestyle of prayer. When we come together this way opening the scriptures is an adventure into a more objective revelation of God’s Word because it not only makes “head” sense but  “heart” sense, as well.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 2 Timothy 3:16 NLT

Do we really want to know what the Lord says to us in His Word? Ask His People! They who are learning to live the message are more equipped to share it with others than any person of “letters.”

Look into Genesis 1:1 the first four words in English, “In the Beginning, God….” Have we graduated in our understanding beyond these four words? I haven’t! This is a fundamental statement putting into words a fundamental truth about God that He is eternal because when everything else began, He was already here! And upon this revelation we build all our beliefs and hopes.

In light of this truth we explain life and develop a perspective that interprets our circumstances from blessings to disasters. Howe in his work, “Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation” would call our belief in God’s existence “fundamental” which refers us to [our] vision of reality. God’s existence is in Genesis 1:1 the “self-evident truth which [is] tacitly acknowledged in everything we comprehend and assert.” Our lives, how we live, hereafter reveals whether we embrace these words as truth …or no.

The Context?

Let’s dig deeper. My son tells me that our interpretation of Scripture needs a context. What is the context here? It is either the eternity God dwells in or, if we need to hear from the text, “In the beginning…” In the beginning of what? In the beginning of the universe? The earth? These will be created directly, according to the text. Maybe, after the form of narration used in ancient Israel, we might categorize the creation of all things as a “beginning” of God’s creative genius at work. He would take a day off and then go back to creating [Psalm 51:10]. But let’s step back one step: Is this in the beginning of “time”?

Time

Did God create “time”? Time measures change and, primarily now since the “fall,” decay, atrophy, entropy, and all forms of a universe that—we are told—is running down. If we are talking “time” maybe the text is looking ahead after Eden. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would we even need watches or smart phones now? The problem with interpreting all this is the omniscience of God. Did He create a universe that came with a clock knowing what the first pair would do or did God tearfully give the universal winding stem a turn or two after they bit into the forbidden fruit? Or does it matter?

What matters is that we are now “in time” and our eternal God put us here for a season, which is obvious, since if our presence in this life were permanent, it wouldn’t be “in time.” Now, why would an “eternal” God do something like that!? Would you build a world—all that exhausting work and passion [on the 7th day He “rested”]—knowing it would all perish just after you built it? [No matter how many billion of years you think this globe has sustained the assault of meteors and all, compared to eternity, we are talking minutes of time.] Now, why would God do that?

Eternity

Well, He wouldn’t!

An eternal God does eternal things.

Our stay here: learning obedience, learning humility, learning to talk to God, getting to know Him on a personal level, learning to follow in His footsteps in the sands of time out of this valley of sorrows [Ps 23], is only a first step on our journey into His eternity. It makes no “eternal” sense for God to want our fellowship for this life only.

Take a closer look at the parentheses that embrace this existence: in Genesis 1:16 He made the sun and in Revelation 22:5 He gets rid of it because He has made something called in the Greek text of Matthew 19:28 a paliggenesis [Titus 3:5], a new Genesis! the NIV interprets this, “the renewal of all things.” Revelation 21 speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. I am beginning to see it!

Are you excited yet!

I am reading “Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation” by Thomas Howe. I am basking in my profound ignorance. You can thank my friend for this, thanks to his dying this week, leaving me without that “social” smile that he gave all of us as a start to our day! Well, what better way to express and memorialize the moment than a philosophical look at why our Bible has to be interpreted and reinterpreted and re-reinterpreted, and—now, in a postmodern “woke” world—relegated to a mythological antiquity!

It seems an appropriate quest since I am very much in the mood. You see, wokeness offers a confusing look at the concept of “victimization.” We simply don’t like being blamed for Jesus’ death? Or maybe, we don’t like being called “sinners” because we act and think differently from the preacher calling us that? Feminists argue that Jesus on the Cross as their substitute is offensive. The power to elicit guilt from them puts them in His debt.

‘In his chapter titled “Why be Objective?” Paul Helm describes two senses of ‘objective.’ The first is what Helm calls “ontological” objectivity. This is basically the question of whether the extra-mental reality exists apart from human perception or is the construct of the human mind. As Helm puts it, “Does the character of the world change with the very fact that we are interpreting it?” “Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere” Albert Einstein cautioned. Can science be purely objective since we are studying ourselves! How can morals be standardized if each of us personally has a voice in making that standard!

The second sense is the “epistemic objectivity” or “objective knowledge,” which, in Helm’s words, “eschews bias, reliance on one-sided information, and the like.”’

“And the like!”  “And the like!” Is this ejusdem generis? Is this as Paul once wrote about sinfulness, and as our pastor loves to say about many things “and those kind of things?!” [Ephesians 5:27].

The problem here is that the Biblical concept of knowledge is only based on LIFE itself! You have to get your hands greasy if you really want to learn auto mechanics! There is no biblical word for “academics.” The Bible message was meant to be experienced!

Anyway, there is only one instructor according to the Bible, The Spirit of God, John 16:8 And His task is not to show us under the hood—so to speak—not to give us the reasons behind the reasons that somehow make “logical” sense to everything. His task? …to get us to believe! He came to convict a sinful world because (read it for yourself in John 16:9) “because people do not belief in me,” Jesus informed. What other objective reason might there be for our Bible?

Reading in Melvin L. Hodges’ The Indigenous Church ( Springfield, Mo. Gospel Publishing House, 2009) I discovered I was not alone believing that the missionary approach to evangelism should work as well in the U.S.A. as it does in the Global South: South America, Africa, India, China, and points eastward. Here were some of the points of interest to me that were encouraging to read:

1. Churches should be self-supporting because “this is the apostolic method.” [Page 75] In America, we have “outgrown so much in our organizational structure. Some pastors are known now as Executive Pastors or presidents with corporate documents written to satisfy the government instead of keeping the focus on evangelism and the “Great Commission.” “Denomination”is admittedly not a biblical grouping of churches, but this does not mean that denominational oversight is wrong, but the work to which we are called is “Heralding the coming Kingdom.”
2. “Even the poorest people can support a pastor according to their own standard of living if 10 or more families in the congregation faithfully tithe … The New Testament pattern teaches that a pastor lives on the same level as the members of his congregation.” [Page 76] This is the biblical reason for the tithe. There were 11 tribes in Ancient Israel that had an inheritance. A tithe of their produce would feed the Levi’s by design.
3. “The churches of the east should be allowed to develop their own peculiar type of Christianity.” [Page 96] We can’t admit it but the sacrificial system in Leviticus, which most Christians have probably not read, let alone studied, is not culturally relevant for most Americans. We know Jesus died for our sins but giving a reason for the hope within may need to be explained using other metaphors and illustrations as well. We know the Gospel transcends some pagan cultures but it also transcends America’s “woke” culture. We may need the foreign missionary to explain this.
4. “If the church is to grow it must be seen as something that, by its inherent nature, can grow in any culture.” [Page 177]. This is true cultural transcendency.
5. “Psychologically, we are geared to the machine age. Fast and big are words that occur frequently in our speech. Anything that produces results more rapidly is looked upon with favor, even though the permanent results may not be as satisfactory as those that might be obtained from other methods.” [Page 111] A Microwaveable salvation with metrics so we can chart our ministerial successes doesn’t sound like God’s approach in the Global South—it isn’t! And it shouldn’t be ours, either! Evangelism and church growth takes lots of time—lifetimes, in some fields of endeavor.
6. I liked this one because it promotes horizontal, not vertical, growth: “Actually, it is better to have 20 smaller churches with 100 members each, scattered throughout the city, then to have one great church with 2000 members.” [Page 186]
7. “Above all, attitudes are more important than gifts.” [Page 204] I might have made them equal but if our heart is not living by biblical prinicples, following Christ in service, what does a “gift” really mean!

The above is 504 words. ‘nough said.

I was not prepared for what I was about to learn on reading Walter Brueggemann’s commentary of Isaiah.^⁠1  In his note on Isaiah 2:6b-8, he wrote, “The prophetic tradition, long before Karl Marx, understood that distorting religion and distorting economics provide mutual reinforcement and together seriously impinge upon the character and identity of the community.”^⁠2

Isaiah reported that the economy of the nation of Judah under Uzziah and Jotham prospered, but with that prosperity came a worldview, a Zeitgeist, that excluded God: “Their land is full of silver and gold; there is no end to their chariots.…they bow down to the work of their hands.” Judah became, what Brueggemann called, “an accommodationist money economy in pursuit of affluence … like all the nations.”^⁠3 They were trapped in an endless cycle of insecurity—needing money to buy weapons to guard a growing treasury. And God was replaced by “the works of their own hands.” Their self-reliance was exposed and humiliated, which—the prophet lamented unforgivably—forebode their own destruction. “So people will be brought low and everyone humbled—do not forgive them.,” Isaiah excoriated them [Isaiah 2:9]. Some scholars think it harsh of the prophet to claim no forgiveness for Judah but they were beyond repentance having gone through cycles of prophetic warnings, Only repentance could “save” them but this was not on the agenda for a self-dependent society!

Then Brueggemann wrote, “the triad of money-weapons-idols forms a convergence that is at the core of Karl Marx’s critique of an alienated society.”  Wanting to learn more about this alienation, I went to the writings of Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics who lectured on Marxism for the Freeman Magazine, delivered at the San Francisco Public Library in 1952. “Don’t think it is possible for a man to practice all his life  a certain ideology,” he concluded, “without believing in it.”^⁠4  And Judah had replaced the teachings of the Mosaic Law, God’s, so-called, “Old” Covenant with  something culturally and spiritually alien to the Lord’s explicit instructions for their life. 

“This threefold ‘fullness,’” Brueggemann lamented, “has decisively shifted the identity of the community, which now neither depends upon Yahweh … nor obeys Yahweh. No wonder Yahweh has rejected [it].”^⁠5 Judah had been brainwashed into an ideology that replaced Torah. 

But Isaiah would take comfort in the prophetic knowledge that someday the truth would win  out and God  “…will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths” [Isaiah 2:3]. But that was a distant hope, that we now know is written into the “New” Covenant in the Savior’s blood at Calvary. 

This, however, does not mean we are not vulnerable to the same Zeitgeist Judah fell victim to. Brueggemann warns, “This analysis, which pertains to an ancient society, is a workable model for our continuing social analysis of our own time and place, an analysis that is at the heart of prophetic faith.”^⁠6

¹ Walter Brueggemann. Isaiah 1-39 (Westminster John Knox Press. London: 1998)
² Ibid. Page 28
³ Ibid. Page 29
⁴ Ludwig von Mises. Marxism Unmasked (LvMI)  ( Foundation for Economic Education, New York: 2006), Page 37.
⁵ Walter Brueggemann. Isaiah 1-39 (Westminster John Knox Press. London: 1998), Page 29
⁶ Ibid.

I have been pondering my next “project” to keep busy. I have wanted to do a deep study of Isaiah since I have nibbled at the edges of his prophecy and found his work a grammatical challenge. I, apparently, am not alone since modern scholarship doesn’t even believe he wrote all 66 chapters. (Oh, 66 is the number of books in our Bible; 39 in the Old and 27 in the New; Oh, and this is one of the dividing lines between 2 different styles suggesting separate authors.) If I were not a believer and if I were handed Isaiah’s work without knowing it was Isaiah’s, I might think it had been written much later in time—maybe even after Jesus came!

Isaiah told us that Jesus’ mother would be in her teen years when she gave birth to Him [Isaiah 7:14]. Isaiah told us God would come incarnate [Isaiah 9:6]. Isaiah spoke of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian empire, hundreds of years before he came! Cyrus was called “anointed” because God appointed him to free the exiles to return to Jerusalem [Isaiah 45:1].

There were Isaiah’s four oracles announcing the ministry of God’s “suffering servant” and His death while the chastisement of our peace was on Him. Isaiah, also, wrote of His resurrection [Isaiah 53:5, 8, 10-11]. And Isaiah even prophesied of May 14, 1948 [Isaiah 66:8].

I have come to believe, also, that Isaiah’s use of words bears a closer look, since, they seem to be raised to a loftier level of revelation. Not only did God “anoint” a heathen king, but God sought to “reason” with Israel [Isaiah 1:18] at a time when His authority was not to be questioned. This dynamic would not be available until the Cross. Job longed for it  [Job 23:7]. In prayer now we can engage God in dialogue about our sinfulness [John 16:8].

Isaiah called the Passover a ransom [Isaiah 43:3]. The Greek translation called it, “an exchange,” Egypt for Israel [Matthew 20:28]. And what is “perfect peace” [Isaiah 26:3]. Compare John 14:27 & Philippians 4:7.

Harrison in his “Introduction to the Old Testament” told us that, “even a casual reading will be sufficient to convey the impression that Isaiah had a lofty conception of God. More than any other Old Testament work the book emphasizes the holiness of God and the fact that God has associated Himself in a special way with His people.”

I will not in this life finish my study of Isaiah.  It is my last book—I think—left incomplete, as it should be! The message of Isaiah is the message of Calvary in the garb of an older language, perhaps, ill equipped (much like our language) to express the deeper things of God.  Yet, I am most grateful to our loving Lord for sharing what He could, what He did, that gave His gift of faith to me the ministry it has.

I still think a lot and science has merit but I am excited about heaven where our Lord will complete this study! Isaiah included this in his description of Heaven  [Isaiah 35:8]. It is also in the New Covenant:

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” – NIV Jeremiah 31:34

“He now goes along as He went along in the olden times.”^⁠1 Habakkuk learned.  The NIV reads, “He marches on forever.”^⁠2 And this is what has been apparent to anyone who has learned God in prayer. God does what God did. So, it is evident to all true believers in Christ that God must inevitably deal decisively with a world of evil. Before we decided to wait on God’s response to a nation culturally corrupt, we lived with a self-imposed anxiety. But prayer changes things, changes us and changes our understanding of things.  History is not a repetition of unlearned cruelty of man to man.  History is now a part of prophecy. History is not man with man, alone, but man with God. History since Calvary is the world’s response to the Cross.   

It is a shame that life gets so complicated if we attempt at explanations or if we wish to make the right choices on our own.  Prayer simplifies things because we leave the design of our universe to God.  He planted the Garden of Eden; all we have to do is enjoy the flowers, if we learn how through those endless conversations we should be having with Him. Habakkuk’s world, the terrible things that were happening in Judah, like Isaiah’ Israel, was collapsing in on itself because as John Yoder,^⁠3 in a study of Christian ethics, correctly observed,  “people … use violence in the name of fostering justice.” But, he astutely understood, “[they] are not as strong as they think.” True, but this is unimportant—something we learn about “on our knees.” This is probably another reason why we leave the prayer chamber more at peace than when we entered it.  John Yoder continued pointing out the truth worth learning, “One does not come to that belief by reducing social process to mechanical and statistical models, nor by winning some of one’s battles for the control of one’s corner of the fallen world. One comes to it by sharing the life of those who sing about the resurrection of the slain Lamb.”^⁠4 

Before Calvary, Habakkuk, and Isaiah, had to grasp this truth by prophetic inspiration and trust God, then, that the Savior would someday show up in their world—as we now know He has to die on a Roman cross.  And now we wait again for Him to show up in ours at His second coming.  Everything still is comprehended by faith in prayer.  Nothing has changed for us.

And nothing has changed for God,  He is still marching on!

---

I have been giving serious thought to the trend in the “free” world^⁠1 to promote LGBTQ as a legally recognized community.^⁠2 Affirmative action^⁠3  acknowledges LGBTQ as a separate and diverse group worthy of equal legal and social recognition.^⁠4 Some colleges have a LGBTQ center on campus and, some, gender-neutral housing.^⁠5 LGBTQ is expanding to include persons who identify as “gender fluid” and “non-binary” as well as an ongoing interest in “gender reassignment” of children. LGBTQ is not LGBTQ; it is LGBTQAI+. The plus sign is the growing edge of social change which now reaches into the Christian Church. LGBTQ is a movement! 

The Church took for granted that the nuclear family, monogamy (one man, one woman), and just 2 genders, were what society was built on. But this simplistic mindset is being debated now even in the courts. We all know persons who are gay or who consider themselves binary. We all know people we love who have transgendered away from their biology.  And some seek acceptance within the Christian Community believing that this is only a personal life choice; and, as far as doctrine or worship go,  should make no difference.

Many innocent—and beloved—persons find themselves in a whirlpool of controversy because—and here is the rub—the Church can not tamper with the traditional definition of family upon which it has been established or it will no longer be the Church we knew. To argue that Christianity can embrace social evolution without being altered by it is deceiving. Acceptance means change and change means that the Church is no longer the Church as it saw itself reflected in the pages of Holy Writ.

The question to ask: Is the nuclear family and the monogamous relationship of one man and one woman biblical?  If not, then, none of this matters. If not, the Church can be part of this social movement and we no longer need to call these once cherished ideals “christian” but only “alternative” life styles.

Are the nuclear family and the monogamous relationship central to the Christian Faith?  Like the existence of God (Hebrews 11:6)  in Genesis 1:1, they are “givens.” Fathers, for example, were recognized culturally within oriental society as fundamental.  Children were orphaned when fatherless (Psalm 10:14, 18; Proverbs 23:10;  Lamentations 5:3; Hosea 14:4).  The concept of “family” was defined as the father’s house (Numbers 3:20). The “henotic” relationship (the nuclear family) is sacrosanct because it teaches the Church about our relationship with God. “As the Scriptures say, ‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one” (Ephesians 5:31-32). A “wife” and a “woman” in New Testament Greek are the same feminine word.^⁠6  The words “man” and ‘husband” are the same, also.^⁠7 

We have, perhaps, attempted to break the Biblical message away from its cultural moorings, suggesting that family and gender were only grammatical or cultural oddities and not essential to the Faith.  You decide.

How can we keep the message of Scripture pure in a changing world? How shall we embrace the people we love regardless of their life choices and still promote God’s Word upon which our faith and hope rest? Might Joshua 24:15 become a modern metaphor?

“Would you prefer the gods of the [nation] in whose land you now live? But as for me and my family, we will serve the LORD.”

¹ The Global North, the industrialized world, the civilized world, The U.S.A., Canada, and Europe
² This is a new definition of “community” based on the existing idea of “sharing common interests and goals.”
³ the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously
⁴ Diversity, equity and inclusion as well as ESG practices corporately.
⁵ Justine Rebecca Okerson. “The William & Mary Educational Review“ LGBTQ in Higher Education. Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 5. 5-1-2014
⁶ γυνή (feminine)
⁷ ἀνήρ (masculine)

The arrogance of the Babylonians was unnerving [Habakkuk 1:10-11] The Babylonians attribute their military successes to their own strength as their god. Habakkuk, notwithstanding, is confident and hopeful that God will not permit His people to perish at their hands. The prophet’s argument is that a Babylonian exile is an instrument of God’s judgment and it is not Babylon’s strength that brings victory.

“…we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Paul reminds us [Ephesians 6:12].

“Man proposes but God disposes,” the saying goes. [Ezekiel 26:3; Proverbs 16:9; Isaiah 10:5-6; Jeremiah 10:23]. Habakkuk prayed,

“Are You not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for correction” [1:12].

“We will not die!“

Habakkuk’s hope (and ours) rests on 2 truths:

1. Jehovah is my God, Israel’s God [Song of Solomon 6:3] not because we chose Him but because He chose us. [Psalm 65:4; John 15:16]. John Calvin astutely taught, “Therefore, whoever desires to fight bravely … let him first settle the matter with God himself, and, as it were, confirm and ratify the treaty which God has set before us, namely, that we are his people, and He will be a God to us in return.”¹ The god of the Babylonians is not God! Jehovah is my God! My God is always victorious in battle!
2. God is Holy. “The absolutely Pure One who cannot look upon evil.”² God, because He is Holy, He will mercifully honor His commitment in covenant to judge or punish evil. Jehovah’s name means “the absolutely constant One, who is always the same in word and work³“…from everlasting…” Correction or chastisement might be indeed painful but God administers this unto His own children [Deuteronomy 8:5; Hebrews 12:6]. When David, probably because his faith was weak—unexpectedly and without cause—was in need of serious correction, he pleaded with the prophet, “Please let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man” [2 Samuel 24:10-14].

When Habakkuk maintains, “we will not die.” he was not pleading with God to spare them, but affirming his faith that God chastises those He has chosen and whom He loves. And chastisement does not kill, it revives and brings us closer to our God.

The Rock of Ages

He is a Rock, “an unchangeable refuge of His people’s trust.”⁴ In Deuteronomy 32 Moses employed this sobriquet, “a Rock,” 4 times⁵.

“Rock of Ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.” What profound truth is sung and celebrated here! What an empowerment to faith! What a confirmation of Who God is! If we cannot find the words to pray when, like Habakkuk, we find ourselves in crisis, sing this song! It will speak for you.

¹ C. F. Keil C et. al. Commentary on the Old Testament. (Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI: 1978.) Vol X Part 2 Page 63
² Ibid. Page 64
³ Genesis 2;4 calls God’s creation, in NKJV, a ‘history’ because on this week science was set in motion for man later to discover.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, and 37 Verse 4 put to music is an old chorus.