Hubbard Hill Press

After a number of years of using the resources in church and school, I decided to share some of my writing with the rest of the world. For a simple, low-cost way to enter the self-publishing world, it is impossible to beat Lulu.com  Of course, time will tell if it is an effective way to earn a little revenue on my time investment!

Presently there are five volumes available in my “store” at Hubbard Hill Press: a teen devotional entitled “Journeys with Joshua“; a 7-session Bible study entitled “Foundations of Faith“; “Principles of the Christian Religion“, a high-school level Bible curriculum in both Teacher and Student editions; and “Readings in Church History”, a compilation of more than 400 pages of original writings spanning the first 17 centuries of the Church. Readings is available in both hardcover and paperback.

Print copies can be purchased as can downloadable PDF files of each book. Each has been “road tested” and refined; I trust they will be useful to the larger Christian community. Soli Deo gloria.

Interesting Times

I wonder who was responsible for keeping certain ideas muzzled in the old Congress. With change the order of the day now in Washington, a perspective has crawled out of the dark corner toward center stage which has far-reaching consequences. The esteemed Rep. Pelosi has gone on the record with the declaration that children are bad for the economy. They cost so darn much and we have such huge money troubles especially when it comes to health care that we’d all be better off if there were fewer of them. So, …let’s not give them a chance to be born and cost us money. Sounds like blatant utilitarianism to me – if it’s useful and contributes more than it consumes, keep it and feed it; if it consumes more than it contributes, well, you know the rest of the story.

But wait, I’ve got an idea. We could do even more to help the economy if we quietly pulled the plug on bigger people than the unborn who are consuming more than their fair share of healthcare resources and money. Maybe Terry Schiavo should have died earlier; think about how much it costs to keep all those folks with AIDS alive. Look at all we spent on Christopher Reeves and his ventilator. And what about Teddy Kennedy? He’s starting to rack up more than his fair share of the dollars, too. And all those kids in Special Olympics; you know how expensive they are. Perhaps they should all have the good sense to depart the scene before we lose more money. And if they don’t do that, Congress can step in to help bail them out, permanently.

PS. Just in case you missed it, the previous paragraph is sarcasm, dripping, troweled on. But that is exactly where Rep. Pelosi’s line of reasoning leads.

Questions on the Law

In our trek through the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith we have reached those chapters dealing with the Law and then the Sabbath. Numerous questions have been asked, some have been answered more easily than others. With respect to the Sabbath, the question which isn’t quite so easy to answer deals with the change of day from Saturday to Sunday. Since God didn’t declare in Holy Writ “worship on this day instead of that and for these reasons”, it’s not possible to defend the change using your handy Bible-proof-text-six-shooter. We must instead rely on other evidence to justify our present practice of worship on Sunday.

Below in outline form is my feeble attempt to build a biblically-based logical flow of reasoning to answer the question of how the 10 Words can be perpetually binding and yet “change” without violating the concept of God’s immutability or the rightful weight given to things “engraved in stone”.

The Decalogue

1) Basic principles

a) Represent a formal record of preexisting laws

i) God’s moral law existed from creation

(1) For the Fourth Commandment: Gen 2:3; Exo 16; 7-day week: Gen 7:4; 8:10,12.

(2) For the Fifth Commandment: Gen 37:10.

(3) For the Sixth Commandment: Gen 4:3-15.

(4) For the Seventh Commandment: Gen 12:17.

(5) For the Eighth Commandment: Gen 31:30; 44:8.

(6) For the Ninth Commandment: Gen 27:12.

(7) For the Tenth Commandment: Gen 6:2; 13:10-11

(8) The first three were a “given”

ii) encoded in hard copy for the benefit of the Israelites

(1) encoded in hearts under the New Covenant

(a) see Jer 31:31-33

(2) uniform legal code transmitted/encoded in different media

b) Moral law reflects morality of the Lawgiver

i) unless Lawgiver changes, his law remains – perpetual and unchanging

(1) see Mal 3:1; Jam 1:17

2) What are the laws? What was written in stone?

a) Exodus and Deuteronomy texts contain same basic body of law (Exo 20:3-17; Deu 5:7-21)

i) same principles

ii) same order

iii) same number

iv) unique parallel in all of Scripture

b) Exodus and Deuteronomy texts include more than bare laws

i) differences in the fourth command

(1) details of Sabbath regulation are included with the command

(a) Deuteronomy adds “your ox or your donkey” (Deu 5:14; cp. Exo 20:10)

(b) Deuteronomy adds reason for including servants – “so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.” (Deu 5:14; cp. Exo 20:10)

(c) additional details are specific to non-mechanized agrarian economy

(2) justification for the Sabbath law is included with the command

(a) Exodus – creation (Exo 20:11)

(b) Deuteronomy – deliverance from Egypt (Deu 5:15)

(3) explicit wording of the imperative (command)

(a) Exodus – Remember (za?kar) the Sabbath (Exo 20:8)

(b) Deuteronomy – Observe (sha?mar) the Sabbath (Deu 5:12)

ii) a promise is attached to the fifth command

(1) see Eph 6:2

(2) more elaborate promise in Deuteronomy (Deu 5:16; cp. Exo 20:12)

iii) an application is attached to the tenth command

(1) compare Rom 7:7 with Exo 20:17 and Deu 5:21

(2) application differs in Deuteronomy

(a) adds prohibition of “his field” (Deu 5:21; cp. Exo 20:17)

c) Unique aspects of the fourth command

i) a sign between God and Israel forever

(1) for the duration of the covenant with Israel

(2) see Exo 31:13-17

ii) during the New Covenant period, Old Covenant Israel’s Sabbaths are abrogated

(1) See Hos 2:11; Col 2:16

iii) during the New Covenant period, the Sabbath will continue

(1) See Isa 56:1-8; Jer 31:33; also Isa 58:13-14

3) So what exactly was on the two tablets?

a) Scripture doesn’t state explicitly

i) Exo 20:1 God spoke all these words

ii) Exo 34:28 He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant

b) Probably in the form:

i) Jesus used

(1) ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’ Luk 18:18

ii) Paul used

(1) “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” Rom 13:9

iii) Actual text of the fourth command?

(1) Keep the Sabbath holy (parallel form to commands 6 through 9, and New Testament re-stating)

4) So what’s the deal with #4?

a) Sabbath (rest) was instituted at creation

i) see Gen 2:2-3

(1) as a creation ordinance its essence is perpetual

ii) Gained a significance at Sinai not previously present

(1) deliverance – see Exo 20:2; Deu 5:6, 15

(2) old covenant sign – see Exo 31:13-17

iii) Perpetual, yet not, yet it is

(1) abrogated with the end of the Old Covenant

(2) “re-instituted” with the superseding of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant

(3) serves the same purpose

(a) rest

(i) see Exo 20:9-10 and Isa 58:13

(b) remembrance

(i) see Exo 20:11 and Deu 5:15

(4) but with different objects of remembrance

(a) see Heb 4:9-11

(b) also Act 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2; Rev 1:10

Conclusion:

Those essential elements of the Decalogue that transcend application to a specific people under the terms of a particular covenant are perpetually binding. The aspects which had significance in the context of the Old Covenant must find or be given significance relative to the New Covenant. Since the New is a “better covenant” than the Old (Heb 8), superior to the previous one, that which it signifies or remembers must be superior as well. Following apostolic and 1^st century church example, observing the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) signifies the entrance of Christ into his rest (Heb 4:10) from his work of new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:10) and delivering us from bondage to sin (Col 1:13-14; Heb 8:9-10).

 

Insurance Crazy

Have you heard the latest numbers?  Americans with no healthcare coverage grew in number by 2.2 million according to the census bureau!  Oh NO!!  What are we going to do to address this terrible plight facing millions in the richest nation on earth?  Is it time, are we ready for socialized medicine and mandated health insurance?  Ready or not, that’s the way Massachusetts is going and perhaps the rest of the nation.

But nowhere have I seen or heard where the question was asked “Why?  Why do you not have health insurance?”  I am among the ranks of those without health insurance; I do participate in a medical needs sharing program, but that doesn’t count at least for those who are counting.  I made the decision to opt out of company-paid health insurance (they paid mine, I had to pay the family portion) for two reasons, one very small but still a consideration and the other much larger.

First, in twenty years of paying Blue Cross premiums to cover three pregnancies and two major surgeries, the cost of the premiums exceeded the payback in benefits.  I would have been better off financially to put the amount of the premium in a simple passbook savings account and paid the bills myself.  There’s always a discount for paying cash and the savings would have earned interest, a double payback.

Second, and much more important, the good health of me and my family coupled with the premiums I paid helped to subsidize lifestyle choices made by others in the insurance pool that I would not make.  This isn’t speculation, it is actual experience – my premiums helped to cover medical expenses resulting from drunk driving, alcoholism, drug abuse, and prolonged use of tobacco.  Now maybe I’ll get in an accident and need medical treatment but it sure won’t be ’cause I’m driving drunk.  I may someday get cancer but it won’t be ’cause I smoked three packs a day for fifty years.

I decided I wasn’t going to spend my money in that way to help people cope with the consequences of bad choices.  There are other ways through the local church to do that much more effectively.  I also wasn’t going to spend my money to subsidize the medical costs of abortion.  Perhaps I’m strange and no one else on the planet thinks the way I do but now you know why I opted out of a top-of-the-line Blue Cross plan and into Samaritan Ministries.  I’m not even convinced that Samaritan’s is the best way to go but that’s where we are right now.

Part of my ambivalence stems from the question of how we should interact with the doctrine of God’s Providence.  I believe it’s irresponsible to have no insurance on anything and plow through life carelessly while depending on God to cover your act and keep you out of trouble.  But I’m not so sure it is irresponsible to have no insurance on anything and go through life making wise choices, being a wise steward of what God entrusts you, being generous in time and treasure support of the local church and God’s work, and trusting Him to care for you.   Isn’t that one of the reasons God put the local church on the earth, to be the context in which Christians bear one another’s burdens?

If we are faithful to our Lord, to the local church, and to one another in every aspect of our life, can we not expect Him to care for us?  And if that is true, does relying on insurance really say, “We can count on God for the little stuff but we need protection for the big stuff?”  Or is insurance of some sort and at some level of “protection” one of the ways God uses to provide for us?

Ratings and the Culture

A new (I guess) “service” caught my attention on a couple blogs I visit regularly. It’s from Mingle² and if you provide the url of your blog or myspace profile or facebook or website, they will give you a rating. So, obviously, I gave it a road test just to satisfy my curiosity. Apparently it works on the basis of a naughty word list – the more times a word from the list appears on your site, the more restrictive a rating the site receives.

As you know, the large majority of posts here are sermon notes. Certainly nothing risque there, or crude or graphic; definitely no gratuitous violence or even excessive harsh language, at least not by today’s standards, or so I thought. Boy, was I in for a surprise. I put in the url, waited the few seconds while highly sophisticated scientific analysis took place, and watched in horror as a “This Blog is Rated R” graphic appeared on the screen. What could possibly incite the watchdogs of cultural propriety to think my writing was unfit for anyone under 17 without mom or dad present? How could sermon notes of all things cross over the line into impropriety for sensitive eyes and ears?

It’s so convenient!  They even tell you why your site received a particular rating.  If your site is friendly and welcoming and appropriate for all age, thus achieving a G-rating, you also receive the affirmation that “No bad words were found”.  In the case of Reformanda, though, that was not to be – three bad words, used a total of 13 times.  Shame, shame, shame, to use words like death, missionary and crack is just not acceptable for children.

So again, just to satisfy my curiosity, I checked out the Dove Foundation’s descriptions of some PG-13 movies.  Since I don’t wish to improperly raise the rating of this blog to a more family-friendly status, I won’t give specifics but rather summaries.  War scene with explosions and dead bodies along with 15 expletives (in one movie) plus some other naughty words, 12 killings in another movie with a couple dozen of those words, etc., etc.  You get the picture.  And that doesn’t even consider the various portrayals of substance abuse and sexual behavior on the big screen.

What’s wrong with us when a movie-rating service deems it ok for  13-year-olds and older to see and hear cursing, violence, abuse, and immorality and a blog-rating service deems the use of the word death 10 times, missionary twice, and crack once is inappropriate for anyone under 17?  I know, two different organizations, two different standards.  Maybe.  But maybe not.  Is it that modern man is so sophisticated that he can deal with the idea of death only in a sanitized way, on screen, where someone else cleans up the mess, and the light of day makes death itself only a dim memory?

Now, I could go in a number of different directions here with these thoughts: what’s wrong with movie ratings, gratuitous violence and the culture, Hollywood vs. Everyman, the fascination with violence and denial of death, the list is really endless.  Whether it is popular or comfortable for people to deal with it, death is a part of life and we all must face it at some point.  The ratings of various things are merely reflective of how the culture tries to deal with the uncomfortable – deny or ignore it, or spin it in such a way that it becomes meaningless.  I guess that just gives the Christian more opportunities to show friends and neighbors who are searching for meaning in all the wrong places under the sun where to find the true meaning of life.

Parallel Universe

I came across an interesting tidbit in my blog-watching the other day. There’s a new wiki out there! Now that’s not news by itself, but the new wiki should be of interest to Christians. It is called Conservapedia and according to the main page on the site it represents “a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.” I guess we should all celebrate that someone has had the vision to set up a “user-controlled free encyclopedia on the internet” with a Christian bias as an alternative to Wikipedia, also a “user-controlled free encyclopedia on the internet”.

But this surely sounds like Christians are constructing a parallel universe in which to live and interact with one another. Or as my high school Bible class observed, sounds like a monastery or what the stylites did. Now in all fairness, Conservapedia has a ton of company in the parallel Christian universe. National Association of Religious Broadcasters. National Christian Storytellers Association. Christian Booksellers Association. Christian Association for Psychological Studies. National Christian College Athletic Association. Christian Martial Arts Association. Christian Association of Stellar Explorers. “Christian Association” in my favorite search engine returned almost 7 million hits! And that says nothing about second- and third-degree separationism, and on and on and on.

Is it any wonder that the American culture in particular and that of much of the world is going to hell? But that is the starting point for too many Christians today. The world is going to hell, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, the best we can hope for is to hang on by our fingernails until Jesus raptures us out of here. If in the process we can get a bunch of people born again, so much the better. At least they won’t get left behind and have to go through the tribulation.

How unlike Jesus can we possibly be? Have we ignored or forgotten the question the Pharisees asked of the Disciples: “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” If the Son of God had come to this world and set up his own parallel universe with sanctified associations and collectives, Luke would never have had the opportunity to describe him as one who “went about doing good”. Nor would scores of individuals have felt his healing touch, heard his life-giving words, or filled the ranks of the New Testament church.

Perhaps even more important, how disobedient to Jesus can we possibly be? Or is it that we have relegated his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount to some future thousand year period when he rules over the Jews in their homeland? Jesus’ discourse was not spoken to the Jews, it was an opportunity he took to teach his disciples: “his disciples came to him [a]nd he taught them”. One of the things he taught those who went about planting churches was that they were to be salt and light. Salt is useless until it comes into intimate contact with the thing it is intended to flavor. Light is useless when it is hid under the bushel of our parallel Christian universe.

How many millions of opportunities are squandered each day because Christians are content to hide away in their Christian comfort zone rather than be salt in light in a dark and tasteless world. Shame on us.

Free Puppies

“Mommy, mommy, look at the puppies! The sign says they’re free, can we get one? A puppy would be so much fun. Can we? Can we please?”

 

“Well, son, I’d really like for you to have a puppy but we can’t afford one right now.”

 

“But mommy, what do you mean, we can’t afford it? The sign says they’re FREE!”

 

“Yes, son, I know that’s what the sign says. But puppies get sick and have to go to the vet, they need food, a leash, worm medicine; and all those things are very expensive and cost money.”

 

“Boy, mommy, I didn’t know something that’s free could cost so much.”

 

Humorous, yes, but very familiar to virtually all parents. I’m struck with how quickly we can identify the costs associated with raising a puppy and at the same time so oblivious to the costs associated with salvation. One of the ongoing debates in the religious world centers on the free offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately in practice, a vast majority of those who strongly believe in “the free offer” offer a free Gospel. While salvation is free in the limited sense that it cannot be purchased, it is by no means free in other respects.

 

Before I continue, let me make it clear that I believe we should offer the Gospel far more freely than we are accustomed to doing. We should offer it without limit, boundaries or restrictions of any kind to all who will give it a hearing. Our offering of the Gospel should be liberal, loud and loving and in the context of a holy life that shows the fruit of the Gospel to a hurting humanity. But that is by no means the same as offering a free Gospel, a Gospel that doesn’t cost anything to either the giver or the recipient.

 

Scripture itself fails for words to adequately express the cost of our salvation that our dear Savior paid out of willing obedience to His Father and love for His people. Even for those who viewed Mel Gibson’s Passion only part of the story was portrayed on the big screen – celluloid and mere mortals are incapable of capturing the spiritual and emotional suffering Jesus endured at the hands of His Father as He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” to say nothing of the depths of humiliation accompanying death. And that merely caps the climax of His humiliation, thirty-plus years beginning with His descent from glory and continuing until His ascent and exaltation.

 

A second facet of the cost of salvation relates to the “free puppies”. Just as puppies who are freely received have ongoing “maintenance costs”, so our salvation which is bought “without money and without price” has ongoing costs as well. When Jesus described what it meant to follow Him, the first thing He said was that the individual must “deny himself”. He also talked about “losing his life for My sake”, being “persecuted for righteousness”, people who “insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me”, and the list goes on.

 

In a report in Journal Chretien, 6 Jan.’07 according to Professor Thomas Schirrmacher, Director of the Religious Liberty Commission of the German Evangelical Alliance. 3 out of 4 cases of severe persecution are targeted at Christians. According to Schirrmacher at least 55,000 Christians are killed each year for religious reasons. 250 million will face persecution and repression in 2007.

 

To promote a salvation that is a “free gift, all you have to do is receive it” not only tragically minimizes what our Sovereign Lord has done to accomplish it for us, it also demeans the tremendous price our brothers and sisters in Christ are paying each day throughout the world. Instead, we must spend our lives spreading a Gospel that is true to Scripture and to our Lord, presenting the Lord Jesus in all His winsomeness and authority.

Persevering

I haven’t given up on the blogosphere despite the lack of posts for a “while”. About a week-and-a-half after my last post, it became real obvious that my mom needed someone to provide around-the-clock care for her. Our youngest daughter who is a CNA and my wife are taking turns providing that care and, needless to say, that has altered family life somewhat.

To assume that duty didn’t seem like a big deal to us; we were simply following the example set for us by all our parents and their siblings. Nursing home care for my wife’s grandparents and my grandmother was an option exercised only when it became medically necessary and not before. Until that time they were cared for by family members in the home as a matter of course.

But I guess we are the exception rather than the rule and that is really sad, and in more ways than one. We have some flexibility that other couples don’t – we have managed quite well on a single income for over twenty-five years and have no debt. What a blessed position to be in at a time like this, and to God alone be the praise for that; it is only by His abundant provision that it is possible. Dependence on two incomes would make it impossible for us to care for my mom which brings up the second point.

It should be no surprise that the “group dynamic” is very different depending on whether it is the daughter-in-law or the granddaughter caring for mom. She relates to them individually and that has taken some adjusting to in this situation. The nature of the care each provides is significantly different; they both can meet her physical needs equally well but the same is not true in the spiritual arena. My wife is equipped to provide a much different sort of spiritual support and also have it received by mom.

And what a difference that has made. The physical decline that occurred in a couple obvious “bursts” would have likely meant the end of her life had mom been in an institutional setting. But the encouragement and support of having a family member present 24×7 I believe is the major reason why we have been able to enjoy her for these last several weeks. From our perspective, it has given us an opportunity to get to know her and love her in different and deeper ways than would have ever been possible otherwise.

Has it been hard work and straining (or should I say stretching) on our relationships? Of course, but without question it has been and will continue to be a priceless treasure. My prayer is that those who know of and observe our present situation would not see us as some sort of heroes because we’re not. I pray, rather, that they would be stirred to do the same for their own loved ones if God provides them with the opportunity.

Persevering by His grace,
Sundoulos

Bloodshed

I just attended a wonderful mini-conference on the topic of “The Sufficiency of Christ”, particularly as He fills His three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King. In the session on “Jesus Christ: Our Majestic Mediator” the speaker observed that the concept of blood sacrifice doesn’t play well in our contemporary culture. The irony of that statement struck me especially in light of current events:

• Zealots blow up a kerosene tanker in Iraq killing 37 and wounding 40
• Man repeatedly stabs wife and 2-year-old while motorists watch
• Woman’s body found, fetus missing and cut from her womb perhaps with scissors
• Man shoots woman to death in domestic violence shelter

Which set me to pondering the question: Why is it so easy for mankind to shed the blood of another and so hard to accept the blood of another shed for them? By the way, the “headlines” above don’t even touch the idea of the 40-plus million babies in the USA and 300-plus million babies in China and the elderly and terminally-ill aborted, euthanized, or assisted suicided on the altar of self.

Just goes to show the absolute depths of depravity found in the soul of every man, woman and child. And that all confirms mankind’s utter helplessness to save himself in spite of his thoughts to the contrary. Thank God He didn’t leave us to ourselves, or almost as bad, leave the decision up to us.

By His grace,
Sundoulos

Contextualization

The whole idea of contextualization of Scripture and the Gospel message has been around for a while now. It goes by that name as well as others but the basic principle is that in order to communicate a message we must put it into a context that the listener will understand. That can mean a linguistic context or the context of a particular medium or context as in location and method.

Now, I understand that in order for effective communication to occur, there must be a common understanding on both sides of the conversation. The terms that are used to carry ideas from speaker to listener must mean the same thing to both individuals if the message is to be transmitted reliably and accurately. However, we must recognize and acknowledge that we don’t understand words instinctively; the first time we encounter a word, it must be explained and defined for us in terms we can grasp. As a teacher, I understand that principle well; if explanation were not necessary, I wouldn’t have the job I do.

But there’s a world of difference between explaining the message and changing the message; it sure seems that contextualizing changes the message. A couple scenarios for example: Bread to Jesus’ contemporaries was an essential staple food; fish is an essential staple to the Inuit. Since the Inuit can’t grow grain and have little concept of bread as a staple, we must change Jesus’ words to be “I am the fish of life” so that it will have the same meaning to the Inuit as it did to first-century Jews. Since inhabitants of Polynesia never see snow and have no concept or experience of what it is like, we must change God’s word through Isaiah to read “they shall be white as lily of the valley”, although we can leave that word alone for the Inuit.

I see two significant problems with this method either of Scripture translation or Gospel presentation. The first problem is obvious: when we change “bread” to “fish” or “snow” to “lily of the valley”, the linguistic link between original and translation is broken. The translator has selected one facet of meaning of the original word and transferred that narrow meaning to the receptor word. Although communication with one particular language group might be enhanced by that act, at the same time a wall has just been erected with other language groups because that one-to-one correspondence has been lost. I know, idioms and various figures of speech cannot be completely translated; but I think the above described method goes far beyond dealing with inherent limitations in language.

To do this in translating Scripture, at least to some degree, not only changes the Word of God, it alters the words of God. It also conveys the idea that God’s Word as He spoke it is unable to communicate conceptually to every language group without alteration by translators; that, my friend, is a dangerous position to hold. But, you say, if they don’t understand the concepts then what value is the Bible to them? Which brings me to the second problem.

To maintain that the only way an individual can understand God’s Word is if it is translated into a context they understand is very condescending; it implies that the individual is either unteachable or drastically limited in his or her ability to learn. To maintain that we must present the Gospel message in context in order to preserve the receptor culture is to overlook or minimize the purpose of the Gospel message.

The design intent behind the Gospel is that it will change the culture; if it doesn’t, then it is a false gospel. The Gospel changes people and since it changes people they will change the culture in which they live. The idea that we must preserve all cultures at all costs is certainly not found in Scripture; in fact, what we see there is quite to the contrary. A study of history clearly demonstrates that the faithful preaching of the Gospel from the Word of God civilizes barbarians and changes cultures.

Perhaps the clearest example of what needs to be done in these circumstances – unreached peoples or postmodern culture – is provided for us in Nehemiah 8 by Ezra, the scribe. Ezra stood before the people with the Word of God in a language they no longer used or understood well. The Bible was in Hebrew but the people had become assimilated into the Persian culture and adopted its language. The scenario painted for us in Nehemiah 8 is that of Ezra reading from God’s Word in Hebrew and then, along with Levite helpers, giving the sense and helping the people to understand the reading. Ezra didn’t change the message; he faithfully read it from God’s Word; then he and his helpers taught the people what it said and what it meant.

To the Scripture and the message is to wantonly disregard an ideal teaching opportunity; sure, the explanation must be in the context, but the message must remain as faithful to the very Word of God.

By His grace,
Sundoulos