Weapons of Warfare Part 1

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). The Apostle Paul commands us to act like men. What does it look like to obey this command? Do men need to be commanded to act like men? Apparently we do. Because I think on some level all of us understand that there are men, and then there are men. A study of all the things that it means to be a godly man is worthy of your time. In this article I would like to consider one important aspect of being a godly man: that men fight wars. And if you are going to fight wars successfully, you have to be strong and courageous. Which is to say, being a godly man means being a valiant warrior. I am not suggesting that this is the totality of what it means to be a man. Being a man involves more than that. But I want to make the argument that fighting wars is one fundamental way that men are to act like men. Let’s take a brief survey of the Old Testament, thinking through all the Old Testament saints who fought military battles. Start with Abraham, who fought successfully against King Chedorlaomer and the other kings after they took his nephew Lot captive (Genesis Ch 14). This was an important event which preceded Abraham meeting Melchizedek the king and priest. Moses, by my count, fought in 4 battles (Exodus 17:8-16, Numbers 21:1-5, 21:21-35, and 31:1-24). Joshua’s life purpose was to lead the Israelites in their military conquest of the Promised Land. Gideon...

Second Warning from Hebrews: The Believer’s Active Rest

Warning #2 in Hebrews encompasses 3:7-4:13 and is multi-faceted. The passage examines three perspectives of “rest”: The rest of God on the seventh day after the six days of Creation The rest promised to the nation of Israel after their Exodus from Egyptian captivity The Sabbath rest for the believer. The first “rest” was not because God was tired or needed a break but merely denoted a cessation from His creative activity (4:3). The second rest was found in the land of Canaan, a secure, fertile, and productive land.  Except for two, Joshua and Caleb, this promise was not enjoyed by the Israelites who left captivity in Egypt and were older than age 20.  This exclusion was due to unbelief, leading to disobedience: the nation’s refusal to engage the inhabitants of Canaan despite the urging and confidence of Joshua and Caleb and, more significantly, the promise of God that the land was theirs to take. The third rest contains the modifier “Sabbath”. The kernel of the second warning is to avoid the example of disobedience of the Israelites in order to enter the Sabbath rest (4:1-3,6,9-11). What are the characteristics of this third (believer’s) rest? It is eternal but available to all, to enjoy today. The Sabbath rest is likened to God’s Creation rest in that His rest started on the seventh day and has not ended; so it is with the Sabbath rest for the possessing* believer. There remains an opportunity for the individual to enter, but the window is limited, its time of closing known only to God. It requires acts of faith in effort and diligence...

“’Tis But a Scratch”

“For I consider the sufferings of this present time as unworthy of comparison to the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18). There is a scene in the classic comedy “Monte Python and the Holy Grail” where the Black Knight must prevent anyone from crossing a certain bridge by engaging them in battle.  Unfortunately, this is the very bridge that King Arthur must cross to continue in his quest for the Holy Grail.  The sword fight begins, and it’s soon clear that the Knight is outmatched as he loses an arm to a mighty blow from the king.  The Knight, however, is unfazed, and continues the fight.  The king expresses amazement to the Knight, telling him he’s lost, he’s missing an arm.  The Knight responds to the king with the now timeless words, “’Tis but a scratch.” King Arthur reluctantly continues the fight, systematically dismembering the knight.  With each lost limb, the knight responds with another dismissive phrase.  This scene of absurdist British comedy is seen from the perspective of King Arthur:  this foolish knight was delusional to keep fighting.  The viewer’s perspective show’s further pointlessness in this battle.  The “bridge” is little more than a wooden plank over a rivulet of water around a foot wide and an inch or so deep.  King Arthur could have easily avoided the confrontation, simply bypassing the knight’s bridge, going a little way up or downstream, and stepping over the water. From Arthur’s perspective, the knight was absurd.  From the viewer’s perspective, both men were absurd; the battle was unnecessary.  From Monty Python’s perspective, the absurdity was the point. ...