The Dead Sea in Israel is the lowest point on earth, with its surface being 427 metres below sea level. There are several streams that feed the Dead Sea, the Jordan River being one of them, but because the elevation is so low, no water flows out of the Dead Sea. Rather, the sun evaporates any water that enters the sea, leaving behind any minerals that might be present in the water. Over the millennia, the salinity of the Dead Sea has increased so that it is 10 times saltier than the ocean so that if you would boil a liter of Dead Sea water dry, you would be left with 250 grams of salt. The high salinity of the Dead Sea enables even the poorest swimmer to stay afloat, making it virtually impossible to drown in that body of water. But, because of the high salt and mineral content, the Dead Sea has absolutely no life in it. Not a single fish or plant can tolerate the water of the dead sea.

While the surface of the Dead Sea is well below sea level, the city of Jerusalem is well above it, standing at an average elevation of more than 700 metres above sea level. (Nobleford is 985 m above sea level.) Jerusalem is only 35 km from the Dead Sea, and in that short distance, the road drops almost 1.5 kilometres. That being said, in spite of the elevation drop, no water flows from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, for there are no rivers in Jerusalem, and the small streams that furnish the city with water flow in other directions.

So, we have two things that are true: the Dead Sea does not support life, and no water flows from the city of Jerusalem. In Ezekiel 47, however, we see something quite different. Ezekiel lived at a time when the city of Jerusalem was being destroyed by the armies of a nation which sought to make itself a world empire. God had removed his presence from the temple, Ezekiel tells us, leaving the temple and city of Jerusalem vulnerable to attack. In 586 BC, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the city was ransacked, and the people were hooked together in long lines and forced to walk 100s of kilometres to be resettled in other places. All this was because of the continued and constant sin of God’s people. The first part of Ezekiel’s prophecy focuses on destruction, but the second part focuses on the restoration that God promised.

Ezekiel 47 comes at the end of a fairly lengthy description of restoration: a design for a new temple is giving, there is a description of God returning to the temple, the priesthood is restored, the altar is restored, and the nation of Israel is restored as well. It is then that Ezekiel gives a description of a river flowing from the temple in a southeast direction, growing as it flows the 35 km to the Dead Sea. When it reaches the Dead Sea, it is so plentiful that the Dead Sea’s salinity is so reduced that it becomes a freshwater lake, and it begins to support aquatic life; the sea, for the first time in recorded history, is seen to be teeming with fish. Ezekiel shows us two impossibilities: water flowing from Jerusalem and life flourishing in the waters of the Dead Sea.

The revitalization of the Dead Sea must be considered a kind of creation event. We recall from the Genesis 1 account that God filled the seas with all sorts of aquatic life. Fullness is the result of God’s creative work. We also know from a careful reading of Scripture that human sin can reverse the God’s work of creation. The Bible (especially the prophetic books) gives multiple examples of fertile areas becoming deserts when the people fall into sin (reversal of the third day of creation). Similarly, the flood, a result of human sin, shows us the reversal of the second and third days of creation as the waters flood into areas where they do not belong. Conversely, when flood waters recede or when deserts become fertile, this is a sign of God’s restorative work. Usually, this restorative work occurs at the same time that God is restoring his people as he forgives them of their sin and renews his covenant with them. Thus, when Ezekiel sees God creating a river which flows from the temple, God’s dwelling place on this earth, and the water flows from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, replenishing it so that it become fertile, we must understand that this is God overcoming the destructive power of sin so completely that even the Dead Sea, which never has had any life in it, now becomes an incredibly beautiful ecological system teeming with life.

Ezekiel’s vision is picked up by John in the book of Revelation. There in Revelation 22 we see the New Jerusalem, and in that city is the throne of God. Flowing from beneath his throne is a river that flows down the street, and on each side of that river are fruit trees, yielding fruit every month, and its leaves, we are told, are for the healing of the nations. This is a nearly exact duplication of the picture we see in Ezekiel 47, for in that chapter the river also enables trees to grow, and they too produce fruit which God’s people may enjoy, and the leaves of that tree are useful for healing. The main difference between Ezekiel and Revelation is that while in Ezekiel the river flows from the temple, in Revelation there is no temple, and the river flows from the throne of God. This is not a contradiction, for, as we well know, the temple of the Old Testament, contained the throne of God, and the walls of the temple kept God apart from the people because the people were sinful and God was holy. In the New Jerusalem, God will reign, but he will not need to protect his holiness from the sin of the people for there will be no more sin and thus no need for a temple. Still the throne of God remains.

We cannot read Revelation 22 without Ezekiel 47, and when we read both chapters, we will see God’s restorative, recreative work, and we see that only God can bring this level of restoration/recreation to this world. Two impossible things are pictured: Jerusalem produces a river (no human engineering can make this happen) and the Dead Sea sustains abundant life (also an impossibility, humanly speaking). The Dead Sea can only be made alive by huge quantities of water diluting the salinity of the water, and only a river will suffice to make that happen. God does not use the existing rivers to bring the Dead Sea to life but, rather, he creates a new one, one that has never been seen before, and the source of that river is himself. Simply put, salvation comes from God, it is complete, and it is beyond restorative, for it brings fullness of life where there has never been life. Between Ezekiel’s vision and John’s vision in Revelation, stands Jesus Christ who made real God’s work of restoration and recreation, something that no human being can do.

The Greek word, chronos, gives rise to a number of English words. We use the word, chronic, to speak of an illness that lasts a long time. A chronicler is someone who writes history as it occurs over a period of time. And there are three English words which take a prefix, and when they do, they take very different meanings.

Synchronic (from which we get the word synchronize) is used when things happen at the same time. For example, a number of years ago, my wife and I experienced a synchronic failure of vehicles’ braking systems. On the same day we both had to get hundreds of dollars of work done to repair very similar problems. Although the brake failures were synchronic, the two had absolutely no relationship to each other; the vehicles happened to break down at the same time. We have to be careful with synchronic events, for we might well suspect that they had a similar cause or source, but just because several things happen synchronically does not mean that they are related to each other.

Diachronic is entirely different. When we explain something diachronically, we tell why things have become as they are. A diachronic study of an event will take into account the factors that led up to the event itself. Returning to the example of the automobile, a mechanic might explain to the owner that his brakes failed because he had his foot on the brake pedal all the time, even when he is accelerating. In fact, this same owner might have two cars whose brakes failed at the same time, and the mechanic might attribute that the owner is mistreating his vehicles. A diachronic explanation asks, “How did we get here?”

A third word, used less frequently, is anachronic. Anachronic literally means “against time.” It often refers to something that is very out of place. For example, someone might be driving a car out of the 1950s, one that has an old-fashioned carburetor and massive fins on its back fenders. This anachronic car doesn’t fit in because it is from a different era. Anachronic things don’t fit into the time period in which they are found. Pioneer museums would be considered anachronic places.

Churches can fit into one of these three categories. Some churches tend to be more synchronic in that they try to synchronize themselves to the world around them. As one example, churches often adopt music styles that are similar to the music produced by the world. They argue that being synchronic makes the relevant. We could argue that being synchronic in the area of music style is not terribly critical, for music styles have changed over the centuries with very little impact on the believers. But being synchronic in other areas might be a lot more troublesome. A church might avoid talking about hell because no one in our culture wants to believe that it exists. A church might compromise on its view of human sexuality because the world around it has done so. Synchronizing churches are in danger of following the way of the world. Not all synchronic decisions are bad, of course, for sometimes the church should adapt to the culture. Although switching worship services to English from the Dutch was a big deal for many, in reality this kind of synchronicity was a blessing.

Opposite of the synchronic churches are the anachronic churches. They tend to keep old practices just because that is the way things used to be. Anachronic churches rarely spend much time considering what they are doing, but they keep doing them because “that is the way it was done.” Anachronic churches argue that this is the way things should be because that is the way things were. For some reason, they have come to the conclusion that the way things were is the best way although they do not have any strong grounds to support their view. Anachronic churches tend to appeal only to those who are already part of them, for their practices are strange to the outsider and since no explanation is given, the outsider cannot understand why things are done as they are. Anachronic churches tend to look at other churches who are not anachronic and accuse them of being synchronic.

The third kind of church is the diachronic church. Again, a diachronic explanation is one that studies the past to understand why things have become as they are. For example, a church may avoid the rather common order of worship found in many evangelical churches (songs, announcements, prayer, message, song) for the one that we are more familiar with (call to worship, greeting, confession, God’s Word, response, benediction, all interspersed with songs) because they understand where this order of worship came from and why it is important. In other words, a diachronic church can explain why they do things as they do. They may hold onto older practices, and they may adopt newer ones, but they always can say why they did what they did. A diachronic church is one that knows why they are doing what they are doing.

A few days ago I had a discussion with a young man who was struggling with a change in his church. The change involved communion, and his church had just changed from having all participants gathering in groups around a table at the front of the church to having small cups distributed in the pews (as we are accustomed to). He was bothered by the change, and he explained why. The elders of the church said that it took too long to have communion when the people had to go to the front to participate. Serving people in the pews was more efficient. This young man was troubled by this, for he felt that his elders were becoming too synchronic, making the worship service more palatable by doing things for non-spiritual reasons. But, as I continued my conversation with him, I discovered that he was not anachronic. He didn’t want to go back to the common cup at the front of the church because that was the way it was always done. He believed firmly that Scripture gave us the pattern of participating in communion by gathering around a table, and that is what we should do. He knew that I disagreed with him on this point, but he impressed me, for he showed a deep desire to follow God’s Word, and the elders of his church, in his opinion, didn’t seem to care.

He illustrates what a diachronic church (and that does seem to be the best of the three) should be. We can explain all of our traditions and practices in some way or another, but what we need to do is always return to Scripture. A diachronic explanation must go back all the way to the Bible, or it is a fallacious argument. In fact, everything that the church does should be rooted in Scripture, and, if it is not, it can be abandoned without a second thought. If a biblical basis cannot be given, the church may be in danger of becoming anachronic (we do things because that is the way they were done) or synchronic (we want to make ourselves relevant to the world). A diachronic explanation must always return us to Scripture, for if the explanation for what we do does not, the explanation is not good enough.

It is always beneficial for us to ask ourselves what kind of church we are. Are we a anachronic church, doing things because that is the way they have been done, with no explanation as to why we do things in this way? Are we a synchronic church, adopting principles and practices of those around us without asking if they conform to Scripture? Or are we a diachronic church, seeking explanation for what we do, rooting our principles and practices firmly in Scripture?

In the map to the right, we see the Nile River. The Nile flows from the south (the bottom of the map) to the north and empties into the Mediterranean Sea. Most of the water that flows into the Nile comes from Lake Victoria (more than 60%), and nearly all of that water flows during the summer months, which is the rainy season around Lake Victoria. Lake Victoria is the second largest freshwater lake in the world, but the area that feeds the lake is relatively small. What this means is that if the countries surrounding Lake Victoria happen to experience a dry year, the size of the Nile River diminishes significantly and the water level in the Nile drops.

What makes this significant is that it almost never rains in Egypt or Sudan. In Luxor, most probably the place where Moses was raised, a rain event is remembered for years. In Cairo, where the pyramids are located, we would consider their definition of a rainfall to be no more than a light misting, by our standards. Consequently, Egypt’s existence as a habitable country is entirely dependent on the flow of water in the Nile. Again, if the rainy season does not happen in the region around Lake Victoria, Egypt will dry up, and its people will have to move or die.

In the book of Genesis, we can read the story of Joseph. Joseph, as we remember, was sold as a slave into Egypt, but God blessed him, for he gave Joseph the ability to interpret dreams. When Pharaoh had two dreams involving fat cows and thin cows and plentiful sheaves of wheat compared to blighted ones, Joseph, receiving understanding from God, informed Pharoah that God was going to give Egypt seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. The weather did not change in Egypt (it’s always hot and dry), but it did have to change in the region around Lake Victoria for this to happen. Much of the moisture needed for farming in Egypt came from the flooding of the Nile following the rainy season around Lake Victoria, and for seven years, the moisture was plentiful. However, during the seven dry years, the rainfall around Lake Victoria would have been so low that the Nile did not flood and in the regular season, the river would have been so low as to make irrigation nearly impossible. While the people would have had enough to drink, they would have found it impossible to irrigate their fields. The food supply was in jeopardy, as we read in the book of Exodus.

As we know from the Genesis account, God guided Joseph to advise Pharaoh to collect food during the seven good years so that the people could eat during the seven lean years. Instead of doling that extra food out for free, however, Joseph sold it to the people, and eventually the people were forced to sell their land at fire-sale prices and later themselves to become slaves to Pharaoh just so they could eat. As a result of this good business move, Pharaoh acquired for himself all of the Egyptian farmland, with the exception of the land that belonged to the Egyptian priests, and he became more powerful than ever before.

In these two seven-year periods, God showed his immense power over creation as he changed the weather patterns in the Mideastern part of Africa so that he could save the Israelites from sure starvation, for that is ultimately why God allowed Joseph to be sold into Egypt. God showed his concern for one of Abraham’s descendants, Joseph, elevating him to a position of great power in Egypt. But in all of this God set himself up to face an even more powerful enemy, the Pharaoh of Egypt.

In changing the weather patterns around Lake Victoria and by giving Joseph the interpretation of the dreams, God created circumstances for Pharaoh to become a king of immense power. God inadvertently built up Pharaoh’s power through these events, a rather unwise military move, for most heads of armies try to weaken their foe before they attack. But even though he as strengthened, Pharaoh did not stand a chance, for when God went head-to-head against Pharaoh in battle, he roundly defeated him through a series of ten plagues. Though Joseph’s God-led actions gave Pharaoh power and prosperity, God impoverished Pharaoh and Egypt with him by sending plagues that would have ruined the agricultural economy of the nation. Egypt nearly died when God went to work, but Israel was saved. In saving Israel, God also cleared the way for a Saviour of the world to be born years later.

Reflecting on this story, we might wonder how the people around Lake Victoria felt as they experienced these very odd weather patterns. Years of heavy rain followed by years of near drought would have destabilized their lives, and, we can be sure, would have made them wonder why their gods (for they didn’t know the Lord) were not controlling things as expected. Then, as now, changing weather patterns cause all sorts of alarm, but in their case, the changing weather patterns had an explanation (which they could not have known): God was at work bringing about salvation not only for his people but for the world. The strangeness of their weather was a result of God doing something in another area of a world, an area that many would never have dreamed existed.

We might wonder why things happen as they do. There are events which seem to have no purpose and no meaning. We might even ask the question: why would God allow this or that to happen? We will probably never have the answer, but we can always trust that our God is at work somewhere doing something for the purposes of moving redemptive history forward. Just as the people living in sub-Saharan Africa could not know the full picture and thus not see how God was working, so we do not always see it. But that does not mean he is not at work. It is because God changed the weather patterns in the region around Lake Victoria that his plan of redemption could go forward and, eventually, the good people of Lake Victoria could be saved. After all, because Joseph saved Israel from starvation and because God released his people from slavery, Jesus was born. And today Jesus is known by many of the people around Lake Victoria.

Some years ago, I copied a quote from a book I was reading and hung it on my wall. I have since lost that piece of paper, and I don’t remember where the quote was from, but I do remember the gist of it. The author said something like this: when we hold a position or belief, even when confronted with information that contradicts what we believe, we will spend far more energy defending our belief than it would take to change our minds. For example, there are people who believe that the mission to the moon was faked, and they spend a lot of energy proving that pictures and videos of that event are false. Instead of allowing their opinion to be changed by the evidence, they spend hours developing theories that they say prove that the whole story of landing on the moon is a lie. More energy is expended in holding an indefensible position that would be expended in changing one’s mind based on the evidence.

As Christians we say that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and it is the one book that has the final say on what we believe and how we live. We say that, but far too often we find those who believe in Jesus defending positions that are decidedly unbiblical. Take slavery as an example. Many of the slave owners in the United States went to church every Sunday, and they said that they shaped their lives according to God’s Word, but, at the same time, they claimed that they had the right to own other human beings and could use them as they desired. They spent a great deal of energy and time defending their rights to be slave owners, even twisting passages of Scripture for their own purposes. We wonder how they could be so blind to the clear teaching of Scripture, namely that all human beings are created in God’s image and are to be treated with respect and honour.

Why does this happen? Why do people who call themselves Christians work so hard at making the Bible say something that it does not say? There may be a variety of reason, but the most obvious one is that we are affected by our environment more than we want to admit. In other words, as we grow up, our worldviews are shaped by what our parents teach us, what our culture shows us, what we learn at school and what our friends believe. Thus, a young man who grows up on a farm outside of Nobleford might think that the only vehicle suitable for himself is a pickup truck, had he grown up in the city, might believe that the electric vehicle is the most desirable mode of transportation. In either case, it would be difficult for anyone to change his mind. This is a trivial example, of course, but it is true that more often than not we are products of our environment and therefore we come to Scripture with preconceived ideas of how things should be. Thus, someone who grows up in an environment where she is taught that she has to behave or she will lose her salvation cannot understand how anyone can believe that we can have assurance that we are saved for all eternity. She will point to passages of Scripture that she thinks will prove her point, and she will spend a lot of energy figuring out how to discount Scripture passages which prove her wrong.

It is easy, of course, for us to look at others and wonder how they could be so blind to the clear teachings of Scripture. Over the past few months, especially with the ongoing debate about biblical human sexuality, many have wondered how anyone who reads their Bible can say anything but that sexual activity of any kind is to be reserved solely for a married man and woman. Anything else is a deviation from the truth and must be considered sin. How can anyone say anything else? And yet there are many Christians who hold a high view of Scripture and who seek to live by it who would disagree. We would say that those who hold a different view from the one we hold are too influenced by the world and they have allowed something other than the teachings of Scripture to influence their beliefs and perspectives. (I would agree that they have allowed the teachings of the world to be the foundation for their worldview.) It is easy to criticize others for their beliefs and say that they have blinded themselves to the truth. We also see how hard they work at making passages of Scripture conform to their belief system rather than conforming their belief system to the teachings of Scripture.

Interestingly, though, some of the very same people who are quick to condemn others for maintaining a belief that is not biblical, in the very next sentence do the very same thing themselves. In fact, in one conversation someone had harsh criticism for those described above but, within thirty seconds, was using racial slurs and saying that “those people should stay where they belong.” The extreme of this racism is what is known as Kinism, the belief that people of different ethnicities and skin colours should not mix, a heresy that was also strongly condemned by the CRC synod a few years ago. Racism is a mild but equally harmful form of the heresy of Kinism.

I could go on and list a few other examples of how I have observed that people who say they believe that Bible and shape themselves by it fail to live biblically in their own lives. I would also have to admit that I am one of those who says I live by God’s Word, but I am sure that you can find places in my life where I do not. And, if you challenge me using Scripture, I may even find ways to get around what appears to be a clear teaching of God’s Word. I may expend a great deal of energy proving myself right even when the evidence is clearly against me. Be assured that we all do that, and we must be slow to condemn others for what we do ourselves.

So, how do we solve the problem? It would seem that humility is the first solution, humility that allows us to admit that we are wrong and humility that enables us to listen closely to others. Further, we must admit that we do expend a lot of energy proving that our belief system is right (even when it is indefensible), and we must work at using that same energy to be directed toward changing our view or belief. Admitting that just because we say we live by God’s Word doesn’t mean that we do is a good step forward to being more faithful in life and belief. And through all this, we should be slow to condemn others because they are defending an unbiblical position, and we should be slow to force them to “toe the line.” Rather, the proper way forward, it would seem, would be to love them as brothers and sisters, encourage them to examine their views, and, even more importantly, allow them to challenge us so that together we can grow in Christ. Yes, there are times when we do need to speak strongly to others when they fail to follow the clear teachings of Scripture, but we must never do so with the intent to destroy them but, rather, to bring them back to God’s Word. And we must be willing to let others do the same for us.

When I was in Bible College there was a student who repeated most of his courses because he had failed them. He had difficulty learning, and when he did pass a course, he did so with a C or a D. I don’t think he ever received an A on anything that he did. If you wanted to find him, all you had to do was visit the library, and there he would be at a table, books surrounding him, reading and writing. The amount of effort he put into only just receiving a passing grade was astounding. He worked twice as hard as I did, but with much poorer results. When the awards ceremony was held at the end of the school year, he never was called forward to receive recognition, but eventually he graduated, not with a degree but a diploma, and for him that was a tremendous accomplishment.

I attended the Awards Ceremony at Immanuel last week, and it was good to be there. A number of students received awards, some of them receiving several. The vast majority of the students, however, received no rewards and no recognition. That is to be expected at an awards ceremony, for not every student excels. But, as I watched the awards being handed out, it struck me that those who received those awards generally have a natural talent. Most of the awards were given for either athletic or academic excellence, and the students who received them were obviously gifted in those areas. In fact, although I am quite certain that though they were diligent in their field, they didn’t have to put all that much effort into their studies or their sports in order to receive an award of excellence. They probably didn’t work nearly as hard as some of the students who received an average grade or lower but who never receive recognition.

I’m not against awards ceremonies, but I find that they can be artificial and misleading. They don’t measure the true value of one’s work because they often just award natural talent. We would be shocked if those students didn’t excel. Perhaps the only award that truly impressed me was the ones given to the students who volunteered in their community and at the school. This was something that they did not have to do but did anyway, going above and beyond what was expected of them.

As I reflected on high school awards ceremonies, I asked myself, “What categories would God choose if he were hosting an awards ceremony?” It’s a question that is impossible to answer, of course, but I expect that my fellow Bible College student would have received the award for the greatest effort in his studies. Or, as Jesus taught in the gospels, it would be widow who gave a few pennies in the collection plate who would be acknowledged as sacrificially generous. We would never name a building after her as we often do for the wealthy family who donates millions of dollars to build a new hospital wing. While we can appreciate the donations given by the rich, their sacrifice is often not nearly as great as the poor person who gives beyond what they can afford. Of perhaps God would give the award to the person who could have become a CEO of a multinational corporation but instead chose to direct a small charitable organization which provided affordable housing for the working poor.

One other thing that I noticed about the awards ceremony: few were surprised when the winners of the awards were announced. In fact, one of the students I talked to was fairly confident that he was going to win a couple of awards, and he would have been surprised if he had not. That won’t be true of those who would awards if God held a ceremony. If God would announce the award for the most sacrificial giver or the hardest worker, they would be surprised by the recognition. They would even be surprised by the fact that there was such a thing as an award, for their work would be done out of love. Just as parents don’t expect to an award for loving their children, those whose actions arise out of love believe that what they are doing is appropriate, and they don’t expect recognition. I doubt that there will be an awards ceremony in heaven, but if there is, the recipients will be completely unprepared when their name is called.

A number of years ago a man in my church was killed in a car accident. He was a good guy, well-liked, but he had a number of struggles that some might label as disabilities. He didn’t see himself in that light; rather, he simply used the gifts God had given to him to serve others. As I talked friends and family, it became evident to me that the way to conclude his funeral message was with the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” I’m sure that when he entered into glory the day that he died, those were the words he could have heard from our Lord and God. It wasn’t his good deeds that got him into heaven; it was the fact that he knew that Jesus had died for his sins. But he was faithful with what he had, and he gave to others from what God had given him, and he did so without thinking he was doing something special. Again, I doubt it God gives awards, but he would have received one if he did.

At this time of year, we have awards ceremonies, and it is good to honour those who have accomplished much. But let’s remember more those who may not get top grades or play multiple sports but who, with deep love, serve others as they follow their Lord. Although they go unrecognized at the ceremonies, these are truly the ones who should also be receiving an award.

When in seminary, I was taught that pastors should avoid using biblical references and terminology without first explaining them. According to studies, while Christians have greater access to the Bible, they do not know it nearly as well as those from previous generations. Therefore, when we preach, we were told, we should avoid referring to people like David and Abraham and Paul without giving a few words of summary about who they are. Most of us have a good idea who these three men were, and perhaps when I refer to them, I do not need to explain when they lived and what role they played in redemptive history. Mentioning people like Apollos, Boaz, or Haggai might evoke a different response. We might not be able to immediately place them in the Bible or explain their role in salvation history.

The same can be said of words and phrases. Sometimes we throw around words like “atonement” or “justification” or phrases like “perspicuity of Scripture” assuming that those who are listening know what they mean. Some might, but not all will. Thus, we should avoid these expressions unless we explain them, we were told as pastors in training.

It might be helpful for songwriters to receive the same instruction. I have found that there are phrases that need to be explained before they can be understood. This is true of some older songs, “here I raise my Ebenezer” in Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” is one such phrase. Few of us know what “ebenezer” means and many of us cannot identify the passage where this word is found, leaving us uncertain about what we are singing. The problem also exists in newer songs. One example of a song which contains phrases which probably need explanation is Cornerstone, written and published by the Australian Hillsong, a church group that has received some harsh criticism over the past decade or so because of their adoption of the Prosperity Gospel theology (another phrase that probably needs explanation). Whenever a Hillsong song appears on the screen, I am somewhat cautious when I sing the words. I think a little more deeply about what I am singing.

In Cornerstone, we find the phrase “my anchor holds within the veil.” It is repeated twice at the end of the second verse. An astute Bible student will recognize that the reference comes from Hebrews 6:19,20 where we read, “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf.” The “veil” of the song is the “curtain” mentioned in the verse from Hebrews. Even having this verse quoted might leave some confused, for the book of Hebrews assumes that the reader has a deep knowledge of Old Testament teaching and practice, particularly regarding the role of the temple and its priests.

As we know, in the temple of the Old Testament, there was a thick curtain that separated the temple building into two rooms. The room behind the curtain, from which all but the High Priest were denied access, was considered an extension of God’s throne room which was located in heaven. From that room God ruled the world. To go behind the curtain was to enter into God’s throne room, and while the room in the temple was on the earth, to be in that room was to be in heaven or at least in the presence of God. The High Priest, in the Old Testament, would go into that room, and he did so as a representative of the people. In effect, when he entered that room, the people entered with him. He provided the connection to God.

In Hebrews 6, we read about some who were abandoning faith in Jesus Christ. Most likely the author of Hebrews is referring to Jewish people who were enduring persecution because of their commitment to Jesus, and they were thinking that they should abandon the Christian faith and return to Judaism. The author of Hebrews warns them and tells them that to do so was to abandon the salvation that God had provided. He then goes on to tell them that the only way to be secure in our relationship with God is to trust in his promise to save us, and to put our trust in Jesus Christ who is our High Priest. By ascending into heaven, Jesus has gone behind the curtain, figuratively speaking, and has entered into his Father’s throne room. If we put our trust in Jesus, we can have the assurance that we remain connected to God the Father and have access to his presence because our sins have been forgiven.

As I read and reread the passage from Hebrews 6, I came to realize that the author of Hebrews does the very thing that we, as pastors, were warned not to do when we prepared a sermon. The author of Hebrews uses phrases and terminology and references which are broader and deeper than first meets the eye. In fact, as I gave a few moments to studying Hebrews 6 and the reference to the anchor, I realized that I would need to do a lot more study if I am going to fully understand this reference.

I’m not sure that the writer of the song, Cornerstone, fully understood the depth of the biblical reference to Hebrews 6:19-20 when he wrote the words. It does seem that the line, “my anchor holds within the veil,” is meant to speak of the assurance we have in Jesus Christ, and that is exactly right. While the rest of the song does speak of the salvation we have in Jesus Christ, this one line is rather obscure, and it needs more explanation. Of course, that is not always possible in a song.

It does seem that when we sing songs, there are many times that words and phrases tend to need explanation. That is true of both old and new songs. So, what do we do? It would be good if song writers would heed the advice of my professors who said we must explain what we say and not assume that everyone knows what we are talking about, especially when we speak “Christianese.” At the same time, there is the responsibility for the singer (and the hearer) to do some research and try to discover what they do not know.

I attempt to make clear the references I use in my sermons, but I suspect that sometimes I refer to things that some do not understand. If that happens, certainly you can ask. Or, perhaps better, do some personal study and discover something new. I know that I was encouraged and strengthened as I took the time to discover what “my anchor holds within the veil” means. I also came to understand that there is much more to know, and I am fairly certain that I will be doing some more reading so that I can understand more fully this powerful biblical reference so that the next time I sing that song, I will appreciate more what those six words mean.

When I was in my early twenties, someone advised me to plan for retirement, and he suggested a unique way: buy about 20 acres of marginal land and plant a variety of trees on it – black walnut, cherry, oak, maple, black locust, pine and some poplar. The softwood (poplar and pine) would be ready for harvest in about 30-40 years, providing extra income for retirement. The rest of the trees might take longer to mature, but if I needed the money for retirement, I could sell the acreage as a woodlot, earning a significant profit. I didn’t do that, and so I am not reaping the benefits of having an extra income from the lumber the woodlot would have provided. Nevertheless, then, as well as now, I understand the wisdom of this advice.

Not only would I have been able to have increased income from buying marginal land and planting a woodlot, there would have been other benefits. Marginal land, land that is not suitable for agriculture, could be given value. By putting trails through the woodlot, the community would have benefitted by having a place for nature hikes. School children could have learned about different species of trees. And, of course, the lumber would have created beautiful furniture. Even without the financial benefits, planting a woodlot on marginal land would have been a blessing for many, not only myself.

Such an investment would have had its costs along the way, of course. Making payments on the land, buying the seedlings, tending the woodlot, paying the taxes – all of these would incur costs of time, effort, and money. Investments for the future do incur costs in the present. This is a simple and unavoidable reality.

Reading the Bible 1900 years after the last book was written, we might miss how God was making investments for the future. God created a nation, and he worked with that nation for about 2000 years, from Abraham until the birth of Jesus. It was not easy work for him, for he had to work with a rather stubborn and sinful people, people who are similar to us. As one teacher commented once to me regarding his vocation: “It would be a great job if it weren’t for the people.” God invested 2000 years into a people who rebelled against him, ignored him, and sometimes mocked him. He did so because he had made a promise about the future, a promise which he had to keep, a promise which could only be kept if he kept the nation of Israel alive. God invested his resources in a nation because he had a plan for the future.

But the investment in a wayward nation was nothing compared to the greater investment he made by giving his only Son to live in this world, a Son who was misunderstood, rejected, mocked, tortured and killed. He did this for us, and the investment was huge.

God continued to invest in this world, sending his Holy Spirit to equip, empower, teach, guide, rebuke, and encourage people from all nations of this world. We cannot calculate the hours of work that the Holy Spirit has put into us. The resources God has put into his church are beyond our comprehension. God continues to invest in this world.

But it is not for his retirement. I was encouraged to invest in a woodlot so that I could benefit, and although others may be blessed as well, it would have been me that was the first recipient of my investment. God receives no return from his investment. As we well know, God does not need to plan for retirement, and he does not need to have us around to make his life better. Everything that God did was for us, and nothing was for him. That is truly remarkable, for we would expect that God would want to reap some benefit from his investment. But any benefit that we might perceive is not really a benefit for God. God receives nothing that he can use or that he even needs.

His investment is not for himself but for us and our retirement, if we can think of it in that way. The Bible uses the term, “rest,” not in the sense of sleeping but in the sense of receiving all that we need to live without having to worry about anything. Rest does not mean sitting around doing nothing, but, rather, it means enjoying what God has provided for us. People with plentiful portfolios enjoy their retirements because they have more than they need and do not need to work to remain alive. Entering God’s rest is to enjoy God’s provision to the fullest, to not lack anything, to have all that we need without having to worry about tomorrow.

God provided for our retirement, our eternal rest, our eternal experience of his constant blessing. He invested himself entirely in us, not so that he could enjoy retirement (rest) but so that we could enjoy our rest with him. We enter into that rest because of Jesus Christ, as the book of Hebrews teaches us.

Perhaps we can compare what God has done for us to the woodlot. If I had bought an acreage and planted a woodlot, not for my benefit but for the benefit of the community, if I had invested time and energy and money in making that woodlot accessible and enjoyable for others, if I had harvested the mature trees and donated the money to the community, and if all of this continued on through the generations as my descendants continued to use the woodlot only for the joy of others – that is what God has done for us. All of his investments in this world that he has made so far are not for him but for us. He promises to continue to invest in this world until he brings history to a close and provides the forever retirement for all who belong to him.

It might be helpful for us to view our work in the same way. God is planning for our eternal retirement (our rest), so we don’t have to worry about that. If we don’t have to invest our resources in our eternity, then perhaps we can use our resources to invest in the eternity of others. In other words, all that we do is for the benefit from others, because if God is providing for our retirement, because we don’t have to worry about it, we can, with a high level of confidence, invest in the retirements (rest/eternal life) of others.

Few Old Testament stories are as well known as the story of Jonah and the whale. When we teach that story to young children, the focus tends to be on the fact that Jonah ran away from God by taking a ship in the opposite direction from Nineveh, Jonah’s intended destination. God stopped Jonah’s flight by sending a storm which resulted in Jonah being thrown overboard and being saved by God because he was swallowed by a big fish or whale. After three days in the belly of the whale, Jonah is regurgitated and proceeds to obey the Lord. All this is told in the first chapter of Jonah. What we often neglect is the rest of the story, a story that speaks of Jonah’s continued failure to do what God asked of him.

As we know God told Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach against the city because of their sin. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, and the Assyrian Empire was becoming a mortal enemy of the northern kingdom of Israel. As we recall, the nation of Israel had split into two after Solomon, with the northern kingdom name Israel and the southern kingdom named Judah. Israel, being in the north, was next in the sights of Assyria, and Assyria had every intention of attacking and pillaging Israel to make itself strong. A man named Jeroboam II was king of Israel at that time, and Jonah was a prophet during his reign.

Jeroboam II, not a relative of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel, continued to lead his nation in sinful rebellion against the Lord. Jeroboam I had built two golden calves, one in the north of his kingdom and one in the south, and he had invited the people of his nation to worship at these two shrines instead of going to Jerusalem to worship the true God. Jeroboam II did not change this practice and continued to lead the people away from the Lord by supporting the worship of those golden calves. We would expect that a prophet like Jonah would have had a few things to say about those golden calves, but he is silent on the matter. Instead, he tells his king, Jeroboam II, that the kingdom of Israel would be able to reclaim some of the land it had lost in previous battles. This, by the way, was a brief reprieve before the full attack of the Assyrians a few decades later. It wasn’t that Jonah was speaking from his own authority, for we are told that his words of hope to Jeroboam II were given to him by God. Jonah was a prophet of the Lord, but he seemed to want to announce only good news, and he seems hesitant to tell Jeroboam II to change his ways and turn from idol worship. Unlike the other prophets of his time, Jonah had no words of warning for his own people.

Jonah did have a word of warning for Nineveh and the Assyrians, the original message God had given Jonah, the one he wanted to avoid bringing. In spite of the fact that Jonah seems hesitant to deliver bad news from the Lord, we might think that he would be quite happy to go to Nineveh and announce God’s impending judgement but, instead, he runs away. It wasn’t that he was afraid for his life, for who wants to deliver bad news to a powerful and vicious nation? Jonah runs away for another reason.

As Jonah goes to Nineveh, his warnings are rather abrupt. He utters just a few words (forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed.), and he offers no solution in that he doesn’t call Nineveh to repentance. Yet, although to properly announce God’s warning would have taken a full three days, by noon of the first day Nineveh is on its knees in repentance. They take Jonah’s words seriously. (Contrast their quick response to the deaf ears of God’s own people who had thousands of words spoken by multiple prophets and yet did not repent.) Jonah quits his job early and goes to sit on a hill outside of the city, hoping against hope that God will still destroy Nineveh even though they did repent. When his own personal comfort is compromised by a rootworm which destroyed the plant that provided him with some shade, he shows his frustration and anger. God confronts Jonah and asks him why he is so angry. Jonah responds by saying that not only has his personal comfort been compromised but God has done the very thing that Jonah feared: God has relented from punishing Nineveh.

Jonah then explains why he ran away from the task of prophesying: “I know that you are a gracious and compassionate God,” he says, “slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2). How did Jonah know this? Quite simply, he is quoting from the book of Exodus, Exodus 34:6. His use of that verse to describe God is quite ironic, considering the situation of his own people.

God reveals himself to be a gracious and compassionate God shortly after the Israelites have built a golden calf to worship as we read about it in Exodus 32. God had just made a covenant with his people, and they had promised to dedicate their lives fully to him and to him alone. They had turned their back on that covenant, and God made it clear to Moses that he intended to destroy his people. It is only after the coaxing and pleading from Moses that God finally relents from sending calamity against his people, and when asked why, God replies that he is a gracious and compassionate God and that he does forgive sin. The irony of Jonah’s use of this text is that Jonah depended on God’s grace and compassion for himself and his people, for Jonah was well aware that worshipping golden calves, as his nation was doing, should invite God’s anger. Jonah knew that his survival and the survival of the nation of Israel depended on the fact that God was gracious and compassionate. Jonah’s failure was that while he benefitted from God’s grace, he did not want to extend that grace to others, particularly his enemies, the Assyrians.

God has the final word in the book of Jonah. He asks why he should not have concern for the city of Nineveh where lived hundreds of thousands of people, among them those who do not know their right hand from their left (children) and many animals. God reveals that although Assyria was the enemy of his people, his preferred course of action was to forgive them when they repented so that they could experience restoration and salvation. God reveals himself to be gracious and compassionate not only to his own people but to the other peoples of the world as well.

And, it is clear, he expects the same from Jonah. Jonah should have responded quickly to God’s command to go to Nineveh to announce that God was angry with their sin. He should have hoped that God would be gracious and compassionate to the Assyrians. He should have longed for them to experience forgiveness, but he wanted none of that. All he wanted was for him and his own people to live in the assurance of God’s grace and let the rest suffer.

The book of Jonah is not about Jonah and the miraculous salvation of a man as he is swallowed by a whale. It is about Jonah, a small-minded, selfish man who wanted God’s grace for himself but didn’t want to extend it to others. It serves as a warning to God’s people and it serves as a reminder and warning to us. Stories about disobedience and rebellion are interesting stories, but wouldn’t it be better if Jonah had done what God asked, done it with joy, and celebrated God’s grace? If Jonah had not been disobedient, we might never have heard about him, but sometimes the lack of news is better for everyone by far. Just as our news media outlets would have nothing to talk about if nothing bad was happening in this world, so the book of Jonah would have not made it into the Bible if Jonah had been obedient. Or, if it had, it would have been a book of rejoicing that others besides the Israelites had responded to God’s grace.

Journalists are under obligation to ensure that what they publish is verifiable. If what they put into print is incorrect, they and the media outlet they work for could be sued. Thus, a journalist might say, “The chief economist says that interest rates are going to rise.” That is a verifiable fact, and the journalist might actually have a recording of the chief economist saying those very words. The same journalist could write, “Interest rates are going to rise,” and if they did write that, they would have verified that fact. How do they know that interest rates are going to rise? A credible journalist will not make a statement without being able to support that statement with credible sources.

That being said, journalists can still shape the story by deciding what to report and what to leave out. Thus, CNN and Fox News can report on the same story, but their takes on the story are so different we wonder if they are living on the same planet. Yet, both Fox and CNN journalists will be able to give a list of credible sources. The reasons that the stories are radically different is not because they are reporting false facts but that they are reporting only part of the facts. They do this because they want to spin the story so that it matches the political leanings of the media outlet that is paying their salary. The journalist has something to gain by presenting a particular perspective. The media outlet, when presenting a story about the presidential campaign, for example, spins the story so that the political party they are backing will gain power and return favours to them. It is not very difficult to identify some sort of benefit the journalist receives by presenting a biased story. As consumers of media, we always need to ask, “What does this person/outlet gain by presenting the facts in the way they do?” Or, if the journalist or the media outlet spreads false information, they may be sued, thus incurring loss.

Some have accused the Bible of having a bias as well, and it would be difficult to deny it. John, in his gospel, actually states his bias: These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). At the end of the next chapter, John openly admits that he could have recorded much more of Jesus’ life and ministry, but that if he recorded everything, the number of volumes would have become overwhelming (John 21:25). John had a purpose for his gospel, and he picked things from Jesus’ life that supported that purpose. He also left a lot out, leaving us to wonder if perhaps we are left with an incomplete picture and therefore a biased picture of Jesus.

John put a certain spin on the life story of Jesus, and his spin is a little different from that of the other three gospels. In fact, all four gospel writers seem to have a purpose in mind that results in their telling the story in a particular way. This can lead us to ask the question: do the gospels give a fair presentation of who Jesus is? Or are they so biased that we can’t trust them fully?

Some will never be convinced that the biblical accounts of Jesus life and ministry are untrustworthy because of the biases of the authors. We can challenge that accusation with this one question: what do the gospel writers have to gain by presenting Jesus in the way that the do? Let’s consider John for example. What did John gain from presenting Jesus as he did?

John did not gain a position of power. When the mother of John and his brother James suggested to Jesus that they become the vice presidents in his kingdom, Jesus taught that those who wanted to be first in his kingdom had to become servants. Or, as Jesus said several times over, those who are first will be last and the last will be first. John did not follow Jesus for his own personal advantage. In fact, the opposite is true. Instead of gaining a position of power and influence, John was eventually arrested and exiled, being humiliated by the political powers of that time. None of the followers of Jesus Christ became rich from following Jesus. Peter and John, when asked for money by a beggar by the gates of the temple, told him, “We don’t have any money,” although, as we know, through the power of Jesus, they were able to give the man the ability to walk. That too led to a loss on their parts, for the healing led to a challenge by the religious authorities with the command to be silent about Jesus.

In the first three centuries of the New Testament church there was no distinct advantage to being a Christian, at least not economically, socially, or politically. In fact, the early Christians found themselves at a significant disadvantage as they followed Jesus Christ. We cannot say that either the apostles or those who followed them gained anything by presenting Jesus in the way that they did. Anyone who says that the early Christians presented a biased view of Jesus for their own gain would have a hard time proving it. (This changed quite significantly when Christianity became the preferred religion of the west and the church gained tremendous political, economic and social power. Leaders presented very biased views of Jesus and the teachings of Scripture often for great personal gain. The world still suffers from some of those abuses.)

If we cannot say that John and the other gospel writers wrote what they did for personal gain and in fact suffered great disadvantage by believing what they did, we would have to say that the reason for their presentations of Jesus was for some other purpose. In fact, John’s statement that he chose to present certain parts of Jesus’ ministry and not others so that people would believe in Jesus and gain eternal life becomes very credible. John became a servant of the gospel not for his own benefit but for the benefit of others.

As a church we must be careful that we do not present the gospel for personal gain. The church growth movement in which churches seek to gain members by whatever means possible often results in a biased view of Jesus. The problem with the church growth movement is that the church presents the gospel to unbelievers so that it can fill the seats in the sanctuary and boast of the largest youth program in the community. We can sense that the efforts of such a church are not entirely altruistic (showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others). In the same way, our efforts as a church to bring the gospel to the world (VBS, Burger Bash, for example), should be entirely for the benefit of others without the thought that they come to our church. Rather, we do expend energy and time on the lives of others so that they also can believe in Jesus and by believing have eternal life. Our efforts should never be for our own gain.

If we do things as a church for our own gain, we will be presenting Jesus in a biased way that is unhealthy and maybe even incorrect. If, however, we go about the work of the church in making Jesus known to the world and we do so entirely as servants seeking the blessing of others sometimes at great cost to our ourselves, we will never be accused of presenting Jesus in a biased way.

Journalists work for media outlets which have a bias, and that bias results from the desire for personal gain or the avoidance of personal loss. As Christians we want those who benefit to be others, and we tell them about Jesus so that they too can have life in his name. And, for our efforts, we gain nothing and even if we are put at a disadvantage as were the apostles, we continue our work. If we gain nothing, it would be hard for others to accuse us of having a bias. Let it never be said that our church is doing something because we sense it will gain us something, but, rather, may it always be clear that what we are doing gains us nothing but gains others eternal life.

Some years ago, a friend took her daughter, Lucy, to a restaurant in a Jewish neighbourhood. Because of the neighbourhood, most of the people in that restaurant at lunch hour were Jewish, and the place was quite busy. When she was finished eating, this little girl, a very precocious sort, stood up on her seat, turned around and said in a loud voice, “I have something to say to everyone.” She attracted the attention of nearly everyone in the restaurant who then heard her proclaim loudly, “Jesus Christ was born King of the Jews.” With that she sat down. Her mother didn’t know how to respond, for while her daughter had told the truth, it created a very awkward moment. Most of the Jewish people in that restaurant did not believe that Jesus was their King, nor did they recognize them as their Saviour.

We often hear the phrase, “have the faith of a child” or “a childlike faith.” What people are often advocating for is a simple faith that is not “clouded” by deep theological teaching. Simply believe and that is enough, they tell us. They want to keep it simple, making straightforward statements like Lucy did. Those who use these phrases point us to Jesus’ teaching about children as is recorded for us in the synoptic gospels (Matthew 18:1-3, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17). “The Bible teaches us that we have to have a childlike (simple) faith,” they say. A careful reading of these passages, however, reveals to us that Jesus is not speaking about having faith like that of a child but rather that we be like children when it comes to entering and living within God’s Kingdom. For us to fully understand what Jesus means, it is necessary to think about the context given to these discourses.

In Matthew and Mark Jesus’ teaching about children and the Kingdom of God takes place in the context of the disciples trying to determine who would be greatest in Jesus’ kingdom. It is at that point that Jesus brings a child forward and advises that whoever wants to enter the Kingdom of God must change and be like little children. What makes someone worthy of a position in God’s Kingdom? Jesus confronts the idea of meriting or earning a place in the kingdom by presenting to his disciples a little child. Children, in those days, had no rights and privileges, and they knew that everything they had was given to them as a gracious gift.

In Mark’s gospel, the context is decidedly different. There Mark gives us a glimpse of ongoing discussions in the Jewish community in which scholars tried to set boundaries for remaining in God’s Kingdom. How far can someone push the boundaries before they are no longer living by God’s principles and rules? In that context, Jesus confronts the idea that one can do things to become acceptable to God and remain so. Again, using a child as an example, Jesus shows that like children we can do nothing to earn a place in God’s Kingdom.

In all three gospels (John does not include this discussion), when Jesus puts a child forward as an example, he is not saying that we should advocate for a simple, straightforward kind of faith that allows for little deeper thought. Rather, he is saying that if we want to be part of God’s Kingdom, we must first realize that there is nothing we can do but merely receive what has been offered to us. Essentially what Jesus is teaching is that, like little children, we accept God’s grace, and his gracious act to include us in his Kingdom is not something we earn for ourselves.

A child can understand this, as Lucy did when she announced that Jesus was born King of the Jews. She knew that most of the people in the restaurant were Jewish, and she knew that Jesus came to save them as well. She was simply offering to those around her the same grace God had given to her. She could not have articulated God’s grace with greater depth because, after all, she was only three years old.

Children have a simple faith, this is true, but they also have no problem believing that they can do nothing to earn a place in God’s Kingdom. They are used to accepting gifts because everything they have has been given to them. What can a three-year old do to earn what they receive? They receive what has been given because they have no other means by which to survive.

As adults, we develop the idea that we have something to offer. In fact, we become less inclined to accept a gift freely given, and we want to find some reason to say that we merited what we received. So, when it comes to entry into God’s Kingdom, we like to believe that we have done something to earn a place there. But, like little children, we have done nothing, and we can do nothing.

This is where a deepening understanding of God’s Word is helpful. Rather than operating on a child’s storybook knowledge of the Bible, as we grow up, we need to read Scripture more and more and understand it more deeply so that we can counteract some of those feelings of self-sufficiency. As we grow in our theological understanding, we should become more and more convinced that we have nothing to offer to God to move him to give us a place in his Kingdom. The complexities of theology support the basic truths and give credence to the fact that we are like little children when it comes to providing for ourselves.

The Bible does not support a childlike faith, if by that we mean a faith that is not examined and deepened. We need more than that as we become adults. Rather, instead of depending on storybook understanding of God’s Word, we can be assured that as we study the Bible, we will become more and more aware of how complex and vast is the grace of God in Jesus Christ. And the more we know, the more we will realize how like little children we need to be, trusting fully on God’s grace and never on our own merit.