Thursday: A Weapon that Conquers
Read 2 Chronicles 20:1-30. As Jehoshaphat discovered, praise is a powerful weapon. After receiving the report that a “vast army” was coming against him, Jehoshaphat did not immediately jump to military action, but “resolved to inquire of the LORD” (2 Chronicles 20:3, NIV). As the people of Judah came to Jerusalem for a fast, Jehoshaphat admitted the reality of the situation, saying that “we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you” (2 Chronicles 20:12, NIV).
When you see a “vast army” approaching, what is your instinctive reaction? From Jehoshaphat’s response in 2 Chronicles 20:3-12, what can you learn about dealing with overwhelming opposition?
Image © Providence Collection at Goodsalt.com
As the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, he boldly announced: “You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you, Judah and Jerusalem. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the LORD will be with you” (2 Chronicles 20:17, NIV). After that, they worshiped God and sang praises to him “with a very loud voice” (2 Chronicles 20:19, NIV). Even though God was going to fight for them, they still had to go out to face the enemy.
But this was no ordinary march to war. Jehoshaphat appointed a choir to sing praises to the Lord as they marched out. “As they began to sing and praise, the LORD set ambushes against the men of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir who were invading Judah, and they were defeated” (2 Chronicles 20:22, NIV). According to the author, God intervened at the very moment they exercised their faith in His promise, as they began to “praise him for the splendor of his holiness” (2 Chronicles 20:21, NIV).
Read 2 Chronicles 20:1-30 again. What spiritual principles can you find that can apply to your own walk with God, especially in times of trial and stress?
(22)
I assume that most of you know very little about New Zealand, other than it is east of Australia. But I grew up there and even though I no longer live there, I still call it home. New Zealanders are very passionate about the game of Rugby Union. You are taught how to play it at kindergarten and anyone who shows a bit of talent is nurtured carefully as a potential candidate for the national team. Consequently, The All Blacks team is one of the most successful Rugby Union teams in the world. They regularly thrash to Wallabies, the Australian team. In fact, Carmel and I were returning to Australia from New Zealand several years ago and just happened to be on the same flight as the Wallabies. It was one of the quietest plane flights I had been on. The All Blacks had thrashed the Wallabies 44-0 in Christchurch the night before the flight.
Every time the All Blacks play they do a chant known as the Haka. This is a Maori war dance. The Haka is something that stirs the heart of every New Zealander. It must strike a bit of fear into the hearts of the challenging team. There was an attempt to ban the Haka at one stage by the other countries that play Rugby but it was unsuccessful.
There is no doubt that music is a powerful weapon in battle. The Scots in their battle with the English were rallied many times by the sound of the bagpipes. The bugle call - largely used in a ceremonial role today - earned its place of honour on the battle field.
Jehoshaphat's battle with the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir looked like a lost cause, but after seeking guidance from the Lord, two things happened. The people were united together and they sang. It would have been a very different sound to the hymns and Gospel songs that we sing today and knowing a bit about ancient music, I rather suspect it would have sounded more like the Haka. The opposition were confused and ambushed one another and the battle was won.
Perhaps the big picture lesson that we can take home from this is that in our spiritual battles we need a bit of patience and "waiting on the Lord". I don't mean that we should to nothing. Patience and prayer may reveal a better strategy for us.
Fascinating - when David divided the 38000 Levites he appointed 4000 whose full time job was to praise the LORD with the instruments he had made for giving praise whenever the sacrifices were offered to the LORD.
Today they would be called worship leaders.
To me this shows how important praise is as part of worshipping the LORD in addition to the sacrifices. It would focus the people's hearts and minds on the character of the LORD and the reason for their offerings.
They were to stand every morning to give thanks and praise to the LORD, and likewise in the evening. Whenever burnt offerings were presented to the LORD on the Sabbaths, New Moons, and appointed feasts, they were to serve regularly before the LORD in the numbers prescribed for them.
1Chron 23:1-5,30-31
I really like the passage that is the subject of today's lesson. More specifically, I really like how Jehoshaphat led the people in proclaiming "... we will cry out to You in our distress and You will hear and save us ..." (2 Chronicles 20:9) and "... we are powerless... we don't know what to do but our eyes are on you..." (2 Chronicles 20:12). And then I really like God's response "... Be not afraid or dismayed... for the battle is not yours but God's..." (2 Chronicles 20:15), "...the Lord is with you..." (2 Chronicles 20:17). Instead, Judah was to "... stand and witness the salvation of (ie, to be brought about by) the Lord who is with you..." (2 Chronicles 20:17).
For those who are interested, I would also invite you to take a very careful look at how God brought about salvation (ie, 'conquered') for Judah that day (2 Chronicles 20:22-23). Compare that with what God also is reported as having done a few chapters back in 2 Chronicles 18:19-22. Then take a look at passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:13; Matthew 26:52; John 8:44-45 and Romans 1:18,24,26,28. What do you see regarding the nature of the 'weapons' God uses to 'conquer' (see also 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Isaiah 55:8-9)?
For those interested note the many different ways the LORD conquered the enemies of His people.
A few chapters after using the choir see His response to Hezekiah in 2Chron 32:6-9,20-22 or 2Kings 19:35
Rom 1:18-28 is only half the story, see the balance in Rom 2:1-5. Read Joshua 6 to see what the LORD told them to do after the walls fell down. Also note Ex 12:29.
These are the battles of literal Israel however it is interesting to discover the LORD's solution to our spiritual battles:
Eph 6:10-18 MKJV Finally, my brothers, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. (11) Put on the whole armor of God so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. (12) For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (13) Therefore take to yourselves the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. (14) Therefore stand, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness (15) and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. (16) Above all, take the shield of faith, with which you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. (17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, (18) praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching to this very thing with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.
Hi Shirley
I am unclear as to what you mean when you state that Romans 1:18-28 is only half the story when compared with Romans 2:1-5. Romans 2:1-5 presents a progression of thought that culminates in stating, "because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed." Romans 1:18-28 has already emphasised three times that God's wrath is giving people up/over to inherent consequences. What is 'the other half' of the picture that you see Romans 2:1-5 presenting?
The Day of the wrath of God.
Jesus told a parable of the wheat and the weeds. The Farmer said let them grow together for now, we will deal with the weeds at the harvest.
The disciples didn't understand so Jesus explained. Wheat = righteous, weeds = wicked, harvest = Second Coming of Jesus when He would gather all the wicked and throw them into 🔥 the fiery furnace to be burned up completely.
Matt 13:24-30,36-43,49-50.
See also Matt 3:12, Mat 25:41
Thanks Shirley for taking the time and effort to outline your explanation of how you understand and see things in response to my request for elaboration.
At the second coming of Jesus there will be an incomplete number of the righteous and an incomplete number of the wicked, about 8billion in total. They cannot be burned up completely because all of them will be resurrected after the millennium. Also, there will be no fiery furnace at that time. All wicked (something like 50 billions or more) cannot be burned up completely until after the millennium in the lake of fire. After this point they will not be resurrected.
Cezary, thank you for pointing out that Jesus' comments re the end of the wicked takes place in two steps, one at His Second Coming and two after the 1000 years. I believe He kept it simple at that stage so as not to confuse the people. We note He does something similar when He answers the disciples multiple question in Matthew 24.
Hi Phil,
And I must say that I find your question/argument puzzling. (For that matter, I cannot see the reason for your series of texts in your previous comment, unless I mentally insert what I know of your presuppositions which are not stated in the text.) First you say that
That seems clear enough. What isn't clear is your next statement
I have just re-read these familiar verses and cannot find the "three times" Paul emphasized "That God's wrath is giving people up/over to inherent consequences."
As a matter of fact, God's wrath is mentioned just once in Romans 1:18. Paul goes on to argue that God's wrath is justified against those who rejected what could be known about Him, choosing to follow their own perverted desires instead. "They are without excuse," Paul writes. And "for this reason" God "gave them up" to sink into further degraded behavior. The chapter division of Romans 2 was added more than 1000 years after Paul wrote his letter, and his argument continues in Romans 2:1. Paul has already indicated that God's wrath is manifest against the degraded heathen, and now he continues by saying that those [Jews] who hypocritically condemn the heathen while themselves engaging in similar, though perhaps more socially acceptable sins, will fall under the same condemnation of wrath. (See also Rom. 2:17-24)
I wouldn't stop with Romans 2:5, though, because Paul continues to say that
For that matter, there's no natural stopping place in Paul's argument. This part of Romans is the prequel to his presentation of the gospel to the Romans whom he had not yet met. I find Romans to be the most carefully constructed and logically cohesive letter of all of Paul's letters. This part of Romans simply establishes that heathen and Jews a like fall under condemnation by the law of God, and after this he goes on to demonstrate that they all can only be saved by the grace of Christ.
Thanks Inge
I can appreciate that you find my views puzzling as we operate from differing presuppositions and consequently see that same things differently.
From my viewpoint, Paul states in Romans 1:18 that God's wrath is revealed (Greek apokalyptetai meaning to bring to light) rather than 'poured out'. Paul then goes on to unpack what the specific nature of that wrath functionally is in the remaining verses - that it is God giving people up/over to the inherent consequences of pursuing a course of 'living' that seems good in their own eyes but which in reality is 'dead man walking'. Paul states and restates this in Romans 1:24, 26 and 28 - the three times I referred to. So, yes, Paul is stating that God's wrath is justified but is also functionally specifying the nature of that wrath.
Yes, you are correct that there is no natural stopping point for Paul's argument. So the rest of Romans follows on from and is consistent with this foundational 'revelation'. As you note, for example in Romans 2:6, it states that "He (God) will render to each one according to his works... The question is how does God render to each one according to his works? Does God do this via imposing consequences upon someone, or by giving them up/over to the consequences that flow from (are inherent to) their chosen way of being? I would propose that Romans 1:18-28 has laid the foundation for the answer to this question and that Paul is therefore continuing on consistent with that foundational 'revelation'.
This same theme is also repeated by Paul in Galatians 6:8 that summarily states that those who sew to the flesh will reap phthoran. Phthoran conveys the idea of decay/corruption-based destruction that arises from internal rather than external origins and is consistent with Paul's subsequent specification that phthoran comes from the flesh - not from external to the flesh. This is consistent with what Paul has outlined at the outset of Romans regarding the nature of God's wrath as giving up/over to (ie releasing) inherent consequences. By the same token, Paul also goes in in Galatians 6:8 to explicitly and specifically contrast the decay/corruption-based destruction produced by the flesh with <emzoen/life that is produced by the Spirit.
Thus, I find that Romans 1:18-28 and beyond does far more than simply "establish that heathen and Jews a like fall under condemnation by the law of God". And while I agree that that Paul, upon that foundation, "also goes on to demonstrate that they all can only be saved by the grace of Christ", he does so by unpacking/revealing how and why that is the case.
With regard to my not specifying my presuppositions or reasons for the texts* I provided in the second paragraph of my original post, this is because I am inviting people to do some exploration for themselves rather than me tell them what they should be seeing and also to keep my posts shorter so they don't get rejected. Thus I am leaving space for people to follow up with requests for clarification instead.
--------
* 1 Corinthians 14:13 is a typo and should instead be 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Phil, thank you for your reply. As you must know from my previous comments, I have no quarrel with the law of sowing and reaping and the fact that sin separates from God and therefore from life. I also believe that following God generally results in blessings not just for eternity, but in this life (as the Bible promises). But, as we all know the "general rules" do not always operate consistently in this sinful world.
You appear to apply the general rule of truth to every situation, often putting you in a place of having to re-interpret plain statements of the Bible to say something quite different (and not true, in my opinion) - to say, for instance, that God did not execute/kill Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-10), but simply "gave them up" to the natural consequences of being out of harmony with God's law of life. And you interpret various statements in the same letter as all saying the same thing (that God's wrath means "giving up" people to their own desires) when it is clear to many of us that Paul (or Jesus) is writing about various facets of salvation. I am reminded of the title of one of J.B. Philips' books, Your God Is Too Small. It seems to me that trying to fit God into a box of our understanding of being "consistent" inevitably results in making God "Too Small."
Thanks Inge
You are absolutely correct that I do "apply the general rule of truth to every situation" and that this involves re-interpretation of typical interpretations of statements of the Bible. I do this because I find that the 'evidence' supports doing so. I acknowledge that you see such as "not true", because you and I operate from differing presuppositions. I am happy to be asked to outline what I see as the 'evidence' for any proposition and/or associated presuppositions I present.
For example, I will refer to the example you provided of Ananias and Saphira. There is nowhere in the text (Acts 5:1-10) that it explicitly states that God killed either of them. The 'plain statement' is that they each collapsed and (subsequently) ceased breathing. Further, the aorist indicative active of the Greek text does not even infer that God was the cause of the cessation of breathing. Thus the Literal Standard version and Young's Literal Translation render Acts 5:5 as "...and Ananias hearing these words, having fallen down, expired...". This is consistent also with the King James Version that renders that Ananias "gave up the ghost". I only provide this to briefly illustrate that it is not just me making up my own interpretations. I am not proposing the above on the basis of merely what I have stated - there are other associated presuppositions that are of relevance but which would involve a much longer and more complex presentation. Further, I also find what I have outlined above to be consistent with how Ellen White describes the more specific details as to the means by which God 'destroys', but I will not provide that info unless requested lest it be assumed that I am using Ellen White the basis for the interpretations I propose.
Although I have outlined a snapshot of what I believe applied to one example, I am interested to understand the reason/s you find it is impossible that God "simply "gave them up" to the natural consequences of being out of harmony with God's law of life".
I acknowledge that you firmly believe I have reduced 'the size' of God and am trying to fit Him into my box of understanding. From my perspective, I am actually doing the opposite - progressively having my understanding ongoingly enlarged. And your challenges are actually assisting this process - iron sharpening iron. This is taking me way beyond my former presuppositions that I held for years and therefore is not a case of me restricting things to my former presuppositions (confirmation bias), but rather is the result of critically re-evaluating those presuppositions rather than merely assuming them to be true. I am not trying to convince you of anything (Romans 14:5b) - just elaborating on why I find what I find for what it's worth to you or anyone else who may read this.
Thank you for sharing your point of view.
I wrote earlier, indicating that I believe that
So now, you appear to be doubling down to say that thee general rules of God's Kingdom - that sin naturally results in death, the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer - *always* apply in this life. Do you really mean to say that the righteous *always* prosper and the wicked *always* reap the consequences in this life? That's what the Pharisees taught and it seems the prosperity preachers today teach something similar.
I don't find that the evidence supports such a conclusion.
Further, you wrote
I grant I gave you an easy example to use as support for your point of view. However, both believers and unbelievers at the time saw it as an act of God, if you'll read the context. While it is true that God didn't physically kill them by cutting off their heads or some similar gory method, He did stop supplying the breath of life. In a modern societal context, this would be like a doctor taking a patient off life support. If the doctor had no permission from the family or a court authority, a court would find him guilty of murder or man slaughter.
We are all on life support, aka probation, on this planet, and usually God does not interfere a lot. (I do think we may be surprised to find out how much work our guardian angels did to save us from destruction.) But there are clearly times when God finds it necessary to intervene in order for His plan of salvation to prevail on this planet. Another example would be the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. (Numbers 16:1-35) Not only did the earth open up to swallow the chief instigators of rebellion, but "there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense."
Why is it so important to you to believe that God didn't do what the Bible says - that He didn't send the fire of destruction and that He didn't cause the earth to swallow up the rebels?
But we are very far afield from the lesson's focus on praise as "a weapon that conquers," and that's a shame. The story of the singing army (2 Chronicles 20:1-30) is one of my favorite ones in the Bible. And it also illustrates God's active intervention. It was by His direct intervention that the opposing army with an overwhelming number of soldiers was destroyed. An appropriate response would be praise to our Mighty God!! Instead, you provide a list of text in an apparent attempt to imply that the same kind of weapons are used in both physical and spiritual wars. Really?
Instead of feeling a need to modify the story, I find the story of the singing army to be quite inspirational just as it reads. It is comforting to know that we worship a mighty God who is able and willing to intervene for the rescue of His faithful people!
Thanks Inge
Although, in the course of our discussions across time, we differ in our understanding of some of the details regarding how God intervenes, I do agree with you that "It is comforting to know that we worship a mighty God who is able and willing to intervene for the rescue of His faithful people!"
Praise God from whom all blessings flow. Another story of praise and singing praise to overcome fear of facing what will be faced, was as Jesus assended to heaven leaving a void, The gathering worshiped Him with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Luke 24:52-53. Yes they knew Christ was sending the Holy Spirit to comfort, guide, lead, direct, and give desire and power to do what pleases God. However they also needed the praise that brings joy in the worship of God. Psalms 68:4.
Daily praise to God I do believe invigorates our souls.
Experience it, is what the lesson seems to imply.
EGW mentions in T Volumes 6,7 and SM books 1,2 she very clearly mentions about SDA worship services to not have sermons each and every Sabbath and also for the worship services to be mainly testimonial type meetings. Yet, in all my 50 plus or minus years of my SDA journey, Pastors go on to preach sermons each and every Sabbath at their churches.