i. Ba'al
[04/16/19]
As I try to wrap myself around the question of those essential characteristics which in their way define Who or how God is, I find it necessary to take a step back and look first at the very words by which we find Scripture speaking about God. As a first step, I will look at the fundamental terms that we find translated as lord or god. But, I’m going to start even one step farther back, with the term that so often describes the false gods of the Canaanites and other surrounding nations: Ba’al.
This term, has its meaning in the idea of master or husband. It is no surprise, then, to find so many of those cults that were concerned with fertility – which was most of them, really – had this concept of deity as husband, and being patriarchal, also saw the role of master in the position of husband. In this, God is not very different. We find Him often addressing His people as His bride, and He their husband. Now, that is, I think, quite different from typical Canaanite systems. Their god was a Ba’al, a master/husband, but to his consort, not to them. So, there is a continuity of idea, but also a radical distinction. Please bear in mind that I can hardly be rated as even a rank amateur in matters of ancient Middle Eastern religions, but this much we see even from the guest appearances of these other peoples and beliefs in the pages of Scripture.
There are, in fact, two terms which in transliteration look identical, but vary in their shade of meaning. The first, ba`al [OT:1166] bears a slightly different pointing, which is about all I can tell you about that. It speaks of that mastery which consists in marriage. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah apply this to God. We see it first in relief, as it were. In Isaiah 26:13, as Isaiah relates the song that will be sung ‘in that day’, he includes these words. “O LORD our God, other lords besides thee have had dominion over us.” That phrase ‘have had dominion over us’ translates ba’al. It is applied more directly later, in Isaiah 54:5, where he says, “thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name.” Later still, he applies it to the very land of promise, speaking of it as Beulah, which is a variant of the same term, and saying that ‘thy land shall be married’ (Isa 62:4).
Jeremiah applies this to God as well, who says, “I am married to you” (Jer 3:14), as He calls His people to repentance. He later points to the broken covenant, as Israel continued to violate the terms of that covenant established when God brought them out of Egypt. God speaks of it as, “My covenant [which] they break, although I was a husband to them” (Jer 31:32).
[04/17/19]
In the second form of this term, ba`al [OT:1167], the meaning begins to stress the matter of ownership. It still speaks of a lord or husband, but now as owner and possessor of the subject or wife. This is the form of the name by which we find the pagan gods named, often with another word joined to it, identifying the realm of said lord. This was common to the Canaanites, and polluted even the practices of the northern kingdom of Israel repeatedly. In Hosea’s day, it would appear that things had fallen into such a state that they even took to referring to God as Ba’ali (Hos 2:16), a practice to be done away with, and replaced with Ishi [OT:376], a man. This term, ba`al, also finds application to God in one other place. Nahum 1:2 applies it as one of the characteristics of God. There, God is described as a jealous and avenging God, and as a parallel for this thought, He is further described as avenging and wrathful, taking vengeance on His adversaries, and reserving wrath for His enemies. It is this issue of wrath which translates ba’al in this case.
This is a rather telling matter. It gives us a sound window into the way the Canaanites perceived their gods. Insomuch as Israel had taken to speaking of God in similar terms, it tells us how far they had fallen in their understanding. This ba’al was in first form a husband, as we have seen. That may not have had quite the same emotional connotations then as it does in our day. Marriages may not have had all that much of love to them, and a wife might very well have been viewed more as property. We see that in the significance of the term, in the way it more or less equates the husband with lordship. But, while there is that powerful sense of authority to the term, yet there is the hopefulness of a husbandly role, and thus one finds these would-be gods approached for matters of fertility. Perhaps worship of this idol would cause one’s crops to be fruitful, one’s herds to grow, or even allow for conception of one’s own heir.
But, this matter of wrath and vengeance paints a wholly different picture of the worshipers’ view of their master. He was to be feared, lest one make oneself his enemy. To get on his bad side was to risk vengeance and wrath. Here we may begin to see the military application of the ba’als. As well as husbands, they were warlords. It’s no wonder, then, that we see the conquering army supposing greater significance to their accomplishments; that their victory meant their god was victorious over the god of their enemy.
Now, I would have to observe that there are grains of truth in that perception. Certainly, when we find God in conflict with the so-called gods of the nations and defeating them, it often comes in the form of human warfare. But, I would also observe that when God is destroying a rival claim to deity, it generally transpires in a fashion that precludes assigning the victory to human endeavor. Even Israel’s great victories in subduing the Canaanites and the Philistines and the like came most often due to events that demonstrated quite clearly that God had done the work, and not they. In the subduing of Egypt, that picture is plainer still. Moses may have been the vessel, but the plagues were demonstrably beyond the capacity of man, and even of those powers that Egypt worshiped.
Frankly, we discover, if we watch closely, that God’s victory over ostensible powers and Israel’s military victories may be connected, but they are not the same battle. Nowhere do we find Israel granted to pursue this idea that they could adopt the gods of the conquered. Rather, they were to smash the idols, considering most everything as under the ban. This was not a raid for spoils. This was wrath upon the enemies of God. By way of contrast, we have the example of the Philistines mistakenly thinking their temporary victory over Israel meant Dagon beat God. God made it clear in very short order that this was not the case.
To be clear, as concerns His enemies, yes, God is wrathful, even as Nahum declares. But, those He has called to Himself are not His enemies. Even though they so often rebel and sin against Him, even though we so often fail not only to keep covenant with Him, but even to be mindful of His covenant with us, yet He is a faithful, and indeed, a loving husband to His people. He is not as these other gods were to their people – a lord to be feared and appeased. He is a husband, a father, to be revered and honored. That His people had fallen into this mode of appeasing an angry master speaks very poorly both of them and of those who had charge of teaching them about their God.
ii. ‘El
[04/18/19]
This morning, I turn to one of the two or three root words by which we find God identified in the Old Testament. These are more commonly found as part of a longer name, but as they lay at base, it is worthwhile to understand their meaning. I begin with the shortest: ‘El [OT:410]. This term carries the sense of strength, deriving from ‘ayil [OT:352], which again indicates strength as evident in a ram, a column, or an oak. This may suggest why we so often read of God’s people being like mighty oaks. I find it interesting that this same idea informed the British Navy back when they ruled supreme on the seas. The theme song of that navy was “Heart of Oak”, speaking to the strength of both the ships and the men who sailed them.
But our interest lies in its use as the name of God, whether alone or in construct. The general sense is that of might, but it is also there in many of the “God of” phrases. The earliest example of its use chronologically would likely be that found in Job, where we find Job saying, “I would seek God and place my cause before God; who does great and unsearchable things, wonders without number” (Job 5:8-9). He proceeds from there to address many of those wonders, but you see the sense of might, of power in that statement, indeed a sense of might combined here, as elsewhere with another title of our Lord’s: Almighty. The two come closer together in verses such as Job 8:3, and Job 8:5 where the two names are effectively parallels. “Does God pervert justice or does the Almighty pervert what is right?” (Job 8:3).
In terms of textual order, the first incidence of this title for God comes in Genesis, which should hardly surprise. There, speaking of our friend Melchizedek, it is said that he was priest of God Most High – ‘el ‘elyon. We’ll get to that combined title in due time, but it does introduce us to one of the major titles given by God, often proclaimed as His name. The ‘elyon part bespeaks His Supremacy. He is Supreme God. This, of course, brings us back to that idea of exclusivity. There is none higher. There is, in reality, none other. But, let man honor what he may as gods, here is One Who is God even over them.
But, what does Genesis have to say of him? In this earliest instance, we find this God Supreme whose priest Melchizedek, king of Salem was, blessing Abram. “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand” (Ge 15:18-20). Now observe. This God whom Melchizedek served is the one who blessed Abram. It becomes clear pretty immediately that Abram was already quite aware of ‘El ‘Elyon. “I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth” (Ge 14:22). This oath, it would seem, came well before Melchizedek came out to meet him, but it takes that name by which Melchizedek spoke of God, and adds to it the covenant name Yahweh, which we will look at shortly. The combination is one that bespeaks a God most powerful indeed. But, back to Melchizedek’s blessing. Here, there is something of a reminder to Abram, and to all who would follow after: That victory, Abram, did not come of your prowess, nor of your numbers. It came because this Most High God, God Supreme, delivered your enemies into your hand.
There is a twofold message in that reminder. The first is, to borrow the popular phrase from the realm of political discourse, “Don’t get cocky.” Yes you are victorious, but don’t think that means you shall always be, nor that your own talents have done this. Even for our church leadership today, as we are often reminded, don’t think you can lead this church by your own wisdom, nor address the challenges and issues by your own skill and experience. These things are beyond you. If you didn’t know that going in, you’ll soon enough discover the truth of it. The job needs God in it. His choice of you is not reward for your brilliance, it is a vote of confidence that you will wise up and lean hard on the Lord God Most High.
The second part of the message is quite encouraging, I think. Notice how victory was brought. It wasn’t, at least per this blessing, that God strengthened Abram and those with him to gain the victory. To be a bit blithe, any god could do that much. No, but God Most High delivered the enemy to Abram. He all but wrapped them up and shipped them UPS. The significant point to discern from this is that God Most High is not God only of those who worship Him, but God of all – like it or not.
There is a message that will resound throughout the Scriptures. It is a theme we will see arise over and over again. For those who oppose God, it is often a message brought home by defeat. The Canaanites, for example, were inclined to see gods as perhaps powerful over their own little realms, but rather powerless outside the boundaries of those realms. If God was God of the mountains, they reasoned, He could be defeated by drawing His people into the valleys. If He was God of Israel, then they need only bring the war over the border into Moab, or Assyria, or Egypt, or wherever, and this God of Israel would be powerless. But, of course, they were wrong. You can’t bring God beyond the boundaries of His realm, because His realm is all-encompassing.
That same idea is at play when we are reminded that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is LORD. That doesn’t mean that every knee and tongue will be pleased to do so. It does mean that they will be left no choice. The Truth will out.
iii. Yahweh
[04/19/19]
Here we arrive at the single most often used term for God in the Old Testament. It has as its primary significance the idea of self-existence and eternality. Thus, we find in the very names of God the significant concepts that define godhead. We have seen Him declared supreme. Now, we see Him declared eternal and self-existent. In sum, we can reasonably say that whoever it is that is being referred to by these terms is indeed being identified as God. The earliest recorded use of the term is to be found in Genesis 2:4, identifying this LORD God, as the one who made heaven and earth. Here it is combined with ‘Elohiym, which we shall consider shortly, to give us a view of God in all three of these primary attributes. God, the Supreme, Eternal, Self-Existent One, created everything. Again, bear in mind that this is quite nearly the earliest of opening statements in the course of God revealing Himself to mankind.
I will observe that it appears some of the manuscript evidence uses only ‘Elohiym here, but even there, we have the combination showing up by verse 7. But, a scan of the texts indicates that this combination is most prevalent as the identifying name of God, and rightly so. This name of Yehovah, or Yahweh, is really first encountered in the account of Moses’ first meeting with God. We need to trace it back just a bit linguistically to really grasp the full power of it. Thus, we come to that point, early in the Exodus account, when God has informed Moses that he is to go confront Pharaoh on behalf of the Israelites. Moses, not surprisingly, is a bit stunned to say the least. That’s rather a tall order for one who just ran away from Pharaoh’s household to avoid murder charges.
Given his reception by the Israelites at that time, he’s not real sure that they’re going to give him much of a hearing either. So, he asks God, “Who shall I say has sent me to them, again?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14), “tell them IAM has sent you.” This name becomes highly significant as we transfer into the New Testament, but we need to focus here at the root, ehyeh A_ser ehyeh. The first and last word of that name, also the short form that God tells Moses to use, is the root word hayah, existence. The middle term, ‘asher, provides a relative pronoun: Who, what, that, etc. Thus, we can take it as I AM that I AM (self existence), I AM WHO I AM (unchanging), or other such phrasings. It might be worth noting that this hayah is the word used to note that what God spoke during the days of Creation came to be. Hayah: It was. It came to be.
This brings us to the name Yahweh, or as it is sometimes written, Jehovah. The variation comes from the way Hebrew is written, which tends to leave the vowels out. Thus, the consonants shared between the two give us an understanding of how the variety arose. YHWH, or YHVH, really, provides the written form, and then a question arose as to where the a and e went. The o of Jehovah one suspects represents an attempt to make the result somehow pronounceable. At any rate, this is the term that is in view wherever we find LORD or GOD written with all-caps in Scripture. This is done to distinguish it from other terms which would translate as Lord or God.
Perhaps the most telling occasion for this name being used so often to indicate God is His own use of it in speaking to Moses. This comes in the midst of the face off, if you will, with Pharaoh. Moses and Aaron have come to Pharaoh with the command of God to let His people go worship Him, and Pharaoh has instead made the life of the Israelites harder. They are not pleased. Moses might be said to be having his doubts. “Lord, why did You hurt these people? Why did You send me? All that has come of it is harm to this people. You haven’t delivered them at all” (Ex 5:22-23). These are not the words of a confident man. Arguably, they are not the words of a man who has truly recognized Who he’s dealing with. But, then, perhaps they show greater understanding than we have ourselves. God, after all, is not put off by earnest concerns, even if they are poorly worded. I have to believe that there is no tone of accusation in Moses’ prayer, but only true concern. Things are not happening as he had supposed they must. What’s going on?
God, far from taking vengeance on His agent for such effrontery, instead speaks to give him confidence. “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh” (Ex 6:1). We haven’t really started the program yet. This was just the introduction. But, God continues. “I am the LORD” (Ex 6:2). Me Yahweh, if you’ll pardon the butchery of language. Moses, you’re talking to Eternal, self-Existent God. Don’t lose sight of that! “I appeared to the patriarchs as God Almighty, as ‘El Shaddai, but I didn’t tell them My Name, Yahweh. I did not make Myself known to them” (Ex 6:3). That is a rather stunning statement, isn’t it? It’s as though God said, “They knew of Me, but they didn’t really know Me.” But, I don’t think that’s the intent here. He continues. “I established My covenant with them…and I have remembered My covenant” (Ex 6:5). All this to say deliverance may not have come yet, but it most assuredly is coming. “I will bring you to the land which I swore to give Abraham and sons, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the LORD!” (Ex 6:8).
Okay, so observe we have a twofold declaration of purpose – decided purpose. This is going to happen. Period. Why is it going to happen? Well, it is a matter of covenant, and Yahweh is a covenant keeping God. What He establishes, He keeps. He alone is eternal and self-existent. If He said it shall be, rest assured, it shall be. That is what He sums up in the bookend statements, “I am the LORD.” It is certain because I am certain. It is thus that we find this name of God associated with the covenantal relationship He establishes with His people.
Wherever we find that name used, and that is pretty much everywhere in the OT, this is the full power of what Scripture is reminding its reader about. The LORD, Yahweh self-Existent and Eternal, has covenanted with you. He has said it, and He will do it! His purpose is inviolable, infallible, unstoppable – indeed, not even subject to delay. All is happening, to borrow a bit of phrasing from Internet parlance, exactly as He foretold. And ever shall it be so. The LORD has determined.
iv. Elohim
[04/20/19]
Here we find another term for god, or more literally, gods. It is, after all, a plural term. It is a term that we find applied various ways, and not always to God. On occasion, it is used as an honorific for magistrates, or simply to express a superlative condition. But, with the article, it speaks of God Himself as the Superlative, Supreme God. Whether the term is in fact intended as a plural or a singular is determined by the verb with which it is connected. If the verb is singular, the intent is singular. As a descriptive for God it points to His power and His being the ultimate Ruler. It may also contain hints of the Trinity, as we see it in God’s seeming discussion with Himself during creation. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” (Ge 1:26a).
At any rate, this is perhaps the most common or second-most common word used for God in the Old Testament. When speaking of God Himself, it often comes in conjunction with Yahweh, but not always.
v. Theos
Turning to the New Testament, we have a similarly generic term for gods in theos [2316]. It is used quite similarly to Elohim, in that it may be used occasionally in reference to magistrates, or to express the superlative. Given that the New Testament is, in many ways, an example of Jewish usage of the Greek language, it shouldn’t surprise us to find that their usage of Greek followed their usage of Hebrew in such fashion. That is to say, whether a Greek would have used theos as a simple superlative seems unlikely, but for a Jew adopting Greek such Hebraisms are quite understandable.
We see similar results when foreigners take up English, or when we seek to adopt a foreign language. As to basic meanings and pronunciations, one hopes we arrive at a degree of fluency. But, there will always be those idiomatic usages that will tend to indicate one’s roots. They are too much of our nature to jettison, and so, rather than seeking an equivalent idiom in this new language, we simply attempt to translate ours literally, with the result that things sound just a bit off to the native speaker.
Of note, this is the consistent choice of terms for Greek translations of the OT, when encountering Elohim. As with that term, the definite article makes plain that we are speaking of God Himself, and no other. It may also apply to Him without that article, but that must be determined by context. It is of note, per Kittel’s, that this does not simply address the existence of God, which was a matter presupposed and accepted by all. Rather it addresses His presence. This is the expected experience of the believer calling upon God – to experience His presence, with appropriate responses of thanksgiving, doxology and humble worship. This God of Scripture, particularly in the NT, is found to be at once transcendent, being in heaven, and Spirit, thus utterly distinct from the created world; and yet very much present and omniscient, thus fully involved in and aware of events in the world.
Kittel’s observes this particularly in the formulation of Jesus’ words in John 4:24 – God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. He is not limited to temple or to some statue. He is omnipresent, always to be found, always to be worshiped. As ever, there is a great deal more that can be mined from Kittel’s, but for now, I am satisfied.
vi. Adonai
I will return, then, to the OT to pick up one more term, Adonai [OT:113]. This picks up on the sovereignty aspect, identifying God as Lord and master. In fairness, the term is more often used in reference to some human lord, but it does on occasion find itself applied to God. In this latter application, it will often be used in conjunction with Yahweh to make the intent clear. A prime example might be Exodus 34:23, where we actually encounter all three of the major terms for God simultaneously. “Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.” We have, then, Adonai Yahweh, Elohim Israel. The Trinitarian in me would love to find some representation of Father, Son, and Spirit in that formulation, but I don’t think that’s the intent at all. If anything, the threefold formulation intensifies and emphasizes the God-ness of God, and makes all the more important one’s compliance with the ordinance. Your Master, the Self-Existent Eternal God, who reigns Supreme over His Creation insists you attend.
Elsewhere, we find Adonai expressive of God’s Supremacy over all. Joshua reminds the people with Whom they have to deal as he gives instruction for entering the Promised Land. The priests would carry the ark of the covenant across, and when they stepped foot in the Jordan, the Jordan would be cut off to allow a dry crossing. Here, he speaks of the ‘ark of the LORD, the Lord of all the earth’ (Josh 3:13). Yahweh, he says, is Adonai of all – whether they acknowledge this reality or not. His Lordship shall be shown rather conclusively in that the Jordan’s waters would not simply dry up like some desert wadi. They would be standing ‘in one heap’, making it quite plain that what was happening was no natural phenomenon, but the hand of this Master of all creation.
vii. Kurios
[04/21/19]
We come to the equivalent New Testament term, Kurios [2316]. This may simply be a term of respect, meaning much the same as we would by saying sir, or ma’am – for those who still use such words. On the other hand, it still bears the sense of authority and in reference to God it bears the sense of utmost authority. Kittel’s advises that this is the term most often used in translating Yahweh, and in particular, when prefaced by the definite article, we recognize God is in view.
This requires us to exercise care with the word, that we may properly discern the intended meaning from the context in which we find it used, but this is not generally a terribly difficult task. Certainly, when we see the term applied to mere mortals, it is in a lesser sense, say as head of household, or perhaps one with earthly offices of administration. Thus, we see Peter utilize the term in reference to husbands (1Pe 3:6 – Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.)
By the same token, when we see reference to Lord Sabaoth (Ro 9:29), or Lord Almighty (2Co 6:18), and certainly, the Lord God (Rev 4:8), we are pretty clearly discussing God. Likewise, when we find Jesus referenced as the Lord, it is not just that He is identified as a rabbi of some consequence, nor is He being addressed as a husband or a slave owner or some such. As we acknowledge ourselves His bondservants by choice, we do in fact accept Him as Master with full right over us. As the Bible depicts the Church, like Israel before it, as the bride of God, we do in fact account Him our husband. And certainly, as head over all the Church (Ro 10:12), we do account Him our chief ruler and authority whilst we remain in this earthly existence.
Thus, when we find the title applied to Jesus, we recognize more than a claim to earthly authority. It is a claim to the godhead. It is abundantly clear that He understood it to be so, and equally clear that those around Him recognized the same. Had it not been so, there would have been no sufficient cause to seek His death. Mind you, there was no sufficient cause anyway since His claims were legitimate, but one could at least put forward some suggestion of blasphemy given this claim.
Indeed, given this claim, one must come to grips with it. Either this Jesus is in fact God as He claims, or the Sadducees were quite correct in pronouncing Him a blasphemer worthy only of death and condemnation, or He is a madman perhaps deserving of our pity, but certainly not our worship. Faced with His claims, and the claims of the Apostles as to His person, a decision is demanded of us. One cannot remain neutral. One cannot, in good faith, even conclude as do the Muslims that He was a good prophet, but nothing more. If He was a good prophet, then surely His words must be heeded with utmost care, and His words lay claim to the godhead. If He is a good prophet, then His claim is by very definition true, and the entire exercise of exalting Allah instead is an exercise in clearest blasphemy by its own confession of Jesus as a prophet of God.
Likewise, the Hindus run into trouble in trying to somehow incorporate Jesus into their pantheon. If He is a god, then He is, by His claims, Lord of lords, God of gods, THE God, one and the same God Who, long ages past, informed His people, “The Lord your God, He is One” (Dt 6:4). Indeed, we again have the word of this prophet, if such He is, declaring an exclusivity that allows room for no second or third gods. He begins by echoing that very passage, and proceeds to the implied requirement – not even implied, really, but stated elsewhere. “You shall love the Lord your God (ton Kurion sou Theon) with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength” (Mk 12:28-29). This, He observes is our greatest commandment, the most fundamental rule of life given by this God Who is One. This One God is the One God He claims to be. If He is Son of God, He is God. There cannot be two or three. But, God has been pleased to bestow upon Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Php 2:9-11). This, particularly given its reference back to the Psalms, is a clear and distinct declaration that Jesus is God, bearing that most significant name, Lord, or more properly, Yahweh. That name, the covenant name of God, by which He has proclaimed His eternal, self-existent being to His people, is indeed the name above all names. It is the name by which God proclaims His utter supremacy and His exclusive claim to the mantel of God.
Let those, then, who would acknowledge this Jesus recognize that it cannot be done in any lesser way. He is either God as He has claimed and as His followers have declared, or He is nothing. He is either to be heard in the full authority of Yahweh incarnate, or He is to be ignored as a madman or a charlatan. We cannot arrive at any middle way and suppose ourselves honest in our assessments.
Now, that gets me miles and miles ahead of my plan of pursuing this grand topic, but call it a foretaste. Call it a wonderful point at which to find oneself this Easter morning. Here, we arrive at that chiefest of chief days of the year, on which we celebrate not some pagan fertility goddess, and not some superstitious joy at seeing spring coming to full bloom; but the single most significant event in all history: The day that death was defeated, and the penalty for our sins declared paid in full. It is well and good, I suppose, to have some scruple over the use of the term Easter, and to avoid its use because of its roots. But, if there is anything in your heart that would mingle the worship of Christ Jesus, of the One God, with some figure out of ancient near eastern mythology, then you’re not in Church anyway. You’re off on some hillside somewhere with flowers in your hair, or some other such nonsense. There is no one, I will say with utmost conviction, who comes to Church of an Easter Sunday to worship God and finds himself condemned for pursuing idols. Oh, I will grant you that there are plenty in the pews who have no real sense of God, nor love for Him. But, that is as true on any given Sunday, and no direct fault of Easter.
Indeed, for those who complain of the date, it must be observed that one would be hard pressed to find a Sunday nearer the Passover than it has arrived this year, and frankly, the Passover observation has its own temporal shifts to deal with, as the Jewish calendar requires a bit of massaging now and then to keep its schedule in line with the seasons. But, here we are at this highest of holy days, the day that God Incarnate was found to have risen from the grave, being very much alive in spite of the clear and obvious piercings of hands, feet, and side. He lives! He lives! My Jesus lives! He lives in me, which is a marvel beyond comprehension in its own right. But, He lives eternal, ascended into heaven to take seat upon His rightful throne, and there He rules through all eternity, Lord Sabaoth, God of hosts, Most High God through all eternity. And this One has bought me out of my slavery to sin and into His own family. This One has given me a birthright which none can steal. This Lord Jesus, He is my Rock.
