Sovereign God, Sovereign Will (09/12/26-09/13/26)

This passage offers many challenges for translation, particularly as concerns the prayer that is recorded here.  There are terms here that are unusual to come across, words that have multiple possible meanings, and words whose specific meaning is simply difficult to convey.  Reading through the various translations shows how challenging it has been, for translations vary as to how they have presented the underlying Greek.  As concerns this prayer, what we understand to be the focus and the mindset of those praying can be greatly influenced by choices of translation.  Alternately, we may find that choices made in translation are influenced by what we perceive to have been their focus.

This challenge begins with the first words of their prayer.  Following the NASB, it seems simple enough, doesn’t it?  “O Lord.”  But we are then immediately confronted with a challenge.  If this is Lord, our thoughts go fairly immediately to kuriou, which in fact appears later in the prayer, as they quote Psalm 2.  And it would be natural for us to assume that the same English term indicates the same Greek term.  But in this case, it does not.  In point of fact, the prayer is addressed to Despota.  Now, had any translation undertaken to translate this to its nearest English counterpart, we would find them addressing their Despot.  But that is a word with significant negative connotations for us.  Yet, to leave it simply as Lord, as the NASB has done, misses something, I think.  Other translations seek to convey something of this by offering us “Sovereign Lord.”  And that does in fact convey the point that there is a significant difference between who is addressed, or how He is addressed here at the outset and who is spoken of farther on.  And that, of course, raises its own potential challenges for us.  But let’s stick with this first term and its significance for the moment.

The term is despota, for which Zhodiates offers the definition of a master over slaves, of one with unlimited authority.  In human terms, neither of these present anything really positive.  A master of slaves might, I suppose, treat his slaves well, but that seems more likely to be the exception than the rule.  And as to one with unlimited authority, well!  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?  A despot, to our thinking, is one who rules by fear and force.  He is a tyrant, imposing his will upon a populace who might as well be slaves for all that they can do to limit him or refuse his orders.  His authority is unlimited.  There are no checks, no balances.  And yet, here the prayer is directed towards such a one, with the distinction that this is no human despot.  Neither is this some capricious deity such as the Greeks and Romans devised for themselves.  This is God, who, as they immediately assert, created everything that is.  There is the basis for His authority.  He made you!  He made the place in which you live.  He determined the government under which you pursue your life.  He established the church in which you worship.  He arranged for you to become part of that church.  There is nothing over which He does not exercise full authority, and there is no place where that authority is exercised without proper basis.  Nobody and nothing is outside the scope of His rightful rule.

Thus, we arrive at Wuest’s rendition of this one word address to God:  “O Lord, absolute in power.”  He is Lord.  He has the right of rule.  He is the final Authority.  And with that full and final authority rests the full and unlimited power to enforce His will, a combination of omnipotence and omniscience.  This is Who is called upon in prayer.  It is because He is the Lord, absolute in power, that the Psalmist observes that the nations gathered against Him plot in vain, devising futile things.  Their combined might and their best laid plans can be of no avail.  Success is impossible when it requires that which God has not ordained.

My wife has taken to praying for God’s perfect will of late.  While I appreciate the sentiment, it also strikes me as a superfluous qualifier.  God’s will is, by definition, perfect.  He can will in no other way.  Now, we may comply with His will quite imperfectly, and that’s a whole different matter.  If we look to the example ahead, of Herod, Pilate, and the gathered mob of Jews and Gentiles alike, stirred to demand the crucifixion of the Son of God, it must be said that they acted in accord with God’s perfect will.  They could do no other, and that’s kind of the point here.  But they also acted absolutely of their own accord.  They willed their own rebellious actions.  However much you may wish to excuse the crowds who followed the lead of the Sanhedrin as being led astray by that council, they chose.  They could have thought better of this.  They could have recalled to mind what they knew of this Jesus and recognized the error of what was going on.  Pilate chose.  He could have rejected the council’s decision.  He should have, really, for he weighed the evidence and found nothing deserving of a death sentence, nor even of punishment.  Herod could presumably have intervened, but didn’t care to bother.  He was more interested in the entertainment value, it seems.  Yet all of them together could do nothing that was not in perfect accord with the perfect will of God.  And this did nothing to excuse their actions.

So, then, we find this prayer focused immediately on the sovereignty of God.  I do love that term, sovereign.  And I am particularly drawn to those translations of this prayer which open with, “Sovereign Lord.”  A sovereign may be despotic as to the extent of his power, and he might well turn out to be despotic as to how he exercises that power.  But it still bears less negative connotative weight.  Despot, to our thinking, demands the negatives, the abuse of power.  Sovereign still offers the potential of leadership good and wise.  Again, in human terms this cannot be guaranteed.  One need but compare and contrast King George III with Queen Elizabeth II.  Both had power, albeit in different degrees, given the changes of the intervening years.  But the one, at least from our American perspective, ruled by cruel and unwarranted enforcement, the other by wise oversight.

And here, I suppose, is the great challenge of the translation “Sovereign Lord” as applied to the American mindset.  We don’t really have a proper conception of sovereignty.  It doesn’t apply here.  The president may have significant power, but it’s for a season at most, and even within that season there remain checks and balances in place.  His word does not go automatically, no matter the nattering complaints of the opposition.  But I really don’t wish to wander into the political weeds here.  That’s not the point or the purpose.  The point is to establish the framework for this prayer, and for prayer more generally.  It begins with this:   God is in control – fully in control.  His power is absolute and His purpose perfect.  There is no least imperfection to His plans.  There is nothing in call that exists which comes to pass counter to His plans.  He is Sovereign.  End of debate.

This point firmly establishes the course of our prayer here.  Having observed the extent of His power – “You made everything that is” – they proceed to proclaim the extent of His knowledge.  “You spoke of what would happen long ages past.”  By the Holy Spirit.  The same Holy Spirit by whom Peter and John had just addressed the Sanhedrin.  The same Holy Spirit who had burst forth upon the group of disciples there in the upper room not so long ago.  The same Holy Spirit about to burst forth upon them once again in response to this prayer.  And the Holy Spirit spoke through God’s servant David – the beloved, the man after God’s own heart.  Now we hit upon yet another question of translation, and one we will have to address again as we proceed. David, the servant of God, is identified as His paidos.  Again, if we reach for something recognizable in English, we perceive the basis for various of our technical terms relating to children.  Sadly, the one that comes most readily to mind is a term which speaks of terrible abuses of children.  But the same prefix applies to one specializing in medical care of children.

The challenge for us is that this same Greek term can speak of a son or a servant.  Even in speaking of a son, there is something of the servant significance remaining.  I see one lexicon offering the point that the male child was one you could beat without repercussions.  If he disobeyed, you could cuff him.  It wasn’t all that long ago that the same sensibility largely governed parenting, and even schooling.  You have an unruly boy in your class?  You apply a bit of corporal punishment and he’ll soon be sorted.  A ruler across the knuckles, a period spent on his knees in the corner; he’ll change.  Repeat as necessary until compliance is gained.  And there you have the parent or the teacher acting as we might suppose a despot would.  A master of slaves.

But as concerns the significance of servitude in this term, is appears it is generally constrained to such servants as serve a king, or who serve God.  It is not the abject condition of one sold into slavery, and that is generally how we perceive any reference to slave.  Neither is it indentured serviced, which might seem a lighter form, and is, in many ways, more in keeping with the general experience of slavery in Roman society.  One could work his way free of it.  Or, in Israel, it was for a term, a season.  It was a choice made by the one enslaved, as a means of preserving life during a period of hardship, not all that different, in the end, from our selling of our services to our employer.

This is different.  This is special.  It is service gladly entered into, not forced upon one.  It is not a matter of survival.  It is a privilege, an honor, to serve in this capacity.  And, if we were to speak in mere human terms, it was not without its potential advantages to the one who served.  A servant of the king, after all, could expect preferential treatment as he went about in society.  The servant of God might expect a higher degree of God’s favor upon his life.  So, then, the prayer, in noticing David, further sets the stage for what follows.  God spoke through the mouth of His loyal servant.  David, of course, was king.  He was the epitome of kingship to the Jewish mind, the ideal ruler.  That, of course, had to overlook a number of significant failings in David.  He had, after all, married that one whose name we don’t mention.  And his parenting skills left much to be desired, causing no end of trouble for himself and his legacy.  But withal, he remains a man after God’s own heart.  Isn’t that something?  Isn’t that cause for hope?  For we, like David, know our sins.  They are ever before us, and we must repeatedly, sometimes it seems continually, beg God’s forgiveness as we come to Him in repentance.  How wonderful, then, to know this assurance that He will forgive, that His love does not come with conditions.  And so, we can join David in the assured proclamation, “Our help is in the name of the LORD Who made heaven and earth!” (Ps 124:8).  Let others pursue their idolatries.  Let the powers of earthly authorities do their worst.  We don’t depend on them.  We cannot depend on them.  We need not depend on them.  Our help is in the LORD, in Yahweh, the eternally self-existent One.  Our help is in “I Am that I Am.”  His power and authority know no bounds.  And He is Good.  There is, as James says, no shadow of turning in Him, nothing shifty, nothing unsteady.

Now we arrive at bedrock assurance.  As they remind themselves of David’s prophetic psalm, they look to the extent of God’s foreknowledge.  So very long ago, He had already looked forward to that day when all the opposing forces gathered together in Jerusalem to oppose His anointed Jesus.  We’ll explore that more fully in the next section, just who was gathered together and how that maps.  But there are two aspects of the developing thought of this prayer that have my attention currently.

The first is this:  God’s promises did not fail.  He did not withdraw from His covenant with David when David proved himself imperfect.  He did not withdraw from His covenant with David when David did so repeatedly.  Neither did He withdraw from His covenant when the subsequent kings of Israel proved such a generally sorry lot.  For all that, He had still not withdrawn from that covenant.  In spite of the ensuing years, in spite of repeated subjugations of the Israelites to various invading nations, of which Rome was but the latest, His covenant promises stood.  Indeed, His covenant promises were being fulfilled even then, as Jesus, ascended to heaven, sat upon the throne.  And more widely, for all the nations of the earth, this same covenant promise continues.  God has not failed, nor can He.  God’s plans have not been revised to account for present conditions.  Quite the opposite, really.  Present conditions are constantly being revised in accordance with the unchanging plan of His providence, set forth and agreed upon between the Persons of the Trinity from before the first moments of Creation.

God’s promises do not fail.  They cannot.  This should inform all that we pray, and ought to encourage us to pray more frequently and more fervently.  It ought also to inform the content of our prayer, lest we find ourselves praying futile prayers of opposition.  But I’ll save that thought for later, Lord willing, and try and keep this portion on track.  Call it a bit of foreshadowing.

I said there were two aspects of this prayer I want to focus on at present, and here is the other.  For all their machinations, for all the vile results of self-will that combined on that crucial day when they crucified our Savior, this remains true.  They did, “whatever Your power and Your purpose had predestined to occur.”  They acted freely, but their free choices were necessarily such as proceeded in perfect accord with God’s determined plan.  They could do no differently.  The would not choose to do so.  This bothers folks immensely, I know.  We have difficulty receiving the point that what God says goes, and that’s the end of it.  We cannot, it seems, accept that this does not leave us as automatons following our programming with no will of our own.  Not at all!  We act in accord with our own wills, and cannot do otherwise.  But God is our creator and upholder.  He knows us intimately, having designed us and knit us together from those initial moments of genetic collision.  He knows exactly how we think, how we respond.  He knows exactly when we will act or fail to do so.  It must be so, else He could not speak of it with such precision from times long past.

Here, we arrive at another term whose meaning, especially when compared with other terms which get translated to the same English word, can be a struggle to convey.  In English, we have but the one word, will, or, as the NASB has offered it, purpose.  But one purposes what one wills.  They are connected.  In Greek, we have two terms that wind up translated as will.  The one before us here is boule.  The more commonly encountered term is thelema.  And there is a distinction, at least in some cases.  But I have often observed that the various lexicons differ as to what that distinction is, and which one means what.

The focus here is on the purposefulness of God’s will.  This is not a case of God catching wind of what certain people were doing and reacting to it.  Their actions were in fact taking the course He had long since determined they would take.  Again, it’s not that He so acted as to constrain each individual to play their part, willing or not.  That being said, you can observe from Jesus’ actions leading up to His resurrection, that He was goading the leaders to act, and we can reasonably conclude that He did so knowing what was in their hearts, even as He had previously taken actions to avoid their impulses on the same basis.  Why?  The time was not yet.  But when the time was come, His actions were undertaken so as to brook no delay, no wobbling on their part.  And these gathered believers understood that this was the case.  Of course the apostles would.  Had Jesus not specified the events to come?  “They will deliver Him [Me] to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify.  And on the third day, He [I] will be raised up” (Mt 20:19).  They may not have understood at the time.  They may have been in a state of denial at the time.  But they sure got it now.  He had told them what was going to happen, and it did, just as He had said.

And this, too, I should think, displayed His deity, or at the very least, His closeness with deity.  But I think the clarity of His prophecy speaks to the former.  Other prophets declared things to come, it is true.  But they tended to do so in symbols and mystery, even though they spoke from God.  Here, though, is true knowledge displayed.  Just contrast it with David’s prophetic message, as they have reminded us of it.  It’s unspecific, isn’t it, other than the notice of the Lord and His Messiah.  But nothing identifies the particulars of what’s to happen or by whom.  To be sure, David was looking from a much greater distance, but we can also surely say that he was looking from a much less intimate knowledge of the divine will.  Jesus knew because He, in His divine nature, had thus willed.  He had been in the planning, part of the process that had long ago laid out the course of redemption, start to finish, each point down to the least detail.

And so, we come to verse 28 with its assured declaration of truth.  What all these various individuals – and let us note, including the Apostles in their weakest moments – did was done as God’s hand – His power, and God’s purpose – this considered counsel leading to action, had predestined to occur.  He said it, and thus it would be.  Now, we can quibble as to how that works.  The GWT lays, I think, far more of the outworking of events to God’s doing.  They present us with, “Through your will and power, they did everything that you had already decided should be done.”  Others, such as the CEV, choose to distance Him somewhat from the action, and leave His power and wisdom in the planning.  They give us, “They did what you in your power and wisdom had already decided would happen.”  God decided, but they acted.  And if they acted, we must surely understand that they acted as they themselves willed to act.  And yet, at one and the same time, as God had willed, had purposed, they could have done nothing else.  It is determined, but it is determined without coercion.

I suppose the debate will rage on as to whether this all works because God exists outside of time and can see how the thing will play out before He starts it, or whether things play out as they do because He said so.  For my part, it seems to me that to see how things would have played out given other decisions, or other preceding events causing different responses, it would be necessary for those events to have played out differently in some setting so that He could observe and adjust His plans.  Given a multiverse in which to explore all the options, I suppose that could work.  But it would also leave myriad universes of mankind come up short of any hope for redemption.  So, this does not seem to me to be a viable course.  I am left with God having taken His own counsel, come to decision, and so acted as to achieve His desired outcome, both at the level of each individual down through the whole course of time, and at the level of the grand scheme of Salvation.

That, it seems to me, accords with His own testimony.  Consider the message He delivers through Isaiah.  “I declare the end from the beginning.”  Let me pause there.  He does not say that He sees or knows the end from that vantage point.  He says that He declares it.  He continues.  “From ancient times I have told of things that have not yet been done.  I say, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’” (Isa 46:10).  Note where the action lies.  I will accomplish.  God is fully in control.  He is Sovereign, Almighty God, unopposable in His will, in complete mastery over every aspect of Creation, man and devil alike.  Nothing escapes His will.  Nothing transpires outside of His will.  However wicked the individual act, it is constrained so as to achieve His good purpose.  And understand, every purpose of God is good, whatever we may think of it as it unfolds.  Thus we arrive at Paul’s grand declaration, a bedrock truth of faith.  “For we know that God works all things together for good to those who love Him, those called according to His purpose” (Ro 8:28).  For the record, this is a different term being translated as purpose, speaking of intention, a proposal set forth.  And isn’t that, after all, what His effective call is?  “I have a proposal for you.”  And having heard His proposal, particularly with hearts rendered receptive as the Holy Spirit undertakes His work, who could choose otherwise than to accept what He has proposed?  Life in heaven rather than eternal damnation?  Yes, please!  Sign me up!

It does leave the sad mystery of why so many, hearing the Gospel clearly proclaimed, yet choose to continue in darkness.  Yet we must, in the end, accept that this, too, is according to His good pleasure, and will glorify Him in showing His justice.  And that we must hold to be true even when His decisions go against the salvation of certain of our loved ones.  Yes, it hurts to consider that they may be condemned for all eternity.  It should hurt.  It should move us to speak tenderly to them of these same Gospel truths, holding to hope that He may yet choose to call them, even as He chose the time and circumstance of our own calling.  He knows.  And He determines.  And what He determines is good.  We may not understand it, but we know it.  And we shall, I expect, come to understand it in due course, when we see Him face to face, ourselves glorified, if in much lesser degree, with the work of the Spirit completed in us as we enter into our full maturity as sons and daughters in the court of God.

Hear it again.  “My purpose will be established.  My good pleasure will be accomplished.  All things, every last bit of the minutia of your day, every monumental victory and every seemingly endless trial, are working together for your good, for I have purposed to call you, and I have done so, and you love Me.”  Everything is happening according to plan.  You are secure, closely held in His hands, the apple of His eye.  Whom shall you fear?  And, of course, the companion question.  Whom shall you obey?

Those Opposed (09/14/26)

As the young church seeks its mooring in God, they have come to the reality that God had clearly known the events which unfolded in Jerusalem some months back long before they happened.  In fact, they observe, He not only knew they would happen, He had determined that they would.  His power, His purpose had decided it must be so, and so it was.  But on their way to that firm conviction, they have passed through a consideration of one of David’s Psalms.  Now, David, in writing that Psalm, did not first announce that this one was a prophecy.  In fact, while it is apparently understood by them to have been penned by David, the book itself does not make any such indication.  But there is assuredly no prefixed notation indicating its prophetic nature, either.  Yet, it is prophecy nonetheless. 

God spoke and it was.  That is ever the nature of true prophecy.  It’s not a probability statement.  It’s not a wishcasting of preferred outcomes.  Granted that many prophecies come with a conditional clause, indicating the inevitability of the predicted outcome unless these specific changes are made.  This generally involves a true repentance for present sinfulness, consisting in a change of course going forward.  What our prayerful brethren are observing is that in this case, the Psalmist’s words fit the conditions of true prophecy.  Kings and rulers had acted against the Lord, and against His Anointed, against Messiah.  In the course of that action, Jew and Gentile alike had come together to seek the defeat, the utter destruction of this Messiah.

That said, we may find ourselves trying to identify the intended parallels here.  Who represents the kings, and who the rulers?  At first, my eyes and my thinking were drawn to the obvious parallels of order in what they speak of in regard to current events.  Herod and Pilate:  The one, if not a king, then at least descendant of a king, and the other a procurator, ruling with something of an iron fist over the region of Judea.  But the reality is that both men were more nearly governors than kings.  So, while I had noted him as corresponding to the rulers of Psalm 2, I find I need to adjust that.  And one key to the adjustment lies in the use of this term we have translated as ‘rulers,’ archontes.  In the lexicons I find notice that this term is used both of the Sanhedrin, and sometimes even of the leader of a particular synagogue.  This rather changes the picture for me.

It may seem odd that this prayer, as it sets forth the fulfillments of this prophecy, slides past direct mention of the Sanhedrin in their role as the rulers, but then, that was rather implicit in the report Peter and John had made, and in the appeal made to God as the prayer concludes.  So, what we have here in the prophecy and its fulfillment alike is a conjunction of the civil powers and the religious powers acting in concert against the LORD.  And He, being Sovereign All-powerful God, it was bound to prove a vain and futile thing.  Oh, they had succeeded in having Him crucified, put to a most humiliating, most excruciating death.  But it hadn’t stuck.  And that was the whole point of contention as Peter and John faced the gathered council.  You killed Him, but He lives.  You rejected Him, but God anointed Him, resurrected Him, and now, has set Him upon His throne.  Bad news for you, guys.  He reigns.  And if He reigns, and you rebel, what can possibly come of it?

They might well have read out the conclusion of that Psalm to their interrogators.  “Now therefore, show discernment.  Take warning, O judges of the earth” (Ps 2:10-12).  There, too, we have reference to the Sanhedrin, the judges over Judean society, particularly in matters of religion.  “Worship the LORD with reverence.  Rejoice with trembling.”  It will not do to worship the Lord with empty words, all the while seeking your own honor and your own ways.  “Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way.  For His wrath may soon be kindled.”  Indeed, I would say it was too late for that warning.  That wrath was already kindled, mixed with bone-deep sorrow, when Jesus wept for what had become the inevitable outcome for Jerusalem.  But let us hold fast to the conclusion.  “How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!”  One wonders, as they quoted the start of this Psalm in prayer, did not the conclusion ring in their thoughts as well?  I think it did.  I think it informed the bold request that concludes that prayer.  But we’ll come to that.

Looking back at those events which unfolded in Jerusalem, which culminated in the most crucial moment in all human history, when our Savior willingly, obediently, went to the Cross according to the ages-old purpose of the Godhead, there are some interesting tidbits to consider in the coverage given them in the Gospels.

First, I observe from Mark’s account, generally accepted as conveying the content of Peter’s preaching and teaching, that the Sanhedrin had gathered in early morning to render immediate judgment against Jesus, and having done so, the bound Him and led Him off to face Pilate (Mk 15:1).  As I learned in the previous study, this was not the illegal action it is generally made out to be, but rather, followed precedent for matters of false teachers.  So serious was the issue of leading the people astray to other gods that exceptions were admitted to the normal proceedings of the court.  There need be no day of deliberation between hearing and conclusion.  And the fact that they led Him off to Pilate indicates their decision to impose a death sentence.  This, given that they are under Roman governance, was beyond their power to impose.  How this comports with the tendency towards stonings is unclear, for stoning was, if not an assured death sentence, at least likely to result in such an outcome.

One of our articles here suggests that their seeking out of Pilate indicated that stoning wasn’t enough in their opinion, but I don’t think that’s the case.  In lesser cases, it might be that a stoning could be carried out under the noses of their Roman overlords without being noticed, at least, not until it was too late.  But this was a very public case.  They knew they were on a dangerous footing, and it was entirely possible that the crowds would turn against them.  Fact was, they needed the power of Rome backing them in this undertaking.  They would connive to bring the public over to their side, and they would do so successfully, but they could hardly have counted on that as a sure thing that morning.

And so, we come to a point noted by Luke.  In taking Jesus to Pilate, the Sanhedrin went in their full number (Lk 23:1).  Safety in numbers, I expect.  A small contingent of the temple guards might not suffice, if the people took offense at their ruling.  Riots could start, and that would not be to their advantage at all – unless they could wield those riots as a threat to move Pilate to action.  But that required them getting to Pilate with their victim first.  And perhaps Pilate would prove sufficiently willing to impose their sentence for them.  It seems that was typically how these things worked out.

However, Pilate was not the typical governor.  The Herods, as horrid as they were, had at least some sensibility in regard to Jewish norms and convictions.  Herod Antipas might not have been the best example of this, given his clear disregard for maintaining any pretext of concern for Judaic practices, and particularly as represented by the Pharisees.  He was, if anything, more attuned to Hellenistic forms of the state religion.  But even at that, it was at best a lightly held view.  The Herods were, after all, not truly Jewish.  They were Idumean, half-Jewish at best.  And they were, particularly at this stage, the product of Rome, not Israel.  Indeed, the article in Holman’s suggests that Pilate, along with various of his contemporaries governing other regions with significant Jewish populations, was something of an anti-Semite.  He was, the article suggests, purposefully provocative in his dealings, seeking to stir them up in order that he might destroy them.

Now, I’m not sure how accurately that presents the case, but it’s certainly not out of the question.  The Roman propensity for admitting all religions, and worshiping pretty much whatever deity happened along would be bound to clash with such a headstrong monotheism as presented itself in Judaism.  While he often acted with what might be construed as arrogant disregard for the sensibilities of those over whom he ruled, it is equally likely that he acted without thinking things through.  He may have known military service prior to ascending to the governorship, but he was no general ala Augustus.  What shows with him is twofold.  First, as Nelson’s article points out, he was an unprincipled man.  He would do what He wanted to do, pursue his own goals, and do so with utter disregard for what was right and just.  But there is a second factor in play.  He knows the limit of his power, that he rules here at the whim of Caesar.  If he falls out of favor with Rome, the whole business could come crashing down in short order.  And in fact, it eventually did.  But this was the rather unenviable position of any Roman governor.  They had seemingly absolute power, but only until Rome decided otherwise.  And the Jews knew this very well.  And they played him like a violin.

After all, he had backed down before.  He was the one who had brought his army into Jerusalem, banners and emblems flying, in spite of being fully aware of Jewish sentiment in regard to having such images anywhere in the holy city.  He was governor, after all, and would do as he pleased.  But he hadn’t counted on the resolve of the locals, and their boiling anger, with its inherent risk of riot, was enough to get him to back down.  Yes, he could just kill them all.  And it seems that on occasion he had taken that course as well.  But that wasn’t the sort of governance that led to approval from the powers back home.  And a riot would be a sure ticket to a shortened reign.  And they knew it.  They knew that for all his bluster and brashness, he was at heart a bit of a coward.  They had seen him bend, seen him as the weak horse, and they would ride him for all they were worth.

We see that play out as he considers their demands in regard to Jesus.  He has made his own assessment of the Man, and found nothing requiring punishment, let alone crucifixion.  That, after all, was a punishment reserved for the worst, for enemies of the state and murderers.  This appeared to be little more than a sectarian dispute, and why should he be party to that?  But they knew how to bend him.  We’ll tell Rome how you let this claimant to kingship run free.  We’ll riot.  We’ll perhaps run to the governor up in Syria.  We’ve had enough of you, honestly.  And he bent again.  He tired, I suspect, of the annoyance of dealing with them.  And, of course, he knew the real potential of those threats.  Yet, that was something he had set aside before, and would again.  It seems that it was in fact complaints of the Samaritans, once again quelled with violent force, that brought him down.  They did in fact go to the governor in Syria, and the governor, it seems, was not amused.

But here and now, as concerns the handling of this Jesus, there is another odd note as to how things unfolded.  Luke tells us that whereas Herod and Pilate had been at odds previously, indeed, ‘at enmity,’ they became fast friends as a result of these things (Lk 23:12).  Seems rather an odd thing to have bonded over, but there it is.  Perhaps it was a shared annoyance with these arrogant Jews, and their demands.  After all, Herod and Pilate had the power.  They could govern as they pleased, and none could say otherwise, not anyone here in Israel at least.  And one suspects they shared a belief that they could handle any issues that might arise with Rome, explain themselves.  So long as a relative peace held, however forcefully imposed, it should be fine.  And I suppose, in their odd Roman fashion, they had both had their amusement with this Jesus, and also in showing their contempt for those over whom they ruled.  “Behold your king.”  Indeed.  A sorry sight after being flogged and beaten.  And there is that sense that in Pilate’s mind, this was declaring his assessment of the nation in general.  Here’s your best, and He’s a mess.  You lot are nothing to me.  Your God is nothing to me.

And these two adversaries, together with two people groups in a generally adversarial relationship, came together to act.  It is interesting to note that this gathering together is spoken of in the passive voice.  That suggests, at least, that there are outside forces doing the gathering.  I had thought perhaps this was a deponent form, and thus to be taken in the active sense in spite of the passive voice, but it seems there are occasions of an active voice usage as well, and even of middle voice.  So, passive it is.  Kings and rulers were gathered together against the Lord and His Messiah.  This yet again hints at the power of God working things towards His determined outcome.  “They did whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.”  They gathered together.

Here, I will note, the statement is made in the Aorist tense, a simple past action.  It happened at some indeterminate past time.  The Aorist is an odd tense, having no direct correspondent in English.  Wheeler’s speaks of it as presenting the external viewpoint of the action.  Others just not the non-specificity of it.  But there is another tense for internally viewed past actions, where the flow of events are more in consideration, as with the Present tense.  That’s not the case here.  This was something of a one-off, it seems.  There wasn’t prior build-up to action, like this had been boiling under the surface for all involved.  For the Sanhedrin, I think we could argue it had been, but for the Romans?  Jesus was little more than a curiosity, a divertissement.  For the people?  He was something of a hero, if misunderstood as to His heroic role.  But this wasn’t some premeditated conspiracy.  It was a confluence.

I’m bringing this up because it contrasts with another use of the same root term as we come to those to whom Peter and John are conveying the news.  They, too, were gathered together.  But there is a distinction, as we shall consider in the next section of these notes.

Servants of the King (09/15/26)

We have these two camps, as the NET suggests, or two gatherings.  The one group has gathered together those of prominence and power to oppose the Sovereign Lord.  Yes, we have the masses engaged as well, but I’m looking at the titles here; kings and rulers come out to thwart the Creator.  The other group consists of ‘Thy bond-servants.’  That is a polite framing, but it’s effectively, “Your slaves.”  Now, the changed reference comes in part because the very idea of slavery has such negatives attached to it.  Yet, it was a commonplace matter in the societies in that time, and it wasn’t always a matter of unwanted subjugation.  We associate slavery with men or women taken captive and sold to some master.  What is perhaps lost is the sense, particularly in Jewish practice, that one might in fact sell his services to another willingly, perhaps as a means of self-preservation when faced with a downturn of some sort.  But it was understood to be for a time, generally speaking, not a permanent arrangement.  Yet, Scripture offers instructions for how to handle the case should one who has entered into such an arrangement chooses, of his own volition, to make his service permanent.

My point is simply this, that the sort sort of slavery spoken of by this second camp is not that of forced subjugation, but rather a willing submission to the command of the one they serve.  The Apostles so often take up this title alongside that of Apostle in their epistles, and it is no object of shame to them, but rather an honor.  It is an honorable thing to render willing service to the King, and all the more when the King you serve is God Himself.  It is not a matter of being forced to comply with some cruel task-master.  Yet, it is, I think, something rather more binding than the service we render our employers in exchange for pay.  I have often tried to set these as similar in concept, but I have to accept that in fact, they are not.  You are not sworn to continue in your employment, generally speaking.  You can opt to shift to a different employer at will, or, your employer can opt to terminate your employment pretty much without prior notice.  The bond-servant, the slave, operates within a stronger, more binding commitment, whether entered into willingly or not.

So, a camp of self-proclaimed slaves comes to their Lord and Master with request.  That, I think, is perhaps the best apprehension of our position in prayer.  We don’t come demanding action of our God, certainly.  Neither do we come to remind Him of His duties towards us.  We come to make humble request of our Lord.  We come not seeking to manipulate or coerce His compliance – as if that lay in our power!  No.  We come beseeching.  We come in understanding of His character and His general goodness, and humbly seek that He might find it in keeping with His purpose to hear us and act.  We come, as well, with the recognition that He will answer, but that His answer may very well be in a form wiser than our request.  Indeed, His loving answer may be to deny our request.  And that is answer as well, and it is good.  It is, in fact, a far greater good than would have been His acceding to our desire in that instance.

Okay, I’ve probably worked that point sufficiently.  We come to Him as servants.  But we also address ourselves to One Who has set Himself as a Servant, though of a higher nature than ourselves.  Here is yet another point of challenge for the translator, for the terms at play vary in the text.  When they speak of themselves, it is doulois, the term we have been discussing.  But when it comes to Jesus, or to David, the term given is paidos.  In reference to David, they speak of him as “our father David Your servant.”  So, we see him posited as ‘the father of us,’ and yet, the paidos, the boy of God, or the child of God.  You know, we have that song we sing occasionally, “I am a child of God.”  We tend to make much of that being something different than being slave.  And we base that, largely, on Jesus’ word to His disciples.  “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave doesn’t know what his master is doing.  I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you” (Jn 15:15).  But observe.  The shift is not from slave to child, but from slave to friend.

In point of fact, to be a child does not preclude being in this relationship of service and subjection.  Arguably, it in fact requires it.  Honor your father and mother (Ex 20:12).  How does one honor them if not by subjection to their righteous instruction and command?  And as marriage serves to represent the church in relation to God, her head, so this relationship of child to parent reflects the right relationship of believer to God, our Father Who art in heaven.

Typically, if we discuss matters of sonship, we are considering either huious or teknon, perhaps taking both into account and seeking to understand the distinction.  The one is but a statement of genetic fact.  I am a son because I was born to my father.  The other speaks to shared character.  I am a son to my father because I have shaped my thoughts, my actions, my way of life, after his example.  And that, of course, is the sort of sonship we desire to have in regard to God.  But now we have this third term, and it includes strong overtones of subjection.  The paidos, Strong’s suggests, speaks of the child as one whom the father can beat in discipline without concern for any repercussions.  And that begins to bring the child back into a role not so different from the meanest slave in the family’s employ.

I recall from studying Philemon, that in Roman practice, the master was perfectly within his rights to treat the slave however he chose, up to and including putting him to death for whatever offense may have occurred.  Onesimus, in returning to the master from whom he had fled, was truly taking his life in his hands.  Now, that’s not exactly the case in this instance, obviously.  For one, our primary focus is set upon Jesus Messiah, “Your holy paido.”  This, I think, is where the translators have been challenged.  Is He being identified primarily as the Child of God or as His Servant?  It could run either way, and depending which translation you follow, it does.  But how you hear this prayer will vary depending how you hear that word, won’t it?

If we find them speaking to God of, “Your holy child Jesus,” and seeking that their proclamations of the gospel might be accompanied by wonders wrought on the authority of “Your holy child Jesus,” the reference is primarily to His Sonship.  But if we hear these as an appeal to “Your holy servant Jesus,” there is something stronger.  There is a basis for that authority which they would see exercised in support of them.  This hinges on the fact that the sort of servant to which this term might apply is in fact a servant of the king, or, in the ultimate application, a servant of God.  It was in this sense that a pious Israelite might even apply the term to himself.  The same one who would insist that he had never been enslaved would gladly pronounce himself a servant of God.  The king of Israel, at least the one who was wise, would likewise know himself to be a servant of God.  And in the same sense, he would refer to those who had set themselves at his service.  Those mighty men who gathered to David, the men who were with him at Adullam, were his paidoi.  They were sons in the sense of obeying his commands.  They were slaves in the sense of having given themselves into his service.  They weren’t coerced, nor were they ashamed.  It was a position of honor to serve the king.  It still is.

And we observe a sort of identification with their Master in this.  We, your servants, your doulos desire that we may proclaim Your word fearlessly, and in pursuit of that service, we ask that You might exert your power to cure, to confirm our words by signs and wonders done through the authority given to Your holy Servant Jesus, your paidos, (our Master) Who acts upon Your authority.  We are His as He is Yours.

There is a patent understanding here.  What is leveled at us is ultimately leveled at God.  And this understanding stands firmly upon the instruction of the Son.  “You will be hated by all on account of My name.  But endure and you shall be saved” (Mk 13:13).  “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue.  The hour comes when everyone who kills you will think themselves to be offering service to God.  They will do these things because they haven’t known the Father, nor have they known Me” (Jn 16:2-3).  Well, here it was.  The Sanhedrin was threatening them with expulsion, should they preach Jesus.  And, as with Peter, so with all.  They could not but preach Jesus.  So be it.  God it’s up to You.  For our part, we are Your servants.  And as Your servants, we entrust ourselves to Your goodness and Your power.  Grant that we may be steadfast in our testimony, even as our Lord and Savior did.  We are His.  We are Yours.  Be pleased to empower us in Your service. 
There is the humble attitude of righteous prayer.  It’s not in appeals for our comfort.  It’s not in hopes of prolonging life.  It’s in Your service, in pursuit of Your goals.  Perfect submission, all is at rest.  But all is active in its rest, seeking that Your will would be done here, in and through us, as it is in heaven.  For You are Sovereign Lord.  There is no other.

Appropriate Prayer (09/16/26-09/17/26)

Much has been written about the composition of prayer, what we should address and in what order, and so on.  The popular acronym ACTS is one such piece of instruction.  Start with adoration, proceed to confession, then thanksgiving, and only at the end, supplication.  That’s fine.  It is well to be reminded of these various aspects of prayer.  But I suspect that on many occasions, while we may be careful to step through each piece of this formula, our mind is fully upon the final part.  We make sure to include glowing notice of our God, but with a certain note of flattery to it, like we’re buttering Him up in hopes of a better response to our request when we finally get to it.  We confess our sins, but not so much with deep conviction and contrition, but primarily in hopes of keeping them out of the way when we get to the request.  And thanksgiving may likewise be given more by way of reminding God to act again, rather than expressing a real sense of gratitude.

I say all this to say more generally, don’t get stuck on formula.  God is not so concerned as all that with forms and ritual observances, and that’s what formulaic prayers come down to.  We make sure to go through the motions, because somewhere in our thinking we’ve convinced ourselves this whole business of prayer is a matter of getting God to do what we want.  That, I have to say, is more in the nature of muttering incantations than it is in the nature of biblical prayer.  Prayer is, at base, an earnest expression of the heart.  It is not always pretty.  It is not always polite.  Look at the prayers we have from David in the Psalms.  They are not always displaying the most godly thoughts, are they?  Many are filled with pleas for vengeance most thorough and downright vicious.  But they express true concerns, true feelings.  And one thing I always love with David’s prayers is that they so often demonstrate the intervention of the Holy Spirit, or we might say, God answering the prayer even as it is being prayed, but not by bending to the expressed desires.  Rather, God often answers by addressing the errors of heart exposed in those earnest moments, restoring us to a more holy perspective, a kingdom perspective.

So, then, while I am looking, in this portion of my study, at the matter of appropriate prayer, I am not looking at the full construct of this prayer, or seeking to lay out some template to ensure our prayers hit all the points.  If that were my goal, I might well be able to map this prayer onto that ACTS template, or something very much like it.  But I am primarily interested in the actual point of supplication and how that is addressed.  Because that which is asked for speaks to the actual cause of this prayer, and also to the mindset of those gathered to pray.  And it is that mindset, I think, which is far more important to assess and obtain than any sort of prayer template.  In pursuit of this, I am focusing on the last two verses of this prayer, and then, on the response.

I’ll start with the first clause of verse 29, though that still comes as preface to the request, really.  And frankly, God doesn’t need reminding of the events of our lives.  He’s quite aware of them, and I dare say these folks knew that full well.  God knows.  Let us begin our prayer with that understanding.  God knows and God is attending to matters already.  That needn’t lead us to complacency and prayerlessness.  But even if we should incline to point out certain details of the situation as we pray, let us remain mindful that God knows.  Nothing has taken Him unawares.  The events of our lives have transpired not because He looked away for a moment, or fell asleep on us.  They are as much an unfolding of His purposes towards us as those things which would move us more firmly towards thanksgiving.

I have known those who feel they must be sure to thank God even for the most miserable circumstances of life.  There is something to that, I suppose.  We are called, after all, to rejoice in all things, to count it all joy.  And if it is cause for rejoicing, surely it is cause for thanksgiving.  Yet, it seems to me that such expression of things in prayer must finally be accounted hypocritical.  We are not really thankful for those events.  We may be thankful, and should be, for what God has done in response to those events or through them, but I don’t really see cause to pretend we are thankful for suffering itself.  We should assuredly measure our response to suffering by awareness of God’s hand upon our lives, and shape our reactions accordingly.  They ought not to be a ground for grumbling and complaining.  But neither do I think we honor God by acting like everything’s grand and wonderful when in fact everything is not.  God is God of Truth.  On what basis, then, would He find it honoring when we offer such pretense?  Now, by all means, if you are able to truly be thankful even for the circumstances themselves, go for it.  Give thanks with a true heart.  But if not, reserve your thanksgiving for that for which you are truly grateful.  Let gratitude shape your perceptions of those other matters, but don’t fake it ‘til you make it.  I think that has been some of the worst advice ever given the Christian.

Now, note where the real focus of this prayer centers.  “Grant that we, Your servants, may speak Your word with full confidence.”  There is nothing of vengeance in this.  There is nothing of self, really.  First, they have set themselves in that place of service.  This is full confession of the reality.  You are Master.  We are Your servants.  We aren’t asking You to do our will.  We are asking for confidence to continue steadfast in doing Yours.  You have already instructed us, commanded us.  “Go.  Make disciples, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20).  Not, make converts.  Not, go boost your numbers.  Not, always be closing.  No.  Make disciples.  Take the time.  Teach.  Model.  Exemplify.  When necessary, admonish, and when successful forgive.  We are not seeking a baby boom in the church.  We are seeking the maturation of all who come, all whom God calls to Himself and makes parts of this body.  Grant, then, that we may be faithful to obey those commands ourselves, else how shall we ever teach others to do so?

This, I observe, is confession, isn’t it?  We confess our weakness.  We confess, in however veiled a way, the concern we have at this news.  But we do so as reminding ourselves of Who You are.  It is in this fully realized, fully internalized awareness of Your abiding presence in us – “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” – that we shall find ourselves filled with such confidence.

It is also the motive for all the rest of what they request.  Yes, they pray that God would act to heal, that He would grant them the working of signs and wonders, but not for the purpose of making a name for themselves.  There is something here far different from what we see with Simon the magician later on.  Ooh!  Ooh!  Grant me this power.  I want to impress others, like you have impressed me.  That’s not the point.  Signs and wonders aren’t there so we can enjoy the excited response of those around us.  Healings aren’t finally about being healed.  After all, heal the man however many times you like and he will still die in the end.  These bodies simply aren’t capable of eternity.  And frankly, I don’t see how anybody could look at the world around us and desire an eternity in such conditions.  Really?  You want to deal with this mess forever?  Pass, thanks.  No.  All of this is asked in service of the fundamental request for confident obedience in proclaiming the Gospel.

What do we see in this?  “Extend your hand.”  This is obviously an appeal to God’s power, seeking that it would in fact infuse their efforts to good effect.  God’s hand also speaks to His purpose, and arguably that is even more in view here.  Note how they have observed His definitive purpose shaping events even as they have led up to this point of request.  All that mess we just went through, all that mess You just went through, for it culminated in Your Son’s death by crucifixion, a most awful experience to be sure, both for You, Father, and for Him, all that treachery and humiliation and corruption came about in full alignment with Your predetermined, wisely planned purpose.  No accident, this outcome, but culmination.  You know and You control.  You are our Master, and we are your servants.  Control us, then, that we may speak as You give utterance.  Give us the words and the will.  And show that You are fully in control of both.  That is the desire expressed in seeking His hand outstretched.  It is, as Fausset observes, an appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling, that He would indeed guide and empower their efforts on God’s behalf, their obedience to God’s command.

This is, then, a prayer of submission to God’s will.  Lord, You are in control.  Control us.  Deploy us as You will.  Use us as You please.  And be pleased to render us useful, effective in Your effectual power.  Let us speak not only boldly, but as submitted to Your authorization to speak.  You spoke only what You heard from Your Father, our Father.  Let us likewise add nothing to that which You have given us to proclaim, nor strip it of anything You designed to express.  Make it clear to those to whom You send us with this gospel that it is indeed You who have sent, You who have shaped the message, You who calls, and You who answers.  All is done in submission to His will.  All is sought in submission to His will.

I hear it said, now and again, that our propensity for appending a, “Nevertheless, Your will be done,” to our prayers is little more than a note of doubt, an escape clause should our prayers prove ineffectual, as we fear they shall prove to be.  We pray for healing, but we don’t really believe it’s going to happen, so we pop this disclaimer on the end.  And it may well be that whatever spin we try to put on it this really is where our head is at.  But it need not be the case.  The fact is, our prayers have a tendency to wander from holy purpose into fleshly preference.  Just consider how much of our prayer effort goes towards matters of healing and personal safety, whether for ourselves, our loved ones, or fellow brothers and sisters.  If I look at the requests that come along through our prayer channel here at church, so much of it is concerned with health issues.  So and so has fallen and broken something.  Pray for healing.  So and so has been diagnosed with this or that.  Pray for healing.  It’s always about fleshly emergencies.  And I am not going to suggest that such things ought not to be prayed for.  But it feels too much like this is our exclusive concern.  How about prayers for boldness to speak the Gospel to neighbors and coworkers?  Some ask, it’s true.  Some ask that their medical situations may be made an occasion for the gospel.  And that is as it should be.  But it does seem to me that more of our prayer chain energy should be towards this end, and less for health and safety.  “Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven, in me as with Your most devoted servants.”  That has to be the core.  And if Jesus felt no shame in terminating His prayer with, “Nevertheless, Your will,” I don’t think I shall feel any shame in doing likewise.  It’s a healthy reminder, really, that it’s not about my wish list.  It’s about obedient pursuit of God’s purposes.  It’s not about shaping God to our course.  It’s about attuning ourselves to His.  Lord, grant that I may indeed submit myself to Your will; gladly, fully, confidently.

So, then, they pray for courage, for confidence to proclaim God’s message undeterred.  Understand that the request made for signs and wonders is made in support of that primary goal.  We want to be steadfast.  We want to be about that which You have given us to do, and we want it to be effective.  Therefore, we would ask that You show Yourself in that which You have given us to do.  Accompany us in this work.  Make it evident that what we are saying is true, that Jesus, Your Son, is Lord, and that You have given us what to speak.  This is, in effect, the same prayer we hear from Paul late in his ministry.  Writing to the church in Ephesus, he asks of them that they would, “Pray for me, that word may be given to me and my mouth will speak openly, to make the mystery of the gospel known with all boldness” (Eph 6:19).  The ERV is particularly clear in conveying this seeking of signs as being in a supporting role.  “Help us to be brave by showing us your power.”

I note as well that while they call God’s attention to the threats leveled against them by the Sanhedrin, they do not cry out for vengeance, nor do they look to their own safety.  Indeed, this prayer is for anything but safety.  Strengthen us to ignore the threats!  Let us be strong in the confidence that You are with us, even as You have promised.  This is, to my mind, the most remarkable thing about the whole prayer.  God’s people are so focused on God’s work and purpose that matters of comfort or safety just don’t enter into it.  And should this not describe our own commitment to the kingdom of God?  This is absolutely the proper Christian response to threats.  And it finds roots, I think, in the prayers of Hezekiah.  Seeing Sennacherib threatening with his army, taunting the people of God, he prayed.  “Incline your ear and hear, Lord.  See and hear all that Sennacherib has said in reproach of the living God.  Deliver us that he may know that You alone are God” (Isa 37:17, Isa 37:20).  Yes, we ask for deliverance, but as evidence of Your divine being.

You could argue, I suppose, that this was manipulative prayer, offering up careful phrases in hopes of cajoling God into action.  But God is not a fool.  He would see through any such artifice with no problem.  And that’s rather a good thing to keep in mind in our own prayers.  It’s no good trying to dress up your prayers in proper phrasings.  As I noted yesterday, the ACTS format for prayer is all well and good, but if adoration is only included in hopes of gaining a better response to supplication, it is not adoration at all.  It is hypocrisy.  And we’ve seen how God feels about hypocrisy.  He desires those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23).  We can’t worship Him in truth if our words are window dressing on our real thoughts.  No.  If Hezekiah had been seeking to play God by his words, he would not have obtained the answer he received.  If these gathered in the shadow of the Sanhedrin’s threatenings had been seeking to play God by their words, they would have received nothing.  “Let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord” (Jas 1:6-7), “for he is double-minded, unstable in all his ways.”  Yes, James is centered on the matter of doubtfulness, a lack of faith.  But I do think the same can be said for those who pray other than what they are actually thinking and feeling.  David is quite open and honest in his prayers, even when his feelings are running quite contrary to grace.  I think that is what draws me to his prayers so strongly.  There is no artifice, no pretense, just the raw need.  And in the course of those prayers, as I note often, there is also the clear evidence of the Spirit answering, even as the prayer proceeds.  His answer comes in the shift of mindset, the restoration of godly perspective in the one who prays.  Again, “Nevertheless, Thy will,” need not indicate doubt as to God.  It is as readily a notice of doubt as to our own purity and wisdom, and that is as it should be.  May it never be that I think to demand of God that He comply with my will.  Let me never be so foolish as to suppose I could, or that it would be at all wise to do so.

As with Hezekiah, we find God’s response coming immediately to this prayer.  And I would note that, at least so far as we are told here, the response is on His terms.  They were filled with fearless confidence.  There was a sign, to be sure, but it was for them alone, it seems.  The place where they were gathered was shaken.  Did anybody else notice?  Unlike the scene on Pentecost, we are not told of crowds gathering to find out what was going on.  We are not informed that the noise of everybody up there proclaiming the gospel had caused folks to stop in wonder.  This is private, I think.  It is for them, that they may know the Holy Spirit is still in them, abiding. 

Now here, I want to observe yet another challenge of translation.  Verb tenses.  Greek verb tenses are tricky to bring into English because they have, in many cases, aspects that don’t readily transfer.  The present tense is probably the most difficult, in that whether it speaks of a momentary act or something continuous, it is the same tense.  The language references speak of it as giving the internal viewpoint, the action expressed with a sense of development, or ongoing activity.  It may not actually be continuous, though it often is, but it has that feel, even in its more punctiliar applications.  In this case, we are handed an imperfect tense verb in reference to them speaking.  The imperfect takes that same internal, open-ended perspective back into a past tense setting.  Bear in mind that Greek has no past tense.  It has the aorist and the imperfect, both of which tend to address past actions, at least relative to the point of writing, sometimes to the point of time being written about.  But the aorist gives us the external viewpoint, the simple, ‘it happened.’  The imperfect applies the internal, open-ended perspective to past action, and as such, I think we can safely say that where the imperfect is used, it is indicating an action that started and continues.  It differs from the perfect, which gives us a present result of past action in that the imperfect conveys that past action still ongoing.  It’s not cause and effect.  It’s cause ongoing.

So, while the KJV, NIV and others simply say the spoke, the NASB gives us a bit of a hint, saying they began to speak.  They put it in italics because the actual word began is not present.  But it suggests something different than what transpired on Pentecost.  Other translations, such as the ESV and the Message make it more clear, saying they continued to speak God’s Word.  The ESV applies that same form to their prayer, which asked that they might ‘continue to speak Your word with all boldness.’  We see, then, that God’s answer to this prayer is immediate, though the resulting impact of His answer need not be understood as having come in full at that very moment.  It’s not that this gathering, however large it was, began proclaiming the gospel to one another.  Honestly, what would even have been the point?  They already believed.  But the bold confidence for which they prayed was supplied.  Whether or not there would be accompanying healings, or wonders performed so as to gain the attentive ear of those who witnessed them is a separate matter.  God will act as He sees fit.  He will answer as His wisdom determines.  But He will answer.

He will answer, and the biggest questions for us are whether we are seeking His will our our own, and whether we are sufficiently observant as to recognize His answer when it comes.  Now, in this case, I don’t think there could have been any doubt as to His answer.  That boldness, when it comes, is clearly not a thing of personal development.  It’s not something you have worked up in yourself.  If it is, it’s likely to make a mess of things rather than serve the kingdom.  But when our prayers are geared towards God’s plan and purpose, when our concerns are His concerns rather than our wants, how swiftly God moves to respond!

This prayer, in the end, was simple.  Let us not be silenced!  There is much in the world that seeks to silence us, or to cow us into silencing ourselves.  It seems a thing that is all the more on the rise of late, not just in matters of faith, but in matters of morals more generally.  And into that pressure we are called to pray.  We are called to pray not for the defeat of enemies, nor for some safe retreat in which we may hole up.  We are called to pray for boldness to speak and make known the truth of God, even when those around us seek to shout us down, seek to drown us out, to shut us out of the public square.  Speak and don’t be silent!  But speak as He directs.  That is the import of the Holy Spirit’s clear involvement here.  Filled with the Holy Spirit, they didn’t go off into ecstatic utterances and excited babbling.  They spoke what He gave them to say.  They spoke with confidence because He was there with them, in them, supplying just the right things by which to make God known to the ones to whom they were talking.  He will do the same with us if our hearts and minds are willing.

That, I suppose, brings me to my final point here, the point of personal application.  What do we pray for?  Again, I am not going to go so far as to say we ought not to be expending our prayer energies on matters of health and safety.  It’s okay to pray for healing of our loved ones.  It’s okay to seek the safety of our missionaries.  But far better we should pray that whatever the circumstances, they might serve as bases from which to proclaim the good news of God’s grace.  If we are sick and dying, yet we shall live!  When could we expect to declare that glorious truth more powerfully than from our sickbed?  Yes, we can also proclaim that our God is Healer, as the relatively current song goes.  Frankly, I find it mildly annoying, but mostly on linguistic terms.  Yet, there is a long tradition of assigning God’s traits as names.  So, fine.  He is Healer.  But He is also Sovereign.  He knows the number of our days, and if He says time’s up, far better we should gladly catch our ride home than that we should insist on remaining a bit longer.  We’ve mentioned Hezekiah here, and that, to me, was his downfall.  Told that it was time to go, he begged instead to remain, and his remaining years proved to be, in many ways, the undoing of all the good he had done to date.  Let that not become our story because we are too tied to this world to welcome our entry into the world to come.

Do we pray for boldness?  Do we pray that we might indeed testify of Christ?  I would expect that such prayers must also seek that God might set up such encounters in our day as would provide opportunity for such testimony.  Whether that is a chance to declare the gospel to one who has never heard it, or to one who has previously rejected it, or perhaps to one who is busily proclaiming a false gospel, it’s the same prayer.  Let us be bold.  Let us speak only as He would have us to speak.  Let us speak the truth, but lovingly, not combatively.  Let us not be drawn into fruitless debates and arguments, but allow God to speak through us, setting aside our pride and our over-rated sense of self-worth.  It’s not about displaying our theological chops.  It’s about allowing God to work through us.  These are very different things, and I would have to say that on those occasions when I’ve gotten it right, it is very clearly different.

I would have to confess that for my part, no, I really don’t pray for such encounters.  I prefer my role as teacher, as looking to build up those who already believe, perhaps to gently address misunderstandings they may have as to the truth of God’s word.  I’m really not much for confrontation, if I’m honest.  And I will happily walk the neighborhood exchanging little more than standard civilities.  I should pray for this.  I pray, however, that I may be confident in whatever role my God may choose to assign to me.

Lord, if You would have me to evangelize, then let it be that I feel Your urging and obey Your instruction.  If my place is where I have seen it in previous times, that of discipling and teaching, then present me with opportunities to do so, and grant me the wisdom to do so well.  I confess I have been feeling somewhat withdrawn from the action of late.  There are things going on that I find I cannot convince myself to join.  If I am hearing You, then let me be steadfast. If I am not, then let me receive Your correction and join Your work.  It’s a hard place I’ve been in these last several years.  You know.  And there are things of which I have been a part in Your service that I would I could continue in.  Yet, You have made it evident to me that at least for this year, this is not to be.  But You know.  You know where I am.  You know what it is You would have me to do.  And You know my every weakness.  All I can say is use me as You will.  If my place is here, let me be here.  If there are things You would have me to undertake which I have been resisting, let me submit.  If there are things holding me back, let me release my grip on them that I may follow You more fully.  Speak, for Your servant listens.  And if I’m not listening well, unblock my ears.