[Brother Gary Burns died after a long and difficult struggle with leukemia. Just before his death, he wrote Suffering, the why of — see Articles and Lessons.]

Just thinking… about RR (and JT), about “providence”, about good brothers and sisters who suffer, in a thousand ways, and sometimes ask “Why?”, and about friends who die young…

So while I was thinking thus, I decided to read a bit of RR’s “Ways of Providence” — and was reminded again, that even if RR had never given us anything else, how his little narrative book “W of P” would be enough!

I wound up reading his retelling of the life of Jacob, in which — as he says — the “ways of providence” are so well-illustrated. In one place he focuses on a part of the narrative that is more or less hidden “between the lines” or “behind the scenes”. Meaning… the main story has moved on elsewhere, to Joseph in Egypt, and to the brothers going down there in trepidation and fear, but out of necessity because of the famine. But here RR concentrates on the one they left behind, the aged Jacob — who had, as far as he could see it, “lost” one son already, endangered another, and so desperately did not want to lose his beloved Benjamin… but who could only wait and worry and fear…

RR proceeds…..

Jacob is left alone in distress. His sons are all gone to a country where he knows they are suspected and from which perhaps they will never return. The austere “lord of the land,” the burden of his apprehensions, may fall upon them all, Benjamin too, as he had done upon Simeon, and make them bondsmen, and he may never see them again. He is uneasy; he cannot rest; he trusts in God, yet the clouds are dark and his heart heavy. It is almost at the breaking point. He cannot endure much longer. Poor Jacob!

“To the upright, there ariseth light in the darkness.”

His sons return in due time, and what fine equipages are these they have brought with them? Wagons that Joseph has sent to carry Jacob and all the little ones to Egypt. Who? Joseph!

“Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt.”

Jacob faints at the report! No wonder. Give him time. He slowly rallies. He listens; Benjamin and Simeon are there. He looks at the wagons. He puts all things together. He comes to the only conclusion admissible in the circumstances:

“It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive; I will go and see him before I die.”

What more forcible illustration was it possible for God to have given to all succeeding generations of His children that trouble (so far from being evidence of desertion) is a means employed in His hands to lay the foundation of future joy and blessedness. Let His children then be comforted and strengthened to endure even the deepest and most inexplicable affliction. Let them learn to see God in the darkness and to feel His hand in the tempest. Let them beware of the folly of Job’s three friends rebuked of God. Let them know that this time of our pilgrimage is the night, and that though weeping may endure for a night, joy cometh in the morning and that joy a joy prepared by the weeping. Let them apply the consolation Christ has given them:

“Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall be comforted.”

---

Thereafter I read also some of RR’s story of Joseph — the same story on the “other side”, so to speak… There RR concludes:

Meanwhile, the lesson of Joseph’s life is unmistakable. It is what we have already seen illustrated, that God works when His hand is not apparent, and often when it would seem as if He must be taking no notice, and by means that seem to exclude the possibility of His being at work. The conclusion is comforting to those who commit their way to God. It may seem to them that God is not only working with them, but actually working against them. Let them remember the agony of Joseph in the pit, in slavery, in false imprisonment and learn that the darkest paths of their life may be the ways appointed for them to reach liberty and life, wealth and honour — yea, a throne in the kingdom of the anti-typical Joseph, who himself had to tread the dark and tearful valley of humiliation, and who, in the day of his glory, will introduce all his brethren, amongst many bright stars, to the most interesting of Jacob’s sons.

Thank you, RR. And thank you, GB (the OTHER GB, not this one!), for reminding us that it is through much tribulation that we enter the kingdom of God, and for reminding us that there is a reason for everything that happens to us or to those we love, even if we see it only through a glass darkly at this present time. “The bud may have a bitter taste, but sweet will be the flower.”

Yes, I do believe it will.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They’re old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
25. If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

From a news report:

“So Mrs Risher, the mayor in this town of 1,400 residents for as long as many people can remember, sent him on down the road. She has made international news by banning Satan, by mayoral proclamation, from the Inglis city limits.”

So that means that every citizen of Inglis City, FL is breaking the law by continuing to live there?

This reminds me of Mark Twain, who once said that the individual that he would most like to meet was Satan. Why? “Because anyone who can hold total and absolute control over 90% of the world’s population, and a good bit of control over the other 10%, must be by far the most powerful person in the universe!”

And then there was Calvin, of comic page fame, who asked his favorite friend and stuffed animal Hobbes, “Do you believe in a supernatural devil — you know, the fellow who’s responsible for all the evil in the world?” To which Hobbes thoughtfully replies, “I don’t think man needs any help!” Calvin walks off, harrumphing to himself, “There are some things you just can’t talk to animals about!”

John Thomas interpreted the time periods to bring the 1,260 to a close in 1866-1870, and firmly believed that Christ would return at that time or very shortly thereafter (five generations ago!). When this proved premature, Robert Roberts (and others) resorted to the convenient 30-year “add-on” (1,260 to 1,290) and again “circled” a date, or time period: 1896 to 1900. They were wrong too.

The history of Christadelphian prophetic study in the 20th century has been a continual tinkering and retinkering with the basic framework of “day-for-a-year, 1,260-1,290-1,335” ideas… always guessing prematurely, and always being wrong. (Maybe not to the same degree as the JW fiasco, because the JW officialdom — being the next best thing to infallible — felt the need to make absolute pronouncements… whereas Christadelphians must know they are guessing, and don’t ever put great stock in their latest “guess”. For Christadelphian CHers, it’s been a “don’t put all your eggs in the latest basket” syndrome for some time: more like ‘if not this basket, then the next one!’ Or, ‘if you miss this bus, just wait: another will be along shortly.’)

The real problem is with the whole day-for-a-year idea, which is so unwieldy, with all its paraphernalia of dates, and has so many “moving parts”. Looked good in the 18th century, not so good in the 19th century, distinctly out of date in the 20th, and getting impossible in the 21st. CHers fix on a date as the end point of the whole rigmarole, having lined up about 15 previous dates to plausible (or semi-plausible) “pegs”. Then the date comes and goes, and Christ still isn’t here. What to do? First, do all the “add-ons”, 1,290 and 1,335 — but then they run out and still no culmination. Now you have to go back to the starting point and move ALL those ‘pegs’ forward 25 or 50 or 75 years and look for another “fit” — all the time pulling and pushing and squeezing, to get everything in the right place. And then that “absolute, final, last-time, for-sure” date comes and goes too.

Am I being too critical? I don’t mean to be. My point is: any Bible students who truly believe in the coming of Christ at the end of the age… are going to see themselves as living at or very near that end. And they are going to “fix” things in their prophetic apparatus to suit that deep-seated hope. No, the problem is with the CH framework, which just doesn’t work any more; it’s been stretched to the breaking point, and refitted, and stretched again, and now it’s broken.

(An interesting irony, if you will, is that JT and RR, and others besides, have of course died at just about the time their prophetic time-period expectations ran out. So they haven’t been around to admit, ‘Guess I jumped the gun a good bit!’ or ‘Maybe I didn’t get all my numbers right!’ But then, on the other hand, as far as they were concerned, Christ DID — or should I say, WILL HAVE — COME at just about the times each envisioned.)

Of course, the (subconscious?) desire to be living at the very end, and to see everything as it unfolds, has led even really good Bible students to “read into” events and circumstances more than was really there, as may be seen in retrospect. It was true of John Thomas — who was ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’ when he went looking for ten duchies and postage-stamp “kingdoms” that were closely connected with Rome in the 1860s… to fill out his scenario of a Last Days Roman power. (Just a test: how many of JT’s original “ten toes” can anyone name today? [Don’t laugh: I’m talking about “expositional” toes, not “real” toes!] No fair looking it up… if this is really important stuff, you should be able to do it from memory!)

Likewise, RR looked long and hard (as did others of his day) for signs of Jews returning to the Promised Land, and did in fact see the very, very earliest beginnings of a Jewish community there. He wasn’t wrong; he was just very premature in his predictions, and evidently thought (or hoped) that a few hundred — or at the most, a few thousand — Jews living in splendid isolation — with no government or military power or legal standing of their own — amongst millions upon millions of Arabs was enough for the divine plan. And his perspective of the Middle East of his day colored (how could it not have colored!?) his interpretations of Bible prophecies… all with a view to seeing Christ come very soon, even in his own day! He was wrong, but who can blame him?

Interesting, too, that the very latest things Harry Whittaker wrote on prophecy (in the late 1980s) contain some of the same sort of overblown, over-eager grabbing on to certain political situations as “key” to the return of Christ. In fact, some of those “guesses” are even now out of date. But not as out-of-date as a lot of JT’s and RR’s political surmisings. (Second question on the pop quiz: discuss in depth the causes and effects of the Crimean War, and how it has a bearing on Last Days prophecies.)

Of course, as far as HAW is concerned, Christ will have returned in 1992 (when HAW died, after long years of looking for the return of Christ).

So… we seem to have finally gotten to where JT and RR and lots of other folks expected: Israel in their own Land, still in ignorance of God for the most part, and threatened by many enemies intent on her destruction. It just took us longer to get here than anyone thought. And it wasn’t the CH 1,260-framework that got us here; we got to this point DESPITE that; we got to this point because a latter-day restoration of Israel was and is fundamental Bible teaching, and essential for the return of Christ.

I well remember a conversation I had with a brother and sister about prophecy in general. The gist of their objection to my views on prophecy was: ‘We could never accept that point of view, because you believe that several things must happen before Christ returns (which might take up to 3 1/2 years), while WE believe that Christ could return at any minute.’ And the way it was said indicated that they NEEDED to believe that Christ could return at literally any minute!

My experience and observations tell me that CH folks are the worst “offenders”… if it is an offense to require that Christ’s return will be in *their* generation. I should mention that that conversation took place almost 10 years ago. They NEEDED to believe that Christ could return at any minute, and couldn’t stand the idea that it could be 3 years away. And I guess they feel the same way today.

So every year or two they go back to looking at the CH dates, and seeing where they must have been wrong, and reworking the 1,260 and 1,290 and 1,335… and remixing Jubilee years, and figuring out how long a “generation” is and trying to figure out when the “generation” started: was it 1917 or 1948 or 1956 or 1967 or whatever? Trying to find a new date on the calendar to circle, so like the carrot it can be just out there, very close and beckoning them on.

Me? I don’t need to resort to the calculator and add all manner of two- and three- and four-digit numbers, looking for the next “right combination” that tells me 2002, or 2003, or 2004…. ad infinitum… is the one!

I just wait and watch to see when that volatile mix of ethnic and religious interests in the Middle East finally gets to the point of explosion. Maybe it will be this year, maybe next. For all I know, maybe it’ll be when I’m an old, old man… or asleep in the grave. But I guess I’m enough like JT and RR and HAW to think it won’t be that long!

“Maranatha.”

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope” (1Th 4:13).

“I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren…” This is a common expression of Paul (Rom 1:13; 11:25; 1Co 10:1; 12:1; 2Co 1:8) when he wants to correct an erroneous idea, or to explain something that has caused perplexity. It is invariably accompanied by the address “brothers”, revealing the affection and concern Paul feels for his charges.

The Greek “koimao” is the common word for sleep, from which we derive the English words “coma” and “cemetery” (a “sleeping-place”). In the NT death is often equated with sleep (Mat 9:24; 27:52; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1Co 15:6,18,20,51; 2Pe 3:4). (In 1Co 7:39, the same word for “sleep” is actually translated “dead” in the KJV.) Almost without exception, it is those who are in covenant relationship with God who are so characterized (cp v 14 here: those who “sleep in Jesus”). The OT also uses the same figure (Gen 47:30; Deu 31:16; Psa 13:3; 1Ki 22:40; etc), though not so frequently. It occasionally refers in similar fashion to those who will never be resurrected, as sleeping “a perpetual sleep” (Jer 51:39,57; cp Isa 26:13,14; Psa 76:5,6).

Saints, who are dead “in Christ” (1Th 4:14), are nevertheless so related to life by the surety of a resurrection that in God’s eyes they are simply “asleep.” It may even be said that to Him they are alive (Luke 20:38), on the principle that God may call those things “which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17). He counts their deaths no more interruptions of life than we would consider sleep!

Sleep is a resting so as to awaken refreshed. It is no disadvantage to those who so pass their time, and may even be a gain (John 11:12). Those who are dead with Christ will also live with Christ (2Ti 2:11).

“Sorrow not… as others who have no hope.”

Much of common humanity, who have no real hope of resurrection and eternal life, may see death for what it truly is — an unremitting sadness and grief. But the assurance our hope gives us is that our dead ones, dying in the Lord, will be restored to life and to us (Tit 1:2; 3:7; Acts 23:6).

There is no room in this — no matter the outward appearance — for the inconsolable grief that the rest of mankind bows under because it has no hope. The world has no hope (Eph 2:12), because its ignorance alienates it from the life God promises (Eph 4:17,18). But, says Paul, we have knowledge — true knowledge — and this, when believed and acted upon, leads to a firm and lasting hope — which no temporary circumstance can dim. “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2Co 4:17,18).

Loved ones in the faith may be taken from us, and we feel the loss deeply. But for believers the most profound grief, in this life, is — by God’s providential hand — only a passing sorrow… a weeping for a brief night only; it will give way to the joy of the new “day” that will certainly dawn for all who trust in Him. Most assuredly, we miss those who have fallen asleep in hope, but with faith and courage we set our eyes upon the goal before us, our Father’s Kingdom. The road stretches ahead of us still, and beckons us onward: we still have breath in our bodies, and so we must continue our journey.

One day — may it not be long! — we shall meet up with our loved ones again. They shall awaken renewed and refreshed from their sleep, and arm in arm we shall take the last steps of our journey together, and enter into the glorious city of our God.

“And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 7:17).

Names and titles are such interesting things. On a purely human level, there was a time — even in this land of freedom and democracy — that everyone addressed their social betters as “Mister” and “Mrs.” And when younger ones addressed every older person (and that could be a 21-year-old speaking to a 25-year-old) as “Sir” or “Ma’am”. But we have changed, and probably we have lost something that can never be retrieved.

One writer recently mused on the dining-out custom that has taken hold. He and his wife went for dinner to a fine, expensive restaurant, and were greeted by their very young server: “Hi there, my name is Tiffany (or Lance, or whatever!). And what are your names?” To which the fellow responded, “Mr. and Mrs. Curmudgeon, if you please!”

There is a leveling effect to the use of first names. Should it be a requirement that, five minutes after meeting someone, we should all be on a first-name basis? The teenager and the elder brother or sister? “We’re all equals here!” And in some sense, that is true. But hasn’t the 70-year-old, or the 50- or 30-year-old for that matter, somehow earned the right to be addressed as “Mr. Booker”, or, in ecclesial settings, as “Brother Booker”, or maybe even “Brother George”, or “Uncle George”.

And I still cringe (maybe a lot of us do?) when I hear a small child refer to its mother by her first name.

I have a client — a young woman of about 30 — who always calls me “Sir”. Once, I said, “Just call me George, please.” “No, sir,” she said, “I can’t do that. I was TRAINED by my parents. I have to call you ‘Sir’. I can’t do anything else.”

So… the point? Even we human beings can have a variety of “names and titles”, all of which are appropriate in certain circumstances, but not so much so in other circumstances.

And sometimes we can all disagree as to which “names and titles” are best in which circumstances.

And, partly, such differences are the result of background, disposition, and social training, and family example.

And partly too, the result of the age in which we live.

I remember, years ago, encountering a Pentecostal fellow who kept referring to “Dad”, or occasionally “Daddy”. For the longest time I thought he was talking about his real (that is, natural, or human) father! And even when he mentioned that “Dad” was “in heaven”, I thought that of course his father had died, and that’s where the fellow figured he was!

Finally, with some shock, I realized that he was talking about the Heavenly Father, the Lord God Almighty, or Yahweh! But his use of “Dad” and even “Daddy” was so intense and personal that I found it terribly jarring. I could never bring myself to use such a “name” for God, nor do I think he should have done so — and I mean: because of the propriety of the thing, quite apart from the fact that, doctrinally, he was probably miles away from a fundamental understanding of the God of Israel — the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

On the other hand, maybe somewhere in the quiet recesses of private and personal prayer and meditation, maybe there, if not in public discussion… “Dad” or “Daddy” could be appropriate. Of course, as has been pointed out, “our Father” or “our Father in heaven” were the terms that Jesus taught to his disciples.

And there may be an unwarranted presumption in our using the other term that Jesus sometimes used: that is, “MY Father”. The Eternal God is only Father to us because he was, first of all, Father to Jesus — and that makes him “our Father” even if I am addressing him individually and personally — because “our” in such cases can mean “the Father of Jesus Christ, and then mine as well, but only in and through Christ”.

Still, Paul has that wonderful reference to the LORD God, or Yahweh, in Rom 8:15: “But ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

I believe it was on Rom 8:15 that HPM said something along these lines (this is a paraphrase, as it appears in my notes, not necessarily verbatim, but attributed to HPM in Log 23:44):

‘Abba and Pater (Rom 8:15) epitomize, respectively, affection and respect. This joint title (the two appear together as well in Mark 14:36 and Gal 4:6) expresses a fullness that neither word alone can. There is Abba, the love and trust that a little child (the “teknon” of Rom 8:16,17,21) feels for a father, an intimate and tender affection. And there is the Pater of an adult son or daughter (the “huios” of Rom 8:14,15,19,23,29), the intelligent apprehension of the status and dignity due to the Head of the family. The combination of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words suggests also the mixed character of the Divine family: “neither Jew nor Greek… ye are all one in Christ” (Gal 3:28).’

So perhaps it does look like “Abba” may be approximated, today, by “Dad” or “Daddy” — the familiar term of a small child for his father. At least some commentators think so. So would the Apostle Paul, if he were speaking in English, have referred to Yahweh as “Daddy”? I don’t know. Probably not in any public setting, at least. But perhaps in the privacy of his own “closet”.

Just musing.

Speaking for myself personally, I can appreciate the use of Yahweh occasionally. There is a dignity, and a reverence, in the name — maybe most closely “translated” in English as “The Eternal One”, or the NT “The One who was, who is, and who is to come”.

But I think that dignity and reverence may be lost, or cheapened, if “Yahweh” is used all the time.

On the other hand, He — the Eternal One, the All-powerful, self-existent One, who sustains all creation — allows us, even invites us, to call Him Father, through His Son Jesus Christ. The baby in the manger uttered his first cry, and thereby his Father staked a claim upon our lives. Thereby the Mighty God of all the universe became also “Abba” — the tender Father of a little child; and OUR Father as well!

The God whose son was born in that stable, amidst the simple farm animals, ceased being (if He ever was!) a God of remote abstractions and technical theories.

He is now, for us, a God who loves PEOPLE, a Father who is not willing that any should perish, who holds back no blessing from His “children”, who searches out and loves even the least worthy and most neglected.

Should I call Him Yahweh, or LORD? Yes, of course. But that is not enough, at least to me. I also need the One who is “Father”.

But to think of Him as the familiar “Father” only, and risk losing sight of the fact, even for a moment, that He IS All-Powerful and All-Knowing, and that He had a sure and certain plan that existed in that Grand Mind untold ages before I ever drew breath… well, I’m not sure even “Father” is all-sufficient as a name or title.

He is, simply, both… Yahweh AND Father.

And sometimes, in my opinion, it may be more appropriate to refer to Him as the one… and then again, at other times, it may be more appropriate to refer to Him as the other.

And sometimes, being human, I may find another person’s selection of name or title as grating.

But, being human, and trying to remember my own fallibility, I will try — really hard — not to judge him for the “sin” of being a bit “different” than myself.

Maybe he’ll feel the same way toward me.

Gail wrote: “I have always understood God’s namesake was Jesus.”

To which Steven replied: “Yes, I suppose Jesus was God’s namesake in that he was called ‘Emmanuel’ — God with us. The very old phrase (it’s a Hebraism) ‘for his name’s sake’ just means, ‘for God’s honour’, ‘for God’s glory’.”

This is interesting, at least to me: until I read this exchange, I never really connected the ideas, but I think there is much more there than I, at least, ever thought about before…

If a man’s name is passed along to a son, or grandson, or nephew, or even someone else unrelated by blood, then we speak of that person, the recipient of the name, as the “namesake”. He now bears the name, first made known, by someone who went before, and somehow is expected — this may be reinforced in subtle ways — to “live up” to the name he has been given. “You were named after Grandfather Chester, who fought courageously at Gettysburg; don’t ever forget that!” Or, “you were named after Great-grandmother Sally, who braved wild Indians and epidemics, and worked the land alongside her husband, and bore him twelve children; remember who you came from!”

Barbara says her parents always sent their children off to school, or work, or into life, with the reminder, “Remember who you are, and don’t forget where you came from!” And, we might add, “whose name you carry!”

To say that Jesus (Yahshua: the salvation of Yahweh), or Immanuel (God, or EL, is with us) was the “namesake” of His Heavenly Father is to say a great deal. Yes, he was the bearer, among mankind, of the “glory” and “honor” of that unseen One. In him all the fullness of the Deity dwelt, and we beheld the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. “For My name’s sake” became, in effect, “God’s namesake”!

And what about us? When we believe, and are baptized, we take upon ourselves the name of Christ, which is — ultimately — the name of our Heavenly Father. We all bear the same family name, we are all “namesakes”.

Surely we should always remember who we are, and where we came from, and whose name we bear!

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15).

The enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman is equivalent to the enmity between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the spirit:

“For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom 8:6,7).

But Jesus brought an end to that enmity, in himself:

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

God’s plan of salvation required that His only-begotten Son be subject to the same weak flesh, or “nature”, as all other men, but that nevertheless he would do what no other man had or could do, that is, overcome the mind of the flesh (or the mind of the serpent) by giving himself over completely to the mind of the Spirit of God. In doing this, Jesus “condemned” (ie, pronounced judgment against) the “sinful” principle of the flesh.

Put another way, Jesus — being, like us, a partaker of flesh and blood, nevertheless “destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil” — or the diabolos (Heb 2:14,15).

The same principle is demonstrated typically, prophetically, and pictorally, by the brazen serpent lifted up on the stake in the wilderness (Num 21), a figure which Jesus appropriated to himself:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14,15).

How could Jesus equate himself with a serpent? This is an extraordinary and improbable figure of speech, and only makes sense — I would suggest — if the “serpent” describes the flesh, or “nature”, with its susceptibility to a “carnal mind”, which Jesus possessed — a “nature” or disposition of mind which, by God’s grace, he overcame, condemned, and destroyed by his faithful obedience to the Spirit-will of his Father.

Whereas Job was plainly a righteous, indeed a “perfect” man (Job 1:1) — under extreme testing, physical and mental and spiritual, he came up short. But this should be no reflection on him; almost certainly, none of us would have fared nearly so well as did he.

And that seems, to me, to be one of the key features of the Book of Job. Even though Job is a type of Christ — and that is very plain to see — he can, of necessity, be nothing more than an imperfect type! The very best of men, tested in something like the way that Jesus would be tested, while comporting himself very well in the beginning, and enduring fairly well the continued trials (brought on by his “friends”!)… still came up short: drifting down into self-pity and anger and bitterness.

But, of course, it would ill become us to make any disparaging remarks about Job’s reactions to his extreme trials. What might our reactions have been, in similar circumstances? I almost hesitate to ask the question, for fear of… whatever!

The Book of Job is there in the Bible, I think, to remind us: here’s what the VERY BEST or men could do with something approaching the VERY WORST of trials. Job is both a comparison and a contrast, to Christ. And in his great trial, and his (relative) coming short, Job simply emphasizes to us the incredible nature of the character and trials and sufferings of our Lord. How humbling is that!

I am a sports fan, and baseball is my game, especially. It’s interesting, from a historical perspective, to note that in the history of baseball — with literally thousands of players participating on the highest level for well over 100 years — there have been maybe a dozen pitchers who could consistently throw a baseball over 100 miles per hour. Hundreds and hundreds of pitchers can hit, maybe, 95 miles per hour; and thousands could generate, say, 90 miles per hour. But only the very, very greatest could have occasionally thrown a baseball at 100 or 102 miles per hour — and they are legendary: Walter Johnson, Satchel Paige, Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson. (For perspective’s sake, very good amateur pitchers might hit 80 mph — and ordinary people, on the best days of their young lives, might throw a baseball at something like 60 mph.)

Anyway, with that in perspective, suppose there came along a pitcher would could consistently throw a baseball… let us, say, 150 miles per hour. Well, first of all, it would revolutionize the game of baseball — such a baseball would be, for all practical purposes — unhittable. The very rules of the game would have to be changed. (120 miles per hour would probably be unhittable, for that matter.)

In the realm of such pitching (which, admittedly, has limited value otherwise — but just for the sake of discussion), a Walter Johnson or a Bob Feller would be… Job. The extraordinarily talented or gifted man — one among thousands — whose feats are so far beyond other mortals as to make their comparison with him ludicrous.

But alongside such a “superman”, how would we characterize the man who could throw half again faster than he?

“By faith Abraham, even though he was past age– and Sarah herself was barren– was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise” (Heb 11:11).

So the writer to the Hebrews clearly implies that Abraham was in fact “past age” to become a father (as does Rom 4:18,19).

“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” (Gen 17:17).

Is it possible that Abraham laughed, not the laughter of doubt, but of joy and hope based on faith (Joh 8:56; Rom 4:19)? And so the question may be one of amazed wonderment.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (Joh 8:56).

“Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” [Gen 15:5] Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead — since he was about a hundred years old — and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom 4:18-21).

Yet “against all hope”, Abraham “did not waver through unbelief”. Sounds like he must have known that he, at the age of 99 or 100, could not have children… and this despite the evident fact that his father has fathered him at the age of 130.

My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that (1) Abraham had experienced some debilitating disease, and/or (2) (how to put this delicately?) he simply knew in his own personal experience what no observer could know… that, humanly speaking, he could no longer father children. Although Abraham was not nearly as old as his father Terah had been when he was born, still he knew that — as far as he was concerned — he was “past age”!

Yet he still believed God, against all the evidence of his own body! And the laughter (Heb “tsachaq”) of Abraham and then of Sarah — whether a joyful or a incredulous laughter, or something of both — found expression, when another year rolled around, in the naming of their infant son, “Yitzhaq”, Isaac, “Laughter”:

“Now the LORD was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah what he had promised. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. Abraham gave the name Isaac [‘Isaac’ means ‘he laughs’] to the son Sarah bore him. When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Sarah said, God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me” (Gen 21:1-6).

Now the birth of any child can inspire, in its parents, the profoundest and most subtle of “laughter”, the sheer joy of new life, the miracle and wonder of God’s ongoing creative process, in which even humans may be blessed to have a part. The joy of recognition, at some level, that God has not yet given up on the human race, since He is still allowing new “entrants”! The joy of looking at a future, and hoping for a future, of which the newborn may be a part.

I think something of all this was in the minds of the parents as they looked upon their son. And they named him “Laughter”. As Sarah put it, “Everyone who hears will laugh with me!”

Can we laugh with joy that the old couple could still, by God’s grace, have a special child of promise? “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” (Gen 18:14).

And can we laugh with joy that the young virgin could, by the power of the Highest, conceive and bear a son who would at the same time be Son of man and Son of God… and set the angels singing in the heavens? “For nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37).

The babe in the manger in Bethlehem… his name is “Laughter” too! We should all laugh together, in joy that God is still “creating”! In joy that He hasn’t yet given up on the human race! In joy that, through His Son, he is still looking for new “sons” and “daughters” to be “born anew” in Him! In joy that in times and places where no human power is sufficient, God is still working! And in joy that God’s future is — through His Son — bright with promise!

So, come on, everybody. Laugh!