On Psalm 12

Psalm 12 is about human speech, as used by lying men and as employed by God in biblical revelation.  It is about the use and the abuse of words.  The principle involved is that the higher or finer a thing is, the more vulnerable it is to perversion.  Love is the greatest quality in life.  Yet, love can be terribly abused.  So, also, with words.  On the lips of an Abraham Lincoln or a Winston Churchill, words can inspire and challenge.  They can lift people to times of extraordinary greatness.  But, in the mouth of an Adolf Hitler, they can sweep the world into a destructive war.

Words are both our glory and our shame.

From: Psalms: An Expositional Commentary: Volume 1: Psalms 1-41 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 98.  Introduction to commentary on Psalm 12.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) was Senior Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 1968 until his death.

 

Trusting God

Lord Craven [1608-1697 - RZ], a Christian, was a nobleman who was living in London when plague ravaged the city in the 17th century.  In order to escape the spreading pestilence, Craven determined to leave the city for his country home, as many of his social standing did.  He ordered his coach and baggage made ready.  But, as he was walking down one of the halls of his home about to enter his carriage, he overheard one of his servants say to another, “I suppose, by my Lord’s quitting London to avoid the plague, that his God lives in the country and not in town.”  It was a straightforward and, apparently, innocent remark.  But it struck Lord Craven so deeply that he canceled his journey, saying, “My God lives everywhere and can preserve me in town as well as in the country.  I will stay where I am.”  So, he stayed in London.  He helped the plague victims, and he did not catch the disease himself.

There is a similar story from the life of Charles Haddon Spurgeon [1834-1892 - RZ].  In 1854, when he had been in London only 12 months, the area of the city in which the young preacher lived was visited with Asiatic cholera.  Many in Spurgeon’s congregation were affected and there was hardly a family in which someone did not get sick, and many died.  The young pastor spent most of every day visiting the sick, and there was hardly a day when he did not have to accompany some family to the graveyard.

Spurgeon became physically and emotionally exhausted and sick at heart.  He was ready to sink under this heavy load of pastoral care.  But, as God would have it, one day he was returning home sadly from a funeral when he noticed a sign in a shoemaker’s shop on Dover Road.  It was in the owner’s own handwriting and it bore these words: “Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation, there shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling,” a quotation from Psalm 91.9-10. (KJV).

Spurgeon was deeply and immediately encouraged.  He wrote, “The effect upon my heart was immediate.  Faith appropriated the passage as her own.  I felt secure, refreshed, girt with immortality.  I went on with my visitation of the dying in a calm and peaceful spirit; I felt no fear of evil and I suffered no harm.  The providence which moved the tradesman to put those verses in his window I gratefully acknowledge and, in the remembrance of its marvelous power, I adore the Lord my God.”

From: Psalms: An Expositional Commentary: Volume 2: Psalms 42-106 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p. 749.  Comment on Psalm 91.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) was Senior Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1968 until his death.

 

On Psalm 119 – Part 2 of 5

Biblical meditation is more than merely reading the Bible and, perhaps, praying afterwards.  It is more, even, than memorizing certain portions of it.  It is internalizing the Bible’s teaching to such an extent that the truths discovered in the Bible become part of how we think so that we think differently and, then, also function differently as a result.  It is what God demanded of Joshua when he was about to lead the people of Israel in the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 1.7-8). 

One person who knows a great deal bout biblical meditation is Ronald A. Jenson, former president of the School of Theology of the International Christian Graduate University.  In a booklet published by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, he tells how he had developed a successful pornography business when he was still in elementary school, buying sexually explicit literature and pictures and selling them to friends at a profit.  He ran it out of his basement.  When he became a Christian, what he was and what he had been doing changed dramatically.  Nevertheless, although he abandoned his pornography business and got active in church work, he still had trouble with his thought life because the strong sexual material he had been feeding on had become part of what he was.  He described it by saying, “When you sow a thought, you reap an action.  When you sow that action, you reap a habit.  When you sow that habit, you reap a character.  When you sow that character, you reap a destiny.”  He had been sowing lustful thoughts, and a lustful character had been formed.

What delivered him from a pornographic pattern of life was discovering how to meditate on the Bible’s teaching.  He learned how to be transformed “by the renewing of [his] mind” (Romans 12.2).  Meditation involved thinking what the passage he was studying was about and internalizing it, imagining what it would mean for him in specific acts of conduct.  He even worked on singing specific verses to whatever tune seemed to fit them, because singing helped fix the biblical truths in his mind.  He was changed.  His conclusion was this: “Biblical meditation is hard work, but the reward is worth it – a consistent, victorious Christian life.”

From: Psalms: An Expositional Commentary: Volume 3: Psalms 107-150 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), pp. 1,049-1,050.  Comment on Psalm 119.145-152.

 

Musical Instruments in Worship

What about instruments?  Surely, Psalm 150, alone, should have definitive bearing on this question.  The arguments against them say that, in the temple worship in Israel, musical instruments were used only when the sacrifices were being offered.  Today, since the sacrifices of Israel have been abolished by the completed sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, the music that was associated with the ancient sacrifices should be abolished, too.  That is, certainly, special and (I would say) unpersuasive pleading.  Were instruments really used only when sacrifices were offered?  How could we possibly know?  What about this psalm?  It tells us to praise God with a variety of instruments and says nothing about sacrifices.  What about the worship of God in heaven, according to Revelation?  There are harps in heaven (Revelation 5.8) and trumpets (Revelation 8.6-8, 10, 12; 9.1, 13).  There is singing, all of it in words not found explicitly in Psalms.  How can we deny that Psalm 150 endorses the use of new songs and instruments in worship?

From: Psalms: An Expositional Commentary: Volume 3: Psalms 107-150 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), pp. 1,289-1,290.  An excerpt from: “Everybody, Praise the Lord” (a sermon on Psalm 150).

 

On Psalm 119

In his short study of the psalms, “Reflections on the Psalms,” C. S. Lewis has a chapter on the love of God’s Law that the various psalm writers express.  He confesses how strange this seemed to him when he was starting to study the psalms.  He understood how a writer could respect a good law and try to obey it, but to love it or delight in it seemed, to him, a bit like loving the instruments with which a dentist pulls out teeth or loving the front line of a battlefield.  Part of the answer to this problem is that “law” means more than “laws.”  It means the whole of God’s written revelation, including promises as well as warnings, blessings as well as judgments.  Yet, this distinction cannot be the whole answer because the psalmists seem to rejoice in – perhaps even emphasize – those specific commandments of the Bible that keep them from every evil path.  In other words, it is not just the promises that delight them, but the laws, as well.

Lewis discovered that what the psalmists love about God’s Law is what Lewis calls the engaging moral order of the divine mind.  We think of love primarily as an emotion, but Psalm 119 is not a particularly emotional psalm.  It is an ordered, carefully constructed psalm reflecting, in its very pattern, something of what the psalmist saw in the mind of God and not only respected but loved deeply.

Lewis wrote: “The Order of the Divine Mind, embodied in the Divine Law, is beautiful.  [Therefore] what should a man do but try to reproduce it, so far as possible, in his daily life?  His “delight” is in those statutes (16); to study them is like finding treasure (14); they affect him like music, are his “songs” (54); they taste like honey (103); they are better than silver and gold (72).  As one’s eyes are more and more opened, one sees more and more in them, and it excites wonder (18).  This is not priggery nor even scrupulosity; it is the language of a man ravished by a moral beauty.  If we cannot at all share his experience, we shall be the losers.”

Lewis concludes by suggesting that a Chinese Christian might be able to appreciate Psalm 119 better than most westerners because of the value Chinese culture places on a life that is arranged according to a cosmic order.

From: Psalms: An Expositional Commentary by James Montgomery Boice; 3 volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994-1998), 4:1,018.  Comment on Psalm 119:97-104.  C. S. Lewis’s Reflections on the Psalms was published in 1958.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) was senior pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 1968 to 2000.

 

God’s Kingdom

One of the saddest things about church history is that early Christian leaders forgot that the kingdom of God is not the exercise of civil authority but “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” and began to contend for civil power over the bodies and consciences of men.

From: Romans: Volume 4: The New Humanity: Romans 12-16 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), p. 1,771.  Comment on Romans 14:17.

 

Stupid Sheep!

Sheep are foolish creatures.  In fact, they are probably the most stupid animals on earth.  One aspect of their stupidity is seen in the fact that they so easily wander away.  They can have a good shepherd who can have brought them to the best grazing lands near an abundant supply of water, and they will still wander away to where the fields are barren and the water undrinkable.  They are creatures of habit.  They may be brought to good grazing land by their shepherd but, having found it, they may keep on grazing until every blade of grass and every root is eaten; the fields are ruined, and they themselves are impoverished.  No other class of livestock requires more careful handling than do sheep.  Therefore, a shepherd who will move them from field to field yet always keep them near an abundant supply of water is essential for their welfare.

In his translation of this psalm, Martin Luther rendered the phrase “paths of righteousness” by “auf rechter Strasse.”  The connotation is not just of a straight way, but of a right way: a righteous way.  We stray by sinning, but God leads us into upright moral paths.  Isaiah said, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

From: Psalms: Volume 1:Psalms 1-41 by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 210.  Comment on Psalm 23:3.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) was senior pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 1968 until his death, of liver cancer, at the age of 61.  In his regular pulpit ministry, he preached through the Book of Psalms from the winter of 1989 through the summer of 1997.

 

The True Calvinist

A penitent spirit is one of the hallmarks of Calvinism.  The true Calvinist is the man or woman who wakes up in the morning saying, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13).  This daily confession brings with it a healthy mistrust of one’s own capacity for godliness and a corresponding dependence on God for His grace.  It also enables a Christian to promote God’s holiness with all humility and gentleness.

From: The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel by James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), p. 186.

 

God’s Sovereignty

The conference we are beginning, on this day and with this service, has been called to commemorate the historic Assembly of the Westminster divines, who met in these buildings from 1643 to 1649 and who, through wise, scholarly, and prayerful debate, produced the classic Reformation documents: The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Larger Catechism and The Shorter Catechism, plus a Presbyterian Form of Government and a Directory for Public Worship.  It is right that we should do this, because the achievements of that Assembly have stood the test of time and because its particular formulations of biblical theology have been a blessing to many thousands of people, both in Presbyterian and non-Presbyterian circles, for three-and-a-half centuries.

It is not, so much, the work of these men, however, that we are to commemorate in these three days, though their achievement was great.  Rather, we are here to think about and praise the great God they worshiped.  To begin to do this, I direct you to the theme of this first session: the sovereignty of God.

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of God’s sovereignty.  God is the most important reality there is; indeed, the ground of all other reality.  And, sovereignty is a divine sine qua non, an essential attribute of God, without which God would be proven to be no god.  The other attributes of God are equally important, and many touch us deeply.  But, if we take away the sovereignty of God – by which we mean the absolute determination and rule, by God, of all His works and creatures – God would no longer be God.  His decrees and acts would be determined by something else, either by mere human beings, or circumstances, or some other cosmic power.  These things, at least the circumstances or other cosmic power, would be the actual God.

In order to be sovereign, God must, also, be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free.  If He were limited in any one of these areas, He would not be truly sovereign.  Yet, the sovereignty of God is fundamental to, and interwoven with, the other attributes of God.  Other attributes, at times, may seem more important to us – love, for instance.  We can easily see, however, that the exercise of any of these attributes is impossible apart from the sovereignty of God.  God might love, for example; but, if He were not sovereign, circumstances could easily thwart His love, making it useless to us.  It is the same with justice, to give but one additional example.  God might want to deal justly with human beings, and even establish justice among them but, if He were not sovereign, justice would be frustrated and wrong would prevail.

Sovereignty is no mere philosophical dogma, devoid of practical value.  It is a doctrine that gives meaning and substance to all the other doctrines.  It is, as Arthur W. Pink observed, “the foundation of Christian theology…the center of gravity in the system of Christian truth – the sun around which all the lesser orbs are grouped.”  It is also, as I hope to show, the Christian’s strength and comfort in this life.

From: “The Sovereignty of God,” by James Montgomery Boice, in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, edited by John L. Carson and David W. Hall (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), pp. 197-198.

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) was pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1968 until his death.

 

The Persons in 3 John

Nothing is known of the Gaius to whom 3 John is written save what the letter itself tells us.  But this is no great loss, for all that we need to know is apparent from the text.  To be sure, the New Testament knows of a number of other men named Gaius.  There is a Gaius of Macedonia who, together with Aristarchus, was seized by the rioting mob at Ephesus (Acts 19:29).  There was a Gaius who accompanied Paul on his last trip to Jerusalem and who formed part of the group of delegates that presented the offering from the Gentile churches to the church in Judea (Acts 20:4).  This Gaius was from Derbe and, presumably, represented that church and, possibly, the other churches of Galatia.  Finally, there was the Gaius of Corinth in whose house Paul lived while dictating the letter to the Romans (Romans 16:23).  But Gaius was a common name, and there is no reason to identify any of these persons with the Gaius of 3 John.  According to 3 John, this Gaius was simply a faithful and spiritual Christian leader in a local church over which the apostle John had oversight.

But troubles had come into this church and, in spite of a letter sent by John to the chief offender, the problems had, apparently, grown worse.  To begin with, a man named Diotrephes had assumed an unwarranted and pernicious authority in the church, so much so that, by the time of the writing of this letter, John’s own authority had been challenged, and those who had been sympathetic to John had been excommunicated from the local assembly.  Moreover, due to this struggle, traveling missionaries had been rudely treated, including, probably, an official delegation from John.  Gaius had received such persons and is, here, commended for it.  Diotrephes had not, and is rebuked.  Diotrephes is also promised further chastisement when the apostle comes to him, which he hopes to do shortly.  Toward the end of the letter, a third personality is mentioned, Demetrius, whom the apostle holds up as an example of one who does good and is, therefore, clearly of God.

The messages to, or about, these three personalities give a straightforward outline to the book.  There is (1) the message to Gaius, who is termed a fellow worker; (2) the message about Diotrephes, who is causing the problem; and (3) the message about Demetrius, who is designated an example to all.

From: The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary by James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), p. 167.  Originally published in 1979.  The book began life as sermons preached to Boice’s congregation at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia from September, 1974 to May, 1975.