The Doctrine of Bless-ability

Dr. Douglas A. Blanc, Sr.

Read: Ruth 2:1-3

There is a vast difference between what Ruth wanted, what she perceived as her greatest need, and what Ruth received. Consider for a moment how often we evaluate (take stock) our lives at any given moment and perceive of needs and determine wants consistent with those needs, then cry out to God for His provision in accordance with our assessment and description. If only God would answer after the manner of my requests.

However, this episode in the book of Ruth details the actions of a God who is not subject to our evaluations, perceptions, and requests. God hears our plaintiff cries, but answers in accordance with His infinite grace. It is we who presume so little of grace that often our requests are far below the standard of God’s willingness to provide. How gratified we must be that God is not limited by our will, but answers in accordance with His will.

We seem to live with a prevailing notion and mindset of being unworthy of the best that God has to give. If the cross proves anything, it is demonstrative of the grace of God which gives to us freely what we can never deserve. If this is true of our greatest need, salvation, it is also true of our lessor needs.

I took a graduate course some years ago. The professor was Dr. Elmer Towns. In one lecture Dr. Towns was asked why some denominations prosper even though they uphold the cardinal truths of the Bible, but deviate at some significant point. He replied, “It’s because of the Doctrine of Bless-ability.” I remember experiencing a certain degree of perplexity when he said these words. How can you bless something that is errant? Yet, my perplexity vanishes when I consider that God’s blessing does not rest upon the achieved perfection of the person, but on the grace of the Bestower. We desperately need the blessing of God upon our lives, much in the same way that both Ezra and Nehemiah labored in the confidence of the hand of God upon their lives and labors (see Ezra 7:6, 9, 28; 8:18, 22, 31; Neh. 2:8, 18; see also Ps. 90:17).

The “Doctrine of Bless-ability” is not labeled as such in the Bible, but the principle is clear from the biblical record. In the unilateral covenant that God made with Abram, He noted that blessings upon the nations were contingent upon their treatment of Israel (Gen. 12:3). Later, when the children of Israel settled into the land of Canaan, God determined to renew His covenant with the people (the Mosaic covenant concerning the giving of the law at Sinai). Both blessings and curses were associated with Mt. Ebal (curse) and Mt. Gerizim (bless), Deut. 27:11-26. We may infer that a people are blessed when they live in accordance with the revealed commands and principles of God as found in the Bible.  In short, the hand of God is upon those who resolve to live by the Word of God.

In 2:1 we find a parenthetical text. The verse introduces an important character who will be integral to the unfolding of crucial events to Naomi’s and to Ruth’s lives. The lesson we learn from these seemingly incidental and parenthetical facts is that we, like Naomi and Ruth, are often (if not always) blind to the “parenthetical” acts of God’s providence. The great author on the subject of prayer, E. M. Bounds, spoke of what he called, “the antecedent acts of God.” To read one of his tractates on prayer, Power through Prayer, just click on the title. God is working even when His hand is not perceived. God is positioning us and others, He is engineering and orchestrating circumstances and situations that together will conspire to reveal and to accomplish His will in our lives. We are not privy to the working of Divine providence, but we can work knowing that it exists and is functioning. In fact, faith demands of us that we press on, though the actions of God are for the moment imperceptible (e.g. Heb. 11:1).

What facts do we discover in 2:1 that were unknown to Naomi and to Ruth? Fact one, that God had already raised up a man to meet the need of these two desperate women. His name was Boaz. This man was a relative (a “kinsman”) to the women by means of his relation to Elimelech, the husband of Naomi and the father-in-law of Ruth (1:2). The man who is variously described as: “worthy, a man of great wealth, a man of standing.” Why are we privy to these details? What was God orchestrating that Naomi and Ruth were unaware?

Provision was made in the Law of Moses for the poor person who was forced to sell part of his property or himself into slavery. His nearest of kin could step in and “buy back” what his relative was forced to sell (Leviticus 25:48f). The kinsman redeemer was a rich benefactor, or person who frees the debtor by paying the ransom price. “If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his relative has sold” (Lev. 25:25; Ruth 4:4, 6). Four things were required in order for a kinsman to redeem:[1]

1. He must be near of kin. (Leviticus 25:48; 25:25 Ruth 3:12–13)
2. He must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4–6). He must be free of any calamity or need of redemption himself.
3. He must be willing to redeem (Ruth 4:6ff)
4. Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid (Leviticus 25:27; Ruth 4:7-11).

This legal provision is typical of the relationship that we have with the Lord Jesus Christ. He is our kinsman Redeemer:

1. Jesus is my nearest kinsman through the incarnation.

“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3). He was like us in every way except that He never experienced sin. “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). In order to identify Himself with us He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “Jesus you are my kinsman redeemer. You had the right to redeem me.” Thank God, He has the right to redeem all that I have lost.

1. Jesus has the power to redeem me.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). He assumed our debt and paid it with His life. Cf. Heb. 1:2–3).

2. Jesus is willing to redeem me.

Jesus Christ “gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; Heb. 10:12; 4:16; 2:17). Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Jesus is referring to His voluntary, sacrificial, vicarious, and obedient payment to effect the release of slaves or captives from bondage. “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father” (John 10:17-18).

3. Jesus has paid the price in full and I have received my redemption.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). The invitation is still open. Jesus is the sinner’s nearest kinsman. It is our responsibility to lie at the feel of our Goel (kinsman Redeemer), and say, “Cover me with your blood and grace” (Ruth 3:9). “For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1:12). “I have believed,” is in the perfect tense in the Greek text. Paul is saying, “I have believed and my faith is a firmly settled conviction.” God is keeping guard over him. “Persuaded” is also in perfect tense, therefore Paul had come to a settled persuasion regarding the matter and was fixed in and permanent position. You could not move him. Paul is saying, “There are some things of which I am absolutely sure. “[2]

In 2:2, note that Ruth is referred to according to her alien status to the Israelites (“Moabitess”).  Are we to infer from the text’s description of Ruth thus far that she is living a life in such a way to be blessed of God?  Several characteristics are evident from this brief description:

• Ruth possessed a willingness to be exposed to insecurity and unfamiliarity, even danger, for the sake of their well-being.
• Ruth possessed an urgency (she pleads with Naomi) about their circumstances, an urgency that required action.
• Ruth exhibited trust in that she expected to “find favor” among those who considered her a “stranger.”
• Ruth possessed knowledge concerning the gracious provision of God made possible through the law (“glean”).

Lev. 19:9-10: Provision is made for the poor, whether Israelite or stranger (Ruth) by leaving behind from the field or the vineyard a portion of what was rightfully yours to harvest, in order that the poor could obtain what they were willing to work to possess.

• Ruth possessed a humility that regarded herself worthy of only the scraps and left-overs.

Note: How much more would she receive than the minimal she expected? So too with us who fear the worst has best upon us and the best we have to hope for is the minimal from the hand of God? Naomi thought that she was “empty” when in fact God had never diminished her perceived reserves. Grace is always operative. Thus, we may expect a God who is always giving (see Jas. 1:17, the gifts of God are raining down on us and cannot be eclipsed from view).

In 2:3, we see the unseen hand of God’s providence imperceptibly guiding the feet of Ruth with exacting precision to the right place, the right person, with the right provision. There is a bit of irony in the verse as the text says that she “happened to come” (NASB) to the section of the field that belonged to the man named in 2:1 (Boaz). Here is the provision for this “stranger.” There is a lesson regarding grace here; that grace reaches to those outside. Such is the case of every sinner who is caught in the grip of grace. I think of Paul’s words, “that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:12, NASB).

---

[1] http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/lev25v25.html

[2] http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/lev25v25.html

Finding Your Way Back

 

Dr. Douglas A. Blanc, Sr.

Read: Ruth 1:1-22

Consider the following:

1. The story illustrates God’s gracious act of redemption in general and his providential concern for each of us in particular.
2. To find our way back assumes the position that we belong someplace, that we have a home (Jer. 6:16).
3. The matter of returning home is not one of geographic location (i.e. a place that is dear to us), but rather a matter of spiritual condition (i.e. a person that is dear to us, Rev. 2:4-5).
4. The notion of a “return” implies the necessity for change, a deliberate act to reverse ones course based on a change of mind (i.e. repentance, Luke 15:17-19).
5. We may “sojourn” for a time (1:1), or at times, but God’s providential concern (care) is aimed at restoring our communion with him.
6. We need to understand the providence of God to appreciate the details of the book more.

Is there a difference between sovereignty and providence where God is concerned?

We understand somewhat the notion of God’s sovereignty.  According to John Murray, “The sovereignty of God I take to be the absolute authority, rule, and government of God in the whole of that reality that exists distinct from Himself in the realms of nature and of grace.” This is reflected by Naomi in 1:20-21 where the name for God is “Almighty,” or El Shaddai, “the all-sufficient one,” or “the one who grants life/blesses or kills/judges.”

However, the providence is somewhat different.  “Providence” comes from the Latin (providentia) term meaning “foresight.” The notion is to “see ahead.” Providence, then, is a word that describes God as one who knows the future and is working in the present (the terms past, present, and future represent the phenomenon of time and space to us and not to God) to “provide” (a related word, “to take precautionary measures”) and to order such things as his eternal counsels decree (dictate).

1. There is “general providence” whereby God cares for the universe and its creatures as a whole (e.g. Heb. 1:3).
2. There is also what is called “special providence” whereby God cares for his children (via “prayer,” see     1 Pet. 3:12 and 1 John 5:14-15).

Naomi’s complaint in 1:20-21, for example, reflects a correct understanding of providence in the sense that God does act in time to direct events and circumstances according to his will. However, to interpret circumstances and events as Naomi is to presume to know God’s providential acts; such knowledge is beyond human ability. How often do we look back over periods of our lives and conclude differently of events than we did at the time. That is, what we feel at the time is devastating, but from a more distant vantage point we see it as beneficial. It is enough for us to know that God acts providentially to accomplish his purposes in our lives. We truly can rest in his capable hands (Prov. 3:5-6).

Should we make a distinction between circumstances and our reaction to them? Let’s consider the association between the circumstances we experience and our reaction to them in light of 1:1-2.

The mention of a famine is linked to the mention of “the days when the judges governed” (v. 1). There seems to be an implied judgment of God (see Deut. 28:22-24). Also, in Haggai’s time, the people had put their needs first and neglected the work of the Lord, thus experiencing the Lord’s judgment until such time as they repented (1:9 and 14). While it is true that famine is not always a sign of judgment (during the days of Joseph, God used famine to advance his plan, Gen. 42:5; 45:5-8; Ps. 105:16-17, 23), I’m inclined to think that the godless spirituality of the times brought the discipline of God upon his people. This was, after all, a local famine. Moab was not far from Israel and was not experiencing famine.

Nothing could be more severe upon a land than a famine. However, it’s just at these times of severity that we must be all the more discerning as to what God may be doing. What did a “certain man” do? He packed up and left the land of God’s choosing for his people to dwell and went to a land whose people had been the enemies of God and of his people (see Num. 22:1-25:9 and  Judg. 3:12-30 where Moab was used by the Lord as the hand of discipline upon his people). In addition to seeking provision for his family (remember provision is linked to providence…God may withhold provision as an act of providence, to bring his people back to himself), it may be that Elimelech may have perceived the Lord’s hand of discipline and fled.

The word “sojourn” (v. 1) indicates someone who departs to a foreign land for an undisclosed period of time. However, in the context the author discloses the dangerous progression of those who seek to run from God. Elimelech “remained” in Moab (v. 2), then he “lived” in Moab (v. 4). The same dangerous progression is seen in the case of Lot (Gen. 13:12; 14:12; 19:1). Should we inquire of Jonah, or the Prodigal for that matter as to this dangerous progression?

The literary device of “irony” appears often in the book of Ruth. Here are a couple of incidences. Note that “Bethlehem” (v. 1) means “house of bread.” All the more reason to presume discipline when a famine descends upon the “house of bread.” Note also that the name “Elimelech” means “my God is king.” Here’s a case where one may stand for something by way of confession or reputation, but betry his claim in practice. That is, here was a man who failed to uphold in practice what his “confession” claimed in theory.

Given the progression of certain decisions that we make, it is good to identify one’s intentions (or motives).  Elimelech “lived” or “settled” in Moab (v. 4). Undoubtedly, Elimelech may not have been aware of his intentions. He may have merely reacted according to conventional wisdom. However, we must be fully aware of our intentions. There is a God-supplied means for their discovery (Heb. 4:12). We must consider that when we breach God’s plans and intentions for the fulfillment of our own plans, there are always unintended consequences (e.g. Elimelech died leaving Naomi with her two sons “Sickly” and “Frail” to raise alone in a foreign land, 1:3; the boys grow to wed Moabite women, an act not unlawful, but certainly not prudent given that the Moabites were not friendly to Israel, that they worshipped another god, and that they were banned from the assembly of the Lord to the 10^th generation, Deut. 23:3-7; the boys later die and leave widows of their own). So much for unintended consequences!

The grace of God is evident to the one experiencing blessing from choas…

By changing locations (see also the case of Jonah), in essence running, the lessons of those enduring the famine in Bethlehem were not avoided by those who fled to Moab. Again, ask Jonah about this! Yet, we see the providential hand of God amid the chaos of the hour. Naomi is permitted to share in the experience of restoration when God blesses his people (v. 6, the Lord had “visited” his people). Ruth stands as a glowing beacon of hope; the provision of the Lord for Naomi in her time of crisis and the provision of God for humanity in our time of crisis (i.e. Messianic line…consider also the Rahab was the mother of Boaz! Here is the line of King David and of King Jesus!). God can take the worst of times and fashion a tapestry of grace!

This is a new beginning for Naomi, an opportunity to literally “bury the past” and return to life among the people of God. All that has been recorded thus far is for the purpose of context. The story of redemption begins in verse 7 when Naomi sets her sites toward home. She is bereft of her husband (who arguably may have died soon after entering the land) and her two sons (who arguably may have suffered from some physical malady since birth), having only her two daughters-in-law. By her calculations, however, she is alone. No doubt her reasoning being attributed to the fact that she had left Bethlehem “full” and is now “empty” (v. 21).

For Naomi, the way back entailed several features that elucidate our understanding of redemption:

1.     The hearing of good news:

The text of verse 6 uses the Hebrew verb paqad which variously means, “to observe, examine, take note of.” When God “observes” people in need the understanding of the action is “to be concerned about, care for, attend to, help.” In other words, when God observed the plight of His people (in Bethlehem), He demonstrated His concern by giving them food.[1] When humans are the subject of paqad, it sometimes means “to visit” needy people to bestow a gift (e.g. Judg. 15:1 and 1 Sam. 17:18).

Perhaps for Naomi, the LORD had made provision in the sense of reversing the famine (judgment) by supplying food in abundance (blessing). The Hebrew is “by giving to them food,” but may be understood, “reversing the famine and providing abundant crops.” The Hebrew verb lakhem (food) is better understood as “agricultural fertility that permits crops,” hence, the reversal of the famine.[2]

We are willing to entertain the notion of turning back to God when we discover that He is willing to act graciously toward us. That is, that God is willing to remove the stain resulting in judgment and to restore the status that brings blessing. This requires the knowledge of “good news,” that God has acted in Christ to secure our deliverance (Rom. 10:13-17; link Luke 2:11 with Titus 2:11). This leads us to…

2.       The desire to share in God’s blessings (i.e. the desire to possess God’s deliverance):

No one wants to be excluded. Everyone wants to be included. For Naomi, the famine relief should have been of little consequence. She was in Moab. She was not subjected to the ill effects of the famine. She had plenty to eat, we assume. Her surroundings were not shrouded with death and an endless succession of funerals (except that of her husband and two sons ironically). So, what did she have to gain from leaving Moab for Bethlehem? In Bethlehem she would not have more provision than in Moab. In Bethlehem she would need to locate a residence and perhaps live off the generosity of others. In Bethlehem she would need to find a redeemer to buy back the land use rights sold by Elimelech during the harsh famine. In Bethlehem she would need to start over, alone (this was her intent by asking her daughters-in-law to return to their homes (vv. 7-13).

There was, however, one thing that Naomi could not possess in Moab that was available to her in Bethlehem; an ability to share in the blessings of LORD’s restoration of His people. This appears to be her earnest desire, to share in the restoration and deliverance of her people. What did it matter to escape the effects of the famine, only to be preoccupied with the notion that her people were under the judgment of God (a people among whom she was included in the judgment regardless of her location). Naomi, it seems, desired to risk the problems and obstacles that a return to Bethlehem afforded, in order to experience the end of judgment and the beginning of a new life under the gracious mercies of God. This desire is evident from her confession upon returning to the land of promise; that she felt herself judged of God (we suspect that she felt this was justified by God), vv. 20-21.

We are in the throes of the same desire for deliverance when God exercises our spirit to the point taking ownership for our sin and action for our salvation (not that we can secure our own deliverance, but that we can take the necessary steps to receive the salvation that the LORD provides). When the nature of the cause of judgment is revealed, we must take the course required that leads us to the source of salvation. Just as in the case of Naomi, the return road to Bethlehem was before her eyes daily, so also the road of repentance is ever before the eyes of one whose spirit is properly exercised (a work of the Spirit of God, John 16:8 where “convict” is the Greek elenko meaning “to convince someone of their fault”) with the knowledge of sin (2 Cor. 7:4-11).

Hearing and desire are significant steps on the path of deliverance, but if they represent the only steps taken by the sin-laden soul, they are insufficient. This leads us to the next step…

3.       The determination to act:

The NET (New English Translation) renders Naomi’s response in verse 6 as “she decided to return home.” The Hebrew verb koom  is “to arise” with the intention of taking action. In matters of deliverance-salvation it is necessary to follow through on one’s exercised spirit and determine to step onto the path that leads toward God (home). Think with Naomi for a moment. She was currently on the path, but going in the wrong direction (Isa. 53:6). The path of deliverance was available, but required a decision on her part (Jer. 6:16). Her decision to take the path in the right direction constituted a “return” for her (v. 6), the same Hebrew word that is elsewhere “to repent” (shuv).

How sad that many people, knowing how far they have wandered from God, fail to act upon the certain knowledge of His grace.  Consider the Prodigal (Luke 15:20). He based his decision to “arise” and to “go” to his father based upon the perceived gracious resolve of his father to grant him a position as a hired man (Luke 15:19). The Prodigal understood the concept of grace, but only the kind that humans so often display. To make him a hired man, the father would in fact be saying “you do not deserve to be my son because of your unpaid debt to me.” This is in essence the thought pattern of the son (Luke 15:19). How many Christians approach the Father in this “I don’t deserve” manner? That’s not grace. That’s not forgiveness. That’s not restoration. That’s being a debtor. That’s nothing more than promising God that if He’ll have you back, you’ll be willing to spend the rest of your life “paying off” what He’s already paid for. When understood properly, grace produces in us only one resolve; to bind ourselves to God with a fully devoted heart…

4.       A devoted heart:

One of the mini-themes in Ruth is that of “devotion.”  The Hebrew word is hesed and is variously translated in the Old Testament as “loving kindness.” It may be understood a s a beneficent act performed in the context of deep and enduring commitment by one who is able to render assistance to another who is unable to help themselves.  In 1:8, hesed appears as a tribute the two daughters-in-law who were devoted to their husbands and deserving of the LORD’s blessing (1:9). In 2:10, it appears in Ruth’s astonishment at the “favor” she receives from Boaz. Again, in 3:10, hesed  appears as the “kindness” demonstrated by Ruth in seeking to marry Boaz in order to restore Naomi’s status (4:5: Could it be that Naomi attached Ruth to the requirement for gaining her property rights as an act to secure a husband for her? Perhaps it was unlikely that someone would redeem Naomi and more likely that one would redeem Ruth?).

The theme of “devotion” highlights what God desires most from us. Redemption received corresponds to devotion given. This is our chief end and our constant preoccupation; is my heart devoted to you, oh Lord?”

[1] NET Bible, text note on Ruth 1:6.

[2] Ibid.

 

---

Out of Nothing, Something

Dr. Douglas A. Blanc, Sr.

We are conditioned by common reasoning to adopt what seems to be a fundamental law: “something cannot come from nothing.” We are introduced to this law quite innocently (even Biblically) in the form of a work ethic. Labor and production go hand in hand. Certainly, this is a principle found in Scripture. Paul declares this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 toward those unwilling to work, that they will also not eat. The “sluggard” (i.e. one who is sluggish, lazy) is also requested in the Bible to “go to the ant” (Proverbs 6:6-8), the creature known for its industry and storing reserves. Paul noted that “our labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58). The Psalmist makes his plea to God to make the endeavors of His people successful (90:17). So, the requirement to perform in the Lord’s service, to work as a means to securing necessary provisions; these are staples in the Christian life.

If we are not careful, however, we will yield to the familiar human tendency of self-sufficiency. Even a small child responds to the perceived intrusion of parental help with, “I can do it myself!” We have, at the same time, the Biblical mandate found in the so-called “Lord’s Prayer” to appeal to God for our “daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). One wonders if this is not a reminder of the days when God fed His people daily by a heaven-provided layer of manna (Exodus 16:4-5; Numbers 11:6-9). Certainly there was work in the faithful gathering of what the Lord daily supplied, but the emphasis is placed on the insufficiency of the people to care for themselves. Without God there would be no manna and nothing to eat. Therefore, in all of our efforts to work, we must be careful to remember the ultimate Source of the provision, God (James 1:17). When making arrangement for the supplies to build the temple of the Lord, David gathered offerings from the people of Israel. The vast supply accumulated from the generous freewill offerings prompted David to pray: “But who am I and who are my people, that we should be in a position to contribute this much?” Did David praise his ingenuity and that of the people to garner such resources from the fruit of their labor? No. “Indeed, everything comes from you, and we have simply given back to you what is yours” (1 Chronicles 29:14). In fact, during the days of David’s son, Solomon, when Israel reeled from the throws of apostasy, God withheld His blessing from the land and no amount of labor proved productive. The Lord appeared to Solomon with the solution: “If my people, who belong to me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Again, centuries later in the days of Haggai the prophet, the command of the Lord to rebuild the temple stood neglected. No amount of labor could produce satisfaction and provision. The prophet delivered the world of the Lord: “Is it right for you to live in richly paneled houses while my temple is in ruins?” (Haggai 1:4) The blight upon the labors of the people (vv. 6-11) is a judgment from God that He justifies as follows: “Because my temple remains in ruins, thanks to each of you favoring his own house!” (v. 9)

From this brief discussion, we can see how easily we are led to place a heavy emphasis upon work in order to secure what is needed. There seems to be a derived law from the pages of Scripture: work-eat, work, lay up in store, work-secure God’s blessing. This law is set within the context of the human tendency away from divine dependence and toward self-sufficiency. It is possible to seek from work what we ought to be seeking from God. In this sense, we make of work a god in our lives. We depend upon our skill and ingenuity for daily provision. We make of our sponsors and employers what is rightly God’s role. They are His servants, releasing support through their faithfulness to provide according to His moving in their hearts. Did not God give Joseph favor in the eyes of Potiphar? (Genesis 39:4) When banished to prison, the faithful Joseph again found favor in the eyes of the warden (v. 21). Position, status, supply, these are for the Lord to give through the wisdom, labor, and gifts that He grants form His heavenly store. All of this is easily discovered from the Scripture. No lesson is required, even for the newest believer. It appears in the Bible as self-evident truth. The pendulum of faith, however, must be monitored so as to avoid self-reliance with the very resources that God provides. Ironic, I know, but such is human nature.

Yet, a word about faith. I began this post with a warning about becoming conditioned. The error of conditioning to which I refer is as follows. We may become conditioned to look for the Lord’s provision through the resources or work He provides through others, that we fail to seek Him for what may be received directly from His hands. Isn’t that a radical thought! Perhaps there will always be human agency in the reception of all that comes from God, even indirectly from unintended and unexpected sources. What I am addressing here is a faith that trusts in the God who specializes in bringing something out of nothing. He spoke and the worlds came into existence (Hebrews 1:1-3). Mediating the provision of the world itself is the Son of God (John 1:1-3). Is it not this same High Priest that prevails upon us to seek the same from Him? (Hebrews 4:14-16; Matthew 7:7-11; 21:22 and John 15:7) God promised His suffering prophet Jeremiah, that if he would call on Him in prayer, that He would answer and show him “great and mysterious things which [he] did not know about” (33:3).

The God who spoke the world into existence can speak provision into our lives. Jesus demonstrated this principle often. On one occasion He “rebuked the winds and the sea, and it [a great storm] was a dead calm” (Matthew 8:23-27). Earlier in the same passage a desperate Centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his anguished servant. Upon offering to go to the servant, the Centurion responded, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed” (Matthew 8:7-8). The Centurion noted a universal principle: “For I too am a man under authority…” (v. 9) The resulting amazement of Jesus is directed at the Centurion’s faith (v. 10). Indeed, what faith! The Centurion recognized that Jesus was able to bring “something from nothing” due to His ability to draw from heaven’s resources under the authority of God’s permission. A mere word (spoken at a distance) could affect the physical condition of a paralyzed servant. This was not God healing through physicians, but the direct intervention of God by means of the spoken word. How often do we pray and ask God to “guide the hands of the physician” and all the while overlook the presence of the Great Physician? I’m reminded of the ancient Israelites who looked to Egypt or other military alliances to secure protection from the attack of bordering nations. This is the path of self-sufficiency. God spoke regarding this through the prophet Isaiah: “Those who go down to Egypt for help are as good as dead, those who rely on war horses, and trust in Egypt’s many chariots and in their many, many horsemen. But they do not rely on the Holy One of Israel and do not seek help from the Lord” (Isa 31:1).

Back to the Lord’s Prayer, “…may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). The ordering of the words in the original text language (Greek) is “as in heaven, so [or, even also] on earth.” Key to this equation is to recognize who is in control.  Self-sufficiency looks to man as autonomous. However, we must make every effort to resolve with all of our being that it is God alone who reigns supreme. This is not mere sentiment or abstract affirmation. That is, one may assent that such a thing is true, but fail to internalize the truth and allow it to transform our conduct and responses. The question is, “If God is in control absolutely, then what is He able to do in this situation?” Here is where the disciples were found to be “little faiths” (Matthew 14:31), but a Centurion without the benefit of Scripture, trusting only in the claims of Jesus, modeled the faith required of every believer to secure “something from nothing.”