Greetings once again. Glad to see everyone online today. We're either a minute late or a minute early. All that is certain is that we are not on time. But nonetheless, I'm glad that you can tune in. And yes, I am wearing a sweater. This sweater has been part of my life longer than my wife has been. And she and I have been married for 21 years. And there are some people in my life that are disturbed by the fact that I still am able to wear at least one or two sweaters from high school. but it just makes me very happy. I don't like cold weather, but I really love my sweaters and I really need my sweaters today. In fact, I might put on a second sweater by the time I get home because I am very chilly. But nonetheless, that is simply Arizona whining. It's a beautiful day, crisp, cool, clear, and we're thankful to have it and glad that we can spend part of it together in Bible study. So we're going to be doing a potpourri of questions as I mentioned in the Email update this morning. We've got four that I've pulled together that have come in over the last few weeks, and I hope that this will be a very profitable time for us to look at several texts and think about some important issues, and that that will be a blessing to our faith and to our souls. So let's go ahead and get started with prayer, and then we'll move right into our time of study. Gracious God and Father, we're thankful for the blessing of another week and another day and another opportunity to open your word together. Please send your spirit and help us, Lord, in this endeavor. Help us to engage in this exercise with humility, to do well, O Lord, for the glory of your name. for the good of your people, to give ourselves to the careful attention of Scripture, knowing that your word is truth and that it is your instrument, O Lord, for bringing faith to us and for continuing to sanctify us. And we pray that your Spirit would do that work in us all this day, that you would bless us and help us in Jesus' name. Amen. All right, we're gonna start in the Old Testament and turn together to Isaiah chapter 40, one of the most familiar verses in the prophet Isaiah, one that is frequently printed on T-shirts and coffee mugs and tapestries to hang up in your house. It's a passage that gives many people great encouragement. It's Isaiah chapter 40 in verse 31 that says, but those who wait on Yahweh shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings like eagles. They shall run and not be weary. They shall walk and not faint." And the question that has come in is this, in Isaiah, or is Isaiah 40, 31, is it literal or figurative or both? And how do you know when it is one or the other? What practical application does it have for us today? Now, I like this question Because, like many of the questions that are sent in, it's an opportunity for us to talk about larger ideas than just the very narrow question as it is proposed from a particular verse of Scripture. So let's deal first with this passage of Scripture. You have this promise, those who wait on Yahweh shall renew their strength, mount up with wings like eagles, run and not be weary, walk and not faint. Is it literal? Is it figurative? Is it somehow both? How do we decide? I'm gonna tell you that I think the literal meaning of this text is figurative. It's symbolic language. You could say that some of these seem like literal descriptions of physical strength, running and walking without fatigue, but how are you going to mount up with wings like eagles? I mean, if we wait on the Lord, are we going to sprout wings like an eagle? Are we going to be able to flap our arms hard enough to fly like an eagle? So obviously there is some poetic language here. There's some figurative or symbolic language here. I would not say that we should take then the promises about running and walking and say those are kind of in a hyper literal way, those are actually the experience that God's people are going to have. But this business about flying like an eagle, that, of course, is just symbolic. That's just figurative. I would say, no, it's all figurative. It's all symbolic. It's all poetic. And yet, that poetry is the literal substance of the text. In other words, this figurative meaning is literally what we're to take from this passage. And this gets us into the broader question of how do we decide in a passage like this, what is literal, what is figurative? We've talked before about the danger of misunderstanding a hyper-literal reading of the text as the literal reading. One of the things that I don't appreciate in conversations with some very sincere, well-meaning believers, one of the things I don't appreciate is being told that they Read the Bible literally and I don't. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by those terms. If I say to you, it's raining cats and dogs, and you look up at the sky and you say, I don't see any puppies or kittens, obviously you're a liar. No, literally what I mean is it's raining really hard. Now, hyperliterally, in kind of this wooden, literalistic fashion, I could say that expression means that canines and felines are falling from the sky. But all of us recognize that's a figure of speech. It's a figure of speech. And what does that figure of speech mean? It means it's raining really hard. Well, the Bible uses figures of speech like this all the time. There is prophetic and poetic language that has a literal meaning, but not necessarily this literalistic fulfillment. And so when we look at the generals at the Battle of Armageddon in Revelation chapter 16, they are demoniac frogs. Does anybody believe that that's What the generals are going to look like? I mean, are they going to be frogs or look like frogs? When people approach the prophets, and especially books like Revelation, they want to say, we should interpret this literally. I agree. But part of literally interpreting scripture is recognizing the significance of poetic or figurative language. Now, how do we know that this is figurative, or at least what I'm saying is that all of it is figurative or symbolic? How do we know that these statements about walking and running are not actually meant to be taken in a very physical way in terms of fulfillment? Well, I think one of the ways that you can tell immediately is that as people age, even the most pious saints are not able to run without fatigue. They're not able to walk without getting tired. I can't run without getting fatigued. Maybe that means I'm not faithful to God. Is that what that means? Obviously not. We realize that there's a figurative way in which this is being said. It's not talking about our physical bodies, our physical health, our physical performance. It's a promise of spiritual renewal. It's a description of our lives and our lives lived before God that our walk with God, our running the race of faith, our flight, as it were, to the city of Zion will be unimpeded. We will not be weighed down by the burden of sin, by the curse of evil, by all of the sorrows of this present age. Instead, we will be able to go with strength, with endurance, and with joy. That's the promise of this text. So the question was, what practical application does this passage have for us? I think that's it. It's to take this promise and to say, no matter the condition of your physical body, your body may be broken down. You may be sick. You may be injured. You may simply be getting older and you're not able to physically perform at the level that you once could. But in Christ, this is the reality of you, of your life and of your relationship with God. He will renew your strength. He will cause you to mount up with wings like eagles. You will run and not be wary. You will walk and not faint. You can press on. You can persevere. This is God's promise. This is God's help to you in your life. And so I think You know, maybe this is an easy, so to speak, verse for us to kind of work through these ideas and see these principles. Maybe it's a little more difficult when we're studying prophecies about the end times, for instance, and that's where many people want to say this has to be literal and therefore it has to mean a particular thing. Well, it does have a specific meaning. It has the same meaning for us that it had for the original audience. And we need to be careful to find that meaning using good principles of Bible study and exegesis. But realize that sometimes what the text literally means is figurative. It's symbolic. It's pointing us in a poetic way to some greater spiritual truth. and isn't necessarily leading us to expect a hyper-literalistic or physical fulfillment in the ways that we might initially assume. So I hope that's useful. I hope that passage continues to be encouraging to you. It's a great one to commit to memory and to meditate on regularly. Now, the second question that came in takes us back a little earlier in the Old Testament to the book of Nehemiah. This is some of the post-exilic literature you'll remember in the Old Testament after the Babylonian exile. A number of people return over three waves to the homeland, to the land of Judea. They rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and those returns are led first by Zerubbabel in the first half of the book of Ezra, secondly by Ezra in the second half of his book, and then the third return by Nehemiah, who remains in Judea and serves as governor, actually serves two terms as governor under the authority of the Medo-Persian Empire. The question that came in is this, in reading Nehemiah chapter 6, and there's a typo here, this is actually Nehemiah chapter 7, but in reading Nehemiah, especially verses 64 and 65 of chapter 7, there were many who could not find their names in the genealogical record or registry and thus were excluded from the priesthood as defiled. How did this work in Jewish culture at this time after the exile? Was it a fault of these people as individuals in the priestly line to have not kept some kind of a record as proof of who they were? Or was it just a portion of a temple record that was destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed? So not an individual's fault, but a national fault due to sin being judged, and is there a biblical application for us today from this passage? Now let me read you the text again from Nehemiah chapter 7. One of the things you need to know about Nehemiah 7 is that it is actually a repetition of Ezra chapter 2. There are some differences, but by and large this is just a repeat of the listing of names and families that returned at that earlier period, and this record is being rediscovered and kind of entered into the record a second time here. But one of the differences comes here in the latter part of the chapter, and it's in verses 64 and 65. As they are listing the priests, it says, So you have some who claim to be, and I would assume are, in fact, of priestly descent. They're of the priestly lineage, and yet they cannot establish their bona fides, as it were, through the genealogical register. their family can't be traced, and so it's as if they've lost their identification. This is who they are. Maybe even some of us know that this is who they are, but they can't really establish that, and so we need to be careful here, and until then, you don't need to partake of the consecrated items that normally would be lawful for the priest to participate in. Instead, you need to abstain from that until we can be sure of your identity and of the propriety of your participation. Now, I think this question arises because of the use of the term Defiled. And so maybe it would be appropriate for us to say a couple of things here about the idea of defilement. Defilement, especially in the context of the Old Testament law, especially with regard to the Mosaic ceremonial law, defiled does not mean sinful. Now, sin is defiling, and therefore a person who is defiled by sin is obviously guilty, but not all defilement is sinful. Not all defilement is the result of sin. We've mentioned before, a person who attended a funeral or helped to bury the body of a family member or a friend would be, by ceremonial law, defiled and therefore excluded from worshiping at the tabernacle or temple for a period of time. Having sexual relations with your spouse would make you defiled until certain ceremonies of purification were performed. Having a child born to a woman would create a situation of defilement. There was a period of time, there were sacrifices that had to be offered. We even see that with regard to Jesus's birth in Luke chapter two. So there are many ordinary, lawful and indeed moral aspects of life that would result in a situation of defilement. And so we don't need to think that having marital relations was sinful. No, it was good and commendable, but in proximity to a corporate worship service, gathering for the feasts or participating in sacrifice at the tabernacle or temple, there were certain cleansing protocols that had to be observed. And the reason that that was in the law was to teach God's people then and now the distinction between holiness and unholiness. Again, this is part of the ceremonial law that has been abrogated through the work of Christ. In other words, we're not under that same law today. These are not the regulations that govern our worship today, but they are principles, they are types and shadows that teach us about the work of Christ, that teach us about the nature of sin, and that in these cases teach us the distinction between what is holy and what is unholy. I think sometimes people have this idea that everything is holy because I'm a believer. And I can sympathize with what they're saying, to say, I want to do everything that I do to the glory of God, whether I eat or drink, as the scripture teaches us in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Whatever you do, do it in the name of Christ, as Paul says in Colossians chapter 3. And so in one's sins, everything is being redeemed in the believer's life and in the world. Everything is being sanctified. Everything is being consecrated, because if I'm washing dishes, I'm doing so for the glory of God in the name of Jesus Christ, and as an act of love for God and love for my wife. Everything that I do, I'm to be doing in this way, but that doesn't mean that everything is holy in the same way. There is a distinction between the Lord's Supper and a common meal. The distinction is not that we give thanks for one, but not the other. No, we give thanks every time we eat. We give thanks to God because these are His good gifts. And so, to an extent, in that sense, my food is holy, and it's consecrated by prayer. But it's not the Lord's Supper, and we see that distinction in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. So, in the Mosaic law, in the ceremonial law in particular, God teaches these distinctions to the children of Israel so that we also might learn these lessons. They are preserved in scripture for us to say not everything that defiles is a matter of sin. Not everything that would exclude someone from the assembly of worship would necessarily be a matter of guilt. Let's think, for example, about a person who is sick. A person who is sick should stay at home on the Lord's day. They should not gather in the assembly of the saints. Well, they are therefore, practically speaking, barred from the Lord's table. They're not barred from the Lord's table because of sin. They haven't been suspended from the privileges of membership. They're not being excommunicated, but they are for that time, and because of that circumstance, they're kept from the table of the Lord. But it's not a matter of guilt. There's nothing wrong about that. You think about a person who is a police officer, a firefighter, a nurse, a doctor, who has to work on the Lord's day and is therefore unable to attend the corporate worship of the church. They're kept from the Lord's table. They're barred. But are they guilty in any way? No. Is their work defiling? Well, in one sense it is because it's barring them from the table. Is it sinful? No. by no means, not at all. It is a work of necessity and mercy. And therefore it is a lawful exercise on the Sabbath, on the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day. So not all defilement is an instance of sin. So what I would say here is that it's not the fault of these individuals. They don't have an ID card. that establishes their genealogy that they can keep in their wallet and pull out to prove that they are of priestly descent. It's not necessarily the fault of the nation either. Those records obviously needed to be preserved, needed to be kept. It could be that they were lost through negligence. It could be that the responsible caretakers did not protect those genealogical listings in the way that they should have. But I tend to doubt that that's the case. in part because there were some of the priests whose family lineage could be established and some whose could not. And so it appears that there are gaps in the record, and that would not necessarily be the fault of negligence, but might be associated instead, as the questioner alluded, to the judgment that had fallen upon Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Now, I do want to say one more word about this before we go to kind of the practical application. Was that judgment a matter of guilt? Absolutely, yes. Did it defile the nation, the temple, and corrupt the record? Yes, absolutely. Sometimes defilement is the result of sin. even though it may not result in the personal guilt of an individual who is impacted by it. Again, let me use some illustrations. Here is a person who my daughter, for example, as is well known, has a reckless driver run a red light, hits her vehicle, breaks her back. She's unable to be in the assembly for worship for over a month. There is a type of defilement there. I'm being kept from the house of the Lord. Is there any guilt on her part? No. Is there guilt on someone's part? Yes. Yes, absolutely. Sometimes my sin not only may defile me, but create a state of defilement, so to speak, for other people, including my family. As a pastor, this is something I have to think about. My actions can defile and corrupt the church that I serve. Even if the church is blameless, even if they are sinless, my foolishness, my wickedness can defile that body. And so we have to think about our kind of social responsibility here, and the fact that in community, acts of sin have ripple effects, and circumstances of defilement may have ripple effects. So I don't think that there is any fault implied on the part of these individuals. Maybe there was something that they failed to do, but I don't see that clearly in the text. Maybe there was fault in the caretakers of those records. Again, I don't see that necessarily implied, but it could be. Was their fault in the nation, as a nation, that led to this situation? Yes. Yes. These men are counted as defiled, not because of something they've done, not because of something that the archivist failed to do, but their state of defilement is the result of sin. and the sin of the nation, the sin of their fathers, the sin of their grandfathers, the sin that led to God's judgment upon that people. Okay, so I hope that's useful. I'm not meaning to just kind of blow that question out of proportion, but I think there are some of those broader issues that may be important for us to reflect upon. What is the practical application of a passage like this? And I appreciate that aspect of the question because we want to remember that the Bible is a practical book, that we want to be doers of the word and not hearers only. Now we recognize that not every verse of scripture is a command for us to obey. Not every verse of scripture has an implicit precept in it that we ought to act upon. But the text of Scripture teaches us principially many, many things that can and should be translated into action in our lives. So what do we learn from a text like this? Well, I think what we learn is the seriousness with which we are to take God's law. You know, there is such a Such an emphasis today on, you know, you don't want to be a legalist. Such an emphasis on just adhering to the spirit of the scriptures and not to the letter of the law, so to speak. And there are so many passages that are misunderstood and misinterpreted and misused in this regard. It's absolutely true. We don't want to be legalists, and we don't want to adhere to the letter of the law, which kills and neglects the spirit of the law that gives life. But brothers and sisters, being careful with God's law is not legalistic. Legalism is the idea that I believe, by my right belief and action, I can in some way win the favor of God. I will be accepted by God because of the adequacy of my faith and practice. That's legalism. That's legalistic. And yes, we can take the sword of the spirit and use it instead as a cudgel, beating people over the head in an ungodly and legalistic fashion. But it's not legalistic to say, listen, the Bible says certain things that ought to be believed and obeyed. And that when we refuse to believe or fail to believe and obey God's word, we're wrong. We're transgressing what God has said. And how careful should we be? this careful, this careful, to say, here are men who, in faith, have returned to the land of promise, have returned to the home of their fathers, they're eager to participate in the reconstitution and renewal of the nation of Israel, they're of priestly descent, they're ready to participate, they're ready to contribute, and their genealogy cannot be established. And what do the people say? They say, okay, this may not be a permanent situation. When we have a priest who can consult God, who can seek God's will through the use of the Urim and Thummim, then we can settle this matter. But until then, we need to wait. Until then, we need to abstain. We need to be sure. You've probably heard the expression before, when in doubt, don't. Well, that's the idea here. That's the principle here. They were in doubt about their right to participate in these consecrated elements, and so they don't. And that's good. That's commendable. This is commendable before God when we, with care, seek to follow His will. So that's the application I would make of it. We need to take God's standards more seriously. We need to be careful in our obedience, especially in the exercise of ministry. And I don't think that's legalistic at all, and we should not find fault with those who are seeking to be careful in their walk with Christ. All right. Our third question will take us back then to the book of Isaiah, a beautiful text, Isaiah chapter 58, which speaks about the kind of fasting and abstention that pleases God, the kind of life, the kind of care that pleases God. And this connects nicely, I think, to our last question. in that when we are being careful to obey, what is the spirit of that care? What is the real motivation behind it? It could be legalistic, of course. We could be imagining that by washing our hands before we eat, that somehow now we are cleansed and God is more pleased with us. That would be a very pharisaical and legalistic attitude. But no, in this passage, the Lord says the fasting that I'm looking for is not just abstaining from food. but it's really abstaining from sin. It's giving yourself to the will of God and denying yourself the lusts of the flesh. And toward the end of the chapter, there are comments made by the Lord through the prophet about the Sabbath. And our question is going to come out of those remarks. Let me read to you verses 13 and 14 of Isaiah chapter 58. The Word of God says, "...if you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of Yahweh honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, Then you shall delight yourself in Yahweh, and I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of Yahweh has spoken. Now, I love this passage. We talked a little bit about the Sabbath, either at the very beginning of this year or late last year in a series on worship. And we talked some about this text and about finding delight in the Lord when we call the Sabbath a delight. Now, I realize some people who are listening or watching to this may think, oh, but pastor, isn't the Sabbath part of that Old Testament ceremonial law? Well, no, we would say as Reformed Christians, the Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments because it's not part of the ceremonial law. It's part of the moral law of God. Now, there were ceremonial aspects to it. Certainly, there were aspects to Israel's Sabbath observance that are no longer applicable to the Church of God today. Those aspects were abrogated by the work of Christ. But the principle of the Sabbath and the consecration of one day in seven to the worship of God is a New Testament principle that continues to be applicable to us in the New Covenant. And so notice here that Isaiah doesn't talk about the seventh day Sabbath. He just talks about the Sabbath. He just talks about this day of rest, which for us as believers in Christ would be the first day of the week, the Lord's Day. And if we call that day a delight, part of the promise of this text is that we will find delight in the Lord. And let me just, before we go into the question, let me just encourage you again. Sabbath observance is one of the two foundational spiritual disciplines of a godly life. The second one being praying the Psalms. This is what God's people have been doing for thousands of years, thousands of years, we join with our Old Testament fathers, our New Testament fathers, our fathers and mothers throughout the history of the church when we pray the Psalms and when we sanctify the Lord's day. And so let me encourage you, if you're not protecting the Lord's Day as a Sabbath, if you're not keeping the Lord's Day as the Sabbath of the Lord, if you're giving yourself to worldly things on that day, they may be lawful things on every other day, but if you would devote yourself on that day to God, to worship, to fellowship, to the contemplation of spiritual truths, I think you will find that what you give up is more than offset by all that you gain. there is so much more joy, there is so much more pleasure in the Lord's day and in the Lord himself when we sanctify that day. So let me just encourage you in that. Again, we're not being legalistic. We're simply trying to exhort one another, encourage one another, strengthen each other's hands in the will of God. All right, the question that comes in is this. In reading Isaiah 58, 13 to 14, what does he mean by nor speaking your own words? I can understand not doing your own ways nor finding your own pleasures, but I'm not sure how to apply the last part of that sentence. So, not pursuing your own way, not pursuing your own pleasure, not speaking your own words. These are the three things that the Lord in Isaiah says we ought to abstain from on the Sabbath. Now, what does that mean? The Sabbath is to be a day devoted to the Lord. That does not mean that we are to be in church in an assembly for 24 straight hours. Now, it's not as though that would be a bad thing, but that's not what the Word of God requires. But it is to be a day of rest. a day of rest from our labors, a day of rest from our ordinary occupation. And it's to be a day of rest for those that serve us, which is why I would encourage believers to eat at home on the Lord's day. Is it sinful to eat in a restaurant on the Lord's day? Well, not necessarily. And there are all kinds of circumstances where that might be the right thing to do and the best thing to do. But ordinarily, wouldn't it be better if other people didn't have to work to serve us on this day? Now you say, well, but pastor, they would work on that day anyway. Well, sure, but that's their business, not mine. I don't have to participate in that economy. I'm supposed to abstain from circumstances in which my servants would be required to serve me. Even my animals are supposed to be resting on the Sabbath day. That means I'm not supposed to be plowing my fields. Now, my two dogs, honestly, they are not carrying their weight around the house. And let me just say, they should not get a Sabbath rest because they never put in six days of work. So the principle of the Sabbath assumes six days of labor, and those two dogs are lazy and they're not laboring, therefore they don't deserve a Sabbath day. But it's not as though they work on the Sabbath because they don't work on any day. I digress. The principle of the Sabbath is that we are supposed to set aside all of these ordinary things to participate in something extraordinary, to step out of the present age and step into the age to come. It's as though we get to enter into another dimension for one day, and then we have to go back. And that's what makes Mondays hard, is we've spent a whole day on Mount Zion, dwelling with the people of God, and now we got to return to the present age. And that's not as much fun. So what do we do on the Sabbath? Well, we engage in worship. We devote the day to prayer, to pious reading, to fellowship, to spiritual contemplation. That doesn't mean that everything that you do on that day is offering a prayer, singing a hymn, reading a passage of scripture. On the Lord's Day, we have normally a lot of people over to our house on Sunday afternoon for lunch, and we talk about a lot of different topics. We don't only talk about the sermon or Bible issues, but everything is revolving around our shared experience of Christ. It's revolving around our relationship in the Lord. Now, does that mean that our conversation is always appropriate? Maybe it's not, and this is an area where we need to remember that we fail to keep the fourth commandment the same way that we fail to keep every other commandment. If you think that you can keep the Sabbath perfectly, well, you're kidding yourself. You're lying to yourself. We break every one of the Ten Commandments probably every day in some way. And so you fail to keep the Sabbath holy, just as I fail to keep the Sabbath holy. And yet this is the idea, this is the goal that we're striving for, is that I'm not doing my own things, I'm not pursuing my own pleasure, I'm not engaging in the kind of speech that belongs to this world and to this present cursed age. Instead, I'm giving myself to God. and to the things of God, and to the celebration of God's good gifts. And so that means even my speech needs to be sanctified. Now, part of how the Reformed tradition has understood these passages, and I believe correctly understood these passages, is to say that things that would otherwise be lawful on any other day, ought to be abstained from on the Lord's Day except those things that are acts of mercy, necessity, and piety. Worship edification is lawful. Works of necessity are lawful. Works of mercy are lawful. But everything else, even if it's not in itself sinful, ought to be set aside. So I might read a novel during the week, But I don't read a novel on the Lord's Day unless it is an edifying novel. I'd read Pilgrim's Progress every Lord's Day without any sense of shame or guilt. But I'm not going to read a novel that's not edifying that might be lawful to read on another day. Same thing with television. The same thing with conversation. Let me use an analogy here that may be helpful to you. Is it lawful for me to check my phone for text messages? I think it is. I think it is lawful. Is it appropriate when I take my wife out to dinner? Now, you could say, well, it's not sinful. No, it may not be sinful, but is it wise? Is it loving? Is it appropriate? I hope we would all say no. Now, I don't know because when I take my wife out to dinner, I look around and I see husbands and wives, presumably, boyfriends and girlfriends, whatever their relationship is, men and women sitting at a table together, each of them on their phones. I think, why did you go out to dinner? I mean, you could have saved money and just been on your phone at home. But anyway, is that good? No, it's not good. What do you want to do? You want to put your phone on do not disturb. You want to set it aside. Are there times where I might need to check my phone while I'm at dinner with my wife? Yep, yep, and it happens. Kirstie can tell you. Sometimes there is a pastoral situation. Maybe something, maybe there's a crisis. Maybe I'm waiting for an update on someone that we've been praying about. Maybe there's some counseling situation that is beginning to unravel and I need to stay close to my phone. Maybe I need to have my phone close to me to be able to check on the kids. Maybe if they're going to reach out to me, I need to have my phone accessible so that I can make sure that it's not from them. There are lawful and good and wholesome ways in which I might use that phone while I am at an hour devoted to my wife. But ordinarily, wouldn't I want to set it aside? Yes. So I hope that that maybe is helpful to us in terms of thinking about this issue on the Sabbath. So the passage in Isaiah 58 is encouraging us to sanctify even our words on the Lord's day. Now, when I was a minister back East for about 15 years, something that some of you do not realize is that in the Southeastern United States, the dominant religion is not Christianity. It's actually SEC football. So the dominant religion is SEC football. And secondarily, it's like Southern Baptist Christianity. So for those years, as a minister, when I would go to church on Sunday, what people wanted to talk about before the service and after the service every week was college football. And you might be thinking to yourself, Pastor, that's not even possible because college football is a fairly short season. You couldn't talk about it every Sunday year round. Oh, my friends, you should visit the South sometime. It is entirely possible to talk about it year-round. Now, is that unlawful speech? Well, on any other given day, no, it's not unlawful. But is it what we ought to be talking about on the Lord's Day? Is that what we ought to be meditating upon as we're preparing for worship and immediately after our worship? You know, you can tell a lot about what is important to you based upon what you think about when you are otherwise unoccupied and what you are continually talking about when you don't have a specific topic that you need to discuss. So when your mind relaxes or when you have the opportunity simply to shoot the breeze with someone, What is it that you continually return to? Now, again, it's not to say that it's wrong to talk about football. You may have many interests. I certainly have interests that I enjoy talking to my friends and even my brethren about. But the question is, what should be most on our minds on the Lord's Day? As we're preparing for worship, as we are concluding worship, as we're enjoying the fellowship of the saints throughout the day, what should be most on our minds? Shouldn't it be the things of God? Now, what I found over the last seven years here in Arizona is that most people on Sunday don't want to talk about football. They want to talk about politics. Now, I am a bit of a political junkie, and so I can easily be drawn into that conversation. But I'll be honest, I'd really rather not have that conversation on the Lord's Day. There are political conversations that I think we can have on the Lord's Day that are appropriate to the Lord's Day. We can certainly think about our political situation biblically, and we should, and there are many political implications for the things that God's Word says and the will of God as it's made known to us in Christ. I'm not suggesting that anything political is therefore barred from the conversation on the Lord's Day. But let's face it, a lot of times when we're talking about politics, it's not particularly edifying. It's not necessarily being run through a biblical filter or worldview. We're just agitated, along with the rest of our nation right now, about political issues. That's understandable. But on the Lord's Day, shouldn't we try to guide our speech in paths that will give grace to the hearer? Isn't that what the Bible teaches us about our speech? Isn't that the general rule for our speech all of the time? How much more true should this be on the Lord's Day? In Ephesians chapter 4 and verse 29, Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." And that's what we want to do on the Lord's Day, and as much as possible on every other day. We want our words to be words of grace, words of truth, words that edify. And I think this passage is a reminder to be intentional about our conversation. And again, not to shame our brethren, not to, you know, chastise our brethren. Someone comes up and wants to say something to you about the football game yesterday, you know, be very charitable, careful, kind. Again, there are some of my brethren, they don't know how to talk about anything else. And if I'm going to have a conversation with them, maybe I'm going to have to meet them where they are and then try to encourage the conversation in a more spiritual direction. Well, let's do that. Let's do that. Let's love one another and be patient with one another. But at the same time, let's be very deliberate, very intentional about trying to keep our words, our mind, our activities on the Lord's day, moving in a direction that helps us to delight in the Sabbath, and enjoy God more because we're living always in His presence. Okay, I hope that's useful. That may have raised more questions, and if so, please feel free to send them in. I'll be glad to tackle those. One more question today in the time that we have remaining. The question is this. Could you please explain the phrase, let us have grace, in Hebrews 12, 28? The King James and New King James versions translate it significantly different than other English versions. How does one have grace according to the Greek words used? Alright, well, in Hebrews chapter 12 and verse 28, The New King James says, Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. But if you're reading this passage in some other modern English versions, the NIV, the New American Standard, the ESV, you will notice some differences. So Hebrews chapter 12 and verse 28 in the ESV says, Therefore, let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." So, let us be grateful versus let us have grace. Well, why do the King James and New King James use this kind of obscure phrase, let us have grace, in Hebrews 12 and verse 28? They use that phrase because that's exactly what the Greek text says. So let me share with you that text here briefly. Let us have, it's a subjunctive form, subjunctive first person plural form of the verb for to have. So let us have, or may we have, or we shall have, Harden is the accusative form of the word for grace. Let us have grace. And so the King James and the New King James are actually being very literal in their translation here. And this is as an aside, we have a question in the queue that's coming up in probably the next few weeks to talk about Bible translations. One of the things that I'm going to point out is that very often, The King James and the New King James is far more literal in its rendering than other modern English versions are. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are better, because that in itself is a question to be wrestled with. Is the most literal rendering of this passage the best at conveying meaning? So we can talk about that in that episode. But in this case, they're being very literal in the way that they render the text. The word for grace here, haris, can also mean thanks or giving thanks. And that's why the ESV translates it in the way that it does. It's not saying that it's a mistranslation. In fact, I would say that perhaps the ESV is translating the meaning and the New King James is translating the underlying words. And there is a difference. Again, if I say to someone in Russian, it's raining cats and dogs, and I just translate that word for word, very literally, they're not gonna have any idea of what that means. But if I translate the phrase, it's raining cats and dogs, into Russian by saying, it's raining really hard, I've translated the meaning of that expression. And this is the challenge of translation in any language, and certainly in terms of the biblical text. Let me give you some examples of where this term means thanks or to give thanks in the New Testament in Luke chapter 6 and verse 33. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. That word credit in the New King James is translating this word. that is rendered grace most of the time in the New Testament. It's the same use in the next verse, by the way, Luke 6, 34. 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and verse 57, but thanks be to God, there's our word, but grace be to God. Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy chapter 1 and verse 3, I thank God, haren echototheo, I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day." I grace God? Well, no, it's the idea of giving thanks. I thank God. So this word is used that way in the New Testament. Now, Calvin, in his commentary, I looked up what Calvin said about this just out of curiosity, and I was glad that I did, although I find his view rather puzzling, but I'm going to share it with you because it is certainly interesting. Calvin in his commentary on this text says this, quote, at the same time, I prefer a different reading, which is given by the ancient Latin version, receiving a kingdom, we have grace. When read affirmatively, the passage runs best, we, in embracing the gospel, have the gift of the Spirit of Christ that we may reverently and devoutly worship God. If it be read as an exhortation, let us have, it is a strained and obscure mode of speaking. The Apostle means, in short, as I think, that provided we by faith enter into Christ's kingdom, we shall enjoy constant grace, which will effectually retain us in the service of God. For as the kingdom of Christ is above the world, so is the gift of regeneration." Now, what Calvin's doing here is he is arguing on the basis of the Latin that echumen should be spelled with an omicron in the middle rather than an omega. And I'm including that simply for those of you who have some familiarity with New Testament Greek. For the rest of you, I apologize. I'm not trying to be technical here. But he's arguing that that verb form, which would be pronounced the same way, My apologies to all who think that Erasmian is the right way to read ancient Greek. It's not. It'd be pronounced the same way. but it would be spelled with one letter difference. And Calvin says, that's the way it was rendered into the Latin. And he says, I think that's the way the Greek actually ought to read. So he's actually disagreeing with the Greek here, but arguing that the original Greek would have read a different way than the text he has. So he's arguing there's a textual variant when in fact, there's not a textual variant. And he says, then it would just be simply saying, we have grace. Therefore, since we receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken, we have grace." Now, I love that interpretation of the passage. I can't disagree that what Calvin is saying there would be true. It'd be a true statement. But I would disagree with his handling of the underlying Greek text. I wouldn't correct the Greek on the basis of the Latin in this case. So I would say maybe he's not using the text properly there, but he's making a true point. But I throw that out as another possibility for those of you that are interested in textual criticism. So let me suggest three possibilities, and then we'll close our time today. First of all, perhaps the text should be read, let us give thanks, as the ESV and many other modern versions render it. In that case, we would be thinking about giving thanks to God for this unshakable kingdom. being grateful for the blessing of belonging to Zion. Or we could read it the way that the King James and New King James do, and we could say, let us have grace. In other words, let us have grace in our hearts. Let us allow the grace of salvation to fill us with a sense of awe. This would be comparable to what we talked about several weeks ago, maybe a little longer, about growing in grace in 2 Peter chapter 3 and verse 18. How do you grow in grace? Well, in one sense, I mean, the grace that we have is more than sufficient to save our souls. It's not as though we need more grace to be saved, but we're growing in our appreciation of that grace. We're growing in our awareness of that grace. We're growing in our ability to rest in that grace. We're growing in the outworking of that grace in our lives. Something similar could be said here. Let us have grace. Let this grace fill your heart. Let it control your mind. Let it shape your speech, your actions. Let it be the defining feature of your life. That's how I would interpret this passage. And that's one of the reasons I would prefer the King James and New King James rendering, because even though the ESV may have the meaning correctly, I think that simply rendering it in a more literal way in this case is preferable, because I think actually the meaning that the ESV is taking from it, while not in itself wrong, is probably not the meaning here, but that would be my own view, and I'm not trying to impose that upon you. The third possibility would be to read that verb not as a subjunctive, but as a present tense verb, and say we have grace. This is Calvin's alternative view. We do have grace, and and therefore it's just an affirmation, it's an indicative rather than kind of an implied imperative through a subjunctive form.