Bible – Page 2

On Ministry, Part 3: The Offices

July 2, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Accessing the Enablement

Paul now turns to a discussion of ministry as it is evidenced in church offices. Because we’re pursuing the way “ministry” works for all believers, this is not our primary point, but before delving into that more deeply, we can benefit by seeing how it works for those in ministry offices in the church.

We’ve noted earlier that in Acts 6 both the apostles and the presumed first deacons were described as “ministering,” or serving. It’s certainly no stretch, then, to expect that pastors, who initially served under apostolic authority, should be ministers, or servants, as well.

The New Testament uses three different terms for the pastoral office, reflecting their key spheres of service. They are called “pastors,” or shepherds, because they feed and protect the sheep, the members of the body, primarily through their preaching from the Scripture. They’re also called “elders” because they offer wisdom to their flock through their counsel. And finally they’re called “overseers” (KJV sometimes “bishops”) because they administer the church’s affairs and see that everything gets done, primarily through the Spirit’s gifting of the members of the body.

Here Paul uses the third term, “overseer,” to list the requirements for one serving in the office (1Ti 3.1-7). We note immediately the emphasis we’ve already seen on selflessness; the overseer is focused not on his own benefit, but on others. He must control his own behavior and be able to host and teach others (1Ti 3.2); he must not be focused on his own profit (1Ti 3.3); he must care appropriately for his family (1Ti 3.4-5); he must exhibit the wisdom of experience (1Ti 3.5); he must have a good reputation (1Ti 3.7). All of this focuses not on his own worth, but on his ability to interact effectively with others–those he is serving.

Next Paul turns to the other church office, the one labeled by our word, diakonos (servant). Not surprisingly, the deacons are held to the same standards as the pastors, all of which focus on his ability to serve others (1Ti 3.7-13). The key difference in these two lists of qualifications is that the pastor must be “apt to teach” (1Ti 3.2); the deacon’s responsibilities do not necessarily call for that.

A quick consideration of an oddity here. One verse lists requirements for deacons’ “wives” (1Ti 3.11). I say it’s odd because there are no such requirements listed for elders’ wives: wouldn’t their character be important too?

I note that Greek has no distinct word for “wife” or “husband”; they just say “woman” or “man,” and the reader is expected to understand from context which of the two possible translations to use. So is Paul talking here about the deacons’ “wives” or about the “women [deacons]”? Given the fact the he doesn’t speak of elders’ “wives,” I think the latter is more likely. I’m a complementarian, but I see no reason why Paul would restrict deacons to men as he does elders.

As I noted earlier in the series, a great many Baptist churches in the US have a deacon board that is actually an elder board; they have governing authority over the church. If the Scripture teaches that women are not to hold the pastoral office, then no, women shouldn’t be “deacons” in such churches, in my opinion. But I think a better approach is to call offices by their appropriate names and open them to as broad a range as is biblically appropriate.

Paul closes this chapter by reasserting the importance of proper behavior in the church because of the importance of the church itself. The church is “the house of God,” “the church of the living God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Ti 3.15). It is the body of God himself, incarnate and now forever glorified (1Ti 3.16).

This is serious, serious business. And ministry in and to this body is so centrally important that both of church’s offices are focused on it, and it is the primary task of every single one of its members.

So let’s dig as deeply as we can into what ministry looks like.

Photo by Mélyna Côté on Unsplash

On Ministry, Part 2: Accessing the Enablement

June 29, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction

Since Timothy is Paul’s protege, having accompanied him in ministry (e.g. Ac 20.4) and having been sent by him to take care of matters in various churches (e.g. 1Ti 1.3), Paul begins his first epistle with some ministry overview. His first point—a fundamental one—is that the ministry is not about the minister, but about those being served

The minister is not looking to promote himself and gain followers; he doesn’t depart from the old doctrinal standard (“teach no other doctrine,” 1Ti 1.3) or come up with creative new takes (1Ti 1.4), stirring up believers to discontent with what they’ve learned so far. His goal is to edify, or build up, the believers he interacts with.

My primary goal in this series, as I noted last time, is to encourage and equip believers who have never thought of themselves as “ministers” to reorient their thinking, to embrace their opportunity to serve others in the body. Paul notes that all believers are to “edify” one another by what proceeds out of their mouth (Ep 4.29).

Get on board.

Make your communication about serving and strengthening other people, not promoting yourself. A braggart, or a manipulator, has not evidenced the first thing about living as a follower of Christ.

Paul provides here two separate lists of the characteristics of such people (1Ti 1.9-10, 13); he makes the contrast stark.

So is this a matter of simply choosing to do better, turning over a new leaf?

Not at all.

God is the one who has chosen Paul and “[put him] into the ministry” (1Ti 1.12), and he is the one who has chosen every believer in the same way (Ep 1.4). Paul, and we, have received the abundant grace of God to empower us to accomplish this astonishing ministry (1Ti 1.14). We do it with his help and empowerment, and despite the fact that as sinners we are utterly undeserving (1Ti 1.15-16).

What a magnificent thing it is to serve such a merciful and powerful and gracious God! (1Ti 1.17). Beginning with praise will set us on the path to effective service.

In chapter 2 Paul extends his teaching. Once God has called us into his service, he gives us access to himself and all that he provides. He does this, Paul says, through a specific avenue: he has appointed a mediator, his Son, by whom we have free access to him (1Ti 2.5). And this makes sense; since Christ is God the Son, he of course has full access to the Father; and since he is the Son of Man, everlastingly incarnate, he can “be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” having been “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (He 4.15).

This is not to say, of course, that the omniscient Father is somehow limited in his understanding of us due to lack of shared experience, but creatures like us are reassured when someone has walked in our shoes.

So we all have a calling to serve, and we all have access to the one who has called us. What’s the next logical step?

Paul devotes much of this second chapter to the logical follow-up: prayer. Prayer, what the author of Hebrews calls “the throne of grace” (He 4.16), is the avenue by which we access that heavenly power through the mediation of Christ. And this prayer is comprehensive; we pray for “all men” (1Ti 2.1). I should note that the word “men” in this verse is not gender-specific; it’s anthropos, “human being,” rather than andros, “male.”

The structure of this passage is tight. He gives the responsibility of intercessory prayer to the men (the word in 1Ti 2.8 is gender-specific). This is not to say, of course, that female access to the power of prayer is somehow limited. The Scripture is replete with examples of women praying powerfully; for particularly noteworthy examples, see the prayers of Hannah (1S 2), Mary (Lk 1.46-56), and Anna (Lk 2.36-40). But here men are specifically instructed to pray; and it reflects badly on our “Christian” culture that so few do.

Keep in mind the focus of “ministry.” The term is not so much an honorific as a call to servanthood. It calls for humility. When men pray, they are recognizing their own need and inability and begging for help from one far greater than they. Men are to humble themselves (1Ti 2.8).

And so are women (1Ti 2.9-15).

There’s much controversy about this passage these days. I’m convinced that the statements are clear and without need of explanation or apology. I’m not going to spend time on any of that here because it is outside my purpose.

Believers are to serve. With humility. All of us—men and women.

Let’s start there.

Photo by Mélyna Côté on Unsplash

On Ministry, Part 1: Introduction

June 25, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Sometimes people do funny things with words. My current example is the word “minister.”

In many regions of English-speaking Christendom, the label is elevated; it’s used of a pastor, someone who has professional-level training and official ordination to “the ministry.” It’s an honorific.

But that’s not what it means at all.

It means “servant.”

This is the guy who opens the car door, shines the shoes, prepares and serves the meal. The one who “ministers” to a group of people by serving them.

The New Testament Greek word is diakonos, which is the root of the English word “deacon.” That is of course an office in the church, but it’s not intended to be an elevated one. The deacons are different from the elders (Php 1.1).

What’s the difference?

Well, traditionally, churches have seen the deacons as introduced in Acts 6, when the Jerusalem apostles called for the appointment of seven men to see to the administration of food delivery to the older widows in the church. The passage sounds as if they were table waiters, but there were likely administrative tasks involved in the effort as well. Maybe acquiring the food, maybe cooking it, apportioning it, and then delivering it.

Now, the Acts 6 passage doesn’t actually say that the seven men were the first deacons; forms of the word do appear in the description of their work (Ac 6.1, KJV “ministration”; Ac 6.2 “serve tables”), but the apostles used the same word to describe their own work of “prayer and … the ministry [diakonia] of the Word” (Ac 6.4). Even so, pretty much everybody sees this passage as the birth of the diaconate.

Among American Baptist churches, the deacon board is often actually an elder board; it’s the governing board of the church. But it appears as though that’s not their proper role; as I’ve noted, deacons are not elders.

Now, it appears that appointment as a deacon should indeed involve some honor and respect; the job specification laid out by the apostles included “honest report” and “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Ac 6.3). But the Scripture uses this term much more broadly than just of the church office; Peter ties it to the exercise of spiritual gifts by everyone in the church (1P 4.10-11; cf. 1Co 12.5).

It appears, then, that a healthy Christian is going to be “serving” others in the church; he’s going to be “ministering” to them. That’s not merely the job of the “minister.”

What should that look like?

Late in his life, Paul wrote a couple of letters to his protege Timothy, who was serving in Ephesus as an apostolic delegate. It appears that Timothy carried more authority than a parish pastor; he was sent to act on Paul’s behalf in churches in the region. But Paul’s words to him focus on what’s expected of a “minister”; and I suspect that his teaching here would often be educational for all the “ministers” in the church, at every level.

I’d like to give some thought to that for a few posts.

Photo by Mélyna Côté on Unsplash

On Pleasant Places, Part 5: Confidence

June 15, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Call | Part 2: The Commitment | Part 3: Delight in God’s Care | Part 4: Delight in God’s Instruction

The fifth stanza of Psalm 16 (vv 9-11) speaks of the confidence that David has in God and the consequent joyous expectation he has regarding the future.

9 Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwell securely.

We think of the heart as metaphorically the seat of emotions. The Bible has a much larger picture of it. The Bible doesn’t contain a “psychological map” of the human; it speaks rather of a body and a non-body, which survives the death of the body. It uses many different words for that immaterial part: soul, spirit, heart, mind, conscience, will. It’s fruitless to try to tease out detailed distinctives among those terms. Here the “heart” is distinguished from the “flesh,” or body, and that’s David’s point.

“My glory,” I think, is a reference to the image of God that imbues all of us. We have a special relationship with God, and for believers that relationship is just icing on the cake; we have a joy that outlives death, and even our corpse will be secure, awaiting the day of resurrection.

10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

This is a controversial passage, but I think its meaning is unambiguous.

To begin with, we know that David is prophesying here; his words apply not so much to himself as to his Greater Son, the Christ. At Pentecost, Peter cites this passage (Ac 2.25-31), as does Paul in his sermon at Pisidian Antioch on his first missionary journey (Ac 13.35), with a later allusion in 1Co 15.4). In every case these authoritative interpreters (Jn 16.13) see these words as messianic. It is the crucified and buried Jesus who is not abandoned to sheol. At Pentecost Peter even says specifically that this prophecy cannot apply to David, because his body has decayed in the grave (Ac 2.29).

Now, these words have occasioned some dramatic interpretations, especially based on the wording of the KJV, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” There a vigorous discussion about whether Jesus’ soul went to hell while his body was in the tomb, and for what purpose. I think all that discussion is a complete misunderstanding of this text. I’ve written at more length about that earlier.

Here I’ll just say that the operative word, sheol, has a broad range of meaning. It can and often does refer to the place of departed spirits, but I don’t think the context allows that meaning here. The next line speaks of “undergo[ing] decay,” and that does not happen in hell; there “the worm dieth not” (Mk 9.48). But our word sheol can also mean a pit (Ps 30.3), or more specifically, a grave (Ps 88.4).

Similarly, the word soul also has a broad range of meaning. It is used once elsewhere of a corpse (Hag 2.13)—which we would call a body without a soul. Such is the breadth of the Hebrew word.

Now, these two nuances juxtapose to give use a clear passage. “You will not abandon my corpse to the grave; my body will not see decay.” This is a clear statement that the body of Jesus would not be in the tomb long enough for putrefaction to set in.

You may recall that just before the resurrection of Lazarus, his sister Martha indelicately observed that after four days his body would smell bad (Jn 11.39). Jesus’ body, on the other hand, was revivified early Sunday morning, just about 36 hours after his death at 3pm Friday.

(That’s not a typo. While 36 hours is just 1.5 days, not 3, by our reckoning, in the Jewish mind these 36 hours included Friday afternoon, Saturday, and part of Sunday morning, which they would reckon as “three days and three nights,” as odd as that feels to us.)

11 You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

Warren Wiersbe took this verse as his life verse. Was that a mistake? Since this is a messianic prophecy, was it inappropriate to take God’s promise to Christ as applying to him too?

I don’t think so. Many of the Son’s joys belong as well to those who are in him.

In his Tyndale Series commentary, Derek Kidner writes, “The refugee of verse 1 finds himself an heir, and his inheritance beyond all imagining and all exploring.”

While David doesn’t know what will happen in the short term, his confidence in the long term is airtight. He knows God; he knows that he is God’s child; and he knows how God works. He is filled with joyous anticipation.

Me too.

Photo by Hari Perisetla on Unsplash

On Pleasant Places, Part 4: Delight in God’s Instruction

June 11, 2026 by Dan Olinger 2 Comments

Part 1: The Call | Part 2: The Commitment | Part 3: Delight in God’s Care

The fourth stanza of Psalm 16 (vv 7-8) speaks of the instruction that David receives from God, both directly (v 7) and through the protection he demonstrates (v 8).

Directly

7 I will bless the Lord who has counseled me; Indeed, my mind instructs me in the night.

David doesn’t elaborate on what form this counsel takes. He speaks elsewhere of his admiration of and attention to God’s Word, which we know in his day would have consisted only of the Torah, Joshua, and perhaps Judges and Ruth. When he says that his “mind instructs me in the night,” it could well have been through his meditation on the Scripture that he had, as he describes in almost every verse of Psalm 119. Of course, that would be possible only with Scripture he had memorized.

But we also know that David was a prophet, receiving revelation directly from God, and that he realized that himself; he claims as much at the end of his life:

The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue (2Sa 23.2).

Did he understand that at the time he wrote Psalm 16? I think it’s reasonable to assume so. As he lies awake at night, perhaps he receives, believes, and understands God’s direct revelation. Perhaps that consists of the very Psalms he later wrote down as Scripture, or perhaps there were other direct revelations that are not recorded for us; we know that others in biblical times experienced that. Paul, for example, wrote letters, perhaps a good many, that are not in the Bible (1Co 5.9; cf 2Co 11.28), and since he was an apostle, all his teachings would have been authoritative (Jn 16.13). John notes that many of Jesus’ words and works, which are directly revelatory (Jn 1.14, 18), were not written down (Jn 20.30-31).

Now, we can’t view any of our original thoughts as God’s direct revelation; our situation differs significantly from David’s. But we can read, believe, and meditate on the same Scriptures that David had—and many more—and we can apply them to our decisions. The Lord can “counsel” us; and if we memorize the Scripture, hide it in our hearts (Ps 119.11), then we can be “instructed” by God “in the night.”

When we’re waiting to fall asleep at night, where do our thoughts turn? The very best place is the Scripture that we’ve memorized.

Through Protection

8 I have set the Lord continually before me; Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

What does it mean that David has “set the Lord before” him? God is omnipresent, and he looks after his people. David writes about that himself in Psalm 23. So why does he “set the Lord before” him?

I think he’s continuing his thought from the previous verse; he’s meditating, placing his thoughts intentionally on the Lord’s presence. Yes, God is always there, and he always cares; but when we’re in a relationship, we choose to place our thoughts on it. That’s an evidence of the depth of the relationship, of the love we have for our friend.

David says that the Lord is “at [his] right hand.” What does that position imply?

Well, 85 or 90% of people are right-handed. That means that most people carrying a weapon are going to carry it for effective use with the right hand. In those days a bodyguard would carry a shield to cover his protectee; that would ordinarily go on his left arm, to leave his right hand free for using the weapon. That means the protectee would be on his left, where he could more easily cover him with the shield. And that means the bodyguard is ordinarily standing on the right side of the person he’s protecting (IVPBBC).

Of course God needs no weapons, and his physical position doesn’t matter at all. David is using the typical physical situation to say that God is his protector and that he’s perfectly effective.

Sometimes fear is a reasonable response. But it’s never a necessary one.

Next time: David’s conclusion

Photo by Hari Perisetla on Unsplash

On Pleasant Places, Part 3: Delight in God’s Care

June 8, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Call | Part 2: The Commitment

In the third stanza of our psalm (Ps 16.5-6), David is contrasting the difficult life of those who follow false gods, which he’s just described, with the life that he has chosen along with the saints.

5 The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup; You support my lot.

The word inheritance here is the same Hebrew word used of the allotment of land portions to the Israelite tribes in the conquered Canaan. The word carries implications of both loot–captured treasure–and inheritance from one’s father; and the tribal allotments in Canaan carry both senses, since they were both captured and distributed. Since David was of course born into the tribe of Judah, he had a family claim to a portion of Judah’s allotted inheritance. But here he is looking well beyond that little town of Bethlehem; the Lord, he says, is the portion that matters to him.

My wife and I own our house. Until recently, I hadn’t lived in a paid-for house since I was 10 years old, and it’s nice to know that this bit of land belongs to us. Land is solid and steady–unless you live on a fault line–and it’s a good feeling to say, “This is ours.”

But that’s not how David is thinking. He’s fully invested not in land, but in a person. God not only bestows David’s portion, but he “support[s his] lot”: he grasps it and keeps it safe. “Lot” here is not a piece of real estate; it’s the outcome of a throw of the dice, the portion that has fallen to him from the Lord.

The verse also mentions David’s “cup.” That speaks of his needs that are being supplied. We humans need water even more than we need food–and in the arid Middle East, even moreso. The Lord supplies all that he needs. David will return to this metaphor in his most famous psalm: “My cup runneth over” (Ps 23.5). God not only supplies as much as we need, but he pours out his supply abundantly, lavishly, extravagantly.

Investing in God not only sets you up well, but it guarantees eternal profit.

In his commentary on this verse, John Calvin writes,

This doctrine … ought to draw us away not only from all the perverse inventions of superstition, but also from all the allurements of the flesh and of the world. Whenever, therefore, those things present themselves to us which would lead us away from resting in God alone, let us make use of this sentiment as an antidote against them, that we have sufficient cause for being contented, since he who has in himself an absolute fullness of all good has given himself to be enjoyed by us. In this way we will experience our condition to be always pleasant and comfortable; for he who has God as his portion is destitute of nothing which is requisite to constitute a happy life.

Do you find yourself completely satisfied in God? What else do you think will make you truly happy?

In the next verse he restates this idea differently:

6 The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places; Indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me.

The word lines here, as you might suspect, is a reference to boundary lines, or perhaps the surveying ropes that were used to lay out those lines. In context, he’s clearly referring not to his tribal allotment, except as an idea on which his much superior inheritance is based. The pleasantness and beauty of his life in God far surpasses anything that the Israelites saw in their tribal inheritance–and Canaan was a land “flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex 3.8), productive, bountiful, more than sufficient.

David’s insight was anticipated way back when the land was apportioned by Moses. Every tribe received a contiguous land assignment, except for Levi. His descendants were apportioned 48 cities throughout Canaan and the East Bank, where they could teach the Law to all the tribes of Israel. As Moses put it later,

Levi does not have a portion or inheritance with his brothers; the LORD is his inheritance, just as the LORD your God spoke to him (Dt 10.9).

And this connection in turn anticipates our status in eternity; we are all priests before God (Re 1.6; 5.10; 20.6).

In the next stanza, David will detail more specifically the benefits the Lord has graciously provided him.

Photo by Hari Perisetla on Unsplash

On Pleasant Places, Part 2: The Commitment

June 4, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: The Call

In the second stanza of Psalm 16, David expresses his commitment to God’s cause. He speaks of loyalty to God’s people, and then of his attitude toward those who worship other gods:

As for the saints who are in the earth, they are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight. The sorrows of those who have bartered for another god will be multiplied; I shall not pour out their drink offerings of blood, Nor will I take their names upon my lips.

David uses the common Hebrew word for “saints,” which literally means “holy ones.” We often think of “holiness” as simply piety or goodness—the holy person doesn’t do bad stuff—but that’s not usually what it means; rather, it speaks of being set apart, or special. “Saints,” then, are simply people who belong to God, who are his treasured possession—what both Paul and Peter call his “peculiar people” (Ti 2.14; 1P 2.9 KJV). (They got this language directly from the Mosaic Law [Ex 19.5; Dt 14.2; 26.18 KJV].)

So David says here that he views the people who belong to YHWH, the true God, as “majestic ones,” like kings or nobles or chieftains; the word is also used of the ocean (Ex 15.10), a ship (Is 33.21), and a tree (Ezk 17.23).

God’s people, he says, are the people I respect.

That’s a good reminder for us.

We tend to be tougher on people we’re more familiar with, because we know their foibles and weaknesses; familiarity does indeed breed contempt.

And I’m not denying their foiblitude. (Don’t look it up; it’s not in the dictionary.) Everybody’s that way. None of our fellow believers, including you and me, deserved to become children of God. But we are, and the fact that we’re in the same family should incline us to give one another a break, a measure of grace. Family matters. Not because we’re all really cool, but because we are chosen and set apart and loved by the God who made all things and whose Son has purchased us with his own blood.

That’s a good place to start.

David contrasts that with his view of those who have chosen false gods.

[Sidebar: there’s a translation issue here; does the Bebrew say they have “hastened after” (mahar I) or “bartered for” (mahar II) other gods? In this case, as in many others, the question has no impact on the essential meaning of the verse.]

He begins by saying that they have a difficult life ahead of them: their “sorrows … will be multipled.” That is what happens to people who live outside the umbrella of God’s protection. It’s the language God used to Eve as the consequence of the first sin (Ge 3.16).

Now, we should note that God is in fact kind even to those who reject him; he gives food (Ps 145.15) and sunshine and rain (Mt.5.45) even to those who are ungrateful and evil (Lk 6.35). It’s often said that he gives breath even to the people who use it to curse him. We call this generosity “common grace.”

It’s also true that the Christian life is not simply a matter of tiptoeing through the tulips. The consequences of living in a world broken by sin reach us as well, and we know the sorrows of sickness and death, of conflict and conflagration.

But God’s people have promises of his protection, wisdom, direction, and care that do not apply to those who reject him. In that sense, the choices of the godless result in a lifetime of sorrows.

Perhaps the clearest illustration of this principle is the child sacrifice practiced by the Canaanite religions. How can tossing a living infant into a raging furnace and hearing his dying cries not bring unimaginable sorrow—even if you think it will incline the god to send rain? Wouldn’t it also make you hate that god? David won’t even speak the name of such a god.

The contrast here beteween the false gods and the true God is stark. David’s decision is not difficult.

Photo by Hari Perisetla on Unsplash

On Pleasant Places, Part 1: The Call

June 1, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

I’ve found great benefit in memorizing a few of the Psalms. They bring comfort and calm, but also often challenge and courage. Psalm 2 is not Psalm 23.

I preached recently on Psalm 16. I’d like to share some of those thoughts here.

The folks at Logos have put together a nice interactive module on the Psalms, which, among other things, organizes them into seven genres: praise, thanksgiving, hymn, lament, wisdom, royal, and trust. Psalm 16 they categorize as a psalm of trust. This is the least populated genre, but it does also include, among others, Psalms 11, 23, and 91, which is a pretty good neighborhood.

Its superscription calls it a “Mikhtam” of, or to, David. A few people think they know what a Mikhtam is. I’d suggest that they don’t; it’s an unknown term, like “Selah.” There are five other Mikhtams (technically, mikhtamim) in the Psalms, and oddly enough, they’re consecutive, in a separate section of the book: Psalms 56-60.

I see five stanzas in the psalm, each two verses, except for the last, which is three. Maybe a post apiece.

David begins by calling out to the Lord:

Preserve me, O God, for I take refuge in You. I said to the LORD, “You are my Lord; I have no good besides You” (Ps 16.1-2 NASB).

The first verse sounds like this is going to be a lament psalm (compare Ps 15.1 and Ps 17.1), but this is the last we hear about anything potentially threatening. There’s not even any more prayer of any kind in the rest of the psalm.

He asks the Lord to “preserve” him—that is, to keep watch over, guard him. This is what God told Adam to do to the Garden (Ge 2.15); it’s what Cain asked if he was supposed to do for his now-slain brother (Ge 4.9); it’s what God promised to do for Jacob at Bethel (Ge 28.15). Commentator Charles Pfeiffer writes, “This prayer is not for deliverance from an enemy but for the continuance of the happiness he has already found.”

And so begins the rejoicing that will constitute the rest of the psalm.

Note that David uses two names for God in verse 2: “I said to YHWH [God’s personal name], You are my Master.” David begins by saying that God is both his covenant-keeping, loving ally and his lord/master. And he builds that on verse 1, which states that he is his refuge.

Do we see God in that way?

One more thought. The Hebrew of verse 2a is difficult; different English translations vary somewhat. I think the context of the psalm favors how the Good News Bible puts it: “All the good things I have come from you.” David will spend the rest of the psalm enumerating those that come to his mind.

A member of my extended family, who is with Lord now, had a particular fondness for a restaurant up across the state line in North Carolina. Our two families would enjoy driving up the mountain to eat the brunch buffet there. It was out of the way, surrounded by scenery (not far from Connemara, the Carl Sandburg home). I recall clearly one such meal, all of us seated around the table, stuffed to the gills, and him with his cup of tea, looking out the surrounding picture windows at the greenery.

“This is my happy place,” he said.

And we sat, just soaking it all in.

Well, I’m confident he has an even happier happy place now. But his words that day reflect, I think, the joy that David found in his God, the specifics of which he’s about to lay before us.

RIP, Steve.

Next time.

Photo by Hari Perisetla on Unsplash

Why Creation Matters, Part 24: Summary

May 21, 2026 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

This has been a long series. As I noted at its beginning, that’s pretty much the whole point: God bases a broad range of deductions and applications on the fact that he is the Creator.

It’s traditional in biblical theologies to note the development of various emphases as the Scripture proceeds chronologically. I do think we see some of that in the treatment of Creation Theology.

The Torah emphasizes the basic idea of the image of God. That sets the foundation for the relationship between God and man, the overarching theme and purpose of the Scripture.
The Prophets emphasize that the Creation demonstrates the power of God: power to deliver in the Former Prophets, and power to rule and to bring judgment or blessing in the Latter. I find it interesting that The Twelve highlight all three of those themes: Amos sees Creation as demonstrating God’s power to rule; Jonah, to judge; and Zechariah, to bless.
The Writings continue this theme of power for judgment and blessing, but their special emphasis is on the Creator’s praiseworthiness: Creation demonstrates his goodness, his greatness, his glory, his faithfulness, and his wisdom.
The emphasis of the Old Testament, then, appears to be on deriving from Creation the characteristics, the attributes of God, and responding with praise. The New Testament, it seems to me, takes a different tack.
The Gospels present Creation as a pattern for marriage, which is the basic unit of social order. John also presents the Son as the Creator, reflecting the NT introduction of the Trinity.
As it narrates the introduction of Christianity across the Roman Empire, Acts contrasts the Creator with false gods, who are incapable of creating anything.
Paul continues the focus on human behavior on the basis of Creation. He notes the foolishness of suppressing the facts of Creation; the role of God as Sovereign; the seriousness of proper worship; and the transitoriness of the current world as opposed to the world to come.
Hebrews continues the theme of transitoriness from Paul and the role of the Son in Creation from John and Paul. It also emphasizes the importance of believing that the worlds were created by the Word of God.
Peter expands on Paul’s criticism of those who suppress the truth of Creation.
And Revelation repeats the fact that Jesus is the Creator, and that this Creator is authoritative and thus to be worshiped. It then climaxes the Scripture by revealing a New Creation, freed from all the defects introduced to the Old by human sin.
So while the OT emphasizes the attributes of God as displayed in Creation, the NT seems to focus more on how we should respond to such a Creator.

So what do we have?

Recognizing the fact of the Creation—and the Creator—gives us worth as images of God and objects of his care.
Recognizing the power of the Creator gives us peace about the course of history and confidence in God’s plan and his ability to judge and bless with justice.
Recognizing the glory of the Creator lifts our eyes above the evils and cares of this world to focus on something infinitely greater than ourselves.
Recognizing the significance of Creation gives us wisdom in living out our roles as images and servants of God.
And anticipating the New Creation gives us a certain expectation—a hope, in the biblical sense—that there will be restoration and justice, and for all eternity.

Now it’s time for the other guys’ turn.

What does believing in evolution do for you?

I’ll wait.

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash

Why Creation Matters, Part 23: Proverbs

May 18, 2026 by Dan Olinger 2 Comments

The theme of the Book of Proverbs is wisdom. We should expect, then, that if and when the author—mostly Solomon—speaks of creation, he would do so to reinforce his theme of wisdom. And indeed he does.

¹⁹The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; By understanding hath he established the heavens. ²⁰By his knowledge the depths are broken up, And the clouds drop down the dew (Prov 3).

Early in the collection he makes his primary point: the One who created the universe did so by his wisdom, which includes, as we’ve noted earlier, intelligence, or the ability to think; knowledge, or facts to process intelligently; and practical application of that knowledge to useful ends.

How does he know that? Well, it’s obvious: the cosmos clearly demonstrates the wisdom of whoever made it. The intradependence, and interdependence, of biomes, including symbiotic relationships, makes his wisdom obvious.

And by the way—in a symbiotic relationship, which organism evolved first? The flagellate, or the termite? The bee, or the flower? The whale, or the barnacle? Think on these things.

I suspect that’s why, after nearly a century of unanimous indoctrination about random evolution in public schools, the majority still don’t believe it. They believe that their eyes are in fact not lyin’.

A few chapters later Solomon expands on this theme. In chapter 8 he develops at some length a personification of wisdom. In the middle of that development he speaks of wisdom as present even before God created the cosmos (Pro 8.22-26) and as he did so (Pro 8.27-29), and then rejoicing over the completed project (Pro 8.30-31).

Throughout the passage he cites evidences of wisdom in both the planning and the execution:

Seas and springs (Pro 8.24);

Mountains and hills (Pro 8.25);

Dirt and dust (Pro 8.26);

Sky and sea (Pro 8.27);

Clouds and currents (Pro 8.28); and

Stability of both sea and land (Pro 8.29).

The Creator has done all things wisely and well.

I suppose this evidence of wisdom is the greatest obstacle to denying Creation. Wisdom speaks of intelligent design, and evidences of that design all around us speak to us in ways that we suppress only with effort—with dogged insistence (Ro 1.20).

Sometimes you just have to acknowledge the obvious.

Next time, a wrap-up.

Part 24: Summary

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash