Skip to main content


Every so often we come across a text that is understood one way but when we examine it in its original context find it means something different. When preachers speak on the text, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8) most draw a parallel to one of two things. One is evangelism. The preacher uses the verse to point out to non-Christians that their thinking and lives are wrong. So they need to change and go God’s way.

Another way this text is interpreted is to say that in the midst of suffering you cannot understand God, so you must resign yourself to suffer; resign yourself to the fact that God knows what he’s doing. This last way is how the text is most often used: to express that when life has turned sour it makes no sense to question God, for his thoughts and ways are so far above yours that even he wanted to tell you why you’re suffering you wouldn’t get it.

But this last interpretation is the opposite of what the text was originally meant to convey. Israel HAD resigned herself to captivity in Babylon. They thought to themselves, “There’s no way out of this mess. There’s no way we’re ever going to return home. The best thing we can do is to build a future for ourselves in this hole.”

Against this melancholy, God says, “Those may be your thoughts, but I have something else in mind. I’m thinking of your liberation and returning to you your land. You may not think this way. You may not be able to find the way back. But my thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are not your ways. So do not resign yourself to hopelessness and despair. Do not live in spiritual paralysis, but understand that I am at work in your life to bring release.”

Are your though and ways God’s?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…