What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)

Colossians 1

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

About a year ago, I posted my thoughts on this very passage, explaining the meaning of the term “firstborn” and why it doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.

I don’t want to rehash all of my points from that post so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read the original post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” to get up to speed on the debate between the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus and the Arian view that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold.

My purpose in this post is to provide a response to some of the arguments levied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who argue against my interpretation of this passage.

In my initial post, I made the claim that the primary meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18 is “preeminence”. I reasoned that this makes the most sense since Paul uses “firstborn” in conjunction with two different terms, “creation” and “death”, neither of which have anything to do with a parent. Therefore, it seems most natural that Paul is using the term to demonstrate Jesus’ supremacy (pre-eminence) over creation and death.

In recent weeks, I’ve encountered a number of committed Jehovah’s Witnesses online who disagree with my interpretation and have offered up their own explanations for this passage.

The standard Jehovah’s Witness talking point as it relates to the meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1 is that the term means something like “first in line.”

The argument is that the term “firstborn” most often refers to the first offspring of a particular person. Therefore, the word should be interpreted in a similar manner when it’s used in a verse that is not referencing offspring.

If you agree with the Jehovah’s Witness logic, then the interpretation of Colossians 1 yields the following:

Jesus is the firstborn of creation, which means that he was the first one to be created by Jehovah.

Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, which means he’s the first one to overcome death.

To some, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who hold to an Arian view of Christ, the debate is over. In their mind, the logic is irrefutable.

But is it?

Sound Bible study methods dictate that we investigate their claims. Is their understanding of the word the standard interpretation?

Let’s see.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

I did a Bible search and found that the word “firstborn” shows up in 111 Bible verses, all but 9 of which are found in the Old Testament. In some verses, the word “firstborn” appears multiple times. Hence, the term is used more than 120 times throughout the Bible.

I’ve catalogued every verse where the term shows up, so you can see for yourself. You can access this list of verses in my blog post “Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”“.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in this respect – a majority of the references to the term “firstborn” do actually refer to the first one born to a particular person. However, it is rather obvious from the context of all of those passages that this is the meaning.

Take Genesis 10:15 for example, which is the very first occurrence of the term. The verse says,

Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn.

In a majority of the occurrences of the term “firstborn”, it’s used in this same manner where the term is by itself, but referencing a parent. Occasionally, the term is referenced to another living creature as in Exodus 11:5 which states that God was going to kill the firstborn of Pharaoh as well as the firstborn of all cattle.

It’s clear in these situations that the term does mean “first offspring” primarily because the verse gives the name of the parent and the son or daughter.

But how is the word understood when it is not used in conjunction with a living being (man or animal)? Is it understood in the same way?

Typically not.

One of the first occurrences where firstborn is used in a non-traditional way is Exodus 4:22, which says,

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. ²³“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

Notice that the term shows up twice. In the second instance it’s used in the same way we typically see the word being used, in reference to the first offspring of a person. In this case, it’s referring to the first offspring of Pharaoh.

But in the first instance of the term “firstborn”, it is not used in the typical fashion.

According to Jehovah’s Witness’ argumentation, the word should have the same meaning even when it’s used in a non-traditional way.

It turns out that the first instance of “firstborn” in this passage CANNOT mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the term. God specifically states that Israel, the nation, is his firstborn. If we understand “firstborn” to be “first in line”, in what sense is Israel the “first in line”?

Israel was not the first nation to be created. And God doesn’t “birth” nations anyway, so the word cannot mean “first offspring”.

It’s clear by the context that the first occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is to be understood as Israel having a favored status. God selected Israel for a distinct and unique purpose – to be a nation through which all the other nations would be blessed and come to know the one true God.

In this case, the meaning of “preeminent” is clearly the correct understanding.

Genesis 48 provides an insightful story that helps us understand the significance of the firstborn.

In this passage, Joseph brings his sons Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob in order to receive a blessing before Jacob passes.

Jacob is old and his vision is failing. As he reaches out to bless Joseph’s sons, he crosses his arms so that his right hand is on Ephraim instead of Manasseh who is the first offspring of Joseph and therefore the firstborn.

Genesis 48:14 says,

But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.

In Genesis 48:18, Joseph tries to correct his father, saying,

“Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”

Jacob tells Joseph that he is aware of the situation and he knows what he is doing. He tells Joseph that Ephraim, though he is the younger, will have a higher position over his brother. He will be the firstborn, the favored son.

Just a few verses later, in the next chapter, Jacob is giving his final words to each of his sons. Here is what he says to Reuben, his first son, in Genesis 49:3-4,

“Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. ⁴“Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it —he went up to my couch.

Jacob not only defines the term “firstborn” for us but expounds on its significance. The firstborn IS the might of the father AND the beginning of the father’s strength. The firstborn is PREEMINENT.

Jacob tells Reuben that he is the firstborn in terms of offspring. But he would NOT be firstborn in terms of preeminence.

These passages, which show up early in the biblical narrative, demonstrate clearly that the idea of “preeminence” was nearly synonymous with the term “firstborn”.

Though Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring, it turns out that he was not considered the “firstborn” in terms of stature and rank. In Jeremiah 31:9, God confirms that “Ephraim is my firstborn.”

In 1 Chronicles 2:13, we read that,

Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

In verse 14, we learn that David was the seventh and last son born to Jesse. Yet, in Psalm 89:27, God says about David,

“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.

David was not the first offspring of Jesse, but God made David His firstborn.

What does that mean?

It cannot mean that David was “first in line” because David was neither the first offspring of Jesse nor was he the first king of Israel.

What it means is that David was made by God to assume the highest rank among rulers. David was made firstborn – he was made to be preeminent.

The context dictates the meaning and sense of the word and so far, when the word is used in a way that doesn’t mean “first offspring”, it carries the meaning of “preeminence.”

There’s an interesting passage in Job that uses the term firstborn. It’s found in Job 18:13, which says:

“His skin is devoured by disease,
The firstborn of death devours his limbs.

This occurrence is informative because it uses the term “firstborn” with the prepositional phrase “of….” that doesn’t have a person or animal following. Whenever we see a person or animal (cattle, herd) follow, as in “firstborn of Jacob” or “firstborn of cattle”, the term always refers to the first offspring.

But in this case, the “firstborn of” phrase is not followed by a person or animal.

Does the standard Jehovah’s Witness meaning of “first in line” follow?

Not really.

Death is inanimate. It’s not a living organism that gives birth as humans and mammals do.

So what is this verse saying?

This verse is part of a larger discourse by Bildad in which he’s communicating his ideology that the wicked eventually get the punishment they deserve. He’s using this argumentation to try to prove that the reason Job has experienced so much trauma and suffering is because Job’s sin has finally caught up to him.

In describing the punishment the wicked will endure, Bildad claims that the skin of the wicked gets devoured by disease AND the “firstborn of death” devours his limbs. It’s obvious that Bildad is making reference to Job’s physical ailments as a proof of Job’s supposed secret sin.

But what is meant by “firstborn of death”?

Note that this term is very similar to how Paul uses “firstborn” in Colossians 1:18.

If “firstborn” means “first in line” in these kinds of cases, what exactly does that mean?

The context will not allow that interpretation because if you assume that meaning, you end up with a garbled mess of a sentence that is completely incoherent.

It’s clear in this context that death is afflicting its victim. There is no sense in which the term “firstborn of death” includes the meaning “first in line”. Death does not birth anything and does not produce a literal offspring.

But death CAN rule. Death CAN overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here. There is no meaningful or coherent sense in which “first in line” as a meaning applies to the term “firstborn” here.

There’s another uncommon use of the term “firstborn” in Isaiah that does not follow the typical examples that are littered throughout the Old Testament.

Isaiah 14:30 in the ESV says,

And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
And the needy lie down in safety;
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant it will slay.

Here is another example of the word “firstborn” being used in connection with something that is a non-person and a non-animal, negating the traditional meaning of “first offspring.”

What exactly, then is the “firstborn of the poor” and does the definition of “first in line” fit here given the context?

This verse is part of a prophecy that the Lord is giving to Philistia. God warns that Philistia will experience complete devastation and that only “the firstborn of the poor will graze.”

What exactly does that mean?

One thing it doesn’t mean is “first in line”. If we apply the meaning of “highest rank” or “supreme” then it means that those who are the MOST poor will graze (be fed). In other words, it’s going to be bad, and only the most poor, or the poorest of the poor will survive.

It appears that in pretty much every case where the term “firstborn” is used in a way that doesn’t include the parent with the first offspring, the term means “preeminent.”

As mentioned at the outset, there are only 9 verses in the New Testament that use the term “firstborn”.

There are two verses in Luke 2 that use the term, and in both cases, the term “firstborn” is used to refer to Jesus as Mary’s first offspring.

In Hebrews 11:28, the term “firstborn” is referencing the Egyptian plague when the angel of death passed over the Israelites and all of the firstborn of the Israelites were shielded from the plague.

That leaves 6 more verses that use the term “firstborn” including the two in Colossians. None of these other verses use the term in the normal sense where it obviously refers to the first offspring of a certain person.

I’ll examine each of the non-Colossians verses before coming back to Colossians and then summarizing what this tells us.

Romans 8:29 says,

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

What is this verse saying?

It’s saying that those who become children of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is, believers ultimately are going to be LIKE him. We won’t just be declared righteous, we will BE righteous because in the end, our sin nature will finally be eradicated.

This is the sense that we will fully be Christ’s brethren. Though we will be LIKE him, we will not be equal to him. Jesus will be the firstborn among all these brethren, which simply means, he will be preeminent. He will be supreme.

So this verse, as applied to Jesus, does not state that he is the first of Jehovah’s creation. It’s stating that he will have a preeminent position among all of the brethren.

This interpretation makes complete sense if we understand that Jesus is a son by nature but we are sons (and daughters) by adoption.

Hebrews 1:6 says,

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

The term “firstborn” in this verse clearly refers to Jesus, but does it mean that he was the first offspring?

That is a doubtful interpretation for reasons that have already been enumerated. Jesus was not born. Therefore, the more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.

This makes sense given the context of Hebrews 1. This passage, starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13, is demonstrating that Jesus is superior to, or better than the angels.

So when the firstborn, the preeminent one, comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.” It logically follows that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus because he is preeminent over them.

Now two things should be said about this. First of all, it’s clear from Scripture that only God is to be worshipped. So what does it say about Jesus that God instructs the angels to worship Him?

Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael. They believe that Michael is the highest of angels and that God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) gave Michael the task of coming into the world to redeem humanity. Michael took on a human nature and changed his name for some reason. When his mission was complete, Jesus returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity as Michael the archangel.

So according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerful angel came to earth, took on a human body and God the Father instructed all the other angels to WORSHIP him.

This doesn’t sound like an angel or even someone who is god-like, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will say. This sounds like someone who possesses the divine nature. In fact, this is exactly what Hebrews 1:3 -4 teaches, that Jesus is the EXACT representation of God’s nature AND he is BETTER than the angels. How can he be better than the angels if he himself IS an angel?

Hebrews 12:23 says,

to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

There is some debate about what the term “church of the firstborn” refers to but we know it does NOT refer to Jesus. It clearly refers to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here.

I think the most likely understanding of “firstborn” in this verse is either “favored status” or “inheritance.” Remember that the firstborn son had a favored status and received a double portion of the inheritance. So both of these ideas are already inherent in the term.

In this sense, the phrase “church of the firstborn” likely refers to those who have received the inheritance. In other words, it’s referring to those who, because they have placed their faith in Jesus and belong to him, receive exclusive spiritual blessings that are not available to those who are not in the church.

This view makes more sense than anything resembling “first in line”.

Revelation 1:5 says,

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

This is the last occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the Bible and it’s the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.

So what does this mean?

Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely argue for the interpretation that they hold for Colossians 1:18, namely that this means that Jesus is the first to overcome death, that Jesus is “first in line”.

But given the context, noting that John follows this phrase by saying that Jesus is the RULER of the kings of the earth, it makes more sense that John is using the term to communicate that Jesus is the one who is preeminent over death. In other words, Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.

It bears repeating that Jesus was not born. So what would be the purpose of using the term “firstborn” if it does not apply to Jesus as it applied to Reuben, Manasseh and the dozens of other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?

In other words, the term firstborn, in a majority of cases, was used to identify the first offspring of a person in order to distinguish that person from other siblings who were not first. But since Jesus has no spiritual “siblings”, there is no need to use the term “firstborn” to distinguish him from rival siblings.

Clearly, John is pointing to Jesus’ special status. To conclude otherwise is to stretch or twist the context of these passages and phrases to unnatural and incoherent meanings.

Now let’s circle back to the Colossians verses that use the term “firstborn”.

What we’ve seen in every use of the term “firstborn” is that it most often refers to “first offspring”. But it never means “first offspring” when the term “firstborn” is used in conjunction with a non-person or non-mammal. In those cases, some form of preeminence, rule or supremacy is meant.

One thing that is clear is that there are no verses where the term firstborn means “first in line”. Yes, it means “first offspring” when speaking of a person or animal that bears offspring in the natural way. However, when “firstborn” is coupled with a non-person, the idea of “first in line” is never in view.

Yet that is exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that it means in these two verses in Colossians. They argue that Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus was first in line to be created and Colossians 1:18 means that Jesus was first in line to be raised from the dead.

Their argument is that this understanding is demanded because it is the normal meaning when you see the term.

But, as we’ve seen, it’s only normal when the term is used to refer to “first offspring”. There is no instance where it carries that meaning apart from the term “firstborn” being connected with a living person or an animal such as “cattle” or “herd”.

When the term “firstborn” is used apart from a living person or animal, it always has the meaning of preeminence, supremacy or highest rank.

This rendering makes the most sense in Colossians, especially when you look at the context and realize that Paul is seeking to demonstrate that “in everything Christ might have supremacy.”

If Paul’s argument is designed to show that Christ will have supremacy in everything (verse 18), then it makes sense that he is going to support that argument by showing that Jesus has supremacy over creation and over death.

So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist that “firstborn”, when attributed to Jesus, means “first in line” when it’s never used that way in any other example?

The answer is that they have manufactured this definition as a way to maintain their theological view that Jesus is a created being.

Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate the most egregious form of the Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means to “read into the text.”

In simple terms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approach the text in order to inform their theology. Instead, they add phrases to the text and change the normal meaning of words in order to conform the text to their theology.

It’s clear that, as it relates to Jesus, Paul is using the term “firstborn” in the sense of “preeminence”. This is how the word is used in cases that clearly don’t refer to “first offspring.”

Additionally, the context supports the idea of “preeminence” as the meaning of firstborn.

Paul states that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” which means Jesus is preeminent over creation.

In the verses that follow, Paul states that Jesus is the creator of all things. So Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to manufacture a meaning of firstborn to mean something like “first in line” in order to convince you that Paul is trying to tell you that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah.

Yet if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus was “first-created”, he would have used the Greek word “protoktisis” which literally means “first-created.”

That Paul didn’t use that word speaks volumes.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses then have to add the word “other” to the text four times in order to change the meaning of the text to show that Jesus is not really the creator as the original Greek text indicates.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like the person who tells a small lie to promote a false narrative but are then forced to create bigger lies in order to maintain the fabricated story.

They first had to offer up a definition for “firstborn” that is literally not used in any of the more than 100 occurrences of the term.

Then, to keep their narrative alive that Jesus is a created being, they have to add the word “other” to the passage four times. Their explanations and justifications for their interpretive choices get increasingly more complicated and logically convoluted in their effort to maintain their theological view.

The most direct, plain and understandable meaning of this passage is that Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator. Additionally, Jesus is preeminent over death because he conquered death. All of this demonstrates that Jesus will come to have first place (i.e. preeminence) in everything!

No extra words and no uncommon and unnatural definitions are required to arrive at this understanding.

So we are back to my original premise in my first blog post, which is that the word “firstborn” does not mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think it means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to heed the advice of Inigo Montoya, who famously said,

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Colossians 1;15 and Colossians 1:18 that the term “firstborn” should be understood as “first in line”? If so, how do you interpret the other passages that use “firstborn” in a context that doesn’t refer to “first offspring”?

Have you ever told a small lie that escalated into much bigger fabrications? What is the motivation for lying in the first place? What are the reasons a person might continue to promote a falsehood?

What are some examples you can think of where a person is so committed to their narrative that they resort to convoluted logic and distorted definitions in an attempt to justify their narrative?

If the term “firstborn” means “first in line” in Colossians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, what exactly is the meaning of the phrase “firstborn from among the dead”? How does the idea of “first in line” apply to Jesus’ death?

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

September 26, 2025July 17, 2026

Theological Lessons from the Movie “Trading Places”

Psalm 51

¹Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;

According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

²Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity

And cleanse me from my sin.

³For I know my transgressions,

And my sin is ever before me.

⁴Against You, You only, I have sinned

And done what is evil in Your sight,

So that You are justified when You speak

And blameless when You judge.

⁵Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin my mother conceived me.

⁶Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,

And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

⁷Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;

Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

⁸Make me to hear joy and gladness,

Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.

⁹Hide Your face from my sins

And blot out all my iniquities.

¹⁰Create in me a clean heart, O God,

And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

¹¹Do not cast me away from Your presence

And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

¹²Restore to me the joy of Your salvation

And sustain me with a willing spirit.

¹³Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,

And sinners will be converted to You. (Psalm 51:1-13, NASB)

The Daily DAVEotional

In the 1980’s movie Trading Places, two wealthy, elderly brothers (the Duke brothers) engage in the age old debate concerning the nature of man. One brother argues that man is corrupted by nature, while the other brother believes that the corruption of man is the result of environmental factors (nurture).

With each brother equally convinced that his position is correct, they agree to an experiment to decide the matter once and for all. With a $1 bet as incentive, they embark on a plan to completely ruin the life and reputation of their sophisticated Wall Street executive assistant played by Dan Akroyd. At the same time, they exalt a crooked street bum, played by Eddie Murphy, to Akroyd’s former position. Only after seeing how each person responds can they settle the bet and the debate.

Not long after being promoted to a position well beyond his education, Murphy begins to become the sophisticated, educated person that his position requires. At the same time, Akroyd, having lost it all, begins to turn into the common criminal that Murphy once was.

As funny as the movie is, it ends up portraying a view of man that is commonly believed in society today—that man is basically a product of the negative forces in his environment. Yet this view is in stark opposition to what the Bible teaches about the nature of man.

The Bible says that man was originally created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:26, 27). The phrase “image of God” refers to man’s ability to reveal and represent what God is like. Exactly how man reveals the image of God has been debated over the years. However, many believe that two categories that reflect God’s image in man are man’s ability to make moral decisions, and the dominion that was given to man by God.

Before Adam and Eve sinned, the “image of God” in man was perfect. Man walked with God, had dominion over the earth and every decision man made was morally representative of God’s nature. This is because man was completely dependent on God for moral direction and guidance.

However, when Adam & Eve sinned, this image became corrupted. Specifically, man was corrupted in several ways:

1. Intellectually, man’s mind became depraved.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,…28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (Romans 1:21,22,28, NASB)

2. Emotionally, man became perverted.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them…26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural (Romans 1:24, 26, NASB)

3. Volitionally, man’s will became enslaved to sin.

17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. (Galatians 5:17, NASB)

Though none of these verses demonstrate man’s condition when he’s born, the Bible clearly communicates that man is morally depraved from birth.

In Psalm 51, David is confessing and repenting of his egregious sin of adultery with Bathsheba followed by the cover-up murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite.

In his confession, David reveals an important truth about the nature of man when he says in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Similarly, in Psalm 58:3, David said,

“the wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.”

The apostle Paul agrees when he says in Ephesians 2:3,

“we are by nature children of wrath”

These verses all clearly teach that man is born with a sin nature, which produces in him a propensity toward sin.

Conversely, if one holds to the position that corruption, or sin is simply the product of one’s negative environment, how does one explain David’s reprehensible actions? He had everything he could want and certainly wasn’t in a position of need or desperation. It’s hard to argue that his environment “forced” him to do what he did. It’s more reasonable to explain his behavior as selfishness resulting from an inner compulsion towards evil.

It is obvious then, that the progressive’s idealistic Star Trek world where man’s goodness evolves over time is but a myth. The Bible clearly teaches that man was originally created in God’s image. However, that image was corrupted when Adam and Eve sinned.

Every person since Adam and Eve, with the exception of Jesus, has inherited a corrupted sin nature that exists within the person from birth. To argue otherwise is simply to deny the clear teaching of the Word of God.

Reflection

Do you think man is basically good, and only does bad things because of the negative impact of his environment, or do you think man is innately bad, having been corrupted by his sin nature? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

For those who argue that man is only bad because of the negative effects of his environment, how do you explain the negative environment? In other words, how do you think the environment became negative in the first place?

What do you think it means that man was created in the “image of God”?

If man’s nature was perfect before sin, how exactly did their nature become corrupted? (See my blog post, “Why Did God Forbid This One Fruit?”

Why do you think this issue of nature vs. nurture is important? What are the implications of each position over the other?

Photo: Screenshot from the movie “Trading Places”

September 18, 2024

The Last Supper and the Human Condition

Last month, Jen and I took a break from our daily routine and traveled to Italy to visit our son Joshua, who is an Army officer stationed there.

It was a great to visit him and see what his world is like. It was also fun to get a taste (literally) of Italy, though we only saw a small portion of the country.

Enjoying lunch in a Vicenza cafe with our son Joshua

In addition to spending a day in Venice and a few days in Florence, where we saw Michelangelo’s famous statue of David, Jen and I also took a day trip to Milan, where we experienced a very informative walking tour through parts of the city that included seeing the Duomo di Milano (Milan Cathedral) as well as the famous DaVinci masterpiece “The Last Supper”.

I have to admit that the Last Supper was not exactly what I expected. It looked a little different than all the photos you see. It turns out that there’s a reason for that.

Venice was exactly how I imagined it from watching movies like “The Italian Job”

Joshua and Jen at dusk in Florence on a bridge overlooking the Arno river

Jen and Dave pose with the Duomo di Milano (Milan Cathedral) in the background

Our guide explained that when DaVinci was commissioned to make the painting, he decided against the tried and true traditional Fresco style of painting, which creates a permanent image because the painting is all done in wet plaster.

The downside of this technique is that you have to paint very quickly before the plaster dries. DaVinci wanted to take his time and create a painting with more intricate detail than the fresco technique would allow, so he developed a completely new technique that allowed him to take his time.

Michaelangelos famous statue of “David” is located in Florence

The result was an undisputed masterpiece. However, it became more clear, over time, that DaVinci’s novel new technique was flawed, as parts of the painting literally began to flake away from the wall.

To fix this problem, other painters were often called in to fill in the gaps and “restore” those portions to match copies that demonstrated the original image.

Fast forward hundreds of years and the image on the wall has been painted over dozens of times. The original image is actually lost as many of the finer details, such as facial expressions, don’t look exactly as Leonardo had painted them.

In 1977, it was decided that the painting would go through a restoration process whereby all the extra layers of paint would be removed so that the image that remained would be only what Leonardo had painted. It was risky because they weren’t sure if ANYTHING would be left when they removed all the layers.

Fortunately, there was still plenty of Leonardo’s original image still intact when all of the extraneous layers were removed. At that point, what was left underwent an extensive 25 year restoration process to ensure that the image would not experience further decay. In fact, our guide told us that Leonardo’s masterpiece should remain intact for another 500 years!

What remains is still amazing but it is not exactly the original. There are parts that have faded or flaked away. We have a good idea of what the original looked like based on copies that were created when it was more complete.

I think the Last Supper illustrates the human condition. The Bible tells us that we are God’s masterpiece, but it also says that we’re broken because of sin.

Just as the Last Supper was in a constant state of decay, so too are we. Without outside intervention, the Last Supper was doomed to decay into, at best, a muted reflection of the original masterpiece and at worst, nothingness!

The same is true with us. Without God’s intervention, we have no hope of reflecting the true masterpiece that God says we are. And even in this life, the best we can hope for is a muted, partial reflection of God’s artistry.

The Last Supper will never be restored to the original image that Leonardo painted. But we, as believers, have the hope and assurance that one day, we will experience the final restoration of our bodies and our souls. Sin will be eradicated and we will no longer experience death or decay!

THAT is good news and it’s amazing!

Thank you for your partnership with us, which allows us to help others realize that we are all “masterpieces” in need of restoration!

Arrivederci!

Jen and I loved hanging out with our son Joshua in Italy, where he is serving as an officer in the U.S. Army.

July 11, 2021March 22, 2025

Follow the Science

Psalm 19

¹The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship.

²Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.

³They speak without a sound or a word; their voice is silent in the skies;

⁴yet their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to all the world. The sun lives in the heavens where God placed it.

⁵It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.

⁶The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat. (Psalm 19:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

One of the great gifts that 2020 gave us all is the phrase, “Follow the Science”! (#Sarcasm)

What does it mean exactly to “follow the science”? What is science?

Science is a method of determining how the natural world around us functions based on repeated observations and experimentation. If you make enough observations, you begin to notice patterns. If a pattern is established, you can develop a hypothesis regarding the natural order of the physical universe. Further observations and testing will either substantiate the hypothesis or refute it.

So to “follow the science” really just means that one should follow the evidence or the data to its logical conclusion.

In Psalm 19, David is following the science. David gazes wonderfully on the celestial beauty in the skies. Based on his own repeated observations and the observations of others over thousands of years, David concludes that the heavens are the result of a magnificent creator. David sees the design of the universe and assumes that it must have a designer. Have you ever seen something that looked designed and assumed that it came into existence without a designer?

Philosophers call this argument the teleological argument for God’s existence, which basically says that because the universe is designed, it must have a designer.

Atheists and skeptics have argued over the years that the universe isn’t really designed, but only appears to be designed. Just because one might attribute elements of design to something they see doesn’t mean it is designed. It could just be a naturally occurring phenomenon. But often, these conclusions, ironically, are not following the science, for they immediately dismiss the most logical and obvious explanation for the world and universe which we observe.

If you walk into Best Buy and see a case full of cell phones, what do you conclude? You conclude that those phones were designed and then manufactured by intelligent people who created them for that purpose.

If you walk onto a car lot, what do you assume about the wide array of vehicles you might decide to purchase? You assume that they were designed by intelligent teams of people who created them for the purpose of transporting people and goods.

Everywhere you go, you see things that are designed and built by people…intelligent people.

Now look at our world, its ecosystems and its incredibly diverse array of animals and plants. Beyond our world is the vastness of space with its trillions of stars and galaxies, all of which we can observe.

Whenever we observe something intricate that has purpose, we assume it has a designer because our experience dictates that intricate, complex systems that have functional purposes are designed by intelligent beings, usually humans.

So why would we look at the earth and the universe and conclude something different?

If we’re following the science, as David did, our conclusion should be the same as his conclusion – that “the heavens declare the glory of God” and “the skies declare his marvelous craftsmanship.”

Reflection

What has been your understanding of the phrase “follow the science?” What do you think it means to “follow the science?”

What has been your experience with scientific observation? What are some science classes you’ve taken and what kinds of things did you observe?

Do you think it’s possible to prove God’s existence “scientifically?” How would you go about it?

What is your understanding of the teleological argument for God’s existence? How would you explain it someone else?

What do you think is the best explanation for the physical universe? How do you explain all that you see in creation and the night sky?

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash

April 21, 2021

Two Opposite Pictures of Leadership

Mark 10

³⁵Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”

³⁶“What is it?” he asked.

³⁷“In your glorious Kingdom, we want to sit in places of honor next to you,” they said, “one at your right and the other at your left.”

³⁸But Jesus answered, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of sorrow I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the baptism of suffering I must be baptized with?”

³⁹“Oh yes,” they said, “we are able!”

And Jesus said, “You will indeed drink from my cup and be baptized with my baptism, ⁴⁰but I have no right to say who will sit on the thrones next to mine. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.”

⁴¹When the ten other disciples discovered what James and John had asked, they were indignant. ⁴²So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that in this world kings are tyrants, and officials lord it over the people beneath them. ⁴³But among you it should be quite different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴and whoever wants to be first must be the slave of all. ⁴⁵For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:35-45, NLT)

2 Samuel 11

¹The following spring, the time of year when kings go to war, David sent Joab and the Israelite army to destroy the Ammonites. In the process they laid siege to the city of Rabbah. But David stayed behind in Jerusalem.

²Late one afternoon David got out of bed after taking a nap and went for a stroll on the roof of the palace. As he looked out over the city, he noticed a woman of unusual beauty taking a bath. ³He sent someone to find out who she was, and he was told, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” ⁴Then David sent for her; and when she came to the palace, he slept with her. (She had just completed the purification rites after having her menstrual period.) Then she returned home. ⁵Later, when Bathsheba discovered that she was pregnant, she sent a message to inform David.

⁶So David sent word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” ⁷When Uriah arrived, David asked him how Joab and the army were getting along and how the war was progressing. ⁸Then he told Uriah, “Go on home and relax.” David even sent a gift to Uriah after he had left the palace. ⁹But Uriah wouldn’t go home. He stayed that night at the palace entrance with some of the king’s other servants.

¹⁰When David heard what Uriah had done, he summoned him and asked, “What’s the matter with you? Why didn’t you go home last night after being away for so long?”

¹¹Uriah replied, “The Ark and the armies of Israel and Judah are living in tents, and Joab and his officers are camping in the open fields. How could I go home to wine and dine and sleep with my wife? I swear that I will never be guilty of acting like that.”

¹²“Well, stay here tonight,” David told him, “and tomorrow you may return to the army.” So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day and the next. ¹³Then David invited him to dinner and got him drunk. But even then he couldn’t get Uriah to go home to his wife. Again he slept at the palace entrance.

¹⁴So the next morning David wrote a letter to Joab and gave it to Uriah to deliver. ¹⁵The letter instructed Joab, “Station Uriah on the front lines where the battle is fiercest. Then pull back so that he will be killed.” ¹⁶So Joab assigned Uriah to a spot close to the city wall where he knew the enemy’s strongest men were fighting. ¹⁷And Uriah was killed along with several other Israelite soldiers. (2 Samuel 11:1-17, NLT)

Philippians 2

⁵Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. ⁶Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. ⁷He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. ⁸And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross. ⁹Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, ¹⁰so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Today’s installment of the Daily DAVEotional includes 3 related passages that all appeared in the same daily reading based on the Grant Horner Reading Plan, which I’ve mentioned a number of times, including here, here and here.

Amazingly, these 3 different passages from different parts of the Bible provide an interesting commentary on one another, starting with the passage in Mark.

In this passage, Jesus is teaching His disciples a lesson about leadership. It actually starts in the verses prior to what I’ve listed here, when Jesus is talking again to His disciples about His death.

Immediately after this, James and John approach Jesus and instead of asking follow-up questions regarding what Jesus has just said, that He’ll be betrayed and killed before rising again three days later, these brothers begin jockeying for key positions of power in Jesus’ kingdom.

The other disciples catch wind of what James and John are talking to Jesus about and while they are indignant externally, internally they are probably kicking themselves for being beaten to the punch.

Jesus sees what’s going on and, of course He knows what’s going on in their hearts and minds, so He takes the opportunity to share a lesson on leadership in God’s kingdom.

The headline is this: Leadership in God’s kingdom is completely opposite of what you’d expect based on leadership in the world.

In the world’s system, kings (and officials) act like tyrants, using their power to get whatever they want in whatever way they deem necessary.

The passage in 2 Samuel 11, which happened to be part of the same daily reading, provided the perfect biblical example to illustrate what Jesus is saying. King David is known as a good king and was even said by God to be “a man after my own heart.” But even though David is a good king overall, he has some major flaws, and in this situation, he uses his power to get something he wants regardless of whether it’s wrong or who it hurts.

David sees a beautiful woman bathing and he desires her, so he has her brought to him and despite knowing that she is the wife of one of his elite fighting men, he sleeps with her anyway.

His indiscretion backfires when Bathsheba reveals that she is pregnant. In an effort to cover up his sin, David has Uriah recalled from the battle field, hoping that he will sleep with his wife and thus think that the child is his.

But Uriah doesn’t comply with David’s scheme so David sends him back to the battle field carrying a message with the very command that gets him killed. What is often overlooked in this passage is that by having the front line attackers pull back so that Uriah would be killed, the text says that others were killed as well. So David, by his tyrannical actions, ends up taking another man’s wife, and murdering several people in order to cover it up.

This is the kind of leadership we see in the world even today. Though we have few monarchies, there can be no doubt that even in our current system, elected officials often take special privileges and enact rules on others that don’t apply to themselves. We shouldn’t be surprised, however, because Jesus tells us that “kings are tyrants and officials lord it over the people beneath them.”

This is how most leaders think and act – the people under them are there to serve them and their needs.

But leadership in God’s kingdom is 180 degrees different than what we see in the world. In God’s kingdom, leaders are servants whose purpose is actually to serve those under them. It’s completely flipped!

The Philippians passage, also appearing on the same day, provides a biblical example of servant leadership that is perfectly illustrated by the life of Jesus.

Jesus’ leadership was characterized first and foremost by humility. As God, one might expect that Jesus would come and demand worship and the kind of allegiance and attention that royals traditionally receive.

But Jesus didn’t come and start exerting His power and authority in order to serve Himself. The text says He gave up His rights in order to serve others. Jesus didn’t demand the worship and the kind of attention and fanfare that He deserves but instead, He fulfilled a mission of service, namely, going to the cross to die for the sins of humanity so that we might escape eternal judgment and be reconciled to God.

This is the kind of leadership Jesus tells us that we, as His followers, should exhibit. It’s a selfless leadership. It’s not self-serving or self-promoting. It seeks the needs of others and puts their needs and welfare above our own. As I look around the current cultural landscape, it seems to me that we could use more of this kind of leadership and a lot less of the worldly kind of leadership.

Reflection

What are some examples you’ve seen of the kind of worldly leadership Jesus describes, where kings (and officials) seek to serve themselves instead of their subjects?

What are some examples you’ve seen of leaders who exhibit the kind of godly, kingdom-oriented leadership that Jesus says His followers should exhibit?

What do you think are some reasons that make this selfless, servant leadership that Jesus promoted so difficult for people, even those within the church?

What are some steps or actions that would make servant leadership more likely for those who are in positions of leadership?

If you are in a position of leadership, are you using your power and authority to serve yourself or others?

What do you personally need to address in your own life in order to become the kind of servant leader who emulates Jesus’ example instead of David’s example?

Photo by Samantha Sophia on Unsplash

March 16, 2021February 19, 2026

The Implications of Belief in No God!

Psalm 53

¹Only fools say in their hearts,“ There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; no one does good!

²God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if there is even one with real understanding, one who seeks for God.

³But no, all have turned away from God; all have become corrupt. No one does good, not even one!

⁴Will those who do evil never learn? They eat up my people like bread; they wouldn’t think of praying to God.

⁵But then terror will grip them, terror like they have never known before. God will scatter the bones of your enemies. You will put them to shame, for God has rejected them.

⁶Oh, that salvation would come from Mount Zion to rescue Israel! For when God restores his people, Jacob will shout with joy, and Israel will rejoice.

(Psalm 53:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this Psalm, David is pondering the moral implications of life without God.

Two observations are worth noting.

First, David plainly states that only a fool says in their heart that there is no God.

It’s interesting to notice that the fool doesn’t conclude God’s non-existence through reason or evidence but what makes a person a fool is that they say “in their heart” that there is no God.

What exactly is meant by this phrase “in their heart”?

I think the best way to think of the heart is the will – the control center of a person’s life. Your will, which equates to your desires, will motivate and compel you to act in ways that are contrary to reason and what you know is right. If you decide “in your heart” that you want to pursue a certain course of action (whether good or bad), nothing will convince you otherwise.

So in this context, the fool is someone who has decided that there is no God, despite whatever evidence may be presented. Reason and facts don’t matter because he or she has already made a decision of their will (a decision of the heart) what they intend to believe and how they intend to respond and move forward.

David says that the belief that there is no God is foolish. Why? Because it is a denial of that which is observably apparent, namely that we exist and the universe exists and that something grander and larger and much more powerful than the universe must have created it.

The second thing that David addresses is the moral implications of believing in no God.

Without God, there is no moral foundation. Hence, the actions of the atheist ultimately devolve to evil. It doesn’t mean that people who believe there is no god are not capable of doing good – they are. It does mean, however, that without the moral foundation that God alone provides, there is no anchor to call anything good. Therefore, moral values can easily shift, where things that were once considered evil are now considered acceptable, even good.

The implications of this are huge. David says that when God looks down on the human race he cannot find anyone who is truly good. This certainly contradicts the prevailing view on morality in today’s culture.

In our culture today, it’s popular to hold the belief that people are generally good and only do bad things because they are exposed to evil, corrupt or unfair environments.

These verses (particularly verse 3) explicitly refute this ideology, affirming that NO ONE is good. This does not mean that people are incapable of doing good things. What it means, however, is that no one is able to meet the standard of goodness as defined by God.

What is God’s standard of goodness?

God’s standard of goodness is himself – perfect righteousness. Humans are not able to meet this standard. Hence no one is good, not even one.

By the way, those who claim that people are good and only do evil things because of the influence of their environment, never explain how those environments were able to corrupt people in the first place.

In other words, if man is basically good, how did the environment that supposedly caused his negative actions become bad enough to influence his negative actions? This is never explained by those who believe in man’s goodness.

So to summarize, David says that someone who makes a decision of the heart to believe in no God is a fool. It’s foolish because it defies logic and reason and that which is observably apparent.

Secondly, without God, there is no basis to call anything good and therefore, people will make their own standards for what they think is right and wrong. These standards will be constantly shifting and fall far short of God’s standard for goodness, which is Himself. As a result, God says NO ONE is good. NOT ONE. We are all sinful and corrupt and have turned away from God.

As I look at the culture we live in today, I’d say David’s words look more like prophecy than ancient poetry.

Reflection

What has been your standard of goodness that you’ve used to evaluate your own life?

What is your response to the idea that someone who decides “in their heart” that God doesn’t exist is a fool?

How would you respond to someone who makes the claim that people are basically good but they only do bad things because of the negative influences of their environment?

What would you say to someone who doesn’t believe in God but believes that they can be moral?

Photo by Dave Lowe

February 12, 2021

A Prophetic Psalm

Psalm 22

¹My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me? Why do you remain so distant?Why do you ignore my cries for help?

²Every day I call to you, my God, but you do not answer. Every night you hear my voice, but I find no relief.

³Yet you are holy. The praises of Israel surround your throne.

⁴Our ancestors trusted in you, and you rescued them.

⁵You heard their cries for help and saved them. They put their trust in you and were never disappointed.

⁶But I am a worm and not a man. I am scorned and despised by all!

⁷Everyone who sees me mocks me. They sneer and shake their heads, saying,

⁸“Is this the one who relies on the LORD? Then let the LORD save him!If the LORD loves him so much, let the LORD rescue him!”

⁹Yet you brought me safely from my mother’s womb and led me to trust you when I was a nursing infant.

¹⁰I was thrust upon you at my birth. You have been my God from the moment I was born.

¹¹Do not stay so far from me, for trouble is near, and no one else can help me.

¹²My enemies surround me like a herd of bulls; fierce bulls of Bashan have hemmed me in!

¹³Like roaring lions attacking their prey, they come at me with open mouths.

¹⁴My life is poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint.My heart is like wax, melting within me.

¹⁵My strength has dried up like sunbaked clay. My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You have laid me in the dust and left me for dead.

¹⁶My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet.

¹⁷I can count every bone in my body. My enemies stare at me and gloat.

¹⁸They divide my clothes among themselves and throw dice for my garments. (Psalm 22:1-18, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Usually when I read the psalms, I think of poetic arrangements that communicate lament or praise from the author. I often try to put myself in the shoes of the author and imagine similar circumstances I may have experienced. I seek to lament with the psalmist when he laments and rejoice and praise God with the psalmist when he praises God.

On the surface, Psalm 22 may look like a typical psalm of lament or anguish but upon deeper reflection, it turns out to be so much more. I don’t usually think of the Psalms as prophetic, but Psalm 22 provides a number of verses in which David’s experience ultimately foreshadows the experience of the Messiah.

In verse 1, for example, David utters the very words that are expressed by Jesus on the cross in Matthew 27:46, when he cried out, “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?”

In verse 7, David’s words accurately describe events that occurred in Matthew 27:39-43, when soldiers mocked Jesus after his arrest and onlookers jeered at Him during His crucifixion.

In verses 14-16, David accurately describes details of a crucifixion, such as extreme thirst, asphyxiation and the trauma to the hands and feet. These verses are all the more amazing because crucifixion as a means of execution was not known until Roman times.

Finally, in verse 18, David’s description of clothes being divided and dispersed by the casting of lots is fulfilled in Matthew 27:35.

All of these events were fulfilled by people who would have had no knowledge of the prophecies concerning Jesus. Yet their actions were accurately described over 1000 years earlier by the very man through whose lineage the Messiah would emerge.

David is not fearful of sharing all his emotions when he pens his words. He is honest with God when he’s sad, lonely and angry. Yet he praises God in spite of his circumstances and in the case of this psalm, his words foreshadow the emergence of the Messiah, the one who ultimately experiences everything David is feeling as he writes those words, yet emerges victorious as the Savior and eternal King!

Reflection

What has been your experience in reading and reflecting on the Psalms? How have they helped you to connect to God on a deeper level?

What is your response to the verses in this Psalm that are Messianic in nature, as they predict events that the promised Messiah would endure?

How do these verses strengthen your faith in the Holy Scriptures as an accurate revelation from God?

Photo by Yannick Pulver on Unsplash

February 4, 2021February 4, 2021

A Contradictory Psalm

The Daily Daveotional

Psalm 13

For the choir director: A psalm of David.

¹O LORD, how long will you forget me? Forever? How long will you look the other way?

²How long must I struggle with anguish in my soul, with sorrow in my heart every day? How long will my enemy have the upper hand?

³Turn and answer me, O LORD my God! Restore the light to my eyes, or I will die.

⁴Don’t let my enemies gloat, saying, “We have defeated him!” Don’t let them rejoice at my downfall.

⁵But I trust in your unfailing love. I will rejoice because you have rescued me.

⁶I will sing to the LORD because he has been so good to me.

(Psalm 13, NLT)

In this Psalm, David cries out to the Lord as his soul is in deep anguish. He feels defeated by his enemies and he feels abandoned by God.

But by the end of the Psalm, David says that he trusts in God’s unfailing love, rejoices that God has rescued him and sings to the Lord because God has been so good to him.

On the surface, this Psalm seems like a contradiction in perspective. One moment, David is complaining that the Lord has abandoned him and in the next moment, he’s praising God for rescuing him and being so good to him.

Which is it? It’s as if David is shifting back and forth between alternate universes in real time. Is he hallucinating? Is he disconnected from reality? Or is there some other explanation?

The truth is that David IS in anguish. He DOES feel abandoned. He DOES feel like his enemies are overtaking him.

These are real emotions David is experiencing and they are are all true.

But what is also true is God’s sovereignty, love and goodness. David recognizes these things too and is able to acknowledge their reality.

This is what Henry Cloud, in his book “Changes That Heal”, calls sorting the good and bad. People who do this well recognize that there is both good and bad in our world. They are able to deal with the reality that both exist in a way that doesn’t allow negative outcomes to become the consuming focus of their reality.

People who don’t do this well tend to go all bad if one little thing goes wrong.

What do I mean by going “all bad”?

Going all bad occurs when we allow a negative experience or circumstance to so consume us that we begin to project our negative emotion on all aspects of our reality. Our attitude and judgment is clouded in such a way that we can only see and focus on things that are negative while being purposely blind to any good elements in our reality.

David doesn’t do this. He recognizes the bad circumstances he’s in and he’s honest about his emotions. But David also acknowledges the good that still exists, namely, the reality that God is good and loving.

Reflection

What keeps you from being completely honest with God about your emotions?

When have you gone all bad as a result of an undesired circumstance? What was the situation you were in and how did your emotions affect your perception of reality?

What do you think are some practical ways you can develop in your ability to sort the good and bad?

What are 10 things you can think of right now that are positive about your current life situation?

Photo of “Changes That Heal” from Amazon website – by Dave Lowe

January 14, 2021February 22, 2025

A Covid Cave Prayer!

Psalm 142

A psalm of David, regarding his experience in the cave. A prayer.

¹I cry out to the LORD; I plead for the LORD’s mercy.

²I pour out my complaints before him and tell him all my troubles.

³For I am overwhelmed, and you alone know the way I should turn. Wherever I go, my enemies have set traps for me.

⁴I look for someone to come and help me, but no one gives me a passing thought! No one will help me; no one cares a bit what happens to me.

⁵Then I pray to you, O LORD. I say, “You are my place of refuge. You are all I really want in life.

⁶Hear my cry, for I am very low. Rescue me from my persecutors, for they are too strong for me.

⁷Bring me out of prison so I can thank you. The godly will crowd around me, for you treat me kindly.” (Psalm 142, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Like many people in our country, my wife and I have been locked down at home during this pandemic. We’re working from home, we don’t go out much and besides virtual meetings, we’re pretty much disconnected physically from others.

Our home has been what I call our “Covid Cave.”

Psalm 142 is a psalm of David when he was on the run and in hiding from Saul, who wanted to kill him. This psalm was of particular interest to me because he’s writing about his experience hiding out in a cave.

It’s not likely that the circumstances of your experience mirror David’s. Most of us don’t have enemies chasing us and wanting to kill us. And even though I’ve jokingly referred to my home as a “cave”, I at least have a working toilet, running water and internet streaming services, none of which David enjoyed in his situation.

Still, the circumstances surrounding this pandemic have been mentally traumatizing for many, and the resultant emotions may be similar to David’s. Just look at how David describes his situation:

He felt overwhelmed (Verse 3).

He felt trapped (Verse 3).

He felt disconnected and isolated from others (Verse 4).

He felt helpless…like nobody cared about him (Verse 4).

He felt like his life situation was too strong for him (Verse 6).

He felt imprisoned (Verse 7).

Can you resonate with these emotions? If so, you’re not alone.

How did David deal with these emotions?

First of all, David recognized his utter dependence and need for the Lord. He cried out to the Lord. He pleaded with Him for mercy. He poured out his complaints and told Him his troubles.

Secondly, David recognized that the Lord is the only one to whom he could truly turn. He recognized that the Lord alone is his refuge and the only person that he really wants or needs in life.

Who knows how much longer we will be in this situation. Hopefully, things will turn around soon. Until things change though, and life returns to some sense of normalcy, I echo David’s prayer to the Lord that He would bring me out of prison so I can thank Him!

Reflection

What personal struggles have you experienced during this pandemic?

What emotions have these struggles produced in you?

How can David’s “Cave Prayer” help you during your “Covid Cave” experience?

Photo by Ksenia Kudelkina on Unsplash