Session 4: Praying for Ourselves
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Handout
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Setting
Setting
Prayer is far more than bringing our needs and requests to God, but that is where we often begin—and frequently end. Jesus gave us a different model. In His Model Prayer, the prayer is essentially half over before a single personal request is made. One important lesson to be learned from this prayer is that only after we have focused on God—seeking His honor and focusing on His lordship and will—are we in the right mindset to present our daily needs to Him.
Let’s look at and
Give us this day our daily bread,
Why do you think “us” was used in verse 11 instead of “me”?
How does relate to this?
And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over till the morning.” But they did not listen to Moses. Some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.
ex6.4
Most of the people in Jesus’ day lived hand-to-mouth. This was true particularly among the lower classes to whom Jesus’ message appealed most. This request acknowledges God as the provider of every physical need, but it also reminds the petitioner to trust God to provide as the needs arise, and not necessarily in advance. Compare this with the lesson Israel had to learn during forty years of daily manna; any excess spoiled by the second day. They were always just one day away from starvation, and yet they ate well during all those decades.
some commentators believe this refers to the spiritual need of the Word of God - see John 6:48-51:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
john 6:48-51
What does this teach us about self-sufficiency and how does relate?
Instead, it is an expression of ultimate dependence on God who normally uses human means of production and distribution through which to fulfil his purposes. Moreover, it seems that Jesus wanted his followers to be conscious of a day-to-day dependence.
The petition that God will ‘give’ us our food does not, of course, deny that most people have to earn their own living, that farmers have to plough, sow and reap to provide basic cereals or that we are commanded to feed the hungry ourselves.3 Instead, it is an expression of ultimate dependence on God who normally uses human means of production and distribution through which to fulfil his purposes. Moreover, it seems that Jesus wanted his followers to be conscious of a day-to-day dependence. The adjective epiousios in ‘our daily bread’ was so completely unknown to the ancients that Origen thought the evangelists had coined it. Moulton and Milligan are of the same opinion in our generation.4 It is probably to be translated either ‘for the current day’ or ‘for the following day’.5 Whichever is correct, it is a prayer for the immediate and not the distant future. As A. M. Hunter comments: ‘Used in the morning, this petition would ask bread for the day just beginning. Used in the evening, it would pray for tomorrow’s bread.’6 Thus we are to live a day at a time.
| Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me,
| he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure.
“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
| Give us each day our daily bread,
| I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food.
Let’s look at how Isaiah relates. Go to Isaiah 38:1-3
| “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, and said, “Please, O Lord, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Why do you think “us” was used in verse 11 instead of “me”?
11 Give us this day our daily bread,
Who was Hezekiah?
Who was Hezekiah?
The Bible describes Hezekiah as a king who had a close relationship with God (2 Chronicles 31:20)
Give us this day our daily bread. Some early commentators could not believe that Jesus intended our first request to be for literal bread, bread for the body. It seemed to them improper, especially after the noble three opening petitions relating to God’s glory, that we should abruptly descend to so mundane and material a concern. So they allegorized the petition. The bread he meant must be spiritual, they said. Early church fathers like Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine thought the reference was either to ‘the invisible bread of the Word of God’1 or to the Lord’s Supper. Jerome in the Vulgate translated the Greek word for ‘daily’ by the monstrous adjective ‘supersubstantial’; he also meant the Holy Communion. We should be thankful for the greater, down-to-earth, biblical understanding of the Reformers. Calvin’s comment on the spiritualizing of the fathers was: ‘This is exceedingly absurd.’1 Luther had the wisdom to see that ‘bread’ was a symbol for ‘everything necessary for the preservation of this life, like food, a healthy body, good weather, house, home, wife, children, good government and peace’,2 and probably we should add that by ‘bread’ Jesus meant the necessities rather than the luxuries of life.
Thus Hezekiah did throughout all Judah, and he did what was good and right and faithful before the Lord his God.
a son of the wicked King Ahaz, reigned over the southern kingdom of Judah for twenty-nine years, from c. 726 to 697 BC.
The petition that God will ‘give’ us our food does not, of course, deny that most people have to earn their own living, that farmers have to plough, sow and reap to provide basic cereals or that we are commanded to feed the hungry ourselves.3 Instead, it is an expression of ultimate dependence on God who normally uses human means of production and distribution through which to fulfil his purposes. Moreover, it seems that Jesus wanted his followers to be conscious of a day-to-day dependence. The adjective epiousios in ‘our daily bread’ was so completely unknown to the ancients that Origen thought the evangelists had coined it. Moulton and Milligan are of the same opinion in our generation.4 It is probably to be translated either ‘for the current day’ or ‘for the following day’.5 Whichever is correct, it is a prayer for the immediate and not the distant future. As A. M. Hunter comments: ‘Used in the morning, this petition would ask bread for the day just beginning. Used in the evening, it would pray for tomorrow’s bread.’6 Thus we are to live a day at a time.
Hezekiah, a son of the wicked King Ahaz, reigned over the southern kingdom of Judah for twenty-nine years, from c. 726 to 697 BC. He began his reign at age 25 (2 Kings 18:2). He was more zealous for the Lord than any of his predecessors (2 Kings 18:5). During his reign, the prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered in Judah.
During his reign, the prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered in Judah.
After Ahaz’s wicked reign, there was much work to do, and Hezekiah boldly cleaned house. Pagan altars, idols, and temples were destroyed. The bronze serpent that Moses had made in the desert (Numbers 21:9) was also destroyed, because the people had made it an idol (2 Kings 18:4). The temple in Jerusalem, whose doors had been nailed shut by Hezekiah’s own father, was cleaned out and reopened. The Levitical priesthood was reinstated (2 Chronicles 29:5), and the Passover was reinstituted as a national holiday (2 Chronicles 30:1). Under Hezekiah’s reforms, revival came to Judah.
Hezekiah boldly cleaned house. Pagan altars, idols, and temples were destroyed.
Cross Refs
The bronze serpent that Moses had made in the desert () was also destroyed, because the people had made it an idol ().
The temple in Jerusalem, whose doors had been nailed shut by Hezekiah’s own father, was cleaned out and reopened.
The Levitical priesthood was reinstated (), and the Passover was reinstituted as a national holiday ().
Under Hezekiah’s reforms, revival came to Judah.
| Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me,
In 701 BC, Hezekiah and all of Judah faced a crisis. The Assyrians, the dominant world power at the time, invaded Judah and marched against Jerusalem.
God, faithful as always, kept His promise to protect Jerusalem.
| he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure.
Faced with the Assyrian threat, Hezekiah sent word to the prophet Isaiah (2 Kings 19:2). The Lord, through Isaiah, reassured the king that Assyria would never enter Jerusalem. Rather, the invaders would be sent home, and the city of Jerusalem would be spared (2 Kings 19:32–34). In the temple, Hezekiah prays a beautiful prayer for help, asking God to vindicate Himself: “Now, Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, Lord, are God” (2 Kings 19:19).
And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.
God, faithful as always, kept His promise to protect Jerusalem. “That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!” (2 Kings 19:35). The remaining Assyrians quickly broke camp and withdrew in abject defeat. “So the Lord saved Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem. . . . He took care of them on every side” (2 Chronicles 32:22).
The remaining Assyrians quickly broke camp and withdrew in abject defeat. “So the Lord saved Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem. . . . He took care of them on every side” (2 Chronicles 32:22).
| Give us each day our daily bread,
Later, Hezekiah became very sick. Isaiah told him to set things in order and prepare to die (2 Kings 20:1). But Hezekiah prayed, beseeching God to be merciful and to remember all the good he had done. Before Isaiah had even left the king’s house, God told Isaiah to tell Hezekiah that his prayer had been heard and that his life would be extended fifteen years. Isaiah applied a poultice, and Hezekiah was healed (2 Kings 20:5–7).
| I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food.
However, soon after his healing, Hezekiah made a serious mistake. The Babylonians sent a gift to Hezekiah, for they had heard Hezekiah had been sick. In foolish pride, Hezekiah showed the Babylonians all of his treasures, all the silver and gold, and everything in his arsenal. There was nothing Hezekiah did not parade in front of them. Isaiah rebuked Hezekiah for this act and prophesied that all the king had shown the Babylonians would one day be taken to Babylon—along with Hezekiah’s own descendants.
During the years following his illness, Hezekiah fathered the heir to Judah’s throne, Manasseh, who would turn out to be the evilest king ever to reign in Judah (2 Kings 18—20; 2 Chronicles 29—32; Isaiah 36—39). Tradition has it that Manasseh is the one who murdered Hezekiah’s friend, Isaiah.
| “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Hezekiah’s life is, for the most part, a model of faithfulness and trust in the Lord. His faith was more than superficial, as his bold reforms show. Hezekiah’s trust in the Lord was rewarded with answered prayer, successful endeavors, and miraculous victory over his enemies. When faced with an impossible situation, surrounded by the dreadful and determined Assyrian army, Hezekiah did exactly the right thing—he prayed. And God answered.
1 In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” 2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 and said, “Please, O Lord, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. 6 I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city.
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, and said, “Please, O Lord, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
What can we learn and apply in our own lives from Hezekiah’s initial response to the bad news?
isaiah 38:1-3
He did not ask Isaiah to intercede, did not get angry, did not seek out other voices. Went to God directly.
Hezekiah is calling on God to act because of Hezekiah’s past faithfulness. Following on the heels of the narrative describing Hezekiah’s acts in relation to Assyria, such a request seems imminently justified, particularly in contrast to Ahaz. His example of faith in regard to Assyria is reflective of his character, even though those events actually took place after his illness and healing.
p 1307 38:1 In those days. The events of chs. 38–39 take place near the time of the deliverance from Assyria in chs. 36–37. But “in those days” is intentionally vague. clarifies that Hezekiah’s illness occurred prior to chs. 36–37. Isaiah locates the events of chs. 38–39 here in order to establish the context for chs. 40–55. Hezekiah became sick. Unlike the crisis of chs. 36–37, which was national in scope, this crisis is only personal. at the point of death. Hezekiah began his reign at 25 years of age and reigned for 29 years (). With 15 years added to his life after this illness (), he would have been only 39 when this illness struck him (“In the middle of my day,” v. 10). “You shall not recover” offers Hezekiah the opportunity to pray for a different outcome, as many prophecies do (cf. ; ).
What’s the relevance of to this story? God’s will is active, not static and set in stone.
you shall not recover The news that he won’t recover from the illness tests his faith and gives him a chance to pray and rely on God even more. Prophets’ warnings of impending disaster were often implicit calls for repentance as a way to avert disaster (see ).
Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”
Move to
Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city.
Hezekiah began his reign at 25 years of age and reigned for 29 years (). With 15 years added to his life after this illness (), he would have been only 39 when this illness struck him
What is the significance to the term “God of David your father”?
God’s concern for His covenant with David rather than Hezekiah’s own merit is implicit in His reference to Himself as the God of David. the God of David your father. God replaces Hezekiah’s claims of merit with his own covenant faithfulness to David as the basis for his answer to the king’s prayer.
What can we learn from God’s response to Hezekiah? In particular, Hezekiah reminded God of his faithfulness to Him
The basis of the Lord’s response was grace, not in Hezekiah’s works of faithfulness.
And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.
Go to , part of the Psalm of Hezekiah (9-20)
What shall I say? For he has spoken to me,
and he himself has done it.
I walk slowly all my years
because of the bitterness of my soul.
O Lord, by these things men live,
and in all these is the life of my spirit.
Oh restore me to health and make me live!
Behold, it was for my welfare
that I had great bitterness;
but in love you have delivered my life
from the pit of destruction,
for you have cast all my sins
behind your back.
38:6 I will deliver you and this city See 37:35. God’s response reminds Hezekiah that he faces a national crisis, not just a personal one.
38:6 God looks beyond Hezekiah’s personal crisis to what matters more—the defense of the city of God.
38:5
38:6 God looks beyond Hezekiah’s personal crisis to what matters more—the defense of the city of God.
The difference between the two accounts is much more pronounced and significant in what then follows. In
and I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake.” And Isaiah said, “Bring a cake of figs. And let them take and lay it on the boil, that he may recover.”
The disturbing factor in the seemingly straightforward account of Isaiah over against Kings comes, however, at the conclusion of the psalm of Hezekiah in vv. 21–22. The complexity of the problem has been briefly discussed earlier. Two elements from have been added as an appendix to Isaiah’s account: the cure of the boil by a cake of figs and the sign of going up to the temple. In the light of the earlier discussion, especially with the conclusion from the textual and literary evidence that has the priority over Isaiah’s account, the various attempts to posit two originally distinct signs have been widely discounted. Quite correctly, most critical commentators speak of a dislocation caused by a later redactor’s attempt to supplement Isaiah’s shorter version from 2 Kings (cf. Delitzsch).
Yet it is still important to press on beyond the task of reconstructing the diachronic growth of the text and to address the synchronic effect of the present “dislocated text.” One of the lasting contributions of Ackroyd’s illuminating articles on these chapters was that he raised the issue of the effect of the reader on the present form of the text (“An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile,” Studies, 164). The RSV appears at first to take undue liberty with the Hebrew verb form when rendering the tense as a pluperfect (“Now Isaiah had said …”), but this translation is attempting to bring out the narrative effect of these verses on the reader of the whole passage. Long’s interpretation of , which is also a passage without a smooth literary join, runs parallel to the function of 38:21–22: “Reading this epistle as filling a gap in the earlier narrative we may understand that before his recovery Hezekiah (had) asked for a sign to confirm that he would be healed by Yahweh” (2 Kings, 238). Such a reading is not to be dismissed as a conservative apologetic seeking a seamless reconstruction, but a modern literary approach to a difficult text that explores how its coherence would have been sought by later readers who are aware of a larger canonical corpus of paralleled texts.
According to Begrich, the element of lament ends in v. 14, which looks to the past, but in v. 15 the moment of deliverance begins. The psalmist is no longer like those in Sheol who cannot praise God, but he renders his thanksgiving to God “this day” for his salvation. He participates with the worshipping congregation in praise to God.
Part of the difficulty of Begrich’s analysis is that this interpretation is greatly shaped by his prior decision regarding the literary genre. Thus in the troublesome v. 15, Begrich emends the MT to read, “I will give thee thanks” ’ôdekkā), using as his warrant that his reading is essential to the form-critical pattern of the thanksgiving psalm. As a result, one leaves his analysis with the impression that the actual form of the psalm does not fit as neatly into his categories as he assumes. The element of lament seems far more pervasive and not all contained in a retrospective viewing. Still there is a wide agreement that the unit is largely a thanksgiving psalm with a very strong lament component.
Begrich then seeks to determine the setting of the psalm and decides that the psalm did not arise from the circle of Israel’s temple singers, but had a private setting about which one can learn little. Begrich argues that the psalm originally had an independent life (its date is uncertain) and was only secondarily accommodated to the Hezekiah story. He finds no exegetical significance in the conventional superscription connecting the psalm to Hezekiah’s illness (cf. Childs, “Psalm Titles,” 137ff.). Then again, Begrich’s discussion of the corporate reference (“we”) remains trapped in the older form-critical debate between Balla and Smend (Der Psalm, 65). He insists in seeing only an individual referent and fails to recognize the shift of focus from the recovery of Hezekiah to that of the larger community of faith.
It is precisely at this juncture that modern scholarship has moved in a different direction from Begrich. Initially the credit goes to Ackroyd (“An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile,” Studies, 165ff.) for first pointing out the integral literary connection that the psalm now forms with the chapter as a whole, indeed with the larger Isaianic corpus. While most critical scholars would agree with Begrich that the psalm was not originally composed for its position in chapter 38, most would now concede that the psalm has been assigned a unique function with Isaiah. In a word, the reader perceives that a typological relationship has been set up between the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah and the judgment and restoration of the people of Israel. In this sense, there is a parallel movement made with chapter 39. The metaphors of being brought back from the pit and those used in Lamentations and Jeremiah for the experience of exile easily extend the initial focus on the king to a larger corporate entity of the nation. In this way the addition of the psalm of Hezekiah, which is missing in Kings, shapes the function of and serves along with chapter 39 to point to a longed for restoration beyond the nation’s disaster.
15. The second part of the song passes from prayer to thanksgiving at the prayer being heard.
Some parallel thoughts:
Sometime - do a topical study on the faithfulness of God
both spoken … and … done it—(). Both promised and performed (; ).
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
Oh sing to the Lord a new song,
for he has done marvelous things!
His right hand and his holy arm
have worked salvation for him.
Have you ever marveled at something God has done in your life to the point of being speechless? (What shall I say?”)
Request different versions be read of verse 15 - the NIV is a little clearer for meaning. Discuss importance of looking at different translations
Isaiah 38:15b
Isaiah 38:15
NASB: “ I will wander about all my years because of the bitterness of my soul.
NASB95 “ I will wander about all my years because of the bitterness of my soul.8% difference
NIV: I will walk humbly all my years because of this anguish of my soul.
NRSV: All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul.
KJV: I shall go softly all my years in the bitterness of my soul.
The depth of pain/suffering/sin versus the height of health and freedom. (Ernie and me.)
Tie to what Hezekiah is declaring in these final verses
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Paul urged believers to trust in the Lord so we can grow in our faith and knowledge. He intends to use our experiences to shape us into more like Christ every day.
What ended up happening with Hezekiah that shows God’s Providence in action?
Takeaways
Takeaways
God provides for us day by day
In difficult times, the first place to go—not the last resort—is to the Lord in prayer.
We may not always understand why God responds the way He does, but what He does will surely be right.
The Lord answers our prayers according to His will.
Some of life’s most difficult moments can teach us about the love, mercy, and grace of God.
Self-Reflection
Self-Reflection
In the past, or even today, have you found yourself not praying to God about a certain circumstance because it seems hopeless in your sight?
16. by these—namely, by God’s benefits, which are implied in the context (, “He hath Himself done it” “unto me”). All “men live by these” benefits (), “and in all these is the life of my spirit,” that is, I also live by them ().
and (wilt) make me to live—The Hebrew is imperative, “make me to live.” In this view he adds a prayer to the confident hope founded on his comparative convalescence, which he expressed, “Thou wilt recover me” [MAURER].
17. for peace—instead of the prosperity which I had previously.
great bitterness—literally, “bitterness to me, bitterness”; expressing intense emotion.
in love—literally, “attachment,” such as joins one to another tenderly; “Thou hast been lovingly attached to me from the pit”; pregnant phrase for, Thy love has gone down to the pit, and drawn me out from it. The “pit” is here simply death, in Hezekiah’s sense; realized in its fulness only in reference to the soul’s redemption from hell by Jesus Christ (), who went down to the pit for that purpose Himself (; , ; ). “Sin” and sickness are connected (; compare , with ), especially under the Old Testament dispensation of temporal sanctions; but even now, sickness, though not invariably arising from sin in individuals, is connected with it in the general moral view.
cast … behind back—consigned my sins to oblivion. The same phrase occurs (; ; ). Contrast , “Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.”