Skip to main content

Isaiah 43:11-13

 "I, I am the LORD,
and besides me there is no savior.
 I declared and saved and proclaimed,
when there was no strange god among you;
and you are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and I am God.
Also henceforth I am he;
there is none who can deliver from my hand;
I work, and who can turn it back?”

    As a first order of business, let's be done with this LORD crap.  6,283 (or something like that...I know it's at least 6,000) times in the Old Testament the tetragrammaton "YHWH" is seen.  Now in ancient Hebrew the vowels were never written.  The reader supplied them.  At any rate, the probable pronunciation is Yahweh.  That is the generally accepted rendering.  To cut this little rabbit trail short, Lord is a title, but Yahweh is a name--a personal name, just like Bob or Ted (but way better).  The Bible does use the generic term Lord to refer to God, and when you see it written Lord, that is what you're reading.  But when you see LORD, you're seeing a masking of the word YHWH, which, for some reason, Hebrew scribes thought was too holy to be written, and so they covered it behind LORD.  Now, maybe it's just me, but if the Holy Spirit saw fit to say God's personal name over 6,000 times, then maybe we should feel free to say it.  I think it would have a greater effect on people to hear a personal name instead of a generic title.  How many people (Christians even) who say, "Oh my god" so flippantly would think twice about saying "Oh my Yahweh"?  I think they would think twice about it. 

    You may be wondering why I went through all of that.  Well, I think how we read passages changes a little when we see Yahweh.  This passage is a good example to demonstrate that.  Look at verse 11.  Firstly, look at the declaration that our Heavenly Father is making.  He says, "I, I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no Savior."  Now, that phrase should punch us in the face regardless.  But when we put Yahweh back into the text, it should knock us on our rear end.  Yahweh (not some faceless, nameless, ethereal force) declares complete power and willingness to save His people.  He, as a Person, take the initiative as a great Actor and Mover in the happenings of the Universe. 

    Secondly, look how he compares Himself to the "strange gods" with whom the Israelites had defiled themselves spiritually (and also physically).  He is Yahweh, not some false god made of stone or wood.  The strange gods were the product of men's vile hands, but Yahweh is the great Creator who eternally preceded time itself.  He calls them as witnesses that He is God.  They have seen His power.  They had seen how he delivered from the results of the their own sins.  God works and no one can turn it back.  No one can reverse His actions.  No one can overcome His sovereignty.   

    Thirdly, we see that there is a flipside to God being the only Savior.  Yahweh is also the great, just Judge and Punisher of evil.  He alone saves, therefore, as verse 13 says, no one can deliver from His hand.  If we are in distress, it is from God's hand.  If we wish to be saved, we have to go through Yahweh. 

    Well, I've come at this passage from a less than usual angle, emphasizing an unusual note.  I would be remiss if I didn't share the hope and joy held out here and the call to faith that we hear from Yahweh here.  At the end of the day, Yahweh is the great Savior of the lost creation.  "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." that what?  That those who take their eyes off our themselves and lock them solely on Jesus Christ and His Father might be saved from the hell their sins have rightly deserved.  Instead of death and pain Christ gives us life and joy in the love and fellowship of Yahweh.  I hope you can personalize these passages more.  God is not a force.  He is a Person.  He is the great Savior.  He's in the saving business, and He's got a monopoly on it.  Money, romance, sports--they'll leave you wanting.  They will not save. 
 
    A last thought.  Yahweh has made this claim to be the only possible Savior.  Jesus Christ made a similar claim in John 14:6.  He said that no one can get to the Father except through Him--His life and death and resurrection.  The Father saves, but Jesus connects you to the Father.  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Through Him, we can come to the Father.  Indeed, Hebrews 4:16 bids us to approach the throne boldly in the name of Jesus.  Romans 8:1 tells us that there is no condemnation for those who are covenantally bound by faith to Jesus.  His Father is our Father.  We have peace and familial love instead of the Justice and Wrath that is rightly ours.  Bhudda, Allah, the fake version of Yahweh the Jews claim to follow--they're all strange gods and no gods at all.  Yahweh and His son Jesus are the only path of salvation that we can rely on.  I hope this is more personal than ever.  I hope salvation is not a concept, but a relationship.  A covenant.  A personal agreement. 

    I could go on about Yahweh's sovereignty in this saving relationship, but I've gone too long already.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary