The Preacher's Diary

Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters.

Jeremiah 35:8.

The Rechabites were a people of great interest, of whom even God took notice in their strict adherence to an ancestral code: their patriarch had instructed them to build no house but live in tents, to own no fields, not farm at all, and drink no wine all the days of their lives.  Three hundred years later, in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, God was going to use them as an object lesson to His people the Israelites, so He asked Jeremiah to invite them into the house of God and offer them wine to drink.

Jeremiah invited them as directed, into a chamber of the temple complex, and lavishly offered them wine, saying, “Drink.” He did not say, “Thus saith the Lord, drink wine.”  It would have made little difference even if Jeremiah had invoked the name of the Lord in that matter.  They had respectfully followed the prophet into the house of God, and they certainly had reverence for his words, but there was a limit to which that reverence would go: so far as it did not cross the ancestral wine line.

Those Rechabites refused the wine of the prophet, stating that their ancestor of three hundred years ago had urged them not to drink wine: they, their wives, their sons and their daughters.  They had faithfully obeyed that, and were not about to break the ancient tradition even at the instance of the prophet, in the house of God. God took note of it and blessed them with an everlasting blessing (Jeremiah 35:19).

There is something of interest in the response of the spokesman for the Rechabites.  He stated that they, their wives, their sons and their daughters have rigorously kept to the custom instituted by the ancient father.  The implication was that any women who stepped out to marry a Rechabite, not being one herself, prepared herself for the lifestyle of the man she was choosing to marry.  She could not say, “Well, that is what your father told you; that is not what my father told me.”  Accepting to marry a Rechabite meant choosing to become one.  It was an implicit choice: “all our days, we, our wives, our sons …”

Next point: where a woman agreed to become a Rechabite with her husband, that became the family lifestyle.  Sons and daughters would be born into that lifestyle, grow in that practical culture of their dad and mom, and themselves become practicing Rechabites.  In the unlikely situation that a woman came into a Rechabite home with a Bachus and orgiastic culture and insisted to maintain that independent ‘modern’ lifestyle, their children were already an endangered species, for the woman is the builder or destroyer of the home (Proverbs 14:1).  It is very unlikely that a true Rechabite would marry such a woman, or proceed to keep her if she picked up that alternative culture in the course of the marriage.

Final word: If you don’t want to be a Rechabite, don’t marry one.  If you have chosen to marry a Rechabite, prepare for the package.  That is where peace will be found.  God blesses such homes with an everlasting covenant.  Amen.

From The Preacher’s diary,
January 21, 2025.

Have you ever been at any of those meetings where some honourable man refused to step out because he was not “properly introduced,” meaning that his string of titles and achievements were not ‘duly’ acknowledged in the introduction?   Sad, especially where it involved a clergyman.

A few years ago, driving through a city, I saw a board advertising a Christian event.  What caught my attention was the string of the titles of the patron or designated speaker at the event; he was Evangelist Chief Rev. Dr Somebody, or something like that; about three or four titles before the name.  This appears to be more an African fad.  If Billy Graham had been an African, he might not have been simply Billy Graham.  If Kenneth Hagin had been an African, it might have been unthinkable that he would allow himself to be simply called “Brother Hagin.”  For John Wesley, even after so many years, the culture would have considered it very irreverent to call the hallowed name without some honourary prefix.

Sometimes I wonder what title(s) we might have given to Jesus if He were a preacher in our day.  Even if He did not give Himself one, His followers would surely have found something for Him, because simply “Jesus” would have been too ordinary for a mighty man of God such as He.  They might very properly and respectfully have given Him the trending title of Papa or Daddy, even if some of those were his grandfathers in earthly terms.

In the contemporary ministry of the prophet, it could be a grave offence to call up someone who believes themselves to be a prophet and not append the title to their name.  Does the title make the prophet?  The matter is not the title but the heart that seeks it, or the pride that repudiates it.  In the Bible, there were great messengers of God who carried no title that described their mission, and others who did.  For example, by what title might we have called Moses?  Paul, on the other hand, introduced himself often as an apostle (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1, etc.).

Nobody called Abraham a prophet, but that was how God introduced him to a heathen king: “for he is a prophet” (Genesis 20:7).  He carried the mantle without bothering about the title.  People never called him by the title of a prophet, but God said that he was.  Which is greater, the recognition and accolade of mortals or that of God?  It was never taught me in Sunday School that Abraham was a prophet.  If I asked you to list ten great prophets in the Bible, you might start with Elijah, then Elisha, and probably close with Jonah, but very unlikely to have Abraham on your list.  So, what makes the prophet?

In the Bible, Nathan was called a prophet, and he was (2 Samuel 7:2; 12:25; 1 Kings 1:8, 10); so were Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 18:36; 2 Kings 3:11).  On the contrary, Amos did not even believe himself to be a prophet, let alone call himself by the title, yet he was.  He said of himself, “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son.”  He introduced himself merely as a farmer.   He went simply by the professional title of his trade: “I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit” (Amos 7:14).  That is like saying, I am merely Farmer Amos, or Dr Amos, or Captain Amos, or simply Mr. Amos, but certainly not Prophet Amos.  He didn’t carry the title and didn’t care about it, but he was.  Of Jezebel in the New Testament, it is said that she “calleth herself a prophetess,” but Heaven had a problem with her.  She was not what she called herself (Revelation 2:20).

If you are not what people call you, especially what you make people to call you, you are a lie.  First be, then the name might follow.  The name alone does not make the man; the man makes the name.  There appear to be four scenarios from the examples presented:

1) Abraham: Nobody ever called Abraham a prophet; he also did not call himself by that title, but Heaven recognized and announced him as one.

2) Jezebel: She carried the elaborate title of a prophetess, but God said that it was fake.  Her lifestyle was a contradiction to her flashy titular claims.

3) Amos: He declined the title of a prophet, especially as he was not from the lineage of prophets and never had the training of a prophet.  He rather designated himself by a secular ‘title,’ but he was a prophet.

4) Nathan: Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Paul all had titles, and they were what their titles said.

In essence, the matter is not the title, but it could be a wrong spirit to seek the title merely for the prestige or power it offers.  Strangely, it could also be subtle pride to renounce titles because they are considered vainglorious, and to rather adopt ‘modest’ (holier) titles.  It is better to be bigger than the title one carries, than be less. The title does not make the ministry.

From The Preacher’s diary,
March 24, 2025.

People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply; by the lives they lead. – James Baldwin

  … We eventually do to ourselves what we have done unto others. – Eric Hoffer

 Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. – Frederick Douglas

Studying the Bible lately, a question hit me very hard; a question you might also have asked: “Why didn’t Jesus forgive Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him?”  Judas might have been undeserving, but as a holy man and as his ‘pastor,’ Jesus could have prayed for him as He did for Peter (Luke 22:31-32), instead, what we hear from Jesus about Judas is a very sad lament:

The Son of Man will die as the Scriptures say he will; but how terrible for that man who will betray the Son of Man! It would have been better for that man if he had never been born! (Mark 14:21, Good News Translation).

Read more

Forgiveness is Requested, not Extorted

Forgiveness should be requested, not demanded.  One does not say, “But I have been begging him since, yet he doesn’t want to forgive.  After all, is he God that I should be begging him over this very small matter?”  ForGIVEness should be a gift, not an extortion.  Penitence is deeper than the words of confession by which one ‘applies’ for forgiveness.  If confession has no roots in a repentant heart, if it is only as deep as the tongue, then it had been a mere religious show or ceremonial oration, which could be more offensive to the sensitive soul.  We may not call something a gift if it were procured by force from the other.  Gifts are offered and received, not extorted; for-give-ness no less.

Read more

Third Parties

Do ‘third parties’ have a place in a feud between two parties?  Yes.  After all, Jesus promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He would be there in their midst (Matthew 18:20).  Where personal outreach has failed, third parties could become an option for peace.  Sometimes, a project is beyond the ability of one person to execute, so they hire contractors.  The peace mover or initiator would often be the one who seeks the third party, as in the following scripture where one party in the dispute makes himself impossible to reach.

Read more

The Two Aspects of Confession

In 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins…” – we find two aspects to confession.  Firstly, confession of the sins, which implies admission of guilt; and secondly, requesting forgiveness based on the sins admitted.  If somebody simply said to you, “Please, forgive me,” you might ask them, “Forgive you for what?”  They have asked forgiveness but have confessed to no wrongdoing.  Forgiveness is usually connected to a trespass.  However, if they said, “I damaged your car on Monday (acknowledgment – of sin). Please, forgive me (apology; request for forgiveness).  I am willing to pay for the repairs if you should give me time to get the money” (therapeutic restitution).   Anyone would relate better with such an apology than one that requests blank forgiveness without also providing the specific ‘address’ of the trespass to which the pardon should be posted.

Read more

Licensed Offenders: Dogs and Swine

Preachers – and I have been one of those – have often addressed forgiveness from the angle of the transgressed person who should be magnanimous with forgiveness so that they are not shut out of Heaven.  We have not equally restrained the habitual offender from their ‘right’ to offend.  My engagement with this subject has taught me that even though a transgressed righteous person might dispense forgiveness for the sake of their righteousness, there is as much responsibility, if not more, on the offender in resolving conflicts and achieving peace.

Read more

Repent and Return

Some people are near impossible – if not impossible – to please or reform, even when they are the guilty ones.  That is implied in Paul’s remarkable admonition in Romans 12:18, to “live peaceably with all men,” but to do so “as much as” lies within one’s ability.  In other words, be notified that you will not succeed to win the peace in every case or with every person, no matter how much you try.  You should not blame yourself for such folks, for trying much but not succeeding.   Even if you died trying to please them, your carcass still won’t soften them.  They will ever find fault.  That is probably also why St Luke adds the “if” clause in his scriptures on forgiveness.  It might seem a humbling act to return and request forgiveness, but the action is the offender’s important part of the ‘investment’ into the peace process.  It is no cheap investment.

Read more

Requesting Forgiveness (Chapter 7)

 Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them. – Bruce Lee

Say Something

There is an element of choice in matters of forgiveness: choice in requesting forgiveness, choice in dispensing forgiveness, and choice also in receiving forgiveness.  To the extent that the forgiveness offered may be rejected, it is also up to the trespasser to request or not request forgiveness.  In the Holy Bible, requesting forgiveness is the common path to receiving forgiveness.  For example, in the Genesis 50:17 account, the brothers of Joseph asked for it; they said something; they “spake” something, specifically asking Joseph to “forgive” them.  In response, the request was granted in the language of tears.  They did not speak in ‘signs’ that the other was meant to ‘understand.’  A resort to ‘sign language’ when verbalisation is possible could be indicative of a heart too proud to admit its error; a heart seeking something else in the name of ‘peace.’

Read more

The Trespass of Brethren (Chapter 6: pp 63-77)

An offended friend is harder to win back than a fortified city. – Proverbs 18:19, New Living Translation

Better a thousand enemies outside the house than one inside. – Arabic proverb

Exploited Kisses

Some trespasses are harder to forgive or forget, because they come from “brethren,” from people who sit with us, eat with us, live with us under the same roof; members of the same sworn team, or children of the same Father.  That was what Joseph faced: “the trespass of thy brethren.”   Those were not just “brethren,” they were “THY brethren,” his own blood brothers.  That is what sometimes makes it worse: “thy brethren” – in their plural number against your singular self; in their malicious majority against your defenceless minority; in their conspiratorial unity against your voiceless innocence: “thy brethren.”  Jesus was betrayed by one whom He called a “friend” (Matthew 26:50), one who exploited the lovely language of a kiss to betray his Master (Luke 22:48).

Read more