‘The LORD said to Moses, ”Tell Aaron and his sons, ‘This is how you are to bless the Israelites. Say to them: ”‘”The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face towards you and give you peace.”’ (Numbers 6:22-26)

The Aaronic Blessing is very ancient. ‘In 1979, two small silver scrolls from the seventh century BC were unearthed in Jerusalem. They were found to contain the words of Nu. 6:24-26 in a form almost identical to the Hebrew text.’

The blessing is in poetic form, having three lines each with two parts.

1. The Lord bless you. The ‘bless’ sums up the totality of covenant benefits. ‘Sons would expect a blessing from their father (e.g. Gn. 27:27-29, 38; 49:1-28). God’s blessing was given to Adam, whom Luke calls ‘the son of God’ (Gn. 1:28; 5:1-3; Lk. 3:38). Through Adam’s fall the curse came in (Gn. 3:14-19), but blessing was promised again to Abraham and his descendants (Gn. 12:1-3). Blessing entails fruitfulness (descendants, flocks, harvests), but these benefits are tokens of the true blessing, the relationship with the Lord. Only if God is our Father are we truly blessed (Gn. 17:16; 22:17-18; Lv. 26:3-13; Dt. 28:2-14).’

2. And keep you. ‘The purpose of the protection was to keep Israel in covenant relationship with God. The Lord was Israel’s keeper (Ps. 121:7-8; cf. Heb. 13:6). Christ, the good shepherd, kept his sheep and lost none except for Judas Iscariot (Jn. 6:37-40; 10:11-16; 18:9).’

3. The Lord make his face shine upon you. ‘His face means his presence, revealed in the cloud of fire (Ex. 40:34ff.); shine upon you means that God takes pleasure in his people and saves them (Pr. 16:15; Pss. 31:16; 67:1f.; 80:3, 7, 19).’

4. And be gracious to you. ‘The outcome of God’s pleasure is his grace; his covenant mercy. It is fundamental to salvation that God’s favour is unmerited. It is not deserved in any way; rather God shows mercy because of his own love and faithfulness to his oath (Dt. 7:7-8). This principle can be traced throughout Scripture (Ezek. 16:1ff.; Rom. 5:1-11; 9:10-13, 18; 11:5; 1 Cor. 1:26ff.).’

5. The Lord turn his face toward you. ‘This is more emphatic and asks that God might pay attention to Israel. It may reflect the fact that he had chosen them and not other nations. If God hid his face, Israel would suffer and perish (Pss. 30:7; 44:24; 104:29).’

6. And give you peace. ‘Peace means completeness and well-being. This has long been recognized as covenant language. Covenants were made to secure peace through a right relationship. But when God gives peace, it extends to the whole of life; even human enemies are quiet (Lv. 26:6; Pr. 16:7). These words were later seen as a promise of the Messiah, the ‘Prince of Peace’ (Isa 9:6), and find their true depths in Christ (Jn. 14:27; Eph. 2:14-18).’

Of the blessing as a whole, it has been noted that ‘the influence of these words runs through the Bible (Pss. 67; 121; 122; 124; 128). Paul’s letters begin with a greeting which always uses the words ‘grace’ and ‘peace’ (e.g. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; and 2 Tim. 1:2 adds ‘mercy’). In most cases Paul says the grace and peace are from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and without doubt he is taking up the priestly blessing.’

(New Bible Commentary)

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery has a thought-provoking summary of biblical teaching on silence.

Silence communicates. It is a basic feature of human relationships, for we must often interpret the silence of others. And by its very nature silence can express a wide variety of things. Usually it is not hard to interpret-the rebellious sullenness of a child, the hush as the school principal or head teacher enters. But sometimes silence is hard to interpret.

It is not surprising, therefore, that silence in the Bible expresses a wide range of emotions, attitudes and states: attentiveness, {De 27:9 Job 33:31 Ac 19:33} restraint, {1Sa 10:27 Ps 50:12 Jer 4:19} respect and awe, {Job 29:21 Hab 2:20} loyalty, {Isa 36:21} deep thought, {Ac 15:12} acceptance of guilt, {Job 13:19 Ro 3:19} rest after tumult or suffering, {Ps 46:10 Mr 4:39} fear of saying something wrong, {Ps 39:2} even wisdom; {Job 13:5 Pr 17:28} more negatively, it can express faithlessness, {Es 4:14} fear, {Job 31:34 Ac 18:9} deep pain, {Job 2:13 La 2:10} rebellion, {Ps 32:2 Mr 3:4} defeat or destruction, {Ps 101:5 143:12 Isa 47:5} and supremely death. {Ps 31:17-18 94:17 115:17} Significantly, there is one Hebrew verb (used, e.g., in Ps 18:40,101:5 La 3:53) that means both “to destroy” and “to keep silent.”

The biblical writers also occasionally exploit the “openness” of silence-for instance, Aaron’s silence in Le 10:3 (grief? rebellion? submission?), the silence of God, {Ps 44:23 83:1} the silence of Jesus at his trial (Mr 14:61; cf. Isa 53:7) or the silence in heaven in Re 8:1. Also worth mentioning here are significant absences of speech where we might expect something (for instance, from Nicodemus after Joh 3:21). In all these cases, we the readers have to supply the meaning of the silence, which acts as a metaphor or parable.

I wouldn’t presume to tell other lay preachers how to prepare their sermons, or how to use commentaries.  But here’s the first in what might turn out to be an occasional series of posts on my own approach.

The best one-sentence defense of biblical commentaries I have seen comes from the excellent C.H. Spurgeon:-

It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.  (Commenting and Commentaries, p1).

There are four published guides I am acquainted with:-

1.  Commentary and Reference Survey, by John Glynn, published by Kregel (10th edition, 2007).  As a catalogue of biblical and theological literature, it is very comprehensive.  It offers little by way of evaluation of the works cited, but it does classify works in the following kinds of ways: (a) there are separate listings for technical and expositional works (although the distinction between the two is sometimes slightly unclear); (b) recommended works are listed in Bold typs; (c) each commentary is designated as ‘Evangelical’, ‘Evangelical/Critical’, ‘Conservative/Moderate’, or ‘Liberal/Critical’ (but this classification is based primarily on the authors’ supposed attitude towards inerrancy, which is rather limiting).  It is overwhelmingly slanted in favour of contemporary literature.  For Romans, for example, there is not only no mention of Calvin or Hodge, but not even Murray.

2.  Old Testament Commentary Survey, by Tremper Longman III, published by IVP (3rd edition, 2003).  This provides brief descriptive/evaluative comments on each work cited, uses a five-star system to indicate its quality, and identifies it as suitable for a Layperson, Minister, or Scholar.  I would give this Survey 3 stars (out of a possible five) for usefulness.  It not only ignores older works, but also neglects some contemporary commentaries too.  The failure to mention the works by Dale Ralph Davis on the historical books of the Old Testament is inexcusable.

3.  New Testament Commentary Survey, by D.A. Carson, published by Baker Academic (6th edition, 2007).  Carson is, of course, a well-known evangelical scholar and speaker.  His opinions are wise and well-balanced, even if – with so much ground to cover – they are sometimes expressed with such brevity as scarcely begins to do justice to the works being evaluated.  Although Carson focuses mainly on contemporary literature, he does mention some of the older, classic commentaries.

4.  Commenting and Commentaries, by C.H. Spurgeon, published by the Banner of Truth Trust (orginally published in 1876).  Especially in view of the general neglect of older works in the three guides mentioned above, Spurgeon’s work is invaluable.  He has an amazing gift for summing up the value of a work in a memorable phrase or two.  When evaluating works of lesser usefulness to the preacher, he gives reign to his celebrated wit.  For example, of one set of expository sermons, he writes, ‘They will not make the hearers lie awake at nights, or cause them palpitations of heart through excess of original and striking thought.’  A commentary by one Thomas Pyle is described as, ‘a pile of paper, valuable to housemaids for lighting fires.’

More importantly, he expresses an infectious enthusiasm for the works of Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Trapp, and a host of Puritan and more recent commentators, and his comments on suc works have kept the memory (and the reading) of these men very much alive in more recent years.

Of Matthew Henry, Spurgeon says, ‘He is most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy.  You will find him to be glittering with metaphors, rich in analogies, overflowing with illustrations, superabundant in reflections…Every minister ought to read Matthew Henry entirely and carefully through once at least.’

Spurgeon recommends the commentaries of John Calvin as being ‘worth their weight in gold.  Of all commentators I believe John Calvin to be the most candid.  In his expositions he is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic; that is to say, where Scripture maintains the doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree, but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness and integrity.’ 

And Spurgeon is very fair.  Of a book by a high churchman (John Mason Neale), he says, ‘These sermons smell of popery, yet the savour of our Lord’s good ointment cannot be hid.  Our Protestantism is not of so questionable a character that we are afraid to do justice to Papists and Anglicans, and therefore we do not hesitate to say that many a devout thought has come to us while reading these “sermons by a Priest of the Church of England”.’

Craig Blomberg has written extensively on the historical reliability of the Gospels.  In the relevant article in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, he identifies a number of factors that support the probability that the Gospels faithfully preserve the oral traditions on which they are based.

1. Jesus was perceived by his followers as one who proclaimed God’s Word in a way which demanded careful retelling.

2. Over ninety percent of his teachings has poetic elements which would have made them easy to memorize.

3. The almost universal method of education in antiquity, and especially in Israel, was rote memorization, which enabled people accurately to recount quantities of material far greater than all of the Gospels put together.

4. Oral story-telling often permitted a wide range of freedom in selecting and describing details but required fixed points of a narrative to be preserved unchanged.

5. Written notes and a kind of shorthand were often privately kept by rabbis and their disciples, despite a publicly stated preference for oral tradition.

6. The lack of teachings ascribed to Jesus about later church controversies (e.g., circumcision, speaking in tongues) suggests that the disciples did not freely invent material and read it back onto the lips of Jesus.

7. The degree to which Jesus emphasized his imminent return, that is, to the exclusion of envisioning the establishment of an ongoing community of followers, has been exaggerated. Hence, the claim that the disciples would have had no interest in preserving the Gospel tradition until the second generation of Christianity is doubtful.

Forgiveness has not always been valued. Nietzsche, who denounced Christianity as a religion of pity, saw forgiveness as immoral because it glorifies weakness. Others have regarded it as an insipid response to the complexities of responsibility, power and justice.  The Briefing #202 (May 1998)

Someone has called forgiveness ‘the most healing force in the world.’

’It would tire the hands of an angel to write down all the pardons God bestows upon true penitent believers. (William Bates)

Where we went with our vicious sins, there we must go with our soiled virtues.’ (W.E. Sangster)

We are most like beasts when we kill. We are most like men when we judge. We are most like God when we forgive.

Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until he has something to forgive. (C.S. Lewis)

He that demands mercy, and shows none, ruins the bridge over which he himself is to pass. (Thomas Adams)

’Poor souls are apt to think that all those whom they read or hear of to be gone to heaven, went thither because they were so good and so holy…Yet not one of them, not any one that is now in heaven (Jesus Christ alone excepted), did ever come thither any other way but by forgiveness of sins’ (John Owen).

’The repeated promises in the Qur’an of the forgiveness of a compassionate and merciful Allah are all made to the meritorious, whose merits have been weighed in Allah’s scales, whereas the gospel is good news of mercy to the undeserving. The symbol of the religion of Jesus is the cross, not the scales.’ (John Stott, Authentic Christianity, 50)

Some people believe that when it comes to forgiveness, you just draw a line and forget it even though it’s tough and messy. But this is too simple. In Miroslav Volf’s excellent book Exclusion and Embrace, his basic argument is this: Whether we are dealing with international relations or one-on-one personal relations, evil must be named and confronted. There must be no sliding around it, no attempt—whether for the sake of an easy life or in search of a quick fix—to present it as if it wasn’t so bad after all. Only when that has been done, when both the evil and the evil doer have been identified as what and who they are—this is what Volf means by “exclusion”—can there be the second move towards the “embrace” of the one who has deeply hurt and wounded us or me. If I have named the evil, and done my best to offer genuine forgiveness and reconciliation, then I am free to love the person even if they don’t want to respond.  (See www.wittenburgdoor.com/heavy-theological-dude-mistakenly-talks-us)

Clint Eastwood’s film Unforgiven gives a good picture of its theme: ’a place where the three R’s are retribution, recrimination and revenge; where every wrong set in motion a chain of retaliation that could only be broken by violent death.’  The Briefing #202 (May 1998)

’Not long before she died in 1988, in a moment of surprising candour on television, Marghanita Laski, one of our best-known secular humanists and novelists, said, “What I envy about you Christians is your forgiveness; I have nobody to forgive me.”’  Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 48

Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, was never known to hold resentment against anyone. Once, a friend recalled to her a cruel act that had happened to her some years previously. Clara seemed not to recall the incident. “Don’t you remember the wrong that was done you?” the friend asked? Clara answered, “No, I distinctly remember forgetting that.”