All Activity

Daniel by faith offered to interpret the king’s dream by not taking credit that it would be his own power but witnessed to the king the existence of a true God in heaven who could interpret dreams . We should always be humble before the Lord . If nor, we’ll be brought low.

Q1. Isaiah’s words from God were to trust God, and He would not be invaded by Syria and Israel. Ahaz chose to ignore God’s advise and seek help and protection from Assyria. This was a decision which tells us that Ahaz was not walking closely with God. He had no idea of God’s power or what it meant to trust Him. The two kings he feared were mere mortals and he chose to go to another mortal man from protection rather than the living, all powerful God! However his choice gives temporary protection but eventually the king of Assyria attacks Judea and destroys it. We can often be like Ahaz and not trust God, and think we can do it on our own. We forget that the power of God which raised Jesus from the dead is available to us, if we just asked God. It can be difficult to obey God if He asks us to do something which takes us out of our comfort zone. Again it shows a lack of trust in God. We may not want to do the thing in question but we have to ask for help and know that His power is made perfect in our weakness.

David is one of those people who thrive in times of conflict, rises to the occasion and shines as a leader. It's only during times of boredom and normalcy that David has moral problems. Thankfully, this is a time of conflict. Yes, David is morose and humble before God, but that's the pattern of his behavior -- when things get bad, David prostrates himself before God. Returning the ark is an interesting act. It's classic David -- all or nothing. Either the ark "defends" David, in an odd sense, or it turns against David -- (the God behind the ark, that is). David is fleecing God. He's trying to force God's hand into either defending or abandoning him. I agree that this is a strategic defeat. It was also unnecessary. Had David not been cloistered in his castle, he would have known what the people were thinking and hearing. A populist movement had arisen as he looked the other way. So, David didn't have his ear to the ground. He was blindsided. Better retreat, think and then fight than enter into a fray for which he was unprepared. David withdrew to "live again to fight another day." I'm trying to think of a contemporary parallel to this and all I can think of is the Russian withdrawal from Kherson in 2023? below some sort of waterway, and how the Western media crowed and jeered Russia's "inevitable defeat." But Russian leaders kept their focus. They didn't listen to the jeering Westerners. They withdrew to buy time and snooker the Ukrainians into sending people into a nearby town of Krinky. Thousands of Ukrainian men were lured to their death there, believing the propaganda that Russia had been fatally weakened. In the meantime, R waited as it strategically planned it's next move. David's situation is like this. Yes, the Absalom coup was a PR disaster but it was also an occasion where David could rise to lead. During this time, David showed an ability to look ahead and see future steps to victory. David's faith, like ours, is strengthened during times of adversity. God puts us into situations in which we have to cling to him for mere survival. He tests us. He makes us suffer. He does all this to strengthen us so we're prepared for whatever he has in front of us to do. Every big calling requires a long period of preparation and suffering. David's "calling" was to restore Israel and get rid of the bad son. To do this, he had to be in lockstep with God's will. I believe David obeyed God at this time.

The lesson I learned is that the consequences of any earlier sin may destroy the rest of my life, and though I'm forgiven by God His forgiveness may or may not erase the punishment. Most Christians cling to the fact that we are "white as snow" after salvation, which is true, while ignoring or denying a second fact which is that forgiveness occurs in the heavenly realm, not the earthly, that while we enjoy purity in the next life, we are still trapped in our sin and it's consequences in this life, in the earthly realm. We have a split life, part heavenly, part earthly. The consequences have to do with the life to we are now in, on earth. Can God erase the consequences in this life? Yes. Will he? Who knows. I think He will if it dovetails into His overarching plan. One of the reasons why people are so drawn to forgiveness is that their consciences are pricked and salvation is preached as a "free" salve for the disturbed conscience. Jesus paid the price so we don't have to. We feel lighter becuase we think that our sin is totally erased -- forgiven. We do not understand that though Jesus may not "see" our sin when he looks at us, that sin is still there in it's ability to persist and ruin the rest of our life, as it did with David. This story has two parallel lessons, the first about the horror of sin's consequences, even the consequences forgiven sin, and the second having to do with Absalom's behavior. Personally, I find Absalom's behavior, the question for power and prestige, particularly at the expense of one's parents, very understandable. But the fear of living today ... now ... that's truly depressing. What do we do for God? We acknowledge our sin and ask for forgiveness. Then God forgives. That is what He promises us. No more. No less. I wish there was another spiritual insight that denies this. I wish that forgiveness included this life as well as the next. Life would be so much lighter if I thought that deep remorse and regret would slowly eat away at the consequences of sin, but I no longer think God cares about our suffering in this life, or not as much as I thought before. I used to think that God's love guaranteed His intervention and willingness to help us escape the messes we make, but now I think that though his love may be real in an abstract sense, in daily life, we plod along in the muddy mire of our messes. Can we ask him to relieve our horrible burdens IF they're self-caused? I think we can, but he may choose not to. David loved God passionately but still sinned; God saw His love, forgave David, yet let David live out the consequences of sin. Sometimes God intervenes to help us. Sometimes He has compassion on us. Isn't that what deliverance is? Deliverance is the this-worldly absolution of the consequences of sin, either our own sin or just the sinful soup in which we swim. I am very sensitive to my own sins, highly aware of sinful attitudes and behaviors, today and in the past -- God may not remember my sin but I do. The notion that every sin adds up inside of me, that my life slowly grinds to a halt as the consequences build up ... I really want to deny this truth. It is too much to bear. I despair over the past but can't do anything about it. I want to be used but see in myself sin that may negate my usefulness. Frankly, I need a God who intervenes in my life more, this life -- right now -- and both negates the consequences of past sins as well as prevents me from sinning more. I want an activist God. A God who routinely delivers me. I want to feel light now, not wake up to an ever increasingly dark future. David loved God. He also ruined his own life. God forgave David. God did not deliver David from his sins during his life. "Show me how to think about this, Lord. Give me peace inside and confidence moving forward, please. Amen"

When He held that bread before them the disciples were already familiar with what it represented. They had been keeping the Passover and Feast of unleavened bread since they were kids. The unleavened bread itself did have the meaning of partaking of that which is clean and undefiled. So what do we part-take of when we take the bread? It represents His body which was broken for us. His unleavened, sinless body. His body which lived to do the will of His father...to fulfill the holy word of His Father. His holy, dedicated body which was broken for us. The breaking of it represented the act of giving Himself FOR us. Then He gives it TO them for them to take into themselves. The bread we partake of as we celebrate our relationship with Him, it does indeed represent what He gave for us, mainly meaning He gave Himself . As we partake of it we feast , we celebrate and worship Him. What have we been given in Christ? What have we received? Romans 5:11 – the reconciliation. Romans 8:15 – the Spirit of Adoption – we call Him Abba (family). 1st Cor 2:12 – the Spirit of God In receiving Him it would seem we've been given a new identity. According to Titus 2:14 – why did He redeem us and purify us? So we could be HIS OWN SPECIAL PEOPLE. During the Jewish keeping of the Passover there was a cup that everyone present would drink from. It was just one cup or chalice that was used, but there were four different times they would drink from it, and each time it meant something during the course of the evening. 1st - cup of sanctification. 2nd – cup of deliverance. 3rd – cup of redemption. 4th – cup of praise. Also in the Jewish observance of Passover a custom had developed where wine be poured into the cup and left on table. It was said to be for Elijah at his reappearing, but our Lord knowing that John the Baptist had already fulfilled that prophecy does something different. Jesus had often used references & illustrations of marriage & weddings. After Jesus spoke abt the cup of redemption He said something that His disciples had probably heard before and it was associated with rejoicing & celebrating...but in a different way. In Galilee, when a man was going to do his betrothal ( which was basically an engagement proposal) it was usually done openly with family there. The bridegroom would be given a cup of wine. He would sip from it and then hand it to her. If she drank from it it would be viewed as the sealing of a covenant. They were legally married. A promise had made and sealed even though no wedding event has occurred. Then the bridegroom would go to his “fathers house” to prepare place. The bride would be getting ready for the grooms return. When he did he would take her back to his Father's house where there would be a marriage supper. It was here that they would again share a cup of wine. Let's go back to the public betrothal for a moment, when he handed her the cup and she drank of it, gave it back, he took it and wouldthen say "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my fathers house.”

There is a part of me that cheers a candidate who seeks the approval of the people rather than cracks down on them from “above” with censorship, police acts, false accusations, propaganda, military repression and a biased judiciary. Absalom was a populist – this is good! He reached out to the people. But he did so dishonestly, which is the bane of all populist/PR campaigns. It caught up with him. When any candidate gets far from the truth, his campaign eventually implodes, though the pain it causes to society and the time it takes before he's exposed varies. There is negative campaigning – telling people the flaws and weaknesses of your opponent – and positive campaigning – tooting your own horn. David did neither; Absalom did the first. Absalom was a expert negative campaigner. And, a dishonest one. In a situation when one side is negatively campaigning, the other side is forced to defensively tell his side of the story. If he does not, the people will be manipulated. David didn't sell himself. He didn't expose Absalom. He let the situation fester until it exploded. Anyone who runs campaigns knows that negative campaigning is far more effective than positive campaigning. Sad, but true. That's why losing candidates get desperate and start slinging half-lies and ugly accusations. It's the only chance. People respond to it and it does work. That's what Absalom did for four years. He negatively campaigned against his father while deceptively making himself look royal. David was much better at becoming king than being king. He became a king through military prowess and loyalty to his soldiers. Absalom was also good at becoming king, but did so via PR and nasty lies, not the truth. David was at least truthful (until the Bathsheba event).

Daniel asked his friends to plead for mercy from God so he could interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezzar they that they wouldn’t die by the order of the king Intercessory prayers are important and effective . Example of Moses pleading God not to destroy the people who displeased Him while they were on the way to the promised land . Pastors and leaders should teach the importance of intercessory prayers in the church , giving many examples from Scriptures .

"In our deepest trials, that is when He is closest to us." Amen!!

Q3. (2 Samuel 1:19-27; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14) David is gracious in his memorial psalm. How does he remember Saul's life? O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, who clothed you in scarlet and finery, who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold. 25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! How does the Chronicler remember Saul's life? Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. How do you think God evaluates Saul's life? So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse. What do we learn from this? When GOD entrusted you with something, never ever disappoint GOD you will come short. Put your everything into GOD as David has done and GOD will lift you up in due time.

Q2. (1 Samuel 30:6) From the Psalms of David, how does David seem to strengthen himself in the Lord when things are going bad? David is seeking to enter into a calm, quiet, reflective, receptive state and praise the name of GOD. David speak mostly to his inner man his soul to praise GOD. What devotional exercises does he adopt? David doing this very thing. What is the focus of his faith? To receive refreshing from the Lord after a big emotional and spiritual blow.

Q1. (1 Samuel 30:1-6) Why do the men blame David? If David hadn't made them go north with the Philistine enemies, they would not lost everything that is dear to them. Why is the situation so explosive at this point. What does David do in the situation? The men were exhausted and beside themselves with exhaustion and grief. David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. What is David feeling? David was greatly distressed because the men were talking of stoning him. Why doesn't he act immediately? He is singing quietly to himself and to the Lord.

Joab conspired to bring Absolom home because he didn't want his country to endure a civil war at a time when it was young and vulnerable. It split anyway. David didn't show his son favor because he himself had murdered and killed and understood intuitively the mentality and motive behind it. I think David understood Absalom, or at least the broad outlines of a mindset that would do such a thing. I don't think he "made up" with Absalom because he was tender or moved by love for his son, though he surely loved his son, but because it was a politically expedient thing to do. David was strategic in relationships as well as war. I can imagine what it would feel like to have an adult child do something so heinous that he had to be banished from the country. David was surely ashamed. His kid did something that was incredibly sinful, and he did it with premeditation, not momentary passion such as anger. Perhaps David was recalling his own premeditated crimes/sins? If so, he would understand the thought process within Absalom and realized that remorse for such behavior -- a real understanding of the causes of one's sin -- would take time, though I don't think this is the motive for not talking to him for so long. I think David was ashamed. Very ashamed. His fav son had "gone bad." He knew his own character flaws and bad parenting had contributed to Absalom's demise. Rather than try to change Absalom, which was impossible, he pushed him away. A problem distanced. I'm sure he hoped the problem would solve itself, that Absalom would mature in character, come to realize his sin and crawl back to his dad for forgiveness ... but David also probably expected this to never happen, too. So he was in a stalemate. He wanted reconciliation but he only wanted it with a chastened son. He wanted to give love, but only on his terms. The stalemate between them hardened, not softened, as time passed. Joab, seeing this and seeing the huge damage it could do to the fledgling nation, intervened to crack the stalemate.

David wears many hats -- he's a ruler, a father and a lover of God. He's also a sinner. As ruler, his power is contingent on maintaining a united family front as well as not showing obvious cracks and divisions within the family that outsiders (and insiders) could exploit. To deal with the matter privately, or not deal with it at all assuming it stays in the family compound, is a political choice that makes sense given his situation. David's kingly position is secure, but ... after his own sin with Bathsheba which I'm sure got around the nation as if it were on Twitter, the last thing he needed was to resurrect that lousy "news cycle" that weakened him publicly. David didn't want people to regard his family as morally and sexually corrupted. So, as a ruler, from purely a political point of view, what he did makes sense. I'm sorry to say that he acted like a clever politician. As a father, however, his inaction was deplorable. He set the stage for more sexual/moral/greed problems in his family by not disciplining Amnon immediately. He needed to gather the family together in this challenging time by making certain that Amnon's discipline was well-known and -heeded by other males who may have been tempted to do the same thing. In sociological terms, David didn't assert himself as the alpha male, protecting his harem and the children of his harem. As I envision his circumstances, the various wives each had their own house and servants and didn't interact much with other families. Thus, Amnon didn't "feel" tamar to be his sister but rather he saw her as "just another female" to be subjugated. She was a stranger to him, not a sister. Also, as a father, David probably had more than a hundred kids, maybe several hundred. He would have mixed up their names if he even knew them in the first place! He was, then, a genetic father only -- a royal sperm-donor -- not a loving dad involved in the lives of his children. Absalom's "honor killing" of Amnon makes sense if you view them as coming from competing families, not one family. As a lover of God, David's story is tragic. I wonder what his relationship to the Lord was like after this severe chastening. Was he closer to God -- that's a real possibility! He learned the hard way to be dependent on God to keep morally pure in a tempting situation of unlimited power. Maybe David's spiritual life was purified through this humbling? If psalm 51 (and maybe 32) were written after Bathsheba event, as some scholars say, then David's faith was deepened through this tragic sin. As a sinner, David lives on in body, but his social and family life is truncated; the effectiveness and worthiness of his family line greatly diminished. The consequences of sin persisted to the third and fourth generation, as warned in Scripture.

Because Daniel was deported to a foreign gentile nation where he suffered changes that are against his Jewish upbringing , he is concerned with their food that may defile . He asked to be fed with vegetables only without wine as well. When the guard over him and his friends refused to grant his request, Daniel proposed a short term plan of 10 days trial that the guard accepted . Daniel was respectful towards those were put over him and his friends. Daniel wanted to obey the laws of diet in his Jewish upbringing and keep himself from further defilement in the pagan country .

Having been captured to live in a foreign country of pagan origin and having their names changed to be given names that were not of their culture must have been the reason for Daniel to fast from rich food and wine as he did also in Daniel chapt 10 when he fasted for 21 days on the same diet. Daniel was very conscious of a Holy God and humbled himself before his God. Daniel has the fear of the Lord in his heart.

Daniel and his friends when they were captured to Babylon had their names changed to Babylonians names which have pagan connotations. They were of royal and noble families in Jerusalem. In Babylon they were to serve in the king’s palace. It must have been very difficult for them to have their names changed. To be made eunuchs were terribly humiliating.

Q4. (1 Samuel 28:7-14) Why do you think God condemns occult practices of communicating with the dead and channeling spirits of the dead? GOD created us to communicate with HIM. God forbit that we must have other gods. How might such practices open Christians to victimization and oppression by evil spirits? This works through a medium, when you consult such thing you open up for evil spirits to get hold of you. This can harm you spiritually. What should you do if you've been involved in such practices in the past? You have to repent before God and ask forgiveness.

Q3. (1 Samuel 25) What do we learn about David's character in this incident with Nabal and Abigail? David angrily commands his men, and he takes 400 of his men to slaughter Nabal and plunder all that he has. What do we learn about Abigail's character? She prostrates herself at David's feet and makes abject apologies for her husband's foolish insult. Nabal's character? Nabal answers rudely and insulted David. Why do you think this story was included in 1 Samuel? So that David could be settle before his kingship. What important knowledge does it add to our understanding? Although David had married Abigail, Abigail was a widow and to married two wife it was legal that time.

I must confess that this passage makes me uncomfortable with God’s love. My all-knowing God surely knew David’s weaknesses and circumstances yet didn’t compassionately hedge him in to prevent him from sinning. Given that God foreknew what David could do, is there not an obligation to stop him? (I just hit on the question of evil without meaning to.) Creation itself “fell” yet our all-knowing God created anyway. God knows we’re weak. He knows our sinful propensities. Someone like David with unbridled passion tempered by a harem of women, the absolute power to do what he wants and extreme boredom would surely fall into sin at some point. God knew this. But He let it happen. He let David sin. I know the answer … it’s all about free will … and God doesn’t let us be tempted beyond what we can withstand, right? This means David CHOSE to sin as he could have chosen otherwise. He CHOSE to sin because God gave him the free will or ability to make that choice. I can’t help but think, however, that such a free will is cruel given that the punishment for sin is eternal, without hope; hell itself. I think I'd rather have NO free will than the possibility of hell forever. -- To set up a system of laws that no one can fully obey is to set humans up for failure. -- To set up a system of grace whereby we are forgiven but still wallow in the effects of our sin is far better, of course, but we still fail. And suffer. It seems to me that we need not only forgiveness but also to have our messes cleaned up while we are on earth. We need to be delivered from sin AND its consequences. This doesn’t belittle or negate the horror of sin, but does recognize the horror of having to live with the consequences of sin. It also acknowledges that ALL of us sin, therefore will suffer the consequences of sin. On earth, consequences aren’t meted out fairly. Some people get away with a lot. Others have their lives ruined. And the poor baby that was a consequence of the sin of David was killed, though David himself survived. In what system of justice does a baby die for the father’s sin? That child, that poor baby, had been condemned to die before he was born. All David’s descendants would be punished, too. So though God was merciful to David by not killing him outright after his sin, He is still responsible for the set-up of a universe in which we necessarily sin. This deeply bothers me. I can’t resolve it. Did David’s sins hurt God’s glory? Yes. Our sins hurt God’s reputation among unbelievers. Believers, or at least mature ones, understand sin, however. Christians in positions of influence or power have a particular responsibility to NOT sin, a responsibility they cannot meet but try to meet anyway. Perhaps one of the reasons for miracles is that they transcend humanity and the realm of sin. They transcend natural laws. Miracles are a sort of work-around – they work-around our sin. When a miracle occurs, God inserts himself directly into human history without using humans as an vehicle – we can't do those miracles ourselves which is why they are miracles. Thus, God reveals himself outside of our agency. He thereby saves his own glory. If God wants glory, then, He will find it in a most pure form outside of humans. In nature, for example. In mathematics. In miracles. In all His divine down-reachings which don’t involve humans. The minute we are involved, His glory is diminished. -- Lord, show me how a system in which we necessarily sin is compassionate. Show me your love in all this. Amen.

Q3. (Isaiah 50:4-9) Who does Isaiah seem to speak about in our passage? In this passage Isaiah is speaking about the Messiah. In what way is he open to the Lord? Yahshua was obedient to the Lord, he did what He instructed him to do. In what way does he suffer? Yahshua was mocked, spit on, beaten and ultimately crucified on the cross. He suffered taking on our sins. When was the Messiah vindicated in history? He was vindicated when he rose in 3 days. How will he be vindicated at the end of the age? All knees will bow before him and proclaim him as Lord over all at his return. What character quality is necessary for believers when their vindication doesn't seem to happen soon enough? Remaining faithful to God and putting our trust in him.

Q6. These verses tell us that God understands fully just how sinfulness and heedless many are. Despite hearing the gospel message they turn away and ignore it. The next time they hear the gospel, they react the same way and this goes on and on. Their heart’s become harder and harder. Isaiah is not given an impossible task. There are always some people who come to faith in God. Also with God nothing is impossible! Isaiah’s prophecy makes things worse because every time the people hear the gospel the harder and harder their hearts become against the gospel message. Matthew 13v1 -23. Is the parable of the sower. In this parable the farmer goes out to sow his seed. The seed falls in different types off ground and many seeds die but some fall on fertile ground and it flourishes and produces a good crop. This is a parable about the gospel, which when heard by people can be ignored or worldly troubles come and people who started well fall away. Worries , persecution and deceitfulness of wealth choke the gospel and no fruit appears. But some seed falls on good soil, this is someone who hears the word and understands and accepts God. There is frustration in preaching in this parable because most seeds die, and few come to fruitfulness. There is always hope because God’s word does not return void. There will always be people who accept Jesus as Saviour. Not as many people accept Jesus as we would like to see but there are always those who are seeking the truth.

Q5.Isaiah’s reaction is to exclaim “I am undone”! He realised He was in the presence of the One and only Holy God. He was also very aware of his sinfulness in the presence of a sinless Holy God. God sent a Seraphim to Isaiah with a burning coal. The seraphim touched Isaiah’s lips with the coal and cleansed Isaiah from all his sin. God needed someone to go and fulfill His mission. He asked the question “Whom shall I send, And who will go for us?” Isaiah replied “Here I am. Send me! He was told exactly what he was to say to the people. When God prompts me to do something, I do try to do it. Often I am not sure if He is telling me to do something. At this stage of life I am looking after my ageing husband, but try to combine this with works for the Lord, outside the home as well as at home.

Q2. (1 Samuel 24:12) How do we apply the principle of not lifting a hand against the Lord's anointed in our day? As David has refused to lift his hand against the Lord's anointed, we need to show respect for the office, even if the people who fill the office are imperfect. What provisions are there in 1 Timothy 5:19-20 for calling leaders to account. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. What do you think God will do to those who slander, persecute, and martyr his appointed leaders? GOD warns them, if lifted the hand GOD will punish them.

Why might it be dangerous for Nathan the prophet to confront the king? What device does Nathan employ get the king to listen to him? How does David’s condemnation of the rich man’s greed help him acknowledge and condemn his own actions? Nathan probably didn't have anything to worry about as I don't think it would be in David's character to kill a prophet who speaks for God. Obviously, David would kill military men and fighters and would even kill one of his own soldiers, Uriah, but I doubt he would have killed Nathan. So Nathan's life wasn't threatened, though he may have been worried about being exiled. From Nathan's perspective, God had told him to confront David. Since he was doing God's will, God would have protected him. His command was Nathan's enablement. Nathan didn't directly accuse David. He used a parable to indirectly accuse him and to get David to admit that his own behavior had been despicable. I'm not sure why he did this. When Elijah confronted Ahab, he blurted out his condemnation. He didn't obscure his message with parables or metaphors. He just spoke what needed to be said. Nathan, however, took a more torturous path to the same goal. Perhaps it was just his personality, that he wasn't confrontative. I wonder how David would have reacted if Nathan had overtly confronted him rather than take a round-about method of telling a parable. My hunch is the reaction would have been the same. David was a man with a guilty conscience. He must have felt a distance from God, that God wasn't in sweet communion with him as He had been in the past. I guess I'm saying that the parable wasn't necessary and is irrelevant, in a way, to how the story of David and Bathsheba ends. David would have been ashamed and guilt-ridden either way. I admire David for admitting his sin and dealing with it so openly before God. He didn't try to cover it up once he knew that God had "noticed" what he had done. Even though he was in very deep trouble, he was close enough to God to understand His compassion and willingness to forgive. He knew God's character ... as well as his own. He had sinned. It was time to repent and restore, to do whatever God asked to right the situation. The consequences of his sin persisted. Uriah was dead. His wife was part of the harem but probably wanted to be with her "real" husband, Uriah. I doubt she loved David and am certain she deeply grieved for her dead husband. David's reputation was forever tarnished among his people and soldiers. I wonder what the other women in the harem felt about Bathsheba and how they treated her. Like Michel, Bathsheba was forcibly impressed into David's harem, taken from her husband. Tragic!!!

Q4. God was making it clear to Isaiah and to us, just how Holy, powerful and glorious He is. Often we can read about Holiness, or Glory but not truly understand it. In these verses Isaiah experiences these things in his vision, this gives him a greater understanding and so he can deliver God’s message to the Israelites with more conviction and more personal understanding of the greatness and awesomeness of God. The vision reveals God’s majesty by the splendour and majesty of the setting. The throne is placed high up overlooking everyone and everything. God is surrounded by seraphim who continually chant about God’s Holiness. At the sound of their voices the doorposts shook and the room was filled with smoke.