"sovereign of"

[Trapped]

This will probably be a short thread but I didn't see another place to tack this question on to.

One phrase I heard all growing up in the LCs was that something is "sovereign of the Lord". Usually this phrase is spoken in response to some type of setback. Someone gets sick, or the weather is terrible and a conference gets canceled, or something bad in general happens that we have no control over. "Surely this is sovereign of the Lord" is the phrase that is inevitably rolled out.

The problem for me is that it is usually spoken without further explanation, so in context, the phrase "sovereign of" ends up coming across as meaning "arranged by" or even just "of" or "from" or "with its source in" Him. So if some setback occurs and the response is "this is sovereign of the Lord", it sounds like "For sure this is of the Lord", or "For sure this is the Lord's arrangement", or "For sure the Lord is doing something here."

What this ends up doing is creating the expectation that some greater or better thing will result from this setback than had originally been planned.....which then creates a big letdown when that expectation is oftentimes not met.

It seems to me that the way the LCs use the word "sovereign" is not quite correct. I don't think that even grammatically that "something can be sovereign of someone". Am I wrong here? To me it seems like the accurate thing to say is "For sure the Lord is still sovereign", meaning the Lord is still over all. No matter what happens or has happened, God is sovereign, God is over all, God is still in control (whether or not He caused the "setback", or steps into the situation, or anything). God has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He pleases, and the setback doesn't change that and doesn't mean God no longer has that power/wisdom/authority.

To say that "something is sovereign of God" I don't think actually uses the word "sovereign" properly, and in that unusual context it ends up creating a misrepresented view of God and what He does or doesn't do, and His role in things when situations go awry. It ends up putting an emphasis on the reason or purpose of the situation, rather than on the unchanging fact that God is still God, no matter what happens or what He allows.

I can certainly get behind "something is permitted by the Lord who is sovereign" but I just can't swallow "sovereign of Him." Am I misunderstanding something here?

[Weighingin]

Sovereign is defined as "possessing supreme or ultimate power." So it is used in that sense as applied to God. When there is a setback, God still has the ultimate power and His will or purpose will prevail, but will be done by how He plans or ordains it.
It is meant to be an encouragement, but much of the time I could only say
"The Lord knows," or "I don't know why."

[Trapped]

Okay, so I am not confused by the definition of "sovereign" nor by the truth of it as applies to God. God is sovereign, there is no doubt. My question is really how the LCs use it in their "vernacular".

(For example, a decade or two back, the co-working brothers started using the word "wrought" wrongly by saying (IIRC) "He has wrought Himself into us" when they meant, and had always said before that, "He has WORKED Himself into us". Our eyes all twitched when they first started using "wrought" wrong, but there wasn't anything we could do and it just kept getting used over and over again.)

I have no problem with "the Lord is sovereign" or "He is a sovereign ruler" or "it is His sovereign right". Those are standard uses. My issue is saying "something is sovereign of the Lord".

For example: "The earthquake in Japan was sovereign of the Lord." Is that a correct usage? I am fine with "The Lord is sovereign over everything, including the earthquake". I am fine with "Even in this tragedy, God is still sovereign." I just don't get "The earthquake is sovereign OF Him".

I googled the phrase "sovereign of" and what results is uses like this:

-"sovereign of the seas" - like the name of a large ship, in this sense sovereign is a noun, like "monarch"
-"the sovereign of our lives" - again, a noun, like monarch/king
-"reigning sovereign of Egypt" - same
-and on and on like that

Nothing comes up in the grammatical form of "[some event/action] is SOVEREIGN OF [some ruler]".

My point is, if this is a grammatically incorrect usage, but is common in the LC vernacular (which it is), it just hit me a couple days ago that this simple incorrect usage caused a lot of problems in me about who God is in times of trouble and setback. Even "sovereign over" (which never gets said in the LCs) is totally fine with me, but "sovereign of" causes huge issues. "Sovereign of" came across to me for decades that bad things that happen often have their source from God. "Sovereign over" would have meant that the Lord is still powerful and in control no matter what happens. The first is embittering, the second is reassuring. So I'm just trying to figure out if the LC's use this phrase correctly.

[Ohio]

Regarding the "sovereignty of God," my recent study of Job helped me to understand the problem of evil and suffering. My NIV Study Bible had a great commentary on the opening chapter of Job. Here is a segment ...

... The relationship between God and man is not exclusive and closed. A third party intrudes, the great adversary. Incapable of contending with God hand to hand, power pitted against power, he is bent on frustrating God's enterprise embodied in the creation and centered on the God-man relationship. As tempter he seeks to alienate man from God, as accuser he seeks to alienate God from man. His all-consuming purpose is to drive an irremovable wedge between God and man, to effect an alienation that cannot be reconciled.

In the story of Job, the author portrays the adversary in his boldest and most radical assault on God and the godly man in the special and intimate relationship that is dearest to them both. When God calls up the name of Job before the accuser and testifies to the righteousness of this one on the earth -- this man in whom God delights -- Satan attempts with one crafty thrust both to assail God's beloved and to show up God as a fool.

True to one of his modes of operation, he accuses Job before God. He charges that Job's godliness is evil. The very godliness in which God takes delight is void of all integrity. It is the worst of all sins. Job's godliness is self-serving; he is righteous only because it pays. If God will only let Satan tempt Job by breaking the link between righteousness and blessing, he will expose the righteous man for the sinner he is.

It is the adversary's ultimate challenge. For if the godliness of the righteous man in whom God delights can be shown to be the worst of all sins, then the chasm of alienation stands between them that cannot be bridged. Then even redemption is unthinkable, for the godliest of men will be shown to be the most ungodly. God's whole enterprise in creation and redemption will be shown to be radically flawed, and God can only sweep it all away in awful judgment.

Perhaps better than passing off all Christian difficulty to Lee's expression, "it must be sovereign of God," which phrase exists no where in the Bible, that I could find anyways, we should focus on actual concepts of encouragement from His word. For one, the scripture emphasizes the trials or difficulties which we all must pass thru. For example, James says count it all joy, that trials prove our faith. Peter says the proving of our faith is more precious than gold, and these trials are fiery ordeals, not to be considered strange to us. Paul considered these all to be a momentary lightness working an eternal weight of glory.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps better than passing off all Christian difficulty to Lee's expression, "it must be sovereign of God," which phrase exists no where in the Bible,

I search for the word sovereign in the Bible. It doesn't appear in the KJV, but does in the ESV.

Looking into the verses where sovereign appears I found the Koine Greek was despotace.

Which makes sense if God is sovereign.

And Job? Well it was a contest ; a contest between the omnipresent and omniscient, and the omnipotent, omnipresent, the omniscient. I call it, God's night out with the boys. Job didn't get invited. He was the center of the action ; the entertainment ; the victorious superman of God ; God's validation. The sons of God surely had skin in the game.

[ZNPaaneah]

Perhaps I can share an experience that I think illustrates both the failure of the term and the correctness of it as well.

My mom, who is 86, had a stroke this summer. I received a message around 9am, so I needed to drive to Albany, about 4 hours away. However, that morning I had noticed I had a flat tire so I needed to get that fixed first, which took me several hours. While on the highway the rain was very intense, so intense I could just barely make out the taillights of the car in front of me. I arrived at 4 pm. My brothers were there. They had done a CT scan which identified a blood clot in her brain. She was paralyzed on one side and couldn't speak. I think many would refer to these three events (the stroke, the rain and the flat) as "sovereign of the Lord".

However, while driving to Albany it occurred to me as I was praying "when is it ever not the Lord's will to heal?" (We can confuse the Lord being sovereign over something with this is His will.) In the gospels it says that "He takes our infirmities on Him and by His stripes we are healed", this is his job description as the messiah. So, I am a teacher, if someone came to me and said "if it is your will you can teach my son" that would be absurd. It better be my will or else I will get fired. So instead, in the gospels the Lord asks "do you believe that I am able to do this?" The person said yes. Then He said "as you have believed so let it be done unto you". That is the Lord's will, as we have believed it would be done unto us.

So the next morning we return to the hospital and my mom is better. She can talk, she is no longer paralyzed, and an MRI revealed the blood clot was gone. But my sister who is in Colorado calls, not realizing she is better and she asks me "when will I ever be able to talk to my mom normal again?" Well I thought to myself when I heard that "we have been asking that question for 30 years". But I didn't say that, instead I said "you can talk to her normal right now" and handed the phone to my mom.

So I would say that it was sovereign that my mom got sick, it was also sovereign that I could spend that time in the word to get the understanding, and it was sovereign that this helped the relationship between my mom and my sister.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

... So I'm just trying to figure out if the LC's use this phrase correctly.

No. They don't use the phrase correctly. However, I never heard "sovereign of" at all before I checked out in the '90's.

Since it isn't biblical, as has been pointed out, it falls in the category of a "non-biblical teaching" taught to Christians as though it were biblical, and, IMHO, is often used to deflect the reality of a situation. Depending on the context of using the expression, it's almost like "oh well" on one end of the scale and on the other end, acknowledging God's Sovereignty.

Later when the use of the expression became more common, it was in a different context. It was used to "spiritualize" an answer.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

ZNP- thanks for relating that story! That's right where the rubber meets the road (had to say that)!

This makes me think of something I got some helpful light on not long ago. In Genesis God gave authority over the earth to us, in other words, He delegated it to us. That delegated authority was then usurped by the enemy. That's what prompted Jesus to say, "The ruler of this world is coming and he has nothing in me." Jesus, as a man, has taken the delegated authority back from the enemy ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me."). Of course, the enemy is resisting this and creation is waiting for man to fully grasp the victory already won and completely execute it here.

My business is leadership development, and we teach that when you delegate something you:
1) Fully train & empower the one being delegated to
2) Let them get the results for themselves (includes making mistakes)
3) Only step in to help if invited or complete failure is eminent

God, has actually limited Himself willingly by His choice of delegated authority. I think this helps explain a lot. The enemy still thinks he is in control - doing his best to steal, kill & destroy. Regenerated man, with Christ in them, has the authority - but usually doesn't know it. Apparently bad things happen, which God doesn't step in to do much about (again, apparently). But He has delegated the authority to us, and it's up to us to invite Him into whatever the situation is here on earth ("Thy will be done on earth . . .").

What's truly amazing is He will get His family together - in love - even though we all have free will to choose Him or not! Think about that . . . this will be the most remarkable outcome the universe has ever seen. No wonder His praises will be so great and will never cease!

So the saying "God is sovereign" is basically true I think. Although, as someone pointed out, it's not to be found much in scripture (minor detail, right?). However, what scripture does say clearly is, "God is love." Why will He get His purpose ultimately (and sovereignly)? He loves us is the answer! And He gave us free will, and then delegated the whole thing to us (after winning the victory Himself)!

What a risk He's taking with us . . . and why this great risk we ask? He loves us!

Hopefully that is meaningful and helps put things in proper perspective.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So the saying "God is sovereign" is basically true I think. Although, as someone pointed out, it's not to be found much in scripture (minor detail, right?).

The word sovereign means supreme ruler, or possessing supreme or ultimate power. Saying that the Lord is sovereign is equivalent to saying He is omnipotent or saying that He is Lord of All and that every knee will bow to Him.

Thanks for the discussion on what it is to delegate authority, I found that very enlightening.