I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Daniel.
Chronological Content:
The book of Daniel deals with three distinct periods
A) DANIEL’S LIFETIME
Daniel and his friends are groomed for service in Babylon under king Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel reveals and interprets a dream of a statue. The three friends survive a fiery furnace. Daniel interprets a second dream regarding the king’s pride, madness and restoration. During the next king’s reign (Belshazzar) Daniel sees two visions and is called upon to read the writing on the wall. During the reign of Darius the Mede, Daniel prays for his people and is rewarded with a prophecy explained by Gabriel. He also survives a night in a den of lions. During the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia, another angel appears in a vision and explains in detail what is to come.
B) FUTURE HISTORY
The interpreted dream, the two visions and the two angelic prophecies provide a detailed account of the following centuries. The history is sometimes couched in very symbolic language but is clearly explained as representing four empires and a whole array of kings, ending with one particular ruler who will persecute God’s people. My impression (though I know some scholars will disagree) is that the different dreams and visions are all essentially telling the same story, culminating in a time of terrible persecution.
C) GOD’S ETERNAL KINGDOM
The stone which strikes the feet of the statue; the arrival in the clouds of one like a son of man; the vague reference to the end prepared by God; the language about the dead living again and the end of time – all these suggest that the time of terrible persecution will be followed by God establishing an eternal heavenly kingdom which will supersede earthly empires.
How do these stages compare with ‘real’ history? There are no supporting documents outside the book of Daniel which verify period A and some of the facts (such as the existence of Darius the Mede) are apparently hard to reconcile with historical records. Period B on the other hand fits closely with the known history of the Persian and then the Greek empire and the description of the final cruel king seems to be a clear reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated the temple in Jerusalem during a time of severe Jewish persecution in the second century BC. Period C has not happened yet. Or maybe it is a highly symbolic reference to the coming of Jesus. But there was certainly no ‘eternal heavenly kingdom’ breaking into history during the time of persecution by Antiochus IV.
Date and Purpose:
So when and why and by whom was the book written? The traditional view is that Daniel himself wrote it, but I’m afraid I don’t find that view convincing. And this is NOT because I have problems with the possibility of accurate prophecy. If anything it’s because I have confidence that if God is going to predict the future he is going to get it 100% right. The prophetic element of Daniel is right in every detail up to a certain point (the persecution under Antiochus IV) and then suddenly it diverges from what actually happened – i.e. life carried on as normal, further kings and empires rose and fell, and there was no sign of God dramatically setting up his eternal kingdom. (Unless you count the death and resurrection of Jesus, but that happened two centuries later.)
If you imagine an author writing this book during the time of persecution, the whole thing makes more sense. His knowledge of Babylon would be sketchy. His ‘predictions’ of the future would be increasingly accurate as they approached his own time. His hopes for what would happen next would be more vague and more spiritual. So what was the author’s purpose? His account of Daniel and friends standing up for their God in difficult circumstances would encourage the people of his own day to take heart. The prophecies about the coming kingdom of God would help them realise that the future was not in the hands of a cruel king but of a loving and powerful God. Did the author seriously expect imminent divine intervention to bring an end to the persecution? Or was he just expressing his hopes? Either way it must have been comforting to those under severe pressure to be reassured that all was unfolding according to God’s plan and that in the end it would be God and no earthly ruler who would reign supreme.
Or if you want to adopt the traditional view: Even those who regard this book as written by Daniel can’t help but notice that much of the prophetic detail culminates in one particular king who persecuted the Jewish people. There must be a reason for this. God was not merely demonstrating to future readers (like us) that he is capable of foretelling the future. Surely the people who would have found most value in this book are those who were suffering under Antiochus IV, because they would be reading of events directly relevant to their own situation. Therefore, whenever and by whomever we think the book was written, we need to ask “What was God saying to the readers undergoing that particular persecution two centuries before Christ?”
And the answer is (I think) “Stand firm. Keep the faith. Don’t despair. God has it all under control. Your troubles will soon be over. There’s a wonderful eternal kingdom on the way.”
Linking the episodes:
Although the book can be divided into neat sections – six stories followed by four visions – and although some of the changes are abrupt – such as the sudden switch from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar – there are a few linking details.
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of a statue in which the golden head represented his present Babylonian empire. Next thing you know he has turned the dream into reality by building a huge gold statue which he expected everyone to worship.
The first four stories could be seen as the spiritual journey of Nebuchadnezzar – he is impressed by the wisdom and knowledge of Daniel and co.; he recognises Daniel’s God as the greatest of all gods; he forbids any show of disrespect (on pain of death) to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; he learns humility and praises the King of Heaven.
I am a little baffled by the timing of the first two stories. It took three years training before Daniel and co. were admitted to the court (starting from some time after King Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem). Yet in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Daniel and co. are rewarded by being put in charge of various provinces.
Nebuchadnezzar may have improved in his attitude to God but his cruelty didn’t immediately change. He commanded his advisors to reveal his dream “or I’ll have you torn limb from limb and your houses reduced to rubble!” And later he makes exactly the same threat to anyone who disrespects God.
Early in Belshazzar’s reign Daniel records two visions. After the second he returns (shaken) to his royal duties. But by the time of the feast he has been totally forgotten about and the queen needs to remind the king of his existence. Presumably he had gone into retirement by this stage. Which means that in the ‘den of lions’ episode he must have been quite an old man.
More Questions than Answers:
Within the context of the story, what was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream for? What was the point? What practical difference did it make to him that four kingdoms hence there would be a new heavenly kingdom?
Is ‘prophecy’ a good word to describe Daniel’s writing? Most prophets addressed specific situations in their own day. Daniel records his visions for posterity and doesn’t share God’s word with his contemporaries.
Some parts of the story seem a bit surreal – suddenly Nebuchadnezzar is driven from human society without explanation; Darious is persuaded to issue a bizarre law – for one month you can’t make requests of anybody but the king! How could society function if people kept this rule?
Why does Belshazzar offer the ‘third highest’ position in the kingdom? Who were the other two? Given that the only historical record of Belshazzar is as the son of king Nabonidus (but not as king in his own right), perhaps he was only second in command himself.
What’s all this business about guardian angels of Persia, Greece and Israel? And why do they seem not to be singing from the same hymn sheet? The angel who met Daniel by the Tigris took a while to get through and needed the help of the GA of Israel (Michael) to overcome the GA of Persia.
Daniel is told to keep his book sealed until the end of the world – so who is expected to read it then? And if we can’t understand it until the world has ended what is the point of it?
Miscellaneous Thoughts:
“Try it for ten days and see if you notice the difference” – the same approach to a new diet is still being used today!
Babylon was a dangerous place to live. If you got on the wrong side of the king you were in trouble – mass executions; being torn limb from limb; houses burned to the ground; death by fiery furnace; incarceration in a den of lions. Some of these orders or threats were not actually carried out, or God miraculously saved the victims, but the enemies of Daniel (and their families) were literally thrown to the lions. So these are not just stories about faithfulness in the face of opposition. They are about risking life and limb by standing up to rulers who have the power of life and death, and are ready to use torture and cruelty to express their displeasure.
Daniel picked his battles. He didn’t balk at being given the name of a heathen god (Belteshazzar). He didn’t shy away from the murky world of court politics. He must have had to engage in at least a smidgeon of wheeling and dealing if he was to run Babylonian affairs so successfully for so long. And where was he when his three friends were refusing to worship that gold statue? I find it more encouraging to think of Daniel not as perfect and pure, but as an ordinary man in a difficult situation choosing the moments in which he should take a stand on his principles.
The trio came out of the furnace with their clothing unsinged. Daniel had no mark on him after his encounter with the lions. When God rescues he does so completely without leaving scars or lingering after-effects (or at least on these two occasions he did.)
S, M and A have the right attitude – “our God can save us, but if not....” Maybe this is the message which those persecuted under A.IV needed to hear. They were to take heart that God was able to save them from a tyrant, ‘but if not’ then they were still to remain faithful to God. I believe in miracles. I sometimes hope for them – or at least I hope for a nice clear sign that God is in charge. The real test of faith is if I trust God when he isn’t showing any signs of his presence.
When Gabriel comes with the answer to Daniel’s prayer, he first says “God loves you” (strictly speaking “you are beloved.”) The angel begins the next vision with the same reassurance. This is unusual language for the Old Testament. God is not making a general declaration of love for his people, but personally to one individual. It seems to me there’s no better affirmation than to be told (and by Gabriel of all people!) that God loves you.
Thursday 5 November 2009
Wednesday 14 October 2009
ABR#6 Two Corinthians
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times (in this case four) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading 2 Corinthians.
General Tone:
This is a letter of explanation, self-defence and reconciliation. Paul’s relationship with Corinth had clearly deteriorated and he is anxious to set it right with a combination of honesty about the nature of his work (both his strengths and weaknesses) and an attitude which ranges between “I love you and I’m trying to help you” and “don’t make me come over there and have to bang your heads together”.
I am reminded of a heated email exchange where after a while someone tries to sum things up by setting down the whole matter at great and tedious length, seeking to explain what they did and why, what they said and what they meant.
According to some scholars, the letter which had upset the church so much (mentioned halfway through) is actually preserved as the last part of 2 Corinthians. If this was an email then this last section would be the ‘quoted text’ from an earlier exchange. I’m not sure it matters whether this is one letter or two letters combined. In either case Paul was taking pains to justify himself to a church he had somehow got on bad terms with, and we can only read part of an ongoing conversation. The healing of the relationship would surely have taken time and not been completely resolved by one epistle.
Dramatis Personae:
Paul writes to the Christians in Achaia (the land to the west of the Adriatic Sea), including the city of Corinth. He speaks highly of the Christians in Macedonia (to the north of the Adriatic).
The first part of the letter uses “we” a lot, presumably referring to Paul, Timothy and their colleagues who are working to spread the gospel of Christ. After an interlude about fund-raising (where the Macedonians are cited as a good example to follow), the emphasis shifts more often to “I” (Paul himself) and includes a section where he bares his soul to them in terms of his hardships, his motives and his weaknesses.
Titus features repeatedly in this letter, which suggests he was at this point one of Paul’s close colleagues, or he was someone known and respected in Corinth – or both.
Some characters remain anonymous – the man who sinned but needs to be forgiven; the reliable brother who was sent with Titus; the man caught up into paradise. Had Paul forgotten their names, or was there need for discretion in these cases?
What can we learn?
This letter reveals a lot about the nature of an evangelist and an apostle in the early church. It reveals little about the precise nature of the breakdown in the relationship between Paul and Corinth. It reveals something about the nature of God and the Christian life because Paul refers to these things as illustrations and arguments to support his main purpose of justifying his role.
I’d hesitate to call any part of the Bible worthless, but it does seem to me that Paul’s occasional profound theological asides are a far better reason for this letter being in the canon of Scripture than his blatant appeals to be understood and respected.
A big question: How on earth was Paul expecting this letter not to be taken purely as a justification of himself and his team? He claims to be writing not in self-defence but to build up his readers. What is there about the content of this letter which will improve the lives and faith of the Christians in Corinth? Is it because the message and the messenger can never be fully separated? Paul needs to establish his credentials (an appropriate word – literally the things which make someone believable) so that they will accept his teaching. Today our Christian witness has become “I think I’m right in what I believe but I wouldn’t want to impose my view on others.” Paul’s attitude is “I’m sure I’m right in what I believe and it’s vitally important that you also believe it. So I’m going to do whatever it takes to convince you that I’m worth listening to.”
Detailed content:
Here is an attempt to extrapolate from Paul’s words what the situation might have been in Corinth and Achaia. (The following quotes are paraphrases and TA indicates a theological aside.)
Perhaps the Corinthians were facing troubles and feeling sorry for themselves – Paul reminds them “we have faced troubles and almost died, but God has helped us and that means God can use us to help you.”
The Corinthians didn’t like Paul changing his mind and writing instead of visiting – Paul explains “I did intend to pass through Corinth twice but decided it would be better for you if I didn’t. [TA: Jesus is God’s YES] Instead I wrote about that person who had done wrong. My letter apparently upset you, but he has now been punished and should be forgiven. My travel plans were also affected by my search for Titus.”
The Corinthians had never seen documents to support Paul’s authority – Paul claims he doesn’t need them. “Because of what we have accomplished (through Christ) in Corinth, you are like a letter of recommendation written by Christ. [TA: in the old law God’s glory was veiled. Now a greater glory is revealed, but still many are blind to it.] Don’t think we are boasting though. We are weak vessels that God is able to use. [TA: the mortal body is a temporary residence, God has a better home prepared for us]”
The Corinthians were no longer impressed by Paul or cared for him – Paul is more concerned with being a friend of Christ. “We don’t want you to fall into the trap of judging by appearances. [TA: through Christ God has turned enemies into friends.] We have patiently endured many hardships. We are being open with you, open your hearts to us.”
[a criticism: don’t have such close dealings with unbelievers.]
Titus has visited Corinth and returned with news of their reaction to a very upsetting letter Paul had sent – “I’m sorry to have upset you, but glad I wrote the letter because it made you put things right. What really encourages us is that we gave Titus a good report of you and you didn’t let us down.”
Interlude: “God’s people in Judea need financial help. The churches of Macedonia have been generous, and we hope you will be too. You’ve begun well. Don’t stop now. Titus and another brother are coming to encourage you and make sure there can be no accusation of financial irregularities. I’ve been boasting about your generosity. Don’t let me down. [TA: God gives lavishly and loves those who do the same.]”
The view of Paul in Corinth was that his letters were powerful but harsh, whereas in person he was gentle but ineffectual; they were more impressed with ‘professional’ apostles who expected payment – Paul responds “what we write and what we say in person is all part of the authority God gives us. He has made us responsible for you (within limits) and therefore we don’t charge anything for our services. If you want me to boast, then here are all the difficulties and hardships I have endured for the sake of the gospel. And God has given me a painful ailment as a constant reminder of my weakness and his strength. The whole point of me writing like this is not to justify ourselves to you, but to help you and build you up. You need to deal with those who sin and get rid of your quarrelling and jealousy so that when I do come I can commend you.”
Miscellaneous insights:
We say ‘Amen’ in the name of Jesus because he is God’s ‘Yes’. This doesn’t mean all our prayers will be answered in the affirmative. It does mean that God wants stuff to happen and Jesus is the means by which it happens. When starship captain Jean-Luc Picard has heard his crew’s ideas and come to a decision, he expects that decision to be implemented – Jesus is God’s way of saying “Make it so”.
It is encouraging to think that our when our earthly tent (our physical body) is destroyed, God has a new heavenly tent prepared for us to inhabit. But even so (if I’ve understood Paul correctly) the thought of putting off this present body doesn’t appeal. Paul is human enough to want to put on the wonderful new body as an extra layer without giving up the body he is familiar with.
In 1 Corinthians Paul was keen to recognise many different ministries as valuable – one sows, another waters – so there shouldn’t be rivalry between factions. Here he has changed his tone and criticises his opponents as pseudo-apostles, comparing them with Satan disguised as an angel of light. How can we distinguish between colleagues who have a different style of ministry and enemies who are promoting a corrupt gospel? Maybe one of the marks of the true apostle is humility and a willingness to give credit to others, whereas inflating one’s own importance at the expense of others is the mark of a false apostle. But on those criteria, how would we rate Paul....? Perhaps these vitriolic passages show Paul at his most human and most vulnerable. And still God could use him! It’s as if the glorious riches of God were stored in a drab earthenware jar (to quote Paul’s own illustration.)
Whatever else we might think of this letter, the final blessing is so simple and profound that it has been adopted as the closing prayer at countless Christian meetings.
General Tone:
This is a letter of explanation, self-defence and reconciliation. Paul’s relationship with Corinth had clearly deteriorated and he is anxious to set it right with a combination of honesty about the nature of his work (both his strengths and weaknesses) and an attitude which ranges between “I love you and I’m trying to help you” and “don’t make me come over there and have to bang your heads together”.
I am reminded of a heated email exchange where after a while someone tries to sum things up by setting down the whole matter at great and tedious length, seeking to explain what they did and why, what they said and what they meant.
According to some scholars, the letter which had upset the church so much (mentioned halfway through) is actually preserved as the last part of 2 Corinthians. If this was an email then this last section would be the ‘quoted text’ from an earlier exchange. I’m not sure it matters whether this is one letter or two letters combined. In either case Paul was taking pains to justify himself to a church he had somehow got on bad terms with, and we can only read part of an ongoing conversation. The healing of the relationship would surely have taken time and not been completely resolved by one epistle.
Dramatis Personae:
Paul writes to the Christians in Achaia (the land to the west of the Adriatic Sea), including the city of Corinth. He speaks highly of the Christians in Macedonia (to the north of the Adriatic).
The first part of the letter uses “we” a lot, presumably referring to Paul, Timothy and their colleagues who are working to spread the gospel of Christ. After an interlude about fund-raising (where the Macedonians are cited as a good example to follow), the emphasis shifts more often to “I” (Paul himself) and includes a section where he bares his soul to them in terms of his hardships, his motives and his weaknesses.
Titus features repeatedly in this letter, which suggests he was at this point one of Paul’s close colleagues, or he was someone known and respected in Corinth – or both.
Some characters remain anonymous – the man who sinned but needs to be forgiven; the reliable brother who was sent with Titus; the man caught up into paradise. Had Paul forgotten their names, or was there need for discretion in these cases?
What can we learn?
This letter reveals a lot about the nature of an evangelist and an apostle in the early church. It reveals little about the precise nature of the breakdown in the relationship between Paul and Corinth. It reveals something about the nature of God and the Christian life because Paul refers to these things as illustrations and arguments to support his main purpose of justifying his role.
I’d hesitate to call any part of the Bible worthless, but it does seem to me that Paul’s occasional profound theological asides are a far better reason for this letter being in the canon of Scripture than his blatant appeals to be understood and respected.
A big question: How on earth was Paul expecting this letter not to be taken purely as a justification of himself and his team? He claims to be writing not in self-defence but to build up his readers. What is there about the content of this letter which will improve the lives and faith of the Christians in Corinth? Is it because the message and the messenger can never be fully separated? Paul needs to establish his credentials (an appropriate word – literally the things which make someone believable) so that they will accept his teaching. Today our Christian witness has become “I think I’m right in what I believe but I wouldn’t want to impose my view on others.” Paul’s attitude is “I’m sure I’m right in what I believe and it’s vitally important that you also believe it. So I’m going to do whatever it takes to convince you that I’m worth listening to.”
Detailed content:
Here is an attempt to extrapolate from Paul’s words what the situation might have been in Corinth and Achaia. (The following quotes are paraphrases and TA indicates a theological aside.)
Perhaps the Corinthians were facing troubles and feeling sorry for themselves – Paul reminds them “we have faced troubles and almost died, but God has helped us and that means God can use us to help you.”
The Corinthians didn’t like Paul changing his mind and writing instead of visiting – Paul explains “I did intend to pass through Corinth twice but decided it would be better for you if I didn’t. [TA: Jesus is God’s YES] Instead I wrote about that person who had done wrong. My letter apparently upset you, but he has now been punished and should be forgiven. My travel plans were also affected by my search for Titus.”
The Corinthians had never seen documents to support Paul’s authority – Paul claims he doesn’t need them. “Because of what we have accomplished (through Christ) in Corinth, you are like a letter of recommendation written by Christ. [TA: in the old law God’s glory was veiled. Now a greater glory is revealed, but still many are blind to it.] Don’t think we are boasting though. We are weak vessels that God is able to use. [TA: the mortal body is a temporary residence, God has a better home prepared for us]”
The Corinthians were no longer impressed by Paul or cared for him – Paul is more concerned with being a friend of Christ. “We don’t want you to fall into the trap of judging by appearances. [TA: through Christ God has turned enemies into friends.] We have patiently endured many hardships. We are being open with you, open your hearts to us.”
[a criticism: don’t have such close dealings with unbelievers.]
Titus has visited Corinth and returned with news of their reaction to a very upsetting letter Paul had sent – “I’m sorry to have upset you, but glad I wrote the letter because it made you put things right. What really encourages us is that we gave Titus a good report of you and you didn’t let us down.”
Interlude: “God’s people in Judea need financial help. The churches of Macedonia have been generous, and we hope you will be too. You’ve begun well. Don’t stop now. Titus and another brother are coming to encourage you and make sure there can be no accusation of financial irregularities. I’ve been boasting about your generosity. Don’t let me down. [TA: God gives lavishly and loves those who do the same.]”
The view of Paul in Corinth was that his letters were powerful but harsh, whereas in person he was gentle but ineffectual; they were more impressed with ‘professional’ apostles who expected payment – Paul responds “what we write and what we say in person is all part of the authority God gives us. He has made us responsible for you (within limits) and therefore we don’t charge anything for our services. If you want me to boast, then here are all the difficulties and hardships I have endured for the sake of the gospel. And God has given me a painful ailment as a constant reminder of my weakness and his strength. The whole point of me writing like this is not to justify ourselves to you, but to help you and build you up. You need to deal with those who sin and get rid of your quarrelling and jealousy so that when I do come I can commend you.”
Miscellaneous insights:
We say ‘Amen’ in the name of Jesus because he is God’s ‘Yes’. This doesn’t mean all our prayers will be answered in the affirmative. It does mean that God wants stuff to happen and Jesus is the means by which it happens. When starship captain Jean-Luc Picard has heard his crew’s ideas and come to a decision, he expects that decision to be implemented – Jesus is God’s way of saying “Make it so”.
It is encouraging to think that our when our earthly tent (our physical body) is destroyed, God has a new heavenly tent prepared for us to inhabit. But even so (if I’ve understood Paul correctly) the thought of putting off this present body doesn’t appeal. Paul is human enough to want to put on the wonderful new body as an extra layer without giving up the body he is familiar with.
In 1 Corinthians Paul was keen to recognise many different ministries as valuable – one sows, another waters – so there shouldn’t be rivalry between factions. Here he has changed his tone and criticises his opponents as pseudo-apostles, comparing them with Satan disguised as an angel of light. How can we distinguish between colleagues who have a different style of ministry and enemies who are promoting a corrupt gospel? Maybe one of the marks of the true apostle is humility and a willingness to give credit to others, whereas inflating one’s own importance at the expense of others is the mark of a false apostle. But on those criteria, how would we rate Paul....? Perhaps these vitriolic passages show Paul at his most human and most vulnerable. And still God could use him! It’s as if the glorious riches of God were stored in a drab earthenware jar (to quote Paul’s own illustration.)
Whatever else we might think of this letter, the final blessing is so simple and profound that it has been adopted as the closing prayer at countless Christian meetings.
Wednesday 23 September 2009
The perils of avoiding workaholism
I have always prided myself on not being a workaholic. Unlike the majority of ministers of my acquaintance, I do not work all the hours God sends. I like my leisure. I enjoy family activities. My work-life balance generally errs on the side of 'life' rather than 'work'.
But there is a danger here. At worst the danger is that I become self-indulgent and lazy. A more subtle peril is that I make achieving the right work-life balance my overarching aim. When I remember what Jesus went through, and what he expects his followers to go through, I realise that I am in danger of lacking the passionate drive which causes people to throw themselves wholeheartedly into a cause whatever the personal cost. So let me remind myself of my main aim in life - to live for Christ. Yes I do this by working in the church, but also by caring for my family and even by enjoying all the good things God has given (including MarioKart Wii). But whatever I'm doing I ought to be doing it enthusiastically and to the best of my ability because I am doing it for Christ.
But there is a danger here. At worst the danger is that I become self-indulgent and lazy. A more subtle peril is that I make achieving the right work-life balance my overarching aim. When I remember what Jesus went through, and what he expects his followers to go through, I realise that I am in danger of lacking the passionate drive which causes people to throw themselves wholeheartedly into a cause whatever the personal cost. So let me remind myself of my main aim in life - to live for Christ. Yes I do this by working in the church, but also by caring for my family and even by enjoying all the good things God has given (including MarioKart Wii). But whatever I'm doing I ought to be doing it enthusiastically and to the best of my ability because I am doing it for Christ.
Thursday 17 September 2009
ABR#5 One Corinthians
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times (in this case four) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading 1 Corinthians.
Style:
Although Paul is communicating with the church in writing rather than speaking to them in person, there is a strong resemblance between this letter and a series of sermons preached to a known congregation. a) Theological and practical issues are addressed. b) The subject matter is sometimes in response to the congregation’s need for clarification and sometimes out of the preacher’s own perception of what desperately needs to be said. c) Sometimes one key point is hammered home, sometimes a topic is considered from various angles. d) The message is presented with reasoned argument so that the congregation not only grasp the key point, but understand why it is so. e) Scripture is used to support what is being said. f) The message is liberally sprinkled with illustrations, nuggets of wise insights and occasional long diversions into related issues. g) The preacher speaks from his own experience, sometimes passionate and urgent, sometimes calm and considered. h) Just like in a modern sermon there are times when the hearers would want to disagree with him, or at least pursue the argument in a different direction.
In at least two cases Paul seems to make a pronouncement and then have to qualify it as if he’d realised what he was saying.
Example one: “God has shown up the world’s wisdom as mere foolishness.” (thinks: whoops! I don’t want my own teaching to be devalued.) “But there is a wisdom which is worth something. It is the secret wisdom which the Spirit reveals. Since you are too immature (as proved by jealousies and factions) to be really in tune with the Spirit, I have to treat you like children and explain this wisdom to you.”
Example two: “Don’t judge people, but leave it to God’s final judgement. But I’ve heard of a man who has committed such an appalling sin he should be expelled from your fellowship.” (thinks: whoops! I’ve just passed judgement, and based on hearsay at that!) “What I meant about not judging was to do with people in general, but of course members of your church ought to have their failures judged by their fellow Christians.”
Why should we accept what Paul teaches?:
Paul employs logic and reasoning. He argues his case carefully, justifying his conclusions. He uses illustrations to help make his point. He anticipates objections. He looks at the issue from different sides. He deals with wide-ranging principles and specific instances, including those exceptions to the general rule. Occasionally there are other influences than reason. In the section about marriage he distinguishes between the principles he feels have been inspired directly by the Lord and those which are merely his own considered opinions. In the section about what men and women should wear on their head in church, he resorts to an appeal to tradition – “the bottom line is that this is the way everyone does it.” (Which is clearly not true – if no-one was disturbing the status quo he wouldn’t have bothered to raise the issue.)
He appeals to tradition in other more important places – passing on what he has learned about the Lord’s Supper and the simple basics of Christ’s death and resurrection. He sometimes appeals to Scripture, even though he is writing to Greeks. The church has presumably taken on board the Hebrew Scriptures as some kind of authority for the Christian faith.
Background:
Athens and Corinth were (allegedly) like Edinburgh and Glasgow. One was a refined centre of culture and learning, the other was a seedy sea-port with loose morals.
In his travels Paul visited Corinth (east coast of Greece) more than once. He writes to them from across the sea in Ephesus (west coast of Turkey). There is a brief reference to something he didn’t make clear in an earlier letter, which shows that Paul wrote more letters (to more churches) than we have preserved in our Bibles.
The church at Corinth had some major faults. The factions in the church made them boastful and conceited over their own self-importance, envious towards those who seemed to have spiritual gifts they lacked, impatient to have those gifts, rude and unkind towards those they perceived as inferior, easily offended and prepared to hold grudges, delighted when those in the opposing factions did something wrong, twisting the facts to suit themselves, and altogether uncaring of other people’s needs or feelings. This description of the Corinthian church is based on the fact that when Paul urges them to love, he describes love as ‘none of the above’. “Love is patient and kind. Love envies no one, is never boastful, never conceited, never rude; love is never selfish, never quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of wrongs, takes no pleasure in the sins of others, but delights in the truth.”
Content:
If this were a series of sermons, what would their titles be?
“Who knows best?” – The church is torn apart by factions each claiming the truth, but true wisdom is found in the folly of the cross.
“Judge for yourselves” – Don’t tolerate shameful behaviour within the church, but deal with it yourselves rather than going to secular courts.
“To marry or not to marry” – How to cope with sexual desire, singleness, marriage and divorce.
“Flaunting your freedom?” – Even if what we eat is essentially irrelevant to our faith, be considerate to others and don’t upset them by your behaviour.
“Yo! Respect, man!” – In matters of worship, such as the covering of the head and the conduct of the Lord’s Supper, it is vital to show due respect to God and one another.
“The bounty of the Spirit” – The church has been given a wealth of spiritual gifts, each of them contributing to the well-being of the whole body, but they are worthless without love.
“It’s life, but not as we know it” – Of course people rise from the dead (otherwise our faith is meaningless) but that life will be very different from this.
“... and finally, the notices ...” – Fund-raising, future plans, and news from friends.
Miscellaneous insights:
Paul’s attitude to women – in writing about marriage he is very even-handed, applying the same principles to wives and husbands; his later description of the differences between men and women (which lie behind the difference in hair and hats) sees women as subject to men’s authority; he is appalled at the thought of women asking questions publicly in church instead of from their husbands at home.
Paul’s view on marriage could be paraphrased as ‘marriage is a high-maintenance responsibility and you need to be careful about adding complications to your life’. He is right to be concerned that taking on lots of responsibilities (however good they might be) could make it harder to live for God. Being married, having children, running a house, keeping a car, using a computer, building a music collection, owning a dog – all these are worthwhile and enjoyable, but they add up to a lot of time and effort. I can sympathise with Paul’s concern to keep one’s lifestyle as simple as possible.
On passing judgement – Paul chides the Corinthians for not having anyone prepared to exercise their judgement and say ‘this is clearly wrong’. Even if the final judgement belongs to God (who is the only one who knows and understands the full situation), yet we can’t sit on the fence on every issue. There are times when we (especially leaders in the church) are required to use what wits and what spiritual discernment God has given us and actually make a decision.
On worship – contributions to worship should be controlled, a preacher shouldn’t get carried away with delivering a prophetic message any more than with he (or she if we ignore Paul’s views) should get carried away speaking in tongues. A warning to those of us who like the sound of our own voice – sermons and extempore prayers should be measured and controlled!
Conclusion:
Paul is a clever man with an analytical mind. He recognises the key issues facing the church in terms of behaviour and doctrine, he examines them using his powers of reason and then shares his conclusions by writing to the church. But he is also a human being and not immune to muddled thinking or biased attitudes or even holding two contradictory views at the same time. There are some arguments here where I wouldn’t want to let Paul have the last word (for example regarding women), but he is a deeply spiritual and caring leader and he manages to shed a great deal of light on those issues he tackles.
Style:
Although Paul is communicating with the church in writing rather than speaking to them in person, there is a strong resemblance between this letter and a series of sermons preached to a known congregation. a) Theological and practical issues are addressed. b) The subject matter is sometimes in response to the congregation’s need for clarification and sometimes out of the preacher’s own perception of what desperately needs to be said. c) Sometimes one key point is hammered home, sometimes a topic is considered from various angles. d) The message is presented with reasoned argument so that the congregation not only grasp the key point, but understand why it is so. e) Scripture is used to support what is being said. f) The message is liberally sprinkled with illustrations, nuggets of wise insights and occasional long diversions into related issues. g) The preacher speaks from his own experience, sometimes passionate and urgent, sometimes calm and considered. h) Just like in a modern sermon there are times when the hearers would want to disagree with him, or at least pursue the argument in a different direction.
In at least two cases Paul seems to make a pronouncement and then have to qualify it as if he’d realised what he was saying.
Example one: “God has shown up the world’s wisdom as mere foolishness.” (thinks: whoops! I don’t want my own teaching to be devalued.) “But there is a wisdom which is worth something. It is the secret wisdom which the Spirit reveals. Since you are too immature (as proved by jealousies and factions) to be really in tune with the Spirit, I have to treat you like children and explain this wisdom to you.”
Example two: “Don’t judge people, but leave it to God’s final judgement. But I’ve heard of a man who has committed such an appalling sin he should be expelled from your fellowship.” (thinks: whoops! I’ve just passed judgement, and based on hearsay at that!) “What I meant about not judging was to do with people in general, but of course members of your church ought to have their failures judged by their fellow Christians.”
Why should we accept what Paul teaches?:
Paul employs logic and reasoning. He argues his case carefully, justifying his conclusions. He uses illustrations to help make his point. He anticipates objections. He looks at the issue from different sides. He deals with wide-ranging principles and specific instances, including those exceptions to the general rule. Occasionally there are other influences than reason. In the section about marriage he distinguishes between the principles he feels have been inspired directly by the Lord and those which are merely his own considered opinions. In the section about what men and women should wear on their head in church, he resorts to an appeal to tradition – “the bottom line is that this is the way everyone does it.” (Which is clearly not true – if no-one was disturbing the status quo he wouldn’t have bothered to raise the issue.)
He appeals to tradition in other more important places – passing on what he has learned about the Lord’s Supper and the simple basics of Christ’s death and resurrection. He sometimes appeals to Scripture, even though he is writing to Greeks. The church has presumably taken on board the Hebrew Scriptures as some kind of authority for the Christian faith.
Background:
Athens and Corinth were (allegedly) like Edinburgh and Glasgow. One was a refined centre of culture and learning, the other was a seedy sea-port with loose morals.
In his travels Paul visited Corinth (east coast of Greece) more than once. He writes to them from across the sea in Ephesus (west coast of Turkey). There is a brief reference to something he didn’t make clear in an earlier letter, which shows that Paul wrote more letters (to more churches) than we have preserved in our Bibles.
The church at Corinth had some major faults. The factions in the church made them boastful and conceited over their own self-importance, envious towards those who seemed to have spiritual gifts they lacked, impatient to have those gifts, rude and unkind towards those they perceived as inferior, easily offended and prepared to hold grudges, delighted when those in the opposing factions did something wrong, twisting the facts to suit themselves, and altogether uncaring of other people’s needs or feelings. This description of the Corinthian church is based on the fact that when Paul urges them to love, he describes love as ‘none of the above’. “Love is patient and kind. Love envies no one, is never boastful, never conceited, never rude; love is never selfish, never quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of wrongs, takes no pleasure in the sins of others, but delights in the truth.”
Content:
If this were a series of sermons, what would their titles be?
“Who knows best?” – The church is torn apart by factions each claiming the truth, but true wisdom is found in the folly of the cross.
“Judge for yourselves” – Don’t tolerate shameful behaviour within the church, but deal with it yourselves rather than going to secular courts.
“To marry or not to marry” – How to cope with sexual desire, singleness, marriage and divorce.
“Flaunting your freedom?” – Even if what we eat is essentially irrelevant to our faith, be considerate to others and don’t upset them by your behaviour.
“Yo! Respect, man!” – In matters of worship, such as the covering of the head and the conduct of the Lord’s Supper, it is vital to show due respect to God and one another.
“The bounty of the Spirit” – The church has been given a wealth of spiritual gifts, each of them contributing to the well-being of the whole body, but they are worthless without love.
“It’s life, but not as we know it” – Of course people rise from the dead (otherwise our faith is meaningless) but that life will be very different from this.
“... and finally, the notices ...” – Fund-raising, future plans, and news from friends.
Miscellaneous insights:
Paul’s attitude to women – in writing about marriage he is very even-handed, applying the same principles to wives and husbands; his later description of the differences between men and women (which lie behind the difference in hair and hats) sees women as subject to men’s authority; he is appalled at the thought of women asking questions publicly in church instead of from their husbands at home.
Paul’s view on marriage could be paraphrased as ‘marriage is a high-maintenance responsibility and you need to be careful about adding complications to your life’. He is right to be concerned that taking on lots of responsibilities (however good they might be) could make it harder to live for God. Being married, having children, running a house, keeping a car, using a computer, building a music collection, owning a dog – all these are worthwhile and enjoyable, but they add up to a lot of time and effort. I can sympathise with Paul’s concern to keep one’s lifestyle as simple as possible.
On passing judgement – Paul chides the Corinthians for not having anyone prepared to exercise their judgement and say ‘this is clearly wrong’. Even if the final judgement belongs to God (who is the only one who knows and understands the full situation), yet we can’t sit on the fence on every issue. There are times when we (especially leaders in the church) are required to use what wits and what spiritual discernment God has given us and actually make a decision.
On worship – contributions to worship should be controlled, a preacher shouldn’t get carried away with delivering a prophetic message any more than with he (or she if we ignore Paul’s views) should get carried away speaking in tongues. A warning to those of us who like the sound of our own voice – sermons and extempore prayers should be measured and controlled!
Conclusion:
Paul is a clever man with an analytical mind. He recognises the key issues facing the church in terms of behaviour and doctrine, he examines them using his powers of reason and then shares his conclusions by writing to the church. But he is also a human being and not immune to muddled thinking or biased attitudes or even holding two contradictory views at the same time. There are some arguments here where I wouldn’t want to let Paul have the last word (for example regarding women), but he is a deeply spiritual and caring leader and he manages to shed a great deal of light on those issues he tackles.
Sunday 30 August 2009
Sweet Sixteen
The radio discussion this morning was on the nature of the sacred. I find that sometimes God uses music and environment to set a 'sacred' mood and then slips in an important message using the lyrics. This morning, walking back from the paper shop, God reminded me that his love today was essentially no different from his love for me back in those exciting teenage days when I had all the enthusiasm of a new Christian. The medium was a barbershop quartet and the message was "I love you as I loved you when you were sweet sixteen."
Thursday 16 July 2009
ABR#4 Colossians
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times (in this case seven) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Colossians.
First impressions:
What was Paul’s aim as he wrote this letter to a church he knows only by reputation?
First he compliments them and assures them of his (and his colleagues’) prayers. Then he explains the centrality of Christ in God’s scheme of things, and his own role as a servant of the gospel and of the church (and by implication his right to speak with authority). Then he comes to the heart of the matter – the danger in being led astray by plausible additions to the gospel, which would detract from a full reliance on Christ. Having established that what matters is Christ, he illustrates what kind of life that should lead people to live, giving lots of specific advice about appropriate behaviour. Finally he records news and greetings from some of his colleagues who are known to the Colossians.
Historical and Geographical context:
If the narrative in Acts is reasonably accurate, Paul spent some years in Ephesus, on the West coast of modern day Turkey, during which time the gospel spread into the surrounding countryside. If you travelled South a bit and then turned inland up the river Maeander for 100 miles to its headwaters you would reach a trio of towns called Laodicea, Colossae and Hierapolis, and beyond them the region of Phrygia. (This river’s wandering course is the origin of the word ‘meander’ and supposedly inspired Daedalus to construct his famous labyrinth.) In Paul’s day Colossae had lost something of its earlier prominence, but he surely knew of it, and years later, maybe whilst imprisoned awaiting trial in Rome, he heard news of the church there from one of its citizens, Epaphras.
This letter describes Christ in more exalted and mind-boggling terms than, say, the Jesus Paul talks about in Acts. So much so that some scholars believe the letter is the work of one of Paul’s disciples and written after his death. If that is true, then the author clearly had things to say which he felt would be best expressed by getting people to imagine Paul writing to the church at Colossae in response to news which had reached him in captivity. Therefore whoever wrote it, the best way of getting to grips with the message is to treat it as a letter by Paul. (A similar argument will apply to certain other Biblical books whose authorship is disputed.)
The Importance of Christ
When people were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, they envisioned him as a human being anointed by God to rescue his people. Once the Messiah arrived and his followers got to know him as both Saviour and risen Lord, then their understanding deepened.
a) Christ existed before anything else (except God of course) and was responsible (with God) for creating the universe. In fact the whole universe was created ‘for him’. This makes Christ superior to all other earthly or heavenly powers in every conceivable way. He existed before they did. He made them. They only exist for his benefit.
b) Christ is the perfect image of God. There is no longer any mystery as to what God is really like. Christ has revealed God’s nature and purposes.
c) Christ had a job to do – to reconcile all things (all people and all the rest of creation) to God. He did this through his death on the cross. Because of what Christ has done God forgives sin and turns enemies into friends.
d) If the church is like a body, then Christ is its head. The church needs no other focal point. Christ as our head unites us, guides us, empowers us and gives our lives purpose and meaning.
What was going on in Colossae?
Reading between the lines, one of the problems at Colossae could have been gnosticism with its emphasis on secret knowledge as the key to understanding God and life. For Paul Christ alone is the key. All anyone needs to know of God is found in Christ. Paul expects and prays for the church to have a full knowledge of God. If there ever was a secret it is now out in the public domain, being proclaimed throughout the world, and being lived out by the Christian church. There is no need for initiation rites such as circumcision or for keeping strict rules about food. There are no magically significant days to conduct special rituals. The rite of Christian Baptism is not to divide those ‘in the know’ from the ignorant – it is a symbol of the change in our lives when we die and rise with Christ. Far from promoting divisions, Paul says that Christ is “all” and “in all”.
This is an encouraging letter. Its tone is: ‘I know you’re doing well – here’s how you can do even better.’ Unlike, say, Amos (‘This is what you’re doing wrong – stop it or else!’), Paul doesn’t actually accuse the Colossians of anything bad. He warns of false teaching and he lists some of the behaviour which they should avoid, but we shouldn’t therefore conclude that Colossae is a hotbed of heresy, indulgences of the flesh and broken relationships. What Paul actually says of them is all positive.
A message for today?
This letter is not primarily about individual behaviour, nor is it about the state of society as a whole, but it is about the life of a church – its beliefs, teaching, attitudes and lifestyle. There are some principles which individuals (or society) would do well to take note of, but by and large it is the church which should pay attention. The marks of the church which impressed Paul (in his opening summary) were their faith in Christ and their love for all the saints – his letter builds on these strengths by emphasising the importance of Christ and exploring the best ways to love others
The section for wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves and masters illustrates that the appropriate attitude and behaviour depends on the nature of the relationship – these days marriage is seen as an equal partnership, and in some senses we recognise an inherent equality of all people (as does Paul – no Greek or Jew, slave or free etc), but there are still plenty of relationships where people have different roles – governors and governed, leaders and disciples, employers and employees, teachers and students, famous people and fans of famous people (dare I add breadwinners and homemakers?) The same basic principles apply – understand your role and fulfil it to the best of your ability, whilst taking into account that the person in the other role is also a human being with feelings and needs.
Paul was never a lone evangelist. He always worked in a team. This letter mentions eleven other people who helped build up the church.
Jews with Paul: Aristarchus (a fellow prisoner); Mark; Jesus known as Justus
Gentiles with Paul: Timothy (co-author); Epaphras (founder of church); Doctor Luke; Demas
Messengers delivering the letter: Tychicus; Onesimus
In Colossae: Nympha (host to a church meeting); Archippus
We meet some of these people elsewhere in the New Testament, indeed two of them wrote gospels. The only reason we know Luke was a doctor is that he is so designated in this letter. Imagine how many simple facts like this remain unknown. These people lived full and interesting lives and we know so little about them. It’s as if I went down in church history as ‘the minister with brightly coloured socks’ and no-one knew or remembered anything else about me.
If Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, then it’s no wonder that (in Acts) Barnabas was willing to give him a second chance when Paul wasn’t. It’s good to see that by this point all parties seem to be reconciled.
A final bit of self-analysis
There are many parts of the Bible which I am happy to re-interpret for today. “Wives be subject to your husbands” is an example. I try to see such passages in their original context and work out what message the writer was trying to convey and why it was important to him (and it probably was ‘him’ not ‘her’). With historical narrative I will often wonder ‘did it really happen like that?’. Sometimes I think it probably did, sometimes I’m fairly certain it didn’t. What the author was wanting to say is more important to me than historical accuracy. In other words I am willing to see the Biblical writers as fallible in recording facts and contextually biased in moral teaching. So why is it that some passages I not only take at face value, but see as absolutely essential to my faith? For example, the idea that Christ has always existed with God and through him everything in heaven and earth was created. There is no way I could ever dismiss that concept as if it were just someone’s idea and they may have got it wrong. Perhaps it’s because the moral and historical aspects need to be reconciled with everyday life whereas the grand supernatural concepts don’t. Or perhaps I am subconsciously doing what Paul advocates in this letter – relying fully on Christ and taking mere human authority with a pinch of salt.
First impressions:
What was Paul’s aim as he wrote this letter to a church he knows only by reputation?
First he compliments them and assures them of his (and his colleagues’) prayers. Then he explains the centrality of Christ in God’s scheme of things, and his own role as a servant of the gospel and of the church (and by implication his right to speak with authority). Then he comes to the heart of the matter – the danger in being led astray by plausible additions to the gospel, which would detract from a full reliance on Christ. Having established that what matters is Christ, he illustrates what kind of life that should lead people to live, giving lots of specific advice about appropriate behaviour. Finally he records news and greetings from some of his colleagues who are known to the Colossians.
Historical and Geographical context:
If the narrative in Acts is reasonably accurate, Paul spent some years in Ephesus, on the West coast of modern day Turkey, during which time the gospel spread into the surrounding countryside. If you travelled South a bit and then turned inland up the river Maeander for 100 miles to its headwaters you would reach a trio of towns called Laodicea, Colossae and Hierapolis, and beyond them the region of Phrygia. (This river’s wandering course is the origin of the word ‘meander’ and supposedly inspired Daedalus to construct his famous labyrinth.) In Paul’s day Colossae had lost something of its earlier prominence, but he surely knew of it, and years later, maybe whilst imprisoned awaiting trial in Rome, he heard news of the church there from one of its citizens, Epaphras.
This letter describes Christ in more exalted and mind-boggling terms than, say, the Jesus Paul talks about in Acts. So much so that some scholars believe the letter is the work of one of Paul’s disciples and written after his death. If that is true, then the author clearly had things to say which he felt would be best expressed by getting people to imagine Paul writing to the church at Colossae in response to news which had reached him in captivity. Therefore whoever wrote it, the best way of getting to grips with the message is to treat it as a letter by Paul. (A similar argument will apply to certain other Biblical books whose authorship is disputed.)
The Importance of Christ
When people were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, they envisioned him as a human being anointed by God to rescue his people. Once the Messiah arrived and his followers got to know him as both Saviour and risen Lord, then their understanding deepened.
a) Christ existed before anything else (except God of course) and was responsible (with God) for creating the universe. In fact the whole universe was created ‘for him’. This makes Christ superior to all other earthly or heavenly powers in every conceivable way. He existed before they did. He made them. They only exist for his benefit.
b) Christ is the perfect image of God. There is no longer any mystery as to what God is really like. Christ has revealed God’s nature and purposes.
c) Christ had a job to do – to reconcile all things (all people and all the rest of creation) to God. He did this through his death on the cross. Because of what Christ has done God forgives sin and turns enemies into friends.
d) If the church is like a body, then Christ is its head. The church needs no other focal point. Christ as our head unites us, guides us, empowers us and gives our lives purpose and meaning.
What was going on in Colossae?
Reading between the lines, one of the problems at Colossae could have been gnosticism with its emphasis on secret knowledge as the key to understanding God and life. For Paul Christ alone is the key. All anyone needs to know of God is found in Christ. Paul expects and prays for the church to have a full knowledge of God. If there ever was a secret it is now out in the public domain, being proclaimed throughout the world, and being lived out by the Christian church. There is no need for initiation rites such as circumcision or for keeping strict rules about food. There are no magically significant days to conduct special rituals. The rite of Christian Baptism is not to divide those ‘in the know’ from the ignorant – it is a symbol of the change in our lives when we die and rise with Christ. Far from promoting divisions, Paul says that Christ is “all” and “in all”.
This is an encouraging letter. Its tone is: ‘I know you’re doing well – here’s how you can do even better.’ Unlike, say, Amos (‘This is what you’re doing wrong – stop it or else!’), Paul doesn’t actually accuse the Colossians of anything bad. He warns of false teaching and he lists some of the behaviour which they should avoid, but we shouldn’t therefore conclude that Colossae is a hotbed of heresy, indulgences of the flesh and broken relationships. What Paul actually says of them is all positive.
A message for today?
This letter is not primarily about individual behaviour, nor is it about the state of society as a whole, but it is about the life of a church – its beliefs, teaching, attitudes and lifestyle. There are some principles which individuals (or society) would do well to take note of, but by and large it is the church which should pay attention. The marks of the church which impressed Paul (in his opening summary) were their faith in Christ and their love for all the saints – his letter builds on these strengths by emphasising the importance of Christ and exploring the best ways to love others
The section for wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves and masters illustrates that the appropriate attitude and behaviour depends on the nature of the relationship – these days marriage is seen as an equal partnership, and in some senses we recognise an inherent equality of all people (as does Paul – no Greek or Jew, slave or free etc), but there are still plenty of relationships where people have different roles – governors and governed, leaders and disciples, employers and employees, teachers and students, famous people and fans of famous people (dare I add breadwinners and homemakers?) The same basic principles apply – understand your role and fulfil it to the best of your ability, whilst taking into account that the person in the other role is also a human being with feelings and needs.
Paul was never a lone evangelist. He always worked in a team. This letter mentions eleven other people who helped build up the church.
Jews with Paul: Aristarchus (a fellow prisoner); Mark; Jesus known as Justus
Gentiles with Paul: Timothy (co-author); Epaphras (founder of church); Doctor Luke; Demas
Messengers delivering the letter: Tychicus; Onesimus
In Colossae: Nympha (host to a church meeting); Archippus
We meet some of these people elsewhere in the New Testament, indeed two of them wrote gospels. The only reason we know Luke was a doctor is that he is so designated in this letter. Imagine how many simple facts like this remain unknown. These people lived full and interesting lives and we know so little about them. It’s as if I went down in church history as ‘the minister with brightly coloured socks’ and no-one knew or remembered anything else about me.
If Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, then it’s no wonder that (in Acts) Barnabas was willing to give him a second chance when Paul wasn’t. It’s good to see that by this point all parties seem to be reconciled.
A final bit of self-analysis
There are many parts of the Bible which I am happy to re-interpret for today. “Wives be subject to your husbands” is an example. I try to see such passages in their original context and work out what message the writer was trying to convey and why it was important to him (and it probably was ‘him’ not ‘her’). With historical narrative I will often wonder ‘did it really happen like that?’. Sometimes I think it probably did, sometimes I’m fairly certain it didn’t. What the author was wanting to say is more important to me than historical accuracy. In other words I am willing to see the Biblical writers as fallible in recording facts and contextually biased in moral teaching. So why is it that some passages I not only take at face value, but see as absolutely essential to my faith? For example, the idea that Christ has always existed with God and through him everything in heaven and earth was created. There is no way I could ever dismiss that concept as if it were just someone’s idea and they may have got it wrong. Perhaps it’s because the moral and historical aspects need to be reconciled with everyday life whereas the grand supernatural concepts don’t. Or perhaps I am subconsciously doing what Paul advocates in this letter – relying fully on Christ and taking mere human authority with a pinch of salt.
Monday 6 July 2009
ABR#3 Chronicles
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book three times (in different translations) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Chronicles.
A caveat regarding Kings
As far as possible I have tried not to make comparisons with the other book of the Bible covering a similar historical period. Rather I wanted to get to grips with the story as told by the Chronicler. Here is my one comment based on what I know from outside Chronicles: The fate of those tribes East of the Jordan is the only hint of Assyria conquering Israel (i.e. the northern kingdom as opposed to Judah in the south). Perhaps the annihilation of Israel was so well known and tragic that the Chronicler didn’t want to mention it further.
The basic structure of the book
Within the first few pages the whole of human history has been covered, from Adam down to the ‘present day’ descendants of King Jehoiachin (taken captive by Babylon). Chronicles continues to record in detail a number of family trees and all the places they settled. There are many snippets of information about what these families did. For example I hadn’t realised that the line of Saul and Jonathan continued to grow and one branch of the family became outstanding soldiers and archers.
The shift from lists of names to historical events is gradual. The narrative snippets become longer passages, but the chronology remains a bit wayward – for example, the first longish narrative, the death of Saul and his sons, is followed by some of David’s earlier exploits. Lists of names, achievements and duties – soldiers, Levites, musicians, heads of clans, craftsmen, Temple guards – continue to feature throughout the first volume. The lists and figures in the second volume are much shorter and more sporadic.
The arrangements for the building and running of the Temple feature heavily. The entire thing is planned by David, who delegates the actual implementation to his son, Solomon. Throughout the book David is referred to as the one who decided on the priestly duties.
Eventually the book settles into an account of the successive kings of Judah, describing their attitudes to God and the battles with their neighbours. After the deportation to Babylon the book ends with the decree of the Persian emperor (the new world power) that God’s people should return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
Author and purpose
The writer was something of an anorak – he had clearly trawled through the records to obtain lots of facts and figures. If he was alive today he would be a royalist and a high Anglo-Catholic, with a fascination for genealogy and an obsession with detail.
Chronicles is in some respects a history of the Temple. The reign of David’s predecessor is irrelevant. David’s most important deeds are to make Jerusalem the capital city and to plan the Temple rituals. The later northern kingdom (with no temple) goes largely unmentioned. The record of the kings’ activities centres around how much they encourage or oppose the other places of worship and how faithful they are to the rituals laid down by David. Once the Temple has been destroyed there is not much left to say.
Assuming the book was written to encourage the returned exiles as they rebuilt their nation, the author seems to have been trying to do three things. a) Remind the people of their roots. Names unfamiliar to us may have been honoured ancestors of the first readers. b) Give the people pride in their heritage. The line of David ruled over them for many generations with God’s support and blessing. c) Ensure the people take seriously the worship of the one true God. When all was well with the Temple and its rituals, then the nation prospered.
Statistics
It is ironic that David’s only recorded failure is his insistence, against all advice, to hold a census of his people. This angered God enough to result in the deaths of 70,000. Yet the writer of the book relies on such census records for his facts and figures and Solomon later conducted a census of foreigners without suffering any adverse consequences. This failure of David is significant because the threshing floor where the angel of death refrained from further slaughter became the site of the Temple. This is also the one place where Satan interferes. His stirring things up is the catalyst which leads (eventually) to the existence of the Temple – an example of God taking something evil and using it for good
I didn’t find the early genealogies as relentlessly boring as I expected. For example, they include the prayer of Jabez (subject of a best-selling book), plus the second shortest verse in Bible. (This depends on which translation you use and whether you included punctuation, but counting the number of letters “Eber, Peleg, Reu” comes between “Jesus wept” and “Rejoice always”.)
According to these early passages, at least 7 of 12 tribes have survivors living in the ‘present day’. Although the focus is on Judah, the Chronicler wants to remind people that all the descendants of Israel are God’s people. When David was proclaimed king he had many supporters join him from other tribes, so that he truly represented the whole of Israel. When the northern tribes revolted, it was part of God’s plan – maybe so that the faithful worshippers would leave the rebels and gather in one place.
Not all details are as neat as I’d like. Who were the famous three? (only two are named) Who were the thirty? Who was their chief? (different names are mentioned – perhaps the leadership changed over time). There are rough edges and loose ends, but I suspect like any genealogical research there are branches of the family where lots is known and others where information is scant.
Kings
The behaviour of the kings (and to a lesser extent the people too) is not judged on such qualities as ruling with justice and showing compassion to the poor (the kind of values Amos was so passionate about) but on two basic principles: a) Worship Yahweh in the right way – i.e. only in the Temple and using the rituals laid down by Moses and David, and therefore get rid of all other altars and centres of worship, especially where pagan rituals were performed in the name of heathen gods. b) In the face of military threat, don’t go seeking allies but simply rely of Yahweh to keep you safe.
There’s a sense of God trying to do something new with one particular nation – getting them to trust him enough to rely on him when it came to battles, and demonstrating their commitment by carefully keeping to the ordained methods of worship. This wasn’t the natural way for people to behave and time and again they slipped back into the habit of relying on themselves and worshipping the gods they wanted in the way they wanted.
Starting with David, Judah had 21 kings and 1 queen. 12 were good and 9 were bad. (One’s reign was so short that his morality goes unrecorded.) Four kings started well, but went astray later in their reign. For example, Joash was made king as a boy through the initiative of the priest Jehoiada, who continued to advise him well and the neglected Temple was given a makeover. When Jehoiada died Joash went to the bad. One king (Manasseh) was wicked for many years but in later life repented and did what pleased God.
Temple and Ritual
The reason the first journey with the Ark was a disaster (with Uzzah being struck down for touching it) was that it should have been the Levites responsibility to move the Ark. David put this right on his second attempt.
The Temple was 24m long by 9m wide. That’s the width of our present house not including the utility room, and a bit longer than our back garden. You could fit the Temple comfortably onto our plot of land. It was of modest size (by today’s standards) but richly decorated. Over four hundred years the Temple was left to decay or had the gold stripped from it and needed refurbishment more than once.
I can’t reconcile the modest size of the Temple with the tonnage of gold David collected to decorate it. Imagine a 100m long frigate (four times the length of the Temple) made of solid gold. Alongside that imagine an early passenger liner such as the Lusitania – four huge funnels and over 200m long – made of solid silver. Not to mention the unlimited supplies of bronze, iron, wood and stone. It is also difficult to imagine how the thousands of Levites assigned to work in the Temple found enough to occupy them. Perhaps the actual Temple was only the focal point of a whole worship complex which needed an army of workers to run it.
At the opening of the Temple Solomon prayed “if there are problems and people pray, hear them and help them”. Later God came to Solomon and assured him that he would indeed do that. He also assured him that his line would last for ever, but there was a proviso – “if you continue to observe my laws”, otherwise the royal house will be ruined as a warning to others. Such conditional blessings seem strange when compared with the grace revealed in Jesus – that eternal life is a free gift and not something we earn.
But there is a lesson here – life is not just about getting on with it and making the best of it you can. There are definite right and wrong ways to go about things. According to the Chronicler, God doesn’t actually say ‘worship me any way you want and that will be OK by me’, rather he says ‘this is how to live, this is how to serve me, this is how to worship.’ These days we do have a vast variety of worship-styles, but maybe the principle of all worship should not be “how do I want to do this?” or “what am I comfortable with?” or “what will satisfy me?” but “what kind of worship will please God?”
Miscellaneous thoughts
“Give thanks to the LORD, invoke his name” – far from not being allowed to speak God’s name out loud (which came in later Jewish tradition), David expected his people to savour it, to rejoice in it, to have God’s name constantly on their lips. We sing “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds...” It would be crazy if Christians instead decided it was disrespectful ever to utter the name ‘Jesus’!
David wanted to build a house for God. God refused, but instead decided to build a house for David. Whatever we do (or try to do) for God, he is able to do so much more for us.
The idea often expressed in the offertory prayer – “All things come from you and of your own do we give you” – is what David said when he and the people had made their contributions towards the building of the Temple.
According to David, God laid down the plans for the Temple and David was responsible for the details. This is a different view from those who think God plans each minute aspect of our lives.
When Joash ordered Zechariah, son of his childhood advisor, to be stoned for prophesying against him, Zechariah’s dying words were “May the Lord see this and exact the penalty.” Compare this with Stephen’s dying words (in Acts) “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”
Israel and its kings are often referred to as bad examples, but they had moments of goodness – for example the compassion shown to the Judean prisoners (albeit at the instigation of a prophet).
Hezekiah insisted on people purifying themselves for Passover, but when visitors came from Israel who hadn’t been able to do so he prayed that God would allow them to participate anyway and God agreed. Even for someone as obsessive over outward ritual as the Chronicler is, sincerity of heart is more important than outward purification.
A caveat regarding Kings
As far as possible I have tried not to make comparisons with the other book of the Bible covering a similar historical period. Rather I wanted to get to grips with the story as told by the Chronicler. Here is my one comment based on what I know from outside Chronicles: The fate of those tribes East of the Jordan is the only hint of Assyria conquering Israel (i.e. the northern kingdom as opposed to Judah in the south). Perhaps the annihilation of Israel was so well known and tragic that the Chronicler didn’t want to mention it further.
The basic structure of the book
Within the first few pages the whole of human history has been covered, from Adam down to the ‘present day’ descendants of King Jehoiachin (taken captive by Babylon). Chronicles continues to record in detail a number of family trees and all the places they settled. There are many snippets of information about what these families did. For example I hadn’t realised that the line of Saul and Jonathan continued to grow and one branch of the family became outstanding soldiers and archers.
The shift from lists of names to historical events is gradual. The narrative snippets become longer passages, but the chronology remains a bit wayward – for example, the first longish narrative, the death of Saul and his sons, is followed by some of David’s earlier exploits. Lists of names, achievements and duties – soldiers, Levites, musicians, heads of clans, craftsmen, Temple guards – continue to feature throughout the first volume. The lists and figures in the second volume are much shorter and more sporadic.
The arrangements for the building and running of the Temple feature heavily. The entire thing is planned by David, who delegates the actual implementation to his son, Solomon. Throughout the book David is referred to as the one who decided on the priestly duties.
Eventually the book settles into an account of the successive kings of Judah, describing their attitudes to God and the battles with their neighbours. After the deportation to Babylon the book ends with the decree of the Persian emperor (the new world power) that God’s people should return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
Author and purpose
The writer was something of an anorak – he had clearly trawled through the records to obtain lots of facts and figures. If he was alive today he would be a royalist and a high Anglo-Catholic, with a fascination for genealogy and an obsession with detail.
Chronicles is in some respects a history of the Temple. The reign of David’s predecessor is irrelevant. David’s most important deeds are to make Jerusalem the capital city and to plan the Temple rituals. The later northern kingdom (with no temple) goes largely unmentioned. The record of the kings’ activities centres around how much they encourage or oppose the other places of worship and how faithful they are to the rituals laid down by David. Once the Temple has been destroyed there is not much left to say.
Assuming the book was written to encourage the returned exiles as they rebuilt their nation, the author seems to have been trying to do three things. a) Remind the people of their roots. Names unfamiliar to us may have been honoured ancestors of the first readers. b) Give the people pride in their heritage. The line of David ruled over them for many generations with God’s support and blessing. c) Ensure the people take seriously the worship of the one true God. When all was well with the Temple and its rituals, then the nation prospered.
Statistics
It is ironic that David’s only recorded failure is his insistence, against all advice, to hold a census of his people. This angered God enough to result in the deaths of 70,000. Yet the writer of the book relies on such census records for his facts and figures and Solomon later conducted a census of foreigners without suffering any adverse consequences. This failure of David is significant because the threshing floor where the angel of death refrained from further slaughter became the site of the Temple. This is also the one place where Satan interferes. His stirring things up is the catalyst which leads (eventually) to the existence of the Temple – an example of God taking something evil and using it for good
I didn’t find the early genealogies as relentlessly boring as I expected. For example, they include the prayer of Jabez (subject of a best-selling book), plus the second shortest verse in Bible. (This depends on which translation you use and whether you included punctuation, but counting the number of letters “Eber, Peleg, Reu” comes between “Jesus wept” and “Rejoice always”.)
According to these early passages, at least 7 of 12 tribes have survivors living in the ‘present day’. Although the focus is on Judah, the Chronicler wants to remind people that all the descendants of Israel are God’s people. When David was proclaimed king he had many supporters join him from other tribes, so that he truly represented the whole of Israel. When the northern tribes revolted, it was part of God’s plan – maybe so that the faithful worshippers would leave the rebels and gather in one place.
Not all details are as neat as I’d like. Who were the famous three? (only two are named) Who were the thirty? Who was their chief? (different names are mentioned – perhaps the leadership changed over time). There are rough edges and loose ends, but I suspect like any genealogical research there are branches of the family where lots is known and others where information is scant.
Kings
The behaviour of the kings (and to a lesser extent the people too) is not judged on such qualities as ruling with justice and showing compassion to the poor (the kind of values Amos was so passionate about) but on two basic principles: a) Worship Yahweh in the right way – i.e. only in the Temple and using the rituals laid down by Moses and David, and therefore get rid of all other altars and centres of worship, especially where pagan rituals were performed in the name of heathen gods. b) In the face of military threat, don’t go seeking allies but simply rely of Yahweh to keep you safe.
There’s a sense of God trying to do something new with one particular nation – getting them to trust him enough to rely on him when it came to battles, and demonstrating their commitment by carefully keeping to the ordained methods of worship. This wasn’t the natural way for people to behave and time and again they slipped back into the habit of relying on themselves and worshipping the gods they wanted in the way they wanted.
Starting with David, Judah had 21 kings and 1 queen. 12 were good and 9 were bad. (One’s reign was so short that his morality goes unrecorded.) Four kings started well, but went astray later in their reign. For example, Joash was made king as a boy through the initiative of the priest Jehoiada, who continued to advise him well and the neglected Temple was given a makeover. When Jehoiada died Joash went to the bad. One king (Manasseh) was wicked for many years but in later life repented and did what pleased God.
Temple and Ritual
The reason the first journey with the Ark was a disaster (with Uzzah being struck down for touching it) was that it should have been the Levites responsibility to move the Ark. David put this right on his second attempt.
The Temple was 24m long by 9m wide. That’s the width of our present house not including the utility room, and a bit longer than our back garden. You could fit the Temple comfortably onto our plot of land. It was of modest size (by today’s standards) but richly decorated. Over four hundred years the Temple was left to decay or had the gold stripped from it and needed refurbishment more than once.
I can’t reconcile the modest size of the Temple with the tonnage of gold David collected to decorate it. Imagine a 100m long frigate (four times the length of the Temple) made of solid gold. Alongside that imagine an early passenger liner such as the Lusitania – four huge funnels and over 200m long – made of solid silver. Not to mention the unlimited supplies of bronze, iron, wood and stone. It is also difficult to imagine how the thousands of Levites assigned to work in the Temple found enough to occupy them. Perhaps the actual Temple was only the focal point of a whole worship complex which needed an army of workers to run it.
At the opening of the Temple Solomon prayed “if there are problems and people pray, hear them and help them”. Later God came to Solomon and assured him that he would indeed do that. He also assured him that his line would last for ever, but there was a proviso – “if you continue to observe my laws”, otherwise the royal house will be ruined as a warning to others. Such conditional blessings seem strange when compared with the grace revealed in Jesus – that eternal life is a free gift and not something we earn.
But there is a lesson here – life is not just about getting on with it and making the best of it you can. There are definite right and wrong ways to go about things. According to the Chronicler, God doesn’t actually say ‘worship me any way you want and that will be OK by me’, rather he says ‘this is how to live, this is how to serve me, this is how to worship.’ These days we do have a vast variety of worship-styles, but maybe the principle of all worship should not be “how do I want to do this?” or “what am I comfortable with?” or “what will satisfy me?” but “what kind of worship will please God?”
Miscellaneous thoughts
“Give thanks to the LORD, invoke his name” – far from not being allowed to speak God’s name out loud (which came in later Jewish tradition), David expected his people to savour it, to rejoice in it, to have God’s name constantly on their lips. We sing “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds...” It would be crazy if Christians instead decided it was disrespectful ever to utter the name ‘Jesus’!
David wanted to build a house for God. God refused, but instead decided to build a house for David. Whatever we do (or try to do) for God, he is able to do so much more for us.
The idea often expressed in the offertory prayer – “All things come from you and of your own do we give you” – is what David said when he and the people had made their contributions towards the building of the Temple.
According to David, God laid down the plans for the Temple and David was responsible for the details. This is a different view from those who think God plans each minute aspect of our lives.
When Joash ordered Zechariah, son of his childhood advisor, to be stoned for prophesying against him, Zechariah’s dying words were “May the Lord see this and exact the penalty.” Compare this with Stephen’s dying words (in Acts) “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”
Israel and its kings are often referred to as bad examples, but they had moments of goodness – for example the compassion shown to the Judean prisoners (albeit at the instigation of a prophet).
Hezekiah insisted on people purifying themselves for Passover, but when visitors came from Israel who hadn’t been able to do so he prayed that God would allow them to participate anyway and God agreed. Even for someone as obsessive over outward ritual as the Chronicler is, sincerity of heart is more important than outward purification.
Monday 8 June 2009
ABR#2 Amos
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book three times (in different translations) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Amos.
First impressions of Amos’s character: (which I suspect may be similar for any prophet, but Amos happens to be the first I’ve read in this way)
His method of persuading people to change their wicked ways is to threaten them with punishment from God. Maybe these punishments are not all to be taken literally. He says, for example, that God will pursue them down to the world of the dead, or up to heaven, or into the depths of the ocean – so there must be some element of hyperbole here. It is not clear how many of these dire predictions ever came true. The one human encounter is with Amaziah the priest at Bethel. This ends with Amos predicting a horrible end for the priest and his family, but there is nothing to say whether this was an accurate foretelling or just Amos’s way of dealing with his critics.
Yet Amos clearly has compassion for the nation and at times prays (successfully) for God to withhold punishment. Occasionally he pleads with Israel to repent and thereby avoid their terrible fate.
Amos’s idea of God is of someone who is very much in control. Nothing happens without God’s say-so. Hence any disasters are interpreted as either punishment from God or a warning to turn back to God otherwise the real punishment will be even worse.
Amos’s high moral standards are the reason for his passionate denunciation. In a warm-up section he threatens fire and destruction against Israel’s neighbours (including Judah) and in doing so highlights the kind of behaviour which is unacceptable – oppressing people with savage cruelty; selling a whole nation into slavery; sending a whole nation into exile; mercilessly hunting down fellow nations; ripping open pregnant women during wartime; dishonouring the bones of a foreign king; and (in the case of Judah) hating God’s teaching, disobeying his commands and worshipping false gods.
Historical setting and basic message:
In the reign of Jereboam II (while Uzziah was king of Judah), Israel prospered enough that the privileged classes could afford two homes – one for winter and one for summer. One reason for Israel doing so well was that their neighbours were weakened by warring amongst themselves, allowing Israel to expand their territory. Hence the situation in Israel is one of peace, security and luxury – at least for the well-off. Amos’s key message is a) that this prosperity has come about through oppression of the poor and b) therefore the good times will not last and destruction will fall upon the nation.
It sounds as if most of the book is a record of a fairly brief visit to Bethel, where Amos delivered his message before being told to leave. Who actually wrote it down? No-one knows. Did Amos record it when he was back home in Tekoa? Was he a charismatic enough figure to have attracted disciples who followed him and took notes? Was it a member of his audience who was impressed by this fiery Southerner? And were these words simply recorded for posterity, or were they published in order to keep ramming home the point to his contemporaries?
The various natural disasters which failed to turn people back to God must have been either long ago or localised in their effect, because the idea of a nations reeling under one disaster after another is at odds with the general mood of prosperity.
Style:
Amos has a few visions – scenarios shown by God, or pictures which introduce God’s message (sometimes using word-play on the name of the object seen). But Amos also regularly uses his own picture-language to illustrate and drive home his point. A lion features several times in such ‘sermon illustrations’, and often this dangerous roaring beast in some sense represents God.
The prophecy against Amaziah and his family sounds like a judgement pronounced on him because he dared to oppose Amos (God’s true prophet). Did Amos have the same power promised by Jesus to the disciples, that they could declare people’s sins forgiven or not and what they declared would come to pass? Is Amos placing some kind of ‘curse’ on Amaziah, or is he only revealing what God had planned anyway? Or is he just being nasty and vindictive to upset Amaziah?
The ending of the book is more cheerful. The council of Jerusalem (in Acts) quotes this last part of Amos as if it was about all the nations being gathered into the kingdom of David. The original passage sounds more like a promise that when the kingdom is rebuilt Israel will conquer the other nations. Despite the fact that prosperity (at the expense of the poor) is the problem, Amos ends with a vision of a restored kingdom which will be so prosperous that corn will grow faster than it can be reaped and grapes grow faster than they can be trodden into wine.
Relevance for today:
Amos addresses a situation which resembles life today on a global scale. Some countries are well off and enjoying a good standard of living, but this is at the expense of those who are oppressed by unjust trade laws. Perhaps we need the vehemence of Amos’s wake-up call to open our eyes to the suffering of the poor and to realise the fragile nature of our apparent peace and security.
Some of his accusations are surprisingly modern. For example – you are more interested in acquiring the latest trainers than in thinking about the exploitation which produces them! Or – you lazy cows sponge off the labour of others and expect your husbands to keep you well-supplied with booze! Or – you pretend to be respectable by following the trappings of religion but your heart isn’t in it. All through Sunday you can’t wait to get back to your self-indulgence and your dodgy dealings.
One of the few positive exhortations of Amos is to let justice and righteousness flow like a continually moving river. His call is not for a few good deeds here and there like refreshing splashes of water, but for justice and righteousness to be a constant way of life with more and more goodness endlessly pouring out of us.
Conclusion:
I wouldn’t like to meet Amos in the flesh. He has the rough raw passion of the newly called amateur preacher. He goes on and on about disturbing and uncomfortable issues. He has strong views on what God thinks about it and what God plans to do about it. But whilst some aspects of his understanding of God may be off-putting, his analysis of a corrupt affluent society is alarmingly perceptive.
First impressions of Amos’s character: (which I suspect may be similar for any prophet, but Amos happens to be the first I’ve read in this way)
His method of persuading people to change their wicked ways is to threaten them with punishment from God. Maybe these punishments are not all to be taken literally. He says, for example, that God will pursue them down to the world of the dead, or up to heaven, or into the depths of the ocean – so there must be some element of hyperbole here. It is not clear how many of these dire predictions ever came true. The one human encounter is with Amaziah the priest at Bethel. This ends with Amos predicting a horrible end for the priest and his family, but there is nothing to say whether this was an accurate foretelling or just Amos’s way of dealing with his critics.
Yet Amos clearly has compassion for the nation and at times prays (successfully) for God to withhold punishment. Occasionally he pleads with Israel to repent and thereby avoid their terrible fate.
Amos’s idea of God is of someone who is very much in control. Nothing happens without God’s say-so. Hence any disasters are interpreted as either punishment from God or a warning to turn back to God otherwise the real punishment will be even worse.
Amos’s high moral standards are the reason for his passionate denunciation. In a warm-up section he threatens fire and destruction against Israel’s neighbours (including Judah) and in doing so highlights the kind of behaviour which is unacceptable – oppressing people with savage cruelty; selling a whole nation into slavery; sending a whole nation into exile; mercilessly hunting down fellow nations; ripping open pregnant women during wartime; dishonouring the bones of a foreign king; and (in the case of Judah) hating God’s teaching, disobeying his commands and worshipping false gods.
Historical setting and basic message:
In the reign of Jereboam II (while Uzziah was king of Judah), Israel prospered enough that the privileged classes could afford two homes – one for winter and one for summer. One reason for Israel doing so well was that their neighbours were weakened by warring amongst themselves, allowing Israel to expand their territory. Hence the situation in Israel is one of peace, security and luxury – at least for the well-off. Amos’s key message is a) that this prosperity has come about through oppression of the poor and b) therefore the good times will not last and destruction will fall upon the nation.
It sounds as if most of the book is a record of a fairly brief visit to Bethel, where Amos delivered his message before being told to leave. Who actually wrote it down? No-one knows. Did Amos record it when he was back home in Tekoa? Was he a charismatic enough figure to have attracted disciples who followed him and took notes? Was it a member of his audience who was impressed by this fiery Southerner? And were these words simply recorded for posterity, or were they published in order to keep ramming home the point to his contemporaries?
The various natural disasters which failed to turn people back to God must have been either long ago or localised in their effect, because the idea of a nations reeling under one disaster after another is at odds with the general mood of prosperity.
Style:
Amos has a few visions – scenarios shown by God, or pictures which introduce God’s message (sometimes using word-play on the name of the object seen). But Amos also regularly uses his own picture-language to illustrate and drive home his point. A lion features several times in such ‘sermon illustrations’, and often this dangerous roaring beast in some sense represents God.
The prophecy against Amaziah and his family sounds like a judgement pronounced on him because he dared to oppose Amos (God’s true prophet). Did Amos have the same power promised by Jesus to the disciples, that they could declare people’s sins forgiven or not and what they declared would come to pass? Is Amos placing some kind of ‘curse’ on Amaziah, or is he only revealing what God had planned anyway? Or is he just being nasty and vindictive to upset Amaziah?
The ending of the book is more cheerful. The council of Jerusalem (in Acts) quotes this last part of Amos as if it was about all the nations being gathered into the kingdom of David. The original passage sounds more like a promise that when the kingdom is rebuilt Israel will conquer the other nations. Despite the fact that prosperity (at the expense of the poor) is the problem, Amos ends with a vision of a restored kingdom which will be so prosperous that corn will grow faster than it can be reaped and grapes grow faster than they can be trodden into wine.
Relevance for today:
Amos addresses a situation which resembles life today on a global scale. Some countries are well off and enjoying a good standard of living, but this is at the expense of those who are oppressed by unjust trade laws. Perhaps we need the vehemence of Amos’s wake-up call to open our eyes to the suffering of the poor and to realise the fragile nature of our apparent peace and security.
Some of his accusations are surprisingly modern. For example – you are more interested in acquiring the latest trainers than in thinking about the exploitation which produces them! Or – you lazy cows sponge off the labour of others and expect your husbands to keep you well-supplied with booze! Or – you pretend to be respectable by following the trappings of religion but your heart isn’t in it. All through Sunday you can’t wait to get back to your self-indulgence and your dodgy dealings.
One of the few positive exhortations of Amos is to let justice and righteousness flow like a continually moving river. His call is not for a few good deeds here and there like refreshing splashes of water, but for justice and righteousness to be a constant way of life with more and more goodness endlessly pouring out of us.
Conclusion:
I wouldn’t like to meet Amos in the flesh. He has the rough raw passion of the newly called amateur preacher. He goes on and on about disturbing and uncomfortable issues. He has strong views on what God thinks about it and what God plans to do about it. But whilst some aspects of his understanding of God may be off-putting, his analysis of a corrupt affluent society is alarmingly perceptive.
Sunday 31 May 2009
ABR#1 Acts of the Apostles
I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book three times (in different translations) and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Acts.
Characters
There are two main characters, Peter and Paul, whose stories overlap in the middle. They have many experiences in common – miracles, visions, being hauled before the authorities, imprisonment (and miraculous release), healings (directly, and indirectly via shadows and handkerchiefs) and raising the dead. But there are also numerous others who are filled with the Holy Spirit and play an active part in the spread of the gospel – Stephen, Philip, James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla to name but a few.
Examples of recurring characters: 1) When Paul and his companions were on their way back to Jerusalem, whom did they stay with at Caesarea? None other than Philip the deacon/evangelist – who by now had four daughters who were also preaching the gospel. 2) Gamaliel, who argued for a ‘wait-and-see’ policy in the early days is later cited by Paul as his mentor when he was training in Jerusalem. (NB Paul’s initial policy in those early days was not ‘wait and see’ but ‘kill the heretics!’) 3) The prophet Agabus appears at the start of Paul’s travels, predicting a famine, and at the end, warning of his fate in Jerusalem. 4) On escaping from prison Peter goes to the house of John Mark’s mother. Shortly after John Mark himself goes with Saul and Barnabas to help in their work.
Authorship
This is clearly a sequel to Luke’s gospel, but who is Theophilus, to whom Luke addresses both books? One theory is that Theophilus was Paul’s defence lawyer. Whilst awaiting trial in Caesarea and again in Rome, Luke, in consultation with Paul, prepared two briefing papers for him setting out the facts of a) Jesus’s life and b) Paul’s part in the spread of the Christian message.
This would explain certain features such as the focus on Paul for the last half of the book and the time taken on details such as the reporting of the plot against Paul. (The report of who said what to whom, between nephew, Paul, centurion and commandant, seems needlessly long-winded but is just the sort of thing a lawyer would be interested in.)
They obviously had lawyers in those days (Tertullus for example spoke on behalf of the High Priest), but to be honest this theory about Theophilus seems a trifle too neat to be true.
The Message
What was this new message which the disciples were so keen to spread? Three responses were called for again and again.
Repent – turn away from your wicked ways, seek forgiveness, change your lifestyle. Why? The appeal is to be saved but it is not specified from what. The sermons don’t major on how sinful people are. Perhaps everyone was well aware they were living in a corrupt society which needed some drastic shake-up. The criticisms are mostly corporate (living in a crooked age) rather than individual, and the only real sin highlighted is rejecting God’s prophets and God’s message, and in particular rejecting Jesus.
Believe – accept the facts about Jesus (especially his resurrection) as true, trust in him as a living person. Why? God is doing something new and wonderful in Jesus. You need to get on board. This is a key motivation in the early sermons. There is no threat of hell (though there are a few references to judgement); no promise of heaven; no warning that Christ will return imminently; no explanation about the cross as the means of salvation. In Jewish circles the focus is on Jesus being the promised Messiah, but otherwise there is very little theological justification for the call to believe.
Be Baptised – in water obviously, but no detail is given about the exact method. Why? It is associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit into a person’s life.
Some specific lessons
God often chooses to work through designated human agents. Saul’s eyesight is restored through Ananias. The church in Joppa send for Peter when Tabitha dies. God answers Cornelius’ prayer by sending Peter. When the sons of Sceva try to cast out an evil spirit on Paul’s behalf, rather than sending for the man himself, it all goes horribly pear-shaped.
Paul and co-workers stayed in Ephesus for a few years and their work flourished. Yet in the near-riot when the crowds were chanting “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” the town clerk was able to claim that the Christians had never spoken evil against Artemis. Clearly they were managing to do what we try to do today – proclaim and spread the Christian faith without causing offence to those of other faiths.
The story of Ananias and Sapphira shows God is not to be trifled with. When it comes to explaining my actions to the church council I have never (as far as I remember) come up with an out-and-out lie, but I have often put a huge spin on my report in order to put myself in the best possible light. For example I might say that I am “working on it” when I actually mean “I’ve not started it yet but I’m on the verge of doing so”. Thus far I have never fallen dead in a church council, but I ought to take seriously the issue of misleading my fellow Christians and bear in mind that if I compromise my integrity it is really God that I am lying to.
Here’s a thought: What happened to all those people Jesus had an impact on during his ministry in Judea, Samaria and Galilee? When the new message spread through these regions, it was only a few years after Jesus had been amongst them in person. Did these ‘old’ followers hear the message of resurrection and become ‘new’ followers? Was the change in the life of (for example) Zaccheus incomplete until he had responded to the preaching of the early church? Whatever the answers, one thing is easily overlooked – in some parts of the world the gospel of Jesus was not a brand new concept but additional information regarding a well-known figure. Not so different after all to the environment in which evangelists work today.
Miscellaneous details
Stephen’s account of Jewish history portrays Moses as the archetype of the ‘rejected prophet’ who came to save but initially wasn’t listened to. Stephen was preparing his audience to see Jesus in similar terms.
Paul inflicts on Barjesus, a sorcerer on Cyprus, the same fate he suffered himself on the road to Damascus – condemnation of his opposition to God followed by a time of blindness. It is not recorded whether this led to a conversion.
Characters
There are two main characters, Peter and Paul, whose stories overlap in the middle. They have many experiences in common – miracles, visions, being hauled before the authorities, imprisonment (and miraculous release), healings (directly, and indirectly via shadows and handkerchiefs) and raising the dead. But there are also numerous others who are filled with the Holy Spirit and play an active part in the spread of the gospel – Stephen, Philip, James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla to name but a few.
Examples of recurring characters: 1) When Paul and his companions were on their way back to Jerusalem, whom did they stay with at Caesarea? None other than Philip the deacon/evangelist – who by now had four daughters who were also preaching the gospel. 2) Gamaliel, who argued for a ‘wait-and-see’ policy in the early days is later cited by Paul as his mentor when he was training in Jerusalem. (NB Paul’s initial policy in those early days was not ‘wait and see’ but ‘kill the heretics!’) 3) The prophet Agabus appears at the start of Paul’s travels, predicting a famine, and at the end, warning of his fate in Jerusalem. 4) On escaping from prison Peter goes to the house of John Mark’s mother. Shortly after John Mark himself goes with Saul and Barnabas to help in their work.
Authorship
This is clearly a sequel to Luke’s gospel, but who is Theophilus, to whom Luke addresses both books? One theory is that Theophilus was Paul’s defence lawyer. Whilst awaiting trial in Caesarea and again in Rome, Luke, in consultation with Paul, prepared two briefing papers for him setting out the facts of a) Jesus’s life and b) Paul’s part in the spread of the Christian message.
This would explain certain features such as the focus on Paul for the last half of the book and the time taken on details such as the reporting of the plot against Paul. (The report of who said what to whom, between nephew, Paul, centurion and commandant, seems needlessly long-winded but is just the sort of thing a lawyer would be interested in.)
They obviously had lawyers in those days (Tertullus for example spoke on behalf of the High Priest), but to be honest this theory about Theophilus seems a trifle too neat to be true.
The Message
What was this new message which the disciples were so keen to spread? Three responses were called for again and again.
Repent – turn away from your wicked ways, seek forgiveness, change your lifestyle. Why? The appeal is to be saved but it is not specified from what. The sermons don’t major on how sinful people are. Perhaps everyone was well aware they were living in a corrupt society which needed some drastic shake-up. The criticisms are mostly corporate (living in a crooked age) rather than individual, and the only real sin highlighted is rejecting God’s prophets and God’s message, and in particular rejecting Jesus.
Believe – accept the facts about Jesus (especially his resurrection) as true, trust in him as a living person. Why? God is doing something new and wonderful in Jesus. You need to get on board. This is a key motivation in the early sermons. There is no threat of hell (though there are a few references to judgement); no promise of heaven; no warning that Christ will return imminently; no explanation about the cross as the means of salvation. In Jewish circles the focus is on Jesus being the promised Messiah, but otherwise there is very little theological justification for the call to believe.
Be Baptised – in water obviously, but no detail is given about the exact method. Why? It is associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit into a person’s life.
Some specific lessons
God often chooses to work through designated human agents. Saul’s eyesight is restored through Ananias. The church in Joppa send for Peter when Tabitha dies. God answers Cornelius’ prayer by sending Peter. When the sons of Sceva try to cast out an evil spirit on Paul’s behalf, rather than sending for the man himself, it all goes horribly pear-shaped.
Paul and co-workers stayed in Ephesus for a few years and their work flourished. Yet in the near-riot when the crowds were chanting “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” the town clerk was able to claim that the Christians had never spoken evil against Artemis. Clearly they were managing to do what we try to do today – proclaim and spread the Christian faith without causing offence to those of other faiths.
The story of Ananias and Sapphira shows God is not to be trifled with. When it comes to explaining my actions to the church council I have never (as far as I remember) come up with an out-and-out lie, but I have often put a huge spin on my report in order to put myself in the best possible light. For example I might say that I am “working on it” when I actually mean “I’ve not started it yet but I’m on the verge of doing so”. Thus far I have never fallen dead in a church council, but I ought to take seriously the issue of misleading my fellow Christians and bear in mind that if I compromise my integrity it is really God that I am lying to.
Here’s a thought: What happened to all those people Jesus had an impact on during his ministry in Judea, Samaria and Galilee? When the new message spread through these regions, it was only a few years after Jesus had been amongst them in person. Did these ‘old’ followers hear the message of resurrection and become ‘new’ followers? Was the change in the life of (for example) Zaccheus incomplete until he had responded to the preaching of the early church? Whatever the answers, one thing is easily overlooked – in some parts of the world the gospel of Jesus was not a brand new concept but additional information regarding a well-known figure. Not so different after all to the environment in which evangelists work today.
Miscellaneous details
Stephen’s account of Jewish history portrays Moses as the archetype of the ‘rejected prophet’ who came to save but initially wasn’t listened to. Stephen was preparing his audience to see Jesus in similar terms.
Paul inflicts on Barjesus, a sorcerer on Cyprus, the same fate he suffered himself on the road to Damascus – condemnation of his opposition to God followed by a time of blindness. It is not recorded whether this led to a conversion.
Friday 15 May 2009
Reading the Bible alphabetically
I returned from the Christian Resources Exhibition having heard two speakers and bought one book written by each. I also returned with a desire to read the Bible differently. But how?
The first speaker was David Pawson. His key point was that the Bible is a library of books and that each book should be read in it's entirety. He pointed out that no-one w
ould read an Agatha Christie novel by dipping into chapter 7, then reading a few verses from chapter 3 then skipping to the last page. This is true, though his analogy applies more to some Bible books than others. We wouldn't sit down and read a hymn book or a book of quotations from cover to cover. (Hence Psalms and Proverbs may not be best suited to a simple novel-like approach.) However I was impressed enough by his insights that I bought "Unlocking the Bible" - a huge tome full of background information. To be honest, his understanding of Scripture is much more literal than I am comfortable with, but he is easy to listen to (and hopefully to read) and I'm happy to hear his views even if I decide not to agree.
A second speaker was Nick Page who I feel closer to theologically and whose common
sense is seasoned with a sprinkling of quirky humour. He too has written a guide (albeit one third the size) called "The Bible Book". The introduction uses the analogy of exploring two continents, each with its own regions ('history' or 'letters' for example) and 66 variously sized towns. There are many popular tourist attractions to be visited, but also some fascinating things to discover off the beaten track.
My plan therefore is to take a book of the Bible, read it through for myself, read what Mr Pawson and Mr Page have to say, and any other insights I can find from other sources (Wikipedia springs to mind), then read it at least once more in a different translation. The aim is to spend time (anything from a few days to a few weeks) really getting to grips with that book before moving on to the next.
The only remaining question is what order to read the books. An obvious answer is in the order they appear in the Bible. An alternative (preferred by David Pawson) is chronologically, which is not radically different to the usual order. Having read the Bible twice through over the last decade I feel I am familiar enough with the overview not to need this approach. One book at a time will do me fine, and a bit of variety, hopping from history to prophecy to epistles would help keep up my interest. So I said to myself - what about alphabetically?
This has a lot to commend it. It provides enough discipline so that I don't just read what I feel like. It will take me back and forth from Old to New Testaments and mix up the different styles of literature. The first book in ths scheme is Acts, which is in many ways a good place to start, especially with the approach of Pentecost.
The only spanner in the works is that if I stick strictly to alphabetical order I will end up reading the three synoptic gospels in succession (with only Malachi as a short break). Hence I will promote Mark to somewhere around D and postpone Matthew to somewhere around R. Otherwise I'm ready for off. I don't expect to reach Zephaniah until 2012.
The first speaker was David Pawson. His key point was that the Bible is a library of books and that each book should be read in it's entirety. He pointed out that no-one w
ould read an Agatha Christie novel by dipping into chapter 7, then reading a few verses from chapter 3 then skipping to the last page. This is true, though his analogy applies more to some Bible books than others. We wouldn't sit down and read a hymn book or a book of quotations from cover to cover. (Hence Psalms and Proverbs may not be best suited to a simple novel-like approach.) However I was impressed enough by his insights that I bought "Unlocking the Bible" - a huge tome full of background information. To be honest, his understanding of Scripture is much more literal than I am comfortable with, but he is easy to listen to (and hopefully to read) and I'm happy to hear his views even if I decide not to agree.A second speaker was Nick Page who I feel closer to theologically and whose common
sense is seasoned with a sprinkling of quirky humour. He too has written a guide (albeit one third the size) called "The Bible Book". The introduction uses the analogy of exploring two continents, each with its own regions ('history' or 'letters' for example) and 66 variously sized towns. There are many popular tourist attractions to be visited, but also some fascinating things to discover off the beaten track.My plan therefore is to take a book of the Bible, read it through for myself, read what Mr Pawson and Mr Page have to say, and any other insights I can find from other sources (Wikipedia springs to mind), then read it at least once more in a different translation. The aim is to spend time (anything from a few days to a few weeks) really getting to grips with that book before moving on to the next.
The only remaining question is what order to read the books. An obvious answer is in the order they appear in the Bible. An alternative (preferred by David Pawson) is chronologically, which is not radically different to the usual order. Having read the Bible twice through over the last decade I feel I am familiar enough with the overview not to need this approach. One book at a time will do me fine, and a bit of variety, hopping from history to prophecy to epistles would help keep up my interest. So I said to myself - what about alphabetically?
This has a lot to commend it. It provides enough discipline so that I don't just read what I feel like. It will take me back and forth from Old to New Testaments and mix up the different styles of literature. The first book in ths scheme is Acts, which is in many ways a good place to start, especially with the approach of Pentecost.
The only spanner in the works is that if I stick strictly to alphabetical order I will end up reading the three synoptic gospels in succession (with only Malachi as a short break). Hence I will promote Mark to somewhere around D and postpone Matthew to somewhere around R. Otherwise I'm ready for off. I don't expect to reach Zephaniah until 2012.
Friday 24 April 2009
A nudge from God
Visitors to our Street Pastor training session last night offered to pray for us and share any 'words of knowledge' they might have. If this sounds a bit weird, then all I can say is that it was done in a very down-to-earth and sensible way without any undue hype and everyone seemed to feel uplifted and encouraged by the experience.
In my case the girl who prayed for me said two things which made me think. One was that she saw a picture of origami - someone folding paper into intricate patterns - and felt that my gift was to approach things scientifically and logically. This led me to wonder how I can use such a gift to help build up the church. (Answers on a postcard please....)
The other thing she said (twice) was that I should stop seeing things as grey but rather as black and white. I took this as a hint that it is time for me to give up my favourite pastime of sitting on the fence, reserving judgement as much as I can, and leaving situations well alone. Instead I should have a clearer idea of what is right and wrong and act accordingly. Her final comment was that perhaps my 'scientific approach' should be as simple as - 'this is what God says, so go and do it'.
Which just leaves the question, 'what exactly is God telling me to do?' The only answer that's come as I've slept on it is to love people. I don't do this nearly enough. When confronted with someone in need I will try to help, but between those times I am not particularly pro-active. Perhaps I should be sitting down each day and asking myself, 'who needs my help today and what can I do to bring them God's love?'
In my case the girl who prayed for me said two things which made me think. One was that she saw a picture of origami - someone folding paper into intricate patterns - and felt that my gift was to approach things scientifically and logically. This led me to wonder how I can use such a gift to help build up the church. (Answers on a postcard please....)
The other thing she said (twice) was that I should stop seeing things as grey but rather as black and white. I took this as a hint that it is time for me to give up my favourite pastime of sitting on the fence, reserving judgement as much as I can, and leaving situations well alone. Instead I should have a clearer idea of what is right and wrong and act accordingly. Her final comment was that perhaps my 'scientific approach' should be as simple as - 'this is what God says, so go and do it'.
Which just leaves the question, 'what exactly is God telling me to do?' The only answer that's come as I've slept on it is to love people. I don't do this nearly enough. When confronted with someone in need I will try to help, but between those times I am not particularly pro-active. Perhaps I should be sitting down each day and asking myself, 'who needs my help today and what can I do to bring them God's love?'
Thursday 16 April 2009
Heaven needs Christ
I need to re-think my idea of heaven. I know that any description of heaven is incomplete and relies heavily on symbolic images, but I have discovered that there is something (or rather someone) important missing from my own imagined view of the life to come.
The idea which has always appealed to me is that heaven is the reality and this world a mere shadow of it. Or, if you like, heaven is three dimensional and in colour whereas life today is, in comparison, merely two dimensional and monochrome. In other words I picture heaven as a more solid, more real and altogether 'greater' version of earth. There will still be all the things that make life on earth so good, but they won't be tainted by sin or sorrow.
And what is wrong with this picture? It barely leaves room for God, let alone Christ. It is possible to see heaven as some idyllic paradise where God does little more than set things up and leave us to get on with enjoying eternity. It is possible to see Christ as little more than a glorified gatekeeper - he is the one who opens heaven up for us, but again just leaves us to enjoy it.
There are plenty of Biblical images of a wonderful heaven which awaits us - a great feast; a peaceful mountain; a holy city - but if we are to take seriously the whole Bible, then what about those passages which remind us that all things were made by and for Christ? All things, in heaven and earth, have been given to him. How can a Christian view of heaven not include Christ at the centre? Heaven must be more than a place where God's creatures feel good. It must be a place where we live in perfect relationship with Jesus, our Lord, our Saviour and our Friend.
The idea which has always appealed to me is that heaven is the reality and this world a mere shadow of it. Or, if you like, heaven is three dimensional and in colour whereas life today is, in comparison, merely two dimensional and monochrome. In other words I picture heaven as a more solid, more real and altogether 'greater' version of earth. There will still be all the things that make life on earth so good, but they won't be tainted by sin or sorrow.
And what is wrong with this picture? It barely leaves room for God, let alone Christ. It is possible to see heaven as some idyllic paradise where God does little more than set things up and leave us to get on with enjoying eternity. It is possible to see Christ as little more than a glorified gatekeeper - he is the one who opens heaven up for us, but again just leaves us to enjoy it.
There are plenty of Biblical images of a wonderful heaven which awaits us - a great feast; a peaceful mountain; a holy city - but if we are to take seriously the whole Bible, then what about those passages which remind us that all things were made by and for Christ? All things, in heaven and earth, have been given to him. How can a Christian view of heaven not include Christ at the centre? Heaven must be more than a place where God's creatures feel good. It must be a place where we live in perfect relationship with Jesus, our Lord, our Saviour and our Friend.
Tuesday 14 April 2009
The nature of reality - Tetris or Patience?
I'm reading a book on eschatology - the study of the 'last things'. Thankfully it doesn't seek to establish a time-scale to predict what order things will happen. What it does is remind me that the nature of the ending does make a difference to life here and now.
For a long time I have not taken eschatology seriously. I've always had a vague idea that God's kingdom when it comes will be a massive interruption to life and history and the universe as we know it, rather than as the end point of a slow steady development within history. But I've not thought it mattered much. Are my vague ideas about the future anything like correct? Do I care? If it happens roughly like I expect that's OK by me. If God decides to do something radically different from my expectations that's OK too. I'll find out when it happens.
I've still not come to any firmer conclusions about the nature of the last things. All this stuff about the rapture and the millennium I regard as heavily symbolic. But I have realised that the Christian faith is not based on the life and history of the human race just stretching off forever into the future. Life is not like a perfect game of Tetris. Slotting those falling blocks into place is good fun, and an expert can keep going for a long time. A perfect player, assuming that the speed never increases beyond his capacity to react quickly enough, can in theory just keep playing forever. (NB I say 'his' because females are far too sensible to embark on an infinitely long game of Tetris.) The game is not designed to finish. Or at least not to have a successful finish - in practice it ends when the player makes too many mistakes or gives up out of boredom.
Patience is a different kind of game. From the start it is moving towards a conclusion. The cards begin in random order, but by following the rules and moving them here and there, a degree of order is gradually imposed. The player works towards a conclusion. The game ends when perfect order is achieved. Isn't that the point of all the Biblical teaching on eschatology? Life is moving towards a final purpose. We can debate how much we are involved in the process and how much God is involved. Maybe there are times when some dramatic sudden shift will be instigated by God. The key thing is that such a view should affect the way we live today.
Do I see today as just one more day to get through, making as few mistakes as possible, and expecting tomorrow (and all the tomorrows after that) to be no different from today? Or do I see today as an important step on a journey, for me and for all creation, which will bring us closer to the final perfect pattern of life which God has in store?
For a long time I have not taken eschatology seriously. I've always had a vague idea that God's kingdom when it comes will be a massive interruption to life and history and the universe as we know it, rather than as the end point of a slow steady development within history. But I've not thought it mattered much. Are my vague ideas about the future anything like correct? Do I care? If it happens roughly like I expect that's OK by me. If God decides to do something radically different from my expectations that's OK too. I'll find out when it happens.
I've still not come to any firmer conclusions about the nature of the last things. All this stuff about the rapture and the millennium I regard as heavily symbolic. But I have realised that the Christian faith is not based on the life and history of the human race just stretching off forever into the future. Life is not like a perfect game of Tetris. Slotting those falling blocks into place is good fun, and an expert can keep going for a long time. A perfect player, assuming that the speed never increases beyond his capacity to react quickly enough, can in theory just keep playing forever. (NB I say 'his' because females are far too sensible to embark on an infinitely long game of Tetris.) The game is not designed to finish. Or at least not to have a successful finish - in practice it ends when the player makes too many mistakes or gives up out of boredom.
Patience is a different kind of game. From the start it is moving towards a conclusion. The cards begin in random order, but by following the rules and moving them here and there, a degree of order is gradually imposed. The player works towards a conclusion. The game ends when perfect order is achieved. Isn't that the point of all the Biblical teaching on eschatology? Life is moving towards a final purpose. We can debate how much we are involved in the process and how much God is involved. Maybe there are times when some dramatic sudden shift will be instigated by God. The key thing is that such a view should affect the way we live today.
Do I see today as just one more day to get through, making as few mistakes as possible, and expecting tomorrow (and all the tomorrows after that) to be no different from today? Or do I see today as an important step on a journey, for me and for all creation, which will bring us closer to the final perfect pattern of life which God has in store?
Saturday 28 March 2009
The impact of "Influence"
I have recently returned from a conference at Cliff College near Sheffield called 'Influence'. It only lasted one and half days but was both stimulating in terms of ideas and invigorating in terms of personal faith. Here are just three details:a) As we were singing "Lord, reign in me again" and as I was trying to mean what I sang, I was distracted by thoughts of a massive workload accumulating back home, of a wife and children who were not present to share my current experiences, of a wandering mind which sometimes leads me into fantasy worlds where life is much more exciting and less problematic than the real world, of a variety of leisure interests which I enjoy but which can distract from more important activity... and then we reached this line. "You are the Lord of all that I am." Those last four words encapsulated everything - work, leisure, family, personality, even my daydreams. God is not looking for some non-existent perfectly spiritual person to submit to him, but for me to do so - for "all that I am" to be at his disposal. With that insight I was able to sing the last line with heartfelt passion - "Won't you reign in me again!"
b) During a time of prayer and ministry, one of the leaders prayed for me that I would have a renewed expectation of what God could do and trust him to answer prayers. When I returned to my seat I decided I couldn't have any expectations fulfilled if I didn't have any expectations. So what should I expect to happen? Our church is on the verge of employing a family worker, but we have been waiting for many weeks for the CRB clearance to come through. The most recent provisional starting date was less than a week away. I wrote down a prayer - that by Monday we would have received the long-awaited clearance. I tried to believe it would happen, not just for my own benefit, but for the sake of the church. The day after I arrived home (Friday), the family worker called to say she had received clearance. God didn't let us down.
c) Returning from the mountain top of a Christian event down to the valley of humdrum life can all too easily lower the spirits. It seems to me that one mark of a good encounter with God is that it makes everyday life brighter rather than duller. I've now been home for almost two days and back into the necessary routine. (And this is the first chance I've had to record anything in my blog.) But the sense of interaction with God is still there. I may have left behind the rarefied atmosphere of a Bible College, but I've not moved out of God's presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
