ABR#18 Habakkuk

In 2009 I began 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 Habakkuk.

 

Authorship and Overview

Nothing is known about Habakkuk beyond what is recorded in his book, and a brief appearance in the Apocrypha in which a character of the same name is sent by God to take a meal to Daniel in the lion’s den. He presumably lived around 600 BC when the ‘Chaldeans’ (i.e. the Babylonians) were coming to power.

The last chapter of this short book is in the style of a psalm and could conceivably have been added later, especially as it seems to contain a mistake: the final line sounds more like the instructions at the start of a psalm, implying the whole thing was copied from a collection of psalms and the copyist accidentally included the heading of the next psalm. This doesn’t stop Habakkuk being the psalm’s author. I can imagine someone being told to add his psalm to the same scroll as his other writing.

Habakkuk is an unusual prophet in that he doesn’t address his words to the general public, but to God. He also records God’s responses.

* First he complains that God is doing nothing to address the evil he sees all around him.
* God tells him that he is going to astound him by raising up the violent and aggressive Babylonians (implying that they will destroy the evil.)
* Then Habakkuk questions how God could even think about using such an appallingly wicked nation to fulfil his purposes.

* God tells him that in time this wicked nation will get its come-uppance and pronounces assorted woes upon it. After which there is nothing to say ... “The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent in his presence.”

*  ... except of course for the psalm of praise extolling the warrior God bringing destruction to the earth. The psalm ends on a note of confidence in God, even in the midst of a ravaged and harvest-less land.

Quotable Verses

“The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord’s glory as the waters fill the sea.” This image provides the last line of each verse in the hymn “God is working his purpose out as year succeeds to year.” It reminds us that God has his plans and it will all come out right in the end, which is very much part of Habakkuk’s message.

The last verse of the book (see 2 Samuel 22:34 and Psalm 18:33 for similar verses) provides the title of a novel by Hannah Hurnard – “Hinds’ Feet on High Places” – which is an allegorical story of the journey towards God, the idea being that God enables us to be sure-footed as a deer as we negotiate difficult mountainous terrain.

Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. Paul uses this verse – “the righteous shall live by faith” – to support the important concept of salvation by faith not by works. In the original context it is more about faithfulness than faith. When the evil people around Habakkuk are being destroyed by the even more wicked Babylonians, then the righteous people will survive by remaining faithful to the Lord.

A Message for Today?

Habakkuk’s willingness to challenge God when things don’t seem right shows us that we too can be brutally honest with God. But we also need to take a leaf out of Habakkuk’s book and be willing to listen honestly to hear God’s answer.

My problem with this book is that it stops too short. I’m not convinced by God’s responses. Overcoming evil by raising up a cruel destructive nation to punish the evil-doers, and then saying it’s OK because that nation will be destroyed in its turn? Really? That’s your solution to evil? Come off it, God! Habakkuk may have found delight in the image of a powerful and frightening warrior-god striding through the land with pestilence stalking before him and plague following close behind, but I don’t. Surely that’s not your nature, Lord.

For me, a key verse is 2:3 – “There is still a vision for the appointed time ... though it delays, wait for it, for it will surely come before long.” Bear in mind that ‘before long’ in God’s eyes might be an extremely long time in human history. Habakkuk was a man of his time and could only conceive war, violence and punishment as the answer to getting rid of evil. We have come a long way since then, not least because of the teaching of Jesus. Surely God’s ultimate vision for dealing with evil does not rely on killing wicked people, but on saving the human race, establishing a kingdom of justice and peace, filling the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Achieving this is taking a long time. Consider who God has to work with – us!

The human race seems to be warlike by nature, always thinking in terms of them and us and always willing to destroy ‘them’ to protect ‘us’. Over many centuries there are signs that we are gradually getting to be more loving, compassionate and tolerant, but we still have a way to go. Even now, even though things are (I think) moving in roughly the right direction, we are still confronted by all kinds of evil. If God seems to be doing nothing about it, it isn’t because he doesn’t care or has given up on us. He is working with us and through us. He has a plan, and it will come to fruition one day. For God’s final and satisfying response to our outcry we need to wait – and trust.

ABR#17 Genesis

In 2009 I began 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 Genesis.

Overall Impression

Genesis is not a stand-alone book. It definitely reads like book one of an ongoing series. It comes to a relatively satisfying conclusion but leaves the bigger story unfinished.

The early chapters deal with much more dramatic matters than the majority of the book which is a family saga, tracing the history of a particular family over four generations. You might find something similar in literature today. Imagine this: chapter one of a book tells how the plot of an evil wizard has been foiled by a mere baby and the whole wizarding world is rejoicing. Later chapters are about a young boy struggling to make friends in an unfamiliar school environment. Most of the book is less dramatic than the opening chapter, but the reader should not forget that opening. The evil wizard has only been temporarily defeated. He’ll be back. In fact many of the ‘troublesome school days’ incidents contain hints of a deeper plot. That evil wizard is still in the background. In later books he will return in a less subtle way. The overarching story is one which impacts the salvation of the whole wizarding world, even if much of the narrative focuses on a handful of individuals going about their everyday life.

In the same way, the first chapters of Genesis establish that this world was created by God and that he has taken an active interest in the behaviour of his human creations, sometimes rescuing them, sometimes punishing them. The reader is expected to keep those early insights in mind during the majority of the book. It’s the history of a family, but God is still present and still taking an active interest. Maybe his interventions are less drastic than flooding the earth or muddling the whole world’s languages, but he is still the same powerful creator God and he has not gone away. If you just read the later chapters as history and forget the key information provided at the beginning, you will miss the nuances. No doubt we will see more of God’s activity in the later books in the series.

Structure and Authorship

In my ABR scheme I try to put aside any preconceptions. But it’s difficult to forget my previous Biblical knowledge entirely. For example, I know that scholars believe Genesis is based on four separate sources. (I even remember their names: J, E, P, D.) Even without knowing that, there were several occasions when it seemed obvious, based on needless repetition and occasional non sequiturs, that some stories were a combination of two different accounts.

In this respect, Genesis resembles a ‘Gospel Harmony’ such as the Diatessaron by Tatian. Christians have sometimes created a single account of the life of Jesus by melding together all four gospels. What this produces is a gospel which begins with two very different accounts of the birth of Jesus, not easily reconcilable, followed by a whole series of incidents with some repetition (e.g. the cleansing of the temple both at the start and the end of Jesus’s ministry) and occasional mis-matches of information such as the day of the last supper (was it a Passover meal, or was it the day before the Passover?) Genesis has the same feel as this – a combination of differing accounts of the early history of the world and of Abraham’s family.

Here’s one example. I’ve always found it odd that Reuben persuaded his brothers to dump Joseph in a cistern, but then apparently wandered away from them so that he wasn’t around when they sold Joseph into slavery. (Hence his surprise in finding the cistern empty.) When I read “meanwhile some passing Midianite merchants drew Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him…” (37:28) I realised this was an example of two versions put together. In version one there is nothing about a cistern or Reuben’s conscience. The brothers plan to kill Joseph, but seeing an Ishmaelite caravan they change their mind and sell him into slavery. In version two Reuben persuades his brothers that instead of killing Joseph directly they should just leave him in a cistern, where he will still die from heat and starvation, but they will not have blood on their hands. His secret plan is to rescue Joseph later, but unfortunately, after the brothers have abandoned Joseph, some passing Midianites discover him and make an easy profit by selling him to Ishmaelites. In this second version the brothers have no idea what has happened to Joseph until they meet him again in Egypt of all places!

A few more examples: The story of Abraham pretending his wife is his sister appears twice, and once more with Isaac doing the same thing. There are two stories about Jacob leaving his home. 1) Jacob steals his brother’s blessing and has to flee for his life. 2) Isaac blesses Jacob without any great fuss and sends him away to find a wife from among his relations. And of course, the two very different accounts of creation.

And I can’t imagine that the following both come from the same source: a) Sarah’s advanced age (well beyond child-bearing as in 18:11-12) and b) Abraham’s fear that she was so beautiful (and still sexually available) that she would be stolen from him unless he pretended she was his sister (20:2 and 20:11).

Creation

Genesis starts with two creation stories. The first is on cosmic scale and universal; the second is more local and homely with lots of actual names of places. A reminder that God is behind the cosmos and the familiar everyday. The places named seem to us part of the ancient world, but they would have been well known to the first readers.

The first story shows signs of adaption from an eight-step account. It isn’t creation from nothing, God starts with water and chaos. Then eight times he says “let it happen” and it happens and he sees it is good. The first four occurrences are God creating an environment and the second four are God creating its inhabitants. 1. light and dark, 2. sea and sky, 3. land, 4. plants, 5. sun, moon, stars, 6. fish and birds, 7. animals, 8. human beings. The last is an exception. Humans don’t ‘inhabit’ the plant life exactly. Instead they are given dominion over fish, birds and animals (not the sun and moon), and they have some plants to eat. Other plants are for the animals and birds.

The second story hints at a view of human life which I think is questionable (and not supported by certain other passages in the Bible) – that a person consists of a mortal physical body ‘inhabited’ by an eternal spirit. Here God forms the body from dust (to which it will return under the curse) and then breathes life into it. I would still want to argue that this does not necessarily imply the creation of an eternal spirit which can automatically outlast our physical existence. To me it emphasises that life is a gift of God and only sustained because he chooses to sustain it (whether in this world, or the next.)

Early Stories

The curse against the woman includes the man becoming her master. When this was written it was an explanation of how things were, but today we are right to emphasise that this is not how things were meant to be. The domination of man over woman is part of our ‘fallen’ state which can be redeemed with God’s help.

After the flood the rules for human domination change slightly. All living creatures will be afraid of human beings and will be food for them (alongside the ‘green plants’) but people are not to consume the blood of animals. This represents their life. Again there seems to be a distinction between body and spirit, although this time the ‘spirit’ is represented by blood rather than breath.

Only a few of the early stories (the first creation account, the Nephalim, the tower of Babel) are told in broad terms about people in general. Most of them, even the big events like the second creation account, the fall, the first murder, the flood etc., are stories about named individuals.

The Patriarchs

Once we reach chapter 12, the story becomes a family saga, full of individual deeds and sometimes lists of names. Names are clearly important, and many of the given names are based on Hebrew wordplay. Strangely, the long account of the search for a wife for Isaac, with many unnecessarily repeated details, has at the centre an unnamed servant.

The sons of Israel, according to his blessing, are a rough and wild bunch. In some cases his blessing sounds more like a curse. In particular Reuben the firstborn seems to fade into obscurity. It’s names like Judah, Ephraim, Levi which become ‘famous’.

Joseph and Pharaoh exploit the people during the time of famine. They sell them grain, then they take livestock in exchange and finally land. The people end up as slaves but are grateful that their lives have been spared. They don’t seem to remember that the food for which they are paying so dearly is the excess food taken from them in taxation during the years of plenty. Joseph doesn’t exploit the priests in the same way – despite the fact that these are priests of foreign gods. All in all, I’m not impressed with him as a role model.

Morals, Values, and Insights

The Lord sometimes appears in a very human way, e.g. as three men visiting Abraham. Other times he acts via intermediaries like angels (e.g. in the same story), but conversations with the Lord are often as if he is a real physical presence. Note that the angels go to Sodom, but Abraham remains with the Lord. It’s very confusing as to whether God is present in person or in the shape of a man or angel (or more than one). Jacob’s wrestling match with a man / an angel / God doesn’t clarify the confusion.

Certain values stand out. Hospitality: both Abraham and Lot beg the visitors to stay, almost in a panic that they may not. Genetic purity: seeking wives for Isaac and Jacob from among their own people. Taking another man’s wife as a sin: Abimelech is mortified at what almost happened. Respect for the rich and powerful: Abimelech almost grovels before Abraham even though the latter was in the wrong; the Hittites are keen to give him a burial ground without payment.

Abraham twice (and Isaac once) claims his wife as his sister afraid that he will be killed and his wife stolen. In each case their hosts are appalled at this behaviour and see the risk of being cursed (for accidentally sleeping with another man’s wife) as a real and present danger – yet they do not punish Abraham or Isaac but treat them with greater honour and respect.

Blessings and treaties are important and powerful. People seem to recognise who God is blessing and they want to be part of it. There is a definite sense that good fortune and wealth are not so much earned as given by God (and not always to those who deserve it.)

It was a tough time in history – groups of families raiding each other and stealing each others flocks and herds. e.g. when Shechem raped Dinah and then offered a peace treaty with Dinah becoming his wife as part of the deal, the sons of Israel pretended to go along with it, insisted on all the town being circumcised, then attacked and killed them all. Rape avenged by mass murder. Not a good time to be alive.

Genesis establishes a principle which is at odds with the general culture of the time, but for some reason is entrenched in this early history of the Hebrew race – that the younger son is the favoured one. Abel over Cain. Isaac over Ishmael. Jacob over Esau. Joseph over all his elder brothers. Ephraim over Manasseh. It happens in practically every generation. When Jesus told the story of the Prodigal Son, we imagine his listeners thinking, “it’s unfair of the younger brother to be so favoured.”  In fact, if they knew their history they were probably thinking, “here we go again.”

So What?

Ultimately, what is Genesis telling us? There are some passages which can be inspirational. Jacob’s wrestling match illustrates the importance of wresting with God in prayer – “I won’t stop until you bless me!” Abraham’s willingness to trust God even if it meant the death of his precious only son is a level of faith we find astounding and terrible. The story of Joseph shows how short term disasters can be used by God to further his long term plans for good. On an emotional level I always find the moment when Joseph reveals himself to his brothers to be deeply moving, even though I know it’s coming.

But I have to admit that much of what these patriarchs get up to is distasteful to my modern sensibilities. So I have to remember those early chapters. The first humans disobeyed God. After that things started to go horribly wrong. The stories which follow are the stories of a fallen people, not stories of perfect role models. God has his work cut out to make something good out of the human race and he isn’t going to succeed overnight. This book is about the very earliest steps in the process of salvation. There will continue to be much wrong with the human race for centuries to come. But here we can see God doing some initial moulding of his creation, establishing broad principles about faith and obedience, righteousness and wickedness, blessings and punishments, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Perhaps the main thing I get out of Genesis is the reminder that God is in charge and that he works in and through the lives of fallible human beings like myself. 

Lying Cretan reveals Biblical fallibility

Shock! Horror! The Bible contains a falsehood! Those for whom the absolute inerrancy of the Bible is a vital cornerstone of their faith should read no further. I mean it. Look away now.

The lying Cretan has sometimes been cited as an example of a paradox - a statement which can be neither true nor false. “This statement is false” is such a paradox. If true, then by its own admission it is false. And if false then its claim to be false is untrue, hence it must instead be true.

In his letter to Titus, chapter 1, Paul writes about the poor reputation the people of Crete have. One of their own number has gone on record regarding the nature of his fellow islanders. In verse 12 Paul says, “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’”

Tidying up the language a bit (without losing any aspects essential to the following logical argument) we could rephrase this as “A Cretan has said, ‘All Cretans are liars.’” It looks like a paradox. But it isn’t. Here’s how it is sometimes presented:

If the statement ‘all Cretans are liars’ is true, then the person who spoke it, being a Cretan is a liar and hence his statement is false. (Perfectly good logic so far.) If the statement ‘all Cretans are liars’ is false, then Cretans tell the truth, and since the statement was made by a Cretan it must be true. (Whoa there! This is not good logic. Back up a bit.)

If the statement ‘all Cretans are liars’ is false, why do we conclude all Cretans tell the truth? The most we can conclude is ‘not all Cretans are liars’. Or, if you prefer, ‘Some Cretans tell the truth.’ If there is only one truth-teller living on Crete, then ‘all Cretans are liars’ is false. There is no paradox here. The statement ‘all Cretans are liars’ cannot be true. But it can be false. And indeed, by the laws of logic, it is false. Some Cretans tell lies - at least one of them does - and the speaker is one of those liars. Some Cretans (again, at least one) tell the truth. And it’s a good job too, otherwise where is Titus going to find all the people of unimpeachable character to appoint as elders? (As Paul exhorts him to do earlier in the chapter.)

So the ‘prophet’ Paul quotes is a Cretan and a liar. His statement that ‘all Cretans are liars’ is false. No paradox. But also no problems with Biblical inerrancy. (Yet.) Paul’s statement that a certain prophet said a certain thing could easily be true, even if the quote itself is a lie.

But here’s the falsehood. Verse 13. “This testimony is true.” No, it’s not. The Cretan prophet is lying through his teeth. His testimony cannot possibly be true. His testimony is demonstrably false and verse 13 is therefore (whisper it in hushed tones) wrong.

You, dear reader, may already have concluded that certain statements in the Bible are not true. Not in a literal sense anyway. For example, Genesis 1 tells of God making the world in six days. You may not believe this is true. But I suspect your lack of belief is due to approaching the statements of Genesis 1 with some preconceptions about how long it took for the world to reach the state it is in now. Others can argue that it is your preconceptions which are false and the Biblical account which is true.

My analysis of Titus 1:12-13 relies on no preconceptions about Crete or Paul or Titus. No preconceptions about Cretans or their truthfulness or lack of it. I have simply approached the words of the Bible with logic, and there is only one possible conclusion. Verse 13 is false.

Conclusion? At least one of the statements in the Bible is not true.

Disciples vs Christians

"The word 'disciple' occurs 269 in the New Testament. 'Christian' is found only three times." (Dallas Willard). In reading a six-page extract from his "The Spirit of Disciplines" I'd only reached the end of the opening paragraph before a whole new concept had blossomed in my mind (helped on its way by the remainder of the extract.) It's actually an old concept but this morning it hit me as one of those 'epiphany' moments.

For a long time I've used the word 'Christian' as the appropriate shorthand for... well, for a Christian. As I teenager I recall telling my Sunday School teacher how the previous night I had invited Christ into my heart as my Lord and Saviour. He immediately wanted me to repeat what I'd just told him to someone else and I remember the relief with which a shorter and less pious-sounding phrase suddenly popped into my head - "I've become a Christian."

45 years later I'm wondering whether this was a bad choice of noun. What do I mean by 'Christian' anyway? I know some people use the word to mean 'a good person with standards corresponding to what are generally perceived as Christian morals'. Others use the word to mean 'a person who has given their life to Christ, who is born again, and who is guaranteed a place in heaven when they die'. I would certainly tend more towards the latter definition, though perhaps not so rigidly as some would.

John Wesley famously had a deep spiritual experience at Aldersgate Street on May 24th 1738 when he felt his heart 'strangely warmed'. This is often described as his conversion, but having learned more about his life I'm not at all convinced that this was the moment he became a Christian. It seems more like one stage in his Christian development. And then there's Peter. When did he become a Christian? When he first responded to Jesus saying 'follow me'? When he recognised Jesus as the Christ? When he confessed his love three times after the resurrection? When the Holy Spirit filled him at Pentecost?

Such questions become irrelevant when we realise that what Jesus told us was to go and make disciples. Not to go and make Christians. A disciple is a much clearer concept. It is someone who wilfully seeks to learn from and emulate their master. In Western culture I don't think we have much in modern life that corresponds to this. My concept of discipleship is influenced more by Eastern culture - at least as it is portrayed in films like King Fu Panda.

Being a disciple of Jesus is much more than having made a particular decision and said a particular prayer as a teenager. It is about committing my life to following Jesus (not literally walking down the street after him, but following him as I might follow mathematics or the board game hobby - spending time and effort reading, learning, taking an active interest in the development of, keeping up with the latest news on... etc.) and it is about putting into practice what I learn from him, always keeping him before me as my role model for life.

This is a challenge to me personally. Can I really call myself a disciple? And it is a challenge to the church. How many of my regular congregations live as disciples of Jesus? And what should I be doing as their minister to make disciples? (...both of those inside the church and those outside.)

And if I still want to use the word 'Christian' from time to time, maybe I should use it in the sense in which it originated. According to Acts 11:26 the word was first used in Antioch. And what kind of people were referred to as Christians? The disciples.

ABR#16 Galatians

In 2009 I began 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 Galatians.

I am reminded of the kind of dispute which can plague any organisation where two sides are vehemently disagreeing. Both sides are well-meaning, both sides are accusing the other of base motives, both sides employ spurious and irrelevant arguments to make the others look bad, both sides argue that they are only thinking about the welfare of the organisation and its members when in fact they are worried about their own standing and reputation. My sense of fair play means that only hearing one side of a debate (in this case a letter) doesn’t allow for an even-handed appreciation of the issue.

HOWEVER. Despite this letter sounding like the above situation, and without wanting to gloss over Paul’s failings, strong emotions and all too human approach, I need to keep in mind a few facts.

a) In some disputes one party actually turns out to be right and the other wrong.

b) When the early church were collecting together a number of documents which they felt expressed the Christian faith they chose to include this letter, meaning that its contents were regarded as being more important than the (absent) view of Paul’s opponents.

c) if I believe that Scripture is inspired by God, then I must accept that this letter contains a message which God wants us to hear and through which he still wants to address the world.

Bearing in mind the author is an angry and frustrated apostle desperate to persuade his fellow Christians to reject heresy and turn back to their true faith, I don’t wish to treat every aspect of this letter as a perfect example of how to present an argument. Rather I want to understand the difference between what Paul regards as the true and false gospels. I want to understand why he is so passionate about it. And I want to hear what God is saying today through this letter.

My attempt to summarise the message in this letter.

What was Paul trying to persuade the Galatians to do, to be or to believe? (And by extension, what is God trying to persuade us today to do/be/believe?)

Starting point: Jesus rescued us from this evil world (see Paul’s opening remarks). He did it through offering himself as a sacrifice for our sins and God wants everyone to experience that rescue. The key thing to note is that there is something wrong with our world from which we need to be rescued. From other parts of the letter the wrong thing seems to be that people do evil and hurt each other. The solution? ‘Stop doing wrong’ of course. But that’s easier said than done.

Does it help to have a set of rules which everyone abides by? No. Not really. Paul describes his own experience and admits that all his law-keeping wasn’t working. In the first part of the letter his emphasis is on how God took the initiative, something he planned to do ever since Paul was in his mother’s womb, and diverted Paul’s energies from trying to stamp out the Christian faith. Instead God helped Paul realise that Christ was the divinely-chosen way for rescuing the human race. God, through Jesus, revealed this message directly to Paul and not through some human intermediary.

Paul wants people (especially non-Jews) to share his experience – that trying to be good didn’t work and that putting his trust in Jesus did. The world still isn’t perfect and neither is Paul (yet) but he is ‘on-side’ with God, he is part of God’s plans and purposes and not working against them. He puts a lot of emphasis on how he is trying only to impress God and doesn’t really care about human validation. Although at the same time he does want to stress that the key leaders in the church have approved him and his message. (A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. But hey, no problem. It shows Paul is only human.)

The Galatians had begun by trusting God. Their ‘conversion’ or ‘salvation’ or ‘transformation’ was achieved by simply accepting the free gift of what God had done in Jesus. Why then are they now trying to finish the process by trying to keep the rules instead? If God is the one who begins the process of changing lives, shouldn’t we trust him to keep on doing so?

I can relate to this folly. My faith as a young keen Christian was all about relying on God. My faith today is more about getting things done. They are ‘Good Things’ (leading worship, pastoral care, teaching, administration etc.) but nevertheless my life has become much more about keeping self-imposed (or church-imposed) rules than trusting God to use me, mould me, fill me. I know (and God knows) that certain things connected with the role of ministry have to be done. I can’t escape admin. And there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being organised and efficient in managing my time. But the underlying foundation of my daily life ought to be “I’m yours, Lord. How do you want to use me today?” I ought to be saying “Let’s do something exciting together, Lord” rather than “Help me to get lots of tasks accomplished so that I don’t feel guilty at the end of the day because I’ve done too little.”

The later chapters are about how the Christian life should be lived. Maybe the law has no power to save us, but neither is it useless and irrelevant. David Pawson says this letter is about true liberty in Christ. He describes twin dangers (like walking on a path between two dangerous drops) – one is to fall into legalism where we trust in keeping the law to save us, the other is to fall into license where we think our behaviour doesn’t matter any more.

The freedom we have in Jesus sets us free from rule-keeping and allows us to focus instead on loving people. Paul’s antipathy towards the Galatians getting themselves circumcised is not just because he regards it as pointless, but it actually opens up a whole avenue of dangerous thinking and behaviour. Setting up any system of laws (whether circumcision or anything else) and proclaiming it as the right and only way to behave puts the focus back on rules instead of freedom. But this freedom is not licence to do anything you want, it’s licence to love freely and to allow the Spirit to grow in you all kinds of good ‘fruit’. In chapter 2, Paul describes freedom as “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” This is one of the many paradoxes in the Christian faith. It is only by letting Jesus take over our lives that we find true freedom to live.

Miscellaneous postscript.

The middle section of the letter is chock-full of interlocking illustrations:

* Once a will is made it cannot be changed. God’s promise to Abraham can’t be changed.

* The Law looked after us as “wards of discipline” (Moffat’s translation) until the time came where we became sons.

* An heir who is underage is effectively a servant in the household. When he reaches maturity he becomes a son. Once we were servants to the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ but now we are sons of God.

* Abraham had sons through two women. Hagar (a slave woman) and Sarah (a free woman) represent two covenants, based on the Law and the Promise respectively. We are like the son of the free woman rather than the slave woman.

I’m not on Paul’s wavelength at all when he starts quoting Scripture to support his argument (see 3:10-14 for example). I’m mystified by the relevance of v.12. Maybe I’m trying too hard to be logical. But I do get the main point of his letter. In Jesus things have changed. We have a new (and far better) status. Why should we want to go back to the old ways?

ABR#15 Ezra

In 2009 I began 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 Ezra.

It's a book of two halves. The first part is about the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple over a time-span which includes at least three Persian kings. The second, slightly shorter, part is about Ezra and more exiles returning to Jerusalem and restoring the the ritual purity of the people by weeding out the corrupting influence of foreign wives.

The writer is clearly from the same school as the writer of Chronicles. He is fascinated by lists of names – two groups of exiles and the men who divorced their wives are set down in full – and by details regarding the temple, such as the large numbers of silver and gold vessels of various types which were taken back. I am left wondering what happened to all these precious cups and bowls. Were they regularly used in the various temple rituals? Or maybe the temple staff used them at mealtimes? Perhaps people in those days expected to handle silver or gold vessels as part of the temple experience. Or were the vessels simply stored away as a kind of 'reserve fund' to give the temple treasurer a sense of security?

The chronology of the book is slightly confusing. Cyrus, the Persian king who conquered Babylon, not only gave permission for Jewish exiles to return but pretty much commanded them to rebuild their temple and start worshipping their God again. Later Artaxerxes commanded the work to stop because the locals around Jerusalem (who had not been in exile) persuaded him that the temple's completion would lead to trouble and loss of revenue. The rebuilding was only completed in the reign of Darius, who reaffirmed Cyrus's edict. This came about because the people resumed the rebuilding, leading the locals to question their authority (this time seeming more curious than hostile) and send to Darius for advice. In the later part of the book it is Artaxerxes who sends Ezra back to Jerusalem with the same kind of support which Cyrus and Darius gave. Persian history of this period records a number of kings not mentioned in the Bible, and more than one Artaxerxes and more than one Darius. Bible scholars attempt to resolve the confusion by seeing the disruption of the work under Artaxerxes as a kind of 'flash-forward'. I'm content to leave the chronology a bit woolly.

The main point is surely that God works both through governments and through ordinary people to achieve his plans. Some of the Persian kings were amazingly generous to the exiles, not only returning the stolen temple treasures, but instructing their subjects to provide ongoing support in terms of finance and animals for the sacrifices. I'm not sure if the writer intended us to see God's hand also in the opposition and the royal command to cease building – or whether this was simply a set-up for the later revelation that eventually God's will is done. Even if it takes many years, the political situation comes round in the end to benefit the Jews.

The other feature of the early chapters is the absence of any main human protagonist. Hundreds of people are named, and a few of them are named as being in charge. But there is no one figure driving the rebuilding scheme. It's a communal effort – by the Jewish exiles and not by the potentially unclean local people – and the rejoicing at key stages is a natural outpouring of emotion from the whole people. If anyone can be described as in overall charge, it is God himself.

When Ezra does appear on the scene it is almost as a separate story. He is more of a respected scholar than a political leader. He does organise the return trip for many more exiles and shows his faith in God by refusing a military escort, trusting God to protect them. Otherwise his contribution is to recognise how sinful the people are in taking foreign wives into their homes (and with them foreign gods and corrupting influences) and to pour out his despair in an anguished prayer of confession. It is only when others encourage him that he calls people together to put things right. A lesson for us all is that leaders need a support group to advise them and motivate them.

The whole business of divorcing wives is distasteful to the modern mind. We would rather celebrate diversity and welcome cross-cultural influence. But remaining distinct is a theme which recurs often in the Old Testament. The Jewish race must set themselves aside as pure and holy. The exiles are right (in the eyes of the writer) to refuse offers of help from others willing to join the rebuilding, and wrong to mingle so freely with the local population. In the midst of this very uncompromising view there is a nod towards a more flexible approach. When the exiles agree to give up their wives (having all been summoned to a meeting under the threat of excommunication for non-attendees), they point out that it can't be done overnight. They will do what is necessary, but it will take time. Sometimes we need to make our decision instantly, but it can take time to implement that decision.

The best interpretation of the whole 'divorce your wives' business is that when God has done something marvellous and blessed us richly, we shouldn't be wasting his blessing by frittering our time and energy on ungodly things. These days a church can become so focussed on a building project, with frustrating ups and downs as funds are raised and permissions are sought, that in the excitement it forget what the purpose of the church is all about – making disciples; transforming lives; making people fit for worshipping and serving a holy God.

One feature of the book is the importance of written records. Some of the exiles were not allowed to exercise their priestly duties because they were unable to document their ancestry to the satisfaction of the leaders. Both Artaxerxes and Darius consult the court records in order to determine (respectively) that Jerusalem has always been troublesome and that Cyrus commanded the temple rebuilding. One reason we study the Bible is that we don't have to rely on memory or our own insights. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can be informed and inspired by what previous generations have done. There are lessons to be learned from the experience of this long catalogue of people in the book of Ezra even if their names (mostly) mean nothing to us any more.

ABR#14 Ezekiel

In 2009 I began 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 Ezekiel.

God is angry with Israel for not treating him with due respect, so he is going to kill them all.

That, at least, is my first impression. Yes, God also issues similar pronouncements of doom against the surrounding nations, especially Tyre and Egypt. And yes, there are some more positive prophecies about the restoration of the nation and about individual responsibility. And yes, there are some mysterious and profound descriptions of an awe-inspiring God. But the overwhelming emphasis is on God's disgust and anger and his intention to destroy. There is little in the way of advice or instruction. Most of the prophecies are God's declaration about what he will do so that people will know he is God.

So my first question is how I am supposed to approach the book of Ezekiel. Here are some options:

a) This is not the inspired word of God, but the misguided ranting of some self-styled prophet; God would disown this book and prefer us not to read it.

b) This is the inspired word of God, who it turns out is a much nastier and more vindictive God than we thought.

c) This is partially the inspired word of God; amongst the dross of human misconceptions about God's intentions there are some nuggets of gold which give real insights into God's nature and his love. God wants us to ignore the unpleasant parts and seek out the passages which can inspire and encourage us.

d) The book of Ezekiel says what God wants it to say; he intends it to be read and taken seriously. This is the option which makes most sense to me, though it still leaves me wondering what God is trying to tell us today through this book. Perhaps he wants to remind us that he is more than a soft-hearted easy-going father-figure who smiles down on us benignly whatever mischief we get up to. We need to know that he is an awesome, frightening God who is angry when his love is rejected. We need to know that he is a powerful, active God who rules the fates of nations. And of course we need to know that he is a forgiving and more than fair God who is ready to restore the fortunes of those who amend their ways.

The book is a collection of written prophecies from around the time of the exile in Babylon. It also contains descriptions of various enacted parables through which Ezekiel put across his message – laying siege to a brick; shaving his head; burying his underwear; digging a hole through the wall of his home; shedding no tears over the death of his wife. As we would expect, all these prophecies share some common themes, but over the years Ezekiel seems to shift his emphasis from divine retribution to divine restoration.

The book also records a number of visions. The opening chapters describe Ezekiel's first encounter with God, surrounded by a heavenly retinue so strange that some have suggested Ezekiel was visited by an alien UFO. In later visions Ezekiel seems insistent that the glory of God was manifested in the same way as in his initial vision. Perhaps his most famous vision is of the valley of dry bones which came to life as Ezekiel prophesied, and were given the breath of life by the Spirit of God. It's good to know that the piles of corpses which God vowed to reduce Israel to are not the end of the story. Even dead nations can be resurrected.

The longest vision comes at the end of the book and describes in great detail a new temple and the rituals which take place in it. The angel who accompanies Ezekiel in this vision measures out all the buildings precisely so that Ezekiel can record the figures. He also shows Ezekiel a river of life flowing out from the temple. So the book ends on a much more hopeful note than the majority of its content. God is respected and worshipped. The holy place is at the centre of a restored nation with each tribe given a strip of land reaching from the sea to the Jordan river.

The reasons for the destruction of Israel and other nations are not spelled out in nearly as much detail as the manner of destruction. In fact it was only on a second reading that I began to notice the reasons at all. Mostly Israel had done wrong by worshipping idols, profaning the sabbath, and oppressing the poor. Tyre was rich and self-satisfied, but would ultimately be pulled down – a warning not to place our trust in how safe and secure our riches make us. The main fault of Tyre and Egypt (and Assyria) was their pride, with rulers thinking of themselves as gods. Surprisingly this is still a fault of people today, seeing themselves as 'god' of their own lives. "I'm in charge. I rule supreme over my life. I'm a self-made man/woman." We still need to acknowledge that God, not us, is God.

One of the repeated phrases, "so that they will know that I am the Lord", doesn't make sense to the modern mind. When once-great nations fall our reaction is not to say "this proves that God exists". And especially we wouldn't want to say that "this proves God exists and is a vindictive God who brings destruction and punishment". Perhaps in Ezekiel's day what people needed was a demonstration that God was in charge over seemingly powerful nations. But what's the message for us today? That ultimately right will be rewarded and wrong punished? (A key theme in some parts of Ezekiel.) Is the collapse of a nation meant to shake us into a realisation that there is a God after all, busy ensuring that justice is done? The trouble is we are more often drawn to sympathise with the innocent who suffer.

I must admit I'm having difficulty with the relevance of this particular aspect of the book. God seems to be motivated much more by wanting people to know he is God than by any thought for their well-being and prosperity. The best message I can take from this is that real well-being relies not on material blessings but on an acknowledgement of God as our creator, our Father, and the holy one who is worthy of our worship. God knows this and will not be satisfied with anything less.

In chapter 3 Ezekiel is given a scroll to eat. The contents are harsh words against Israel, but it tasted as sweet as honey in his mouth. This is not a bad description of the whole book. It contains plenty of unpleasant prophecies, but if we work hard to digest it and take it to heart we can find enough in it to delight us.