God decides how and who

Despite the long description of how to construct tabernacle, ark, altar, lampstand etc., I'm not sure there is quite enough detail for a craftsman to simply follow the instructions. You could imagine someone asking God, "How big should the pomegranate decorations be and what shape do you want the bells which alternate with them? Open-bottomed like handbells or little globes like sleighbells?" In order to get the place of worship built to his specifications God not only outlines his plans, but he appoints particular people to carry out the work (Bezalel and Ahisamach), to whom he gifts the required skills.

When I look at the church and the community we live in, then it's not difficult to understand what plans God has for us. At least I can envision an ideal world in which all people live in harmony and love one another in practical ways. Exactly how we construct such a world is not so clear. But then I realise that God has actually called me by name to be one of those engaged in bringing about his Kingdom. And I have to assume that if he's called me, he's given me the skills I need. It doesn't often feel like that. Usually I'm floundering in a sea of indecision not knowing the best way to lead. Perhaps I should trust my instincts more. Perhaps I should pray for wisdom and then be brave enough to move in what I believe is the right direction.

How to build an altar

After issuing the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, the next instructions that God gives to Moses are how to build an altar: keep it simple, make it of earth, and if you must use stones then stick with natural rocks rather than cut stones. So why is it that not too much later God gives long detailed instructions for an elaborate place of worship which includes a carefully-crafted acacia-wood altar overlaid with bronze?

One answer might be that over the years different traditions within Judaism have preserved different stories about Moses, each biased by their own particular emphases and that the book of Exodus is a compilation of different accounts. But even so the question remains - "What is God saying through these contrasting passages?"

On the one hand we should give our best to God - using the richest materials, the most skilled artisans, the highest quality worship. But we mustn't ever let this lead us from one of the most basic commandments, "Do not make and worship idols." If ever the pomp and ceremony become a god in their own right, then the simple ways are a healthy counterbalance. Just worship with whatever materials you have to hand. Don't waste time on fancy words or elaborate systems. Simply worship God.

A personal application: Not so much when it comes to worship, but when it comes to getting done all the things a minister should, I am very good at crafting elaborate systems for monitoring my task list and motivating my actions. At their best they are beautiful works of art which honour God by enabling me to be the most efficient person I can be. (This is an ideal situation I'm talking about, not my regular state of being.) But the closer I come to a beautifully organised lifestyle, the more my time-management systems are in danger of becoming an idol. I need to know when to forget the carefully-honed framework and just get on with doing what God wants.

What size Bible chunks?

Taking the 'daily bread' image of the manna one stage further (see here for earlier blog), I noticed that when manna first appeared those who collected a large amount did not have too much and those who collected a small amount did not have too little. If this aspect of God's miraculous provision continued, my logical mind says that people would have gravitated towards collecting small amounts and saving themselves too much effort. But if we apply the same idea to the daily reading of the Bible, what do we conclude?

That reading twice as much does not mean God speaks to you twice as much. The person reading many chapters at one sitting and the person focusing on one single sentence are equally blessed. Both ways of reading are important and valuable, but mere volume doesn't confer greater insight. If we are open and receptive to God, then he will give us just the right nourishment for the day, no more, no less.

Fun Boy Three and Civil Disobedience

Long ago Pharaoh issued an edict that all new-born Hebrew boys were to by thrown into the Nile. This edict presumably was not in force for any great length of time - it doesn't seem to have applied to Moses's older brother Aaron, and at the time of the exodus from Egypt there was no shortage of Hebrew male adults. But whilst the edict was in force, two parents came up with a clever plan. They did what they were commanded and abandoned their baby in the Nile. But rather than throw him in, they placed him carefully amongst the reeds in a basket.

Civil disobedience in this case meant keeping to the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. I'm not sure what moral to draw from this as I'm not feeling any great present need for civil disobedience. Perhaps there's a broader principle at stake: if you have to do something because there's no choice, it is still important to find the right way to do it because the way you do it can make a vital difference to the outcome. Or in the immortal words of Fun Boy Three, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it."

Second chances

One of the key events in Israel's history was the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Moses produced stone tablets containing the ten commandments, and there were many other rules laid down by which the people should live and worship God. And the whole thing happened twice.

The first time was spoiled by the people's sin, turning from their God to making and worshipping a golden calf. This resulted in an angry God, in the killing of many perpetrators and almost (if it weren't for Moses pleading on their behalf) the end of Israel. Basically a disaster of the first order. Where do you go from there? This is where the grace of God comes to the fore. Out of the total wreckage of his plans, he is ready to begin again, to repeat the whole process of law-giving and get his plans for the people back on track.

Without wanting to go into any details in a public blog, this principle is very pertinent to a situation I am facing at the moment. God is a God of second chances - in the big things of life as well as the small.

Connect to God for regular updates

The law given via Moses was not God's final word on the subject. Built in to the laws were the idea of moving on (leaving the carrying posts in the ark of the covenant), freshness (lamps always lit and bread always on display) and regular updates (God's promised to meet with the people from between the wings of the cherubim on the cover of the ark.) In other words, God did not say "Here's all you need to know. Now get on with it. That's that. I'm off." He said "Here are the basic rules, but they include instructions on how to meet me for continued guidance."

These days you don't just buy the initial software, but you connect to the web for updates to the latest version. Perhaps a better analogy is a social networking site or a multi-player game where the whole point of the software is to put you in touch with other people. The Bible contains all we need to know to get started, and is sometimes the channel by which we meet God. But what really matters are regular encounters with the Living Word.

Creator of the heavens

To the ancient world the created universe consisted of a vast star-studded dome, an earth beneath flourishing with life and an ocean which also teemed with life in its mysterious depths. For the people of Israel, the idea that the one who created this impressive universe would choose to be 'their God' and take an active interest in their welfare led them to wonder and to worship.

We have a much better understanding of the nature of the universe than they did. The earth is more complex and astounding than anyone can understand. Strange creatures inhabit the sea depths in pitch blackness and under tremendous pressure. And as for the sky above us - the far reaches of space are unimaginably vast. All the stars we see are only a local cluster. The size of our solar system is minuscule compared with the galaxy around us - let alone the millions of other bigger and brighter galaxies scattered across creation.

So we ought to be struck dumb with awe that the creator of all this has not only taken an interest in the human race, but came and lived among us. There are not enough exclamation marks to do justice to the wonder of it...

Arm supports (gain without pain)

The story of Israel's battle against the Amalekites has always struck me as a bit of a cheat. The army only win as long as Moses is holding his arms up. But he gets tired. So he sits down and two aides come and hold his arms up for him. It's as if he's taking advantage of 'the rules' to get something for nothing. Instead of having to put the effort in himself, he gets the same results with others doing the work - and much easier work at that.

But maybe that's the point of the story. Sometimes getting the job done is what matters, and if there's a short cut which saves you exhausting yourself in the process, then go for it. I can think of times when I have done things the hard way in order to impress others with my sacrificial dedication. Such behaviour doesn't impress God. He'd rather me use my intelligence to act efficiently, especially when that involves teamwork and sharing the burden.

Time management idolatry

The second commandment is not to make and worship idols. One Bible commentator said it was easy to worship an idol: you just put it on a pedestal and expected miracles from it. This is a good description of what I sometimes do with my latest time-management technique. I find a simple pithy principle which I think has the power to transform my life and I devote to it all my time and energy. Memo to self: remember to treat any new technique as a tool and not an idol.

Eat your frog early

Three times (at the beginning of each 'trio' of plagues) Moses is told to get up early and confront Pharaoh during his morning ablutions (or whatever it was Pharaoh was doing went he went down to the Nile.)

Yesterday (at the recommendation of my sister) I looked at reviews of a book called 'Eat that frog' to see if it was worth reading. If I understood correctly the key idea is that if you have to eat a frog you should get it over with as soon as you can. Hence each day you should pick the task you really don't want to face and deal with it first thing.

So is God telling me that I should be routinely getting up early and knuckling down to something distasteful? By 'distasteful' I simply mean the kind of job which I don't particularly relish even though it is clearly important. This strikes me as a good motivational concept. The only snag is that nothing immediately springs to mind as today's frog. Perhaps something will come to me as I complete my own morning ablutions...

Daily bread needed

My thanks to Ian at yesterday's ministers fellowship who reminded us that the provision of manna in the desert represented God's daily gift of nourishment. Any manna stored until the following day became worm-ridden. And if we do not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God, then it is important that we take on board God's fresh word for today rather than the stale word of yesterday.

I wouldn't dream of missing my breakfast on any given morning. I need to be equally committed to receiving God's word for the day.

Today I noted the parallels between Moses and myself. When Moses first told the people of Israel that God was going to rescue them from slavery they were all delighted. But when Pharaoh punished them by making them work harder the people complained. Without going into details, one of my churches recently faced a controversial decision. The outcome at first delighted me and (I think) others, but the grumbling and opposition has not gone away and even those who felt we made the right decision are dismayed by the sour atmosphere in the church. This is a gross oversimplification of the situation, but I can see parallels with the story of Moses - a leader tries to do what he believes God wants and it seems to make the situation worse.

So what? Is God telling me to hang in there and it will all work out for the best in the end? Is God reassuring me that the problems are not my fault? Is God challenging me to be pro-active in addressing the concerns of the grumblers? Or is God simply highlighting an issue I need to pray about? Prayer sounds a good idea. I'll do that...

I can't do this - or can I?

This morning's service involved me stepping a little way outside my comfort zone. I bared my soul to the congregation to this extent: At my testimony service, just before ordination my message was "I thought being a minister was within my capabilities, but now I've discovered I can't do it. It's beyond me. I need God's help." Twenty three years later I've had much more practice and ministry is well within my capabilities. I can do it well enough to get by. And my impression of the church is that we are experienced enough Christians to be able to run a church pretty well without relying on God.

I went on to challenge people as to how much we mention God or Jesus in our conversations after the service and asked whether part of the problem is that we have nothing much to say. What has Jesus done for me this last week which is interesting enough to share with others? Most weeks the answer is 'very little' because I've got used to living in my own strength and not attempting anything which would depend on God's resources instead.

The second way in which I stepped outside my comfort zone: I ended my sermon by inviting one or two people to come and share what difference Jesus had made to their everyday lives in the last few weeks. After a short awkward silence two people came and spoke. Afterwards several more people told me their stories, which they would have shared if they'd had the confidence to speak in public. So I have returned home with a sense that God has been at work. People were stirred up. Jesus became a topic of conversation. Many told me that I had said what needed to be said.

I am grateful for God's blessing this morning, but (after a typically delicious Sunday lunch) I could very easily relax back into my comfort zone. So I mustn't forget the first part of what I did. I have gone public with the fact that my ministry has become routine. The implications are that I have to change. I have to become reliant on Jesus much more. I have to expect God to work with me and through me. This is more than a little worrying. How am I going to live up to the standard I've set this morning? But that's the point. I can't do it on my own; Jesus and I can do it together.

Expecting miracles

Today's discussion at the ministers fellowship centred around our expectation of hearing God's guidance and seeing God at work. One of the prayers at the end was especially appropriate for me - "we reach a stage in ministry when we can do most things adequately in our own strength." That's where I am. I get the job done, sometimes on time, and usually to a satisfactory standard (at least by my own reckoning). But is that ministry? Shouldn't I be stepping out in faith and tackling the kind of things where I need to rely fully on God?

My prayer at this moment is that God will open my ears and my mind and my heart so that I am alert for any little promptings from him. I could make this a kind of game or puzzle: the clues are all around me, but which of them is the genuine voice of God? What's he wanting me to do? How is he wanting me to live? And if I can't answer with any certainty, what's my best guess? Lord, help me to fine-tune my heart so that it receives loud and clear the wavelength of your Spirit.

ABR#11 Esther

I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times (in this case four, one of them the extended version found in the apocrypha) 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 Esther.

This is basically a self-contained story about the interplay between hero, heroine and villain within a wider context of the survival of an ethnic minority in a great empire. The plot has some nice twists and turns. The villain gets his come-uppance. In fact it would be a very satisfying story if it were not for two elements which jar on our modern sensibilities. It begins with a husband clamping down on his wife’s independence and it ends with the gleeful slaughter of thousands.

What’s going on?

King Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) rules a vast empire. His queen refuses to attend a feast, so for her disobedience he banishes her forever from his presence. Many beautiful girls join the harem and the king falls for Esther, an orphaned girl raised by her cousin Mordecai, and makes her the new queen. Mordecai, a Jew, uncovers a plot against the king and reports it via Esther. Later Xerxes promotes Haman to high position. Haman is so angered by Mordecai’s lack of respect that he persuades the king to let him rid his empire of certain troublesome people (the Jews) by setting a date for their slaughter. Mordecai persuades Esther to appeal to the king despite the sentence of death for any who approach the king uninvited. Xerxes spares Esther and she invites him and Haman to a banquet. She invites them to a second banquet the following day. Haman’s mood is soured when he sees Mordecai and he builds a gallows intending to ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai. Meanwhile Xerxes comes across the old record of the plot uncovered by Mordecai and decides to reward him. He asks Haman’s advice and in an ironic twist Haman is instructed to honour Mordecai by leading him around the city dressed as a king. That evening at the second banquet, Esther reveals Haman’s plot to exterminate the Jews. Xerxes is furious and Haman is hanged on his own gallows. Esther again pleads for her people and the king gives Mordecai permission to set things right. The Jews are instructed to defend themselves against their enemies and on the appointed day they kill many enemies in Susa and across the empire. The feast of Purim is instituted to commemorate their salvation.

Intentional or not there are some comical moments in Esther: all the male advisors panicking over the prospect of their own wives following the queen’s example of asserting her independence; the irony of Haman having to show public honour to his moral enemy; Xerxes mistaking Haman’s abject grovelling for attempted rape; perhaps even the ridiculous height of the gallows was included for its comic potential. Anyone who can’t get a few laughs out of a retelling of this story must have poor narrative skills.

Where is God?

Although there is no specific reference to God or prayer or anything overtly religious, there is the unspoken assumption that the Jews are God’s people and live by his laws. For example, Mordecai refusing to bow to Haman may be an expression of his desire to worship one God alone and no human upstart. The closest the book comes to any theological insight is when Mordecai is trying to persuade Esther to plead with the king on behalf of her race. “If you keep quiet, help will come from some other quarter.” In other words, God will intervene even if you don’t. But (Mordecai explains), his help will save the Jewish race as a whole. Your family branch of this race will die off. “Who knows?” he concludes, “maybe it was for this time that you became queen.” Mordecai recognises that there is such a thing as a divine plan – the right person in the right place at the right time. He even speculates that Esther is such a person, but he puts it as a question rather than a statement. He would not presume to know for sure what God’s plans were.

Why did Haman start his villainous plan by casting lots to determine the date of execution? There seems little point in choosing a random date (especially when the date was then so widely publicised) so did he believe he was allowing some kind of ‘higher power’ to influence the choice of date? In which case he presumably saw himself as an instrument of the (Persian?) gods in purging the land of the foreigners with their strange rituals and their strange God.

David Pawson says that the name of God is hidden as an acrostic four times in the book of Esther sometimes forward (YHWH) sometimes backwards (HWHY) sometimes at the beginning of words and sometimes at the end. My rough calculations show that such hidden names are improbable (a one in 400 chance) but not ridiculously so. Add to this the fact that I could only fully verify two instances in my Hebrew interlinear Bible and the whole issue seems inconclusive. Was it by chance? Or did the author deliberately throw in a few acrostics? I’m not convinced either way.

There is a longer version of Esther in the Apocrypha which contains extra passages. These are very obviously the attempts of a later editor to introduce explanations and embellishments into the story, and to make sure God gets mentioned – for example, Mordecai’s dream foretelling the danger; his and Esther’s prayers as they fast; an expanded version of Esther’s unannounced approach to the king; the second edict sent out by the king; Mordecai’s interpretation of his dream.

What’s the Point?

One obvious intention of the original author was simply to record the reason for the annual celebration of Purim. The reason he fails to mention God (or possibly hides his reference as an acrostic) is less certain. Maybe it was unsafe to write overtly of the Jewish God. Maybe he thought he could make his point more subtly through a good story. I presume the reason this book has been retained in the canon of Scripture is that it shows clearly how the history of individuals and nations are steered (via a combination of courageous decisions and apparent co-incidences) by the hidden hand of God for the benefit of his people.

Quirks, questions and curiosities:

It is only in later parts of the Bible that the word ‘Jews’ starts to be used. They are no longer a tribe (Abraham’s extended family / the people of Israel) or even a nation (Israel, Judah, Ephraim) but an ethnic group scattered across a wide empire.

It was obviously a custom in those days to seek advice from others. The king regularly does it – for example over the disobedience of Queen Vashti, or the manner of rewarding Mordecai. Esther takes advices from Mordecai and Hegai (the eunuch in charge of beauty treatment). Haman consults Zeresh (his wife) and his friends. It is only when the king relies on one person’s bad advice that all the trouble starts. The moral? Before a big decision consult widely and don’t rely on one person’s opinion.

The time-scale is not all that urgent. There is a full eleven months between the proclamation that the Jews are to be exterminated and the date of the extermination. It takes just over two months for the danger to be averted and the second proclamation (that Jews can destroy their enemies instead) to be issued. God does not always keep us in suspense until the last minute.

Haman plays on the king’s fears in terms that sound shamefully modern: “They come to our country (never mind that they were exiled from their own land as captive slaves), they bring their funny ways with them, they infiltrate every part of our great empire, they are obviously a threat to our well-being, so let me get rid of them for you and I can guarantee a boost to our economy, with huge profits poured into the government coffers.”

When Esther approached the king uninvited it seems she had to hang around in the courtyard (where it was death to be found) and it was only because the enthroned Xerxes spotted her through the open door and waved his sceptre at her that she was allowed to live. This scenario (if I’ve understood correctly) does emphasise the great risk Esther took. If the palace guards took their orders seriously she could easily have been captured and killed without the king even noticing her predicament.

The height of the gallows (50 cubits) is about the same as a six-storey building. (Taller than the Parthenon, Cleoptra’s Needle or the Arch of Constantine in Rome.) Haman is clearly wanting his victim to be visible. But how did they get the person up there? Commercial ladders would only reach one third of the distance. Today you’d have to call out the fire and rescue service to reach that height.

After the second proclamation (that the Jews could defend themselves against enemy attack), many became Jews out of fear. This is not the best motive for conversion to a different way of life.

If I were to look for mitigating factors in the slaughter at the end of the book, I could point out that the Jews restricted themselves to killing their enemies and there was no looting. Even in Susa where a second day was needed to finish the killing, the Jews were only interested in defending themselves rather than (as Haman wanted to do) seizing wealth and making a profit. Also it may be worth noting that each year the feast of Purim was held on the anniversary not of the slaughter itself, but of the celebrations held the following day. Admittedly this is splitting some rather fine hairs: the commemoration of revelling in the destruction of one’s enemies is not much of an improvement on the commemoration of the destruction itself. In the end I have to see this as a story in which both God and human beings make their influence felt. And it is the latter whose actions bring death and destruction.

Houses come first. That is the law.

After a lull in my active appreciation of Tolkien, I've been inspired to read again some of his shorter works as an introduction to tackling his major stories once more. This inspiration has come in the form of a series of podcasts by Corey Olsen (The Tolkien Professor) which I highly recommend.

Listening to his analysis of Leaf by Niggle I had my preconceptions overturned. Niggle is an amateur painter, trying to finish a huge work on a large canvas. He is not a particularly good painter although he does manage to capture well the essence of an individual leaf (hence the title of the story). An Inspector of Houses calls to say that his neighbour's house is in a dangerous state of repair and suggests that it is his duty to use the canvas to patch the hole in the roof. Niggle is horrified - "My picture!" - but the Inspector replies, "I dare say it is, but houses come first. That is the law."

My first reaction to this was to take Niggle's side. How dare this bureaucratic Philistine consider using art as mere building material! But the later part of the story makes it clear that the Inspector was more right than he was wrong. Before this conversation is over Niggle has to go on his journey (which he was always aware of, but never found time to prepare for) and ends up in the workhouse doing odd jobs.

Leaf by Niggle has some strong allegorical elements. Clearly the journey symbolises death and equally clearly the workhouse represents the Catholic understanding of purgatory. It is the place where people who are due to go to heaven are 'purged' and made ready for that transition. The purging (or 'treatment' as it is called in the story) initially consists of Niggle undertaking carpentry jobs around the place, patching and mending the premises. In other words, he is making up for the things he should have done before he was forced on his journey.

"Houses come first" is not simply about buildings, but about the safety and welfare of one's neighbours. The law of the land was very clear about priorities. Niggle's desire to create something beautiful and meaningful was not a sufficient excuse for neglecting the practical needs of his neighbour. I am reminded of that scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indy is awed to discover the resting place of a long dead knight. But when the deadly flames are fast approaching he doesn't hesitate for one second - he metaphorically casts aside all his archeological instincts, and literally casts aside the skeleton of the knight, so that he can use the upturned stone sarcophagus as a protection from fire. The preservation of life outweighs the preservation of precious artefacts. In a less dramatic way Niggle was supposed to give preference to his suffering neighbour over his own creative hopes.

This is fiction. Moving to the realm of non-fiction, the Bible tells us "Love your neighbour as yourself." This is the law. We have an obligation to those around us. Their welfare is our concern. Like Niggle I would love to be told not to worry about everyday work and allowed to get on with doing all the things I like to do. Such as listening to podcasts about Tolkien. I've often thought (and preached) that God wants us to live life to the full and to enjoy this wonderful world that he's given us. Which means that we should take time to appreciate creation, and even to engage in what Tolkien calls 'sub-creation' - bringing into being (through whatever medium we work best in) something new and beautiful which enhances the created order. Writing a blog would count (in a modest way) as an act of sub-creation in this sense. BUT. And it's an important 'but'. This should not be at the expense of caring for our neighbour.

In reflecting on this aspect of Leaf by Niggle, I have heard God reminding me of my own priorities. People first. Caring for my neighbour first. Being passionate about the well-being of those around me first. And creativity second.

And for those who haven't read the story, let me reassure you it does have a happy ending. Niggle ends up being creative in ways that he never imagined. And the picture he had to leave unfinished? Well, he gets chance to work on it in a quite different form and it becomes a great blessing to many people.

The Silk Industry

The slide display in the Macclesfield Silk Museum gave me a feel for the way industry changes over time. At first it was silk buttons for which Macclesfield was famous. Then the town moved on to 'throwing' silk (twisting it together to make it stronger) and weaving it (making it into cloth). Factories opened. Weavers prospered. Workers learned and passed on their skills. Business was booming.

Then disaster struck. Peace with France meant that cheaper silk cloth could be obtained from across the channel. In Macclesfield wages plummeted, unemployment soared, poverty ruined family life. This is something of an over-simplification, and I was pleased to note that even today the town still has a small but profitable silk business. But it made me realise that a way of life can be happy and prosperous for a generation or two, then due to external circumstances it cannot continue. All it takes is for silk buttons to go out of fashion, or for synthetic materials to become cheaper and better, and a whole industry, with its workforce, expertise, tools and premises ceases to be needed.

A decade or so back I was surprised at the number of mobile phone shops springing up. I assumed that once everyone had bought a mobile there would be no further need for them. As it happens, the mobile phone industry is continuing to boom. But for how long? Sooner or later it will cease to be fashionable to carry a mobile, or perhaps some better technology will replace it.

And what about the church? There was a time when we were flourishing. The premises were designed to cope with eager congregations. The leaders were training in preaching and pastoral visiting. We became a prosperous industry. Now circumstances have changed in so many ways. The world of 21st century Britain is very different from the past. Yet all our expertise and the tools of our trade are designed to cope with the way things used to be. No wonder we are struggling.

And on a personal note, I am realising that all my own training and experience has not equipped me to deal with the life of the church today. It's not wasted. I've learned things over the last few decades of ministry which will stand me in good stead for the future. But I need to develop new skills, new ways of leading, new ways of serving. A daunting prospect. So I'll fall back on a very useful prayer I learned as a student: "help!"

ABR#10 Ephesians

I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times (in this case six) 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 Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians.

For a start, it’s not a letter to the Ephesians. (And some scholars say it’s not by Paul either.) That is to say the letter was not addressing a particular church situation. The only facts you can pick up about the context is that Paul was writing from prison and that his readers were Gentile converts. There is no co-author and the only other name mentioned is Tychicus, whose character and mission are described in almost identical terms to his appearance in Colossians. The early manuscripts don’t even name Ephesus, they simply say, “To the saints, the faithful in Christ Jesus.”

So there is no need to investigate Paul’s previous dealings with the church in Ephesus or the nature of the town itself. Such knowledge will provide no deep insights into the content of this letter. Today’s equivalent may be the founder and pastor of a group of independent churches producing a short booklet (more of a tract really) setting out the basic teaching on Christ and the Christian life. Paul seems to be addressing Gentile Christians as a whole, though he clearly knows his readership and there is a personal touch to some of his comments. He uses the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ a great deal, especially in the early part of the letter, so that the sense of togetherness is emphasised. But he also uses ‘you’ in the manner of a teacher instructing his followers.

Key Theme:

One word – Unity. And four things about it –

• 1) Unity is the coming together not just of all people, especially Gentiles and Jews, but all creation. Paul is talking about the unity of everything that exists, in heaven above and earth below.
• 2) Such unity is only possible “in Christ”. He is the uniting factor, the corner-stone of the building, the head of the body.
• 3) This unity has been God’s purpose since the dawn of time. Only recently have we realised what his long-term plans have been. With the coming of Christ we finally know what he has been up to all along.
• 4) There is not only room for diversity within this unity, but diversity is essential to its nature. Each person has a role to play. God has planned it. Christ is the unifying force. But we contribute by choosing to fall in with God’s plans and work for unity in as many ways as we can.

The First Half:

My honest first impression of the opening passages is that they are full of grand sounding Christian jargon which just washes over you without leaving you any the wiser. I can imagine a particular kind of preacher stirring up a congregation by getting carried away with all the buzz-words to which the congregation eagerly respond, “Yes! Amen! Preach it, brother!” This is probably not a fair accusation to level at Paul. It would be a bit like saying Hamlet is full of clichés. The words here are original, it is later use (or abuse) which has made them sound like jargon. This realisation gave me the impetus to look a little more closely at the content, which describes God’s plan (see above).

Some translations speak of ‘predestination’. Paul is not writing about a fixed unchangeable future, but about God having a destiny in mind for all things and having had such a destiny in mind from the beginning of time. We still have choices to make as to whether we help or hinder the move towards this destiny and those whose response is exactly what God wants could be said to be ‘pre-destined’.

The Second Half:

After what sounds like a conclusion (...”to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations for ever and ever! Amen.”) Paul moves on to his ‘so what now’ section, giving lots of practical, sometimes specific, advice on how to live.

God’s plan is to bring all heaven and earth together in unity, but there is a clear separation between Christian behaviour and wicked pagan behaviour. There is an ongoing battle between good and evil. Does this contradict God’s desire for unity of all things? No, because the planned unity is “in Christ”. So yes, God is interested in drawing every person, every aspect of life and the whole created order into one unity – but only if it becomes united in Christ. Evil cannot be part of this unity, though people who turn from evil can.

My purpose is not to compare one book with another, but to treat each book on its own merits. However, I can’t help noticing that the section on God’s different gifts to the church and the illustration of the different parts of the body making one whole is very similar (though shorter) to a passage in 1 Corinthians. And the section on the appropriate attitudes of wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters is a longer version of the advice in Colossians.

Readers today can get very worked up about “wives, submit to your husbands.” Paul precedes that with “submit to one another”. He follows it with “husbands, love your wives.” He goes on to speak of the unity of husband and wife as effectively one body. I never hear people complaining about these comments. As a man of his time Paul naturally saw the man as having a leadership role within marriage, but in no way is he encouraging men to lord it over their wives or women meekly to be subservient. If anything he had a healthier view of marriage relationships than many of his contemporaries would have had. He wants marriage to be a successful caring relationship, based on love and respect. He wants men to cherish their wives. At the same time he regards marriage as similar to the relationship between Christ and his church, where despite the mutual love and respect it is clear who is the head. It is because Christ loves us so much and accepts us as we are that we can freely submit to him. This doesn’t diminish or demean us. It liberates us. It gives us a proper sense of our worth as beloved by Christ. In this context, asking wives to be ‘courteously reverent’ towards their husbands doesn't sound nearly so horrendous.

Post Script: It has just occurred to me that people object to "wives, submit to your husbands" because they imagine Paul is telling nice normal self-confident ladies to become meek little mice. But what if he were telling bossy overbearing manipulative women who are constantly belittling their husbands in public to pipe down and show a bit of respect?

Post Post Script: What about Strictly Come Dancing as a model for marriage? It is important for the couple to understand each other, work together, trust each other (especially in some of the more dangerous manoeuvres), nurture their relationship and synchronise as if 'one flesh'. The judges are always going on about the vital chemistry between the couple. And yet what is the expectation for those gorgeous skilful athletic vibrantly-alive professional ladies? That when it comes to dancing they will submit to their male partners - and let the men lead!

Post Post Post Script: I am not going to all this effort to propound my own view of marriage, but to defend Paul's position. I think he is too easily misunderstood which is a shame because it stops people noticing the positive side of his teaching.

Conclusion:

Unity is achieved through the exercise of different gifts. Paul has his role to play – a very important one in bringing outsiders (by which he means non-Jews) into the Christian faith. But everyone contributes, even if it’s only by living the kind of life that promotes harmony and understanding. Christ’s job is not to make everyone the same, but to be a focal point for all the activity (or a corner stone if you like) so that what we end up with is a proper building and not a random jumble of components.

ABR#9 Ecclesiastes

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 Ecclesiastes.

What’s the point?
Despite its morbid approach to the futility of life, I found this book to be brutally honest rather than miserably depressing. But I did wonder why it was written. And for whom? Did the author just want to get things off his chest or was he intending others to read it? And if the latter, was he trying to inform them, challenge them or depress them? The whole thing has the flavour of an internet blog – a journal of his own private opinions, but out there in the public domain. Since nobody seems sure how to translate his title (preacher? speaker? philosopher? Qoholeth? wise one? teacher? quester?), I’ll refer to him as the blogger.

Traditionally the blogger is Solomon and it certainly sounds like him – the son of David, a king in Jerusalem, wiser than any who ruled in Jerusalem before him, rich in property and livestock, many wives – though other later kings may well have described themselves in the same fashion. Or of course another author could be writing ‘as if’ he were king.

The blogger is above all else honest in his opinions and not afraid to raise difficult questions. And like any honest person he can hold two views at the same time, such as “what’s the point of being merry if you’re going to die?” and “you may as well be merry while you have the chance”.

He starts off complaining that nothing changes, everything just goes on the same as it always has. Then his obsession with death becomes clear: What is the point of anything when everyone ends up dead? He is also depressed by injustice whereby the wicked and foolish enjoy life and the good and wise suffer, and is frustrated by the fact that no-one knows for sure what happens when we die. At one point he suggests human souls might go up, whereas animals’ souls go into the earth; at another point he implies there is no consciousness beyond death.

He writes a lot about wisdom and folly. He knows wisdom is better than folly and has all kinds of maxims to prove it. But his experience is that wisdom doesn’t guarantee success in this life, and can’t stop anyone dying. His conclusion seems to be “Be wise, even if it’s pointless.”

One fact the blogger never questions is the existence of God. He regards the whole of life, especially the good things, as a gift from our creator God.

Miscellaneous maxims:
Amongst all the moaning and complaining there are a number of familiar sounding epigrams which are still relevant to modern life.

“Two are better than one, because together they can work more effectively.”

“We leave this world just as we entered it – with nothing.”

“Never ask, ‘Oh, why were things so much better in the old days?’”

“There is no one on earth who does what is right all the time and never makes a mistake.”

“Don’t pay attention to everything people say – you may hear your servant insulting you, and you know yourself that you have insulted other people many times.”

“Fast runners do not always win the race ... bad luck happens to everyone.”

“Dead flies can make a whole bottle of perfume stink.” (origin of ‘a fly in the ointment’)

“If your axe is blunt and you don’t sharpen it, you have to work harder to use it. It is more sensible to plan ahead.”

“Don’t criticise ... even in the privacy of your bedroom. A bird might carry the message and tell them what you said.” (origin of ‘a little bird told me’)

“Put your investments in several places – because you never know what kind of bad luck you are going to have in this world.”

What should the modern reader make of all this?
The blogger has a limited perspective in two senses. He is only interested in everything “under the sun” which encompasses the whole of earthly life, but not heaven (or even the wider universe known to modern science). Also, he seeks purpose only in life before death. Factoring in the possibility of life beyond death changes the perspective.

So one thing to learn is the danger of a narrow perspective. In other words, we can disagree with the blogger’s assessment of life. But can we learn anything by stepping into his shoes and sympathising with his point of view? Yes, we can learn what not to put our trust in. Searching after riches, happiness or knowledge will not lead to ultimate fulfilment. Only God can make sense of our lives.

Perhaps the reason I found Ecclesiastes intriguing rather than depressing is because I have explored similar questions myself in a mood of calm scientific enquiry. A few years back I went through a phase of asking “how do I know?” I tried to reason my way to belief in the existence of God, the living presence of Christ, the point of being a Christian and life beyond death. I never felt like giving up my faith, and I never really felt depressed about these issues. But I did feel frustrated that despite some strongly suggestive evidence, there was no 100% proof of any of these things. Ecclesiastes reminds me that you’re never going to get certainties in this life, you just have to trust God.

ABR#8 Deuteronomy

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 Deuteronomy.

Setting and Summary:
Having wandered for forty years in the wilderness the people of Israel are in Moab, waiting to cross the Jordan into the land promised them by God. Moses addresses them at great length in a series of speeches before he dies. How many speeches? Around ten if you count all the occurrences of “Moses said” (or similar phrase), but in broad terms the book contains three speeches: a reminder of their history; a reminder of God’s law; a call for commitment.

It’s difficult to picture this. Did Moses gather the whole nation in one place and speak very loudly, or did he just address the leaders expecting them to pass on what he said, or did he travel around the camps explaining his message, or is this whole speech thing just a literary device used by some later author? According to Deuteronomy, Moses wrote down the laws from beginning to end in a book, and at the very least this shows there was a long-standing tradition of Moses’s laws being written rather than merely oral.

Deuteronomy resembles an extended pep-talk delivered by a coach to his team before they go out on the pitch, the coach won’t be with them so has to give them all the instructions and winning tactics in advance. Also, towards the end there is a call for a pledge of allegiance to the captain of the team, who will ensure success if they stick with him but guarantee disaster if they don’t.

The key message hammered home is: be faithful to your God by keeping his commands and he will bless you, but turn away and worship other gods and he will bring disaster on you.

Much of this sounds like the ‘prosperity gospel’ – obey God and he will provide abundant material blessings. But there are other strands to Moses’s message. a) God has given you a hard time for the past forty years in order to teach and discipline you. b) God says: don’t dare think your future success in driving out the nations is because of your goodness – you are a stubborn people who don’t deserve my blessings, but I’m blessing you because I love you.

Generations Past, Present and Future:
Moses says of 40 years ago “you were there, you remember how you turned against God” but he also says “as predicted none of your generation are now alive to enter the promised land.” On another occasion he emphasises that they personally (as opposed to any other generation) saw God perform all the miracles of the Exodus. Maybe he is reminding the new generation of memories from their childhood but often he blurs the distinction between generations and implies that it is the same ‘people’ who were brought out of Egypt, will enter the promised land, be scattered by foreign conquerers and be gathered again.

Various comments (especially in the early part) conclude with “and it’s like that to this day” which sounds very much like some later editor relating the words of Moses to the situations which the readers would be familiar with. Did this editor restrict himself to occasional asides, or did he re-tell the whole of Moses’s speeches in his own words in order to bring out certain nuances? To me the tone of the book suggests the latter.

Certainly the context which Moses is addressing is some centuries in his future – he often refers to the one place of worship which God will choose, and he deals with the appointment and behaviour of a king. He even describes the threat of foreign invasion and the hope of restoration from exile. Assuming these speeches were not recorded verbatim at the time, presumably the ‘current’ situation when the book was written had a strong influence on the finished product – and presumably the purpose of the book (as far as the authors are concerned) is to remind Israel of her heritage and tell them how they ought to be living in the land they (now) possess as God’s gift to them.

The Law:
The laws are a real mixed bag – some are humane (allow newly-wed soldiers to stay with their wives rather than risk dying in battle); some are sensible (build a parapet to stop people falling off your roof); some seem pointless (sew tassels on the four corners of your clothes); some are extremely harsh (no descendent of someone born out of wedlock, even ten generations later, can be included amongst God’s people); and some are just plain vindictive (kill all the Amalekites!) – I wonder what this says about the mindset of the person(s) compiling this selection of laws.

As a modern reader the idea of God commanding genocide is abhorrent. Moses justifies it as God’s way of punishing irredeemably wicked nations. Regarding the death penalty, the worst crime is idol worship or leading Israel astray from their God, and the disgusting practices of the present occupiers of the promised land presumably fall into this category, hence Israel is commanded to kill them all. Other death penalties are for murder or for being a rebellious son or for various sexual misdemeanours. Thankfully Jesus has shown us a better way of responding to wickedness – by love and forgiveness.

Some laws are presented as case-studies: e.g. what happens if a man’s axe-head flies loose and kills someone; what happens if a woman is supposedly raped but doesn’t cry out for help; what happens if two men are fighting and one of their wives grabs the other man by his private parts. It is possible to imagine circumstances where the punishment may be unjust (perhaps the woman really was raped but was too terrified to call out) but these guidelines are better than nothing. Even the harsh rules may be an improvement on existing customs. For example, if you capture a woman on a raid, give her a month to mourn before having your wicked way with her, and if you don’t want her any more set her free (better than pillage and rape and enslavement.)

How should I interpret these laws? Do I choose to keep those which I approve of and ignore the others? If men should not dress in women’s clothes should I have been a panto dame? Some of the ‘good’ laws are irrelevant anyway (I don’t have any fields in which to leave the pickings for the widows), so is it best to try and get to the principle behind each law (even the ‘bad’ ones) and work out what God is wanting to say to me through it? e.g Broadly speaking, the laws about killing the local heathens are about preserving a pure faith. So the relevance today is not that I should act with hatred or violence towards non-Christians but rather that I should avoid being drawn into a secular way of life which doesn’t honour God.

Miscellaneous Thoughts:
The ark of the covenant was constructed to house the second pair of stone tablets, the first pair having been broken. Perhaps the original plan was to have the ten commandments on permanent display, but the rebellion of the people called for plan B – to hide them away (in order to increase the sense of mystique and respect? or did their inaccessibility encourage people to learn them in their hearts?)

Some of the miraculous blessings are not confined to one-off occasions but affect the whole nation – in the past their shoes didn’t wear out, in the future there will be no disease, impotence or barrenness amongst humans or livestock. We expect too little from God if we only see him as an occasional help. He has plans for our ongoing well-being.

There is a contemporary feel to some of this – Israel has existed as a ‘people’ (if not always as a nation) for thousands of years (a remarkable fact in itself). Their fortunes have been up and down over history. Today they have returned once more to the promised land, and are driving out its inhabitants. I realise this is a sweeping generalisation of a complex situation, but in the last century the people of Israel have turned from victims to oppressors, and have forgotten those laws which say they must treat the stranger in their land with fairness and kindness (remembering they were once slaves themselves).

“Make sure there is no-one here today who hears these solemn demands and yet convinces himself that all will be well with him, even if he stubbornly goes his own way.” This is a personal challenge to me to take God’s word seriously and it arguably expresses the whole purpose of the book of Deuteronomy.

ABR#7 Daniel

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.