Short chapter today (although apparently it's numbered differently in Hebrew)
vs 1
Judgement day doesn't sound fantastic for evildoers. What's worse, surely it is coming! Well, worse for them.
vs 2
I think this is the only time the sun is mentioned in this way, but it will be forever remembered not only here, but in Wesley's Christmas carol "Hark the Herald Angels Sing". How this becomes Jesus, I'm not actually sure. I mean, you would assume it's just poetically talking about light.
It's funny imagining some Christians frolicing around like well-fed calves (or calves recently released from the stall). Now there's an interesting difference in translation. TNIV seems to be going against tradition a fair bit there.
vs 3
So to add insult to injury, the wicked who were recently burned in judgement will be trampled under the feet of wel-fed calves. We're not used to talking about the wicked in this way - as if we get to trample over them because they face wrath and we don't. But Israel had more of an Us vs Them mentality.
vs 4
It doesn't get much more obvious a reminder than that to obey the Levitical and Deuteronomic laws.
vs 5
So you see, when the disciples said "Hey Jesus, isn't it written that Elijah must come first before the day of the Lord comes?" - this is what they were talking about. The question being whether Elijah was a type (in which it was John the Baptist) or the actual person returning (in which the Transfiguration account probably covers that nicely).
vs 6
Now here's an interesting idea - Elijah will come and turn people's hearts towards each other (in family relationships mainly). But if that doesn't happen, the land will get cursed and destroyed. The onus of course not being on Elijah changing their hearts, but by implication putting forward a message which would then need to be accepted in order for the striking of cursing to be avoided.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Malachi chapter 3
vs 10
From the sounds of it, people were either tithing insufficiently, or they were bringing the whole tithe, but then taking some back with them, rather than leaving it in the storehouse.
God challenges them to have faith - to offer the whole amount of tithe they are due, and to see if God rewards them with blessing, in accordance with his covenantal promises.
Many modern Christians continue with the idea of the tithe, and swear by it and the blessings etc. I am not a tither - but it's a good start.
vs 11
Now, where else can you buy such guarantees? But is it really a guarantee? Is God really saying "Tithe to me, and you crops won't fail"? I want to say no, because the truth is that people who tithe still have crops that fail. But I also want to say yes, because God is the God of the impossible and the implausible. The question, then, is this - how much can we rely on this promise today? To me, this promise is very much wrapped up in the Mosaic covenant.For those of us who don't live off the land, and don't live an entrepenuerial lifestyle, how will God bless our "crops"? I suppose the answer is, he will bless whatever it is you are doing with your hands with "fruit". That's pretty darn challenging.
vs 12
I believe that the national blessings are well beyond Australia at the moment. But surely there are regions where groups of committed Christians are living, who in their sacrificial living for Christ are seeing blessings that others can realise.
vs 13
Here is the next complaint and questioning. Arrogant speaking against God. Malachi's really going to town.
vs 14-15
I'm not sure why they describe their service to God as mourning, but I can certainly see how Christians could call it that, especially with the sorrowful and mournful way we treat Easter. I can see people asking why they bother going to church at Easter only to be told a mournful story about the differing levels of pain that Jesus suffered, or the anguish of the disciples, when their mates are all back at home sleeping in or preparing a barbie.
Evildoers do prosper. They do seemingly get away with testing God. But only if you have small vision. If you look at the long view, they are going down.
I might just add about the irony here - that God speaks against those who test him, but tells people to put him to the test earlier regarding the tithe.
vs 16
I'm not exactly sure what a scroll of remembrance is. Perhaps they just wrote out a prayer for God, and all signed it, showing that they were still God-fearing and didn't agree with all these other people. A renewal of their covenantal relationship with God.
vs 17
I'm not exactly sure how useful that simile is of a father sparing his son who serves him - to fathers often smite their children who don't serve them? Regardless, you get the picture - God is honouring their faithfulness, even in amongst the faithless arrogant speaking and testing of God.
vs 18
But the righteous remnant are the third person in this conversation. God is addressing the arrogant, letting them know that the gap between the faithful and the wicked will be quite, quite visible when God does act.
From the sounds of it, people were either tithing insufficiently, or they were bringing the whole tithe, but then taking some back with them, rather than leaving it in the storehouse.
God challenges them to have faith - to offer the whole amount of tithe they are due, and to see if God rewards them with blessing, in accordance with his covenantal promises.
Many modern Christians continue with the idea of the tithe, and swear by it and the blessings etc. I am not a tither - but it's a good start.
vs 11
Now, where else can you buy such guarantees? But is it really a guarantee? Is God really saying "Tithe to me, and you crops won't fail"? I want to say no, because the truth is that people who tithe still have crops that fail. But I also want to say yes, because God is the God of the impossible and the implausible. The question, then, is this - how much can we rely on this promise today? To me, this promise is very much wrapped up in the Mosaic covenant.For those of us who don't live off the land, and don't live an entrepenuerial lifestyle, how will God bless our "crops"? I suppose the answer is, he will bless whatever it is you are doing with your hands with "fruit". That's pretty darn challenging.
vs 12
I believe that the national blessings are well beyond Australia at the moment. But surely there are regions where groups of committed Christians are living, who in their sacrificial living for Christ are seeing blessings that others can realise.
vs 13
Here is the next complaint and questioning. Arrogant speaking against God. Malachi's really going to town.
vs 14-15
I'm not sure why they describe their service to God as mourning, but I can certainly see how Christians could call it that, especially with the sorrowful and mournful way we treat Easter. I can see people asking why they bother going to church at Easter only to be told a mournful story about the differing levels of pain that Jesus suffered, or the anguish of the disciples, when their mates are all back at home sleeping in or preparing a barbie.
Evildoers do prosper. They do seemingly get away with testing God. But only if you have small vision. If you look at the long view, they are going down.
I might just add about the irony here - that God speaks against those who test him, but tells people to put him to the test earlier regarding the tithe.
vs 16
I'm not exactly sure what a scroll of remembrance is. Perhaps they just wrote out a prayer for God, and all signed it, showing that they were still God-fearing and didn't agree with all these other people. A renewal of their covenantal relationship with God.
vs 17
I'm not exactly sure how useful that simile is of a father sparing his son who serves him - to fathers often smite their children who don't serve them? Regardless, you get the picture - God is honouring their faithfulness, even in amongst the faithless arrogant speaking and testing of God.
vs 18
But the righteous remnant are the third person in this conversation. God is addressing the arrogant, letting them know that the gap between the faithful and the wicked will be quite, quite visible when God does act.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Malachi chapter 3
vs 1
So there are in fact two people coming - a messenger to prepare the way, and then the Lord, and him suddenly. Reading this from Christian eyes, it looks a lot like John the Baptist and then Jesus. But is it really that clear and obvious a prophecy? I guess it could be calling back on Isaiah's voice of one calling in the desert.
More likely, I think Malachi is talking about the messenger who comes to prepare the way (possibly even himself!) and then it will be the Lord who comes and fills his temple.
vs 2
That is, he comes to perform cleansing. And what with everyone walking around with poo on their faces, they shouldn't think they'll get out of it lightly.
vs 3
Him who comes will purify for God a priesthood to offer righteous and acceptable sacrifices. Starting from the top and working his way down.
vs 4
God doesn't just want a priesthood for himself, though. He wants the whole nation to be back in good relationship with him. This means that, for now, the sacrificial system needs to be cleansed. That then allows all the people of Judah to come back into fellowship with God through proper sacrifice.
vs 5
What a great verse. Notice that amongst all the typical oppressive and evil attitudes that are spoken against, depriving foreigners of justice is among them. This was a strong point back in the Torah. But it took a back seat about 50 years later, and the Jews became a very exclusive people. They were not to intermarry, but foreigners were allowed to live amongst them with strict rules, including orderly worship.
And yet, God lists these transgressions for which they will be judged, some of which he's already accused them of - but he says "Don't fear me" :P
vs 6
When God says he doesn't change in this sense, it seems he means he won't break the covenant he had with their forefathers. It is Jacob and the promise to him that prevents their destruction.
vs 7
It's true! There had never really been a time where Israel was truly faithful. And yet, God still calls them to return to him. And now for the next question - so how do they do it?
vs 8
Now God accuses them of robbing him through insufficient tithes and offerings. He's really going to town on these Jews about the insufficiencies of their religious system. No wonder he ended up ditching it!
vs 9
God takes this stuff seriously. Remember, the religious covenant wasn't just designed as something to keep them busy - it is the mark of God's faithfulness to them, and it is meant to keep them faithful to God. He takes it seriously, so should they.
So there are in fact two people coming - a messenger to prepare the way, and then the Lord, and him suddenly. Reading this from Christian eyes, it looks a lot like John the Baptist and then Jesus. But is it really that clear and obvious a prophecy? I guess it could be calling back on Isaiah's voice of one calling in the desert.
More likely, I think Malachi is talking about the messenger who comes to prepare the way (possibly even himself!) and then it will be the Lord who comes and fills his temple.
vs 2
That is, he comes to perform cleansing. And what with everyone walking around with poo on their faces, they shouldn't think they'll get out of it lightly.
vs 3
Him who comes will purify for God a priesthood to offer righteous and acceptable sacrifices. Starting from the top and working his way down.
vs 4
God doesn't just want a priesthood for himself, though. He wants the whole nation to be back in good relationship with him. This means that, for now, the sacrificial system needs to be cleansed. That then allows all the people of Judah to come back into fellowship with God through proper sacrifice.
vs 5
What a great verse. Notice that amongst all the typical oppressive and evil attitudes that are spoken against, depriving foreigners of justice is among them. This was a strong point back in the Torah. But it took a back seat about 50 years later, and the Jews became a very exclusive people. They were not to intermarry, but foreigners were allowed to live amongst them with strict rules, including orderly worship.
And yet, God lists these transgressions for which they will be judged, some of which he's already accused them of - but he says "Don't fear me" :P
vs 6
When God says he doesn't change in this sense, it seems he means he won't break the covenant he had with their forefathers. It is Jacob and the promise to him that prevents their destruction.
vs 7
It's true! There had never really been a time where Israel was truly faithful. And yet, God still calls them to return to him. And now for the next question - so how do they do it?
vs 8
Now God accuses them of robbing him through insufficient tithes and offerings. He's really going to town on these Jews about the insufficiencies of their religious system. No wonder he ended up ditching it!
vs 9
God takes this stuff seriously. Remember, the religious covenant wasn't just designed as something to keep them busy - it is the mark of God's faithfulness to them, and it is meant to keep them faithful to God. He takes it seriously, so should they.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Malachi chapter 2
vs 10
Father here could be in reference to God, or to Abraham. Since the point is made about God as creator straight afterwards, it's either repetition or making both points. Malachi takes this fact, and puts it starkly against another fact - that the Jews are being unfaithful to each other by not keeping the covenant.
I've got to say I don't think we see the covenant this way very often. We tend to think that individuals will get punished for their individual breaking of the covenant. But that's not how it works. God made Israel swear to covenant as a nation, so they have to keep it all together, or else let down the whole side. If you don't believe me, think of Achan after Ai.
vs 11
See, although we can assume that not every single person has married a foreign woman, the fact is that some have, and that is a blemish against the whole society.
vs 12
It's not good enough to bring offerings to God, to be one who keeps the wheels of the system in motion financially. Offerings are not just a membership fee of the club. Following the covenant is what keeps you separate from everyone else, not the giving of offerings.
Imagine praying this prayer today - "May God remove from our church anyone who brings Christ into disrepute, regardless of how much money they put in the offering each week". There's a lot of churches that are afraid of offending the big money-spinners because they'll lose their funding.
vs 13
So the question that immediately comes to my mind is, "How do they know?" Obviously there is some sort of calamity occuring, and the people of Jerusalem are linking this calamity with the fact that their offerings aren't being accepted. I don't know what it is, perhaps Malachi will give us a clue.
vs 14
At least they ask why! I wonder how many of us are so out of tune with God that we can do sinful things, and not even notice that our relationship with God is going pearshaped?
This could be read two ways. It could be that the Jews were marrying young foreign tarts and disrespecting their Jewish wives. Or it could be a reference to the Jews being unfaithful to another relational covenant, this time between them and God. After all, they have been unfaithful to God, and he stands as witness against them. Of course, it could be both - that God is unhappy with them because they're divorcing their old Jewish wives.
vs 15
Can you believe this is all one verse? I think the numbering monk got tired when he got to Malachi.
It's really mixed up. Has not God made which two one? A person and their wife surely. Or are God and his people one? The next sentence makes it sound like it's talking about the people and God because of the masculine pronoun. But then, what's this about offspring? The truth is that everything up to this point in this verse is in questionable Hebrew, so it is not easily understood.
So what is the focus? I don't actually think it matters. If it is about marriage, then it flows into the more spiritual meaning anyway.
vs 16
I think since God specifically says "I hate divorce" here that there was a problem with divorce at the time. But God also hates injustice altogether. It's possible that vs 15 is a message to the Jews to be on guard and not be unfaithful to their Jewish wives, and this is a message to be on guard and not be unfaithful to God.
vs 17
Again we have this question and answer motif going. This time, they have wearied God not with their actions, but with their words. Apparently, they've been saying that God loves people who do evil, or they have been doubting that God is just, or commenting that God's justice is missing or late.
Before you think it's crazy for anyone to say the first one (because hey, that's what I thought when I read it) remember that people say it now. "God is love, tra la la, he'd never hurt anyone, everyone goes to heaven hurrah!" Bollocks. The second one sounds far more plausible to us, but probably sounds a whole lot less plausible to them.
Father here could be in reference to God, or to Abraham. Since the point is made about God as creator straight afterwards, it's either repetition or making both points. Malachi takes this fact, and puts it starkly against another fact - that the Jews are being unfaithful to each other by not keeping the covenant.
I've got to say I don't think we see the covenant this way very often. We tend to think that individuals will get punished for their individual breaking of the covenant. But that's not how it works. God made Israel swear to covenant as a nation, so they have to keep it all together, or else let down the whole side. If you don't believe me, think of Achan after Ai.
vs 11
See, although we can assume that not every single person has married a foreign woman, the fact is that some have, and that is a blemish against the whole society.
vs 12
It's not good enough to bring offerings to God, to be one who keeps the wheels of the system in motion financially. Offerings are not just a membership fee of the club. Following the covenant is what keeps you separate from everyone else, not the giving of offerings.
Imagine praying this prayer today - "May God remove from our church anyone who brings Christ into disrepute, regardless of how much money they put in the offering each week". There's a lot of churches that are afraid of offending the big money-spinners because they'll lose their funding.
vs 13
So the question that immediately comes to my mind is, "How do they know?" Obviously there is some sort of calamity occuring, and the people of Jerusalem are linking this calamity with the fact that their offerings aren't being accepted. I don't know what it is, perhaps Malachi will give us a clue.
vs 14
At least they ask why! I wonder how many of us are so out of tune with God that we can do sinful things, and not even notice that our relationship with God is going pearshaped?
This could be read two ways. It could be that the Jews were marrying young foreign tarts and disrespecting their Jewish wives. Or it could be a reference to the Jews being unfaithful to another relational covenant, this time between them and God. After all, they have been unfaithful to God, and he stands as witness against them. Of course, it could be both - that God is unhappy with them because they're divorcing their old Jewish wives.
vs 15
Can you believe this is all one verse? I think the numbering monk got tired when he got to Malachi.
It's really mixed up. Has not God made which two one? A person and their wife surely. Or are God and his people one? The next sentence makes it sound like it's talking about the people and God because of the masculine pronoun. But then, what's this about offspring? The truth is that everything up to this point in this verse is in questionable Hebrew, so it is not easily understood.
So what is the focus? I don't actually think it matters. If it is about marriage, then it flows into the more spiritual meaning anyway.
vs 16
I think since God specifically says "I hate divorce" here that there was a problem with divorce at the time. But God also hates injustice altogether. It's possible that vs 15 is a message to the Jews to be on guard and not be unfaithful to their Jewish wives, and this is a message to be on guard and not be unfaithful to God.
vs 17
Again we have this question and answer motif going. This time, they have wearied God not with their actions, but with their words. Apparently, they've been saying that God loves people who do evil, or they have been doubting that God is just, or commenting that God's justice is missing or late.
Before you think it's crazy for anyone to say the first one (because hey, that's what I thought when I read it) remember that people say it now. "God is love, tra la la, he'd never hurt anyone, everyone goes to heaven hurrah!" Bollocks. The second one sounds far more plausible to us, but probably sounds a whole lot less plausible to them.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Malachi chapter 2
vs 1
That is, another warning for them, because the first one was to them as well, although it expanded out to include all the Jews.
vs 2
So God in fact promises something he's already done, and will continue doing. He said he wished they'd shut the temple doors rather than make sacrifices that belittled him, and he means it. So not only will their actions done to please the Lord not be a blessing to them, it will actually make things worse.
vs 3
That's quite strong language. God feels so strongly about what they have done to dishonour his position that their children are going to pay. As for the fecal smearing going on - my assumption is that when you kill an animal for a sacrifice, there are certain bits you clean out and throw away - anything inside the intestines would be included in that. Well, God is so upset with the Jews, that he's going to smear the contents of those intestines on their faces, so that when it is carried away, the dirty Jews have to be carried away and thrown out too.
vs 4
God's purpose in this threat is not to show them their downfall and to bring judgement - it is merely a warning so that they can get their act together. God wants to continue to live in convenant relationship with his people.
vs 5
God is focused primarily on the covenant with Levi, because he's talking particularly with the priests. To my knowledge there was no covenant made with Levi the man, so I am assuming God is talking about the tribe, and their special role played in the covenant God makes with Israel before he takes them out of Egypt.
It was a two way covenant - life and peace for the Levites, and honour and reverence for God.
vs 6
The Levites were to be responsible for the instruction of the people in the things of God. As a tribe, they were meant to be the mediators of the mediators. They fulfilled the role in Israel that Israel was to fulfil in the world. And God was happy with them, at least for a while - as long as they were walking in a righteous way, their example was helping people to turn from sin.
vs 7
This is the way a priest should be. God has a lot of respect for the office of priesthood, if you like. It's the individual priests that he's harping on.
vs 8
And boy is he harping on them. These priests have not kept their part of the covenant. Their actions have caused the opposite of what they were meant to. God's name has not been glorified. People have not been turned away from sin.
Although people might be bringing crappy sacrifices, God is placing the blame foremostly on the priests, who should know better.
vs 9
A covenant is not like a contract. It is not an equal trade between two parties. A covenant is a socially binding agreement between two unequal parties. It is the way for a ruler to say "If you act in accordance with my laws, then I won't punish you". So it's not just a contract where the priests haven't held up their part of the deal, so they don't get paid, or they can be sued for damages. They have broken fealty with their God, and so God punishes them. He allows their social position to be brought into disrepute, so that people don't respect them anymore. A fitting punishment, as this is what they have done to God.
That is, another warning for them, because the first one was to them as well, although it expanded out to include all the Jews.
vs 2
So God in fact promises something he's already done, and will continue doing. He said he wished they'd shut the temple doors rather than make sacrifices that belittled him, and he means it. So not only will their actions done to please the Lord not be a blessing to them, it will actually make things worse.
vs 3
That's quite strong language. God feels so strongly about what they have done to dishonour his position that their children are going to pay. As for the fecal smearing going on - my assumption is that when you kill an animal for a sacrifice, there are certain bits you clean out and throw away - anything inside the intestines would be included in that. Well, God is so upset with the Jews, that he's going to smear the contents of those intestines on their faces, so that when it is carried away, the dirty Jews have to be carried away and thrown out too.
vs 4
God's purpose in this threat is not to show them their downfall and to bring judgement - it is merely a warning so that they can get their act together. God wants to continue to live in convenant relationship with his people.
vs 5
God is focused primarily on the covenant with Levi, because he's talking particularly with the priests. To my knowledge there was no covenant made with Levi the man, so I am assuming God is talking about the tribe, and their special role played in the covenant God makes with Israel before he takes them out of Egypt.
It was a two way covenant - life and peace for the Levites, and honour and reverence for God.
vs 6
The Levites were to be responsible for the instruction of the people in the things of God. As a tribe, they were meant to be the mediators of the mediators. They fulfilled the role in Israel that Israel was to fulfil in the world. And God was happy with them, at least for a while - as long as they were walking in a righteous way, their example was helping people to turn from sin.
vs 7
This is the way a priest should be. God has a lot of respect for the office of priesthood, if you like. It's the individual priests that he's harping on.
vs 8
And boy is he harping on them. These priests have not kept their part of the covenant. Their actions have caused the opposite of what they were meant to. God's name has not been glorified. People have not been turned away from sin.
Although people might be bringing crappy sacrifices, God is placing the blame foremostly on the priests, who should know better.
vs 9
A covenant is not like a contract. It is not an equal trade between two parties. A covenant is a socially binding agreement between two unequal parties. It is the way for a ruler to say "If you act in accordance with my laws, then I won't punish you". So it's not just a contract where the priests haven't held up their part of the deal, so they don't get paid, or they can be sued for damages. They have broken fealty with their God, and so God punishes them. He allows their social position to be brought into disrepute, so that people don't respect them anymore. A fitting punishment, as this is what they have done to God.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Malachi chapter 1
vs 1
Although I appreciate Malachi's effort in telling us what the book is and who it is from, what would be really nice is if he told us when he wrote and who he's writing to a little more specifically.
Malachi is a Second Temple book - written after the destruction of the first, and the building of the second. So we're looking at post exile, and a much smaller nation of Jews rather than the large hulking nation of Israelites.
vs 2-3
You do get the feeling that asking that question isn't really appropriate. But Israel asks it anyway. God's response is to say that not only did he pick Jacob ahead of Esau, the elder son, but he has also turned the land of Esau's descendants into unsuitable land. Israel's land then, we assume, is still lush and fertile.
vs 4
God has judged the people of Edom as being guilty of sin - possibly the sin of trying to hamper the work of the Jews in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple in the last 100 years or so. God makes it clear that though they might think they can just rebuild, he's got it in for them, at least for the time being.
This message isn't so much for Edom, though. It is in a letter to the Jews, so it is more for their comfort that the enemy is being punished.
vs 5
Nothing has ever stopped God from acting outside his traditional stomping ground before... Jews would have to have a short memory, forgetting not only the passover and the exodus, but also the redemption from exile of themselves to forget that God has power outside Jerusalem's city limits. But even still, this reminds the Jews of another thing - that God actually has an input and an opinion about matters outside his chosen people.
vs 6
We're going to see this question and answer motif runs throughout Malachi. Notice here in verse 6 that God talks about his position (as Father and as Master), and then talks about the contempt for his 'name'. Because what he really means is the contempt for those titles, for his position of authority. It's not a simple blasphemy that the priests have taken part in - that would be pretty unthinkable in a society that stoned you for saying YHWH. Instead, they are not giving God his proper authority somehow - they are showing contempt for his position, rather than bringing him his due honour.
vs 7
These question sections might be poetic, in which case it would be wrong to criticise the priests for asking "how have we defiled you?" when told that in fact they were offering defiled food on the altar. No wonder God feels like he is been treated with contempt. He deserves, and demands, the best stuff be sacrificed to him.
vs 8
So it's not like the priests were fornicating in the temple or anything - they were sacrificing the crappy stuff, and probably keeping the good stuff for themselves. The reason I say that, and not that it was the people who were offering up crappy stuff for sacrifice in the first place, is that the priests are getting the blame here. Even if people were bringing sick and lame animals for sacrifice, the priests could just not accept them. And when you see that the stuff that gets sacrificed gets 'wasted', then no doubt people thought they could pull the wool over God's eyes, or that God wouldn't mind because after all, he'd given them these beasts to eat and enjoy, right?
But humans in authority wouldn't accept this stuff. They'd think it was a slight to their position if they were used to receiving nice stuff, and then got the leftover garbage instead. God is making it clear that it is the message this sends - that they are undermining his position - that is wrong. He doesn't want the best stuff cause it tastes good - he wants it because it reminds them of his position of authority.
vs 9
God will simply not accept the cries of the priests for forgiveness and for blessing if they are treating him like he's some coin-op pokie, rather than like a king.
vs 10
God would rather they did nothing than offered these useless sacrifices! Their work is actually insulting him, making him upset with the nation, rather than doing the job of bringing him honour.
vs 11
God's plan, as he hinted at earlier regarding Edom, is that his name will be great among all nations, not just in Israel. But at the moment, not even Israel's getting it right, so that's got to be pretty frustrating. God compares the purity of the potential future offerings of the nations against the crappy real offerings his people are giving him. Not much hope for humanity at this rate.
vs 12
God says that their actions speak these words, because of course they'd never actually say these words. But it's a good reminder - what we do speaks louder than what we say, even to God.
vs 13
Apparently the hard work of providing sacrifice to God is trying on the priests, who see it as a burden. If it is the people's fault for bringing crappy sacrifices, then their sniffing and complaints might come from the fact that they share in these meals. So then God could be saying "You bitch and moan about the crappy sacrifices, but you still make them to me - as if I, God, should accept them when you don't!"
vs 14
God now puts a curse on those who bring crappy sacrifices. So he is moving the focus of blame from the priests, who have been processing the sacrifices, to the people who offer them in the first place. God wants them to know that he is a mighty God whose power extends across the earth, and that if they don't treat him with respect, he's going to whip their asses.
Although I appreciate Malachi's effort in telling us what the book is and who it is from, what would be really nice is if he told us when he wrote and who he's writing to a little more specifically.
Malachi is a Second Temple book - written after the destruction of the first, and the building of the second. So we're looking at post exile, and a much smaller nation of Jews rather than the large hulking nation of Israelites.
vs 2-3
You do get the feeling that asking that question isn't really appropriate. But Israel asks it anyway. God's response is to say that not only did he pick Jacob ahead of Esau, the elder son, but he has also turned the land of Esau's descendants into unsuitable land. Israel's land then, we assume, is still lush and fertile.
vs 4
God has judged the people of Edom as being guilty of sin - possibly the sin of trying to hamper the work of the Jews in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple in the last 100 years or so. God makes it clear that though they might think they can just rebuild, he's got it in for them, at least for the time being.
This message isn't so much for Edom, though. It is in a letter to the Jews, so it is more for their comfort that the enemy is being punished.
vs 5
Nothing has ever stopped God from acting outside his traditional stomping ground before... Jews would have to have a short memory, forgetting not only the passover and the exodus, but also the redemption from exile of themselves to forget that God has power outside Jerusalem's city limits. But even still, this reminds the Jews of another thing - that God actually has an input and an opinion about matters outside his chosen people.
vs 6
We're going to see this question and answer motif runs throughout Malachi. Notice here in verse 6 that God talks about his position (as Father and as Master), and then talks about the contempt for his 'name'. Because what he really means is the contempt for those titles, for his position of authority. It's not a simple blasphemy that the priests have taken part in - that would be pretty unthinkable in a society that stoned you for saying YHWH. Instead, they are not giving God his proper authority somehow - they are showing contempt for his position, rather than bringing him his due honour.
vs 7
These question sections might be poetic, in which case it would be wrong to criticise the priests for asking "how have we defiled you?" when told that in fact they were offering defiled food on the altar. No wonder God feels like he is been treated with contempt. He deserves, and demands, the best stuff be sacrificed to him.
vs 8
So it's not like the priests were fornicating in the temple or anything - they were sacrificing the crappy stuff, and probably keeping the good stuff for themselves. The reason I say that, and not that it was the people who were offering up crappy stuff for sacrifice in the first place, is that the priests are getting the blame here. Even if people were bringing sick and lame animals for sacrifice, the priests could just not accept them. And when you see that the stuff that gets sacrificed gets 'wasted', then no doubt people thought they could pull the wool over God's eyes, or that God wouldn't mind because after all, he'd given them these beasts to eat and enjoy, right?
But humans in authority wouldn't accept this stuff. They'd think it was a slight to their position if they were used to receiving nice stuff, and then got the leftover garbage instead. God is making it clear that it is the message this sends - that they are undermining his position - that is wrong. He doesn't want the best stuff cause it tastes good - he wants it because it reminds them of his position of authority.
vs 9
God will simply not accept the cries of the priests for forgiveness and for blessing if they are treating him like he's some coin-op pokie, rather than like a king.
vs 10
God would rather they did nothing than offered these useless sacrifices! Their work is actually insulting him, making him upset with the nation, rather than doing the job of bringing him honour.
vs 11
God's plan, as he hinted at earlier regarding Edom, is that his name will be great among all nations, not just in Israel. But at the moment, not even Israel's getting it right, so that's got to be pretty frustrating. God compares the purity of the potential future offerings of the nations against the crappy real offerings his people are giving him. Not much hope for humanity at this rate.
vs 12
God says that their actions speak these words, because of course they'd never actually say these words. But it's a good reminder - what we do speaks louder than what we say, even to God.
vs 13
Apparently the hard work of providing sacrifice to God is trying on the priests, who see it as a burden. If it is the people's fault for bringing crappy sacrifices, then their sniffing and complaints might come from the fact that they share in these meals. So then God could be saying "You bitch and moan about the crappy sacrifices, but you still make them to me - as if I, God, should accept them when you don't!"
vs 14
God now puts a curse on those who bring crappy sacrifices. So he is moving the focus of blame from the priests, who have been processing the sacrifices, to the people who offer them in the first place. God wants them to know that he is a mighty God whose power extends across the earth, and that if they don't treat him with respect, he's going to whip their asses.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Psalm 12
vs 1
I can only have an inkling of the kind of depressing feeling this would be. I have never felt like there was no one who was still right with God, still seeking his will and standing upright for him. Of course, since everyone is sinful, there could come a time in anyone's life where they felt this way. We know David wasn't the only one to feel this - Elijah calls out to God with the same cry.
vs 2
The thing that David had in particular was not sexual depravity or murderousness or anything like that - what was drawing him to call on the Lord for aid was that people were lying to each other and being deceitful and flattering. You might say, "well, big deal" but a lot of damage and hurt can come from this sort of behaviour, which is why it hurts so much when you see a church acting like this.
vs 3
David actually calls God to judgement on their lips! They must have been saying some pretty hurtful things.
vs 4
In fact, this verse sounds so much like a judgement on politicians that it isn't funny. Perhaps more about noblemen or aristocrats in David's day, but those people who live by their lips rather than by their sword think they can talk their way out of anything.
vs 5
Some might argue that God is a bit callous in waiting until the poor and needy have been oppressed and complain, but that is his way. If God were pro-active in this, stepping in before they were oppressed, firstly he would be preventing free will and stopping suffering from ever happening, and secondly people would only complain "Sure, God steps in and stops us from oppressing them, but why doesn't he just stop them being poor and needy?"
vs 6
I wonder if David's verse there is a corrective against the attitude I've just put forward above, or if it just fits well into the poetry in Hebrew. One interesting thing about this verse is that every translation up to the NIV says that the silver is refined in a furnace of clay, but the TNIV puts it in terms of a repetition, silver being refined, gold also being refined (no clay or earth).
vs 7
I was not aware that David was among the ranks of the poor and needy, but he puts himself there. God has said he will protect, so David now claims that promise as being as good as the protection itself.
vs 8
This verse is as much a judgement on humanity as it is on the wicked people. Sure, the wicked people do wicked things, but who judges them? Is it mankind? Wait, no, they're to busy honouring depravity. So God has to step in, protect the people who are being maligned, judge the wicked who are acting in a vile manner, and then instruct the populace in what is right and wrong, again, and waggle his finger a bit.
I can only have an inkling of the kind of depressing feeling this would be. I have never felt like there was no one who was still right with God, still seeking his will and standing upright for him. Of course, since everyone is sinful, there could come a time in anyone's life where they felt this way. We know David wasn't the only one to feel this - Elijah calls out to God with the same cry.
vs 2
The thing that David had in particular was not sexual depravity or murderousness or anything like that - what was drawing him to call on the Lord for aid was that people were lying to each other and being deceitful and flattering. You might say, "well, big deal" but a lot of damage and hurt can come from this sort of behaviour, which is why it hurts so much when you see a church acting like this.
vs 3
David actually calls God to judgement on their lips! They must have been saying some pretty hurtful things.
vs 4
In fact, this verse sounds so much like a judgement on politicians that it isn't funny. Perhaps more about noblemen or aristocrats in David's day, but those people who live by their lips rather than by their sword think they can talk their way out of anything.
vs 5
Some might argue that God is a bit callous in waiting until the poor and needy have been oppressed and complain, but that is his way. If God were pro-active in this, stepping in before they were oppressed, firstly he would be preventing free will and stopping suffering from ever happening, and secondly people would only complain "Sure, God steps in and stops us from oppressing them, but why doesn't he just stop them being poor and needy?"
vs 6
I wonder if David's verse there is a corrective against the attitude I've just put forward above, or if it just fits well into the poetry in Hebrew. One interesting thing about this verse is that every translation up to the NIV says that the silver is refined in a furnace of clay, but the TNIV puts it in terms of a repetition, silver being refined, gold also being refined (no clay or earth).
vs 7
I was not aware that David was among the ranks of the poor and needy, but he puts himself there. God has said he will protect, so David now claims that promise as being as good as the protection itself.
vs 8
This verse is as much a judgement on humanity as it is on the wicked people. Sure, the wicked people do wicked things, but who judges them? Is it mankind? Wait, no, they're to busy honouring depravity. So God has to step in, protect the people who are being maligned, judge the wicked who are acting in a vile manner, and then instruct the populace in what is right and wrong, again, and waggle his finger a bit.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Psalm 11
vs 1
I wonder if the people saying that are saying it in a condescending and mocking tone, or whether they are sincere. Either way, David is not impressed. God is his refuge, his fortress. Why flee to a mountain? (Of course, when stuff got hairy, that's exactly what David did. Apparently God gave him some mountains to hide in).
vs 2
Attack at this time was imminent. The war language could easily be literal, or it could be metaphorical for showing that there are wicked people out to get David.
vs 3
Good question, but what does it mean? It might be referring to a wartime strategy of sapping, taking out the foundations. But I honestly don't know. I really should get a commentary on Psalms.
vs 4
While not expressly linked to his last thought, it is a thought of comfort - God is in control. Not only does Israel have a temple which God inhabits (so he is personally linked with them), but he also sits up in heaven, totally without contradiction, where he can see what everyone's doing. Nothing escapes his sight.
vs 5
God apparently looks down from his throne in two ways. On the righteous, he pretty much just watches. But he throws stuff at the TV when the wicked come on. He doesn't like those who are wicked at all.
vs 6
He does more than throw stuff at the TV. He judges them with the same things he judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently this verse says something about a cup, but it doesn't say the word cup in the NIV or the TNIV. Of course, this would be just one more verse where the wrath of God is depicted as a cup.
vs 7
Because God is righteous, and loves justice, therefore those people who are righteous and upright will look upon him and be glad. Whereas the wicked don't want there to be a righteous God who judges justly, becuase that will mean they are screwed.
I wonder if the people saying that are saying it in a condescending and mocking tone, or whether they are sincere. Either way, David is not impressed. God is his refuge, his fortress. Why flee to a mountain? (Of course, when stuff got hairy, that's exactly what David did. Apparently God gave him some mountains to hide in).
vs 2
Attack at this time was imminent. The war language could easily be literal, or it could be metaphorical for showing that there are wicked people out to get David.
vs 3
Good question, but what does it mean? It might be referring to a wartime strategy of sapping, taking out the foundations. But I honestly don't know. I really should get a commentary on Psalms.
vs 4
While not expressly linked to his last thought, it is a thought of comfort - God is in control. Not only does Israel have a temple which God inhabits (so he is personally linked with them), but he also sits up in heaven, totally without contradiction, where he can see what everyone's doing. Nothing escapes his sight.
vs 5
God apparently looks down from his throne in two ways. On the righteous, he pretty much just watches. But he throws stuff at the TV when the wicked come on. He doesn't like those who are wicked at all.
vs 6
He does more than throw stuff at the TV. He judges them with the same things he judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently this verse says something about a cup, but it doesn't say the word cup in the NIV or the TNIV. Of course, this would be just one more verse where the wrath of God is depicted as a cup.
vs 7
Because God is righteous, and loves justice, therefore those people who are righteous and upright will look upon him and be glad. Whereas the wicked don't want there to be a righteous God who judges justly, becuase that will mean they are screwed.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Psalm 10
vs 10
The NIV tradition takes a fairly different tac in translating this verse, saying that it is the innocent who are crushed and collapse and fall victim to the strength of the wicked. The NASB/KJV talk about "him" bowing down rather confusingly. I'm going with the NIV because I actually understand it.
Last verse we saw how the wicked lie in wait to ambush the innocent - here we see that the innocent, being innocent, are weak and helpless, are totally overpowered by the strength of the wicked.
vs 11
And you know what? How often would that be easy to believe. God doesn't instantly strike people down for sin. If he did, we'd all be dead. Or in pain, or whatever it is he did as punishment. So it can look like he's not even there. But that just shows a misunderstanding about God and his activities.
vs 12
David knows that God is slow to act in anger. But he also knows that God will lift up his hand for the sake of the helpless. Because God is a god of the weak.
vs 13
Rather than asking the question that most people ask, "Why doesn't God do anything to wicked people?", David instead asks his own rhetorical question, "Why do the wicked ignore a God who is so obviously out there and that they have put themselves against?" Interesting flip on the question, isn't it?
vs 14
Again David focuses on the relationship that God has with the victims of the world. He also points out that victims commit themselves to God. Perhaps because they don't have anywhere else to turn - but perhaps because they know that God is the God of the fatherless and the afflicted. That wasn't just Jesus - God's always been that way.
vs 15
Eep! Break their arms? That seems pretty harsh. But David is calling for judgement on them for their evil ways. And I guess also breaking their arms will stop them from continuing.
vs 16
David spent a long time extending the land of Israel out to the borders it was originally meant to have. "Extending the land" meant going to war against the non-Jews who were living there. So you can see what the basis of the line of this prayer is - that the anti-God peoples living on God's land will not be there forever, but God is King forever. This isn't a prayer of request - it is a prayer of adoration - David recognises and accepts this as fact.
vs 17
That is very comforting to know. Often when we feel afflicted, we also feel voiceless, like no one is listening to us. But God listens. His ear is set firmly on the cries of the mistreated.
vs 18
'Terrorism' is not just war. Terror attacks do not have at their heart claiming land. They are at their heart guerrila tactics inspired to strike fear into people and create disarray. This shouldn't work against Christians. God defends the oppressed so that mere mortals cannot strike terror into their hearts. We can be strong against threats of terror even if we can do nothing - because if you're a Christian, there really is nothing to fear.
I don't know how that sort of eternal hope translates itself into an exegetical understanding of this verse - perhaps they were looking forward to the rest and peace in the land that they had been promised?
The NIV tradition takes a fairly different tac in translating this verse, saying that it is the innocent who are crushed and collapse and fall victim to the strength of the wicked. The NASB/KJV talk about "him" bowing down rather confusingly. I'm going with the NIV because I actually understand it.
Last verse we saw how the wicked lie in wait to ambush the innocent - here we see that the innocent, being innocent, are weak and helpless, are totally overpowered by the strength of the wicked.
vs 11
And you know what? How often would that be easy to believe. God doesn't instantly strike people down for sin. If he did, we'd all be dead. Or in pain, or whatever it is he did as punishment. So it can look like he's not even there. But that just shows a misunderstanding about God and his activities.
vs 12
David knows that God is slow to act in anger. But he also knows that God will lift up his hand for the sake of the helpless. Because God is a god of the weak.
vs 13
Rather than asking the question that most people ask, "Why doesn't God do anything to wicked people?", David instead asks his own rhetorical question, "Why do the wicked ignore a God who is so obviously out there and that they have put themselves against?" Interesting flip on the question, isn't it?
vs 14
Again David focuses on the relationship that God has with the victims of the world. He also points out that victims commit themselves to God. Perhaps because they don't have anywhere else to turn - but perhaps because they know that God is the God of the fatherless and the afflicted. That wasn't just Jesus - God's always been that way.
vs 15
Eep! Break their arms? That seems pretty harsh. But David is calling for judgement on them for their evil ways. And I guess also breaking their arms will stop them from continuing.
vs 16
David spent a long time extending the land of Israel out to the borders it was originally meant to have. "Extending the land" meant going to war against the non-Jews who were living there. So you can see what the basis of the line of this prayer is - that the anti-God peoples living on God's land will not be there forever, but God is King forever. This isn't a prayer of request - it is a prayer of adoration - David recognises and accepts this as fact.
vs 17
That is very comforting to know. Often when we feel afflicted, we also feel voiceless, like no one is listening to us. But God listens. His ear is set firmly on the cries of the mistreated.
vs 18
'Terrorism' is not just war. Terror attacks do not have at their heart claiming land. They are at their heart guerrila tactics inspired to strike fear into people and create disarray. This shouldn't work against Christians. God defends the oppressed so that mere mortals cannot strike terror into their hearts. We can be strong against threats of terror even if we can do nothing - because if you're a Christian, there really is nothing to fear.
I don't know how that sort of eternal hope translates itself into an exegetical understanding of this verse - perhaps they were looking forward to the rest and peace in the land that they had been promised?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Psalm 10
Apparently Psalms 9 and 10 are combined in the Septuagint into one psalm in an acrostic style. They seem to me totally separate in focus, but I guess it's possible. They do overlap a little.
vs 1
A question asked not only by the unbeliever, or the weak of faith - this is being asked by David! The wording suggests that it is God who disappears when trouble comes, but of course we know that to be untrue.
vs 2
Anyone who has eyes and is alive has seen this happen. And that is frustrating and challenging - why does God allow people so wicked, who pick on the weak, to survive?
vs 3
Not only do they wail on the weak, but they also revile God directly! Surely worthy of some smiting. I've felt that way about certain people who write books about atheism *ahem*.
vs 4
You can take this both ways, of course - I mean, in anyone's thoughts, God is so big that he fills up everything and there is yet still more of him to consider! But I think David means it the other way - their minds are so full of themselves and other unimportant guff that there isn't even the smallest window for God.
vs 5
For every Enron executive that rides his business into the ground at the cost of millions of dollars to investors everywhere, for every Alan Bond who goes to prison, there are thousands of megabuck execs and porn-heros who are living the high life in their underpants, bathing in champagne and casually breaking laws of both God and man. These people may have enemies - they also have pantloads of cast to protect them.
vs 6
They really do say such things, too. But mostly in their heads. They think they're invincible.
vs 7
I will point out that not everyone who has a wad of cash large enough to beat whales to death is a lying prick. But I will concede the point that enough of them are that it's easy to make the stereotype.
I guess I should also point out that it's not just big dollar white collar corporate thugs that David is trashing here - anyone who has wicked schemes, and they seem to be successful, fits in here. So someone who uses intimidation and fear to get ahead in life, even if their life is still mid-level mediocrity, is successful in using bastard-coated bastard schemes to succeed where others try to be, well, normal.
vs 8-9
Marx would say that the only way to make money, really, is to exploit people. If everyone was paid for the true value they added to their finished product, then the workers would control the means of production. While I'm not a grey-overcoat wearing drugged-out peacenik commie, I will pay that some exploit more than others in this way.
But of course, back in David's time, his enemies really did murder and kidnap people. Terrorists and freedom fighters still do this stuff today. David's point is that their victims are innocent. And yet, regardless of their wicked actions and the innocent people's innocence, this stuff continues to happen.
vs 1
A question asked not only by the unbeliever, or the weak of faith - this is being asked by David! The wording suggests that it is God who disappears when trouble comes, but of course we know that to be untrue.
vs 2
Anyone who has eyes and is alive has seen this happen. And that is frustrating and challenging - why does God allow people so wicked, who pick on the weak, to survive?
vs 3
Not only do they wail on the weak, but they also revile God directly! Surely worthy of some smiting. I've felt that way about certain people who write books about atheism *ahem*.
vs 4
You can take this both ways, of course - I mean, in anyone's thoughts, God is so big that he fills up everything and there is yet still more of him to consider! But I think David means it the other way - their minds are so full of themselves and other unimportant guff that there isn't even the smallest window for God.
vs 5
For every Enron executive that rides his business into the ground at the cost of millions of dollars to investors everywhere, for every Alan Bond who goes to prison, there are thousands of megabuck execs and porn-heros who are living the high life in their underpants, bathing in champagne and casually breaking laws of both God and man. These people may have enemies - they also have pantloads of cast to protect them.
vs 6
They really do say such things, too. But mostly in their heads. They think they're invincible.
vs 7
I will point out that not everyone who has a wad of cash large enough to beat whales to death is a lying prick. But I will concede the point that enough of them are that it's easy to make the stereotype.
I guess I should also point out that it's not just big dollar white collar corporate thugs that David is trashing here - anyone who has wicked schemes, and they seem to be successful, fits in here. So someone who uses intimidation and fear to get ahead in life, even if their life is still mid-level mediocrity, is successful in using bastard-coated bastard schemes to succeed where others try to be, well, normal.
vs 8-9
Marx would say that the only way to make money, really, is to exploit people. If everyone was paid for the true value they added to their finished product, then the workers would control the means of production. While I'm not a grey-overcoat wearing drugged-out peacenik commie, I will pay that some exploit more than others in this way.
But of course, back in David's time, his enemies really did murder and kidnap people. Terrorists and freedom fighters still do this stuff today. David's point is that their victims are innocent. And yet, regardless of their wicked actions and the innocent people's innocence, this stuff continues to happen.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Psalm 9
vs 11
What has he done, exactly? I would think that the usage of the term 'Zion' would refer to the whole placement of Israel in the promised land with a godly king and a capital in Jerusalem.
vs 12
The proclamation to the nations, however, does not seem at this stage to be one of repentance and love. It seems more that they are to remind the nations that God will avenge the blood of Israel they have spilled.
vs 13
Even now David feels the pressure of his enemies. With David, though, it's hard to tell who he means when he says enemies. This time, I think he's talking about rival nations. We often think David had it easy in his battles just because he won. But he had enemies that would go on the warpath against him. It can't have been easy. His own life would have been regularly at stake.
vs 14
I think what David is saying is that if he is victorious, then his victories point obviously to God, and God's saving of him from out of heavy odds and so on.
vs 15
Again the nations feature large. The language is similar to psalm 7, suggesting that the nations have ignored God and therefore have sown their own destruction.
vs 16
What a statement - that God is known, not for his love, compassion or mercy, but by his acts of justice. Every time the wicked are foiled, that is God being shown.
vs 17
It's harsh, but true. Of course, the righteous die too. But David makes it clear that forgetting God is at fault here.
vs 18
So although the nations might foolishly forget God, even as he continually punishes the wicked, God never forgets the oppressed and needy. He is their hope, so it never fails.
vs 19
Again, David calls for God to arise in judgement against his enemies. Powerful stuff.
vs 20
What a statement! David is wishing terror on them. He's a psalm terrorist! Wanting God to go strike terror at them so they know he is powerful and that they are only mortals. I don't know if I have the stamina or the theology to be a prayer terrorist.
What has he done, exactly? I would think that the usage of the term 'Zion' would refer to the whole placement of Israel in the promised land with a godly king and a capital in Jerusalem.
vs 12
The proclamation to the nations, however, does not seem at this stage to be one of repentance and love. It seems more that they are to remind the nations that God will avenge the blood of Israel they have spilled.
vs 13
Even now David feels the pressure of his enemies. With David, though, it's hard to tell who he means when he says enemies. This time, I think he's talking about rival nations. We often think David had it easy in his battles just because he won. But he had enemies that would go on the warpath against him. It can't have been easy. His own life would have been regularly at stake.
vs 14
I think what David is saying is that if he is victorious, then his victories point obviously to God, and God's saving of him from out of heavy odds and so on.
vs 15
Again the nations feature large. The language is similar to psalm 7, suggesting that the nations have ignored God and therefore have sown their own destruction.
vs 16
What a statement - that God is known, not for his love, compassion or mercy, but by his acts of justice. Every time the wicked are foiled, that is God being shown.
vs 17
It's harsh, but true. Of course, the righteous die too. But David makes it clear that forgetting God is at fault here.
vs 18
So although the nations might foolishly forget God, even as he continually punishes the wicked, God never forgets the oppressed and needy. He is their hope, so it never fails.
vs 19
Again, David calls for God to arise in judgement against his enemies. Powerful stuff.
vs 20
What a statement! David is wishing terror on them. He's a psalm terrorist! Wanting God to go strike terror at them so they know he is powerful and that they are only mortals. I don't know if I have the stamina or the theology to be a prayer terrorist.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Psalm 9
vs 1
I wonder who David actually told of all God's wonderful deeds? I guess as king he probably entertained a few foreign dignitaries and the like. You know, when he wasn't killing them.
vs 2
For a tune called "Death of the Son", I think David's picked some pretty cheery words. His praises, clearly, go to God, and his gladness and joy come from God. So far, this is because of God's wonderful deeds, although not yet any in particular.
vs 3
The defeat of the enemies of Israel, which was promised by God, was fulfilled under David. It wasn't easy though - which I am sure made it all the more praiseworthy when it finally happened.
vs 4
In David's eyes, God has judged justly, upholding David and his cause as king as righteous. And, pretty much, he was.
vs 5
While the first half of this is true - many nations did fall under the feet of Israel's armies, the second half is a little poetic - I mean, we still know their names. They're recorded in the Bible. This could also mean, though, that God has turned his back on these other nations - that God's judgement of them was one of finality. Not sure how much I'd agree with that. I think it's more poetic.
vs 6
Again, if their memory has perished, how does David know about them? Interestingly, I wonder if this could be a use of the prophetic perfect tense... apparently sometimes in Hebrew they write prophetic stuff about the future in the past tense, because they are so sure it's going to happen.
Apart from that, look at what David is praising God for - being a God of justice! For judging those who are wicked. We want God to bring the wicked to salvation, but not all will come. So God must judge them, and he should be praised for that.
vs 7
God has put himself in the position of judge, because he is the one who can do it justly and righteously. So he is prepared to do it.
vs 8
Here's the point about righteousness and equity being why God is a good judge.
vs 9
I don't know that we also see this as the role of a good judge, but David certainly does - the righteous judge must be especially attuned to the needs of the oppressed. Often those oppressed by powerful people have no other recourse bar legal. A judge must be aware so as not to allow such oppression to become institutionalised through lack of his action.
God is indeed that - even in times of trouble, he can be relied upon like the strong walls of a fortress. Because remember - you don't really rely on the strong walls of the fortress unless the times are troubled.
vs 10
What a strong verse. God never forsakes those who seek him. David knew the truth of that all too well, and he lived it out. You can really tell when someone has that kind of faith in God.
I wonder who David actually told of all God's wonderful deeds? I guess as king he probably entertained a few foreign dignitaries and the like. You know, when he wasn't killing them.
vs 2
For a tune called "Death of the Son", I think David's picked some pretty cheery words. His praises, clearly, go to God, and his gladness and joy come from God. So far, this is because of God's wonderful deeds, although not yet any in particular.
vs 3
The defeat of the enemies of Israel, which was promised by God, was fulfilled under David. It wasn't easy though - which I am sure made it all the more praiseworthy when it finally happened.
vs 4
In David's eyes, God has judged justly, upholding David and his cause as king as righteous. And, pretty much, he was.
vs 5
While the first half of this is true - many nations did fall under the feet of Israel's armies, the second half is a little poetic - I mean, we still know their names. They're recorded in the Bible. This could also mean, though, that God has turned his back on these other nations - that God's judgement of them was one of finality. Not sure how much I'd agree with that. I think it's more poetic.
vs 6
Again, if their memory has perished, how does David know about them? Interestingly, I wonder if this could be a use of the prophetic perfect tense... apparently sometimes in Hebrew they write prophetic stuff about the future in the past tense, because they are so sure it's going to happen.
Apart from that, look at what David is praising God for - being a God of justice! For judging those who are wicked. We want God to bring the wicked to salvation, but not all will come. So God must judge them, and he should be praised for that.
vs 7
God has put himself in the position of judge, because he is the one who can do it justly and righteously. So he is prepared to do it.
vs 8
Here's the point about righteousness and equity being why God is a good judge.
vs 9
I don't know that we also see this as the role of a good judge, but David certainly does - the righteous judge must be especially attuned to the needs of the oppressed. Often those oppressed by powerful people have no other recourse bar legal. A judge must be aware so as not to allow such oppression to become institutionalised through lack of his action.
God is indeed that - even in times of trouble, he can be relied upon like the strong walls of a fortress. Because remember - you don't really rely on the strong walls of the fortress unless the times are troubled.
vs 10
What a strong verse. God never forsakes those who seek him. David knew the truth of that all too well, and he lived it out. You can really tell when someone has that kind of faith in God.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Psalm 8
vs 1
Another of David's best sellers.
God's name (that is, his authority) demands recognition as being dignified and grand. This authority is backed up by a whole bunch of things in this psalm. First of all, he has set out his glory above even the heavens. Whether this just means sky and space, or the spiritual place of heaven, doesn't really matter. It is so out of the reach of humanity, that it is very grand.
vs 2
David shows here that it is not through strong supporters that God gets his power - even if only children and infants praise God, his strength against his enemies is mighty.
vs 3-4
Seems pretty clear to me that the celestial bodies are at discussion here, moon, stars etc. These strike such awe into David, that he cannot understand the care and attention that God would lavish on humanity.
The TNIV translates out the term "son of man", which of course is important to Hebrews chapter 1.
vs 5
Again, the TNIV sees this as referring to humanity in plural, the singular being relegated to footnotes. If you find this challenging, then the idea that David meant something perhaps different to the interpretation that the author of Hebrews gets from Psalm 8, and that yet both are correct, might be the cause. All comes down to what you think 'son of man' means - certainly I think it is fair to translate it as 'human beings', as it was used in that function elsewhere. If there is a strong textual tradition of a plural form, then you can see why the TNIV would also continue to translate it as 'them'.
And is it not true, after all, that humanity is lower than the heavenly beings (or God), but that they have been crowned with glory and honour because of the mindfulness of God for them?
vs 6-8
This reaches back to God's command to mankind in Genesis. God has indeed given this authority to all people.
vs 9
David repeats the beginning again for poetic effect. This also helps to remind us - this psalm isn't actually about people or humanity - it's about God and how great God is. His affection for his creation, especially humans, is cause for joy, but it also reminds us of the might and majesty of God.
Another of David's best sellers.
God's name (that is, his authority) demands recognition as being dignified and grand. This authority is backed up by a whole bunch of things in this psalm. First of all, he has set out his glory above even the heavens. Whether this just means sky and space, or the spiritual place of heaven, doesn't really matter. It is so out of the reach of humanity, that it is very grand.
vs 2
David shows here that it is not through strong supporters that God gets his power - even if only children and infants praise God, his strength against his enemies is mighty.
vs 3-4
Seems pretty clear to me that the celestial bodies are at discussion here, moon, stars etc. These strike such awe into David, that he cannot understand the care and attention that God would lavish on humanity.
The TNIV translates out the term "son of man", which of course is important to Hebrews chapter 1.
vs 5
Again, the TNIV sees this as referring to humanity in plural, the singular being relegated to footnotes. If you find this challenging, then the idea that David meant something perhaps different to the interpretation that the author of Hebrews gets from Psalm 8, and that yet both are correct, might be the cause. All comes down to what you think 'son of man' means - certainly I think it is fair to translate it as 'human beings', as it was used in that function elsewhere. If there is a strong textual tradition of a plural form, then you can see why the TNIV would also continue to translate it as 'them'.
And is it not true, after all, that humanity is lower than the heavenly beings (or God), but that they have been crowned with glory and honour because of the mindfulness of God for them?
vs 6-8
This reaches back to God's command to mankind in Genesis. God has indeed given this authority to all people.
vs 9
David repeats the beginning again for poetic effect. This also helps to remind us - this psalm isn't actually about people or humanity - it's about God and how great God is. His affection for his creation, especially humans, is cause for joy, but it also reminds us of the might and majesty of God.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Psalm 7
vs 9
Perhaps David meant this in a specific way regarding his circumstances. But you read it and tell me you don't think of heaven. That's the only way I can think of that God can end all violence and secure the righteous.
Note that David links this activity with God's character of being able to probe the mind and the heart. These are characteristics of judgement, that God will use to judge justly. God is the only person we can trust to judge completely justly, and that only at the end of days.
vs 10
Not that he always does, not here anyway. But that is again part of the character of God - he saves the upright, not the wicked. Of course, as people on the other side of the cross, we tend to see it as "he saves the wicked, and leaves those who think they are upright to realise how wrong they are", because that was Jesus' attitude. And of course, that is right. But David comes from a different time, where those who are upright are upright because of their relationship with God, not the other way round. And to David, the only protection worth having, as an upright person with a relationship with God, is God himself.
vs 11
Wow.
I don't know how often I've heard this verse. I don't know if I've ever heard it before. But it's absolutely true. God's wrath is just as much a part of his character, just as much a part of his voice as his love. And who can argue with his wrath, for he is a righteous judge!
vs 12
Either way you read this verse, it's bad news. These are weapons of war, being prepared for use against the wicked. Just think of all those oppressed and persecuted Christians - those who persecute them are in this position - the sword is being sharpened, the bow is being strung.
vs 13
My meagre understanding of old weaponry is that flaming arrows would have been used in sieges - setting stuff on fire is great for sieges. Not so good against warriors. So God is not just preparing a skirmish - he will go and siege the strongholds of those who oppose him. It's a campaign.
vs 14
What a powerful picture. Evil leads only to trouble and disillusionment. The thing about delusions, though, is that they can be powerful enough to lead people astray their whole lives, and they will ignore the sharpening of the sword because of it. Evil covers people's eyes to the reality of judgement.
vs 15
Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone who digs a hole. However, if you think about it logically, if you were on your own, without help, eventually you would dig a hole so deep you couldn't climb out again. Yes, ladders etc, I understand.
The point David is making is that if you dig a hole of trouble, you're only digging it for yourself in the end.
vs 16
It's like "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" - causing trouble eventually ends up causing trouble for you. Living by violence eventually brings violent responses. If you march out with an army, eventually someone's going to march out and meet you with an army.
This is still true today. If you act in a violent manner to everything, eventually the police are going to be forced to use violence on you. And that is if someone else just doesn't respond that way first.
vs 17
God can't dig a hole so deep that he can't get out. God doesn't cause trouble. Everything God does is perfect, not troublesome.
However, God does use violence. I think the Old Testament does differentiate between righteous violence and evil violence, but it's still a curly one. I mean, what's the definition of violence? Is spanking a child violence? It can have the same effect, can't it - of the child trying to respond with violence, even though it is hopelessly overpowered. God surely has allowed violence to happen to people, and had them rail against him violently. But railing against God is like railing against your parent when you're 18 months old - you've got no chance. Perhaps the difference is that God is able to use violence judiciously, whereas we are far more blunt instruments.
Regardless, David does not give thanks to God for his violence, but for his righteousness. That is what causes him to sing praises.
Perhaps David meant this in a specific way regarding his circumstances. But you read it and tell me you don't think of heaven. That's the only way I can think of that God can end all violence and secure the righteous.
Note that David links this activity with God's character of being able to probe the mind and the heart. These are characteristics of judgement, that God will use to judge justly. God is the only person we can trust to judge completely justly, and that only at the end of days.
vs 10
Not that he always does, not here anyway. But that is again part of the character of God - he saves the upright, not the wicked. Of course, as people on the other side of the cross, we tend to see it as "he saves the wicked, and leaves those who think they are upright to realise how wrong they are", because that was Jesus' attitude. And of course, that is right. But David comes from a different time, where those who are upright are upright because of their relationship with God, not the other way round. And to David, the only protection worth having, as an upright person with a relationship with God, is God himself.
vs 11
Wow.
I don't know how often I've heard this verse. I don't know if I've ever heard it before. But it's absolutely true. God's wrath is just as much a part of his character, just as much a part of his voice as his love. And who can argue with his wrath, for he is a righteous judge!
vs 12
Either way you read this verse, it's bad news. These are weapons of war, being prepared for use against the wicked. Just think of all those oppressed and persecuted Christians - those who persecute them are in this position - the sword is being sharpened, the bow is being strung.
vs 13
My meagre understanding of old weaponry is that flaming arrows would have been used in sieges - setting stuff on fire is great for sieges. Not so good against warriors. So God is not just preparing a skirmish - he will go and siege the strongholds of those who oppose him. It's a campaign.
vs 14
What a powerful picture. Evil leads only to trouble and disillusionment. The thing about delusions, though, is that they can be powerful enough to lead people astray their whole lives, and they will ignore the sharpening of the sword because of it. Evil covers people's eyes to the reality of judgement.
vs 15
Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone who digs a hole. However, if you think about it logically, if you were on your own, without help, eventually you would dig a hole so deep you couldn't climb out again. Yes, ladders etc, I understand.
The point David is making is that if you dig a hole of trouble, you're only digging it for yourself in the end.
vs 16
It's like "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" - causing trouble eventually ends up causing trouble for you. Living by violence eventually brings violent responses. If you march out with an army, eventually someone's going to march out and meet you with an army.
This is still true today. If you act in a violent manner to everything, eventually the police are going to be forced to use violence on you. And that is if someone else just doesn't respond that way first.
vs 17
God can't dig a hole so deep that he can't get out. God doesn't cause trouble. Everything God does is perfect, not troublesome.
However, God does use violence. I think the Old Testament does differentiate between righteous violence and evil violence, but it's still a curly one. I mean, what's the definition of violence? Is spanking a child violence? It can have the same effect, can't it - of the child trying to respond with violence, even though it is hopelessly overpowered. God surely has allowed violence to happen to people, and had them rail against him violently. But railing against God is like railing against your parent when you're 18 months old - you've got no chance. Perhaps the difference is that God is able to use violence judiciously, whereas we are far more blunt instruments.
Regardless, David does not give thanks to God for his violence, but for his righteousness. That is what causes him to sing praises.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Psalm 7
vs 1
The intro to this psalm tells us it's about a person - Cush the Benjaminite. Unfortunately he is mentioned nowhere else, so all we know about him is contained in this Psalm.
You might think that this first verse makes it obvious the stage of life that David is either in, or reflecting on as he sings - it is a time of pursuit by his enemies, and so that narrows it down to either when Saul was out to kill him, or when Absalom was out to get him. But remember, this psalm is about Cush, the Benjaminite. So let's see what the psalm says.
David is seeking God's deliverance from this threat presented by Cush. He claims refuge in God, acknowledging that he needs the help.
vs 2
His enemies want him dead, and he acknowledges that if God doesn't help him, all is lost.
vs 3
David begins to list those things for which it would be just that he suffers the wrath of his enemies, if they were true. He hasn't actually said what would be deserving yet, but I assume that the following were accusations being made about him. His point is that he is not guilty, or else he wouldn't be asking for help.
vs 4
Interesting verse. The (T)NIV translates the second part to mean "or if I robbed my enemy without a cause to do so", like excessive looting. But the NASB makes it sound more like "or if I robbed someone who had no cause to be my enemy", like it's ok to rob enemies. The KJV oddly says "(Yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy)", which sounds to me like it is contradicting the first clause, so it's like "if I have given evil to those who are my allies (when actually, I have delivered those who are, for no good reason, my enemies)" which sounds like a defense of his actions.
In any case, it is clear the accusations that have been made against David involve treatment of allies like enemies, and perhaps enemies like enemies. Were these the accusations that Cush the Benjaminite made against David?
vs 5
David thinks that were these accusations true, he would deserve such a harsh judgement. Is this what is being called for against him? Or is it just what they would do anyway? Or is this perhaps how David feels about such people?
vs 6
David actually calls God to anger against his foes. That is a bold call. David wants justice, and God is of course angry about injustice, so it seems reasonable.
vs 7
I believe peoples would be a plural of the word "people or nation", so this verse is actually talking about the 'assembled nations' gathering around God's throne, while he rules over all of them. David's focus is indeed very wide.
vs 8
David knows that God is going to judge all the nations. Perhaps he is referring here to an idea that God is going to judge the nations through their rulers, and that David, as king of Israel, will be found righteous, whereas other kingdoms would be found worthy of judgement.
The intro to this psalm tells us it's about a person - Cush the Benjaminite. Unfortunately he is mentioned nowhere else, so all we know about him is contained in this Psalm.
You might think that this first verse makes it obvious the stage of life that David is either in, or reflecting on as he sings - it is a time of pursuit by his enemies, and so that narrows it down to either when Saul was out to kill him, or when Absalom was out to get him. But remember, this psalm is about Cush, the Benjaminite. So let's see what the psalm says.
David is seeking God's deliverance from this threat presented by Cush. He claims refuge in God, acknowledging that he needs the help.
vs 2
His enemies want him dead, and he acknowledges that if God doesn't help him, all is lost.
vs 3
David begins to list those things for which it would be just that he suffers the wrath of his enemies, if they were true. He hasn't actually said what would be deserving yet, but I assume that the following were accusations being made about him. His point is that he is not guilty, or else he wouldn't be asking for help.
vs 4
Interesting verse. The (T)NIV translates the second part to mean "or if I robbed my enemy without a cause to do so", like excessive looting. But the NASB makes it sound more like "or if I robbed someone who had no cause to be my enemy", like it's ok to rob enemies. The KJV oddly says "(Yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy)", which sounds to me like it is contradicting the first clause, so it's like "if I have given evil to those who are my allies (when actually, I have delivered those who are, for no good reason, my enemies)" which sounds like a defense of his actions.
In any case, it is clear the accusations that have been made against David involve treatment of allies like enemies, and perhaps enemies like enemies. Were these the accusations that Cush the Benjaminite made against David?
vs 5
David thinks that were these accusations true, he would deserve such a harsh judgement. Is this what is being called for against him? Or is it just what they would do anyway? Or is this perhaps how David feels about such people?
vs 6
David actually calls God to anger against his foes. That is a bold call. David wants justice, and God is of course angry about injustice, so it seems reasonable.
vs 7
I believe peoples would be a plural of the word "people or nation", so this verse is actually talking about the 'assembled nations' gathering around God's throne, while he rules over all of them. David's focus is indeed very wide.
vs 8
David knows that God is going to judge all the nations. Perhaps he is referring here to an idea that God is going to judge the nations through their rulers, and that David, as king of Israel, will be found righteous, whereas other kingdoms would be found worthy of judgement.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Acts chapter 28
vs 21
I guess if we assume that a letter would have taken as long to get to Rome as Paul did, then it's of little surprise that they haven't heard. Or perhaps The Jerusalem Jews think that the Roman Jews are just too far away and won't be so passionate as them about Paul.
vs 22
So Paul is given an open invitation to talk about the Way, because they have heard about it (in a negative way), but they are keen to consider his viewpoint. So that is a great opportunity for him.
vs 23
Of course, he was under house arrest, so they had to come to him. But it seems they did, and he let them have it!
vs 24
Results were mixed, which is to be expected.
vs 25-29
I have to look at these verses in one big chunk, partly because I usually do that with Bible quotes, but also because of the way Luke has written verse 25. See, Paul said something that made them disagree among themselves and eventually leave his house. Have you noticed that Paul's message to the Jews has been getting progressively more and more judgemental through Acts? I think it has.
The verse Paul chooses for these Jews is an intictment which Jesus also used. It speaks of God accepting the closed-off hearts and ears and eyes of the Jews, and Paul inteprets it as meaning that just as the Jews have neglected God's new gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gentiles will hear it, and actually listen and accept it!
30-31
Oh how I have longed to finally get to these verses. Of course, they are not at all satisfying. What happens to Paul? Does he ever get to meet Caesar? What about Peter? And the other Apostles? The truth is that Acts isn't about them. It's about the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. In a way, Acts could continue to be written today, about anywhere that Jesus continues to powerfully work and reach out.
And so that is Luke's end focus - Paul was in Rome for two years, and in those years he always boldly proclaimed Christ. From a human standpoint, we want to know results. But they are secondary - it is Christian obedience to proclaim the Kingdom with boldness. We are to leave the results up to God.
I guess if we assume that a letter would have taken as long to get to Rome as Paul did, then it's of little surprise that they haven't heard. Or perhaps The Jerusalem Jews think that the Roman Jews are just too far away and won't be so passionate as them about Paul.
vs 22
So Paul is given an open invitation to talk about the Way, because they have heard about it (in a negative way), but they are keen to consider his viewpoint. So that is a great opportunity for him.
vs 23
Of course, he was under house arrest, so they had to come to him. But it seems they did, and he let them have it!
vs 24
Results were mixed, which is to be expected.
vs 25-29
I have to look at these verses in one big chunk, partly because I usually do that with Bible quotes, but also because of the way Luke has written verse 25. See, Paul said something that made them disagree among themselves and eventually leave his house. Have you noticed that Paul's message to the Jews has been getting progressively more and more judgemental through Acts? I think it has.
The verse Paul chooses for these Jews is an intictment which Jesus also used. It speaks of God accepting the closed-off hearts and ears and eyes of the Jews, and Paul inteprets it as meaning that just as the Jews have neglected God's new gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gentiles will hear it, and actually listen and accept it!
30-31
Oh how I have longed to finally get to these verses. Of course, they are not at all satisfying. What happens to Paul? Does he ever get to meet Caesar? What about Peter? And the other Apostles? The truth is that Acts isn't about them. It's about the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. In a way, Acts could continue to be written today, about anywhere that Jesus continues to powerfully work and reach out.
And so that is Luke's end focus - Paul was in Rome for two years, and in those years he always boldly proclaimed Christ. From a human standpoint, we want to know results. But they are secondary - it is Christian obedience to proclaim the Kingdom with boldness. We are to leave the results up to God.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Acts chapter 28
vs 11
So there was another ship that had thought twice about sailing during the winter storms, but this one had wisely decided to winter in a port, rather than braving the seas. I don't know who Castor and Pollux are. Apparently they are the sons of Zeus, and patrons of sailors and ships, so they'd be a popular choice for a boat.
vs 12
Woo. Back to the travel itinerary, although this time it's a prison travel itinerary.
vs 13
The wording sounds positive, so I'll assume a south wind was good.
vs 14
This would tend to suggest that the incarceration which Paul was under during travel was not as harsh as could originally be believed, with chains and whatnot. But then you never know. They might have put him in chains, but let him tool about the town in them - the chains would mark him out as a criminal after all.
And now, with very little aplomb, Luke announces that Rome has been reached.
vs 15
Just think of Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he states he longs to visit them. I would assume that was written before this. Paul finally does get to visit, although not in the way he probably intended. But he still finds their presence, and their willingness to come to him and greet him, a great encouragement.
vs 16
They assigned a soldier, full time, to live in his house with him. That's surprising to us, but human capital has never been worth as much as it is in the western world now.
vs 17
Paul is taking the bull by the horns, and getting in contact with the Jewish religious leaders of Rome! Defending himself before them even before his case gets heard anywhere else.
He begins with his arrest by the Jews.
vs 18
He then points out that the Romans couldn't find anything worth of death that Paul had done (which sounds a lot like Christ - really, Agrippa couldn't find anything worth keeping Paul in prison for!).
vs 19
I guess Paul is saying here that he could have made a counter-charge against the Jewish leaders, but rather than do that, he is prepared to appeal to Caesar himself to be declared either fit to be released or worthy of death.
vs 20
So surely, if he is there in his own house, and talking about chains, he isn't being metaphorical. Which says to me that even though he was allowed to live in his own house, he still had a chain to remind him he was a prisoner.
So there was another ship that had thought twice about sailing during the winter storms, but this one had wisely decided to winter in a port, rather than braving the seas. I don't know who Castor and Pollux are. Apparently they are the sons of Zeus, and patrons of sailors and ships, so they'd be a popular choice for a boat.
vs 12
Woo. Back to the travel itinerary, although this time it's a prison travel itinerary.
vs 13
The wording sounds positive, so I'll assume a south wind was good.
vs 14
This would tend to suggest that the incarceration which Paul was under during travel was not as harsh as could originally be believed, with chains and whatnot. But then you never know. They might have put him in chains, but let him tool about the town in them - the chains would mark him out as a criminal after all.
And now, with very little aplomb, Luke announces that Rome has been reached.
vs 15
Just think of Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he states he longs to visit them. I would assume that was written before this. Paul finally does get to visit, although not in the way he probably intended. But he still finds their presence, and their willingness to come to him and greet him, a great encouragement.
vs 16
They assigned a soldier, full time, to live in his house with him. That's surprising to us, but human capital has never been worth as much as it is in the western world now.
vs 17
Paul is taking the bull by the horns, and getting in contact with the Jewish religious leaders of Rome! Defending himself before them even before his case gets heard anywhere else.
He begins with his arrest by the Jews.
vs 18
He then points out that the Romans couldn't find anything worth of death that Paul had done (which sounds a lot like Christ - really, Agrippa couldn't find anything worth keeping Paul in prison for!).
vs 19
I guess Paul is saying here that he could have made a counter-charge against the Jewish leaders, but rather than do that, he is prepared to appeal to Caesar himself to be declared either fit to be released or worthy of death.
vs 20
So surely, if he is there in his own house, and talking about chains, he isn't being metaphorical. Which says to me that even though he was allowed to live in his own house, he still had a chain to remind him he was a prisoner.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Acts chapter 28
vs 1
There is no way that I feel this is the last chapter of Acts. These last few chapters describing Paul's visit to Jerusalem and his imprisonment have seemed to be building up to something. What they actually build up to is quite odd.
They landed on Malta! Lovely holiday destination.
vs 2
I bet they still do that. What good fortune that they landed somewhere with friendly natives! God knows how to have it going on.
vs 3
Ouch! And well, in those days, that would pretty much signal "You're dead".
vs 4
Seems like fairly reasonable logic, doesn't it? If someone escapes one tragedy only to come across another, then you think they had it coming. We may not have the culture of 2000 years ago, but people still believe (wrongly) in this idea that fate deals you what you deserve.
vs 5
Because, of course, God has more use for him than that.
vs 6
So surviving one thing and falling to the next makes you a murderer - but surviving two things in a row makes you a god. The sense of proportion is a little whacked out methinks.
vs 7
What, all of them? I mean, there was 276 of them on that boat. Did he welcome them all? I guess none of them had anywhere to go. Very generous man, in that case.
vs 8
So Paul paid his rent by healing the sick father. And also continues to show how cool God is.
vs 9
Which is unsurprising. What is surprising is that they actually were all cured. I wonder if Malta has been Christian ever since, or something like that. That would be a cool story.
vs 10
So basically, because of Paul, they had good lodgings, were honoured by the locals, and were supplied and on their way. And not only did all this happen, but God used his shipwreck to let Paul visit a place he'd never been - Malta. I wonder if he ever went back?
There is no way that I feel this is the last chapter of Acts. These last few chapters describing Paul's visit to Jerusalem and his imprisonment have seemed to be building up to something. What they actually build up to is quite odd.
They landed on Malta! Lovely holiday destination.
vs 2
I bet they still do that. What good fortune that they landed somewhere with friendly natives! God knows how to have it going on.
vs 3
Ouch! And well, in those days, that would pretty much signal "You're dead".
vs 4
Seems like fairly reasonable logic, doesn't it? If someone escapes one tragedy only to come across another, then you think they had it coming. We may not have the culture of 2000 years ago, but people still believe (wrongly) in this idea that fate deals you what you deserve.
vs 5
Because, of course, God has more use for him than that.
vs 6
So surviving one thing and falling to the next makes you a murderer - but surviving two things in a row makes you a god. The sense of proportion is a little whacked out methinks.
vs 7
What, all of them? I mean, there was 276 of them on that boat. Did he welcome them all? I guess none of them had anywhere to go. Very generous man, in that case.
vs 8
So Paul paid his rent by healing the sick father. And also continues to show how cool God is.
vs 9
Which is unsurprising. What is surprising is that they actually were all cured. I wonder if Malta has been Christian ever since, or something like that. That would be a cool story.
vs 10
So basically, because of Paul, they had good lodgings, were honoured by the locals, and were supplied and on their way. And not only did all this happen, but God used his shipwreck to let Paul visit a place he'd never been - Malta. I wonder if he ever went back?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Acts chapter 27
vs 34
Their lack of eating has been from being panic stricken - Paul is now trying to tell them that they don't need to panic, that they are going to be fine, but they need to eat.
Ok, so here's the rub - Paul says "God is going to miraculously save you from this shipwreck so that you are not harmed. But if you don't eat, you won't survive." Can anyone else see the paradox? God will work a miracle for a shipwreck, but you've still gotta eat.
vs 35
Well, if this isn't a direct comparison to the last supper, I don't know what is.
vs 36
That they did eat shows that Paul's words and positive attitude were having an impact. But besides - if they were all going to die, why not eat first?
vs 37
Wow. It's a pretty big boat. You don't really get that impression until now. Well, I didn't. But 276 is huge. I don't know how many a Manly Ferry can carry, but I think it'd be hard pressed with that many people.
vs 38
I'm not sure what's happening here. If everyone really was sure that they were going to wreck the ship, then who throw the grain overboard? I guess because it was good sailing practice. If God has a plan that is a bit out of the ordinary, I guess it is still a good idea to do the best practice that you have at hand.
vs 39
Sounds risky to me. Note that daylight came (for those sailors praying for it?).
vs 40
All sounds very exciting. I guess they want the boat as light as possible so that they can wreck as close to land as they can?
vs 41
Didn't work. Now they're still away from shore, but with no boat to get them there, no lifeboat either!
vs 42
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Especially for prisoners who haven't been found guilty yet! Getting on the wrong side of the law is really quite nasty.
vs 43
How far are you going to get, honestly? I mean, are you going to take the risk of swimming to anywhere further than the closest part of dry land after all you've been through with storms and stuff? I think not.
vs 44
So it was that, even with all these odd events, not a single person died. 276 people, some of whom couldn't swim, were on a boat that got haxoored on a sandbar, some had to paddle to safety on bits of boat, and yet all made it. I would say God's providence is fairly obvious there.
Their lack of eating has been from being panic stricken - Paul is now trying to tell them that they don't need to panic, that they are going to be fine, but they need to eat.
Ok, so here's the rub - Paul says "God is going to miraculously save you from this shipwreck so that you are not harmed. But if you don't eat, you won't survive." Can anyone else see the paradox? God will work a miracle for a shipwreck, but you've still gotta eat.
vs 35
Well, if this isn't a direct comparison to the last supper, I don't know what is.
vs 36
That they did eat shows that Paul's words and positive attitude were having an impact. But besides - if they were all going to die, why not eat first?
vs 37
Wow. It's a pretty big boat. You don't really get that impression until now. Well, I didn't. But 276 is huge. I don't know how many a Manly Ferry can carry, but I think it'd be hard pressed with that many people.
vs 38
I'm not sure what's happening here. If everyone really was sure that they were going to wreck the ship, then who throw the grain overboard? I guess because it was good sailing practice. If God has a plan that is a bit out of the ordinary, I guess it is still a good idea to do the best practice that you have at hand.
vs 39
Sounds risky to me. Note that daylight came (for those sailors praying for it?).
vs 40
All sounds very exciting. I guess they want the boat as light as possible so that they can wreck as close to land as they can?
vs 41
Didn't work. Now they're still away from shore, but with no boat to get them there, no lifeboat either!
vs 42
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Especially for prisoners who haven't been found guilty yet! Getting on the wrong side of the law is really quite nasty.
vs 43
How far are you going to get, honestly? I mean, are you going to take the risk of swimming to anywhere further than the closest part of dry land after all you've been through with storms and stuff? I think not.
vs 44
So it was that, even with all these odd events, not a single person died. 276 people, some of whom couldn't swim, were on a boat that got haxoored on a sandbar, some had to paddle to safety on bits of boat, and yet all made it. I would say God's providence is fairly obvious there.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Acts chapter 27
vs 23
Just before we discuss what the angel said exactly, I want to point out at this stage that the people on the boat are not of the average opinion of modern people when presented with this statement. Just imagine if you were on a Manly ferry, and you said, "Don't worry - no one here's going to die, although the ferry is going to be destroyed. I saw an angely last night which stood beside my bed..." You wouldn't get to verse 24 before they'd turfed you over the side as a loony.
vs 24
I must say, that is a pretty gracious God. Imagine knowing as a non-Christian how many times you had been graciously overlooked for catastrophe for the sake of your Christian aquaintences, or even Christian strangers. Doesn't even bear thinking about. Although I've got to say that the amount of daily death-defying things we do as a race is pretty incredible. I think cars as a mode of transportation work only by the grace of God.
vs 25
Paul's message is for these non-Christians to keep their courage, because he has faith in his God. Not because they have faith in his God. It's only because of Paul that God is going to keep this boat afloat. For a little while longer.
vs 26
There was a Christian guy who made a "prophecy" concerning the 2007 Federal election, saying that he had been told by God to 'anoint' John Howard as Prime Minister, and Peter Costello as the next Prime Minister.
Ha.
Ha ha ha.
Thing is, he said that this prophecy was "conditional on the people of God voting these anointed ones back in" or some such drivel. Sorry, but when God speaks, things happen regardless of our actions.
I will believe the first person who says to me "An angel spoke to me last night, and said a terrible thing has to happen, but I can tell you so specifically what's going down, and what must happen, that don't worry about it, because it's pretty much out of your hands anyway".
Actually, I probably won't.
vs 27
Ancient sailors had spidey senses.
vs 28
Basically, getting less deep.
vs 29
Which is an interesting thing to pray for, considering its usual daily appearance. But remember, they hadn't seend stars or the sun for days because of the storms. Now all they really want is not to wash up on rocks and die. Who are they praying to, I wonder?
vs 30
Well, whoever they were praying to, they weren't really all that faithful that it was going to happen. Now, don't get me wrong - I am very much a 'Trust in God, but lock your car' type person. I had my prayer theology sorted out by swooping magpies. But there is a difference between praying "God, I hope my car doesn't get stolen - thanks for supplying locks for it" and "God, can you bring out the sun so we don't crash into rocks and die? Oh, this lifeboat? That's nothing, just sort of in case you don't answer my prayers the way I wanted..."
vs 31
Now, why is that? And how did Paul know? Is he talking out of his arse? I don't have the answer to any of these questions, but it's incredible that so many questions can come from such a verse.
Some answers could be "Because they had to have faith in God, and see that it was God alone that was going to save them" (but really, God was going to save Paul no matter what because he had a specific plan for Paul - if those sailors wanted to disobey, why couldn't they?), "Because God told Paul" (Wow, God was really very specific when he sent that angel.) "Yup, Paul is just making it up, on the assumption that he knows why God's doing it this way and how God's got it planned" (Why not? Could be.)
vs 32
Oh well, now they either trust that Paul's God is right, or they all die. If someone did that today, I think we'd call it a suicide cult.
vs 33
Wait - so they had food, but didn't eat it? Perhaps the storm was so fierce that they thought if they ate, they'd just barf it up again anyway. 14 days without food - ergh. Different lifestyle.
Just before we discuss what the angel said exactly, I want to point out at this stage that the people on the boat are not of the average opinion of modern people when presented with this statement. Just imagine if you were on a Manly ferry, and you said, "Don't worry - no one here's going to die, although the ferry is going to be destroyed. I saw an angely last night which stood beside my bed..." You wouldn't get to verse 24 before they'd turfed you over the side as a loony.
vs 24
I must say, that is a pretty gracious God. Imagine knowing as a non-Christian how many times you had been graciously overlooked for catastrophe for the sake of your Christian aquaintences, or even Christian strangers. Doesn't even bear thinking about. Although I've got to say that the amount of daily death-defying things we do as a race is pretty incredible. I think cars as a mode of transportation work only by the grace of God.
vs 25
Paul's message is for these non-Christians to keep their courage, because he has faith in his God. Not because they have faith in his God. It's only because of Paul that God is going to keep this boat afloat. For a little while longer.
vs 26
There was a Christian guy who made a "prophecy" concerning the 2007 Federal election, saying that he had been told by God to 'anoint' John Howard as Prime Minister, and Peter Costello as the next Prime Minister.
Ha.
Ha ha ha.
Thing is, he said that this prophecy was "conditional on the people of God voting these anointed ones back in" or some such drivel. Sorry, but when God speaks, things happen regardless of our actions.
I will believe the first person who says to me "An angel spoke to me last night, and said a terrible thing has to happen, but I can tell you so specifically what's going down, and what must happen, that don't worry about it, because it's pretty much out of your hands anyway".
Actually, I probably won't.
vs 27
Ancient sailors had spidey senses.
vs 28
Basically, getting less deep.
vs 29
Which is an interesting thing to pray for, considering its usual daily appearance. But remember, they hadn't seend stars or the sun for days because of the storms. Now all they really want is not to wash up on rocks and die. Who are they praying to, I wonder?
vs 30
Well, whoever they were praying to, they weren't really all that faithful that it was going to happen. Now, don't get me wrong - I am very much a 'Trust in God, but lock your car' type person. I had my prayer theology sorted out by swooping magpies. But there is a difference between praying "God, I hope my car doesn't get stolen - thanks for supplying locks for it" and "God, can you bring out the sun so we don't crash into rocks and die? Oh, this lifeboat? That's nothing, just sort of in case you don't answer my prayers the way I wanted..."
vs 31
Now, why is that? And how did Paul know? Is he talking out of his arse? I don't have the answer to any of these questions, but it's incredible that so many questions can come from such a verse.
Some answers could be "Because they had to have faith in God, and see that it was God alone that was going to save them" (but really, God was going to save Paul no matter what because he had a specific plan for Paul - if those sailors wanted to disobey, why couldn't they?), "Because God told Paul" (Wow, God was really very specific when he sent that angel.) "Yup, Paul is just making it up, on the assumption that he knows why God's doing it this way and how God's got it planned" (Why not? Could be.)
vs 32
Oh well, now they either trust that Paul's God is right, or they all die. If someone did that today, I think we'd call it a suicide cult.
vs 33
Wait - so they had food, but didn't eat it? Perhaps the storm was so fierce that they thought if they ate, they'd just barf it up again anyway. 14 days without food - ergh. Different lifestyle.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Acts chapter 27
vs 12
I'm glad Luke makes it clear that he means the harbour in Crete, and not the city in America :P
vs 13-20
I'm really unsure how much I can say on these verses. They say a lot about the treacherousness of the weather in the sea around Crete, I'm sure they tell people a lot of historically significant stuff about sailing in the first century (who knew they had life boats?). I guess the basic point of these verses could be summarised in "A huge storm hit. We were all boned."
vs 21
Now, I love Paul, but "I told you so" doesn't strike me as the best thing to open a speech to a bunch of hungry, tired and upset people.
vs 22
Now that is a nice message for everyone whom does not own the ship. Paul changed tac quickly, if you will. Bit of maritime humour there.
I'm glad Luke makes it clear that he means the harbour in Crete, and not the city in America :P
vs 13-20
I'm really unsure how much I can say on these verses. They say a lot about the treacherousness of the weather in the sea around Crete, I'm sure they tell people a lot of historically significant stuff about sailing in the first century (who knew they had life boats?). I guess the basic point of these verses could be summarised in "A huge storm hit. We were all boned."
vs 21
Now, I love Paul, but "I told you so" doesn't strike me as the best thing to open a speech to a bunch of hungry, tired and upset people.
vs 22
Now that is a nice message for everyone whom does not own the ship. Paul changed tac quickly, if you will. Bit of maritime humour there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)