vs 1
Which one would assume they would have heard had he just been a normal man, since news travels in smaller communities. But probably it travelled a little faster and with more energy given his preaching and miracles.
vs 2
Anyone who's ever preached to a church that has about 11 people sitting in it has I'm sure wondered what it would be like to have people crowding around, unable to fit in the door, to hear you speak. That sort of thirst for words happens, but not to your average preacher.
vs 3
No wheelchairs, so he would have had a pretty sedentary life as a rule.
vs 4
Which, apart from the destruction of property, is pretty awesome. These guys are definitely going the extra mile.
vs 5
This has got to be one of the most popular stories of Jesus' miracles, because of this very line. Jesus doesn't heal the guy, he forgives his sins. Now see, if your sin is not against someone, they can't really forgive you. It would be like if you hit your wife, and I forgave you. Doesn't work. So by implication, Jesus is suggesting that either this guy has sinned against him, or that he is God (against whom all sin is targetted, really).
vs 6
Perhaps one of them said something, or whispered it to another. Or perhaps everyone was thinking it, because it's a pretty ballsy thing to say.
vs 7
Asking questions (even in your mind) about why someone is blaspheming is far more powerful in a time when you could be killed for blasphemy. By the way, blasphemy is actually really well defined by the Macquarie Dictionary:
1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. Judaism
a. (in Talmudic law) cursing and reviling the `ineffable name' of the Lord.
b. (in later Hebrew history) the violation of religious law by pronouncing one of the four-letter symbols for God rather than using one of the substitute words.
3. Theology the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behaviour towards anything held sacred.
Seeing as Jesus did not mention any of the names of God (and honestly, in my opinion definitions 2a and 2b are not biblical), I think we can safely say that the religious leaders meant definition 3.
vs 8
Imagine the shock you would get if someone said that to you. Even if it is fairly obvious what you're thinking, most people aren't confident enough to call you on it like that.
vs 9
Now, the answer to that question is triple-edged, and I think Jesus meant it both ways. For a human, it is impossible to say either. For God, it is easy to say both. For a person pretending to be God, it is easier to say "Your sins are forgiven" than "Get up and walk", since the result is visible in one and not the other (arguably - perhaps measurable is a better term).
vs 10
Obviously Jesus is claiming my middle position - for God, both are possible, and easy.
vs 11
The thing is, of course, that miracles were not unheard of. A miracle doesn't mean that the person performing it is Jesus. So this is still a very big call.
vs 12
And when I say miracles were not unheard of, that still means that they are always surprising, and it would seem always pretty rare too.
vs 13
Going to the lake is probably like going to a factory - lots of people involved in various works during the day.
vs 14
Ahhh, Levi. I think we call him Matthew. Tax collectors get lined up with sinners and prostitutes, so when you think of Jesus calling Levi to be a disciple, think about if he'd been a prostitute.
vs 15
When no-one will hang out with you because of your profession, you really only get to hang out with other people people don't hang out with (imagine if you worked in an abattoir and the president had his strings pulled by PETA - you'd only really hang out with people who didn't call you a murderer and splash paint on you).
vs 16
Remember that Judaism has a big thing about righteous people remaining ceremonially clean, or else they can't go to temple and be in the presence of God. Although probably they're also bigoted.
vs 17
One of my favourite ideas. Of course, everyone is sick. But there are people who think they're fine. Many mentally ill people don't go and seek medical help, for example (although even if they did in Australia, mental health is hideously underfunded). It doesn't make them not in need of help, but it does mean that doctors can't help them if they don't come and ask.
vs 18
Seems a fair enough question. Fasting, after all, is a pretty righteous thing to do.
vs 19
That is, you can't fast in the middle of a feast, when you've got something to celebrate. It's not cool.
vs 20
This is the first, somewhat veiled, passage referring to the fact that Jesus isn't going to hang around. I can just picture the disciples puzzling over this.
vs 21
While I'm sure this is true, I don't think Jesus is teaching them about tailoring.
vs 22
Again, no doubt this is true. What do these two illustrations mean? That Jesus is offering something new - God has never incarnated and walked around with people before (debatable regarding Genesis 2). As such, you have to treat it a different way. The normal rules for living don't adequately cover this.
vs 23
They were hungry, not bored.
vs 24
If you're as pedantic as the Pharisees, I pity you. This is one of the things that Jesus sought to free his people from. I see this sort of thing in Christian society every day. There's a difference between rules and rules lawyer.
vs 25
This is quite a backhand to the face. It would be like going up to your preacher after he finishes his sermon and saying, "Have you ever actually read the Bible?"
vs 26
Why? Because they were with David, and they were hungry. They did what was not lawful because David made the laws. He had a special position.
vs 27
Beware what you think about this. Rest is part of the Sabbath - and that rest is dedicated to God. So it is quite an important concept. But here Jesus is saying that the Sabbath actually exists to be a help to people in their devotion to God, not a hindrance.
vs 28
And of course, Jesus, as God, is in charge of everything, and he could have rewritten the laws right there if he wanted to. But there was no reason to, because he wasn't rebelling against God's law, he was rebelling against the Pharisee's rules lawyering.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Mark chapter 1
We're about to start a sermon series on Mark at church, and I have to preach on Mark, so I figured, even though I have so many OT books to go through, I should do Mark.
vs 1
Mark doesn't mess around. We're jumping straight into the good stuff.
vs 2
Yes, this is not a quote from Isaiah - the next one is, though. It's a quote from Malachi. Some people say that in such situations, the proper thing was to give name to the major prophet over the minor prophet. Could he have just made a mistake? That really depends on how you think about the Bible, its inerrancy, and its inspiration. Because if you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the words, then you are somewhat less likely to accept that Mark's mistakes were going to be allowed to end up on paper. After all, if he made a mistake remembering which quotes come from Isaiah, and which come from Malachi, then couldn't he have made a mistake about what Peter said Jesus said?
Some people say that the exact words aren't inspired, but the message behind them is - so that the conceptual point (for example, here, the fact that the prophets spoke of the coming of the Messiah) is sound, even if the exact details are a little skewed. This then has people asking all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of the historical statements. Were there two beggars, one beggar, two gates, one gate? Honestly, does that matter? And that's the thing - no, it doesn't matter if there was one or two beggars. Yes, it does matter if the Bible is inspired, which is what's at the crux of such arguments. Is there space for a paradox here? I would think so, since we have space for them in so many other places.
Anyway, the verse he is quoting is about how there will be a messenger that comes first.
vs 3
The thing about this, of course, is that it can also be read, "A voice calling, 'In the wilderness... etc'" (as it does in (T)NIV and NASB, but not KJV). It's being slightly differently read here, to show that it refers also to John the Baptist.
vs 4
The tameness of this verse, in comparison with the somewhat striking beginning, makes it sound like, "And so, one day, God's prophecy was fulfilled, and someone turned up to fill it." John the Baptist is a fantastic guy. He's like a rock star of the ancient world. He's in every gospel. In Acts, we find that he has been heard of in places Jesus hasn't! He is just a regular guy with a fantastic message.
vs 5
This is like a pre-messianic revival in Judea. John TB is the Billy Graham of the time. People are called to faith, and are renewed in their faith through baptism.
vs 6
We learn more about this in other gospels, but a hair shirt generally marks someone out as being humble. It also marks him out as someone who actually lived - some small details about his life we don't really need to know.
vs 7
Like he says, he's just the messenger. He's the pathfinder, and someone is going to come down that path who you really, really want to meet.
vs 8
This is not something John made up - this is revealed in the prophets. But to hear that this great messiah figure is coming, and for that to be the crux of John TB's ministry, and for it to be so successful, shows you just how desperate people were at the time for a messiah.
vs 9
Everyone else was doing it, after all, and part of Jesus' job is to sympathise with us. He didn't have anything to repent, though. But then, Job made sacrifices for sinful thoughts his kids might have had.
vs 10
Did anyone else see it, or just him? Doesn't say.
vs 11
Did anyone else hear it, or just him? Did Jesus know that this was his destiny? The other gospels show that there was a bit more of a back-and-forthing between Jesus and John TB (not even mentioning childhood Jesus' time in th temple), so I would say this was not a revelation to Jesus of his divinity, although I have heard some people say so. I've always thought that the voice was audible, and so people were like, "Woah, that's mega." You may as well assume miracle after miracle in the gospels, since it doesn't matter how many happen in or around or because of Jesus, people still don't believe. That's the thing about miracles.
vs 12
At once is possibly a bit rich, but he was sort of out in the wilderness already.
vs 13
This is a fantastic job of summarisation. You can read more detail in another gospel, but here you just get wilderness, satan, tempted, animals, angels. Bam. Let's get back to the excitement!
vs 14
John being put in prison is almost skipped over. But it's an important happening. It kicks off Jesus' ministry, according to Mark.
vs 15
It's a very similar message to John TB's. There is no reason people wouldn't get caught up in it, seeing as it's the same message.
vs 16
If they were hairdressers, it would have been slightly stranger.
vs 17
The old 'fishers of men' has fallen, which doesn't really bother me. The point is that Jesus is offering to change them from fishermen into people who grab people (obviously not literally in nets to eat them).
vs 18
And so they left to follow him. Of course Peter would include this in this gospel, since he is Simon.
vs 19
Jesus has a thing for fishermen. Okay, that sounds a little strange. I wonder if it's just because this is where his ministry started, so this is who he ends up with. If he'd started somewhere else, he might have had all leatherworkers, or encyclopaedia salesmen.
vs 20
I assume that they had at the least heard Jesus speak before. This idea of going off and joining a travelling teacher is not unheard of. It was something people did. It's actually incredible how long people can just scrape together a living for such things, right up to today in some places. Probably not worth trying it in Australia, though.
vs 21
This was not out of place. After all, guy turns up, has a following - he is probably a good teacher, may as well give him the floor.
vs 22
Now you see why people followed him. When Jesus spoke about God, he spoke as if he knew exactly what it was about. Some people might just say he was really confident, but then Jesus himself claims to be God, which you have to admit would also help his preaching.
vs 23
Evil spirit posession was just a fact of life back then. I can't really say if it's as prevalent, or more or less, than it was then. Different people say different things. Certainly I wouldn't put it past demons to be traipsing about, considering most everyone ignores their very existence. But honestly, I wouldn't begin to know how to tell them apart - such spiritual sensitivity is not my forte, I don't think.
vs 24
Satan and his minions are always out to try and ruin the story. They are trying to tell everyone that he is the Messiah. This might sound like a stupid strategy - I mean, if they are demons, then surely they're in the know. But the fact is, if you knew someone was demon-possessed, would you listen to what they said? By them saying it, they could actually undermine Jesus' position.
vs 25
Hence, Jesus tells him to shut up. He also tells the demon to take a hike. Now, I have heard people make arguments like, "If Jesus is so powerful, why didn't he destroy the demon, instead of just casting it out?" It's not an unfair question, I suppose, but it is akin to asking, "If God hates sinners, why doesn't he strike us with lightning every time we sin?" Think about the world we would live in were that the case. God knows better, thankfully. There is a time for final judgement, and it is the end of days.
vs 26
That is how it goes, I suppose.
vs 27
If his words of authority on scripture weren't enough, his power to drive out demons simply by telling (that is, really, commanding) them to leave is astonishingly cool.
vs 28
The miracle backs up the teaching. That's what miracles are for. You can't just trust miracles themselves, because they don't really give a message.
vs 29
Perhaps they were on the synagogue hospitality roster for visiting speakers.
vs 30
Immediately! Mark loves his adverbs.
vs 31
There's nothing worse than when your mum is too sick to serve you dinner. Seriously, though, this is another incredible miracle. There are only the disciples around now, and it's Simon and Andrew's mum we're talking about, so it's not like Jesus could have planted her, like a stage magician.
vs 32
News travels fast when free health services are on offer.
vs 33
That's a lot of people.
vs 34
It would be like letting your enemies write your resume. It's the difference between Barak Obama saying, "He's an American soldier," and Osama Bin Laden saying, "He's an American soldier!"
vs 35
So either he snuck out while people were sleeping, or he went out the back door or something.
vs 36
After all, they probably woke up and thought, "Uh oh, we lost the messiah."
vs 37
There's a lot of wisdom teeth problems that need your attention!
vs 38
Jesus healed people out of compassion, but that was not the focus of his ministry. He wanted to tell people his message. If healing people would help them listen, sure. But he didn't come, this time, to end suffering. That comes when he returns. This is just a taste.
vs 39
This is the early days of Jesus' tour. They're still doing the pub circuit, but they've got a new sound that a big record label will no doubt pick up soon. They're on their way to stardom.
vs 40
Leprosy is just a convenient name for skin diseases. But skin diseases suck, not just because they are awful, but because they make you unclean. Hence the guy doesn't ask for curing, but for cleaning.
vs 41
Indignant! Apparently a lot of manuscripts say "filled with compassion", which is the Jesus we know and love, I suppose. Why would he be indignant? Perhaps he was angry with the skin disease, and the fact that someone could be considered unclean and their whole religious life could be destroyed (see, that way, he still sounds nice and gentle towards the person).
But, perhaps he didn't like having unclean people jump him in the street, and so to make him go away, he says, "Sure, be clean, get out of my way!" That doesn't really sound right, though.
vs 42
Regardless, the guy gets healed, and that's pretty much a new life for him. And anyone who has had their life changed by Jesus knows what this is like.
vs 43
Now we start getting into weird territory.
vs 44
The Messianic secret, as it's called. Okay, so when demons say things, Jesus tells them to shut their traps. But when a guy who was healed is told to be quiet, what is the purpose? Is it reverse psychology? Is it because Jesus doesn't want crowds of sick following him around (that would sort of fit with the indignant above!)? Is it perhaps because the guy would be bragging about being healed by Jesus? Matthew Henry says it's because Jesus was being humble (he also points out that the 'strong warning' is more literally 'prohibiting with threats' - so maybe Jesus was indignant with him). While I know Jesus was humble to a degree, I think he also strives to glorify his father, so this doesn't really work for me. Aquinus says that he was setting an example of humility for his disciples, which sounds a little fairer. Others say that it was because he didn't want his message to get spread out so quickly, and still others say that he was only prohibited from telling people until he had made his restitution at the temple (which is important in itself, because it shows that he wants the guy to fulfil his legal obligation to God under the law, thus giving glory to God for the healing).
vs 45
Of course, the guy doesn't listen (this is nothing new) and so Jesus finds himself crowded out of town, and even quiet places are haunted by people looking for a free Medicare bulk-billed heal.
vs 1
Mark doesn't mess around. We're jumping straight into the good stuff.
vs 2
Yes, this is not a quote from Isaiah - the next one is, though. It's a quote from Malachi. Some people say that in such situations, the proper thing was to give name to the major prophet over the minor prophet. Could he have just made a mistake? That really depends on how you think about the Bible, its inerrancy, and its inspiration. Because if you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the words, then you are somewhat less likely to accept that Mark's mistakes were going to be allowed to end up on paper. After all, if he made a mistake remembering which quotes come from Isaiah, and which come from Malachi, then couldn't he have made a mistake about what Peter said Jesus said?
Some people say that the exact words aren't inspired, but the message behind them is - so that the conceptual point (for example, here, the fact that the prophets spoke of the coming of the Messiah) is sound, even if the exact details are a little skewed. This then has people asking all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of the historical statements. Were there two beggars, one beggar, two gates, one gate? Honestly, does that matter? And that's the thing - no, it doesn't matter if there was one or two beggars. Yes, it does matter if the Bible is inspired, which is what's at the crux of such arguments. Is there space for a paradox here? I would think so, since we have space for them in so many other places.
Anyway, the verse he is quoting is about how there will be a messenger that comes first.
vs 3
The thing about this, of course, is that it can also be read, "A voice calling, 'In the wilderness... etc'" (as it does in (T)NIV and NASB, but not KJV). It's being slightly differently read here, to show that it refers also to John the Baptist.
vs 4
The tameness of this verse, in comparison with the somewhat striking beginning, makes it sound like, "And so, one day, God's prophecy was fulfilled, and someone turned up to fill it." John the Baptist is a fantastic guy. He's like a rock star of the ancient world. He's in every gospel. In Acts, we find that he has been heard of in places Jesus hasn't! He is just a regular guy with a fantastic message.
vs 5
This is like a pre-messianic revival in Judea. John TB is the Billy Graham of the time. People are called to faith, and are renewed in their faith through baptism.
vs 6
We learn more about this in other gospels, but a hair shirt generally marks someone out as being humble. It also marks him out as someone who actually lived - some small details about his life we don't really need to know.
vs 7
Like he says, he's just the messenger. He's the pathfinder, and someone is going to come down that path who you really, really want to meet.
vs 8
This is not something John made up - this is revealed in the prophets. But to hear that this great messiah figure is coming, and for that to be the crux of John TB's ministry, and for it to be so successful, shows you just how desperate people were at the time for a messiah.
vs 9
Everyone else was doing it, after all, and part of Jesus' job is to sympathise with us. He didn't have anything to repent, though. But then, Job made sacrifices for sinful thoughts his kids might have had.
vs 10
Did anyone else see it, or just him? Doesn't say.
vs 11
Did anyone else hear it, or just him? Did Jesus know that this was his destiny? The other gospels show that there was a bit more of a back-and-forthing between Jesus and John TB (not even mentioning childhood Jesus' time in th temple), so I would say this was not a revelation to Jesus of his divinity, although I have heard some people say so. I've always thought that the voice was audible, and so people were like, "Woah, that's mega." You may as well assume miracle after miracle in the gospels, since it doesn't matter how many happen in or around or because of Jesus, people still don't believe. That's the thing about miracles.
vs 12
At once is possibly a bit rich, but he was sort of out in the wilderness already.
vs 13
This is a fantastic job of summarisation. You can read more detail in another gospel, but here you just get wilderness, satan, tempted, animals, angels. Bam. Let's get back to the excitement!
vs 14
John being put in prison is almost skipped over. But it's an important happening. It kicks off Jesus' ministry, according to Mark.
vs 15
It's a very similar message to John TB's. There is no reason people wouldn't get caught up in it, seeing as it's the same message.
vs 16
If they were hairdressers, it would have been slightly stranger.
vs 17
The old 'fishers of men' has fallen, which doesn't really bother me. The point is that Jesus is offering to change them from fishermen into people who grab people (obviously not literally in nets to eat them).
vs 18
And so they left to follow him. Of course Peter would include this in this gospel, since he is Simon.
vs 19
Jesus has a thing for fishermen. Okay, that sounds a little strange. I wonder if it's just because this is where his ministry started, so this is who he ends up with. If he'd started somewhere else, he might have had all leatherworkers, or encyclopaedia salesmen.
vs 20
I assume that they had at the least heard Jesus speak before. This idea of going off and joining a travelling teacher is not unheard of. It was something people did. It's actually incredible how long people can just scrape together a living for such things, right up to today in some places. Probably not worth trying it in Australia, though.
vs 21
This was not out of place. After all, guy turns up, has a following - he is probably a good teacher, may as well give him the floor.
vs 22
Now you see why people followed him. When Jesus spoke about God, he spoke as if he knew exactly what it was about. Some people might just say he was really confident, but then Jesus himself claims to be God, which you have to admit would also help his preaching.
vs 23
Evil spirit posession was just a fact of life back then. I can't really say if it's as prevalent, or more or less, than it was then. Different people say different things. Certainly I wouldn't put it past demons to be traipsing about, considering most everyone ignores their very existence. But honestly, I wouldn't begin to know how to tell them apart - such spiritual sensitivity is not my forte, I don't think.
vs 24
Satan and his minions are always out to try and ruin the story. They are trying to tell everyone that he is the Messiah. This might sound like a stupid strategy - I mean, if they are demons, then surely they're in the know. But the fact is, if you knew someone was demon-possessed, would you listen to what they said? By them saying it, they could actually undermine Jesus' position.
vs 25
Hence, Jesus tells him to shut up. He also tells the demon to take a hike. Now, I have heard people make arguments like, "If Jesus is so powerful, why didn't he destroy the demon, instead of just casting it out?" It's not an unfair question, I suppose, but it is akin to asking, "If God hates sinners, why doesn't he strike us with lightning every time we sin?" Think about the world we would live in were that the case. God knows better, thankfully. There is a time for final judgement, and it is the end of days.
vs 26
That is how it goes, I suppose.
vs 27
If his words of authority on scripture weren't enough, his power to drive out demons simply by telling (that is, really, commanding) them to leave is astonishingly cool.
vs 28
The miracle backs up the teaching. That's what miracles are for. You can't just trust miracles themselves, because they don't really give a message.
vs 29
Perhaps they were on the synagogue hospitality roster for visiting speakers.
vs 30
Immediately! Mark loves his adverbs.
vs 31
There's nothing worse than when your mum is too sick to serve you dinner. Seriously, though, this is another incredible miracle. There are only the disciples around now, and it's Simon and Andrew's mum we're talking about, so it's not like Jesus could have planted her, like a stage magician.
vs 32
News travels fast when free health services are on offer.
vs 33
That's a lot of people.
vs 34
It would be like letting your enemies write your resume. It's the difference between Barak Obama saying, "He's an American soldier," and Osama Bin Laden saying, "He's an American soldier!"
vs 35
So either he snuck out while people were sleeping, or he went out the back door or something.
vs 36
After all, they probably woke up and thought, "Uh oh, we lost the messiah."
vs 37
There's a lot of wisdom teeth problems that need your attention!
vs 38
Jesus healed people out of compassion, but that was not the focus of his ministry. He wanted to tell people his message. If healing people would help them listen, sure. But he didn't come, this time, to end suffering. That comes when he returns. This is just a taste.
vs 39
This is the early days of Jesus' tour. They're still doing the pub circuit, but they've got a new sound that a big record label will no doubt pick up soon. They're on their way to stardom.
vs 40
Leprosy is just a convenient name for skin diseases. But skin diseases suck, not just because they are awful, but because they make you unclean. Hence the guy doesn't ask for curing, but for cleaning.
vs 41
Indignant! Apparently a lot of manuscripts say "filled with compassion", which is the Jesus we know and love, I suppose. Why would he be indignant? Perhaps he was angry with the skin disease, and the fact that someone could be considered unclean and their whole religious life could be destroyed (see, that way, he still sounds nice and gentle towards the person).
But, perhaps he didn't like having unclean people jump him in the street, and so to make him go away, he says, "Sure, be clean, get out of my way!" That doesn't really sound right, though.
vs 42
Regardless, the guy gets healed, and that's pretty much a new life for him. And anyone who has had their life changed by Jesus knows what this is like.
vs 43
Now we start getting into weird territory.
vs 44
The Messianic secret, as it's called. Okay, so when demons say things, Jesus tells them to shut their traps. But when a guy who was healed is told to be quiet, what is the purpose? Is it reverse psychology? Is it because Jesus doesn't want crowds of sick following him around (that would sort of fit with the indignant above!)? Is it perhaps because the guy would be bragging about being healed by Jesus? Matthew Henry says it's because Jesus was being humble (he also points out that the 'strong warning' is more literally 'prohibiting with threats' - so maybe Jesus was indignant with him). While I know Jesus was humble to a degree, I think he also strives to glorify his father, so this doesn't really work for me. Aquinus says that he was setting an example of humility for his disciples, which sounds a little fairer. Others say that it was because he didn't want his message to get spread out so quickly, and still others say that he was only prohibited from telling people until he had made his restitution at the temple (which is important in itself, because it shows that he wants the guy to fulfil his legal obligation to God under the law, thus giving glory to God for the healing).
vs 45
Of course, the guy doesn't listen (this is nothing new) and so Jesus finds himself crowded out of town, and even quiet places are haunted by people looking for a free Medicare bulk-billed heal.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Jonah chapter 4
vs 1
A strange situation that occurs when we actually don't trust God as much as we think we do. When we think God has done something wrong, we are saying that we know better.
vs 2
The question that arises, of course, is what is it that displeased Jonah? This is an important part of the book. God's dealings with Jonah take up far more space than God's dealings with Nineveh.
Does Jonah not like that God is compassionate and merciful? No, because he was very happy with God being merciful to him.
Does Jonah not like God dealing with people who are not Israelites? Not necessarily - we learn that those on the boat to Tarshish, who were not Hebrews, worshipped God, basically as a result of Jonah telling them about God.
Does Jonah not like God showing compassion on Israel's enemy? I think there is something in this. It's not that Jonah is racist - but he has just become the prophet who saved Israel's enemies from God's judgment. And Jonah knew God would relent, because He knows that God is like that.
vs 3
So as far as Jonah is concerned now, that's his life done. Why would God ask him to do such a thing? He's angry with how God does things.
vs 4
God's reply at this stage is simple: Jonah doesn't have a right to be angry, because God's will supercedes all. At the end of the day, regardless of what God's will is, you have to follow it. Now, we learn more about who God is and how his will affects the decision-making here, but for now, this is the quick lesson.
vs 5
His shelter, for reasons we find later, can't have been very good. He knew that God was going to relent, but he was keen to watch anyway, just in case the odd boulder of brimstone fell down and smote the city.
vs 6
Your own personal comfort can make a big difference to how you feel about things. Jonah had to go a long way, to a place that was foreign to him, and he wasn't keen on it. Now he's sitting there with a crappy shelter, fuming. But God grows a gourd over him (I assume it has big leaves or something) and he smiles a little. Perhaps he thinks that God doing this thing means that his waiting and watching is vindicated. More likely, of course, God is just continuing to be gracious - and again, Jonah is happy with it when it is him getting the grace.
vs 7
So now the worm is happy with God! But Jonah will probably be less so.
vs 8
God almost sounds like he is torturing Jonah with this weather change. Jonah gets so uncomfortable that, once again, he wants to die. This time, it's not because of hundreds of thousands of enemies that are saved, but because he gets sunstroke.
vs 9
Specifically about the gourd, mind.
Jonah's opinion is that yes, he is allowed to be angry with God because of God's actions. Now, there's a fine line here. David writes psalms that express his dissatisfaction with his situation, but they are less about being angry with God, and more about questioning God. Jonah is just plain angry, thinks it's unfair.
vs 10
Of course, Jonah doesn't care about the gourd's wellbeing at all -he cares about his comfort.
vs 11
There again with the animals! Once again, we have a very typical Hebrew rhetorical question. It's not really exactly a rhetorical question, because it is supposed to have an obvious answer. In this case, yes, God should care. It shows that in God's mind, people come first, not God's people come first. God has a heart for Nineveh, and gives them a chance. He doesn't have a long history of being their God and pulling them out of Egypt, he didn't give them laws and prophets (although God does somewhere that I can't remember talk about how he had staged similar exodus actions for other nations). But God does send them a prophet and his message and give them a chance at repentance.
A strange situation that occurs when we actually don't trust God as much as we think we do. When we think God has done something wrong, we are saying that we know better.
vs 2
The question that arises, of course, is what is it that displeased Jonah? This is an important part of the book. God's dealings with Jonah take up far more space than God's dealings with Nineveh.
Does Jonah not like that God is compassionate and merciful? No, because he was very happy with God being merciful to him.
Does Jonah not like God dealing with people who are not Israelites? Not necessarily - we learn that those on the boat to Tarshish, who were not Hebrews, worshipped God, basically as a result of Jonah telling them about God.
Does Jonah not like God showing compassion on Israel's enemy? I think there is something in this. It's not that Jonah is racist - but he has just become the prophet who saved Israel's enemies from God's judgment. And Jonah knew God would relent, because He knows that God is like that.
vs 3
So as far as Jonah is concerned now, that's his life done. Why would God ask him to do such a thing? He's angry with how God does things.
vs 4
God's reply at this stage is simple: Jonah doesn't have a right to be angry, because God's will supercedes all. At the end of the day, regardless of what God's will is, you have to follow it. Now, we learn more about who God is and how his will affects the decision-making here, but for now, this is the quick lesson.
vs 5
His shelter, for reasons we find later, can't have been very good. He knew that God was going to relent, but he was keen to watch anyway, just in case the odd boulder of brimstone fell down and smote the city.
vs 6
Your own personal comfort can make a big difference to how you feel about things. Jonah had to go a long way, to a place that was foreign to him, and he wasn't keen on it. Now he's sitting there with a crappy shelter, fuming. But God grows a gourd over him (I assume it has big leaves or something) and he smiles a little. Perhaps he thinks that God doing this thing means that his waiting and watching is vindicated. More likely, of course, God is just continuing to be gracious - and again, Jonah is happy with it when it is him getting the grace.
vs 7
So now the worm is happy with God! But Jonah will probably be less so.
vs 8
God almost sounds like he is torturing Jonah with this weather change. Jonah gets so uncomfortable that, once again, he wants to die. This time, it's not because of hundreds of thousands of enemies that are saved, but because he gets sunstroke.
vs 9
Specifically about the gourd, mind.
Jonah's opinion is that yes, he is allowed to be angry with God because of God's actions. Now, there's a fine line here. David writes psalms that express his dissatisfaction with his situation, but they are less about being angry with God, and more about questioning God. Jonah is just plain angry, thinks it's unfair.
vs 10
Of course, Jonah doesn't care about the gourd's wellbeing at all -he cares about his comfort.
vs 11
There again with the animals! Once again, we have a very typical Hebrew rhetorical question. It's not really exactly a rhetorical question, because it is supposed to have an obvious answer. In this case, yes, God should care. It shows that in God's mind, people come first, not God's people come first. God has a heart for Nineveh, and gives them a chance. He doesn't have a long history of being their God and pulling them out of Egypt, he didn't give them laws and prophets (although God does somewhere that I can't remember talk about how he had staged similar exodus actions for other nations). But God does send them a prophet and his message and give them a chance at repentance.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Jonah chapter 3
vs 1
God really shouldn't have to repeat himself.
vs 2
So the message is similar. God's will hasn't changed on the matter.
vs 3
Jonah's will, it seems, has.
Three days is a long time to walk from one end to the other. Does a city that big exist now? I wouldn't wonder if they said it meaning that it took him three days to deliver his message over the whole thing.
vs 4
This is apparently the message that God gave to Jonah. It's pretty straightforward. We assume there must have been a little more said than that, but this was the basis of the message, it's what we're given. The other bits we can perhaps assume from what Jonah says later, and from what the response of the people is.
vs 5
Their response is, perhaps to someone who has read lots of OT stuff, somewhat staggering. It takes a lot of persuading for Israel to come to God with this sort of contrition. Yet Israel's enemy realises its wrongdoing and goes the whole hog in repentance.
vs 6
Even their king, who didn't hear the message directly, is prepared to go into mourning over his city's fate.
vs 7
The city fasts - even down to their cattle. I have always thought the importance of livestock in such ancient proclamations fascinating. Whether it means that people were treated less valuably, or that livestock, living more closely with their owners, were felt to be more part of the family, it still shows that there is an importance under God to animals that is not really attended to these days.
vs 8
Call on God, and give up your evil ways. Only those two things together is going to do it for you.
vs 9
God may be compassionate. He is not always - Israel knows that well - but he can be. It's the eternal balance between justice and mercy, both of which are parts of God's nature. They exist not in paradox, but in tension. One can rely on both.
vs 10
And so the people of Nineveh were saved. That's a great story. Why is there another chapter? Is not the big message of this book to relent to God, and he will show compassion? No. In fact, there is a whole other story we need yet to consider.
God really shouldn't have to repeat himself.
vs 2
So the message is similar. God's will hasn't changed on the matter.
vs 3
Jonah's will, it seems, has.
Three days is a long time to walk from one end to the other. Does a city that big exist now? I wouldn't wonder if they said it meaning that it took him three days to deliver his message over the whole thing.
vs 4
This is apparently the message that God gave to Jonah. It's pretty straightforward. We assume there must have been a little more said than that, but this was the basis of the message, it's what we're given. The other bits we can perhaps assume from what Jonah says later, and from what the response of the people is.
vs 5
Their response is, perhaps to someone who has read lots of OT stuff, somewhat staggering. It takes a lot of persuading for Israel to come to God with this sort of contrition. Yet Israel's enemy realises its wrongdoing and goes the whole hog in repentance.
vs 6
Even their king, who didn't hear the message directly, is prepared to go into mourning over his city's fate.
vs 7
The city fasts - even down to their cattle. I have always thought the importance of livestock in such ancient proclamations fascinating. Whether it means that people were treated less valuably, or that livestock, living more closely with their owners, were felt to be more part of the family, it still shows that there is an importance under God to animals that is not really attended to these days.
vs 8
Call on God, and give up your evil ways. Only those two things together is going to do it for you.
vs 9
God may be compassionate. He is not always - Israel knows that well - but he can be. It's the eternal balance between justice and mercy, both of which are parts of God's nature. They exist not in paradox, but in tension. One can rely on both.
vs 10
And so the people of Nineveh were saved. That's a great story. Why is there another chapter? Is not the big message of this book to relent to God, and he will show compassion? No. In fact, there is a whole other story we need yet to consider.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Jonah chapter 2
vs 1
There isn't much more to do inside a fish, I will grant you. But rememeber, he was just thrown out of a boat in a wild storm, because he had disobeyed God. So him not dying is actually quite something.
vs 2
I don't know that he was actually dead - although if you're several feet underwater, that's pretty similar to the realm of the dead in my book. God can even answer prayers made from the ocean - that may not sound special to you, but imagine if you believed that your god only had power within the boundaries of a certain area - a forest, a desert, a nation - then you realise that one nation's God can hear his people even in the deep of the water. That is awesome.
vs 3
I can't think of anything more scary. Did I mention I'm looking at a boat today? Sigh.
vs 4
Jonah may have been running from God, but at the end of the day, God is still his God. God had chased him all the way out to that boat, now perhaps he might save him from the depths.
vs 5
He really was out there in the water. I mean, it's curtains. He might not have even been able to swim.
vs 6
As far as he was concerned, he was dead. But God saved him from death, in a rather incredible, if uncomfortable, way. Does this mean that he has a change of heart and will now do what God says? Well, again, the book is a little more complex than that. Because, really, so are people.
vs 7
He didn't pray until he knew he was going to die, from the sound of it. Man, we are stubborn sometimes.
vs 8
Funny, one of the psalms I was looking at earlier talked about worthless idols. God really, really hates idolatry. I think idolatry is like the 'sin against the Spirit', in that it attributes God to other things. In that way, it is an unforgiveable sin - until you turn away from idols, you can't worship God.
vs 9
His vows go to God, and he will keep them, he says. He also says that he will say, "Salvation comes from the Lord." Will he say that to the Ninevites? I wonder, because if he did, that could explain their reaction.
vs 10
Ew. But then, there's only two other ways he was getting out - I think I prefer this one.
There isn't much more to do inside a fish, I will grant you. But rememeber, he was just thrown out of a boat in a wild storm, because he had disobeyed God. So him not dying is actually quite something.
vs 2
I don't know that he was actually dead - although if you're several feet underwater, that's pretty similar to the realm of the dead in my book. God can even answer prayers made from the ocean - that may not sound special to you, but imagine if you believed that your god only had power within the boundaries of a certain area - a forest, a desert, a nation - then you realise that one nation's God can hear his people even in the deep of the water. That is awesome.
vs 3
I can't think of anything more scary. Did I mention I'm looking at a boat today? Sigh.
vs 4
Jonah may have been running from God, but at the end of the day, God is still his God. God had chased him all the way out to that boat, now perhaps he might save him from the depths.
vs 5
He really was out there in the water. I mean, it's curtains. He might not have even been able to swim.
vs 6
As far as he was concerned, he was dead. But God saved him from death, in a rather incredible, if uncomfortable, way. Does this mean that he has a change of heart and will now do what God says? Well, again, the book is a little more complex than that. Because, really, so are people.
vs 7
He didn't pray until he knew he was going to die, from the sound of it. Man, we are stubborn sometimes.
vs 8
Funny, one of the psalms I was looking at earlier talked about worthless idols. God really, really hates idolatry. I think idolatry is like the 'sin against the Spirit', in that it attributes God to other things. In that way, it is an unforgiveable sin - until you turn away from idols, you can't worship God.
vs 9
His vows go to God, and he will keep them, he says. He also says that he will say, "Salvation comes from the Lord." Will he say that to the Ninevites? I wonder, because if he did, that could explain their reaction.
vs 10
Ew. But then, there's only two other ways he was getting out - I think I prefer this one.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Jonah chapter 1
vs 1
Poor Jonah. As soon as you see these words, you could be in mind of Ezekiel, which is not the place you want to be, really.
vs 2
Nineveh is a wicked city, and it's an enemy of Israel. So going there with the job to preach against it is not exactly the peachiest job. Although if you think it's as simple as not wanting to get beat up, well, this book gets a whole lot more complex.
vs 3
Tarsish was the Caseblanca equivalent back then. It was as far as the map of the known world went to the west, pretty much. Opposite direction of Nineveh.
vs 4
Which is, of course, a pretty scary thing to happen. Apparently you can't outrun God or hide from God simply by getting on a boat.
vs 5
These sound like two pretty reasonable responses to a life-threatening situation. Neither work, but it's worth a try.
Going to sleep is less reasonable, but it is apparently still an option.
vs 6
I suppose this is a typical response in a pantheistic worldview. Gods become like a lucky dip.
vs 7
Now, casting lots to get God's approval has been done many times. This is not something we do these days - we try and make more intelligent choices based on caselaw and theological principle. But the thing is, God has honoured this decision-making many times. Doesn't mean you should flip a coin for major decisions, but is 'going with your heart' after considered prayer really any different?
vs 8
Whether the storm calmed enough for them to have this conversation, or they were all huddled together in the hope of not dying - I mean, if the boat is sinking and they're throwing cargo overboard and stuff, I can't imagine they all gathered together for a heart-to-heart. In my imagination, they've always been yelling at each other over the crash of waves and stuff.
In any case, it's not the question Jonah really wanted to answer.
vs 9
He calls himself a Hebrew, which is fascinating. Very pentateuchy. It's not a term I often consider for describing the Israelites, but I think I will now. His point is that his God created everything, so is damn powerful, and hence they're all going to die.
vs 10
They knew he was running from God, but didn't know why. If they're all going to drown anyway, may as well sate their curiosity. Or they just ask the rhetorical question, "You must've done something hella bad for God to be killing all of us to get to you."
vs 11
But curiosity can wait when there might be a way of getting out of it. What sort of sacrifice would this God of the Hebrews want?
vs 12
God is not exactly the one who is in for human sacrifice, but that's definitely what it looks like here. Really, the guys on the boat might never have seen Jonah again, and thought that that's how God worked. God doesn't correct them, so far as we know. Although really, it's less a sacrifice and more of a just punishment, perhaps.
vs 13
They didn't want to kill this guy. It's not cool.
vs 14
They obviously fear some sort of judgment too. This is a great picture of how God treats the other nations. People sometimes are confused or angry about God using a nation (like Assyria) to be his tool or instrument of judgment (like their army invading Israel), but then judging them for their evil actions (by making their empire fall). They say, "How is this fair? They were doing what God wanted." But look at the reactions of these sailors. God wants them to throw Jonah in, but they know killing someone is wrong. Finally, they beg God not to hold them responsible, because they are trying to do the right thing. They don't know much about the Hebrew God, but they are trying to do his will, at least. You always have a choice - you can choose not to be a bloodthirsty army. God will always find another person to do his dirty work.
vs 15
Here, God was happy for them to do it, after they had made it plain they didn't want to kill him, because he knew that Jonah wasn't going to die. They were, in effect, handing Jonah over to God by throwing him in the water.
vs 16
Which seems the right thing to do in such a situation.
vs 17
It's a bit of a bridging verse, so whether it's at the end of chapter 1 or beginning of chapter 2, not really a bother to me.
But wow, what an incredible and strange thing for the Lord to have happen to someone! And imagine being inside a fish for that long! It's little wonder this story stays in the psyche of western society. Of course, most would question its veracity as a real historical happening, but for me, I think it's awesome that God would make such things happen in the real world. It's a fantastic picture of the wonder God can continue to bring into the world. I wish we saw more of this stuff, not because I want to see miracles per se, but just because I feel that the technological and Enlightenment modern world is a much more boring place.
Poor Jonah. As soon as you see these words, you could be in mind of Ezekiel, which is not the place you want to be, really.
vs 2
Nineveh is a wicked city, and it's an enemy of Israel. So going there with the job to preach against it is not exactly the peachiest job. Although if you think it's as simple as not wanting to get beat up, well, this book gets a whole lot more complex.
vs 3
Tarsish was the Caseblanca equivalent back then. It was as far as the map of the known world went to the west, pretty much. Opposite direction of Nineveh.
vs 4
Which is, of course, a pretty scary thing to happen. Apparently you can't outrun God or hide from God simply by getting on a boat.
vs 5
These sound like two pretty reasonable responses to a life-threatening situation. Neither work, but it's worth a try.
Going to sleep is less reasonable, but it is apparently still an option.
vs 6
I suppose this is a typical response in a pantheistic worldview. Gods become like a lucky dip.
vs 7
Now, casting lots to get God's approval has been done many times. This is not something we do these days - we try and make more intelligent choices based on caselaw and theological principle. But the thing is, God has honoured this decision-making many times. Doesn't mean you should flip a coin for major decisions, but is 'going with your heart' after considered prayer really any different?
vs 8
Whether the storm calmed enough for them to have this conversation, or they were all huddled together in the hope of not dying - I mean, if the boat is sinking and they're throwing cargo overboard and stuff, I can't imagine they all gathered together for a heart-to-heart. In my imagination, they've always been yelling at each other over the crash of waves and stuff.
In any case, it's not the question Jonah really wanted to answer.
vs 9
He calls himself a Hebrew, which is fascinating. Very pentateuchy. It's not a term I often consider for describing the Israelites, but I think I will now. His point is that his God created everything, so is damn powerful, and hence they're all going to die.
vs 10
They knew he was running from God, but didn't know why. If they're all going to drown anyway, may as well sate their curiosity. Or they just ask the rhetorical question, "You must've done something hella bad for God to be killing all of us to get to you."
vs 11
But curiosity can wait when there might be a way of getting out of it. What sort of sacrifice would this God of the Hebrews want?
vs 12
God is not exactly the one who is in for human sacrifice, but that's definitely what it looks like here. Really, the guys on the boat might never have seen Jonah again, and thought that that's how God worked. God doesn't correct them, so far as we know. Although really, it's less a sacrifice and more of a just punishment, perhaps.
vs 13
They didn't want to kill this guy. It's not cool.
vs 14
They obviously fear some sort of judgment too. This is a great picture of how God treats the other nations. People sometimes are confused or angry about God using a nation (like Assyria) to be his tool or instrument of judgment (like their army invading Israel), but then judging them for their evil actions (by making their empire fall). They say, "How is this fair? They were doing what God wanted." But look at the reactions of these sailors. God wants them to throw Jonah in, but they know killing someone is wrong. Finally, they beg God not to hold them responsible, because they are trying to do the right thing. They don't know much about the Hebrew God, but they are trying to do his will, at least. You always have a choice - you can choose not to be a bloodthirsty army. God will always find another person to do his dirty work.
vs 15
Here, God was happy for them to do it, after they had made it plain they didn't want to kill him, because he knew that Jonah wasn't going to die. They were, in effect, handing Jonah over to God by throwing him in the water.
vs 16
Which seems the right thing to do in such a situation.
vs 17
It's a bit of a bridging verse, so whether it's at the end of chapter 1 or beginning of chapter 2, not really a bother to me.
But wow, what an incredible and strange thing for the Lord to have happen to someone! And imagine being inside a fish for that long! It's little wonder this story stays in the psyche of western society. Of course, most would question its veracity as a real historical happening, but for me, I think it's awesome that God would make such things happen in the real world. It's a fantastic picture of the wonder God can continue to bring into the world. I wish we saw more of this stuff, not because I want to see miracles per se, but just because I feel that the technological and Enlightenment modern world is a much more boring place.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Psalm 31
Oooh, a slightly longer psalm.
vs 1
Not in his righteousness, obviously. If David, or I guess anyone, were really righteous, we wouldn't need to take refuge in God. Except, of course, that I think even Jesus would have said that he took refuge inGod. So to be truly righteous, you need to take refuge in God.
Anyway, even then you are delivered into God's righteousness, which is better than human righteousness anyway.
Shame, by the way, is a hugely important cultural concept in the middle east, and a lot of cultures. The opposite of shame is honour. So when you hear about an 'honour killing', it's usually because someone brought 'shame' onto the family. Shame needs to be redeemed. Sort of the opposite of guilt needing to be proved.
vs 2
As we've seen before, God is his refuge, so he asks for God to be his refuge, sort of not being presumptive.
vs 3
And once again we see David making his requests for the glory of God's name.
vs 4
Is that the trap of sin? I'd say that's probably being a little to allegorical. We all know that David has enemies, and no doubt they set regular old traps for him. Not like pit traps, but like ambushes.
vs 5
So it would seem Jesus quotes Psalm 31 on the cross too. Of course, David probably isn't dying as he writes this, so he commits his spirit in a less final sense. Or does he? Perhaps he is saying that even if he dies, he expects that God will look after him.
vs 6
Another expression of hate in a psalm. It's actually okay to do this. God hates people who rely on idols too. David may have a more immediate reason to hate them - like they are the enemies of his people, or even his specific enemies.
vs 7
One of the fantastic things about God is that he can see into our very beings and know what it is that makes us upset.
vs 8
Almost like he's put him in a paddock to frolic. A spacious place: it's a lovely, simple picture, and comforting for some reason. Perhaps because I spend so much of my time in a room in the house, or in the car, or in the train, or in the office. Having said that, I rather like those places as a rule. But there's just something emotive about a big open space.
vs 9
There are few times I have been so grieved that I have been truly weakened physically by it. I can definitely think of plenty of times I've been unable to see through crying though. It's at those times, I guess, when you really appreciate God's mercy, and you really, really want it. You want him to stop the pain.
vs 10
I guess if my life was constantly under threat by enemies, I might feel like this too. Thank God that I don't have to deal with emotions like this, and I don't think I ever have had to yet.
vs 11
That's got to suck. It really does suck when your enemies are so numerous or powerful that they can make not just your life hell, but also the lives of your friends and family.
vs 12
Discarded and forgotten, I suppose.
vs 13
They could at least take the trouble to whisper their plots against him outside his hearing. Or perhaps he is so ineffectual against him that they do it to further spite and terrorise him.
vs 14
That's all you have to say, really. I mean, we might throw something about Jesus in there, but that's only further clarifying the point really.
vs 15
So David both acknowledges that his time is in God's hands, but then he requests that, since it's in God's hands, would he mind making those times a little longer?
vs 16
Even if God doesn't save him, that wouldn't mean his love failed. He's not saying that. He's simply asking that God's will might match up with his.
vs 17
Again, it would be shameful not just to David, but to God, if David were to cry out to God for help, as his king, and be defeated. It would be much more glorifying if his enemies were to cop it. He's not trying to blackmail God by calling him out in public - he really cares about how God looks in the situation.
vs 18
He also wants God's enemies to pay their due, because they are not nice people.
vs 19
It's really good, is of course what he means.
vs 20
That's how good it is - it hides his people away from such terrible things, and shelters them.
vs 21
When, hey, you could probably use a bit of knowledge of God's love.
vs 22
Even in a city under seige, God can still come to your rescue and help. You're never cut off from him. It would be like if I were cut off from the internet, or from my Bible. Would I say, "Oh, I am cut off from God"? I might say it, but it wouldn't be true.
vs 23
Since David has had these great experiences, he calls on all his people to trust God and love him too. He is king, after all, and calling the people to worship God is sort of his job. Imagine if all of Israel's kings were so fixated on getting the people to worship God? We'd probably have lots of psalms.
vs 24
Even in times of trouble, he says, you can still worship and rely on God. In fact, that's probably a great time to do so.
vs 1
Not in his righteousness, obviously. If David, or I guess anyone, were really righteous, we wouldn't need to take refuge in God. Except, of course, that I think even Jesus would have said that he took refuge inGod. So to be truly righteous, you need to take refuge in God.
Anyway, even then you are delivered into God's righteousness, which is better than human righteousness anyway.
Shame, by the way, is a hugely important cultural concept in the middle east, and a lot of cultures. The opposite of shame is honour. So when you hear about an 'honour killing', it's usually because someone brought 'shame' onto the family. Shame needs to be redeemed. Sort of the opposite of guilt needing to be proved.
vs 2
As we've seen before, God is his refuge, so he asks for God to be his refuge, sort of not being presumptive.
vs 3
And once again we see David making his requests for the glory of God's name.
vs 4
Is that the trap of sin? I'd say that's probably being a little to allegorical. We all know that David has enemies, and no doubt they set regular old traps for him. Not like pit traps, but like ambushes.
vs 5
So it would seem Jesus quotes Psalm 31 on the cross too. Of course, David probably isn't dying as he writes this, so he commits his spirit in a less final sense. Or does he? Perhaps he is saying that even if he dies, he expects that God will look after him.
vs 6
Another expression of hate in a psalm. It's actually okay to do this. God hates people who rely on idols too. David may have a more immediate reason to hate them - like they are the enemies of his people, or even his specific enemies.
vs 7
One of the fantastic things about God is that he can see into our very beings and know what it is that makes us upset.
vs 8
Almost like he's put him in a paddock to frolic. A spacious place: it's a lovely, simple picture, and comforting for some reason. Perhaps because I spend so much of my time in a room in the house, or in the car, or in the train, or in the office. Having said that, I rather like those places as a rule. But there's just something emotive about a big open space.
vs 9
There are few times I have been so grieved that I have been truly weakened physically by it. I can definitely think of plenty of times I've been unable to see through crying though. It's at those times, I guess, when you really appreciate God's mercy, and you really, really want it. You want him to stop the pain.
vs 10
I guess if my life was constantly under threat by enemies, I might feel like this too. Thank God that I don't have to deal with emotions like this, and I don't think I ever have had to yet.
vs 11
That's got to suck. It really does suck when your enemies are so numerous or powerful that they can make not just your life hell, but also the lives of your friends and family.
vs 12
Discarded and forgotten, I suppose.
vs 13
They could at least take the trouble to whisper their plots against him outside his hearing. Or perhaps he is so ineffectual against him that they do it to further spite and terrorise him.
vs 14
That's all you have to say, really. I mean, we might throw something about Jesus in there, but that's only further clarifying the point really.
vs 15
So David both acknowledges that his time is in God's hands, but then he requests that, since it's in God's hands, would he mind making those times a little longer?
vs 16
Even if God doesn't save him, that wouldn't mean his love failed. He's not saying that. He's simply asking that God's will might match up with his.
vs 17
Again, it would be shameful not just to David, but to God, if David were to cry out to God for help, as his king, and be defeated. It would be much more glorifying if his enemies were to cop it. He's not trying to blackmail God by calling him out in public - he really cares about how God looks in the situation.
vs 18
He also wants God's enemies to pay their due, because they are not nice people.
vs 19
It's really good, is of course what he means.
vs 20
That's how good it is - it hides his people away from such terrible things, and shelters them.
vs 21
When, hey, you could probably use a bit of knowledge of God's love.
vs 22
Even in a city under seige, God can still come to your rescue and help. You're never cut off from him. It would be like if I were cut off from the internet, or from my Bible. Would I say, "Oh, I am cut off from God"? I might say it, but it wouldn't be true.
vs 23
Since David has had these great experiences, he calls on all his people to trust God and love him too. He is king, after all, and calling the people to worship God is sort of his job. Imagine if all of Israel's kings were so fixated on getting the people to worship God? We'd probably have lots of psalms.
vs 24
Even in times of trouble, he says, you can still worship and rely on God. In fact, that's probably a great time to do so.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Psalm 30
vs 1
So far, it's not sounding like a psalm of dedication to the temple. Not that what's in the psalm is false. God did save David from his enemies, several times. And David did exalt God. He wrote this psalm, for example.
vs 2
I can't think of any specific healing that we are told about that God did for David. Either that means it's not recorded, or he's just talking about regular healing (he was a bit of a warrior, no doubt he got a few injuries) or he's talking about something else.
vs 3
So far as I know David was never raised from the dead. It's a fine messianic point, but I assume David is talking preventatively.
vs 4
So the psalm has started with David's reasons for praising God. Now he instructs all of God's people to join in that praise.
vs 5
Israel's life with God has not always been peaches and cream. Something they have to acknowledge and accept is that God will punish wrongdoing. But his mercy and love are eternal, while his discipline is only temporary. That's the same for God's people today. It is not Christians that go to hell for wrongdoing. They are disciplined, sure, but also assured a place in heaven. Basically, it's a good thing to be with God.
vs 6
I assume the idea is that God makes him secure, and so on God he will never be shaken. It might be such an obvious statement that it doesn't need such explicit stating.
vs 7
There we are, it is definitely talking about being secure in God's will. It is when God turns his face away, is not blessing what you are doing, that things get unstable.
vs 8
Who else was he going to call? Especially if he recognises that the problem is not some sort of extrinsic problem, it is one between him and God.
vs 9
It's interesting to see these sorts of statements, in the psalms and elsewhere. Those people who bargain with God, who tell him that they exist to give him praise, and if he doesn't save them, then that will be less glory for God. It's not so much a, "Hey, you owe me," it's a, "Hey, think of what people will think." We have to remember that our prayers should be in God's will. I think we focus a lot on the New Testament "God loves us" type prayer, but the Old Testament prayer was more, "You'll do this because it brings you glory you deserve."
vs 10
The Lord is David's help, because David asks for the Lord to be his help.
vs 11
Good old David, always prepared to cut a rug for joy in God. To the dismay of some.
vs 12
The joy that we feel, we feel from God. We can't escape that. If you have joy, you have to thank God for it, because there is nowhere else from which it comes. He is the one who turns grief into joy.
So far, it's not sounding like a psalm of dedication to the temple. Not that what's in the psalm is false. God did save David from his enemies, several times. And David did exalt God. He wrote this psalm, for example.
vs 2
I can't think of any specific healing that we are told about that God did for David. Either that means it's not recorded, or he's just talking about regular healing (he was a bit of a warrior, no doubt he got a few injuries) or he's talking about something else.
vs 3
So far as I know David was never raised from the dead. It's a fine messianic point, but I assume David is talking preventatively.
vs 4
So the psalm has started with David's reasons for praising God. Now he instructs all of God's people to join in that praise.
vs 5
Israel's life with God has not always been peaches and cream. Something they have to acknowledge and accept is that God will punish wrongdoing. But his mercy and love are eternal, while his discipline is only temporary. That's the same for God's people today. It is not Christians that go to hell for wrongdoing. They are disciplined, sure, but also assured a place in heaven. Basically, it's a good thing to be with God.
vs 6
I assume the idea is that God makes him secure, and so on God he will never be shaken. It might be such an obvious statement that it doesn't need such explicit stating.
vs 7
There we are, it is definitely talking about being secure in God's will. It is when God turns his face away, is not blessing what you are doing, that things get unstable.
vs 8
Who else was he going to call? Especially if he recognises that the problem is not some sort of extrinsic problem, it is one between him and God.
vs 9
It's interesting to see these sorts of statements, in the psalms and elsewhere. Those people who bargain with God, who tell him that they exist to give him praise, and if he doesn't save them, then that will be less glory for God. It's not so much a, "Hey, you owe me," it's a, "Hey, think of what people will think." We have to remember that our prayers should be in God's will. I think we focus a lot on the New Testament "God loves us" type prayer, but the Old Testament prayer was more, "You'll do this because it brings you glory you deserve."
vs 10
The Lord is David's help, because David asks for the Lord to be his help.
vs 11
Good old David, always prepared to cut a rug for joy in God. To the dismay of some.
vs 12
The joy that we feel, we feel from God. We can't escape that. If you have joy, you have to thank God for it, because there is nowhere else from which it comes. He is the one who turns grief into joy.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Psalm 29
vs 1
I just have to say that, on the outset, this psalm is much more like some modern Christian music, in its repetition. Which makes it perhaps more familiar to us, but that much more boring.
We start with a typical lyrical statement - about angels ascribing greatness to God. Of course, being lyrical doesn't make it fictional. It's like writing about butterflies and rainbows, which are also not fictional. Not that angels are like butterflies and angels either. But they do praise God, so it's like telling butterflies to fly or rainbows to be colourful.
vs 2
And why should they be doing this? Because it's what God deserves. He deserves to have heavenly beings singing his praises, and ascribing him greatness.
vs 3
The waters of course being a place that Israelites weren't that keen on as a rule, so to know that God thunders over them is a show of his power over all things. It could also be a picture of a storm out to sea, which is a pretty awesome sight.
vs 4
If we were thinking of thunder in a storm, then the voice of the Lord is powerful, majestic, and also difficult to understand. But then, it's just a picture. Thunderstorms are not God. God actually talks, with a voice that is actually powerful and actually majestic.
vs 5
Again, something a storm might do. But also something God may will to do, even just to show his power, through and over creation. The Lord floods Brisbane, for example.
vs 6
My assumption is that the leap comes from a crash of lightning. Krakow! Eep!
vs 7
So, in fact, God says, "Krakrakrakow boom!" Again, it's a description of power.
vs 8
Kadesh is the desert of the wilderness wanderings, where Miriam died, and where Moses struck the rock with his staff. In one sense, showing that God's voice shakes the desert is a nice contrast to the oceans of earlier. Why the desrt of Kadesh in particular? Perhaps simply because it is a famous desert from Israel's history. I mean, if I were going to mention something in a song, I'd mention something someone would understand - so if 'my heart leapt like a' I'd say kangaroo instead of, say, bilby, or marsupial mouse. My heart may have leapt like all three, but people know kangaroos.
vs 9
I don't know if you've ever given glory to God when looking at a natural event, like a storm. I have, and it's not something I do often, but I assume many people have, since there are so many songs and prayers and videos and such about it. When God did directly (and pre- or post-announced) reveal himself or acted using weather phenomenon, there is a very strong link to them and him to his people. When your fig trees are being stripped of fruit, you don't cry out "Glory" because you don't like figs. You do it because there really isn't any other response to the power of God. Sort of like Job, really.
On a slight tangent, this is one of those verses that makes me wonder how people can say the KJV is the more readily understandable version. Apart from all the unnecessary 'th's, what is a hind? Apparently, it is "the female of the deer, chiefly the red deer, Cervus elaphus, especially in and after the third year". Well. Specific.
vs 10
As much as this psalm has not been one of my favourites, this verse is particularly poignant at present, considering the flooding in Queensland and parts of NSW, and parts of Victoria, and parts of Tasmania. As much as God is king over all that, he is king over all things forever. Comforting thought, and hopefully to many.
vs 11
This is what I would hope and pray for those Christians suffering in the floods at present - that God would give them strength, and bless his people, especially as they seek to help others overcome the grief of loss, and in the clean up and rebuilding.
I just have to say that, on the outset, this psalm is much more like some modern Christian music, in its repetition. Which makes it perhaps more familiar to us, but that much more boring.
We start with a typical lyrical statement - about angels ascribing greatness to God. Of course, being lyrical doesn't make it fictional. It's like writing about butterflies and rainbows, which are also not fictional. Not that angels are like butterflies and angels either. But they do praise God, so it's like telling butterflies to fly or rainbows to be colourful.
vs 2
And why should they be doing this? Because it's what God deserves. He deserves to have heavenly beings singing his praises, and ascribing him greatness.
vs 3
The waters of course being a place that Israelites weren't that keen on as a rule, so to know that God thunders over them is a show of his power over all things. It could also be a picture of a storm out to sea, which is a pretty awesome sight.
vs 4
If we were thinking of thunder in a storm, then the voice of the Lord is powerful, majestic, and also difficult to understand. But then, it's just a picture. Thunderstorms are not God. God actually talks, with a voice that is actually powerful and actually majestic.
vs 5
Again, something a storm might do. But also something God may will to do, even just to show his power, through and over creation. The Lord floods Brisbane, for example.
vs 6
My assumption is that the leap comes from a crash of lightning. Krakow! Eep!
vs 7
So, in fact, God says, "Krakrakrakow boom!" Again, it's a description of power.
vs 8
Kadesh is the desert of the wilderness wanderings, where Miriam died, and where Moses struck the rock with his staff. In one sense, showing that God's voice shakes the desert is a nice contrast to the oceans of earlier. Why the desrt of Kadesh in particular? Perhaps simply because it is a famous desert from Israel's history. I mean, if I were going to mention something in a song, I'd mention something someone would understand - so if 'my heart leapt like a' I'd say kangaroo instead of, say, bilby, or marsupial mouse. My heart may have leapt like all three, but people know kangaroos.
vs 9
I don't know if you've ever given glory to God when looking at a natural event, like a storm. I have, and it's not something I do often, but I assume many people have, since there are so many songs and prayers and videos and such about it. When God did directly (and pre- or post-announced) reveal himself or acted using weather phenomenon, there is a very strong link to them and him to his people. When your fig trees are being stripped of fruit, you don't cry out "Glory" because you don't like figs. You do it because there really isn't any other response to the power of God. Sort of like Job, really.
On a slight tangent, this is one of those verses that makes me wonder how people can say the KJV is the more readily understandable version. Apart from all the unnecessary 'th's, what is a hind? Apparently, it is "the female of the deer, chiefly the red deer, Cervus elaphus, especially in and after the third year". Well. Specific.
vs 10
As much as this psalm has not been one of my favourites, this verse is particularly poignant at present, considering the flooding in Queensland and parts of NSW, and parts of Victoria, and parts of Tasmania. As much as God is king over all that, he is king over all things forever. Comforting thought, and hopefully to many.
vs 11
This is what I would hope and pray for those Christians suffering in the floods at present - that God would give them strength, and bless his people, especially as they seek to help others overcome the grief of loss, and in the clean up and rebuilding.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Psalm 28
vs 1
God's reaction to David will determine what happens to him. David has to rely on God, because there is nothing else to rely on.
vs 2
I wonder if that means to heaven, or actually towards the temple? I mean, apparently Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, before changing it to Mecca, so I wonder if Jews used to do that too? I'm afraid I don't know enough about their liturgical and prayer culture. Anyway, I think the point of the verse is more that David wants God to hear him.
vs 3
I wonder if something specific happened to David to get him to write this line - like one of his neighbours did something - or if it was just a sinful sort of thing that fit with the tempo of the psalm? I mean, it sounds like, "Don't treat me like a sinner, like that Steve, who I know talks about me behind my back. Steve..."
vs 4
Yeah, that Steve, show him what happens when you talk behind people's backs. Ahem. But don't treat me like one of them, because I'm calling out to you for help.
vs 5
Not necessarily because of what they did, then? I mean, that's the idea, I think. Sure, you might have sinned. But a sinful act alone is not going to damn you. It's when you have flagrant disregard for God, and you don't think about him and what he has done, and you dont' call on him for help, that's when you're toast.
vs 6
That's a nice verse. Now, is it a statement that God has heard his cry (the cry from the last few verses) somewhere between the writing of the psalm? Or is it an example of what they call the 'prophetic perfect', where it suggests that something has already happened, because you can trust God so much that you can treat it as if it's happened even though it hasn't yet?
vs 7
These are great statements, but again, is this remembering God's faithfulness in the past, or most recently? Not that it really matters.
vs 8
This is probably a comforting thought. God isn't just the strength of David, but he is the strength of his whole people. Assuming, that is, that they call out to him, rather than being like Steve, who disregards the work of God's hands.
vs 9
It's a request that you make to sort of remind God of things that might glorify him, and promises he has made. There's nothing wrong with asking God for things that he has promised. I mean, it shows that you want it, and that you know he wants it, and that you believe he can and will give it. So long as you don't ask in a whiny way, I guess.
God's reaction to David will determine what happens to him. David has to rely on God, because there is nothing else to rely on.
vs 2
I wonder if that means to heaven, or actually towards the temple? I mean, apparently Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, before changing it to Mecca, so I wonder if Jews used to do that too? I'm afraid I don't know enough about their liturgical and prayer culture. Anyway, I think the point of the verse is more that David wants God to hear him.
vs 3
I wonder if something specific happened to David to get him to write this line - like one of his neighbours did something - or if it was just a sinful sort of thing that fit with the tempo of the psalm? I mean, it sounds like, "Don't treat me like a sinner, like that Steve, who I know talks about me behind my back. Steve..."
vs 4
Yeah, that Steve, show him what happens when you talk behind people's backs. Ahem. But don't treat me like one of them, because I'm calling out to you for help.
vs 5
Not necessarily because of what they did, then? I mean, that's the idea, I think. Sure, you might have sinned. But a sinful act alone is not going to damn you. It's when you have flagrant disregard for God, and you don't think about him and what he has done, and you dont' call on him for help, that's when you're toast.
vs 6
That's a nice verse. Now, is it a statement that God has heard his cry (the cry from the last few verses) somewhere between the writing of the psalm? Or is it an example of what they call the 'prophetic perfect', where it suggests that something has already happened, because you can trust God so much that you can treat it as if it's happened even though it hasn't yet?
vs 7
These are great statements, but again, is this remembering God's faithfulness in the past, or most recently? Not that it really matters.
vs 8
This is probably a comforting thought. God isn't just the strength of David, but he is the strength of his whole people. Assuming, that is, that they call out to him, rather than being like Steve, who disregards the work of God's hands.
vs 9
It's a request that you make to sort of remind God of things that might glorify him, and promises he has made. There's nothing wrong with asking God for things that he has promised. I mean, it shows that you want it, and that you know he wants it, and that you believe he can and will give it. So long as you don't ask in a whiny way, I guess.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Psalm 27
vs 1
The answer of course is no-one, but this is usually an idea you would look into when you already are afraid, or when there are things that would make normal people afraid. There's plenty out there to fear, just not anything that outranks God.
vs 2
Sometimes. I don't think there's a promise we can rely on that makes this a reality, except eschatologically. Perhaps we need to think that way anyway.
vs 3
David, I've read your other psalms, so I know this isn't true. But it's a great thing to aim for.
vs 4
If we look at life eschatologically, if this is what we live for, then we'll get it, regardless of armies and enemies. So, awesome.
vs 5
Is the day of trouble just the day when trouble strikes, or is it the Day of trouble? Not sure, but considering that the worst day of trouble is the Day, and God still protects from that, we should be okay.
vs 6
The head being exalted, I'm guessing, is like being head and shoulders above them. So God's safety puts David above his enemies. And I suppose because God has kept David safe, he makes his sacrifices with joy and sings to him in thanksgiving.
vs 7
The tone of this psalm generally gives these words a different expression than in those of anguish. It's like it's a statement that still needs to be made, but with assurance that it will be heard.
vs 8
That's a wonderful thing. His very being tells him to seek God's face, and so that's what he's going to do.
vs 9
David, as always, is putting this request in the context of previous help from God. But when he is positive, he puts it in the context of previous help to him. When he's a little more anxious, he puts it in the context of previous help to Israel.
vs 10
That's a little depressing, but I guess if God is for you, then even your parents can't take that away. This is quite a common thing for many Christians these days, who convert from other religions. It's a powerful verse for them, I'll bet.
vs 11
I wonder if David means that, because he's got the pressure of people seeking to oppress him, that that is a possible cause of him leaving the straight and narrow, and so he's asking God to give him a straight path so he doesn't go and kill someone, or something similar? It's an interesting base for the request.
vs 12
David's life definitely sucked sometimes. But he was sure God could get him through.
vs 13
While the first part of the verse is a great statement that really backs up the tone of the whole thing, the words "in the land of the living" are quite interesting. The way I read it is him saying that he is confident that God will bless him and save him 'during this life', as in, he is not waiting eschatologically. That sort of throws out what I was saying earlier. I suppose the promises of God to Israel really were wrapped up in the here and now, so why not have that faith? That's quite a challenge to me.
vs 14
Thank you, David. I'll try.
The answer of course is no-one, but this is usually an idea you would look into when you already are afraid, or when there are things that would make normal people afraid. There's plenty out there to fear, just not anything that outranks God.
vs 2
Sometimes. I don't think there's a promise we can rely on that makes this a reality, except eschatologically. Perhaps we need to think that way anyway.
vs 3
David, I've read your other psalms, so I know this isn't true. But it's a great thing to aim for.
vs 4
If we look at life eschatologically, if this is what we live for, then we'll get it, regardless of armies and enemies. So, awesome.
vs 5
Is the day of trouble just the day when trouble strikes, or is it the Day of trouble? Not sure, but considering that the worst day of trouble is the Day, and God still protects from that, we should be okay.
vs 6
The head being exalted, I'm guessing, is like being head and shoulders above them. So God's safety puts David above his enemies. And I suppose because God has kept David safe, he makes his sacrifices with joy and sings to him in thanksgiving.
vs 7
The tone of this psalm generally gives these words a different expression than in those of anguish. It's like it's a statement that still needs to be made, but with assurance that it will be heard.
vs 8
That's a wonderful thing. His very being tells him to seek God's face, and so that's what he's going to do.
vs 9
David, as always, is putting this request in the context of previous help from God. But when he is positive, he puts it in the context of previous help to him. When he's a little more anxious, he puts it in the context of previous help to Israel.
vs 10
That's a little depressing, but I guess if God is for you, then even your parents can't take that away. This is quite a common thing for many Christians these days, who convert from other religions. It's a powerful verse for them, I'll bet.
vs 11
I wonder if David means that, because he's got the pressure of people seeking to oppress him, that that is a possible cause of him leaving the straight and narrow, and so he's asking God to give him a straight path so he doesn't go and kill someone, or something similar? It's an interesting base for the request.
vs 12
David's life definitely sucked sometimes. But he was sure God could get him through.
vs 13
While the first part of the verse is a great statement that really backs up the tone of the whole thing, the words "in the land of the living" are quite interesting. The way I read it is him saying that he is confident that God will bless him and save him 'during this life', as in, he is not waiting eschatologically. That sort of throws out what I was saying earlier. I suppose the promises of God to Israel really were wrapped up in the here and now, so why not have that faith? That's quite a challenge to me.
vs 14
Thank you, David. I'll try.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Psalm 26
vs 1
So... is this, then, an earlier, pre Bathsheeba psalm? Or does he pray these words truthfully at another time, perhaps speaking of a specific period? The thing is of course, no matter when we say this was written, David was a sinner. But he could say these words in and of himself and mean them. Job says something similar.
It's this fact that sometimes makes me wonder if we perhaps misread what Jesus is saying in the sermon on the mount, when he makes those statements about adultery being thought, not just deed, hate being murder, and such like. Not misread - I think it's clear what he's saying. But we have a wrong attitude towards it. We say, "Well, if lust is adultery, I may as well sleep with her, since I'm already a sinner." But what Jesus is saying is, "Don't lust! Don't hate!" Can we do that every moment of every day? No. But if we don't try, we'll never do it at all.
Of course, this verse could also be referring to the messiah, who of course was blameless.
vs 2
How confident would you be to ask God to do this? I wouldn't be.
vs 3
David, you're killing me here. Putting me to absolute shame. I with I could pray this prayer.
vs 4
Blessed is the man who doesn't do such things, says psalm 1.
vs 5
It's funny, because of course I always imagine this as going into the dark, seedy places of down, and why would a king go there? But there are assemblies of evildoers who wear Armani suits, so why wouldn't there have been well-to-do evildoers back then that might have wanted to hang with the king.
vs 6
Clean ritually, but also clean spiritually, I think he's saying - like he does the washing, but only because it is law, not because his hands have committed wrongdoing.
vs 7
I am always so shocked that this sort of loud proclaiming is part of righteousness even pre-Christ. You don't think that Israel needs to hear the gospel? Then why does even David proclaim God's glory to them? Why is that a righteous thing to do? Of course, it's righteous to proclaim God's great deeds and his glory simply because he deserves honour. But no doubt Israel could use the reminder too.
vs 8
Does this, I wonder, point us to Christ - just as David loved the house of the Lord, not because it was pretty or a feat of architecture (hey, this could be talking about the tabernacle), but he loved it because it represented God's presence with his people - do we love God because he sent us Jesus? Do we love the indwelling Holy Spirit that binds us to God, that means he is with us even when it seems he's so far away?
vs 9
Why would David pray that? he's already set out that he is righteous, that he had done no wrong. Perhaps it is because David knows full well that when God punishes, he can punish on a macro scale, and that can mean innocent people also die. It's not like he saves all those who are righteous from bushfires, floods, famine or war. But David is asking not to be amongst them.
He also asks specifically for his soul, which is fascinating. I wonder what he means by it.
vs 10
A fine and fair description of the unrighteous who do deserve to lose their souls and lives. God does not like wicked schemers and bribery. I have no doubt that a bunch of underhanded bribery goes on today. God doesn't like it. I have no doubt there are many involved in wicked schemes (Christopher Skase and Alan Bond are people in our past, but we would be naive to think there won't be others in our future).
vs 11
This is an absolutely fantastic line. This, I think, explains verse 1 incredibly well. It starts "I am blameless" - or at least he leads a blameless life, which I'll say for semantics is the same thing. Doesn't that mean that David can simply stand up and claim his reward? No. No, David is blameless, but humbly requests mercy and humbly requests redemption. Here is a verse that shows the meaning of the idea that man's righteousness is like filthy rags before God. It's not utterly worthless, but it is contemptable in comparison. David is blameless, but he knows that even by that standard, he still needs God's mercy. He still needs redemption. He can't demand rewards from God. But his worthy life puts him in a position where his request for clemency looks a lot better.
vs 12
I'll admit I don't know what this means. Feet standing on level ground might be a reference to David standing on the solid rock of trust in God, which is why he praises God in the congregation.
Apart from this last verse, which I find just a little confusing, this is a fantastic psalm. I'd love to learn this one off by heart.
So... is this, then, an earlier, pre Bathsheeba psalm? Or does he pray these words truthfully at another time, perhaps speaking of a specific period? The thing is of course, no matter when we say this was written, David was a sinner. But he could say these words in and of himself and mean them. Job says something similar.
It's this fact that sometimes makes me wonder if we perhaps misread what Jesus is saying in the sermon on the mount, when he makes those statements about adultery being thought, not just deed, hate being murder, and such like. Not misread - I think it's clear what he's saying. But we have a wrong attitude towards it. We say, "Well, if lust is adultery, I may as well sleep with her, since I'm already a sinner." But what Jesus is saying is, "Don't lust! Don't hate!" Can we do that every moment of every day? No. But if we don't try, we'll never do it at all.
Of course, this verse could also be referring to the messiah, who of course was blameless.
vs 2
How confident would you be to ask God to do this? I wouldn't be.
vs 3
David, you're killing me here. Putting me to absolute shame. I with I could pray this prayer.
vs 4
Blessed is the man who doesn't do such things, says psalm 1.
vs 5
It's funny, because of course I always imagine this as going into the dark, seedy places of down, and why would a king go there? But there are assemblies of evildoers who wear Armani suits, so why wouldn't there have been well-to-do evildoers back then that might have wanted to hang with the king.
vs 6
Clean ritually, but also clean spiritually, I think he's saying - like he does the washing, but only because it is law, not because his hands have committed wrongdoing.
vs 7
I am always so shocked that this sort of loud proclaiming is part of righteousness even pre-Christ. You don't think that Israel needs to hear the gospel? Then why does even David proclaim God's glory to them? Why is that a righteous thing to do? Of course, it's righteous to proclaim God's great deeds and his glory simply because he deserves honour. But no doubt Israel could use the reminder too.
vs 8
Does this, I wonder, point us to Christ - just as David loved the house of the Lord, not because it was pretty or a feat of architecture (hey, this could be talking about the tabernacle), but he loved it because it represented God's presence with his people - do we love God because he sent us Jesus? Do we love the indwelling Holy Spirit that binds us to God, that means he is with us even when it seems he's so far away?
vs 9
Why would David pray that? he's already set out that he is righteous, that he had done no wrong. Perhaps it is because David knows full well that when God punishes, he can punish on a macro scale, and that can mean innocent people also die. It's not like he saves all those who are righteous from bushfires, floods, famine or war. But David is asking not to be amongst them.
He also asks specifically for his soul, which is fascinating. I wonder what he means by it.
vs 10
A fine and fair description of the unrighteous who do deserve to lose their souls and lives. God does not like wicked schemers and bribery. I have no doubt that a bunch of underhanded bribery goes on today. God doesn't like it. I have no doubt there are many involved in wicked schemes (Christopher Skase and Alan Bond are people in our past, but we would be naive to think there won't be others in our future).
vs 11
This is an absolutely fantastic line. This, I think, explains verse 1 incredibly well. It starts "I am blameless" - or at least he leads a blameless life, which I'll say for semantics is the same thing. Doesn't that mean that David can simply stand up and claim his reward? No. No, David is blameless, but humbly requests mercy and humbly requests redemption. Here is a verse that shows the meaning of the idea that man's righteousness is like filthy rags before God. It's not utterly worthless, but it is contemptable in comparison. David is blameless, but he knows that even by that standard, he still needs God's mercy. He still needs redemption. He can't demand rewards from God. But his worthy life puts him in a position where his request for clemency looks a lot better.
vs 12
I'll admit I don't know what this means. Feet standing on level ground might be a reference to David standing on the solid rock of trust in God, which is why he praises God in the congregation.
Apart from this last verse, which I find just a little confusing, this is a fantastic psalm. I'd love to learn this one off by heart.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 48
We're on the home stretch! Woohoo!
vs 1
See, it's talking about tribes that don't even exist any more - that were destroyed by Assyria. So either the Dispensationalists are right, and Israel will be reformed, or John is right, and God says one thing, and another happens - Israel is counted, Gentiles are seen.
vs 2-7
Here we have the strips of land described earlier, I guess, all lined up next to each other.
vs 8
So the sanctuary (not the priests) gets this extra bit of land equal to what any tribe would get.
vs 9
That is, equal to what all the tribes get.
vs 10
I think we got the idea.
vs 11
So although I said it's for the sanctuary, not the priests, again in reality it is for the priests, because they're the ones that will live there.
vs 12
Wait, portion of the Levites, I hear you say?
vs 13
Now, here's something new - the Levites get their own bit of land. Which I guess is good in a way, but does it mean that God has cancelled their old inheritance - which was him! - and given it to the Zadokites? Seems so.
vs 14
So even though the Levites get land like any other tribe now, they still can't sell or exchange it, because it is still holy, because of God's ancient promise to them.
vs 15
Because, you know, there has to be that extra 5000 cubits.
vs 16
I'm sure it will.
vs 17
Why so little?
vs 18
Now that's interesting - setting aside fields specifically to feed those who live and work in the city. I mean, this is really the only way to do it, I guess. Division of labour allows for the existence of cities.
vs 19
Of course, someone still has to farm it. But not one tribe - all the tribes will help farm it.
vs 20
It's not that God doesn't like surprise gifts, but he wants to make sure they don't get him a fire extinguisher for their anniversary.
vs 21
This makes the third new land allotment - Zadokites, Levites, and prince. This shows that even though God made an original promise and had an original plan (for which his laws were made), the circimstances changed, and so God has changed his promise with them.
vs 22
The prince's land hems in the sacred lands, sort of as a buffer between all the other tribes.
vs 23-29
If you were wondering where the other tribes got their stuff - there it is.
vs 30-34
It has gates, there is three on each side, named after the tribes. Proper tribes, too. Joesph just gets one. Levites just get one. No Zadokite gate, no half-tribe-of-Manassah half-gate. Also interestingly no David gate (although I guess the prince gets all that land partly because of David). But it's very traditional, these gates.
vs 35
I'm sure the name is some Hebrew word, but it doesn't give it, so the city will be the dwelling place of the Lord.
And that, boys and girls, is the end of Ezekiel. It's been a long run, some of it quite boring near the end there, but I hope you saw some of the great descriptions and langauge that is reflected later on in Revelation. Perhaps I should do Revelation next. Whatever I do next, it will be something interesting, that's for sure. Deuteronomy was better than this.
vs 1
See, it's talking about tribes that don't even exist any more - that were destroyed by Assyria. So either the Dispensationalists are right, and Israel will be reformed, or John is right, and God says one thing, and another happens - Israel is counted, Gentiles are seen.
vs 2-7
Here we have the strips of land described earlier, I guess, all lined up next to each other.
vs 8
So the sanctuary (not the priests) gets this extra bit of land equal to what any tribe would get.
vs 9
That is, equal to what all the tribes get.
vs 10
I think we got the idea.
vs 11
So although I said it's for the sanctuary, not the priests, again in reality it is for the priests, because they're the ones that will live there.
vs 12
Wait, portion of the Levites, I hear you say?
vs 13
Now, here's something new - the Levites get their own bit of land. Which I guess is good in a way, but does it mean that God has cancelled their old inheritance - which was him! - and given it to the Zadokites? Seems so.
vs 14
So even though the Levites get land like any other tribe now, they still can't sell or exchange it, because it is still holy, because of God's ancient promise to them.
vs 15
Because, you know, there has to be that extra 5000 cubits.
vs 16
I'm sure it will.
vs 17
Why so little?
vs 18
Now that's interesting - setting aside fields specifically to feed those who live and work in the city. I mean, this is really the only way to do it, I guess. Division of labour allows for the existence of cities.
vs 19
Of course, someone still has to farm it. But not one tribe - all the tribes will help farm it.
vs 20
It's not that God doesn't like surprise gifts, but he wants to make sure they don't get him a fire extinguisher for their anniversary.
vs 21
This makes the third new land allotment - Zadokites, Levites, and prince. This shows that even though God made an original promise and had an original plan (for which his laws were made), the circimstances changed, and so God has changed his promise with them.
vs 22
The prince's land hems in the sacred lands, sort of as a buffer between all the other tribes.
vs 23-29
If you were wondering where the other tribes got their stuff - there it is.
vs 30-34
It has gates, there is three on each side, named after the tribes. Proper tribes, too. Joesph just gets one. Levites just get one. No Zadokite gate, no half-tribe-of-Manassah half-gate. Also interestingly no David gate (although I guess the prince gets all that land partly because of David). But it's very traditional, these gates.
vs 35
I'm sure the name is some Hebrew word, but it doesn't give it, so the city will be the dwelling place of the Lord.
And that, boys and girls, is the end of Ezekiel. It's been a long run, some of it quite boring near the end there, but I hope you saw some of the great descriptions and langauge that is reflected later on in Revelation. Perhaps I should do Revelation next. Whatever I do next, it will be something interesting, that's for sure. Deuteronomy was better than this.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 47
vs 1
Okay, when I said before that I thought this was a picture of how Israel would live, that God was giving them hope for the future, there are some things that I don't think were expected to literally happen. This is one.
vs 2
It's not a river, but a trickle of water is still very important in the middle east.
vs 3
That's pretty darn deep.
vs 4
Getting quite deep here.
vs 5
A river so deep no-one could cross? That's quite a river.
vs 6
I don't know how you could ask someone if they see something that is so big you can't cross it.
vs 7
How lovely.
vs 8
Now, that's the opposite of what you'd expect. The dead sea is so salty that water you pour in would become salty. But this river is so big and so fresh that it can make the dead sea fresh.
vs 9
It's a river of living water. Hmm, where have I read that before?
vs 10
Which, I might point out, is salty.
vs 11
Because, you know, not everything can be fresh water.
vs 12
It's the trees of life, with the fruit and leaves of life. Again, Revelation steals this picture.
vs 13
Joeseph, after what, a millenia, still gets two lots of land!
vs 14
God isn't giving up on that promise... even if the land is currently overrun.
vs 15-20
I'm getting flashbacks of Joshua here. I'd check to see if they match up, but I'm too lazy.
vs 21
So, not any way you want.
vs 22
Oh, wow. That's phenomenal. That is unheard of. What is a Jew, if these people are treated as native-born? Awesome verse.
vs 23
So if they live there, they become a member of that tribe. Which is useful, since most of the tribes got the arse and disappeared. This is a mass refilling of God's people, not using Jews.
Okay, when I said before that I thought this was a picture of how Israel would live, that God was giving them hope for the future, there are some things that I don't think were expected to literally happen. This is one.
vs 2
It's not a river, but a trickle of water is still very important in the middle east.
vs 3
That's pretty darn deep.
vs 4
Getting quite deep here.
vs 5
A river so deep no-one could cross? That's quite a river.
vs 6
I don't know how you could ask someone if they see something that is so big you can't cross it.
vs 7
How lovely.
vs 8
Now, that's the opposite of what you'd expect. The dead sea is so salty that water you pour in would become salty. But this river is so big and so fresh that it can make the dead sea fresh.
vs 9
It's a river of living water. Hmm, where have I read that before?
vs 10
Which, I might point out, is salty.
vs 11
Because, you know, not everything can be fresh water.
vs 12
It's the trees of life, with the fruit and leaves of life. Again, Revelation steals this picture.
vs 13
Joeseph, after what, a millenia, still gets two lots of land!
vs 14
God isn't giving up on that promise... even if the land is currently overrun.
vs 15-20
I'm getting flashbacks of Joshua here. I'd check to see if they match up, but I'm too lazy.
vs 21
So, not any way you want.
vs 22
Oh, wow. That's phenomenal. That is unheard of. What is a Jew, if these people are treated as native-born? Awesome verse.
vs 23
So if they live there, they become a member of that tribe. Which is useful, since most of the tribes got the arse and disappeared. This is a mass refilling of God's people, not using Jews.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 46
Nearly reaching the Ezekiel home stretch. It will be good to get it out of the way before any more sermons come up.
vs 1
So obviously on the Sabbath and other festival days (although it only lists the new moon day) the gate to the temple is opened. The rest of the time, it is shut off. Which is a pretty sucky picture of heaven. I think Penny was right in what she said the other day - that this stuff, while it might be a murky picture of heaven, is really more a picture of a better life for Israel in their land.
vs 2
It's a good idea to institutionalise the prince bowing in worship of God. Makes people put him in an appropriate position of authority, under God. I guess that's why mining companies and factional leaders and big business generally like to see prime ministers bow down to them. Sigh.
vs 3
I'd go back and check if the gateway was big enough to support a throng of thousands of people, but honestly I don't care.
vs 4
So every week? I guess that keeps them in the meat, but that's a lot of animals to be slaughtered.
vs 5
So... a lot.
vs 6
So that would be once a month, I figure.
vs 7
Again, lots of grain. Vegetable and fruit sacrifices would have been welcome, I'm guessing.
vs 8
I don't really know what to say about this statement.
vs 9
Except the prince? So everyone sort of passes by the temple, but the prince goes in and out the same gate.
vs 10
Except the prince seems to do a lot of going in and out.
vs 11
I think we've got the pattern down pat now.
vs 12
So unlike sabbaths, where the gate stays open, the prince gets special access, but the gate shuts immediately afterwards. Why? No idea. I mean, my assumption would be something about the gate being open being a welcoming and open sort of picture, with the closed gate being a picture of holiness.
vs 13
Is you the prince? Or the people?
vs 14
It's good for the priests to have daily sacrifices. And it should remind people of God every day too. Or at least the king.
vs 15
Ahh, repetiton.
vs 16
Okay. How is this not normal?
vs 17
OoooOoooOOoooh. I see. So it's to ensure that the prince's line gets to keep stuff.
vs 18
Of course, this continues the problem of multiple children divvying up limited resources, and everyone eventually ending up with a thimbleful of soil for their inheritance. I mean, I'm all for the king not driving people off their land, but this is not an eternal solution, especially when you've got the cubit measurements for the king's land.
vs 19
Oh, that's right, Ezekiel is on a spirit tour.
vs 20
Even the food would consecrate people, so they have a special place to cook it. Can't have people getting consecrated for nothing.
vs 21
I assume he doesn't mean a tennis court.
vs 22
Rooms, I'm guessing, or courtyards? I mean, they can't all be court courts.
vs 23
Ahhhh, so it looks like these are places for sacrifices. So court probably just means open area.
vs 24
There we go. Kitchens. I mean, ancient kitchens probably were more open, what with fires and stuff, rather than dishwashers and microwave ovens.
vs 1
So obviously on the Sabbath and other festival days (although it only lists the new moon day) the gate to the temple is opened. The rest of the time, it is shut off. Which is a pretty sucky picture of heaven. I think Penny was right in what she said the other day - that this stuff, while it might be a murky picture of heaven, is really more a picture of a better life for Israel in their land.
vs 2
It's a good idea to institutionalise the prince bowing in worship of God. Makes people put him in an appropriate position of authority, under God. I guess that's why mining companies and factional leaders and big business generally like to see prime ministers bow down to them. Sigh.
vs 3
I'd go back and check if the gateway was big enough to support a throng of thousands of people, but honestly I don't care.
vs 4
So every week? I guess that keeps them in the meat, but that's a lot of animals to be slaughtered.
vs 5
So... a lot.
vs 6
So that would be once a month, I figure.
vs 7
Again, lots of grain. Vegetable and fruit sacrifices would have been welcome, I'm guessing.
vs 8
I don't really know what to say about this statement.
vs 9
Except the prince? So everyone sort of passes by the temple, but the prince goes in and out the same gate.
vs 10
Except the prince seems to do a lot of going in and out.
vs 11
I think we've got the pattern down pat now.
vs 12
So unlike sabbaths, where the gate stays open, the prince gets special access, but the gate shuts immediately afterwards. Why? No idea. I mean, my assumption would be something about the gate being open being a welcoming and open sort of picture, with the closed gate being a picture of holiness.
vs 13
Is you the prince? Or the people?
vs 14
It's good for the priests to have daily sacrifices. And it should remind people of God every day too. Or at least the king.
vs 15
Ahh, repetiton.
vs 16
Okay. How is this not normal?
vs 17
OoooOoooOOoooh. I see. So it's to ensure that the prince's line gets to keep stuff.
vs 18
Of course, this continues the problem of multiple children divvying up limited resources, and everyone eventually ending up with a thimbleful of soil for their inheritance. I mean, I'm all for the king not driving people off their land, but this is not an eternal solution, especially when you've got the cubit measurements for the king's land.
vs 19
Oh, that's right, Ezekiel is on a spirit tour.
vs 20
Even the food would consecrate people, so they have a special place to cook it. Can't have people getting consecrated for nothing.
vs 21
I assume he doesn't mean a tennis court.
vs 22
Rooms, I'm guessing, or courtyards? I mean, they can't all be court courts.
vs 23
Ahhhh, so it looks like these are places for sacrifices. So court probably just means open area.
vs 24
There we go. Kitchens. I mean, ancient kitchens probably were more open, what with fires and stuff, rather than dishwashers and microwave ovens.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 45
vs 1
So we're talking about a very significant amount of land here.
vs 2
Okay. Somewhere to walk, I guess. Or perhaps a buffer.
vs 3
That's enormous. And also I can't really see how you could have that inside the total area, with the buffer space... perhaps I'm just imagining it wrong.
vs 4
Cool, so the priests actually have somewhere to build their houses. They get to live in the priestly district.
vs 5
Well, it is a huge area. So why not build multiple towns? In fact, it is almost absurdly large for a town back then, I would say.
vs 6
It sounds like there are these strips of land that all go next to each other.
vs 7
While this is all big and boxy, the idea of it seems to be similar to how things ended up with David. David controlled Jerusalem not as part of his tribe's inheritance - it was his own city. So the prince here is also being given land to himself.
vs 8
So the tribes get their land, and the prince gets land, and there is so much land to go around that everyone should be happy. Also, this seems to be talking about all the tribes, I'd think.
vs 9
After all, there will be no need, because God will give them so much land, why would they need other people's land? This does tell us of the greed of kings, it would seem - they would uproot other people to take the best land.
vs 10
That goes for everyone.
vs 11
Now, just assuming you use an accurate homer, everyone will be happy. Fairness in trade is a big deal for God. Lots of proverbs about it.
vs 12
I'm not sure why Ezekiel decides to count this way, instead of just saying 60. Also, the note seems to say that a mina is 50 shekels, so why did he make it 60? Confusing. That's generous on one viewing, but it's a ripoff in the other direction. There's always people on both sides of the equation, remember.
vs 13
Since the priests don't grow stuff, they need grain, and lots of it. It's the staple food for life, after all.
vs 14
Measurements of weight and volume seem to be as important as the measurements of the temple.
vs 15
That's a lot of sheep, no doubt, but it only taxes the rich, so it's well balanced.
vs 16
Wait, when did the prince figure into this? Perhaps he has been given part of a priestly function, since David sort of took on that function a bit, and also since there was no king really taken into account in the old law.
vs 17
So there you go. The prince definitely gets a priestly function.
vs 18
Ie kill and sprinkle blood everywhere, if I know my sacrificial talk.
vs 19
Spreading blood on doorposts is very passover-esque.
vs 20
This way, the temple becomes cleansed from the ignorance and general sin of the people. It is very, very interesting to note (not just in Ezekiel, but in the Law too) that ignorant or unintentional sin is separated out from intentional sin. Note that it is still sin - it still needs to be atoned for - but it is not as serious as intentional sin.
vs 21
Hah, Passover was close, I knew it.
vs 22
That's nice of him. Cheap for everyone else, too.
vs 23
Wait, is he to provide seven of each every day, or one each adding up to seven? Anyway, it's lots of sin offerings.
vs 24
It's called a feast for a reason, as I've said before. Of course, that's not enough to feed the whole nation, but those who turn up, at least the priests, will definitely get something.
vs 25
So the prince becomes a bankroller of the ceremonies. That's a good role for him. Legislating it might make it seem like it is less generous, but it gets done this way. And since there are question marks over how often it got done in Israel's history, this is a good thing I think.
So we're talking about a very significant amount of land here.
vs 2
Okay. Somewhere to walk, I guess. Or perhaps a buffer.
vs 3
That's enormous. And also I can't really see how you could have that inside the total area, with the buffer space... perhaps I'm just imagining it wrong.
vs 4
Cool, so the priests actually have somewhere to build their houses. They get to live in the priestly district.
vs 5
Well, it is a huge area. So why not build multiple towns? In fact, it is almost absurdly large for a town back then, I would say.
vs 6
It sounds like there are these strips of land that all go next to each other.
vs 7
While this is all big and boxy, the idea of it seems to be similar to how things ended up with David. David controlled Jerusalem not as part of his tribe's inheritance - it was his own city. So the prince here is also being given land to himself.
vs 8
So the tribes get their land, and the prince gets land, and there is so much land to go around that everyone should be happy. Also, this seems to be talking about all the tribes, I'd think.
vs 9
After all, there will be no need, because God will give them so much land, why would they need other people's land? This does tell us of the greed of kings, it would seem - they would uproot other people to take the best land.
vs 10
That goes for everyone.
vs 11
Now, just assuming you use an accurate homer, everyone will be happy. Fairness in trade is a big deal for God. Lots of proverbs about it.
vs 12
I'm not sure why Ezekiel decides to count this way, instead of just saying 60. Also, the note seems to say that a mina is 50 shekels, so why did he make it 60? Confusing. That's generous on one viewing, but it's a ripoff in the other direction. There's always people on both sides of the equation, remember.
vs 13
Since the priests don't grow stuff, they need grain, and lots of it. It's the staple food for life, after all.
vs 14
Measurements of weight and volume seem to be as important as the measurements of the temple.
vs 15
That's a lot of sheep, no doubt, but it only taxes the rich, so it's well balanced.
vs 16
Wait, when did the prince figure into this? Perhaps he has been given part of a priestly function, since David sort of took on that function a bit, and also since there was no king really taken into account in the old law.
vs 17
So there you go. The prince definitely gets a priestly function.
vs 18
Ie kill and sprinkle blood everywhere, if I know my sacrificial talk.
vs 19
Spreading blood on doorposts is very passover-esque.
vs 20
This way, the temple becomes cleansed from the ignorance and general sin of the people. It is very, very interesting to note (not just in Ezekiel, but in the Law too) that ignorant or unintentional sin is separated out from intentional sin. Note that it is still sin - it still needs to be atoned for - but it is not as serious as intentional sin.
vs 21
Hah, Passover was close, I knew it.
vs 22
That's nice of him. Cheap for everyone else, too.
vs 23
Wait, is he to provide seven of each every day, or one each adding up to seven? Anyway, it's lots of sin offerings.
vs 24
It's called a feast for a reason, as I've said before. Of course, that's not enough to feed the whole nation, but those who turn up, at least the priests, will definitely get something.
vs 25
So the prince becomes a bankroller of the ceremonies. That's a good role for him. Legislating it might make it seem like it is less generous, but it gets done this way. And since there are question marks over how often it got done in Israel's history, this is a good thing I think.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 44
vs 1
Okay, interesting. Where is this leading I wonder.
vs 2
So because God went through the gate, now no-one else can. God remains holy, separate, and so even a gate he goes through becomes holy and cannot be used for mundane travel.
vs 3
Okay, I'll admit - I didn't really know what a portico was until I looked it up just now. Even the dictionary definition didn't give me a huge amount of help, but searching for images on Google was great. So it would seem he can only come up to the gate, not go through the main gate.
vs 4
It would be a pretty spectacular sight, one imagines. And we must imagine, because what did it look like? No idea, he doesn't say.
vs 5
You know, he did it too, because he gives such good and detailed descriptions.
vs 6
Wow, that's a stern message.
vs 7
In addition to all the other stuff - it's like all that other stuff is a footnote compared to these two charges.
vs 8
Outsourcing is fine, just not when God tells you to do something.
vs 9
That's why there is a court of Gentiles, I suppose.
vs 10
That doesn't sound good.
vs 11
So they have some jobs... but you know there is going to be a but.
vs 12
Okay, yes, we read that. What is the consequence! I'm on tenderhooks.
vs 13
So it's like they are forever unclean. They can do some things - welcome at the door, kill the animals and stuff - but they can never enter God's presence, or go near his holy items. That's like the best thing about being a priest.
vs 14
Also, they put their lives at risk as guards.
vs 15
Punishment for the sinner also turns to reward for the righteous. Nice. Also, this shows there were some priests who were diligent - and yet the exile still came.
vs 16
Now they are rewarded with the ability to draw near to God when no-one else - not even other priests - can.
vs 17
No idea why. Sheep are not evil. Perhaps it's just cleaner and more special.
vs 18
Or perhaps it has something to do with perspiration. I wouldn't have seen that coming.
vs 19
God is so holy that even contact with garments worn purely for him can be consecrated. But that's not how God wants it to be, so he puts rules in place - instead of lessening his glory.
vs 20
I can just imagine that this verse has been used by generations of fathers telling their sons to get a haircut.
vs 21
Drink it afterwards.
vs 22
Because the next best thing to a virgin is a priest's widow. I could make a joke there, but no doubt you've seen it coming. That goes to show how pure he wants his people to be, especially his priests.
vs 23
Yes, this is nothing new. But they're actually meant to do it this time.
vs 24
Again, this is their job. Now they should do it.
vs 25
It seems harsh on the one hand, but then you see that God has made allowances. In fact, the law is not awesome for what it prevents you from doing, but because of the huge number of allowances it makes for commonsense and reasonable need.
vs 26
Fair enough.
vs 27
Again, God makes a way for someone who is unclean to make amends and be able to come back before God. Amazing.
vs 28
And that should be enough, really. These days in Australia (but actually the practice has been this way for hundreds of years), the church needs lands and money-making investments, because it couldn't do what it does just on the strength of weekly donations. If Australia's churches were to survive only on what was coming in, there would be a lot less of them.
vs 29
This was the way it was always meant to be. There were not many times in history that it was so, though.
vs 30
See, God doesn't pretend that he's going to eat it. Why would he do that? He basically says, "Give it to me, because I'm God and I deserve it. But I don't need it, so the priests are going to eat it." None of this, "The monkey king eats it" or whatever.
vs 31
Again, this is just another law that they should really already know. God is re-teaching them the laws. This also shows just how steeped in the law the prophets really are.
Okay, interesting. Where is this leading I wonder.
vs 2
So because God went through the gate, now no-one else can. God remains holy, separate, and so even a gate he goes through becomes holy and cannot be used for mundane travel.
vs 3
Okay, I'll admit - I didn't really know what a portico was until I looked it up just now. Even the dictionary definition didn't give me a huge amount of help, but searching for images on Google was great. So it would seem he can only come up to the gate, not go through the main gate.
vs 4
It would be a pretty spectacular sight, one imagines. And we must imagine, because what did it look like? No idea, he doesn't say.
vs 5
You know, he did it too, because he gives such good and detailed descriptions.
vs 6
Wow, that's a stern message.
vs 7
In addition to all the other stuff - it's like all that other stuff is a footnote compared to these two charges.
vs 8
Outsourcing is fine, just not when God tells you to do something.
vs 9
That's why there is a court of Gentiles, I suppose.
vs 10
That doesn't sound good.
vs 11
So they have some jobs... but you know there is going to be a but.
vs 12
Okay, yes, we read that. What is the consequence! I'm on tenderhooks.
vs 13
So it's like they are forever unclean. They can do some things - welcome at the door, kill the animals and stuff - but they can never enter God's presence, or go near his holy items. That's like the best thing about being a priest.
vs 14
Also, they put their lives at risk as guards.
vs 15
Punishment for the sinner also turns to reward for the righteous. Nice. Also, this shows there were some priests who were diligent - and yet the exile still came.
vs 16
Now they are rewarded with the ability to draw near to God when no-one else - not even other priests - can.
vs 17
No idea why. Sheep are not evil. Perhaps it's just cleaner and more special.
vs 18
Or perhaps it has something to do with perspiration. I wouldn't have seen that coming.
vs 19
God is so holy that even contact with garments worn purely for him can be consecrated. But that's not how God wants it to be, so he puts rules in place - instead of lessening his glory.
vs 20
I can just imagine that this verse has been used by generations of fathers telling their sons to get a haircut.
vs 21
Drink it afterwards.
vs 22
Because the next best thing to a virgin is a priest's widow. I could make a joke there, but no doubt you've seen it coming. That goes to show how pure he wants his people to be, especially his priests.
vs 23
Yes, this is nothing new. But they're actually meant to do it this time.
vs 24
Again, this is their job. Now they should do it.
vs 25
It seems harsh on the one hand, but then you see that God has made allowances. In fact, the law is not awesome for what it prevents you from doing, but because of the huge number of allowances it makes for commonsense and reasonable need.
vs 26
Fair enough.
vs 27
Again, God makes a way for someone who is unclean to make amends and be able to come back before God. Amazing.
vs 28
And that should be enough, really. These days in Australia (but actually the practice has been this way for hundreds of years), the church needs lands and money-making investments, because it couldn't do what it does just on the strength of weekly donations. If Australia's churches were to survive only on what was coming in, there would be a lot less of them.
vs 29
This was the way it was always meant to be. There were not many times in history that it was so, though.
vs 30
See, God doesn't pretend that he's going to eat it. Why would he do that? He basically says, "Give it to me, because I'm God and I deserve it. But I don't need it, so the priests are going to eat it." None of this, "The monkey king eats it" or whatever.
vs 31
Again, this is just another law that they should really already know. God is re-teaching them the laws. This also shows just how steeped in the law the prophets really are.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 43
Wait, can it be that the architectural class is over?
vs 1
Remember, the gate facing east is the one that faces the temple entrance, I believe.
vs 2
God is coming towards this new temple. This is important, as God's presence left the temple in Jerusalem, you will recall.
vs 3
In other words, beasts, wheels within wheels, storms, total weirdness. I'd fall down too.
vs 4
Bam, I was right.
vs 5
Isaiah has a similar experience of God's glory filling the temple. Ezekiel isn't actually in the temple, of course, but he is there in spirit, and the idea of God filling the temple once more is a great thought after all the woe Ezekiel has brought.
vs 6
The man is the guy with the measuring rod, I am assuming.
vs 7
Now, this is important. A lot of important things said here. For God to say that's never going to happen again pretty much makes it clear that it can't be the second temple, because the Jews still make those mistakes. It also mentions Israel's kings, and they don't have another king from now on - not till Jesus. Sure, he says kings, but that's what people will be expecting, methinks.
Although, having said that, they might have been expecting the Davidic king too, so saying king singular wouldn't have been out of the question.
vs 8
Interesting. I could be misunderstanding this, but I assume it has something to do with the usage of the temple by the kings in a bad way, using some room or other for pagan rituals.
vs 9
It actually sounds like they were making offerings to dead kings. That's pretty screwed up for Israel. But God tells them to stop that, because he will come and live with them in this glorious, massive, well described temple.
vs 10
Now we get to learn why those last few chapters were included. Ezekiel is supposed to describe it to the people so they feel ashamed. So they can see it's perfection.
vs 11
But also that they might rebuild it to those specifications, from the sound of it, and follow the regulations that they didn't really follow before. I think, if memory serves, David designed the last temple. So this one is designed by God.
vs 12
Even the ground around the temple will be sacred. Now, tell me, is this the verse that created the idea of consecrated ground, I wonder?
vs 13-17
I spoke too soon.
vs 18
I will at least try and comment on the regulations and procedures for sacrifice, although they may well be as technical as the building instructions.
vs 19
I believe this is pretty much as set out in Leviticus.
vs 20
The altar needs atoning for! Because even the altar isn't perfect, I guess.
vs 21
If you read your Leviticus, you'll know all about that.
vs 22
I assume that the priests also cleaned the altar off at some point, because as spiritually cleansing as blood is, it's not all that clean in the regular meaning of the word.
vs 23
That's an expensive offering, but if it's on behalf of the whole nation, it's not so bad.
vs 24
Interesting, I don't recall salt.
vs 25
Considering the hundreds of bulls and goats that had been willingly given by kings like David to be slaughtered with every step the ark made, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. It also gives the term 'feast' a reason to be called that, because it provides lots of meat - for the priests, if no-one else.
vs 26
But aha, this is a dedication ritual for the new temple. Now see, this is talking about the new temple, like the actual physical temple they should build. Did they follow the instructions? I wonder.
vs 27
If all it takes is building a temple and offering a bit of livestock to get God to accept you, that's a damn bargain. I'd say we all do that! But in fact, it's even easier for us.
vs 1
Remember, the gate facing east is the one that faces the temple entrance, I believe.
vs 2
God is coming towards this new temple. This is important, as God's presence left the temple in Jerusalem, you will recall.
vs 3
In other words, beasts, wheels within wheels, storms, total weirdness. I'd fall down too.
vs 4
Bam, I was right.
vs 5
Isaiah has a similar experience of God's glory filling the temple. Ezekiel isn't actually in the temple, of course, but he is there in spirit, and the idea of God filling the temple once more is a great thought after all the woe Ezekiel has brought.
vs 6
The man is the guy with the measuring rod, I am assuming.
vs 7
Now, this is important. A lot of important things said here. For God to say that's never going to happen again pretty much makes it clear that it can't be the second temple, because the Jews still make those mistakes. It also mentions Israel's kings, and they don't have another king from now on - not till Jesus. Sure, he says kings, but that's what people will be expecting, methinks.
Although, having said that, they might have been expecting the Davidic king too, so saying king singular wouldn't have been out of the question.
vs 8
Interesting. I could be misunderstanding this, but I assume it has something to do with the usage of the temple by the kings in a bad way, using some room or other for pagan rituals.
vs 9
It actually sounds like they were making offerings to dead kings. That's pretty screwed up for Israel. But God tells them to stop that, because he will come and live with them in this glorious, massive, well described temple.
vs 10
Now we get to learn why those last few chapters were included. Ezekiel is supposed to describe it to the people so they feel ashamed. So they can see it's perfection.
vs 11
But also that they might rebuild it to those specifications, from the sound of it, and follow the regulations that they didn't really follow before. I think, if memory serves, David designed the last temple. So this one is designed by God.
vs 12
Even the ground around the temple will be sacred. Now, tell me, is this the verse that created the idea of consecrated ground, I wonder?
vs 13-17
I spoke too soon.
vs 18
I will at least try and comment on the regulations and procedures for sacrifice, although they may well be as technical as the building instructions.
vs 19
I believe this is pretty much as set out in Leviticus.
vs 20
The altar needs atoning for! Because even the altar isn't perfect, I guess.
vs 21
If you read your Leviticus, you'll know all about that.
vs 22
I assume that the priests also cleaned the altar off at some point, because as spiritually cleansing as blood is, it's not all that clean in the regular meaning of the word.
vs 23
That's an expensive offering, but if it's on behalf of the whole nation, it's not so bad.
vs 24
Interesting, I don't recall salt.
vs 25
Considering the hundreds of bulls and goats that had been willingly given by kings like David to be slaughtered with every step the ark made, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. It also gives the term 'feast' a reason to be called that, because it provides lots of meat - for the priests, if no-one else.
vs 26
But aha, this is a dedication ritual for the new temple. Now see, this is talking about the new temple, like the actual physical temple they should build. Did they follow the instructions? I wonder.
vs 27
If all it takes is building a temple and offering a bit of livestock to get God to accept you, that's a damn bargain. I'd say we all do that! But in fact, it's even easier for us.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 42
Setting a new standard for boring...
vs 13-14
Okay, this bit about the holiness of the area, the garments, and the offerings is somewhat interesting, but it's nothing new either. This idea of holiness does make me wonder whether it is right to keep some things just for God - like people used to have their Sunday best, or the Catholics would bury what was left of communion (although a slightly different theological precedent here re transubstantiation might be in play there, which I don't support). Nowadays, we use everything for whatever we can use it for. Church is a hall, so it's church/function room/rentable space etc. Clothes are just worn whenever needed. Bread is communion on Sunday and sandwiches on Monday. I wonder if we lose something from this.
vs rest
Well, the rest of it is all housing instructions. Forgive me, but I just can't make anything out of measurements - well, except perhaps a scale model of the temple being described. But I'll pass. I'm not an architecture student.
vs 13-14
Okay, this bit about the holiness of the area, the garments, and the offerings is somewhat interesting, but it's nothing new either. This idea of holiness does make me wonder whether it is right to keep some things just for God - like people used to have their Sunday best, or the Catholics would bury what was left of communion (although a slightly different theological precedent here re transubstantiation might be in play there, which I don't support). Nowadays, we use everything for whatever we can use it for. Church is a hall, so it's church/function room/rentable space etc. Clothes are just worn whenever needed. Bread is communion on Sunday and sandwiches on Monday. I wonder if we lose something from this.
vs rest
Well, the rest of it is all housing instructions. Forgive me, but I just can't make anything out of measurements - well, except perhaps a scale model of the temple being described. But I'll pass. I'm not an architecture student.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 41
Please don't be as uninspiring, chapter 41.
Oh well. I read it anyway. Some comments:
vs 8
The repetition of an idea, in two different ways, is just more proof that this was written by someone. Even in a time where every word counted, he repeats his idea.
Other than that, I swear that there is ten times more information about how the temple looks here (or will look?) than anywhere else in the Bible. Useful for historical building analysis perhaps, but otherwise entirely uninteresting to me. It's detailed. That's about the best I can do with these verses.
Oh well. I read it anyway. Some comments:
vs 8
The repetition of an idea, in two different ways, is just more proof that this was written by someone. Even in a time where every word counted, he repeats his idea.
Other than that, I swear that there is ten times more information about how the temple looks here (or will look?) than anywhere else in the Bible. Useful for historical building analysis perhaps, but otherwise entirely uninteresting to me. It's detailed. That's about the best I can do with these verses.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Ezekiel chapter 40
Sort of fell out of the saddle over the holidays, what with sermons to write and such. Got to get over the hump of Ezekiel so I can go back to something easier, methinks.
vs 1
That's quite a long time after the exile. I mean, the exile only goes for 70 odd years.
vs 2
South side may have some meaning. Possibly that's just the best side of a mountain to build a city on.
vs 3
Not the only time such a figure is visible in the Bible. Revelation has such a figure.
vs 4
Good to know your job. But the focus on carefulness and attention is interesting. Do they expect him not to pay good attention? Is it boring?
vs 5
Not really as grandiose as the one in Revelation, but hey.
vs 6
I'll give you this - a wall 3 metres thick and a gate threshold 3 metres deep is pretty darn big.
vs 7
So it's all very interesting (well, okay, I'm bored) - so the place is a certain size. Big or small, it's describing a place.
vs 8-9
Yup, more describing.
vs 10
Uh-huh.
vs 11
It's a big gateway, but if you wanted caravans to be able to pass each other, then it needs to be big.
vs 12
It's like it's made of cubit cubes, almost.
vs 13
Uh-huh.
vs 14-16
The palm trees liven up this passage so far. I am not enthralled. I'm looking forward to getting to the end of this description, so I can say I've read it.
vs...end
This is definitely going onto my list of chapters where you bring it up when people make weird allegorical understandings of difficult or particularly irrelevant verses. I'm not saying that these are useless verses - if you want to know that the city has big walls and it's well guarded and it has a temple in it, then that's the basic summary. It has palm decorations, woo. It has priests who are guards and stuff. It didn't set my world on fire, but it's obviously a part of the prophecy of Ezekiel which is quite important - because remember, they've lost Jerusalem, which means they've lost the temple. God is giving them the measurements of a new city and a new temple. That's good news for them.
vs 1
That's quite a long time after the exile. I mean, the exile only goes for 70 odd years.
vs 2
South side may have some meaning. Possibly that's just the best side of a mountain to build a city on.
vs 3
Not the only time such a figure is visible in the Bible. Revelation has such a figure.
vs 4
Good to know your job. But the focus on carefulness and attention is interesting. Do they expect him not to pay good attention? Is it boring?
vs 5
Not really as grandiose as the one in Revelation, but hey.
vs 6
I'll give you this - a wall 3 metres thick and a gate threshold 3 metres deep is pretty darn big.
vs 7
So it's all very interesting (well, okay, I'm bored) - so the place is a certain size. Big or small, it's describing a place.
vs 8-9
Yup, more describing.
vs 10
Uh-huh.
vs 11
It's a big gateway, but if you wanted caravans to be able to pass each other, then it needs to be big.
vs 12
It's like it's made of cubit cubes, almost.
vs 13
Uh-huh.
vs 14-16
The palm trees liven up this passage so far. I am not enthralled. I'm looking forward to getting to the end of this description, so I can say I've read it.
vs...end
This is definitely going onto my list of chapters where you bring it up when people make weird allegorical understandings of difficult or particularly irrelevant verses. I'm not saying that these are useless verses - if you want to know that the city has big walls and it's well guarded and it has a temple in it, then that's the basic summary. It has palm decorations, woo. It has priests who are guards and stuff. It didn't set my world on fire, but it's obviously a part of the prophecy of Ezekiel which is quite important - because remember, they've lost Jerusalem, which means they've lost the temple. God is giving them the measurements of a new city and a new temple. That's good news for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)