Sunday 11 December 2011
Saturday 10 December 2011
Joshua
Was this just merciless genocide?
Not an easy question to address! However, below are some important points to consider (for more info on the first four points click here):
- God isn't xenophobic! (e.g. Gen. 12; Ex. 12:38, 48; Num. 12)
- Canaanite religion was more toxic than its armies (e.g. Judges 2:11-15 and see Drane 81)
- Israel wasn't as ruthless as the surrounding nations (Instone-Brewer 66)
- They didn't drive everyone out
- The Elephant in the Room! (click here)
NB. Within all of this the story of Rahab is an interesting one! Francine-Rivers brilliantly re-tells Rahab's story in her book "Lineage of Grace" - it's the chapter called "Unashamed."
Friday 9 December 2011
Judges
The end part of Joshua is concerned with the allocation of the land to the 12 tribes of Israel, which is apportioned as follows:The book of Joshua then ends with Joshua urging the people to keep the covenant God made with them at Sinai and assuring them that if they do, God will continue to push back their enemies. Joshua warns them specifically against turning away from God to worship the idols of the Canaanites still left in the land. The people then formally renew the covenant – following a quick recap of God’s favour towards Israel to date (note again the importance of remembering what God has already done!). Joshua then dies and, highly symbolically, the bones of Joseph are buried.
Then we get to the Judges where we see that, “the real struggle to bring Israel continued long after Joshua.”[1] During the period of the Judges, Israel maintains its national identity but “the different tribes of Israel were primarily concerned with their own affairs.”[2] Within this period there was no king over the nation as a whole, rather the different tribes had judges. These judges weren’t so much appointed by the people but rather by God and so naturally arose as leaders due to their gifts, strength and wisdom. Judges lists 12 different judges but talks in length about only 6[3] – Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jepthah and Samson (NB, if you want to listen to a brilliant sermon on Jepthah, check out Haddon Robinson, “The Danger of a Strong Faith and Weak Theology.”)
Within the book of Judges there is an oft-repeated cycle, in that when Israel are faithful to God, they prosper. However, when they turn aside from God to other idols they find themselves oppressed by their enemies, so they repent and cry out to God; God raises up a judge to bring deliverance; they are rescued, turn aside from God and the cycle begins again! [4]
Towards the end of Judges there is the repeated refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” – see 17:6, 25:1 and – for slightly different versions - 18:1, 19:1. This refrain resonates with God’s promises of a king in:
Gen. 17:6 – “I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.”
Gen. 49:10 – “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his.”
Num. 24:17-19 – “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near – a star shall come out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the borderlands of Moab, and the territory of all the Shethites. Edom will become a possession, Seir a possession of its enemies, while Israel does valiantly. One out of Jacob shall rule, and destroy the survivors of Ir.”
And Deut. 17:14-20.
All of these positive references to kingship have to be born in mind when we come to look at the story of Saul...
Thursday 8 December 2011
Ruth
The story of Ruth occurs during the Judges period. It records the story of a Moabite lady who marries the son of an Israelite widow called Naomi (who went to Moab at a time of famine). Tragically, both Ruth's husband and Naomi's other son die. Orpah, Naomi's other daughter-in-law, returns to her family but Ruth tells Naomi: "Do not urge me to leave you, or to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God." 
Naomi and Ruth then go back to Bethlehem. Naomi is understandably devastated by her loss and tells the people to call her Mara - meaning "bitter" - saying: "the Almighty has made my life very bitter. 21 I went away full, but the LORD has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The LORD has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.”
Naomi and Ruth have no way of supporting themselves so Ruth goes out into the fields to collect what the reapers have left behind. A relative of theirs, called Boaz, makes sure Ruth is safe which gives Naomi an idea! She tells Ruth to go in the night to Boaz and uncover his feet (presumably indicating her desire to marry him!). Boaz wants to marry Ruth but there is another man, more closely related to Ruth's deceased husband, who has the right to buy Naomi's family's land (and marry Ruth).
Boaz therefore speaks to this man and he decides not to exercise his right. Boaz and Ruth then get married and then have a son and this son turns out to be the grandfather of King David :-)
The story of Ruth is particularly interesting against the backdrop of the Mosaic law, within which the people are instructed not to marry people from the surrounding nations (e.g. Deut. 7:3). In fact, they are even warned: “No Ammonite or Moabite, even down to the tenth generation, may become a member of the assmbly of the Lord...” What this apparent contradiction demonstrates, however, is that God is not against the people of other nations per se but rather their religions, which - as time will demonstrate - repeatedly draw the Israelites away from worshipping God. Thus here, as with Rahab, God demonstrates his desire that people from all nationalities know him and serve him and thus welcomes (and even honours) a Moabite woman when she demonstrates faithfulness to him.
Wednesday 7 December 2011
Saul
The first difficulty we encounter when looking at the story of Saul is God's displeasure at the Israelites' request for a king when previously in Scripture a king has been affirmed as a good thing! Indeed, their request appears all the more reasonable given the wayward nature of Samuel's sons, who were lined up to be his successor.
However, despite the apparent reasonableness of their request, as God's reaction - and indeed time - indicates, it is the heart of their request that is most at odds with God's desire for them. In fact, this heart is revealed within the request itself wherein they state: "appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations;" i.e. like other nations who don't have God as their ultimate sovereign! And it is a "king like other nations" that God warns them they will receive which, from Samuel's warning in 1 Sam. 8, doesn't seem an inviting prospect (e.g. "...He will take the best of your fields and vineyards...and you shall be his slaves."). The people are undeterred, however, and so Samuel appoints Saul as the nation's first king.
Again, at first glance, Saul seems hard done by. He is reluctant to be made king in the first place therefore hides (1 Sam. 10:22). Further, God takes his kingship from him after seemingly minor transgressions (particularly when compared to the things David gets up to later on!): he offers a burnt offering that Samuel should have made because Samuel is late; he makes a foolish oath which nearly leads to the death of his son Jonathan; he is instructed to destroy a whole town but spares the king and best of their sheep and cattle to sacrifice to God.
However, as with the people's request for a king, it is the heart behind these transgressions that God is most upset by for, as is implicit a number of times and explicit in 1 Sam. 15:24, Saul fears the people more than he fears God. Thus, when God tells him through Samuel that he has removed the throne from him, Saul's primary concern is not that he has upset God but that he will now look bad in front of the people: "I have sinned; yet honour me now before the elders of my people and before Israel and return with me..." In contrast, despite his awful errors, David's heart is fundamentally directed towards God and, when pulled up on things he's done wrong, he is devastated by the effect he has had on God not just his reputation amongst others.
It is for this reason, and looking at what follows as Saul plunges further and further into insanity, that I find the account of Saul one of the most challenging and tragic in the whole Bible.
However, despite the apparent reasonableness of their request, as God's reaction - and indeed time - indicates, it is the heart of their request that is most at odds with God's desire for them. In fact, this heart is revealed within the request itself wherein they state: "appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations;" i.e. like other nations who don't have God as their ultimate sovereign! And it is a "king like other nations" that God warns them they will receive which, from Samuel's warning in 1 Sam. 8, doesn't seem an inviting prospect (e.g. "...He will take the best of your fields and vineyards...and you shall be his slaves."). The people are undeterred, however, and so Samuel appoints Saul as the nation's first king.
However, as with the people's request for a king, it is the heart behind these transgressions that God is most upset by for, as is implicit a number of times and explicit in 1 Sam. 15:24, Saul fears the people more than he fears God. Thus, when God tells him through Samuel that he has removed the throne from him, Saul's primary concern is not that he has upset God but that he will now look bad in front of the people: "I have sinned; yet honour me now before the elders of my people and before Israel and return with me..." In contrast, despite his awful errors, David's heart is fundamentally directed towards God and, when pulled up on things he's done wrong, he is devastated by the effect he has had on God not just his reputation amongst others.
It is for this reason, and looking at what follows as Saul plunges further and further into insanity, that I find the account of Saul one of the most challenging and tragic in the whole Bible.
Tuesday 6 December 2011
The Davidic Covenant
1After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” 3Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you.” 4But that night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying: 5“Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? 6I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’ 8“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture, from tending the flock, and appointed you ruler over my people Israel. 9I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth. 10And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. “‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by human beings, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’” 17Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation. (2 Sam. 7)
The main thing to note from the Davidic covenant is that we still don’t know exactly how God will break the cycle of sin in Judges and bring about the fulfilment of his promises to Abraham BUT we do know that it will happen through a king of David’s line!
(Interestingly, here no reason is given as to why David isn’t to build the temple but in 1 Chron. 22:6-10 we see that it’s because he has too much blood on his hands.)Monday 28 November 2011
What can we learn? Stage One
Well, firstly, it is important to note that when Moses is born, the situation for God's people is looking pretty bleak! Out of the promises God made to Abraham, it seems that the only one to have been even partly fulfilled is that they are very numerous - despite Pharaoh's best efforts to the contrary! They don't seem particularly blessed, they don't have their own land or their own king and, other than being of benefit to the Egyptian economy, they don't seem to have been much of a blessing to the other nations either. However, the most important promise is still firmly intact - GOD IS STILL THEIR GOD - and so, into this situation, God again makes a call!
And God also makes another seemingly ridiculous promise, for he promises that the people will be released from slavery. Now often we don’t appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of this promise, but the release of the Hebrews did not seem likely to say the least! You see, the Hebrew slaves were underpinning the whole of the Egyptian economy – (much as underpaid labour from overseas underpins Western prosperity today, which is a huge challenge that we, as Christians, need to put some serious thought, prayer and action into). In fact, such was the extent of their contribution to the Egyptian economy that I have heard one person liken Moses and Aaron walking into Pharaoh’s office and demanding their release to someone today marching up to the Prime Minister and demanding that he rid England of the car! (Which perhaps explains why God only told Moses to ask for a 3-day trip to make a sacrifice rather than asking if they could leave for good?!)
Further, within Moses' birth and call, we see that God prepares Moses both practically and in terms of his character. I was struck by this when I watched the Prince of Egypt and began to realise how much Moses' upbringing made him uniquely equipped for the task that God had for him, in that he would have been familiar with both Egyptian and Hebrew culture and he would have had strong connections with Pharaoh's administration - which was probably what enabled him to get a hearing in the first place. However, Moses' character also needed to be up to speed and so it is that 40 years after Moses had tried to extract revenge on the Egyptians under his own steam - when he is in a far off country trying to forget the sorrows of his youth and humble enough to be useful to God - it is then that God calls him!
Further, within Moses' birth and call, we see that God prepares Moses both practically and in terms of his character. I was struck by this when I watched the Prince of Egypt and began to realise how much Moses' upbringing made him uniquely equipped for the task that God had for him, in that he would have been familiar with both Egyptian and Hebrew culture and he would have had strong connections with Pharaoh's administration - which was probably what enabled him to get a hearing in the first place. However, Moses' character also needed to be up to speed and so it is that 40 years after Moses had tried to extract revenge on the Egyptians under his own steam - when he is in a far off country trying to forget the sorrows of his youth and humble enough to be useful to God - it is then that God calls him!
What can we learn? Stage Two
It is interesting to note that when Moses does finally agree to the task God has given him - having successfully persuaded God to give him Aaron as a helper - his step of faith seems to backfire big time (see Ex. 5) as the conditions for the enslaved Israelites get worse instead of better (which I think is encouraging for us when we step out in faith and things seem to go similarly pete tong!).
Eventually, however, God does come through, showing his supremacy over the so-called Egyptian gods in the process (cf. a point made by Louise in last year's course when she noted that, when it comes to God, we in the West are primarily concerned with truth - whereas people within many Eastern cultures are more concerned with power!).
Eventually, however, God does come through, showing his supremacy over the so-called Egyptian gods in the process (cf. a point made by Louise in last year's course when she noted that, when it comes to God, we in the West are primarily concerned with truth - whereas people within many Eastern cultures are more concerned with power!).
The Sacrificial System
A key part of the Mosaic covenant - the renewed relationship God establishes with his people and accompanying commands - is the sacrificial system. Within this system there were various sacrifices that the Israelites were instructed to make, which a theologian called John Drane groups as: “Gift Sacrifices,” used to give thanks to God; “Fellowship Offerings,” used to celebrate the Israelites’ covenantal relationship with God; and “Forgiveness of Sins.” (see Drane, “Introducing the OT,” p. 325-326).
Regarding “Forgiveness of Sins,” the blood of the animal - representing its life - was hugely important and was daubed onto the altar where the person making the offering was pronounced forgiven! (Drane, 327) The most important sin offering was made on the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16). On this day, two goats were selected. One of the goats was sacrificed to atone for the sins of the people. The chief priest then took the other goat (the “scape-goat”), laid his hand on its head and confessed the sins of the nation over it. This goat was then released into the wilderness - representative of the people’s sins being taken away. (Lev. 16:22 “The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.” Lev. 16:30 “For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord.”) Interestingly, it was only on this day that the chief priest was allowed to enter the holiest part of the tabernacle - at all other times of year, and to all other people, this area was banned! (Which adds huge significance to the fact that, following Jesus’ death, the curtain that separated off this inner part was torn in two!)
Sacrifice was common across the ancient world and there was some common ground in that everyone viewed sacrifices as a means of relating the visible world in which people lived to the invisible sphere of God/the gods (Drane, 322). However, as is usually the case where similarities occur, it is the differences between the Israelite sacrificial system and that of other nations which stand out!
For example, in many of the neighbouring religions, sacrifice was seen as a way of either appeasing an angry god or encouraging a god to do one’s wish - thus a means by which these gods could kind-of be controlled! However, the Israelites worshipped a God who wanted to bless them, and through them others, but who also took sin seriously. Thus, the sacrificial system was seen as a gift from God (not to God) as the means by which they could experience his forgiveness and presence amongst them. Further, as a writer called Tim Keller notes, because in the surrounding nations it was the rich who could bring the most gifts to the gods they were the gods’ favourites! However, within the Mosaic covenant we read that if someone cannot afford the prescribed sin offering he could just bring a handful of flour and his forgiveness was just as complete as those who could afford to bring a whole sheep!!! (see Lev. 5:11-13 & Tim Keller, “Generous Justice,” p. 39-40).
What can we learn? Stage Three
The Israelites (and a "mixed crowd" (Ex. 12:38)!) begin their wander through the desert and we see that God's covenant with them begins to take on more explicit conditionality - there is the introduction of the "if"! This "if" is perhaps best seen in Moses' final speech to his people as recorded in Deuteronomy, where he says:
"If you will only obey the Lord your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding today, the Lord you God will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the Lord your God..." (Deut. 28:1-2)
"But if you will not obey the Lord your God by diligently observing all his commandments and decrees...hen all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you..." (Deut. 28:15)
Within the Abrahamic covenant there didn't seem to be this "if;" God just made Abraham a load of promises and then committed his life to them in the covenant-making ritual involving cut-up animals! So what do we make of this "if"?
Well, firstly, it’s not a totally fair distinction, because God’s relationship with his people was always on the basis of faith – Abraham’s faith mattered! (+ there was the “if” of circumcision!). Rather, the difference is that firstly God’s people were asked to commit to him as a person and only secondly to obeying his wishes (see Kidner, p. 140). This priority is reflected again in dazzling bright lights through the 10 Commandments, where the 1st few commandments are all about what? Loving the Lord God - having him only as God, not rejecting him by turning to idols for help instead of him, not taking his name in vain (in other words not bringing his name into disrepute through our actions) and so on!
So… Israel was commitment fundamentally to a person, only secondly to a way of life, which is a bit like if you’re getting married: you get married to that person because of who they are – because you love them and want to be with them then, secondly, as part of this relationship you’ll hopefully want to behave in ways that please them – for example if your spouse doesn’t like fish it wouldn’t be very loving to constantly cook them fish for tea! But the not liking fish bit doesn’t come first, the relationship does – if that makes sense! And so too with God, fundamentally he calls his people into a relationship with him. Only secondly does he outline more about what this relationship should look like; in other words what pleases him and what doesn’t, what’s good for us and what isn’t and so on.
Secondly, because of God’s unconditional covenantal commitment that he made to Abraham – which comes out of his grace – we see that there is a strong biblical theme of God overlooking sin, which doesn’t end here but actually continues on, albeit that some sins now start to be specifically judged! You see, as we learned last time, Abraham wasn’t perfect. Further, within the family line between Abraham and Moses there is a lot of trickery and deception, which isn’t the type of behaviour that God likes. However, God overlooks this and responds to faith! Further, he weaves his will through the midst of it all.
Here, we start to get a far more comprehensive view of the type of behaviour that God does want. The justice he expects in relationships and business dealings, the compassion we must have for those who are less well-off, the importance of commitment and trust in marriage and so on. However, even here God doesn’t address everything. He doesn’t address the issue of polygamy, for example, and the sacrificial system he gives to Israel as a way of dealing with sin doesn’t really cover the cost for their sin, since an animal has less worth than the human whose life it atones for. And so, this Mosaic covenant doesn’t replace the Abrahamic covenant; the Abrahamic covenant cannot be annulled. Rather, God is introducing some sanctions to misbehaviour whereby he starts to judge people’s sin more specifically. And yet even within this, in order to still be with his people and not totally consume them, God still overlooks huge amounts of sin – does this make sense?! So, in other words, God is starting to judge sin more specifically, but it's still within a context of grace! A context in which vast amounts of sin are compassionately overlooked, for if that was not the case, God couldn’t dwell with his people at all!
Thirdly, just as God reveals himself through his actions in history, so too does he reveal himself through his law. And he reveals himself to be a God who is concerned with people! And with every part of their lives! – which is why Leviticus in particular has so many laws that seem so random to us about mildew in houses, rashes and the like! Through his law God reveals that he is:
"If you will only obey the Lord your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding today, the Lord you God will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the Lord your God..." (Deut. 28:1-2)
"But if you will not obey the Lord your God by diligently observing all his commandments and decrees...hen all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you..." (Deut. 28:15)
Within the Abrahamic covenant there didn't seem to be this "if;" God just made Abraham a load of promises and then committed his life to them in the covenant-making ritual involving cut-up animals! So what do we make of this "if"?
Well, firstly, it’s not a totally fair distinction, because God’s relationship with his people was always on the basis of faith – Abraham’s faith mattered! (+ there was the “if” of circumcision!). Rather, the difference is that firstly God’s people were asked to commit to him as a person and only secondly to obeying his wishes (see Kidner, p. 140). This priority is reflected again in dazzling bright lights through the 10 Commandments, where the 1st few commandments are all about what? Loving the Lord God - having him only as God, not rejecting him by turning to idols for help instead of him, not taking his name in vain (in other words not bringing his name into disrepute through our actions) and so on!
So… Israel was commitment fundamentally to a person, only secondly to a way of life, which is a bit like if you’re getting married: you get married to that person because of who they are – because you love them and want to be with them then, secondly, as part of this relationship you’ll hopefully want to behave in ways that please them – for example if your spouse doesn’t like fish it wouldn’t be very loving to constantly cook them fish for tea! But the not liking fish bit doesn’t come first, the relationship does – if that makes sense! And so too with God, fundamentally he calls his people into a relationship with him. Only secondly does he outline more about what this relationship should look like; in other words what pleases him and what doesn’t, what’s good for us and what isn’t and so on.
Secondly, because of God’s unconditional covenantal commitment that he made to Abraham – which comes out of his grace – we see that there is a strong biblical theme of God overlooking sin, which doesn’t end here but actually continues on, albeit that some sins now start to be specifically judged! You see, as we learned last time, Abraham wasn’t perfect. Further, within the family line between Abraham and Moses there is a lot of trickery and deception, which isn’t the type of behaviour that God likes. However, God overlooks this and responds to faith! Further, he weaves his will through the midst of it all.
Here, we start to get a far more comprehensive view of the type of behaviour that God does want. The justice he expects in relationships and business dealings, the compassion we must have for those who are less well-off, the importance of commitment and trust in marriage and so on. However, even here God doesn’t address everything. He doesn’t address the issue of polygamy, for example, and the sacrificial system he gives to Israel as a way of dealing with sin doesn’t really cover the cost for their sin, since an animal has less worth than the human whose life it atones for. And so, this Mosaic covenant doesn’t replace the Abrahamic covenant; the Abrahamic covenant cannot be annulled. Rather, God is introducing some sanctions to misbehaviour whereby he starts to judge people’s sin more specifically. And yet even within this, in order to still be with his people and not totally consume them, God still overlooks huge amounts of sin – does this make sense?! So, in other words, God is starting to judge sin more specifically, but it's still within a context of grace! A context in which vast amounts of sin are compassionately overlooked, for if that was not the case, God couldn’t dwell with his people at all!
Thirdly, just as God reveals himself through his actions in history, so too does he reveal himself through his law. And he reveals himself to be a God who is concerned with people! And with every part of their lives! – which is why Leviticus in particular has so many laws that seem so random to us about mildew in houses, rashes and the like! Through his law God reveals that he is:
- Holy! Although he overlooks sin for a time in order to be with a people who are, at heart, still sinful; he hates it and does not want to go anywhere near it! And God even hates the consequences of sin, which I think is the idea behind the rules about uncleaness, whereby people are barred from access to God’s closer presence due to things like rashes and menstruation, not just sin for which people are personally culpable.
- Just – and hates injustice
- Fair – many of the punishments, although they may seem harsh to us, are actually fair and restrained in comparison to the surrounding nations
- Compassionate – the laws regarding orphans, widows, slaves and foreigners are particularly noteworthy in this regard
Fourthly, God’s law helps the people to be the people God intended them to be. Behaving in accordance with God’s law would mark them out as God’s holy nation and lead to an individual and community life which was far safer, more enriching and beautiful than if they followed the barbaric and perverted practices of the surrounding nations (cf. David Istone-Brewers very helpful article (p. 66)). God had rescued the people from slavery into a nation that was uniquely his! Behaving in accordance to the law wasn’t the way people attained this special status – God gave it as a gift – but it was part of what it meant to be this people on a day-to-day basis. This is a bit like our situation now! We’re not saved by living in any particular way, that is a gift at Christ’s expense – we receive it simply by faith. However, part of this gift is that we’re transformed into the people God wants us to be – into people who are truly flourishing and truly free!
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Abra(m/aham!) - a brief summary!
By the time we get to Abram, the situation is looking pretty bleak! Genesis 3-11 show the snowballing affects of sin, which even God's intervention through the flood - and removing the worst 99.9% of the "sinners" - fails to halt. By Gen. 11 the people are so powerful, and presumably not in a good way, that God decides to scatter them. Then, as is often the case in the Bible, it is time for a seemingly random genealogy - of the line of Shem (one of Noah's sons)! This genealogy is significant, however, for, as Tim Keller argues in his talk "Real Security and the Call of God," it suggests that the line of Shem is the only family line that has maintained the knowledge and worship of the one true creator God.
However, by the end of this genealogy, there are (again as Keller notes) some indications that even this family may now be turning away from worshipping God to worship idols. Firstly, Terah's name means "moon," suggesting that the moon was their idol of choice! Secondly, in Gen. 11:31, we see that the whole of Terah's family started out to go to Canaan, but stopped in Haran. These suggestions that something is amiss are then confirmed in Joshua 24:2, where Joshua reminds the Israelites that even their ancestors, Terah and Abram, worshipped other gods.
And then, into this seemingly hopeless situation - where even the one family that had preserved the knowledge of God seems to be turning away from him - God makes a call! He calls one man - Abram - to leave his now idolatrous family and set out for the land God would show him.
Now, it perhaps seems a bit strange that God just calls one man! In the creation account we saw something of the incredible power of God, whereby he just speaks and all things come into being. So why doesn't he just boom down in a loud voice - "STOP WORSHIPPING THOSE IDOLS, I'M THE ONE TRUE CREATOR GOD, COME AND WORSHIP ME!" Surely if he did then everyone would have listened and obeyed, they'd have been far too scared not to!
However, the creation account also revealed to us that God is not only powerful, but that he is also loving and that out of his love he grants people the freedom to either follow him or reject him. You see, the snake has no qualms about trying to extend his limited power through deceit and manipulation; but God will do no such thing! In fact, here in Gen. 12:1 we see quite the opposite as God withholds his limitless power in order to allow people the freedom to carry on rejecting him - and so God calls; he does not control.
God then makes a whole load of amazing promises - that Abram would be a great nation, that he'd get a land, that he'd be blessed and that he'd be a blessing to others. These are promises that God reiterates and expands on throughout the following chapters: promising to be Abram's shield and reward; promising him and heir and, most importantly, promising to be God to him and his descendants! God also changes Abram's name to Abraham to indicate that he will be the father of many nations. Moreover, God seals up all of these promises by a ritual that seems bizarre to us, but that was a common covenant making method in those days! God asks Abraham to cut a cow, a ram and a goat in half and then, as darkness fall, a burning pot passes through the middle of them; Abraham, however, does not go through. And so, God makes a covenant with Abraham that only he commits to! Thus God literally swears on his life that these promises will be fulfilled but Abraham doesn't have to swear to anything.
Through this covenant we see that just as God does not control, so too will he not be controlled! Now this may seem like an obvious statement, but in comparison to the surrounding nations it was actually quite radical. You see, in these nations, although the gods were unpredictable, there was also the belief that – by performing certain rituals and rites – they could be induced to do human beings bidding; thus, to an extent, controlled. For example within Canaanite religion it was thought that if a farmer had sex with a temple prostitute it would induce the gods to have sex and so produce more fruitful crops! (Drane, 83) The God of Abraham, however, will not be controlled by human beings – he is not induced by some magical rite or moral act to initiate this covenant with Abraham; he chooses to do so out of his own initiative and freedom. Further, he sets the terms and is the only one to commit to its fulfilment!
Nearly 25 years have gone past since God first called Abraham, and no heir has appeared! Abraham has, in the meantime, taken the matter into his own hands and produced an heir through his maid Hagar (so God had to come again and make it explicit that the heir would be through Sarai - or Sarah as God now calls her!). He has also told half-truths (thus half-lies) on two occasions about his wife Sarai being his sister because he was afraid he'd be killed if people knew she was his wife.
Then, finally, Sarah does become pregnant and gives birth to Isaac whereupon, some time later, God asks Abraham to sacrifice him!
Now, this can be a stumbling block for many of us in our reading of the Bible as it seems such an outrageous thing for God to ask someone to do. What we have to bear in mind, however, is that child sacrifice was a common practice in those days - and something God later reveals that he hates passionately. And so God doesn't ask Abraham to do something completely outside of his realm of experience, as it would seem to us. Rather, he uses what was commonly thought of as being the greatest sacrifice you could make to a god and asks Abraham to do that. What is therefore shocking about this story (from the point of view of someone living in Abraham's day), is the fact that Isaac isn't actually sacrificed; that there is a substitute, in the form of a ram, which is sacrificed instead.
Within all of this, we learn a lot about faith. Abraham is viewed by the NT as having legendary faith; he is the ultimate icon and example of faith! And we see through his willingness to leave the security of his family (literal security - there was no police force at that time to keep law and order, your clan was your protection!) that he had a faith that was active and which transformed the whole course of his life.
Further, however, we see on a number of occasions that his faith wasn't perfect. In Gen. 12 we see him go from meeting with God and receiving great promises to fleeing to Egypt to escape a famine and then lying by implying that Sarai wasn't his wife! And yet his imperfect faith was still counted as faith in that his overall orientation was towards God; ultimately, that's where his security and hope lay.
Thirdly, by the time we get to the end of Abraham's life, we see that not many of these promises have, as yet, been fulfilled! He has an heir - Isaac - and, in Gen. 23, buys a field with a cave in it, within which to bury Sarah. So out of the whole of Canaan, which God had promised him, he owns a field and a cave! And so we see that faith is intrinsically connected to hope. Or as the writer of Hebrews puts it:
"Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
However, by the end of this genealogy, there are (again as Keller notes) some indications that even this family may now be turning away from worshipping God to worship idols. Firstly, Terah's name means "moon," suggesting that the moon was their idol of choice! Secondly, in Gen. 11:31, we see that the whole of Terah's family started out to go to Canaan, but stopped in Haran. These suggestions that something is amiss are then confirmed in Joshua 24:2, where Joshua reminds the Israelites that even their ancestors, Terah and Abram, worshipped other gods.
And then, into this seemingly hopeless situation - where even the one family that had preserved the knowledge of God seems to be turning away from him - God makes a call! He calls one man - Abram - to leave his now idolatrous family and set out for the land God would show him.
Now, it perhaps seems a bit strange that God just calls one man! In the creation account we saw something of the incredible power of God, whereby he just speaks and all things come into being. So why doesn't he just boom down in a loud voice - "STOP WORSHIPPING THOSE IDOLS, I'M THE ONE TRUE CREATOR GOD, COME AND WORSHIP ME!" Surely if he did then everyone would have listened and obeyed, they'd have been far too scared not to!
However, the creation account also revealed to us that God is not only powerful, but that he is also loving and that out of his love he grants people the freedom to either follow him or reject him. You see, the snake has no qualms about trying to extend his limited power through deceit and manipulation; but God will do no such thing! In fact, here in Gen. 12:1 we see quite the opposite as God withholds his limitless power in order to allow people the freedom to carry on rejecting him - and so God calls; he does not control.
God then makes a whole load of amazing promises - that Abram would be a great nation, that he'd get a land, that he'd be blessed and that he'd be a blessing to others. These are promises that God reiterates and expands on throughout the following chapters: promising to be Abram's shield and reward; promising him and heir and, most importantly, promising to be God to him and his descendants! God also changes Abram's name to Abraham to indicate that he will be the father of many nations. Moreover, God seals up all of these promises by a ritual that seems bizarre to us, but that was a common covenant making method in those days! God asks Abraham to cut a cow, a ram and a goat in half and then, as darkness fall, a burning pot passes through the middle of them; Abraham, however, does not go through. And so, God makes a covenant with Abraham that only he commits to! Thus God literally swears on his life that these promises will be fulfilled but Abraham doesn't have to swear to anything.
Through this covenant we see that just as God does not control, so too will he not be controlled! Now this may seem like an obvious statement, but in comparison to the surrounding nations it was actually quite radical. You see, in these nations, although the gods were unpredictable, there was also the belief that – by performing certain rituals and rites – they could be induced to do human beings bidding; thus, to an extent, controlled. For example within Canaanite religion it was thought that if a farmer had sex with a temple prostitute it would induce the gods to have sex and so produce more fruitful crops! (Drane, 83) The God of Abraham, however, will not be controlled by human beings – he is not induced by some magical rite or moral act to initiate this covenant with Abraham; he chooses to do so out of his own initiative and freedom. Further, he sets the terms and is the only one to commit to its fulfilment!
Nearly 25 years have gone past since God first called Abraham, and no heir has appeared! Abraham has, in the meantime, taken the matter into his own hands and produced an heir through his maid Hagar (so God had to come again and make it explicit that the heir would be through Sarai - or Sarah as God now calls her!). He has also told half-truths (thus half-lies) on two occasions about his wife Sarai being his sister because he was afraid he'd be killed if people knew she was his wife.
Then, finally, Sarah does become pregnant and gives birth to Isaac whereupon, some time later, God asks Abraham to sacrifice him!
Now, this can be a stumbling block for many of us in our reading of the Bible as it seems such an outrageous thing for God to ask someone to do. What we have to bear in mind, however, is that child sacrifice was a common practice in those days - and something God later reveals that he hates passionately. And so God doesn't ask Abraham to do something completely outside of his realm of experience, as it would seem to us. Rather, he uses what was commonly thought of as being the greatest sacrifice you could make to a god and asks Abraham to do that. What is therefore shocking about this story (from the point of view of someone living in Abraham's day), is the fact that Isaac isn't actually sacrificed; that there is a substitute, in the form of a ram, which is sacrificed instead.
Within all of this, we learn a lot about faith. Abraham is viewed by the NT as having legendary faith; he is the ultimate icon and example of faith! And we see through his willingness to leave the security of his family (literal security - there was no police force at that time to keep law and order, your clan was your protection!) that he had a faith that was active and which transformed the whole course of his life.
Further, however, we see on a number of occasions that his faith wasn't perfect. In Gen. 12 we see him go from meeting with God and receiving great promises to fleeing to Egypt to escape a famine and then lying by implying that Sarai wasn't his wife! And yet his imperfect faith was still counted as faith in that his overall orientation was towards God; ultimately, that's where his security and hope lay.
Thirdly, by the time we get to the end of Abraham's life, we see that not many of these promises have, as yet, been fulfilled! He has an heir - Isaac - and, in Gen. 23, buys a field with a cave in it, within which to bury Sarah. So out of the whole of Canaan, which God had promised him, he owns a field and a cave! And so we see that faith is intrinsically connected to hope. Or as the writer of Hebrews puts it:
"Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
From: http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Bible/Bible%20Atlas/021.jpg
For a copy of the talk for this week click here!
For a copy of the talk for this week click here!
Tuesday 1 November 2011
Gen. 1 & 2 - Creation!!!
Oh wait! Wrong creation account - let's try again!
Okay, so it was a deliberate error but what I've summarised first (v. briefly) is a Babylonian creation account that was around at the time many people think the Genesis account arose. If you read this myth in more detail (Enuma Elish), you'll see that there are some similarities. For example, in both accounts the separation of the waters is very important; further, the Babylonian myth is written on 6 tablets (cf. God creating everything over 6 days). Some scholars have, in the past, tried to claim from these similarities that the Genesis account was copied from the Babylonian one.
However, as a theologian called John Drane (p. 262) has pointed out, these similarities are superficial and based on a common cosmology (see also Hoffmeier p. 48). More significant, is the fact that, if there is any link between the two, then the Genesis account appears to deliberately undermine its Babylonian counterpart in significant regards. For example, in the Genesis account:
1. There is no conflict over who is the chief God - God just is! He has no rival!!!
2. God is separate from creation and resides over it; he is not mingled in with it as in the Babylonian account. Further, he is both transcendent in power (see Gen. 1) and intimately imminent (see, in amazing contrast, Gen. 2 & 3!!!) - he is not uncaring and removed.
3. Creation is not the haphazard result of conflict, rather it is deliberate, ordered and good.
4. People are fashioned in God's image as God's representatives and stewards on earth, rather than fashioned from a god's dead corpse and simply assigned menial tasks.
5. God is trustworthy and his actions are just and fair; he is not capricious and unpredictable as the gods are in the Babylonian account. Drane, p. 263: "the destiny of people is in the hands of a loving and personal God, and not n the control of either nature of superstition."
(Quick note about links! I'll be putting a few external weblinks on this blog, which is because I think they might be helpful - but it doesn't mean I agree with everything that's on them!!!)
Gen. 3 - The Fall
"What is Sin?" - see Through the Bible with Miss Happy and Friends!
"What are the Consequences of Sin?"
Well firstly, and ironically, the fruit which seemed to promise the knowledge of good and evil, actually distorts Adam and Eve’s perception of good and evil!
Thus, rather than seeing God as good and loving and someone to run towards; Adam and Eve start seeing God as someone to be feared and so hidden from. And so their relationship with God, which was previously so intimate that the God who made all things walked with them in the garden, is now torn. Importantly, though, we see God’s grace even at this early stage as he doesn’t simply abandon them, but rather clothes them.
Significantly, the other consequences of sin are all closely connected to the calling and privileged status God granted humanity in the first instance: so work, rather than being blessed and fruitful, will be hard and toilsome; child bearing – being fruitful in the reproductive sense – will be painful; and the relationship between men and women, rather than being empowering and helpful will become unequal and oppressive.
Gen. 6-9 - Noah
Sin snowballs! And so we see that just a couple of chapters on from Adam and Eve's rebellion, evil has entrenched itself into the hearts of humankind.
"...And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
All that God created was good, yet now it has become corrupted and damaged. Here we get an amazing insight into the effect that this corruption has on God: God mourns over evil; he mourns over the devastating effects that it has on people's lives; he grieves that what he intended to be so good has become so rotten and damaged. But what can he do about it?
"So the Lord said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created...together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry I have made them."
God's grief over sin leads him to act. We've already seen in 3:22 that God has banned access to the tree of life which, as Jay B pointed out, is an act of grace as well as judgement (imagine living forever in a fallen world!). Now God is determined to wipe out the scourge of sin which, due to humanity's privileged status as God's stewards, has implication for the whole of creation - not just humans.
"But Noah...!"
Back in 5:29 Noah's dad, Lamech, had prophesied that Noah would bring relief from God's curses; now the favour he has with God sees the continuity of creation beyond the devastating flood. On this it's important to note:
1. Noah is called "righteous" and "blameless" even though we know from what ensues that he is not morally perfect! In the OT, just as in the New, righteousness is defined by faith - not moral perfection.
2. The role of a mediator arises again and again throughout Scripture. God is always looking for people with the faith to partner with him.
Then the flood comes, it stays around for quite some time, then finally it subsides. (NB. If you remember from the creation account a bit about Hebrew cosmology - watery chaos separated! - then you'll note that God sending a flood is significant for through it the world returns once more to the watery chaos from which order was brought. Thus the flood account acts as a kind-of anti-creation, a clearing of the Etch A Sketch (Rich H.!!!) so that things can start over again.)
Following the flood, God's instructions to Noah remain the same as they were at creation - be fruitful and be good stewards of the earth!
The Lord God then commits in his heart (8:21), and then to Noah (9:11), that he won't ever destroy all life again. So has the problem been solved? Has getting rid of the 99.999% of the worst sinners fixed the problem of sin?!
"...And Ham, the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers...Now the whole earth had one language...they said, "Come, let us build a tower with its top in the heavens..."...the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth...Then the Lord said, "How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know."..."
It appears not! Following the flood sin snowballs again. How will God deal with sin now? Well, we don't find out for a bit; but we do know that, in order to keep his promise, he'll need to find a way to destroy the sin without destroying the sinner!!!
Mr Evolution vs. Mr Creationist vs. ... !
Now by way of introduction, it is important to note that the word evolution can be used for anything from the process of natural selection - whereby animals/plants adapt to their local environment - through to the belief that everything evolved from one single-celled organism (thus man from monkeys...). Here, we'll be using evolution in the latter, more controversial, sense!
So, what is the disagreement between Mr Evolution and Mr Creationist and how should we respond? Well, in a massively simplistic way, the argument goes something like this:
Mr Creationist: "No, Mr Evolution, the Bible is the infallible word of God, so if it says that God created the world in 7 days then he did! You’re theory is wrong, your so-called evidence is flawed and the Bible is right!"
So how do we respond? Do we have to side with one or the other? Is it really a case of science vs. faith?
Well, we do also have a third option in the form of Little Miss Creatiolution (not a real word!). She would say something along the lines of the following:
Little Miss Creatiolution: "You see, the problem with Mr Creationist is the way he interprets the Bible. He comes to the Bible assuming that the writer of Genesis was as concerned with the scientific processes whereby the earth was formed as people are today whereas, in fact, the person who collated this account wouldn’t even have realised the world was round or that there was more of it than he’d heard of! Furthermore, Mr Creationist assumes that the writer intended to present historical facts, whereas actually he was simply presenting truth in the form of a meaningful myth. Mr Creationist is basically trying to force the Bible to answer questions it wasn’t addressing. In reality, the Bible simply answers the “why” question and evolution the “how” question; so we can hold our scientific views nicely alongside our faith by recognising that they simply answer different questions."
So what do we think? Little Miss Creatiolution seems to have found a way to hold science and faith nicely together (albeit in two different hands!) so is her view the best way forward? Or should we stick to the creationist view? Well, I'm going to let you decide that, but I would like to chuck in a few things for us to think about!
1. We can't take the Genesis account completely literally as Gen. 2 disagrees with Gen. 1 in terms of the order in which different things were made. Further, Gen. 1:1-2:3 is highly poetic whereas the account in Gen. 2 is much more story-like in style!
2. The theory of evolution is just that - a theory! Therefore even amongst scientists there is a range of opinions (see, for example, the Explore Evolution book and/or one of my favourite Friends clips!!!).
3. "Myth" isn't really the best word to use when talking about the Genesis account because, although technically it can mean a story which expresses truth, most people see a myth as simply a made-up story - perhaps with an accompanying moral. John Drane, for example, therefore suggests that the term "faith-story" is more appropriate (see Drane, Introducing the OT, page 265).
4. Although Gen. 1-3 is often viewed as a "faith-story" rather than a literal historical account, when we come to the Flood in Gen. 6 and Tower of Babel in Gen. 11, we find that there is archeological evidence to suggest that these accounts are based on historical events (see Drane, Introducing the OT, page 262).
5. As Little Miss Postmodern (see session 1!) has helpfully pointed out, the divide between faith and science is not so clear cut as people once thought! For example, scientists don't approach science neutrally or objectively, but rather in a certain way based on their perceptions of what is and isn't scientific!!! Further, just as a person's world-view affects their approach to science; so too does science affect people's world-view. Thus, for example, the theory of evolution (in its everything evolved from a single-cell form!) has a world-view attached to it that does appear to contradict the biblical account in a couple of significant ways. Firstly, within evolution, creation comes through death rather than being the deliberate work of God and instantly declared "good!" Secondly, humans are a slightly more advanced animal rather than set apart as made in God's image thus stewards of creation. Now, this is not to say that as Christians we can't believe in evolution as an answer to the "how God made the world" question. But rather that, if we do, then we do need to think carefully about how to reconcile this view with a commitment to the truth of Scripture.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
The Bible vs. Mr Modern vs. Little Miss Postmodern!
A little bit about modernism and postmodernism and how these cultural/philosophical movements have influenced the way we go about interpreting the Bible.
- this recording is very quiet so to hear it you'll probably have to listen through headphones! -
(Quick disclaimer - this is admittedly simplistic!!! Plus, the argument isn't that we've bought into either of these movements wholesale but rather that we're inevitably influenced by the culture around us and these are both significant trends!)
Some help from history...
A quick look back at how people have gone about interpreting the Bible in the past and what we can learn from them to help us today.
- this is quiet so you may need headphones in order to hear it! -
- this follows on from The Bible vs. Mr Modern... -
- this follows on from The Bible vs. Mr Modern... -
(Disclaimer - there's a lot more to it than this but I've just picked out some highlights/made sweeping generalisations for the sake of simplicity!)
For a far more comprehensive and precise summary read Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction.
Tuesday 27 September 2011
Mr. Happy vs. the Bible!
"On the other side of the world, where the sun shines hotter than here...there is a country called Happyland.
Not a very large door, but nevertheless a door.
A sad, squeaky sort of voice.
And eventually Mr Miserable did something that he'd never done in the whole of his life."
The End.
Not a very large door, but nevertheless a door.
A sad, squeaky sort of voice.
And eventually Mr Miserable did something that he'd never done in the whole of his life."
The End.
Stories are difficult to follow when we just pick a few bits out from the whole. To fully appreciate the excellence of this story you really need to read it from start to finish!!!
The Bible is different from the story of Mr Happy! Because it is inspired by God's Spirit, we can just read small sections at a time and hear from God. However, despite the huge variance of styles, authors and time periods found in the Bible, it does - like the story of Mr Happy - consist of an overarching story. Becoming familiar with this story helps us understand the smaller parts we read!
So...
To help us grasp this story better, OH is going to be running a Bible Overview course starting October 17th. The dates and times are as follows:
The cost for the course is £20 waged/£10 unwaged.
If you'd like to attend, please email Helen - or speak to Lizzie, Jez, Ness or Helen to find out more!
Helen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)