ExcludingBoasting

New Year: 1 Cor 1-5 for Dec 1

2011-12-17T21:53:00.003-06:00

These chapters immediately show that Paul's thinking is not limited to the subjects of the treatise-like letter to the Romans. It's not just that Paul addresses very understandable practical problems, almost right off (1:10ff) in 1 Corinthians. The theology of Paul is significantly increased by 1 Corinthians. Reading in canonical order helps see that!

For example, the whole theme of nullifying (1:28), and its relationship to God's calling of the "things that are not...." Could we have guessed this from Romans? The closest parallel might be the idea that all the world is accountable to God, in Romans 3, or even better, the verse that formed the idea for the title of my blog, Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. Boasting is nullified. But nullification directed toward not an attitude but an "existent" thing (1:28) and its relationship to what the makeup of the called Christian body is? That's new.

Some things are wonderful elaborations of the thoughts that also occur in Romans. At the end of 1 Cor 3, there is a great elaboration of Romans 8's "will he not with Him freely give us all things?" in Paul's very memorable "all things are yours...."

New Year: Rm 14-16 for Nov 30

2011-12-16T23:11:00.003-06:00

Romans is very unusually broad in its ethical section compared to the many letters (e.g. to the Corinthians and Thessalonians) in which Paul addresses specific problems. Here (15:14) much less so.

This has seldom been taken into account, so that the overarching nature of his approach to the Christian life in chapters 12ff. has been minimized. The things that Paul emphasizes ethically in these chapters should be considered as foundational to the Christian life as his doctrine in chapters 1-11.

For example, just as the first imperative in the doctrinal section to the Romans was for them to consider themselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (6:11), being alive to God is his first principle behind ethics in 12:1. 6:13 moves to 12:1, as though the whole middle of the letter was needed to support the subject!

Having related the "vertical" aspects of our Christian life (13:14) to the "horizontal" (13:10-13), Paul continues in chapter 14 with the horizontal, which amounts to the building up of one another (14:19). In yet another defiance of Hume's rule that we cannot derive "ought" from "is," Paul says "for even Christ did not please Himself ..." (15:3), and to "accept one another" (15:7), because Christ became a servant of Jew and Gentile (15:8-9). Having recently gone through Acts, we can see how clearly God answered Paul's prayers of 15:31, and his proleptic statement of 16:26. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."

New Year: Rm 10-13 for Nov 29

2011-12-14T21:29:00.009-06:00

"Those who were chosen obtained it," Paul says about what Israel was seeking, but "the rest were hardened...." (11:7). In Romans 9 (cf. 9:18) God's prerogative to show mercy on whomever He wants to is defended. In chapters 10-11, however, and even in 9:30-33, Paul brings up what is there for human beings to deal with, near-at-hand, to speak about: he talks about how "the righteousness out of faith speaks as follows ..." (10:6). What follows is not only THAT God has provided His righteousness for "everyone who believes" (10:3-4), but how "'the Word is near you ...'" (10:11).

There is a danger that we might miss the forest for the trees in what Paul is saying in Romans 10. The quotations and illustrations of 10:6-8 are not to be illustrations of the means of salvation, i.e., confessing this one fact, believing this one fact, but they are illustrations and quotations about Christ, for showing that Christ's resurrection and exalted position go together with our salvation and righteousness, and are in fact as present as what the mouth already says and the heart already believes, which came from the word of faith that Paul preaches (10:8).

In 10;6, the attitude that there are only a few accomplished souls, maybe somewhere, who can do the job of going to heaven to bring Christ down to our level so He would benefit us ... Paul says "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART" that kind of thing! Paul says, do not say in our hearts, that the distance between ourselves and Christ must be covered by us going up to Him. in 10:7 it's the opposite: Paul says, do not say in our hearts, Christ's death puts the distance to Him downward, i.e., that we must "bring Christ up." The twin thoughts are ridiculed, as well as the thought of living by "the righteousness which is out of law" (10:5).

There is culpability when the good news has been preached, and "they did not all heed the good news" (10:16). After establishing that culpability, and God's mercy in spite of it which comes in the future, Paul goes on to the practical implications of God's mercy in chapter 12. Thus chapter 12 is not so much a response to the whole letter so far, althought it is that, as well, but mainly a response to the mercy that has just been proven as late as 11:32.

Romans 11;32 goes on to 12:1, but Paul gives God glory first. And then, Christian ethics: what to do in a general way, general guidelines for the Christians in Rome, in light of who they are. We can ask many ethicists, "how do you go from an 'is' (i.e., the truths of Romans 1-11) to an 'ought' (i.e., "you must do x,y,z")," and many ethicists say you can't go, directly. For example, Paul says "by the mercies of God', present your bodies ...." in 12:1. Is the mercy of God something that implies obligations on our part? Many ethicists say that's impossible, that obligations can only be derived from other obligations, as elaborations or implications of already-accepted obligations.

In point of fact, Paul does not say that "present your bodies ..." is an implication of God's mercies. He urges the Romans, as brethren, and by God's mercies. That phraseology itself is but one of the differences between serving in the oldness of the letter, and in the newness of the Spirit (7:6). We should be able to see the differences from here to as the letter concludes.

One shock, that is not often pointed out, between Christianity and other religions / ethical systems is this very fact ... Paul's letter is concluding! Those who were reading chapters 1-11 of Romans, just so they could "get to the good part," that which we should be doing, have a short class. The very fact that Romans 12ff are the length that they are puts Christianity in a class of religions all by itself.

Not as if people have not tried to 'remedy' this. Alas, they've been too successful, in that Christianity is conceived of as an ethic first, and beliefs second. For Paul, Romans shows what he thought of as standing first, before our ethics can even be shaped: things about the Christian as a result of Christ's death and resurrection! What is left is pointedly NOT an ethics manual: it has too few few words for that: mostly about humility, in chapter 12, and a few words, about living under an earthly ruler, the governing rule of love, and about the urgency of behaving properly. The distinctive thing in Christianity is repeated for emphasis in 15:13, and then goes on to his closings.

The brevity of the ethical section is not an argument "from" silence, but an argument from brevity. Paul is writing to those "who are led by the Spirit of God" (8:14). It is a mark of the presence of that belief that Paul's ethics, neither here no in any other writing, assume the number one focus of His religion. His religion, i.e., his service to God, is in his spirit, in the gospel of His Son (1:9).

New Year: Rm 7-9 for Nov 28

2011-12-14T15:43:00.017-06:00

The "newness of the Spirit" (7:6) is explained further by Paul, as he explains further the Christian life in Rm 7-8. Also in the reading for today is the beginning of his defense of the fact that Israel as a nation did not "arrive at" (9:31) the "righteousness which is by faith" (9:30), this righteousness he has been explaining since 3:21.

All three of today's chapters contribute to understanding of the Law. The Law has a "just requirement" (8:4), that is, requirement that there be justice. Either the Mosaic Law itself, in the case of Israel (3:19), or the "work of the Law written in their hearts" (2:15), in the case of the Gentiles, brings the obligation to do right upon the whole human race, and Paul personifies the failure of all the sinful human race in Rm 7. There is only one exception to the rule that all the human race is sinful, and that is God's Son. Christ's work has consequences that change things for the world's problem of sin, as we've seen in 1:16 to 3:31. Christ's work also has consequences that change things about us "who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," (4:24) , as we've seen from Romans 5-6, and see more in Romans 7 and 8. The gospel (good news) is "of God" (1:1) and of God's Son (1:9)..

Among the consequences for those who are "children of God" (8:16) is a change in the manner of serving God (7:6). A change, from what, to what? Before, as well as now for Paul, the Law is good (7:16), but in the presence of sin (7:8), the product of the combination of the Law and sin is that Paul, personifying all human beings, says, "I died." (7:9). The Law, "effecting my death through that which is good" (7:13), had this effect.

The change is from a state that Paul calls "while we were in the flesh" (7:5), to "not in the flesh but in the Spirit," (8:9). This is a change of being, from being those who "are according to the flesh" (8:5a) to "those whare are according to the Spirit" (8:5b). How is this all related to Christ?

Paul gives credit to a divine act upon the "brethren" for this change, and it is related to the death of Christ! Having opened that subject up in Romans 6:2ff, he continues examining more of this event! "My brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (7:4).

Exclamation point! This is the passive voice, "you also were made to die" (7:4), indicating God's work! God made us to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Exclamation point! Even though Paul defends that kind of thing (Rm 9ff), judging from the glory of that kind of thing, expressed all through Rm 3-8 (really: ...) God needs no defense for such a glorious combination of acts! "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:24-5).

Paul explains this new freedom in terms that outstrip the glories of everything in our present creation: "the whole creation groans" (8:22). The existence of the whole present creation is characterized as "slavery to corruption" and compared to its future freedom, which it will share. What freedom? Shared with whom? "The freedom of the glory of the children of God" (8:21)!

New Year: Rm 3-6 for Nov 27

2011-12-13T23:31:00.004-06:00

Having finished describing the state of the whole human world including those under the Law (2:17ff, 3:9-20), Paul begins describing what God has done about it in Romans 3:21 - 6:23, and beyond.

Paul not only has the most closely and clearly reasoned extended arguments in the Bible so far all year (cf. 4:3-22, 5:12-21), but assumes a familiarity with the actual text of the Old Testament -- not just a familiarity with it, but the ability to come to conclusions from it. Whoever is leary of coming to conclusions will not be able to understand Paul, because he wants us to be able to come to conclusions, very important ones, by the way, not only about the Old Testament (3:19-20), but about God (4:6, 5:1, Christ (6:3-11), and ourselves (6:2): what He has done (6:17-18) so that what we were is not what we are (6:20-22), and this described in many detailed and definitive ways (6:5). God has done a redemptive act (3:24) in public display of dealing with sin, a propitiation in the blood of Christ (3:25). Faith in Christ is credited as righteousness, (4:5), as free gift of God (6:23), and this grace through righteousness will reign to eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (5:21).

New Year: Acts 28 - Rm 2 for Nov 26

2011-12-11T16:20:00.007-06:00

Even though this day's reading straddles two books, it is appropriate for the consecutive reader almost more than any two books of the New Testament in canonical order. Paul in Rome, Acts 28. Paul speaking to them, Romans 1ff.

When Paul has not even yet arrived in Rome, there are Christians there with whom he stays, while still on the outskirts. Hearing that Paul is "unhindered" is the last word of Luke in the book of Acts, and Romans 1 appropriately says that Paul had been "prevented thus far" (1:13). So we see that the letter to the Romans predates Acts 28.

In another way, Romans supplies "the other side," the theological-treatise side, to the narrative of Acts, in which Luke, describing the providentially guided acts of the apostles and others in the church, spent less time describing their doctrine. That is remedied in Romans. Moo's [1996] commentary on Romans correctly identifies Romans as a theological treatise with opening and closing remarks. We'll comment further on Moo's commentary in the comments, something that we have dropped since early 2010.

What is remarkable in Romans 1 are the crowning statements in 1:16-17. These statements are as above the day-to-day descriptions of the activities of religious people trying to encourage one another, as the acts of God are above the acts of men. Indeed, that is the gospel's chief advantage, that it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It's something greater than human teaching or human activity.

In a remarkably even-handed way, addressing the human condition from the points of view of "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" -- whether Gentile or Jew (2:14,17), Paul lays out the problem which salvation rescues the human being from, in the way it does, by the bringing in of the gospel.

New Year: Acts 25-27 for Nov 25

2011-12-11T15:48:00.003-06:00

From its beginnings in Acts 21:31 until the end of Acts, the Roman presence around Paul functions in God's purposes for his protection, both where Paul has control (21:40; 25:11; 26:2) and where he doesn't (23:30-31; 24:27; 25:21).

As the station increases in rank, from the soldiers and centurions (21:32) to King Agrippa (25:13), each higher authority is both equally fair and more knowledgeable than the previous. King Agrippa was not further identified to the readers, being the current king at the time of writing (A.D. 44-100, NBD). He is the son (Herod Agrippa II) of the earlier Herod (Herod Agrippa I) who executed James the apostle brother of John the apostle (12:2).

Paul's third recitation of his conversion story is the most polished, including his mission to the Gentiles. Before Agrippa, who is not a Jewish separatist but sided with Rome and was rewarded subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem for his loyalty to Rome, Paul's elucidation of his mission to the Gentiles is just fine. In fact, to Agrippa II Paul is a great scholar, so much so that they have a tete-a-tete moment of mutual recognition (26:24-28). By the time the reader hears the verdict on Paul, we are so used to the providence of God guiding Paul forward, that we say "bring it on!"

New Year: Acts 21-24 for Nov 24

2011-12-11T14:17:00.006-06:00

In view of the spate of interest in the Roman Empire, Acts 21-24 reads like a plot for another great drama. There is plenty of drama (22:23), conflict (21:11,21-22), violence (21:31-36), flight (22:18), religious fanaticism (23:12-15), and the providential handling of these things (23:16). There's even government bureaucratic delay (24:25).

As far as speeches go, that of Paul to his accusers in Jerusalem is of a pattern with Stephen's in Acts 7. People will listen to lots of detailed facts, but if they include some sort of mirror of accusation back on the listeners (7:53), or the putting of the listeners in a relatively unfavorable light (22:21), the listening stops and the opposition often ensues.

Again the pax Romana is in evidence here (21:32), although it is not always "right-on" (21:38). In these chapters, Paul's rescue from Jerusalem's religious leaders is enabled through Paul's nephew (23:16), but it is actually brokered through a Roman centurion and a Roman commander, "Claudius Lysias" (23:26). We sense some fairness, along with an incredulity, in the secular arm (23:29).

In the case of the secular governor, Felix, his response to Paul is like a man who can point each eye separately. One eye views Christianity more exactly (24:22). But with the other eye, he summons Paul to preach to him, but hopes Paul will give him money (24:26)! Politics trumping knowledge ensues, and Felix passes from the scene.

New Year: Acts 19-20 for Nov 23

2011-12-10T12:55:00.004-06:00

Pauls ministry in Ephesus is highlighted in Acts 19-20.

The snippets of Paul's teaching that Luke reports make it instantly recognizable that it is the same man who wrote the New Testament letters we have (20:24,28,32). And the combination of these things with Luke's patterns of showing the success of the ministry among acts and patterns of opposition show it to be part of Luke's pattern of depiction (19:8,9,29; 20:3).

Luke also brings forward resolutions of conflict that make us say "that worked?" The speech of the town clerk (19:35ff) actually worked? Yes. It was not the current situation today. We aren't under a pax Romana as Paul was then.

Another interesting sidelight of the story of the "no small disturbance" at Ephesus (19:23) is what was said -- by a neutral party, not the Christians -- about the handling of idolatrousness. The neutral party said, regarding Paul and his companions, that Paul and his companions "are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess" (19:37).

This selectivity on the missionaries' part is reminiscent of the depiction of Paul before the other idolatrous group in Athens (17:22ff). Therefore the town clerk's summary rings true. Talking about "the God who made the world and all things in it" (17:24) has implications for idolatry, and the profits from idolatry, no doubt, but that is not the focus of the missionary message.

New Year: Acts 17-18 for Nov 22

2011-12-07T15:01:00.003-06:00

The preaching of Paul in various places -- it sounds slightly different in its approach, in various places in Acts 17-18.

Among synagogue attenders, both Jews and "the God-fearing" (17:4,17), Paul "reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (17:2). Among the Athenians at the Areopagus (17:22) Paul quoted "some of your own poets" (17:28). What was the common denominator? Jesus -- proving that He "is the Christ" (17:3) to the Jews in Thessalonica, and bringing up this same "man whom He [God] has appointed...." to the Athenians (17:31). The Anointed One, and whom God has appointed, of course, are the same. The Jews, already knowing the exaltation of the Messiah from the Old Testament scriptures such as Ps 2, would already know that at some point the Messiah will break and shatter the nations (Ps 2:9). The Greeks, in Athens, from philosophy, would know about the breaking and shattering of all nations of history (17:26), but wouldn't know about the one God has appointed judge of all human beings.

The Jews of the time knew about a Person coming, but didn't know He came. The Greeks of the time knew about the process of nations coming and going, but didn't know about the judgment of the individual person, and about Person through whom God would judge all, and the recent public proof God has provided of that (17:31).

New Year: Acts 14-16 for Nov 21

2011-12-07T07:13:00.002-06:00

How remarkably free from individuals "rising" to power is the expansion of the gospel in these chapters, Acts 14-16.

However, opposition is not all external. The external opposition is very brutal (14:19; 16:23-24). The internal opposition, focusing on the issue of circumcision and the Law in its entirety (15:1,5,21), is dealt with by a large group of leaders but more than just leaders (15:22).

We might miss how, in these days of daily communication about religion, how such a group of dispersed people, hundreds of miles away in modern Turkey, or over a thousand miles from Jerusalem in Greece, could grow. To "see how they are" in Acts 15:36 seems quite an understatement. This is also very true about remote places today into which Christians have gone, people have believed the word of God, and the messengers who brought the word have left. What is a new Christian left with?

God, and God's grace of course. He tends His own. This emphasis on the "grace side of things" came out earlier (cf. 15:11,40). It comes from the fact that "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance to life." (11:18). If God has granted the turning of someone to life, the church's first order of responsibility is "do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles," as James summarized (15:19). When the original messengers went through where they had been before, what was their activity? They "strengthened the churches" (15:41). That sounds very positive, for being hundreds of miles and mountains and ships away from the origin of the religion.

Can God, His leading in grace, be specific enough for a new Christian? Is 16:6-10 specific enough, as an example, for the missionaries themselves? It is interesting that this specific example of God's guidance comes right after two incidents that seem very awkward in the missionary journey. The first is the "sharp disagreement" in 15:39. The second is the circumcision of Timothy in 16:3. The missionaries themselves were taking "the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them [the Christians located in those remote cities] to observe" (16:4). Among these decrees were the words about circumcision not being necessary. The circumcision was done "because of the Jews who were in those parts," (16:3), not for the sake of the Christian life. And Barnabas and Mark worked in a separate arena (15:39). Neither activity was man-led. On the issue of circumcision, the issue was described as resolved when "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (15:28). On the issue of where to go, God leads that too, as He made plain in 16:6-10. Paul speaks from experience, as well as revelation, when in Romans he says "all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rm 8:14).

New Year: Acts 11-13 for Nov 20

2011-12-06T15:38:00.003-06:00

In those days in which Peter preached to Cornelius, the receiving of the Holy Spirit by Gentiles (10:47) was not widely known back in Jerusalem until Acts 11:1. This section of Acts begins the specific story of how the Christian message goes out to those who are not already in Peter's religion.

This was not Paul's doing. Peter gets a vision from God about it, which he explains to those who are initially against it (11:3). They change their mind, and ended up glorifying God for this (11:18).

Even in Antioch, where Paul was going to be pivotal, in which "speaking to the Greeks, they preached the Lord Jesus" occured, it wasn't started by Paul. Here there is no miraculous sign given of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas was sent by the apostles to see the nature of the movement. When he arrived, he "saw the grace of God" (11:23), and by himself, without Paul's verification, he was convinced of their beginnings, and told them to remain true to the Lord. Only then, he went to get Paul (11:25ff).

New Year: Acts 9-10 for Nov 19

2011-12-03T18:13:00.002-06:00

Acts 9-10 are why so many people associate the beginning of the church with both Peter and Paul. The outstanding descriptions of their activities in these chapters gain our attention, but do we notice the providential guidance that is underneath (9:16; 10:19-20)?

So Peter and Paul would both beg to differ on being its beginners, and would ask us to look above them. Luke has a way of doing this, without denigrating their part. For example, lest we're too enamored with one mechanism or topic sequence (2:38), He provides another (10:44-48). It's human nature to ask questions such as "what's first? what's second? what do I have to do next?", but when God is doing the very same thing (10:47) during events which occur a different order, Peter has to backtrack (10:47).

Another example occurs in the variety of the various "conversion" stories. Here was that of Cornelius and his household, which defies us to list the things that were told to them before they were converted (10:44). But that's only one conversion story. Take Paul's: the only doctrine of preparation for conversion we can get from Acts 9:1-3 is what Paul's preceding state before his conversion was, and as far as we can tell, he was travelling on his way to Damascus. As far as I know, there has been no theory of preparing for conversion, among many, many, many, that has stipulated that one needs to be on the way to Damascus.

New Year: Acts 7-8 for Nov 18

2011-12-02T19:55:00.002-06:00

Let's not let "Oh, I know this story" prevent us from reading about the martyrdom of Stephen as if for the first time, in Acts 7.

Much has been made of Stephen's knowledge of the Old Testament. If he was a Hellenistic Jew he certainly carries the torch well for knowledge of the Old Testament outside the borders of Israel, just as Paul later does. Paul, who was present at this speech, but was as yet unconverted, possibly was hearing something said, by a person who used his language, yet refuted his views all the more.

Just as important is the reflection of the chapter on us. Stephen's speech shows that reciting the history of the nation need not be an hagiograph of the nation. How often have you heard a story of the Israelite wandering in the wilderness that uses the facts Stephen found in Amos 5? (Acts 7:42-43)? Today, the chief use being made of the wanderings in the wilderness, is to exhort us to not follow their example of unbelief. And well we shouldn't. But when have you heard a sermon about the idol factories in the wilderness, and not to follow those!

In his dying words, Stephen's example shows another rarity. It is perfectly compatible to be very much a critic of someone, yet forgive them from your heart and seek at all costs, their forgiveness (7:60).

New Year: Acts 4-6 for Nov 17

2011-11-30T18:00:00.008-06:00

What Peter the apostle had said at the end of Acts 3 to "the sons of the prophets and of the covenant" (3:25) provided the way forward for the nation to take. Though many did (5:14; 6:1,7), the existing leadership of the nation was against the teaching of the apostles. Was the scene going to be merely a power-struggle between followers of one teaching versus another, the entrenched versus the new?

Another way of asking this question, for the Christian, is this: "is it God, that exists, or merely competing religious explanations?" Does He do things, or is He a theoretical markup of events? If so, then are the events capable of being marked up another way?

Certainly in Acts 4-6 He does things, and the events in these chapters don't lend themselves well to multiple paradigms that ignore Jesus Christ. The resurrection-based (4:10) facts keep multiplying. Peter tells the entrenched rulers, and the whole nation, that the "man has been made well" (4:9) by "the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead" (4:10).

Not only that, but Jesus does not stand merely as the name (power and authority) behind a miracle, but a name behind salvation, indeed, the only one (4:12). If there is no salvation in anyone else but Christ, then "we" -- Peter and his listeners too -- must resort to Him for their salvation as well.

As if it were not mismatched enough a contest, obedience to God versus obedience to the conflicting orders of man on the other (4:19), the contestants do not comprise just the apostles versus those who are threatening them (4:29). There is the groundswell (4:31), among which there emerges (6:3, 5) Stephen, a non-apostle but "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (6:5), whose very face the Council saw "like the face of an angel" (6:15). It was not just the apostles against the Council. Gamaliel was right, in Acts 5:39. The Council was finding themselves to be fighting against God.

New Year: Acts 1-3 for Nov 16

2011-11-24T15:22:00.011-06:00

If Jesus's coming was according to the four gospels, a legitimate question someone would have is "if all that was as it was described, what next?" Part of the answer is here in Acts 1-3. Luke gives us a hint here at the beginning: the gospels are only what "Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1).

As Luke continues his narrative from his gospel to here, Luke 24:49 and Acts 2:2-4 have a natural connection. How does Acts 1 fit in?

The Expositors Bible Commentary calls the comparison of Acts 1:15-19 and Matthew 27 the most difficult in the New Testament. It does not seem to be. Judas had acquired money (Jn 12:6) and died on his own property, the "Field of Blood" (Acts 1:19). Before he died, the "chief priests and elders" (Mt 27:3) got their coins back from him, with which they bought the "Potter's Field" (Mt 27:7). Luke reports the manner of Judas' death, explaining what happened by integrating what Matthew (27:5) had said (as Acts 1:18, "falling headlong") with what followed after that (1:18b), which gave that property its name.

"Pentecost" refers to fifty days in Greek. It is a period of about seven weeks, forty days of which (1:3) Jesus presented Himself alive many times, and spoke of the kingdom of God. Paul refers to these days and those who witnessed them in 1 Cor 15, about 30 years later, and cites that most are still are alive from those forty days in which they saw Him (1 Cor 15:6). After His ascension, then, what would ensue? The comment of the angels to the disciples (1:11) doesn't say anything about that, although it says great things!

There is the scenario of sameness, 1:14, 26, and a contrasting scenario of what is pointedly and miraculously not the same, 2:1 - 3:26. It can by symbolized by Peter drawing straws regarding one person, versus after the day of Pentecost, Peter speaking to thousands of the whole nation, explaining to them everything that happened, their role, their culpability mixed with ignorance, and what to do next! To this very people and leadership that had their part to put Jesus to death (3:15), though acting "in ignorance" (3:17!), Peter speaks directly of that which was for their forgiveness (2:38), including what they should know (2:36), and what they should do and what will be done to them (2:38) -- and how that will effect the whole course of history (3:20-21)!

What they were to know amounted to the kind of thing that the Lord had emphasized all along in His earthly ministry, that there was a "predetermined plan" and "foreknowledge of God" (2:23), and that God had done things (2:32) according to it (2:33). How things changed for Peter and the disciples from the times of Luke 18:34! Peter explains things very clearly now, and it was not that it was a secret plan (3:18), in any case! In Acts 3:17-26 Peter explains the significance of not only that time, which he calls "these days" (3:26), but that there will be certain days to come: the "times of refreshing" (3:19), and the "period of restoration of all things " (3:21).

New Year: John 19-21 for Nov 15

2011-11-23T00:01:00.005-06:00

John's gospel presents the death and resurrection of Jesus in these three chapters, John 19-21. John is the master of understatement. He takes it from the understatement inherent in reporting these Resurrection appearances and not more. John can do this -- be selective, and write as if on a plain matter of history, because of the fact that the New Creation is built on the fact of the Resurrection, not just the two chapter report of it.

Three "Mary's" were at His crucifixion (Jn 19:25), and one of them, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb on Sunday (Jn 20:1). She was the first to be talked to by Jesus. who has risen, but she does not do anything but suppose him to be the gardener at first (20:15). This is NOT good science fiction. No glowing luminosity here. No outward sign. The opposite of what you might expect.

On the other hand, previous to this, Peter and "the other disciple" come to the tomb on the basis of the first report of Mary Magdalene that something was amiss (20:2) and as a result of seeing the grave-clothes, the disciple that came with Peter "saw and believed" (20:8). John comments on the fact that this late date of belief is due to the fact that "they" -- presumably not just that one disciple, but all of them -- "they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (20:9). This too is the opposite of what you might expect.

New Year: John 16-18 for Nov 14

2011-11-22T07:54:00.004-06:00

By John 18 the hour that Jesus had said would come finally does come (17:1), and chapters 16-18 all show how these events take a second seat to the people.

All of them, from the highest officials such as the high priest and the governor, to slaves (18:10) and door-keepers (18:16-17), act as they choose to, yet according to providence, and the events are all providentially governed by God.

For example, the disciples whom He prays for regarding the their protection and priveleges throughout John 14-17, are freed from being arrested with Jesus (cf. 12:10) by prophecy and a single word by Jesus (18:8-9). Peter, whose behavior in the garden could easily get him arrested too (18:10), evidently at that point didn't want to be freed to go his way (18:8, 10), yet his own denials, predicted just earlier (13:38), serve the goals of 18:8-9.

Human nature in its evil is depicted very directly. Annas tries to assert himself by getting Jesus to give an account of disciples and teaching (18:19)! Annas wasn't looking for information, which Jesus points out he could get from others (18:21). Perhaps the assertion of his authority?

In the case of the "officers of the Jews" (18:12), they say they want Pilate to execute Jesus. Why? It may be just because they want to control the fate of whoever is an "evildoer" (18:30).

We readers are left shaking our heads that they want to kill the Innocent Man, yet they don't want to be ceremonially unclean for the passover (18:28). Therefore their own religious scruples hinder their plans for evil.

But Pilate doesn't miss his chance to show his colors. Pilate mocks them by toying with them, twice, mocking their religion-based antagonism (18:29-31a), then saying he "finds" no guilt (18:38). That's the official language of innocence, but Pilate's scheming comes forth: in calling Jesus "King of the Jews" (18:39), derisively, not intending to release him at that point, and having just heard from Jesus Himself that His kingdom is not of this world (18:36), Pilate puts his admitted scoffing at "truth" (19:38) at the service of what he knows: power politics.

New Year: John 13-15 for Nov 13

2011-11-20T22:31:00.007-06:00

In the ministry of Jesus among His disciples in John 13-15, He does not disparage them (13:10) or exalt them either (13:38).

Why, after Judas left, does the command to love one another receive such prominent emphasis? What is the "new" in the "new commandment" there (13:34)? The "even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" is a possibility -- the quality of the love -- but also, its extent (13:1).

The related subject of the disciples' love for Jesus is not brought out as a reciprocation of His love for them. It is specifically founded upon other foundations: their knowing God, even that they "have seen Him" -- in Jesus (14:8-10). Then, He exhorts them to believe Him about some things, and encourages them that they will be answered in their prayers no matter what (14:13-14). With that amazing foundation, Jesus then brings up their love for Him, and the consequence: keeping His commandments.

Comparing 14:15, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments," and 14:23-24, "'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; ... He who does not love Me does not keep My words," we notice that Jesus infers FROM love TO the keeping of His words and commandments, and FROM lack of love TO not keeping His commandments. What about FROM keeping the commandments, TO love? Not here (cf. 12:47).

What the Lord does infer FROM keeping His commandments is abiding in His love (15:10).

What then of 14:21, "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me"? These two things are given -- having His commandments, and keeping them -- as being of the essence for loving Him. They show that to love Christ is not a one-time act, but it is always identified with the keeping of His commandments, plural, all of them. Thus it is always an ongoing and repeatedly measurable state. This is often thought of as only a means of determining that someone does not love Christ, as if the rule cannot apply to anyone's future if they have broken it in the past. What then, is true, of someone who has not kept His commandments? The statement also applies to their future, and they should take heart from it -- such a person, who has Christ's commandments and keeps them, is also "the one who loves Me." The statement of Christ remains true.

Is this, then, the means? Is keeping the commandments the means of loving Christ? No. It is the repeatable measure of loving Christ. The measure of something is not the means of acquiring it. "We love, because He first loved us," Scripture says elsewhere (1 Jn 4:19).

New Year: John 11-12 for Nov 12

2011-11-20T04:29:00.002-06:00

In John 11-12 is the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the reaction to it, followed by the summary of the whole public ministry of Jesus (12:36b-50).

The "why" of these events is also explained. Some people believed but didn't confess it -- i.e. they were secret about it -- John explains why (12:42-43). Some people didn't believe even though they saw many signs -- John explains why (12:37-39a).

The chief priests and the Pharisees held a council after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead -- John explains why (11:48). During this time, Jesus would go out "to the country near the wilderness" -- John explains why (11:54). The fact that Jesus has come to this point -- He Himself tells the Father why, and John records it (12:27).

The Lord's own summary of His whole significance to this point in His life, in His own words, is recorded by John, and is meant for us to know. I think we should know these words by heart (12:44-50).

New Year: John 9-10 for Nov 11

2011-11-17T13:11:00.008-06:00

Though the identity of Christ is a theme throughout John's gospel, the eternal consequences of the opponents not knowing it came out very pointedly in the previous chapter (8:21,24).

John's gospel has a close-up look at many of the ideas of Christ's opponents. In John 9-10, Christ's identity is again the subject of those who revile Jesus, which they want to bring up (9:16,29).

There is a one-question verse, John 9:35, that is surprising in its brevity and succinctness. It is a non-confrontational conversation of Jesus, in the middle of chapters of confrontational conversations Jesus is having with representatives of the entrenched religion. In this one-question verse John documents what Jesus Himself may well be thought to put as the first question for all those He saves, perhaps even the premier question: "do you believe in the Son of Man?"

It is certainly true that John 10:42 uses this phrase without explanation. We readers have been accumulating knowledge about this idea since 1:12! The reader therefore, by the time of 10:42, has been given that content which informs the meaning of it. All John has to say in 10:42 is "many believed in Him there." And we readers know by then, what that means.

How? One of the best ways to see that is in fact 9:35-39. Look at the progression: Jesus heals the blind man (9:7). The formerly blind man identifies Jesus first as "the man who is called Jesus" (9:11). In 9:17, the man says "He is a prophet" -- to antagonistic listeners (9:18), as the man's parents well knew (9:22). Then, being summoned a second time for questioning, the man says "whether He is a sinner, I do not know" (9:25). But he turns the tables on the questioners, telling them they weren't listening to him (9:27). So he teaches the questioners what he believes about Jesus, that Jesus is from God (9:33). They recognize that they have just been taught (9:34).

And so the Lord Jesus, in 9:35, throws a theological question at the blind man, who definitely sees, but doesn't know he sees, theologically, and whom he sees. Jesus asks him, "do you believe in the Son of Man?"

The man obviously doesn't know the reference, "Son of Man," and very clearly wants to just get the reference, because he is definitely going to believe in the Son of Man when Jesus identifies who that is.

How Jesus does so (9:37) is very endearing. This circumlocution about Himself SHOUTS at us about how the Lord identifies Himself similarly in the Old Testament as well, to those He grants knowledge of Himself to. Remember Jacob (Gen 32:29)? Moses (Ex 3:4,13-15; Ex 33:21-23)? Gideon (Judges 6:17-21)? Isaiah (6:1-7)?

New Year: John 7-8 for Nov 10

2011-11-16T17:36:00.003-06:00

The theme of response to opposition is heavy in John 7-8, along with what goes on despite it.

In a passage from yesterday (5:18) the opposition to Jesus was described in the same extreme as in our chapters, and indeed the discussion is similar (5:30-47) in some places (cf. 8:14).

When, in matters of religion, a discussion focuses on what authority there is for an assertion (8:13), the discussion is usually one of opposing views. It's similar to any two opponents discussing things on the merit of each view, and getting nowhere, and one of the participants saying "who thinks like you think?" Indeed, this is a form of "argumentum ad populum," trying to say that a view has this X amount of outside support. Indeed, the discussions of Jesus in the temple show forth many examples of the type of fallacies that arguments are subject to.

For example, the famous fallacy of judging an opinion by the origin of the one who holds it: 7:52. Another one is judging an opinion by the status of the one(s) speaking, either socially or educationally (7:15; 7:49).

What was the lack of faith among his brothers or family, in 7:1-9? It says that "not even His [Christ's] brothers were believing in Him" (7:5), but they hadn't said anything that seemed negative, on the face of it (7:3-4). It's all in the "if," of verse 4, I think. Maybe He was doing these things, maybe He wasn't? Did they doubt that He did them? The brothers' words were a possible contrast to Peter's in 6:68-69. The brothers wanted more actions in central places like Judea (7:3), but the disciples inferred from the actions to the character of the person, and Peter summed it up "We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." The brothers were not believing in Him, but wanted Him to do more, "if" He really was doing those things. So the "if" can conceal a syllogism something like "sure, you've done these things in a small region of the world, but we suspend judgment on their significance ... perhaps this small corner of the world is unable to figure out something fishy about these things, so go do them where they big boys can see." A possibility for unbelieving brothers.

New Year: John 5-6 for Nov 9

2011-11-12T15:12:00.002-06:00

In John 5-6, Jesus teaches largely in the midst of a settled hostility or unwillingness to believe in Him. Who does He teach? The other ones, merely the ones who are willing? No, he confronts the unbelievers, and does not mince words with them.

The moral categorizations in this chapter are very clear. It's not only the language, but the thought forms. It's a standard Hebrew thought-form (categorization) to divide the world into the righteous and the wicked. Jesus does not teach against this, but adds to it. Let's look at some of these additions.

In John 5:29-30, all who are in the tombs will come forth, to one of two resurrections, "of life," and "of judgment." This should not surprise us given what Jesus has taught so far! John 5:24 anticipates it: "he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." This single verse sheds light on 5:29-30, which does NOT divide the world into those who pass or fail at the judgment, but on those who have already passed out of death into life, are not judged, versus those who go to judgment! It's not judgment passed or judgment failed, but either life already or judgment!

The two additions are the avoiding of judgment ("does not come into judgment," 5:24, and "resurrection of life" 5:29), and the relationship of that to something that happens at that very time: "he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me" (5:24), a) does not come into judgmnet, and b) has eternal life (5:24)!

What is it "about believing Him who sent Me" in 5:24 that changes things? The negative is also stated in 5:38, "you do not believe Him who He sent." Believing God, as in believing a person, sounds like believing what a person is saying or said. Abraham believed God about the stars, and God credited it to him as righteousness. That's another way of saying this.

Believing God when they hear Jesus's word: this implies the very coordination of activity that Jesus had just explained to them about Himself and His Father. Indeed, He doesn't back off any of it, in the many subtopics from 5:18-38. When Jesus spoke, the question was, were they going to believe God. This implies that God was giving witness to them of the truth of what Jesus said. And, if that were not good enough, the Lord would even allow it, for them to have taken it -- on the testimony of John the Baptist (5:34)!

New Year: John 2-4 for Nov 8

2011-11-12T08:33:00.015-06:00

There are a couple of examples here of teaching that Jesus gives that is not fully understood until way later: 2:18-22, and 3:1-12. What Jesus says in 3:1ff is not understood: "how can a man" do this and that, "can he?", and "how can these things be?" However, when it comes to God versus our knowledge, Jesus has a very refreshing thing to say, especially to those with pride in their knowledge and those who have to know all about something before they can believe it: that is verse 8. It's part of the nature of the knowledge, not only of God, who is Spirit, but of everyone else born of God, that knowledge of them is incomplete: "so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (3:8). They're like the wind; it is manifestly true of the wind, that we do not know where it is going, or where it comes from.

This is the reason Jesus gives for telling Nicodemus "do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again'" (3:7). It's the best part of knowledge, to know that it stops, and not to be amazed that it does.

The second and final comment of Nicodemus here (3:9)is not a real question, but a remonstrance regarding the topic. He doesn't understand how everyone born of the Spirit is like the wind blowing where it wishes, no one knowing its origin or destination. The rest of the chapter expands on the "everyone" of 3:8. Nicodemus, "the teacher of Israel" -- this is not a slam, but an honorific, which makes the irony even stronger! -- should know about the filial status of Israel, in places like Is 1:2-4 and Hosea 11:1, yet there being at that time only hints about eternal life. Like the people shining like stars in Daniel 12,

So Jesus goes back to the Old Testament to explain more about the means of eternal life: "As Moses lifted up ... so must the Son of Man be lifted up ... so that whoever believes" (3:14-15). That's the means.

The giving by God of His Son, the Son being "lifted up," so that people who believe will "have eternal life," is compared for its similarity to when Moses lifted a serpent up onto a pole in Numbers 21:9. The serpent is a symbol of what was cursed back in the garden. It was lifted up for the Israelites to "look to" and be healed! Jesus uses the event to explain a part of His future ministry: through his death ('Christ became a curse for us', Paul says in Gal 3), and resurrection, He was lifted up so that everyone who believed in Him would have, not just a healing limited by time, but eternal life. Nicodemus, who came secretly, by night, to be taught (3:1), got some teaching.

New Year: Luke 24; John 1 for Nov 7

2011-11-10T15:07:00.002-06:00

A fictional event in a story can affect a person, or many people, to the point of taking action. A space-time event is itself an action, and affects space and time directly. The Resurrection in Luke 24 and the Incarnation in John 1 are the latter kind of event.

New Year: Luke 22-23 for Nov 6

2011-11-08T18:40:00.006-06:00

By paying close attention to Luke 22-23 we realize how easy it is to understand the historical reasons for Jesus's death.

(Matt 26:1 - 27:61 and Mark 14:1 - 15:47 are in the same time sequence as Luke 22-23 when we read them synoptically.)

The particulars of His death were caused by a) the religious conflict since 6:7, 6:11, 20:19, 20:26 and especially after what Luke wrote in 22:2; b) actions of those in authority, not only "the chief priests and the scribes" (23:10), but Herod and Pilate (23:11-12). The fact that what "is written must be fulfilled in Me," 22:37 (which is what Jesus said about what was happening), was in fact happening did not provide the motivation to those who "were seeking how they might put Him to death" (22:2). They had the standard reasons of antagonism, power, and self-protection, as did Herod and Pilate. Jesus, for His part, did not countenance their religion either (16:15).

There are three sources of official antipathy to Jesus pictured here: a) the chief priests and the scribes; b) Herod; and c) Pilate, going from the strongest forces against Jesus, to weakest. Pilate's antipathy is so weak, that he is swayed by the crowd (23:23).

The obstacle to what the "chief priests and the scribes" wanted to do -- "put Him to death" (22:2) -- was the crowd. Judas provided them an opportunity to put that obstacle aside. Luke pointedly says that that Jesus was arrested at a place that it "was His custom" to go to (22:39).

Is that all there is to it, then? The antogonism of a religious group in power. Betrayal of one's routine by one of His disciples. Political expedience. Crowd manipulation.

All that. Add the devil himself (22:3). But Luke 22:37 governs it all. It was a fulfilment, and a fulfillment indeed, of Something great.

New Year: Luke 20-21 for Nov 5

2011-11-07T21:06:00.005-06:00

If the macro-situation of the end of the world that Jesus predicted is what finally comes about (Lk 21:25-27), what is the significance of the micro-situation of the two coins the widow contributed (21:1-4)? If things can become that bad for disciples (21:6-17), how will it then turn out that good for them (21:18)?

(Matt 21:23 - 24:44 and Mark 11:27 - 13:37 are in the same time sequence as Luke 20-21 when we read them synoptically.)

There are many examples in ethical instruction that things are spelled out in a deliberately paradoxical fashion. We can think of the hare and tortoise. This is also true in the teaching of Jesus, as we saw just yesterday in Luke 17:33. And that was not even the first time in that chapter (17:6, 10)! It is not as often recognized that 21:16-19 is such a paradox. On two levels: the disciples, some of whom will die, not a hair of their head will perish! Further, the disciples, some of whom are hated by all because of Christ's name, gain their very selves, by outlasting all of them! Because of the parallelism of the conclusions, this passage is a connected saying, not two sayings. The conclusions are parallel: not a hair of their head will perish, and they will endure, gaining lives/souls in the process. Each conclusion illuminates the other. That's how the whole structure of Hebrew parallelism in the OT works, as well.

It is also interesting to think of whether the paradox is meant to apply to the events of 21:10-15 alone, or whether such things are true even in analogous, recurring events, that might happen not only to the first disciples of Jesus, but to any disciples.

New Year: Luke 17-19 for Nov 4

2011-11-07T07:59:00.008-06:00

Though Jesus has predictions of the immediate, the near-term, and the far-term, the conceptions among the followers of the far-term future are the ones that He corrected as to their timing; people were supposing them to be about the near-term future (19:11).

(Matt 19:13 - 21:22 and Mark 10:13 - 11:18 are in the same time sequence as Luke 18-19 when we read them synoptically.)

Jesus is predicting specific details of the immediate future (18:32-33), none of which are understood (18:34). He lays out the interim between now and His return by parable (19:11-27). But the interim is only one verse of the parable, 19:12. The rest of the parable is post-interim! Nevertheless, the far-term events are as highly described in prediction (17:22-37) as they are in parable.

These predictions are interwoven with ethical teaching. This is not usually characteristic of popular apocalypticism today, but it is unmistakable in the Lord's teaching. We see this in 17:32-33, the parables of Luke 18, the didactic of 18:18-27,18:28ff., punctuated by 18:30. (Don't read the converse into Luke 18:29-30!)

Short-term (18:31-33), near-term (19:43-44), or long-term (17:22-37), all of it is salted with the salt of His ethics for His followers.

New Year: Luke 14-16 for Nov 3

2011-11-06T08:27:00.005-06:00

In Luke 14, Jesus didn't just leave those who opposed Him to themselves (14:1-6). That laissez-faire idea is a modern resort, often in matters of religion. But Jesus dealt with matters of religion without it.

Two parables, that of the guests (14:7-15) and the dinner (14:16-24) illustrate problems with the life of immediate-advantage-seeking, the first, with those we want to be with, the second, with those we don't want to be with. To those whom you want to be with, don't put yourself in front as their indispensable companion (14:10-11). And those whose invitations get insulting replies by us (14:18-20) will put on their big dinner without us (14:24). As for who we ourselves invite (14:13-14), do what the text says God will do, and states that Jesus constantly does (13:17; 14:4-5) with "the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (14:21).

New Year: Luke 12-13 for Nov 2

2011-11-05T12:21:00.003-05:00

In these teaching chapters of Luke it should be impossible to read Luke 12-13, without dealing with many different priorities of life.

Priorities of body and soul (12:4-5); of what others know versus what you know (12:2-3); of being rich in one thing or another (12:21,33); of what to chase (12:31); of what to listen for (12:36), get ready for (12:47); of what to negotiate for (12:48).

Then, since there are other agents doing things in this world around us, of most concern God Himself, not everything has to be about what we have on our plate. Sometimes that's a relief, even if He makes things urgent for us (13:24). But His pace is also steady (13:18-21).

As far as opposition, we can oppose it a) knowing our value, so as not to fear (12:6-7); b) without being surprised by it, but c) having a road already laid out for us against it, d) upon which we're on, and upon which we'll reach our goal (13:32).

New Year: Luke 10-11 for Nov 1

2011-11-04T22:09:00.006-05:00

If we want to learn it, we often have it repeated to us. Luke 10-11 emphasizes and repeats.

Those who can barely believe that Jesus miraculously healed may have not believed back in 9:1 when this power and authority was given to "the twelve apostles." More than barely believing that is necessary, when we see that Jesus here sends out "seventy others" in 10:1, and they succeed at bringing the kingdom of God near (10:9) to all the places they go, including the healing of the sick (10:9), plus the subjection of demons (10:17).

Jesus responds to them about their success in 10:18. This response shows that the healings of the sick and the subjection of demons, and the casting of them out (11:20), are NOT merely what people often call verification of His identity. That would make them only like a "sign," which is what Jesus preached that generation to be wicked for seeking (11:29). His healings and command over demons and unclean spirits (11:24) spread to the twelve and to the seventy. And the result? Verification to people, of His ministry? No. Instead, His estimate of the work of the seventy is "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." Healings are not ancillary to the coming of the kingdom; the subjection of demons and of Satan, "a strong man, fully armed" (11:21), is part of the victory of the coming of the kingdom and the devil's fall. It is not mere verification. The ministry of Jesus was truly for the sake of those it ministered to, not to verify Himself to a generation that sought for a sign.

New Year: Luke 8-9 for Oct 31

2011-11-04T11:15:00.008-05:00

When Jesus spoke "by way of a parable" to the "large crowd" in Luke 8:4, it wasn't His first parable in Luke (cf. 6:39), but it was the first major one, and His interpretation (8:11-15) is significant.

(Matt 13:1 - 19:1 and Mark 4:1 - 10:1 are in the same time sequence as Luke 8-9 when we read them synoptically.)

Paul's words are similar to Jesus's in Luke 8:12, about believing and being saved, when Paul says that the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rm 1:16): when in this parable, "seed fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of heaven ate it up" (8:5), in the explanation, "the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart," and we should watch for this in real life, because the real-life purpose of the devil is "so that they will not believe and be saved" (8:12). To be against the devil is to be against his purposes.

One application of this, to those who are spreading "the word of God," (8:11), is to recognize that it if it is true of the sower's seed that "some fell beside the road" (8:5), it may well be true of some spreading of the word of God. Whenever and however long this truly happens with the spreading of the word of God, neither the word of God, nor "those beside the road," neither, interact with the other ... except in one way: they too are those "who have heard" (8:12). This is true of all four cases (8:12,13,14,15).

The conclusion to the parable (8:8, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear") applies to the understanding of the entire parable. What kind of statement is this? Since 8:10 also brings up sight, therefore, comparing 8:8 to "let there be light," it is a similar statement to that: a broadcast of a "let it be true," to all with the physical possession of ears, for their ears to function in the matter of hearing, for the event of the sowing of the word of God. Therefore it is a "fiat," a "let it be true, divinely done by pronouncement, thus done in fact!" It has, then, the broadest success possible regarding the hearing of the word of God: all possessors of ears where the word of God is sown, by this fiat, hear. This not a restriction of the invitation. All four cases hear. In support, we see later, that all four cases explicitly hear: thus 8:8 applies to all upon whom the word of God is sown: they explicitly hear.

We should consider whether this statement means something more as well, especially in light of 8:10. That verse is paradoxical: they are to hear, but not in every way. What way not? As the verse describes it: "hearing, they may not understand" (8:10).

After reading this parable, if we feel like a big mountain has just placed itself next to us, which cannot be dislodged or climbed, that is true! The parable is regarding "the kingdom of God," and its "mysteries." The disciples are divided by the parabolic method from "the rest" (8:10). They are not "the rest": "to you it has been granted to know," Jesus tells them. And Luke has been published throughout the whole earth, almost. Therefore not only has the hearing occured, by fiat, wherever it has been read, but we see, in seeing so many disciples throughout the whole earth, that many have also understood.

New Year: Luke 6-7 for Oct 30

2011-11-02T22:26:00.004-05:00

The forcefulness of Christ's personality is more evident in Luke 6-7 as it unfolds.

(Matt 12:1-21 and Mark 2:23 - 3:12 are in the same time sequence as Luke 6-7 when we read them synoptically.)

We see the forcefulness of Christ in His categorical and summary statements, such as 6:5, 6:46, 7:22-23, and 7:48. He even directly demonstrates to John's disciples what kind of thing could answer their question, on the spot (7:21).

Already, early on in the ministry of Christ here in Luke, there are two occasions when the reaction of a group is "rage" (4:28) or even rage/folly (6:11), that of plotting to do something to Jesus (6:11). Christ's actions are in turn very direct and astounding. There is so little reason that the raising of the widow of Nain's son is so little known (7:11-17), but it was well-known then (7:17).

Christ is forceful in His comments not only about Himself, but about what His disciples, in their position (6:20ff.), should be like (e.g. 6:35-38).

There is a no-nonsense tone in the preaching of Jesus, that we should not miss: 7:35 makes that point didactically. Verses like 7:47-48 illustrate it.

New Year: Luke 4-5 for Oct 29

2011-11-01T17:03:00.003-05:00

It is difficult to say enough in praise of how strong an introduction to the ministry of Jesus Luke 4-5 are.

(Matthew 4:1 - 9:17 and Mark 1:12 - 2:22 are in sequence with Luke 4-5, when we view them "synoptically.")

The initiative with the disciples (5:1-11,27-32); the completely different views than the scribes and Pharisees (5:21-26,30-32,36-39); how Jesus dealt with those who were angry with Him (4:25-30); how he dealt with His own disciples who were afraid of Him (5:8-10); His teaching on the pull of tradition and the necessity to avoid it (5:38-39).

But something must be said about the time the Lord "was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil" (4:1-2).

The first-time reader might notice how "technical" these temptations are, i.e., the use of Bible verses, and that does it. But looking up the references, it turns out that we notice that the Lord uses verses from a part of the Old Testament that is not as well-traveled as much as some others. Many have heard the story of the Exodus, but who can say where "man shall not live on bread alone" is? Or "You shall worship the Lord God and serve Him only" is? Or where "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" is (Dt 8:3; 6:13; 6:16)?

It's from a restatement section of the Old Testament, where Moses is restating what happened earlier. So there is secondary application of each of the verses: man shall not live on bread alone is a part of the original sentence, which goes on "but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord" (Dt 8:3). The verse itself is being employed in what the verse is saying a man should employ it to do, and not only that, it answers the temptation about bread.

Similarly, Luke 4:8, "you shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only" is what Jesus does in not bowing before the devil; as well as that, the content of the verse itself answers the temptation.

Similarly, 4:12. "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test": Jesus does not jump; therefore He does not put the Lord to the test. As well as that, the verse itself is employed to answer the temptation of Jesus to throw Himself down, as to why not. Jesus uses the Word of God in two concurrent ways during these three temptations: He follows it, and He provides it as sufficient answer to the temptation's issue.

New Year: Luke 2-3 for Oct 28

2011-10-31T18:43:00.012-05:00

Luke 2 "says things" that you can't say in a textbook way about Christmas. Today there are two tasks laid out, to say something you may have overlooked about Christmas ("how is that possible?"), and to overlook something that others have said about these chapters, and substitute something better.

(Matthew 3:1:17 and Mark 1:1-11 are in sequence with Luke 3, when we view them "synoptically.")

There's something very interesting about the drama of Luke 2:8-14. In Luke 1, the reader can't help noticing that Mary and Zacharias spoke and prophesied about a "done deal": God has done something. At that point, Christ hadn't even been born yet, but was in Mary's womb. Yet to Zach and Mary, God "has brought down rulers" (Mary, 1:52) ... "God has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people" (Zach, 1:68). Done deal. See also Mary in 1:48, 53-55, and Zach in 1:69-71.

In 2:11, however, the fact has occured, "there has been born for you a Savior." The solitary angel ("I bring you," 2:10) gives the news, and the sign. Abstract news? No. "I bring you good news" (2:10). Just that somebody was born, in the "that's nice" kinda-non-newsy way? No. "...born for you" (2:11): for the shepherds. Those shepherds? Yes! One angel. Did you notice that before? In the sky? No. "There stood before them". The angel was right there in front of them (2:9).

Next (2:13), not in the sky, but "with the angel," the next event: "suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host..." On the ground! The Son of God in a manger, and angels on the ground. No need to be embarrassed that the Son of God was born on terra firma, and no need to stick these angels in the sky.

OK. The next task is to talk about how Luke says things that are better than what people have said about Luke 2-3. People have said that there is a gap in our knowledge of the Lord's life, between Luke 2 and Luke 3. Perhaps that habit of mind comes from seeing the date on each page of printed newspaper we read. Don't know. We do, however, have to allow Luke to say things as he wants to, and the Bible in general.

When a prophecy is true, then what it says is true, even if it is said before it happens. What Mary, and Zacharias, and OT prophecies already said about the Messiah is true, even if it is said before it happens, even if it not said after it happens.

Isaiah 53:2 says "He grew up before Him like a tender shoot / And like a root out of parched ground / He has no stately form or majesty / That we should look upon Him / Nor appearance that we should desire Him." Prophecy. It informs us about Jesus's growing up.

Prophecies, however, are not the only way that Luke has told us about the Lord's upbringing. He's been talking about it since 1:5! Zecharias and Elizabeth -- Mary's relatives, whom she stayed with while pregnant with Jesus -- they are lock-step with God's ways (1:6) and Jewish lineage as specific as Jewish lineage can be expressed (1:5). Angels visit both, announcing events! Luke is telling us of the way of life of these particular people, and of Mary's way of life in community with them. Joseph? Lineage of David (1:27). But was Joseph the father of Jesus? It was "as was supposed" only (3:23). But Jesus "of Eli!" (The Greek doesn't say "son",but the list is uniformly, "of A, of B, of C," etc. How could Jesus not be biologically "of" Joseph, but only the supposed descendant, yet be of Eli? Very likely through Mary, as Warfield has researched. So Mary was also daughter of David. The Lord's upbringing was as a son in the line of David. Anything else cluing us to the contents of Luke 2:53 - 3:00? What did Joseph and Mary, pointedly "His parents," do "every year" (2:41)? The required trip. Why did they "not find Him" (2:45) after a day's travel? Isn't the best explanation, that of His uniform trustworthiness?" Could it not be that He was so trusted by them, at this point, that a full travel day of trust was a matter of course, already a common thing.

Not just to hear about it from humans, how about God? Before Jesus even embarked on a single journey of teaching and healing, God appears, and says to Him "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased" (3:22). What else could we ever want to have, which covers Him in every aspect including His upbringing until that point, along with His relationship to God the Father?"

New Year: Luke 1 for Oct 27

2011-10-30T17:36:00.003-05:00

What is God doing? In Luke 1 God's dramatic work immediately prior to the births of Jesus and John the Baptist is given in great detail.

It's tempting to put Zacharias in a bad light, and Elizabeth in a contrasting light, because of the comment of Zacharias in 1:18 versus the comment of Elizabeth in 1:45. But Luke does not allow that generalization (1:6). In fact, Zacharias is not only the father of John the Baptist who "will be called a prophet" (1:76), but himself speaks prophecy (1:67), the final one before Christ's birth in Luke 2.

Zacharias's words (1:68-79) are not even all, or mostly, about his own son John. Some are (1:76-77), but they're mostly about what the meaning of those times are for Israel. Zacharias "was filled with the Holy Spirit" (1:67). Thus also Elizabeth, before she spoke (1:41). John the Baptist himself, "while yet in his mother's womb" (1:15), the same.

The angel speaks something to Mary (1:35) that thousands of years of theology about the Incarnation have not bettered.

New Year: Mark 15-16 for Oct 26

2011-10-28T23:55:00.003-05:00

In Mark 15-16 the Lord's death and Resurrection are described in the same factual vein: "He breathed His last" (15:39) is the same reporting language as "He has risen; He is not here" (16:6): no hype in the language, no showiness of speech. When the women talked (16:11,13), the disciples didn't say something like "sweet story," but the disciples "refused to believe" (16:11) or "they did not believe" (16:13) at first. Later, that would change (16:20).

New Year: Mark 13-14 for Oct 25

2011-10-27T17:38:00.006-05:00

The discussion/discourse of Mark 13, which goes to "the end" and beyond (13:13) towers over the events of Mark 14 to the same extent that the Lord does. There is a context into which these events of Mark 14 have already been put.

(Matthew 24:1 - 26:75 and Luke 21:5 - 22:71 are in sequence with Mark 13-14, when we view them "synoptically.")

This pattern is again evident, the teaching about the significance of future events preceding the events themselves (1:2,8,24; 2:9-12,20; 3:14,19,28-29;4:24-25; 5:28), and here it is explicitly punctuated and emphasized (13:23).

Peter, James, and John were the three at the Transfiguration (9:2), and in Mk 13:3, Andrew, Peter's brother, is also there. Mark 13 in certain parts has that same panoramic scope throughout time that we notice in Mk 8:38, 9:41, 10:40 as well. Finally, these four notice it, and have two questions in 13:4. The next section (Mark 13:5-13), like the telescoped saying in 8:38 takes His disciples throughout all time until the end, from that time until the end. The second part (13:14ff) starts by describing a single situation, and sounds for all the world like a situation which the Lord is preparing His four disciples and their contemporaries who are reading this for. Then He goes back in 13:24, "but in those days, after that tribulation....")

Looking at it that way, Jesus answers both questions of 13:4. When the taking down of stone from stone will be (13:14-23), and what the sign will be when all these things will be fulfilled, both those described in 13:2, the sign being 13:14, and those described in 13:26, the sign being 13:24-25.

Before going onto the time of the Lord's arrest, Mark describes the exhortation to alertness, which is not easily transmuted to be like an exhortation to "be good" for Santa, or an exhortation to be good. It is not "be good," as such, what we might expect, with an accompanying threat, but to keep on the alert, be on the alert. What has the Lord just given the disciples for all time, to be alert about? A possibly particular event in Judea, or at least that Judea would know about (13:14) ... and a world-wide event that "they will see" (13:26). The exhortation, fascinatingly, is against finding us "asleep" (13:36). It is pointedly not accompanied by a warning of something negative, just an exhortation to not be found asleep -- reminding me of what a groom might say to his bride, or even some surprise wrapped in the timing, for the Son, from the Father (13:32).

New Year: Mark 11-12 for Oct 24

2011-10-26T10:15:00.005-05:00

Jesus is not only intimate with the details of the immediate future (Mark 11:3,6) but of the ties between far future and present (12:40).

(Matthew 21:1 - 23:12 and Luke 19:29 - 21:4 are in sequence with Mark 11-12, when we view them "synoptically.")

The parable of the vineyard owner (12:1-11) is heart-wrenching, but has a twist at the end (12:10-11), which makes it a real problem for those who think the church invented the applications of the parables. Here, the inexplicable actions of the vineyard owner are resolved only by 12:10-11. The Lord, about to be "rejected" and killed, "became the chief corner stone," (12:10). The people were often astonished (11:18), but they were also glad to listen (12:37). However, when "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" (11:27) "understood that He spoke the parable against them (12:12), though they were also often amazed (12:17), they would characteristically just leave (12:12).

However, those he spoke against were not spoken against en masse, as if everything was a generalization against the label "scribe" or "elder" or "priest." For example, one scribe was highly commended (12:34), in a very enigmatic way that defies most systematizers.

The teaching to the disciples is of the highest and most inspirational quality (11:20-25) amidst all this. The Lord's time in Jerusalem was His as Lord of history, as much as any other time. All that the Lord said to the disciples here was for the quality of their ongoing lives (11:20-25; 12:43).

New Year: Mark 8-10 for Oct 23

2011-10-25T17:59:00.005-05:00

There have been hints that the time of the Lord's being taken from the disciples would come (Mark 2:20). Here in Mark 8-10, especially accompanied by the picture of Mark 10:32, with Jesus walking alone ahead of the disciples, on the road going up to Jerusalem, the reader can also understand why "those who followed were fearful" (10:32).

(Matthew 15:32 - 20:34 and Luke 9:18 - 18:43 are in sequence with Mark 8-10, when we view them "synoptically.")

But the road is also a follower's road. The one who wishes "to come after Me" (8:34) is not being given initial conditions, but the conditions for each step: each step must be self-denial, and each step must be the taking up of one's own cross.

In the rebuking of the disciples for not yet seeing or understanding (8:17), not only do we see the specifics: the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod, which is 1) religious hypocrisy and 2) the submission of one's conscience to the pursuit of power (as Herod did with John the Baptist in chapter 6), but we also see that the Lord expected understanding from His disciples by this point (8:21).

There are a couple of verses that defy references in this section. For example, 9:13. There are no cross references in my normally full edition. Where is it that they did to Elijah "just as it is written of him"? The only thing I could think of was something like I Kings 19:2.

Chapter 10, in discussion about the entering into the kingdom of God (10:15,25) , and the disciples amazed (10:24), and even more astonished (10:26), it is often taught as a lesson on humility. It should be rather taught as a lesson on impossibility (10:27) for man.

New Year: Mark 6-7 for Oct 22

2011-10-22T09:15:00.008-05:00

The huge extent and impact of the ministry of Christ in Mark 6-7 contrasts with the lacuna of Nazareth also described here (6:6).

(Matthew 13:53 - 15:31 and Luke 9:1-17 are in sequence with Mark 6-7, when we view them "synoptically.")

The Lord's ministry, a secular viewpoint might coin it about these chapters, seems charmed. Jesus is not the only person whose popularity skyrockets. Every day and every culture can display those whose popularity skyrockets. In what way does the Lord's ministry interact with this environment? In the last chapter we saw that Jesus gave strict orders "that no one should know" about Jairus's daughter being raised up (5:43). In our chapters today, the Lord takes the disciples to a secluded place for rest (6:31-32). It doesn't last. Crowds come and come, running (6:33), pleading for the smallest contact (6:36). So the feeding of the five thousand (6:33-44) was originally supposed to have been a retreat.

Similarly, the sending of the twelve in 6:7-13: Jesus tells the disciples not to prepare in the slightest any more than the preparation for a part of one day; that is what He instructed them to do (6:8-12). Why? In this gospel, we put two and two together again. We must conclude that Mark does not describe Jesus's ministry as a manipulation for greatness of effect. He tells those He has healed to keep quiet, giving glory to God in their locality (1:44; 5:19). The demons are silenced (3:12). He leaves places in which His reputation is spreading (1:38). In the teaching, the kingdom of heaven starts as the smallest seed (4:30ff). And in the enigmatic statement, often repeated in the gospels, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (4:19; 4:23) there is an invitation, based on the existing condition. Jesus is not ordering loudspeakers.

New Year: Mark 3-5 for Oct 21

2011-10-21T23:36:00.004-05:00

Mark's own way of describing the teaching of Jesus in the context of His ministry is to encourage the reader to put two and two together.

(Matthew 12:9 - 13:52 and Luke 6:6 - 8:56 cover the same period as Mark 3-5, when we view them "synoptically.")

For example Mark 1:1 puts forth as the first thing we know about Him, that He is the Son of God. The next verse, describing Him as the OT Messenger, quotes two passages, saying in effect, put them together. In 1:17 Mark gives the invitation to discipleship for two brothers, and allows us to use it to modify our shock at the actions of the next two in 1:20. In 1:38, the Messenger goes on to more towns ... we need that explanation to understand His healing ministry.

Part of Mark 4 is a series of parables, which implicitly invites us to put two and two together. What could be behind productiveness, and non-productiveness in the parable of the sower and soils (4:1-9)? Could it be in another saying closeby, such as 4:24-25, as well as the other juxtaposed sayings and parables? If we combine thoughts, there is a sense that things that have happened, even sadder ones such as the crowds not understanding Him according to plan (4:12), or the disciples being chosen, including one who betrayed Him later, are according to plan (3:13). The sower is sowing -- the word, which is something that is purposive (4:14).

New Year: Mark 1-2 for Oct 20

2011-10-20T15:27:00.006-05:00

(Matthew 3:1 - 12:8 and Luke 3:1 - 6:5 cover the same period as Mark 1-2, when we view them "synoptically.")

By the end of this very first chapter of Mark we are confronted with a figure of history whose appearance is like nothing if not "the Son of God" (1:1) -- Mark states the title, but we must fill its meaning in, inductively: we can see the unchangeableness and goodness of the Creator combined with the energetic goodness of the repeated and frequent actions of One to whom God says "in You I am well-pleased" (1:11).

This compelling action undertaken by "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" starts after John had been taken into custody. Repeatedly Mark mentions "preaching" (1:14,38, 39), teaching (1:21,22,27), and casting out what Mark calls unclean spirits and demons (1:23,26,27,34).

The compelling action Christ undertakes extends to His calls to His disciples: the calls are more like calls to join the Seals than the calls of a teacher or even preacher (1:17, 20). As God's "messenger" (1:2) there is need to go around to many cities (1:38), and the agenda does not change regarding His taking the initiative: it is the same initiative at the beginning, when nobody knew Him, to later, when everybody looked for Him (1:37). He does not surrender the initiative of His ministry up to others.

When we go behind the scenes and behind the doors (1:29ff) even though crowds will certainly be coming. there it is peace, healing (1:31), and regularity (2:13), though of an unexpected kind (2:16,18,24).

Thus the religious conflict between Christ and the scribes (2:6) does not at first come about through antagonism to His person as such, as in pure animosity, but because of the fact that they can't stomach the content of what He is saying (2:5,7). Christ does not dismiss their uneasiness, but addresses it (2:8-10). The teaching is bursting the skins of the existing system, however. This is stated as a principle or parable (2:21-22), as well as starkly and directly (2:28).

New Year: Matt 27-28 for Oct 19

2011-10-20T06:13:00.003-05:00

The accomplishments of the Messiah in the gospel according to Matthew are presented to the OT-prepared readers. The fact that they included His death and resurrection was known to the reader from chapter 16 onward, and we've seen how they transpired in these last two chapters of the gospel.

Christ's identity as the Son of God as well is so well-attested that His enemies testify to it (27:43) at the cross. Neutral parties become convinced of it (27:54).

People often wonder at why the Resurrection itself (28:5,6) does not get its own at-the-time description. There is plenty of witness to the aftermath of it, the number one witness being, of course, Himself being present, with all the words and actions and physicality (28:9ff).

Part of the answer is that Matthew combines his own witness with the prophecies of the OT, and the readers are not trying to depend on something of which they have no other prior witness of. The traitor's price had a witness there. The Gentiles got their witness (27:19), but it wasn't of something they would be able to control. It was according to plan. Matthew showed the disciples (16:21) that Christ "must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day." This was what God made necessary. We are quite justified to expect His presence with us to the end of the age (28:20).

New Year: Matt 24-26 for Oct 18

2011-10-18T11:51:00.003-05:00

One common theme in these chapters is the contrary-to-expection quality of what the Messiah will do in the future, both near and far-term.

Those who say that the whole idea of the future return of Christ is invented, and did not come from Him, have a problem on their hands that comes from the structure of the passages here. It is true that the events are taught in a setting that is far removed from the A.D. 30's, and sweeps across history (24:9). However, that is just as true of Matthew 10 (10:18-23)! The tenor of what Jesus is saying is unmistakably His in both places. It is not a patchwork.

Some of this unmistable tenor is as follows: the Lord asks us in many ways in this gospel, to not worry, yet here He is saying to beware lest something occur, and warns us to do certain things in case. To punctuate just one of these sections (24:15-24), He ends it with "behold, I have told you in advance." How is it that so many dark things will be happening, and we (as a unitary group from the time He spoke these things until He returns) told to watch out for this and that, and yet it is enough to hear "behold, I have told you in advance?" It must be because He's also predicting our safe passage. Being saved means being safe. "He who endures to the end" describes not their qualities of heart, but the ticking of their heart, and God bringing them to safety.

New Year: Matt 21-23 for Oct 17

2011-10-17T08:05:00.003-05:00

Matthew 21-23 contains the most remarkable extended confrontation of Christ with the religion of outward pretense in all the gospels. And yet Matthew 23 ends on a hint of hope even for those He has confronted (23:39).

We have been gradually prepared for this confrontation from previous ones, from as early as chapter 2 (2:3ff). And we should expect that Matthew, who wrote presenting the Messiah from the first verse onward (Matthew 1:1, "Jesus, the Messiah,"), will present Him not only in His relationship to those in support, but in His relationship to those who oppose Him; in relationship not only to that which supports, but to that which opposes Him.

For the Lord knows to deal, in real-time, on the spot, with the sin of those who sin against Him. Where discussion suffices, He explains with discussion (21:16). When there is hypocrisy behind the discussion of a subject, He dismisses the subject, but not those discussing (21:28,33,40; 22:1), and continues until they themselves go off (22:15), at least temporarily (22:16). He confounds their intellectual traps (22:15), and conundrums (22:28-30), and along the way shows such an obvious mastery of the Old Testament (22:32,37-39,44-45) that not only are those kinds of questions stopped, but the crowds are astonished at His teaching (22:33). Along the way, the reader hears a summary of the whole Law and Prophets (22:40).

People might say not to memorize chapter 23, because it is so specific to those people and that time. Is it? Regarding people (23:12)? And is it, regarding the time (23:39)?

New Year: Matt 18-20 for Oct 16

2011-10-16T21:25:00.002-05:00

We know lots more in these chapters about specifics of the Lord's teaching, all the more so because the people who He ministers to in these chapters are "all over the map." They want greatness (20:21); they want to have at least the knowledge of measure of personal greatness (18:1); they want their own specific formulations answered (18:21; 19:10), but His teaching breaks the formulations in every case (18:1-3; 18:18; 18:35; 19:9; 19:17; 20:14-16; 20:26-28).

So with the disciples searching for ways to do comparisons, the Pharisees doing their tests, mothers doing their preferment attempts -- not to mention the man trying to get to inherit eternal life in steps -- the Lord's teaching breaks this achievement-bound thinking in many ways. In 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 the Lord puts forward children, universally thought of as those who have not achieved, as those to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs (19:14), and from who something must be gathered, which everything depends on (18:3). For those who think of achievement as time spent, the Lord has a parable about the generous employer who ignores time spent (20:1-16). The needy (19:2; 20:29-34), and the ones who are too young to have done much or even anything, or too late to have worked much, are teaching the rest.

New Year: Matt 15-17 for Oct 15

2011-10-15T10:57:00.007-05:00

We can't even just plain understand who the Son of Man is without help with a capital H. Big help. God needs to reveal who He is, to Peter (Matt 16:14-17).

Some things are people's responsibility to understand; for example, in the Pharisees' and Sadducees' case, the signs of the times (16:3); the word of God (15:6), not to transgress (15:3) and invalidate it (15:6) for the sake of tradition.

There are things to beware of, in the pursuit of what the disciples need to know, for example, the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:12). The disciples fail in the area of understanding (16:11), and it involves their not remembering what they have seen (16:9) and its significance, and it somehow should be associated with being "men of little faith" (16:8; 17:20) as well.

But it is not a quid pro quo. It's not that Peter achieved some ladder-like position of greater faith, but that God the Father revealed to Peter the two parts of his answer (16:16-17). The subsequent promises are also unilateral acts (16:18-19).

Previously, Jesus had antagonistic opposition to His actions, and, as we would have expected from early on (5:20), to His teaching. Now, some of the opposition is even picayune (15:2), or that of petty offense taking (15:12), or trap-setting (16:1), but some of it was of the worst consequence to the those who opposed Him (12:24-32). What kind of thing is opposition to the Lord's practice (15:2), to His teaching (15:11), to the continuing of His agenda without their approval (16:1)? Is it not ultimately over time ensuant of Jesus suffering and death (16:21)? Perhaps that's the leaven-aspect of the teaching He warns about (16:12). What is taught has effect.

Jesus introduces the subject of His suffering and death here, and we read of Peter and the disciples' (16:20) dealing with it for the first time. For Peter, James, and John, the Transfiguration, and the accompanying understanding they were given (17:5) did not prevent their grief (17:22-23).

New Year: Matt 12-14 for Oct 14

2011-10-14T09:45:00.000-05:00

The combined acts and teaching of the Lord in these chapters draw the crowds and amaze the disciples. But these chapters more bring out the "ethical effects," we can call them, of His ministry (His own presence, His actions, and His teaching), upon various individuals, sets, and types of people. What are these ethical effects, and with what (individuals, sets, types of) people?

With "the Pharisees" (12:2,14,24), in "their synagogue" (12:9):
correction concerning religion in general (12:7), the Sabbath (12:8,12), and their view of Him (12:27-32).

With "His disciples" (12:1,49; 13:10-11,16-17,24,31,33,36; 14:22,31):
knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, (13:11-12); the seeing eye and the hearing ear (13:16); instances of courage and faith (14:16-18,26-33).

With the "large crowd" (12:15, 46; 13:2-3,11-15,34-36; 14:14,19); healing of all, teaching among them for the granting more to him who has, and the taking away from him who does not have (13:12).

With "this evil generation" as a whole (12:38-45): providing the one sign of Himself, and the many witnesses against it because of not repenting at at the opportunity and because of the return of evil afterwards.

With "all who were sick" (12:10-13,22; 14:14,34-35); immediate healing, and the preemminence of doing good above the Sabbath law.

With "his hometown and his household" (13:53-58): not many miracles, because of unbelief and the taking of offense at Him.

New Year: Matt 9-11 for Oct 13

2011-10-13T19:56:00.002-05:00

There has not been a moment's rest from excitement to read the next thing, from the first verse of Matthew which mentions the Messiah, to now at the end of chapter 11, until that moment perhaps, there in that last paragraph of chapter 11, Matt 11:28-30, where Jesus directly promises rest.

Reading with anticipation what Messiah Himself was doing among the lost sheep of Israel's house (Mt 10:6), we saw that everything was going at a fast pace, combining authoritative teaching with a level of the miraculous that had never been seen before in Israel (9:33). But when the Lord sends His twelve disciples with His authority to do what He had been doing, a grand panoramic scope of activity over space, and over time unfolds (10:23). What it means that the Messiah has arrived for Israel covers not only all Israel, but all of the time until Christ, the Son of Man, "comes," and subsequent to that. The reception not only of Christ, but of those He sends, brings the consequences of the next age in (10:40-42; 11:20-24).

New Year: Matt 6-8 for Oct 12

2011-10-12T12:53:00.002-05:00

Matt 6:2 --

Reading this verse woodenly, we might not see the irony, the humor, in the portrayal of the trumpet player. The clue is that "in the synagogues" and "in the streets" is where the acts would occur, but the trumpet playing, described for irony as a subsequent act, is not a subsequent act (Jesus was not talking about actual trumpet events at synagogue and in the streets!). The picture represents the appropriate high ridicule heaped on the act itself. How many times have people read this verse, not thinking, and thought, "hmm, of course I would never play a trumpet, i.e. brag, right after I gave to the poor ... how ridiculous." Good! But giving to the poor in order be honored ... IS playing the trumpet. No subsequent concert necessary, the trumpet has already been played. It's not bragging afterwards, which we would tend to easily laugh at. Therefore, let the humor of that instruct us.

New Year: Matt 3-5 for Oct 11

2011-10-11T07:06:00.004-05:00

Having emphasized so much how things that transpired fulfilled the prophets, Matthew presents John the Baptist in the same vein (Matt 3:3). The time right before a unique and unrepeatable event is a unique and unrepeatable time, if somehow we become aware that it is at hand (3:2). The blessing of John the Baptist to the nation was just such a thing.

It brought those who came to him, even the "brood of vipers," into a correct preparation for what the prophets had predicted, the kingdom of heaven, but John did not, nor could not, do that himself. God warned those who came, to flee from the wrath to come. That was the answer to John's question in 3:7.

The exhortation to them therefore is not a dare, as if John taunted those who came to him to bear fruit because they could not. "Therefore bear fruit..." Since God has warned them, John exhorts those God has thus warned to flee, to do this, and not be inert like stones, which nevertheless God can transform even though they are inert. God has warned, and therefore it is God who says something should be done, actions taken. They are not stones, but have been given their warning to act, which stones cannot do.

This flight from the wrath to come will be a success if a tree bears fruit. The axe is laid at the root of all trees, since the kingdom of heaven is at hand, but the fruit bearing tree will not be cut down and will not be thrown into the fire.

What is the fruit? Is it the repentance? No, but it, the fruit, is in keeping with repentance. It fits with repentance. It fits also with the flight from the wrath to come. Since they are in flight, having been warned by God no less than Joseph was in his situation (2:22), John commends and points them to the bearing of fruit, Fruit in keeping with repentance is fruit in keeping with their flight.

John associates himself and his baptism with repentance, but promises something which is very close now, which is much bigger. He who is coming will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire.

He had just talked about fire (3:10), before saying that (3:11). That which John prepares them for (the kingdom of heaven) is coming upon them, and "He who is coming after me" is going to immerse them with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Whom? To whom will He who is coming after John do this? To those who came to John. So much the more, then, the call to bear fruit is urgent, since the one who is coming is the one who harvests the wheat and burns the chaff.

New Year: Matt 1-2 for Oct 10

2011-10-10T11:29:00.002-05:00

The coming of the Messiah is good news for the Jews of Matthew's time -- pending investigation of the claim, that is. That is how Matthew approaches it. He gives the very important geneology, and starts with what is already known to be the case by the OT-steeped readers: Abraham, his descendants, and the names known in the history of Israel.

Thus Matthew doesn't assume the case of Jesus' Messiahship, but sets forth the facts to the reader, with all the awareness that one should not assume the thing one is trying to prove (1:16): "who is called the Messiah" is very circumspect language, and is right in the middle of the deployment of the evidence.

People who have trouble counting the fourteens can be helped by the following acronyms, which show the three sets of fourteens in 1:17: [AIJJPHRANSBOJD], [SRAAJJUJAHMAJ"D"], [JSZAEAZAEEMJJ"M"].

The logical steps of Matthew 1-2 are very clear: genealogy, birth, and parentage of the Messiah. Layed on top of this history is interwoven, with no apology whatsover, a staggering set of facts about the Messiah that are only explainable in two ways: that they are from God, and that they are from the Old Testament. But to the Jew, this is an OF COURSE, something to be expected, when and if God sends Messiah.

1. Stars guiding Gentiles, who seem to know something about the "born king of the Jews." Contra Herod and Jerusalem in toto. Their skillset, astronomy, is used by God, but in a totally divinely ordained way, and obviously so: they get guided by the star, lose track of it and have to detour to Jerusalem to get directions, from of all people, Herod! then, they find the star again, not knowing at that point the danger to the Messiah they have seemingly caused, yet God superintending this all!

2. This no normal birth, and Messiah is not merely David's son, but God's! All handled by the intervention of God not only with Mary, but into Joseph's life, guiding him in detail on what to do, from the beginning to the end. Old Testament prophecy confirms to the reader as well (1:23).

3. Most importantly of all, Matthew reports, not as his own theological reflection on Jesus, but as the pre-birth words of the angel, and thus as a message of divine origin, that Jesus, the child's name, is what Joseph will call Him, ... BECAUSE He will save His people from their sins! (1:21). Matthew reports this, as one of the details of an announcement to Joseph, and this conclusion has been the master of thousands of years of the best efforts at theology and the significance of Christianity. All wrapped up in one comment by an angel to Joseph, which Matthew reports.

New Year: Mal 1-4 for Oct 9

2011-10-09T17:05:00.003-05:00

The prophet Malachi's word from God to Israel comes to them largely in the form of question-and-answer dialog with them (1:2,6-9,13;2:13-14,17;3:7,13-15). Mostly, God queries, and they have no answer. To their queries, God answers, but the answers don't affirm the nation's condition as satisfactory. The prophet closes the Old Testament with prediction of God's unilateral restorative action.

As in other prophets, present conditions are contrasted with a time yet future (1:5,11;3:1-5,10-12,17-18;4:1-3,5-6). The effect of these future actions of God is described in two ways: a delightful land and blessed nation (1:5; 3:12), and the separation of the righteous and wicked through the judgment of the latter, which "will leave them neither root nor branch" (4:1).

New Year: 1 Kings 5-6 for Apr 8

2011-07-20T18:36:00.004-05:00

In 5:5 Solomon repeats things from the Davidic covenant given by the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Sam 7.

Solomon doesn't re-iterate 2 Sam 7:13, however. David had understood in 2 Sam 7 that there are portions that applied to the covenant, "that it may continue forever before You" (1 Sam 7:29). In fact, the whole prayer of David in 2 Sam 7:18-29 is a great example of what you can do, when the Lord has NOT just given you a to-do list, but what you can do and say to Him about what He has promised to do Himself (cf. 2 Sam 7:27-29).

Look, however, at some intervening events. In 2 Kings 2, David, as his "time to die drew near" (2:1), says things that have another reference and emphasis, telling Solomon that the Lord had said 'if your sons are careful of their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel'" (2:4).

This is quite a different emphasis than what is said in the language of the covenant, is it not? Is it not different in its emphasis than 2 Sam 7:14-16? "'I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; you throne shall be established forever.'" It is different, but it is complementary, not contradictory.

There is a time in which God appears to Solomon himself, after this, in a dream, in 1 Kings 3:5ff. Here, this is what God says to Solomon ... compare it to what David had said in 1 Kings 2:4, because it is quite different, and also complementary, not contradictory: "If you walk in My ways, keeping My statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, then I will prolong your days" (3:14). And that was the final word from God to Solomon in the dream: "Then Solomon awoke, and behold, it was a dream!" (3:15).

Solomon, enlightened by 3:14, goes forward with his task at hand, the building of the temple. What happens if we peek ahead to later, especially 1 Kings 9:1ff, since there, the text is making a backward reference to 3:5, and see how God elaborates on the implications of the Davidic covenant He made in 2 Sam 7?

There are further events, together with God's explanations of them, coming. Compare especially 1 Kings 11:9-13.

New Year: 1 Kings 3-4 for Apr 7

2011-07-19T17:12:00.002-05:00

The narrative leaves it to us to notice the difference between father and son literarily, in 1 Kings 3-4.

Are there psalms "of wisdom," displaying wisdom, reflecting wisdom on the part of the writer? Sure, but not explicitly so, like the introduction to Proverbs promises. Isn't that the nature of the case, that is, one difference between a person's prayers and a person's wisdom? How much wisdom does God require in order to seek Him, pray to Him, ask Him, beg Him, rejoice in His presence?

David did not become famous among the nations of his contemporary world because of his prayers. His contemporaries had their own religion and doubtless looked upon David's prayers to his God as the prayers to a national deity. But 1 K 4:29-34 describes something that attracted the nations. Proverbs, songs, science, wisdom, riches, and honor.

Can we call this gift great, and yet also call it second tier? Looking at the summary of Solomon's spirituality in 1 Kings 3:3, it would be appropriate to limit the praise of Solomon somehow. The Lord's illustration of Solomon is positive and wide, saying that wisdom greater than the wisdom of Solomon is there with Him (Mt 12:42). The superlative is reserved for Solomon's "glory," i.e., his outward glory, which Jesus puts second to that of the lilies of the field (Mt 6:29).

New Year: 1 Kings 1-2 for Apr 6

2011-06-06T06:37:00.003-05:00

1 Kings 1-2, especially chapter 2, are not exactly eulogistic of David, nor are they exalted in their praise of Solomon as they introduce him. Note the absence of interpretive comment of any kind that the Lord commended the incidents of chapter 2, describing Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei's end at the command of Solomon. Perhaps there is a faint echo of the prediction of 1 Sam 8:18 on earthly kingships instead of the heavenly one.

These chapters are a comment on the perils of power and consolidation of power by the use of pretext. They are morally messy! Are the pretexts for Solomon's actions here concocted? In 2:22, Solomon describes a motive for Bathsheba's request that is disproportionate. 2:13 hints that Adonijah has peace on his mind, but the narrative doesn't necessarily endorse this. But immediately following this, the story of the treatment of Abiathar shows that Solomon's thinking was not pure pragmatism: "you are a man of death, but I will not put you to death at this time, because you carried the ark of the Lord GOD before my father David, and because you were afflicted in everything with which my father was afflicted." What an amazing comment!

Similar ambiguities exist for Joab's life and death, and Shimei's life and death. It is instructive to compare the one-sentence comment of 1 Kings 2:46b with 2 Samuel 5:10-12, although as a single explanation, it needs to be supplemented by all the actions prior to David's ascension and consolidation as king in 2 Samuel 3-5.

New Year: 2 Sam 22-24 for Apr 5

2011-06-04T10:38:00.004-05:00

Some of the great highlights of Old Testament religion occur in 2 Samuel 22:8-20 and 23:1-7.

In 22:8-20 the poetic and even hyperbolic language must not be set aside. We are used to the more conventional language of 22:1-7, but the verses 8-20 go beyond that! Religion in the West, where influenced by Schleiermacher, was reduced to a description of what we feel about God. In contrast, Old Testament religion teaches -- from "page 1" -- that God is the active Initiator. Not only that, but He is the Intervener in the affairs -- of whom? Of whom He chooses to, of course. That is the point of 2 Sam 22:8-20. It is an intervention of the highest kind.

As for 2 Sam 23:1-7 ... "for He has made an everlasting covenant with me, / ordered in all things, and secured" and the subsequent verses about David fighting "the worthless" are primary examples of what is to be gained from the kind of God spoken about in 23:3-4 and in the previous chapter. If God were merely an intervener and initiator, and only acted unpredictably, however well and powerfully, then He would be like perhaps a Special Forces group, which intervenes, does great things, and is gone. But no. God has done something upon which David can rely forever. So in Christ is the same thing true of us: God in Christ has done something upon which we can rely forever.

New Year: 2 Sam 19-21 for Apr 4

2011-06-03T05:43:00.002-05:00

There are loyalties like the morning mist in this section, and faithfulness to the heavens. Joab's loyalty to the king is like the morning mist, which was gone (2 Sam 18:14), comes back in a way (19:5ff), disappears again (20:10-12), and does it reappear in 20:20?

David's loyalty to Mephibosheth is faithfulness to the heavens. With the knowledge that God Himself is visiting the sins of Saul and his house upon the kingdom (21:1), he still withholds Jonathan's son from the Gibeonite revenge, because of the "oath of the Lord which was between them, between David and Saul's son Jonathan" (21:7).

New Year: 2 Sam 16-18 for Apr 3

2011-04-30T20:35:00.002-05:00

If you think biblical religion is just an attempt to read God into everything, read this part of the history, 2 Sam 16-18.

Starting with chapter 13

New Year: 2 Sam 13-15 for Apr 2

2011-04-16T23:31:00.003-05:00

There is fulfillment of Nathan's earlier words (2 Sam 12:11) in these chapters. The reader had expected it. Now it is fleshed out.

The previous chapter hinted -- barely -- at a future for Solomon (12:24-25). Nothing is said about Solomon yet, but lots about the perils of David's other sons' pursuit of something very like what their father had done (13:1-2, in Amnon's case -- passion; 14:30 in Absalom's case, echoing 11:15-17 in its manipulation).

Is there also a common thematic element of father-sons patterns in these stories? Amnon was the oldest, and David is "fooled" by devotion to Absalom to permit that which dooms Amnon (13:27). This is eerily like the patriarchal reversals of eldest sons' fortunes, but with a negative downturn: the younger (but not the youngest) carries out the prophet's words of 12:11-12.

New Year: 2 Sam 10-12 for Apr 1

2011-04-16T22:34:00.003-05:00

The chequered aspect of the career of David is indicated in these chapters (2 Sam 10-12), and not lost on later writers (Mt 1:6b).

Nathan the prophet gains his voice back as well, which had been corrected from its halting initial false start in 2 Sam 7:3; cf. 7:4-7.

The matter-of-factness of how chapter 11 (11:6-17) describes David's actions is capped by Joab's providing a way of using understatement to "the messenger" (11:19), who repeats the whole thing through 11:24. This repetition makes us ask "why are the details portrayed not once, but twice?" For emphasis! Verily, verily! Lest we miss how devious David was. Lest we idolize him.

The next chapter (2 Sam 12) not only brings the moral conclusion of the previous chapter out (11:27), but expresses what God did about this sin in David. Is this a prefigurement of the way 2 Sam 7:14-15 describes the dealings of God with the whole house of David?

What did God do about this sin in David? There were permanent consequences of this sin (12:10-12). We definitely see an outworking of 2 Sam 7:14-15 in Nathan's words in 12:13. How is the reader to understand these consequences, combined with David's reactions to them? The outworking of these consequences are over a year, covering the birth of two sons to Bathsheba.

The most surprising and unexpected and dramatic comment in this whole story of consequences is about the second son, born after the first died: "Now the Lord loved him and sent word through Nathan the prophet, and he named him Jedidiah for the Lord's sake" (12:24-25). Not too many people know that Solomon is also named Jedidiah for the Lord's sake.

New Year: 2 Sam 7-9 for Mar 31

2011-03-31T21:12:00.004-05:00

Although these chapters (2 Sam 7-9) speak for themselves, there are many aspects of this climactic section of the whole portion of the word of God since Joshua (2 Sam 7:11) to point out, and to continue to point out.

How have things gone for the people between the death of Joshua until now? Back in 1 Sam 8 the "elders of Israel" (8:4) demanded a king, yet God told Samuel this was "the voice of the people" (8:7). That voice was the same as what characterized them all the way back to the day they left Egypt (8:8). Could we ever say that Exodus through 1 Samuel is the story of the great accomplishments of the people?

When success comes to David, and David wants to build something that builds on his success, to God, even the prophet Nathan is convinced by that arrow (2 Sam 7:3). God begins this chapter by correcting Nathan and David (7:4-6). The arrow is pointed in the wrong direction. So the Lord rehearses David's life for him, so far (7:7-8), and points far into "the distant future" (7:19).

To the reader, at the very time we would love more explanation of the chapters and chapters of the history of so many failures so far, David's success makes us ask whether perhaps the idea David gets from his success (7:2) is not a worse thing than what he had been taught under his stressful past.

In any case, this correction, the correction of David's big idea to build God a big house, has been hinted at in various ways. The idea of taking care of God Himself is condemned in the stories of the punishments that come for trying to handle, literally, the ark. Just in the previous chapter, David was off base in dealing with it (6:6-9). The ark's use had to wait for a sign of God's blessing (6:12). It, and Whom it represented, could not be commandeered.

So the Lord has David at a time when he is quick to learn, and he uses Nathan the prophet: "the Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you" (7:11).

New Year: 2 Sam 3-6 for Mar 30

2011-03-31T18:16:00.004-05:00

Is the gruesome "contest" of 2 Sam 2:14-16 also due to animosity between Abner and the men of Judah (2:4,8-10)? It reads like a type of warring, not a contest. It led to something else (2:17), which led to something else (2:19), which led to something else (2:23), and all that eventually led to what Abner did not want to happen (2:23), having to face with Joab's revenge, which was done in subterfuge (3:27).

David's his mourning and zeal are exemplary (2 Sam 1:11,16), but his politics are also shrewd: David is from Judah, and he merely announces his kingship of Judah to the others (2:6-7). The fair-mindedness about the issue of Abner and Joab is noticed by the population (3:36). It continues to be far greater than what consolidation of power was expected by some Realpolitik-advocates (4:8). It is coupled with a type of tending-to-business conquering of Jerusalem, which since the Judges had not been taken from the Jebusites. David was not interested in civil war. And somewhere along the line, David "realized that the Lord had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for the sake of His people Israel" (5:12). For "Israel" here, notice the national name.

New Year: 1 Sam 31; 2 Sam 1-2 for Mar 29

2011-03-31T11:32:00.005-05:00

These chapters proceed in the bleakness of echoing bleak events, across the lines of the book and chapter division (1 Sam 31 - 2 Sam 2). Narrative history doesn't always tidy up with "the moral of this story is," even when it speaks teleologically throughout, as does 1 Samuel.

Recalling 1 Sam 28:19, "tomorrow you and your sons will be with me," and so it happened. But how? The armor-bearer, who "saw that Saul was dead" (31:5), fell on his own sword, and then Saul, wounded but not dead, encountered the Amalekite who killed him, and took his crown and bracelet (2 Sam 1:10). Then, the Philistines came and did what they did to a dead body and did not get his crown or bracelet, but only his weapons. Finally, the valiant men of Jabesh-gilead got Saul's body out from Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:9-10).

The rejection of implication from 1 Sam 28 is purposeful. The medium herself is abhorred at being misled, and her only concern is for the life of Saul. The book concludes and goes on in the next to the reaction of proper grief and justice, on David's part.

It is interesting that there is no moral summary based on Saul's failures. The only summary we get is David's lament (2 Sam 1:17-27). David calls Saul (not only Jonathan, but also Saul) "beloved and pleasant in their life" (1:23). The story makes us ask how that could have been, but David is consistent with his earlier description of his relationship to Saul, always having called him "my lord" and "my father" (1 Sam 24:10-11). What David said and did in 1 Sam 24:8-22, as well as what Saul said then, is now completely worked out.

New Year: 1 Sam 27-30 for Mar 28

2011-03-30T15:52:00.007-05:00

I Samuel 27,29, and 30 easily can be shown to put forward some imponderables about David.

We should remember, as the reader would, that David himself has had sufficient knowledge of his future from 16:13 onwards. Samuel anoints him. Goliath confirms him to the nation. His battles confirm him (23:11-12); the women of Israel confirm him (18:7-8). His father confirms him (17:37). Jonathan the king's son confirms him (23:17). The king, in contradiction to his own actions, confirms him, multiple times (24:20-21; 26:25). The Philistines confirm him, both directly (21:11) and later, indirectly (29:9).

How then does David come to the conclusion "I will perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than to escape into the land of the Philistines" in 27:1? While there, he will personally distinguish himself to his lord Achish the Philistine, and will be all prepared to kill his own countrymen, according to his own brag (28:2), in the service of Achish, to whom David will express his loyalty (29:8).

Is not the text asking us to shake the cobwebs out of our heads and ask "what is going on here?" The king that the nation asked for comes to a point in which there is no guidance from God for him (cf. 28:6,15). The king Samuel says God has chosen next is in the army of Israel's enemies (29:2), and is prepared to fight in a battle against Israel. Israel is going to lose that battle (28:19), and its king finds that out ahead of time. How? Well, first he tries to find out from God, but God does not "answer him" (28:6). He finds that out in a forbidden way, a way that he himself had forbidden in a saner frame of mind (28:3). But the truth that he learns from the wrong place is truth about his death, the death of his sons, and Israel's defeat. Nothing is right about this whole picture.

Providence comes into play. The Philistines overrule one of their leaders, and nix David, sending him ostensibly back home. Then, incredibly, on his way back, he finds out that his own city has been captured and taken captive by a third group, a traditional Israelite enemy, the enemy that Saul should have taken care of ... the Amalekites. And this is definitely a turn no one expected -- especially that not a single person was killed (30:2), nor a thing of value taken as spoil (30:19).

David can't lead himself, and is in the wrong army. Saul can't lead himself, and needs guidance so badly that he resorts to the supernaturally bad -- and yet, God brings about, both with both king and future king -- both with their will, and against their will -- what He has appointed to happen (1 Sam 13:14).

New Year: 1 Sam 24-26 for Mar 27

2011-03-29T21:20:00.005-05:00

David's compassion is highlighted in these three chapters, 1 Sam 24-26.

If God is using circumstances and coincidental events, He is going to use them. That is not the same as attributing all such things to God. Saul found that out in 23:20-21, 28. David knows this in 24:4. He overrules his advisors, and even persuades them that he is right, that the circumstance of Saul visiting them is not the Lord telling David to kill Saul (24:4-7).

David attempts something seldom seen between political or military rivals at the top: personal loyalty (24:10-11). There were glimpses of David's loyalty to Saul before, but in these chapters it reaches to the point of going way beyond what anyone could expect of a leader who is expected to conquer rivals for power.

David spares Saul twice -- not only spares him, but treats him as a father and calls him that (24:11). We know from chapter 25, that David is not doing this out of a personality weakness. In 24:12-15 David shows that sparing Saul is not because he thinks Saul doesn't deserve to be judged for his actions (24:12,13,15). Saul's time of reckoning is coming.

It is because kings are so expected to completely destroy all rivals that Saul makes an agreement (24:21) with David about his family. We would think that there would be smooth sailing for Saul and David after that. But never presume consistency. Perhaps Saul was confirmed again by the trappings of power to pursue David again in chapter 26. Perhaps his subjects egged him on (26:1). In any case, what is the purpose of describing yet-another-attempt by Saul to find and kill David? The event in chapter 26 affirms the importance of David's compassion, it is true. However, 26:12 inserts as a little tiny detail too brief to notice, that God was behind this thwarting of the attempt. From that, the text implies that we must infer that God was watching over David the whole time, not only by a miraculous act of causing a whole army to sleep, but during all David's times of fleeing Saul.

As for 26:25, Saul's blessing, have we not heard this before? In any case, David's part is not to fall in with Saul again (26:21-23), but to re-iterate that the Lord delivers and holds people to account.

New Year: 1 Sam 21-23 for Mar 26

2011-03-29T11:26:00.007-05:00

If 1 Sam 21-23 were part of a movie, this would be part of a sequence in which the hero is in a chase and it seems like it will never turn out possibly right and it will turn out for the hero's demise at this stage.

There was no hint of Saul's antagonism to Jonathan at the point of 20:2, and even when David is missed at the new moon in 20:26, Saul is wont to make an excuse for him. David's made-up story told by Jonathan doesn't go over well at all, and elicits some pointed insults father to son (20:30).

Saul like nearly all kings is out for his son's kingly interests (20:31), while Jonathan tells David in private before the Lord, "you will be king over Israel" (23:17). In this chapter (23) there is ample illustration of what was prefigured in 18:10-15, namely, Saul's animosity toward David, from fear, and from fear for Jonathan and his family (cf. 24:21). David gets guidance from God in matters of battle (23:11-12). This is a contrast with Saul, who evidently had not (18:12).

While Saul's political and military choices are on display as misguided and unsuccessful from his point of view, they are not without an attempt to employ a piety (23:21). And yet they seem to be directed by Saul's peers. David will pick up on this in the next chapter (24:9).

New Year: 1 Sam 18-20 for Mar 25

2011-03-28T23:29:00.005-05:00

This story of brotherly friendship (1 Samuel 18-20) also has clues in it about the nature of Saul's actions.

The phrase "an evil spirit from God" (18:10) is no less odious to the original readers as to us as readers. Some people think it is a description of what we call clinical madness of some kind. The phrase first came up in 16:14. In 16:23, whenever David played the harp for Saul, "the evil spirit would depart from him."

In other words, this was a cyclical occurrence. First of all, the text has been building a picture of the character of Saul from very early on. It has been a conflation of opposites, in a way. His strength was combined with impulse to do the extreme: we first see him going on a nationwide tour to find his father's lost donkeys, in chapter 9. God uses that. In chapter 10, Samuel gives him such step-by-step instructions that we wonder if he's trying to compensate for Saul's impulsiveness, at least until the point where he tells Saul "you will be changed into another man" (10:6).

But Saul has a bout with lack of confidence (or, at the least, lack of good timing during a public meeting!, 10:22), and though Saul did not inspire confidence in some who were evil (10:27), God saw to it that Saul attracted valiant men to himself (10:26).

Saul's first military triumph versus the Ammonites, and the crowning of him as king in chapter 11, was not only "before the Lord" (11:15) but it was that to Saul. Saul expresses the understanding of Israel and God's relationship here quite nicely (11:13). But by chapter 13, after Samuel tells Saul "you have not kept what the Lord commanded you" (13:14) the outcome of the kingship of Saul changed. What happened?

In Saul's own words, "I forced myself and offered the burnt offering." (13:12). In Samuel's words, which we should take as the correct moral evaluation of it, "you have acted foolishly" (13:13).

Is this Saul's psychology, "consequences," or punishment, or providence, or temporal setback? All of the above! Saul's kingship is an act of accommodation by God to the condition of Israel at the time. Part of the lesson of this is that this accommodation to Israel's evil, its wrong choice, brings consequences, punishment, temporal setbacks, all governed by providence. Israel's psychology is mirrored by Saul's psychology. As Israel forced itself to seek a king, so Saul says, "I forced myself." There is a parallel relationship, wherein Saul is modelling, in one person, the dissonance in Israel.

This same is true of Saul's life, that it is full of the governance of providence, consequences, punishments, and temporal setbacks. His personality is one of extremes, tending to madness. And this all after the explicit statement "God changed his heart" (10:9).

The is the same God whose Spirit "departed from Saul" in 16:14. Saul after that had an evil spirit which "terrorized" him. Even Saul's servants said that it was from God (16:15), and that's the estimate we are given to hold, as well.

What does it mean, both that an evil spirit from God terrorizes a person, and that it departs from him when David plays his harp (16:23)? That God both changed Saul's heart, and that the Spirit of the Lord departed from him later? Looking now at 20:13, and Jonathan's estimate of the situation, "May the Lord be with you as He has been with my father"! we believe that this is true: God has been with the dissonant person, and supplied music for this person, just as He has and will be with Israel the dissonant nation, and will bring about a king after His heart.

New Year: 1 Sam 16-17 for Mar 24

2011-03-28T11:26:00.003-05:00

We should be not surprised that David spoke and acted toward Goliath as as he does in 1 Samuel 17:45-47. We have been prepared for something like this since 13:14.

So the events are just catching up with the actions of God taken prior. But even people who "know" that, don't always know it well. Samuel in 16:1 gets a push to get moving, because he's grieving over the current situation (15:35; cf 15:11): not just the situation regarding Saul's kingship, but over Saul himself. Samuel learns as he goes, just as we do (16:6-7). This "heart" emphasis echoes 13:14.

And how does David's heart relate to his actions? Is it simply that a great heart means an obvious outward superiority? That's what chapter 17 was for! ESPECIALLY 17:46-47. 17:46 was to convince the skeptic of the fact. 17:47 was to convince the reader of the reason behind the fact. God shows himself often in the negation of obvious outward superiority. We saw this recently in the choice of David himself -- the youngest, treated by his father as courier (17:17-19), and harassed by his oldest brother just as so many younger brothers can vouch for (17:28-29).

New Year: 1 Sam 13-15 for Mar 23

2011-03-28T09:38:00.005-05:00

What we had forebodings about back at 1 Samuel 8:7 about Israel's rejection of God as king over them, turns out one way (15:26) rather than another (13:13) for Saul.

Saul was responsible, not for the Israelite choice of having a kingship, but for other specific choices as king: in 13:9, his impatience toward Samuel was not just about disregard of Samuel's priestly role in matters of the guidance of a theocratic state during war (13:9; cf. 10:8), but about God Himself's guiding role. Kingship -- being at "top" -- still has the obligation attached to it, concerning God: to be a "man after His own heart" (13:14).

The theme of God appointing things way before they actually transpire continues, in 13:14. Indeed, these chapters vindicate that idea, in showing how Saul's character shows itself. If we castigate Samuel for over-reacting in 13:13, we see Saul's autocracy playing itself so large in 14:43-44 that the whole nation rejects it.

The portrayal of Saul is a complex portrayal: what is his attempt to use the ark in 14:18-19? What is his attempt to counsel the people in 14:34? The altar in 14:35? His following the priest's advice in 14:36? We already are pre-informed by Samuel that Saul's kingship will not continue. But Saul's story is not over yet, for many chapters. Here, these choices on Saul's part are contributory.

The narrative is giving us the events in which his choices work themselves out. They seem strangely worked out, almost star-crossed: Saul is trying to found out a sin (14:38), because God doesn't answer him (14:37). So he uses a lot to determine it, and Saul vows to kill the sinner, whoever it is, and when the lot (correctly) finds a sin in Jonathan -- unknowing (14:27) disobedience to a battle order -- Saul is stuck by the requirement of his vow, the people rescue Jonathan, by a ransom.

Yet all is not bleak for Saul (14:48). It is a complex portrayal.

New Year: 1 Sam 9-12 for Mar 22

2011-03-27T07:38:00.003-05:00

The contrasts are palpable in these chapters (1 Sam 9-12) between the condemnation of the Israelite desire for a king and the way events march forward toward that end, including actions of God.

The reader might well ask, if God did not want Israel to have a human king (8:7), why did He not judge them for the choice, as He had for so many other things in which they rejected Him? We've seen so many instances of immediate judgment, especially in the wilderness wanderings under Moses, that the story deliberately provokes the question.

And yet it is the covenant itself that hints that God is capable of enacting His will among long periods of unfaithfulness on the nation's part (Dt 29; but not to forget Dt 30!). Here the scenario is eerily the same as in the desert, when God gives them what they wanted, when they didn't want the manna, but they were "greedy" (Nm 11:34).

Is then this turn of events something that is a permanent albatross that will take Israel out of the plan forever? If we've been reading along, we know better. If we read ahead, we know better. Is there not a resolution coming in 2 Sam 7? Let's elaborate then!

In the meantime, the narrative has its very characteristic ways of containing the situation. One is high mockery (10:22). The second is subtle mockery: Samuel tells Saul, way before Saul has a clue what's going on, "for whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for you and for all your father's household" (9:20)? And Saul's answer is basically, "huh?"

And God is not without His own celestial "sounds" during the outplay of all this (12:17-18).

Samuel's summary well expresses the tension: "You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside...." (12:20) ... "for the Lord will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the Lord has been pleased to make you a people for Himself." (12:22). The covenant is still intact. Go figure.

New Year: 1 Sam 5-8 for Mar 21

2011-03-26T21:10:00.005-05:00

Samuel's ministry is summarized militarily (1 Samuel 7:13), yet it is no more than a summary, in light of the amount of land gotten from the Philistines during his time (7:14).

Earlier his ministry was summarized personally and in regard to God (3:19-21). Yet these chapters give us more of a sense of the presence of God than of the succession of leaders. Indeed, that is one of the points of the problem being addressed in chapter 8, that God has been the Israelite king all along, but now the Israelites at the end of Samuel's years as judge don't want that (8:7). The summary of the reason why is very familiar.

The presence of God is distinguished early in the book in the way He characteristically chooses the unexpected and/or rejected (cf. 1:6) person. Even Eli fits into this mold: with all his problem with his sons (3:8), he had, as a ninety-eight-year-old, his priorities right (4:13,18) -- and so did his daughter-in-law (4:19-22).

And yet, with the capture of the ark, the way God works is more fully separated from the agents He uses. The extremely humorous (to the reader, not to the Philistines) story of chapters 5 shows that God Himself is sovereign through whatever means He decides to use: even the physical presence of a spoil of war that represents His name among the conquerers.

And what do we find God doing, and thus teaching the reader about? 1) His superiority, to the point of mockery over the gods of the other nations; 2) In chapter 6, the spread of the knowledge of Him to other nations (6:6); 3) The way even the twisted logic (6:4) of the Philistine "priests and diviners" (6:2) is used: their gold, in the shapes we can only imagine, and the cows' direction they took, are such that God even uses those things to instruct them, lest they miss the point of who He is (6:9).

When it comes to the Israelites, however, this teaching takes a more serious turn. The problem of syncretism was all over the country (7:3). Saying so evidently was not enough. There were two severe object lessons about the holiness of God that were learned at great cost (6:19-21). The first was a type of temerity: "they had looked into the ark of the Lord." The second was a disregard for the proper place of the ark's keeping (6:20-21).

We learn how completely God is "sovereign" over Philistia in Chapters 5-6, and how serious is His kingship over His subjects in the last part of chapter 6. The Philistines must have handled the ark many times, moving it from doomed city to doomed city, putting their little golden shapes all around it to get it ready for transport, etc.... But in Israel, the ark was not to be handled as a tool. Not a tool to win battles, as we saw at 4:11. Not as a tool of curiosity, or as a tool to just "keep around."

They got their idolatry (temporarily) straightened out (7:4), and their battles went great against the Philistines, under Samuel. But a pure military thing didn't last, because of the syncretism: they wanted something "that we also may be like all the nations" (8:20).

New Year: 1 Sam 2-4 for Mar 20

2011-03-26T19:06:00.002-05:00

Did Eli rebuke his sons (1 Sam 2:25), or not (3:13)? At some point he didn't, plus, in any case, there was an over-ruling by God on the earlier situation.

Notwithstanding that, his character shows other fatherly qualities, especially toward Samuel. Eli is given to the reader as the one who explained to Samuel for the first time about the spiritual implications of what must have been very perplexing to Samuel (3:4-10). Lest we miss it, 3:6 explains: "Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the word of the Lord yet been revealed to him" (3:7) This distinction can help us understand the matter of Balak, no?

New Year: Ru 4; 1 Sam 1 for Mar 19

2011-03-24T22:16:00.003-05:00

Ruth 4 and 1 Samuel 1 certainly give a great picture of piety at Bethlehem and Shiloh before the times of Samuel and David.

And like a good website, we can see that piety need not have much elaborateness attached to it: basically, access to God and to be able to express and act on it (cf. Ru 1:16; 2:4,12,20; 3:10,13).

A greater factual knowledge is exhibited by, of all people, the civic leaders of Bethlehem. They know the Patriarchal story (Ru 4:11-12)!

Ruth 4, and the following chapter, 1 Sam 1, continue the pattern of Judges in highlighting the relationship of the socially unexpected person, e.g., Hannah before she bore Samuel (1 Sam 1:8), to the purposes of God: often in Judges we had the role of women highlighted. The whole book of Ruth, not to disparage Boaz's importance of course, did that. Here, the same pattern exists: while not disparaging Elkanah, indeed, honoring him (1:8) for his love for Hannah (1:5), honors Hannah, who in an uphill battle in her prayers for obtaining from God what she wanted (1:10-11), has to defend her outward actions to a priest, who, when convinced, grants her a priestly blessing as best he has to give anyone (1:18).

The language of 1:19 describes what the best thing someone who prays could ever want: "the Lord remembered her."

New Year: Ruth 1-3 for Mar 18

2011-03-24T06:15:00.003-05:00

There was a difference between marriage with a daughter of Moab (Ruth 1:4) and the actions of playing the harlot in Numbers 25:1.

The Israelites were warned not to be syncretistic by Joshua (Josh 23:10-13). Therefore when Ruth 1:4 raises the eyebrows, 1:15-16 answers the implied question: just how is it that intermarriage of an Israelite with a daughter of Moab going to be handled? Naomi explains just how, in Ruth 2:20: "the man is near to us, he is one of our redeemers." Redemption binds closer than racial origin, when syncretism is out of the picture (1:16).

Yet it was not automatic. Whatever the stipulations were, from Dt 25:5, and from Lv 25:25, Boaz was not necessarily next in line, as 3:12 shows. Boaz knew from 2:6 onwards, just who Ruth was. Even though Naomi had an uncanny sense of what could happen, or tried to make it happen (3:4), that was no guarantee that it would.

Naomi's counsel and actions in 3:3-4 are reminiscent of the Patriarchal narrative, told with the same light touch of humor: here, "... then he will tell you what you shall do..." (3:4). Why does the text tell us that Boaz' heart was merry in 3:7?

It is to explain the success of the secrecy of Ruth, yes, but also to show the extreme honorableness of Boaz. His heart was merry, but when he woke up in the middle of the night, Boaz had the Lord in his mind (3:10). He was going to go by the book, after all.

New Year: Jdg 18-21 for Mar 17

2011-03-21T23:52:00.004-05:00

Instead of saying "civil war in Israel was bad," Judges describes them (e.g., Judges 20:18ff). The conclusion is obvious enough.

What then can be said of seeking the Lord's guidance about and during civil war? The surprise to the reader is not that the sons of Israel "inquired of God" (20:18) about going to battle against Benjamin, nor that God answered, but that the answers brought defeat to the inquirers. And then, that they did so again (20:27), and again (20:28). Is the lesson from that some kind of "be specific in your prayers," the way we might teach a grade-schooler (cf. 20:18,23)? It is not that the Israelites were not specific enough in their prayers ... God is not a machine. It is that God was working out His will in the two initial defeats: perhaps it coalesced Israel, so that they actually would battle against Benjamin more fiercely (20:37,48).

Again, like so much in Judges, the moral of this story is hidden behind its narrative statements. Israel was interested in justice for the guilty party at the beginning, not civil war (20:13). But there was desire for civil war in Benjamin (20:13-14).

But who was really behind this conflict? Looking at 20:35, this is more than a slogan for the victor. Other cultures may say, after the fact, that God was behind their victory, but we have seen this pattern over and over from Exodus onward, that God wants it to be clear, because that's the way the wars He enters go, that He does the striking in front of the side He's on, against the side He's against (20:35).

New Year: Jdg 15-17 for Mar 16

2011-03-21T05:50:00.005-05:00

Samson's story is highlighted by only a few incidents, since he judged Israel twenty years (16:31). But the summary of it in Judges 13:5 is still valid, however these few incidents pique the curiosity of us all.

One of the ways the story with Delilah gets its point across, as we have seen in the Old Testament so far, is repetition: 16:6,10,13,15 are so monotonic in the moronity of the situation presented, that the text begs us to ask obvious questions: 1) Is Delilah so stupid as to ask the same question over and over again, after Samson obviously mocks the question with his fake answers, multiple times? Does she really think that multiple break-ins, which she announces to Samson, each one as it comes, doesn't add up to Samson, so that he knows they are caused by her duplicity? The reader knows Delilah is corrupt (16:5). Samson knows Delilah is corrupt, because he gives her fake answers. 2) There is a carry-over from the first wife's question (14:16). If Samson really wanted to, with Delilah, it would have remained a secret to her, just as it had to the woman in Timnah. Therefore, if there is even a repetition from wife to wife, what do the two times have in common? Samson! It is Samson who caves (14:17) in the case of the first wife, and the irony is evident even in the wording: "because she pressed him so hard." This is high-handed irony, given the metaphor of 16:29-30.

But of what? Is Samson not a vessel in God's hands to "begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines?" Of course. "The Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him" in 14:6. Previously, "the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him" in 13:25. Then in 14:19; again in 15:14. To punctuate that, God supernaturally quenches his thirst, as if to remind the reader of His ways with Israel, in which He had done the exact same thing during the exodus from Egypt. So with Israel, so with Samson. God was behind Samson.

So should we resort to slogans about it, such as "every Samson has his Delilah"? We can assume that the text is teaching something more interesting than that.

What is it, then, to live in a way that furthers the purposes of God? Samson's life did so. We have some highlights of his twenty years of power. Do the highlights show Samson's strength, literally?! It is thirty miles and more between Gaza and Hebron (16:3). Do the highlights show any strength besides the physical? Look at the description of his dealing with his own conscience, in 15:3. The text is not trying to condemn the "warriorness" of Samson, but instead, exalt it, from beginning to end. All in a day's work of twenty years.

But Samson's warriorness comes one event at a time, and Samson knows that (15:18; 16:28). It comes from God. Samson believes, and the text teaches, that it's tied to his hair and his Nazirite-ness. The story highlights that in a direct set of brackets from 13:5 to 16:17. The text puts this question, therefore, to the reader. Do you, reader, believe that God can give a man such strength, and in such a way that superhuman feats can be accomplished, like Samson did, using Samson's actions to further His purposes -- and all the while have the miraculous aspect tied to the discretion of someone with a weakness?

New Year: Jdg 12-14 for Mar 15

2011-03-20T14:55:00.008-05:00

God appears to a barren woman, in contrast to those who have been previously described as full of children and grandchildren (Judges 12:9; 12:14; 13:2).

When there is a time of oppression by the Philistines, we know why it came about (Judges 13:1). But when there comes a time of deliverance from the Philistines, through the initiative of God, He begins doing so without telling us His reasons (13:5).

God's coming to those who by contrast aren't famous for their family is another example of His often-seen reversal pattern, reversing what is normally expected. We have seen this since the Garden, when the sound (Genesis 3:8) was not what the reader expected to be the sound Adam heard. In Judges we have it now ever-so-explicit, when in Judges 7:2 the Lord tells Gideon "The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would glorify itself against Me, saying, 'My own hand has delivered me.'" This couple had no donkeys, sons riding them, grandsons, or donkeys for the grandsons. That strange detail in the previous chapter was deliberate!

As for Manoah and his wife, the privilege of beginning to deliver Israel from the Philistines was not theirs, but their son's -- yet they are visited by God Himself (13:22-23). Manoah wife is not named, as well. This should alert us to something, because we have seen this detail before (Gen 32:29). Manoah's wife is spoken to by God, who shares with this object of His compassion a little small detail: the inaccessibility of their names, each one's: her name, and His Name.

New Year: Jdg 9-11 for Mar 14

2011-03-18T09:39:00.003-05:00

Jephthah's diplomacy with the Ammonites uses a piece of logic (Judges 11:24) that only a thorough-going supernaturalist could use.

Can you imagine a diplomatic argument over territory going on in this way nowadays, saying 'hundreds of years ago, our God gave us this land. Wouldn't you have the land your god gave you.'?

There's other "logic" that makes this chapter a fascinating study of human reasoning, faulty or not, besides 11:24, e.g., the vow of 11:31 and its aftermath in 11:39.

It has often been commented that OT narratives often seem to suspend judgment on key actions and actors, and that they deliberately do so, to bring the reader to a huge necessity, brought on by the weight of our conscience, that we must understand and express a moral judgment ourselves, upon what the narrative is saying happened.

Here in Judges this use of understatement is also evident. In the previous chapter we had the evaluation of Gideon's ephod, told in narrative terms (8:27). In chapter 9, we see, told in narrative form, a story of the kind 'what is due will come back to you', as a working out of the announcements and parable of Jotham (9:7-20).

In that case, the story is explicitly capped with its explanation (9:56-57). But in the case of Jephtha's vow, the narrative is given without a direct statement of the disapproval which it seeks from us. 11:39 is understatement. 11:40 is understatement. It cries out for response from us: the vow was not to have been made. Having been made, it was not to have taken priority over weightier matters of good and evil.

New Year: Jdg 6-8 for Mar 13

2011-03-17T14:33:00.005-05:00

How does the story of Gideon show the progress of God's favor (Judges 6:17) toward someone? It is at least one example of it.

With Gideon, God had determined what He would do. But Gideon didn't know that; he was just trying to survive (6:11). God takes the initiative, not just approaching Gideon alone, but telling him about it: that He is "with you, O valiant warrior" (6:12).

In another great "who, me?" moment in the Bible, Gideon jumps to the conclusion that the Lord must be on his way to tell everybody, and Gideon happened to be the first stop, like the first restaurant at the edge of town coming in. So Gideon thinks God is telling everybody, and begins immediately to put his two cents in: "If the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us ..." (6:13ff).

One of the hallmarks of God's grace is how it is patient for its objects to catch up -- not just patience, but direct action: the "Go" part of the next verse is built upon the reason He gives Gideon why that will work: "have I not sent you" (6:14)?

Another "who, me?" in 6:15: Gideon hears what God just said, takes it up for consideration, and comes up with "O Lord, with what shall I deliver Israel? ..." With what! (6:15, NASB, lit.), plus the standard resources check, netting nothing (6:15).

God makes a very specific promise to Him. It has two parts: which one is more important, or which one is more spiritual to believe if you don't have the other, is extraneous here, because God gives him both: "Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man" (6:16) The idea here is that Midian -- all its hordes (6:5), will be like just a single opponent.

Then, in one of the most amazing passages describing God's ways of motivating someone you'll ever read (6:17-18), look at what transpires.

Gideon becomes convinced that he himself has found favor with God. He has believed 6:16, because he makes a request, based on that, to God: "If now I have found favor in Your sight, then show me a sign that it is You who speak with me..." (6:17). Gideon wants to bring something to God, that he doesn't have right there with him. He's motivated to do this offering, to God, but has no clue if that's OK with God from His side. So he asks about it: "Please do not depart from here, until I come back to You, and bring out my offering and lay it before You."

And God said, "I will remain until you return." (6:18).

Gideon is a step-by-step guy, and at that point, that promise has to be the greatest thing Gideon could hope for. God gives Gideon time to do something proper and right toward Him. That is a huge motivation to get something done, isn't it, that God will remain, until we return to Him with it.

Rather than what transpires in 6:21-22, which makes Gideon anxious, so it doesn't function as the requested sign, I think the sign that Gideon got was that God remained while he got his stuff ready.

New Year: Jdg 4-5 for Mar 12

2011-03-15T12:19:00.005-05:00

Colleges and post-colleges study this song (Jdg 5) all over the world, Mrs. Lappidoth and Mr. Barak's duet (5:1; 4:4). Mrs. Lappidoth is Deborah the judge, a prophetess. Barak is the general known by name to the opposition (4:12). Chapters 4 and 5 are a study, yet another study, in the same kind of reversal of expectation that "we" have been seeing since Gen 12:1-2. (Did you notice that part, by the way? In leaving his nation, one of the results was God making Abram into a great nation).

The forward movement from when "Israel again did evil" (4:1) to when "the land was undisturbed for forty years" (5:31) is through war, muster for war, and the initiative of God (4:6ff.), in reverse order.

There is an unsappy love of righteousness, and "those who love Him," in the OT that might even form a necessary background for understanding God's nature. In these chapters you can see this in the stylization of the mother of Sisera in Jdg 5:28-30. Here, the mother of the commander of the army that had "oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years" (4:3) is waiting, like any mother, for the return of the son.

The love of an outcome, e.g., "a spoil of dyed work embroidered," 5:30, is combined with the worry about an outcome, e.g., "'Why does his chariot delay in coming?'", 5:28, creating the tension. Is it not true that every army has its supporting base which waits for it to return, whichever side the army fights for? Of course. The tensions in the minds of mothers of commanders are well-understood. However, this part of the dynamic of war is portrayed only to contrast it with something bigger (5:31): "Thus let all Your enemies perish, O Lord."

It's better, even to be imprecated, that the generals of the armies of the enemies of God perish, than that the outcomes their mothers would prefer to happen, happen.

Perish, how? That's what the poem is about, and celebrates (5:2-31a). Israel, which has this "feature" about them, that God does things for them like "I will draw out to you Sisera [the enemy general]" and "I will give him into your hand" (4:7), is not your regular army. These chapters are another example of that.

The war is so complete a victory that it's clinical (4:17). Sisera's fate is described in prose (4:18ff), then poetically for emphasis (5:25-27). It is not a sappy story.

The option is deliberately cut off (5:31) to moan for Sisera or his mother waiting. That whole option is brought up, in order to be put in context of 5:31. There is no such thing in creation for God to set aside righteousness just because of the existence of unrighteous people.

New Year: Jdg 1-3 for Mar 11

2011-03-15T07:55:00.003-05:00

The explanation for the intermittency of the Israelites is "there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, not yet the work which He had done for Israel" (Jdg 2:10). The sequence is blatant: "Then the sons of Israel did evil" (2:11).

Of the 8.5 landed tribes west of the Jordan, only Issachar is not mentioned in Judges 1 as having areas of their allotment not taken into possession. So we look prior to 2:10 and see that there is a betrayal-of-covenant aspect to the military failure. Military folks are always and imminently aware of this aspect of war: the behind-the-scenes compromise, or sellout. And there it is, in 2:2, making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land.

What then can be made of the crying? And even the sacrificing (2:4-5)? They were not of sufficient effect, to say the least, in view of 2:10ff.

New Year: Josh 21-24 for Mar 10

2011-03-13T18:05:00.005-05:00

The book of Joshua ends on a relative high note (24:31). It describes the cup as full, for a cup of that size.

The last two chapters of Joshua are a tremendous wrap up of the history from Gen 11:24 on. There had been very little about the patriarchs until here in Joshua 24:2-4.

Not only are these chapters a wrap up of the general history until the time of the death of Joshua's leaders (24:31), but there are resolutions and important details filled in, about particulars: 1) Balaam! Joshua 24:10 resolves what was going on in Numbers 22-24, because of which it seemed so odd, when reading Joshua 13:22, that the story would end that way! Finally we can better understand 2 Peter 2:15; 2) the witness of the Law! (cf. Gal 3:13) -- here, at the end of the time of Joshua with the nation, Joshua describes a dual function of the Law among the Israelites: it serves as a witness against them, and it serves as a deterrent to prevent them from denying God (24:27).

New Year: Josh 18-20 for Mar 9

2011-03-10T22:38:00.002-06:00

Judah can't get a break ... or does it? When they were last heard from (Josh 17:14ff), they were put off, in a way, in the request for more land, and in our chapters, 19:9 says that Judah's portion "was too large for them."

Someone might ask, in view of the existence of Providence, why is there a use of lots to distribute the inheritance (14:2)? The short answer was that it was commanded. But the longer answer has to do with just thinking about it a little bit. The lot was a sequential tool, that is, used to determined which tribe would be assigned next. It is not necessary to think that this tool also chose the parcel of land or its borders. In fact, the level of detail describing the borders is the amount we would expect when a mutually agreed upon decision is made that is not disputed.

All the more reason to be surprised at Joshua's reasoning with Judah at the end of 17: "you shall not have one lot" (17:17). There may be a reference there to future gains by Judah...

New Year: Josh 15-17 for Mar 8

2011-03-10T05:50:00.003-06:00

The listing of the territories for Judah alone (Josh 15) would tax all but the greatest Bible memorizers.

What should be made of the fact that "Joshua took the whole land" (11:23), yet there are exceptions to this later stated (15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13)? This is standard military generalization, and well-reflects the truthfully stated case in wars, that there are decisive battles that are won and that indeed give control of a territory, but that there can be towns and places within territories that are not conquered.

Some Canaanites are not driven out completely ("because the Canaanites persisted in living in that land," 17:12) under Manasseh, and in Gezer under Ephraim, and at Jerusalem, which would be later under Judah. In two of the three cases, the inhabitants are described as those who would be "forced laborers" (16:10; 17:13). In Jerusalem, "the sons of Judah could not drive them out."

The promise of Joshua 1:5 stood, and "the land had rest from war" (11:23). The ensuing campaigns of the various tribes starting in chapter 15 are separated from Joshua's work. 13:1 had given the general scope of the ensuing task: "much of the land remains to be posessed," according to the Lord Himself. Joshua's time of leading into war was finished by chapter 13, and so the tribes take up their conquests, the new generation going on after the generation of Joshua and Caleb, after the generation of Moses and Aaron.

New Year: Josh 12-14 for Mar 7

2011-03-08T23:15:00.003-06:00

On Josh 14:14, compare the end of chapter 7 and the end of chapter 9 for a hint at a time-reference within this document ("to this day") to the events it describes.

The last verse in our passage (14:15) says "the land had rest from war." This is surprising in the light of all that's left to be done (13:2ff.) Compare this to-do list with 12:12-24. Ancient cultures heavily documented their conquests, and inscriptions and depictions exalt the victors over the vanquished. Do you notice anything missing here?

First, is there an elaborate attempt of any kind to justify the conquest and annihilation? Any depiction, or even listing, of the sins of the Canaanites, at the very point where we would expect a natural desire to list the sins, to justify the annihilation? No. The one-sentence explanation in 11:20 is all we get, as if that is not enough to chew on. The writer certainly must assume we've been reading all the previous story so far.

It is so deliberate, even in the counting: the king of xxxyyyyzzzz, "one." the king of aaabbbbcccc, "one." Just the facts. No bragging.

New Year: Josh 9-11 for Mar 6

2011-03-08T11:46:00.003-06:00

In Joshua 9-11 is it that the battles are victorious, then Joshua claims that God was merely an explanation for it? No, it is that God does things previous to them (10:8, 19), above them (10:12), fighting for them (10:14), and they take second place to Him in what they do afterwards (10:11).

Shouldn't we see to it, give place to God, for this kind of thing, and not merely claim Him as the explanation for our doing well? God is bigger than a mere explanation of us at our best.

New Year: Josh 6-8 for Mar 5

2011-03-06T15:00:00.004-06:00

There are pacifisms of various degrees that can't stand citizens abetting war, much less war, much less conquest, much less by divine right, and least of all annihilation. What is NOT difficult for some, in Joshua 6-8? Did we mention claiming that a miracle occurs?

Take first, that a miracle occurs underlying the conquest of Jericho (Josh. 6:20). The "captain of the LORD's host" (5:15) is there for some reason, and God is with Joshua, speaking to him, telling him "'See, I have given Jericho into your hand'" (6:2), way before anything commences. The walls falling down is no accident or earthquake interpretation: it comes from God, as shown by God telling Joshua about it way ahead of time (6:5).

Therefore, this is no vanilla miracle story. It is announced beforehand. The nation is prepared to deal with adversaries (5:13). There is some kind of 'God doing the same thing as before' theme going on: the Jordan's waters dried up "just as the Lord your God had done to the Sea of Reeds" (4:23). The holy ground where Joshua is standing (5:15) is almost the same as Ex 3:5.

Therefore this is a claim to the miraculous. It is a claim to be working together with a miraculous God who has an army, a "host." If this is not clear to the reader already, the instructions for conquering Jericho could not make it plainer, although they do: God says "See, I have given [notice the tense, as if it's already a done deal...] Jericho into your hand, with its king and the valiant warriors" (6:2). These kinds of instructions have not successfully made it into the military strategy books.

IF this is truly a nation working together with the Creator of the universe plus His heavenly army, don't the other issues first mentioned take on a different light?

Instead of asking if someone (Rahab) was ethically justified to betray her culture, we must ask how God Himself got to her, singling her out for mercy.

Instead of asking if war is ever justified, we must ask how God successfully turned the nation we saw in four books of the Bible as failures into a nation that put together a whole army that was convinced, on the same day, at the same time, at the same moment, to rely on a miracle.

Instead of asking whether a nation is justified in conquering another nation, we must ask how a whole army can be disciplined to avoid taking private spoils and give everything of material value to the religious people.

Instead of asking how nations fool their armies into thinking their cause is right, we must ask how the very same army can be an agent of God in one battle, and lose the right to represent Him in battle the very next time out, because of one instance of greed (7:13), miraculously discovered (7:18).

Finally, instead of asking about the ethics of annihilation, we must ask that if the Righteous Creator removes all corruption, why is anyone still here?

New Year: Josh 3-5 for Mar 4

2011-03-06T09:32:00.003-06:00

The three chapters for today culminate in Joshua 5:15. It is not a "literary surprise," but a God surprise. You might say the narrative at Exodus 3:5 until Joshua 5:15 culminates in Joshua 5:15.

Joshua 5:9 is also indicative of the conclusive significance of this time in Israel's history since even Exodus 1:8. What was the "reproach of Egypt?" The slavery, the suffering, yes, but also the possibilities Moses had mentioned in Ex 32:12. Now removed.

There is another piece of the reproach of Egypt that is also now removed, the one described in Numbers 14:4. Three reproaches are now removed: what the Egyptians had done, what the Egyptians might have said about God had the Israelites not crossed into the land, and what the Israelites had said about going back to Egypt along the way. All removed.

New Year: Dt 34; Josh 1-2 for Mar 3

2011-03-04T22:38:00.006-06:00

It's great to see the seamless continuation of the story of the people of Israel across the end of Deuteronomy and into Joshua 1-2.

When Moses is called "the servant of the Lord" in Dt 34:5, and again in Joshua 1:2 -- by God ... -- we have verbal confirmation of the conscious continuation of the story across the two books. But that's just a verbal, external indicator that there is continuation. Much more evidentiary is the continuity.

Here are two evidences of continuity of Joshua with the perspective of the first five books of the story. First of all, just as God takes the initiative to call Moses, it is God, here (Josh. 1:1) who takes the initiative to speak to Joshua.

Secondly, in Josh. 2, who does not recognize the theme, in Josh. 2:9-10, of God as the God who acts in behalf of the Israelites? This is an unmistakeable biblical framework. God Himself is the architect of their commencement forward into the land (1:2,5,9,etc.)

New Year: Dt 31-33 for Mar 2

2011-03-02T22:33:00.004-06:00

Deuteronomy 31, all by itself, is enough to showcase the major contrasts of the Lord's revelation toward Israel.

The Israelites, regarding their obligations to God: "they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them" (31:16). God, regarding His promises, notwithstanding the former: "It is the Lord your God who will cross ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them" (31:3).

These contrasts are within one chapter. When we continue with the song of Moses in chapter 32, we have it in three verses: 32:3-5; repeated with elaborations, 32:7-14 (God's side), 32:15-35 (their side), and 32:34-43 (God's side after their failure). We saw these post-failure actions also in Dt 30:1-10.

As if that is not enough to comprehend -- present failure, and future success -- chapter 33 speaks of blessings to the nation, coming from Moses, the one who not only personally failed in his stewardship (32:51-52), but repeats God's indictment of the failure of Israel that he received from God (31:26-29). One who has failed, talking to a people who have and will fail, about future blessings! Where do these blessings come from? Where does 32:9-14 fit in? What explains it?

Part of the answer is God's love: "Indeed, He loves peoples" (33:3, lit.).

Part of the answer is due to a few events of compliance: 33:8-10;16-19.

In summary, the great preponderance of the future success of the nation of Israel is due to what is described in 33:26-29, summed up as "blessed are you, O Israel; / Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord, / Who is the shield of your help / And the sword of your majesty!/ So your enemies will cringe before you, / And you will tread upon their high places" (33:29).

New Year: Dt 28-30 for Mar 1

2011-03-02T09:36:00.008-06:00

The covenant for the Israelites at Moab (Dt 29:1) is for their immediate and future well-being, theirs, and their descendants (29:22), "that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them" (30:20).

The coupling of the listening to the voice of God and the doing of all these commandments is repeated and unmistakable (cf. Dt 28:1, lit.; 28:15, lit.; 30:2, lit.; 30:8, lit.).

So what is this covenant, in its nature? Historically, it certainly didn't come into being at Horeb (29:16). It started before all but three of them, that is, Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, were born, and is "with those who are not with us here today" (29:15), a phrase we can gather, from a parallel in Acts 2:39, may mean succeeding generations. Cf. Dt 6:20ff. As far as their present moment goes, the Israelites are told to listen, as above, and also in 28:45 and 30:10. The covenant is from long ago, but for them, the present moment begins with listening to God. Then what?

There is a variety of expression in the verses listed, for what is to follow. We can learn from that what the model of obedience to God was in this covenant. Let's go through this phraseology, because the variety of expression is surprising.

28:1 -- "if you diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all His commandments ..."

28:15 -- "if you do not listen to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes..."

30:2 -- "...and listen to His voice with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today ..."

30:8 -- "listen to the voice of the Lord and observe all His commandments which I command you today ...."

30:10 and 28:45 are very similar. The relevant phrases there are "to keep His commandments" and "by keeping His commandments and statutes."

What is at risk, at stake, here? The curses of chapter 27:15ff and 28:15-68. Those things are at stake on the negative side.

What is to gain, here? The blessings of 28:1-14.

New Year: Dt 25-27 for Feb 28

2011-02-28T23:17:00.004-06:00

Israel is reminded in Dt 25-27 to do everything they've been charged to do.

The things that cultures overlook in their self-assessments are not always the same. One of things we almost all are subject to overlooking is the practice of overlooking. Here Israel is reminded, again, at the end of our section (Dt 27:26) that overlooking will not be overlooked.

There is another way this is stressed in the previous chapter. In the West, because we're so accustomed to relative measurements, we think of our love for God as the greatest love we must have. It does not disturb us if other loves are not as great. Yet, looking at 26:16, what does Moses say about the other commands? That God says that they are to do them ... how? "with all your heart and with all your soul." This is the same attribute that Moses (and the Lord) uses to describe how our love for God should be!

New Year: Dt 22-24 for Feb 27

2011-02-27T21:35:00.002-06:00

It is in the miscellaneous corners of the house that an individual's interests often are exhibited the clearest. In the sundry laws (Dt 22-24), it is the same.

One of the things that comes through clearest is the relationship between "what is" and "what ought to be" in tying the experiences of Israel in Egypt with what they should do to the needy (24:17-18,21-22).

New Year: Dt 19-21 for Feb 26

2011-02-26T23:57:00.002-06:00

Dt 20:4 has the same relationship stated between salvation and God battling our enemies as Ps 35:5.

New Year: Dt 16-18 for Feb 25

2011-02-25T18:24:00.003-06:00

We have the similar multiple-category discussion in these chapters (Dt 16-18) as we had earlier since the first Passover of Exodus 12.

There are feast days (Deuteronomy 16), portions for the Levites (18), specific parts of offerings (18:3); matters such as appellate judges (17:8-13); thrice-per-year travels (16:16); prohibition of any kind of religious syncretism (idols from the area's religions, 16:21-22), of sorcery, of witchcraft, etc. (18:9-14); the place of prophecy, prophets, and Moses' phrase "a prophet like me" (18:15ff.)

This combination of the details of the many types of obligations of the Israelites, in rapid succession, does not imply multiple authors or schools. This combination is purposive. It is the nature of the relationship of the Israelites to God, that all the details are necessary. There are "weightier provisions" (Dt 6:4-5; cf. Mt 23:23), but no provisions are left behind (Mt 5:16). Moses's way of saying this was abutting them next to each other. The Lord's picturesque way of saying this is to remind them that they needed justice, mercy and faithfulness ... "these are the things you should have done ....", and regarding the tithe of the mint, and dill, and cummin, He says that too, is obligatory! ... "without neglecting the others." (Mt 23:23).

The details matter. Everything counts.

New Year: Dt 13-15 for Feb 24

2011-02-25T02:23:00.003-06:00

Every assertion worth its salt also denies its opposite. In Dt 13 we find out what Israel, in a relationship worth its salt, denied.

New Year: Dt 10-12 for Feb 23

2011-02-23T23:22:00.007-06:00

The narrative form of Dt 10-11 lays out the obligations of Israel in such a way that as readers, we can't help but see their reasonableness (Deuteronomy 10:12-22). On the other hand, 10:16 points out that there has been a problem needing to be addressed.

Besides the reasonableness of the obligations (10:12), there is the fact that His greatness, mighty hand and outstretched arm were displayed "in the midst of Egypt" (11:3). The previous work is summarized in 11:7: "your own eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord which He did." The conclusion, "You shall therefore keep every commandment which I am commanding you today ..." (Dt 11:8ff), is given as a conclusion to what they saw.

Yet this conclusion is not indicative, but prescriptive. "You shall" is not in the sense "it is true that you will." It is in the sense that the generation Moses is speaking to then, has those obligations.

New Year: Dt 7-9 for Feb 22

2011-02-22T22:32:00.004-06:00

We can picture the 2nd and 3rd generation after the Exodus in Dt 7-9. Moses, addressing them, might have in his mind, "will this religion carry over into the next generation?" In Dt 5, Moses does one specific thing about that: he retells the story to the new generations, just as it had happened between God, Moses, and them (5:3): "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us...."

In Dt 7-9 Moses continues his sermon to the generation who are going in to fight "today" (9:3). A sociologist might find things in common that religious generals all tell their fighters, about how whomever or whatever the culture has set apart as sacred is going ahead of them (9:5). But funny thing: do religious generals ever tell their fighers that, oh, by the way, don't forget how you messed up in the past, and the whole time since this thing started (9:7)? Is that how societies prep their fighters?

But was Moses putting the enterprise at risk? Most definitely so, unless 9:3-5 is actually true. If a god gets invoked to put adrenalin into a fighter, but the fighter is lousy, then the battle will involve lousy fighters with adrenalin. But if God Himself is the weapon that is deployed (to use modern terms for "God ... is crossing over before you" and "God is driving them out" in 9:3,5), then fighters might themselves learn from the event.