Jonah, Chapter 2, Providence & Prayer

“Your laws endure to this day for all things serve you.” -Psalm 119:91

Lately I've been memorizing the first questions of the Westminster Catechism. I'm not sure if it's a counter-reaction to leaving our local church, to the pandemic, or a vestige of my Catholic upbringing, but the discipline and precision of the wording is good--calibrating my mind and heart to bigger truths.

The catechism speaks of the providence of God, an alternatingly comforting and unsettling concept that is addressed in Questions 8, 11, and 12.  

Question 11: What are God's works of providence?

Answer: God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions.

Alistair Begg cites God's providence as one of the overarching truths in Jonah:

"Now, we ought not to miss, just in passing, that whether it is a gigantic fish or whether it is a small worm, what we’re discovering here is that God is at work directing everything to its appointed end."

I see this thread woven throughout the book in subtle and not so subtle regards. The text says God appointed the fish to swallow Jonah.  Appointed suggests the intentionality and dominion He manifests over His creation.

"Now the LORD had prepared (appointed, destined) a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1:17 Amplified

I love the layout and conceptualization of this part of Jonah's journey from the
cartoonist Eyeteeth. Check out his book of Jonah illustrations here.

Begg asserts that Jonah's prayer in Jonah 2 demonstrates someone who knows the scriptures well and has internalized them.  This is his explanation of why Jonah's prayer is a medley of psalms and other scriptures mashed together.

Begg's comments on prayer were some of my favorites in this series:

"I’ve been greatly helped by some of the things that William Still said concerning prayer. I want to say them to you this morning, recognizing that once they’re on tape it will be a benefit to those who then listen to the tape. This is what he says: “Prayer for the Christian is a matter of believing that God is, and that He does respond to those who believe in Him.” That’s the start. In other words, there is nothing vague, there is nothing amorphous about the notion with which the Christian begins to approach God. We approach God believing that he is, and that although we cannot see him, nevertheless he hears our prayers, and he also is the God who responds.

Says Still,

Now the real Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God, and is, naturally, [therefore] in vital touch with the Father and the Son. On the basis that we know something about this God from the Holy Scriptures, we begin to speak to Him internally, and should do so as naturally, in a sense, as we speak to ourselves—our “better” selves, born of God in Christ Jesus. That’s prayer. But we have to believe that He is there and listening.

Not that by believing we make him there; but we have to remind ourselves that this is not an exercise in futility. We’re not speaking out into the night; we’re not simply getting things off our chest. We’re not simply meditating, you know, and sort of doing an exercise in deep breathing with some words that go along with it. No, we remind ourselves that God listens to prayer, that he is there and that he does hear us. He neither slumbers nor sleeps." -Alistair Begg, "Salvation Comes from the Lord," Overboard Series. 

This concept of "believing He is there and listening" makes a type of intuitive sense to me.  Prayer offers us opportunity to act on our faith, and the investment of time and energy illuminates and grows our faith life.

At the end of Chapter 2, the overarching sense of providential intervention echoes again,  "So the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah up onto the dry land." Jonah 2:10

Note the consistency of the transitions "Now...So" and the verbs "appointed...commanded."  They highlight the connectivity of action and reaction between God, Jonah, and the fish. 

Jonah's time in the fish garners much of the attention paid to this book, but as Jack Abeelen aptly points out, the real miracle is that the city of Nineveh repents! We are easily more impressed by physical miracles than spiritual ones, a fact Jesus also lamented (Matthew 9:5-6).

Another Difficult Verse, Luke 21:32

"I assure you and most solemnly say to you, this generation [those living at that definite period of time preceding the second coming] will not pass away until everything takes place." 21:32

"Others would argue that the generation who sees “all this” is not the generation who is alive when Jesus is speaking these words, but rather the generation who is alive when the final period of great tribulation at the end of history begins. Darrell Bock, who favors this position, puts it like this: “What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation.” -David Sunday

Sunday references Alistair Begg 's sermon on this verse.  Here are my notes from listening to Begg: 

First, he points out that for the Jews, the temple was the focal point for God's relationship with the people. The disciples couldn't fathom that the world would continue if the temple fell.  

Jesus instructs them, calls them to personal vigilance and action "Be careful...be watchful, be prayerful, be faithful...." (v 34 & 36). Begg emphasizes that God has given us the Word not just to increase our knowledge, but to transform our lives. If this doesn't happen, we miss the point.  The function of the scriptures is not merely information and explanation, but application.

Begg admits that verse 32 is very difficult.  He references a commentary by James Boice---who said he doesn't have the foggiest idea of what one aspect means. Begg finds it comforting to know he's in good company. 

Also, he suggests that we cannot be unduly dogmatic about passages of the scripture that are not absolutely clear. The principle he asserts is that where the Bible is absolutely clear, we should be absolutely dogmatic about that issue, but where it is not clear, we should not be dogmatic.

Some commentaries have asserted it's all about AD 70; in such case, this verse doesn't cause trouble. If it involves now and the future end of the age, then we have a real dilemma.

"Grand Cloud" by Adam Thomas, all rights reserved.
Check out his artwork here.

There are a few possible ways to resolve the tension it creates. One is that "this generation" could reference a race or group of people instead of a set of decades.  Another interpretation is that the "people who are there when it begins will be there at the end."  However, Begg doesn't prefer either of these.

Instead, he thinks that there is a telescoping, a shift in reference during the passage--that at first he's referring to the immediate issue of the temple, then he shifts to the end of the age, and then is back to referring to the impending destruction of the temple referenced in verse 7.

Furthermore, he feels that the reader can get trapped in all of this referencing when the primary function of the discourse then and now that the disciples and current day readers are to act without hesitation.

Here's Begg's outline:

v 5-7 occasion of discourse

v 8-11 warns followers of being deceived or disheartened

v 12-19 persecution to come, promised help that they can anticipate.

I now need to go back and revisit this chapter with all of this in mind---a task for another day!

Coming in a Cloud, Luke 21:27

"Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with [transcendent, overwhelming] power [subduing the nations] and with great glory [Dan_7:13-14]."   Luke 21:27 Amplified Bible

How long would I have to sit with this part of today's passage (Luke 21:20-28) to begin to make even the slightest sense of it? As a well-read and well-preached Christian, the words are familiar enough to pass by and not marvel.  But if I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness, or any other cult for that matter, who introduced this image as their understanding of truth, it would confirm my belief that they're off balance.

So am I off balanced to follow this set of scriptures? To believe this could really happen? To just drink my coffee and accept alongside the current news of today that "the Son of Man'" will come in a cloud?  A cloud---really??

When I was younger, I was a strict naturalist in the sense that I was suspicious of emotionally driven people that are led away by romantic notions of fairies, spirits, miracles. I figured out early on that these were the same people who were undependable, had trouble managing their more practical lives.  Looking back, I think this strict naturalism (maybe empiricism is a more precise word) was a barrier to faith.

Artist: Adam Thomas, "A New Hope,"  All rights reserved. 
Check out his amazing cloud artwork here.

If I'm honest with myself, it can still be a barrier at times, as I still have an inherit suspicion of people that are too free with their beliefs and too quick to call an exception a miracle. I inherently dislike people who manipulate the truth to suit their preferences and tastes.

But, I've also learned to become more comfortable--not entirely comfortable---but more comfortable, with the grey, the mysterious, the "seeing in a glass darkly" aspects of this life. I love Hamlet's observation that, " There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet, Act I, scene v).

A God, the God, the only God, who comprises a trinity, a Spirit, yet man, yet God, yet equal and same---coming back to this earth---and on a cloud.  How am I to sip my coffee, make little of it, accept it, and move on?

At very least, I should be as the shepherds when He came the first time and the angels appeared.

What is it about us humans?  We'd rather wake up slowly, sit with the sheep, remain and retain the familiar.  At what risk of loss?  At risk of loss for either a delusion OR something so majestic, unexpected, and unfathomably greater that it would blow up our box of what is and lead us out of ourselves, our chains, our limits, our brokenness. 

Jonah, Chapter 1, Up on Your Feet

This is my second time working through the book of Jonah since I began this blog. The first time was in April of 2014.  Jonah is a mere four chapters in length, but worth spending several weeks upon if not more.  This year, I've been pondering it since mid-to early-January.  I think I'm about ready to move on, but I need to linger long enough to do due diligence to this "catch box" post of Jonah commentary and  personal reflections.

I'll begin with background and observations on Jonah's call, Chapter 1:

Alexander MacLaren notes that this book might fit better among narrative books than amid the prophets in some regards, but he concludes that it is a prophetic book above all because it anticipates Israel's role and resistance with regard to God's grander vision for humanity. MacLaren believes Jonah is representative of the narrow nationalistic views of Israel. Ultimately, God's mercy will prevail above judgement, and Jonah was not a fan.

Charles Savell notes the author's use of the term "great": "As you probably know the Hebrew term gadol is used fourteen times in Jonah. We have a “great city” (1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11), a “great wind” (1:4), a “great storm” (1:4, 12), a “great fear” (1:10, 16), a “great fish” (1:17), a “great” or important person (3:5, 7), a “great displeasure” (4:1), and a “great happiness” (4:6.). So often tell my students that Jonah is a “great” book."  And, the literary skill of the author of Jonah is emphasized in my Bullock commentary.

On my first run through, I noticed the sudden and brisk pace of  narrative.  It reminds me of Mark--"just the facts, quickly presented."   Jonah 1:1 declares that the word of God came to Jonah.  And verse two reports the exact and concise imperative, "Arise, Go to Nineveh," or as the MSG translates "Up on your feet."  Get off your butt and get at it would be an even more modern translation--there's no room for misunderstanding or delay.

J.O. Keen characterizes it as, "A summons to activity. Shake off dull sloth. Rouse thee from careless ease." He adds:

(1) The physical plays an important part in the execution of Divine purposes.

(2) The will too must give its sanction, or all the activities will be held in restful subjection. Where there is no will-power a man is a mere tool in the hands of others. -Keen

Bilbo Baggins comes to my mind--I think Jonah would have preferred to live in his hobbit home surrounded by the familiar.  

The story of the prodigal son crossed my mind

multiple times while reading Jonah. Wish I had

time for Keller's book--it's garnered great

reviews. Maybe next time around. 

Jonah is directed to "go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it," and Keen notes the force of spirit such an emotional task would demand," To cry requires energy of soul; a vivid realization of sin, and moral courage." Such a great observation--confronting people is draining. A call from God to confront calls for a spirit of self-sacrifice and a willingness to be diverted.

Jonah's resistance is more complex than this though. Later we'll learn that his inner conflict was not born of laziness, fear of being ineffective or unheard.  Nor was it a conflict born from misunderstanding the character of God or trusting in His abilities. He knew God's character and abilities--that's WHY he ran:

"He prayed to the LORD and said, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still in my country? That is why I ran to Tarshish, because I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and great in lovingkindness, and [when sinners turn to You] You revoke the [sentence of] disaster [against them]." Jonah 4:2 Amplified

 Other commentators suggest he feared personal injury to his reputation if  the people repented and his prophecy was undermined.  This makes a bit more sense in context. Alistair Begg believes it's because the Israelites of this time were gaining ground against the Assyrians, and he didn't like the thought of them losing that type of dominion or of them gaining ground against Israel, even through repentance.

Although this doesn't tease all the reasons out, it definitely differs from what I would imagine would be my own concerns being placed in this situation. Would I be mad at God's mercy to others?  The Jews certainly were when Jesus walked the earth. Maybe we overestimate our care for others or our own holiness.  Alistair Begg suggests, "Because we’re so proud, we think we deserve to be saved. We don’t realize how ugly and willful and defiant we are. And if we understood how wretched we really are, then we would realize that there is no reason under heaven why all these pagan, defiant, apparently distasteful individuals should not be the recipients of the message of mercy in judgment."  Maybe we do elevate ourselves and elevate the sin of others, and this is part of the problem.

Another question of mine concerned the meaning of the phrase,  "for their evil has come up before me.” This sense of separation between God and man doesn't make sense if God is omnipresence and omniscient--it's got to come down to textual nuances is my guess. BKC clarifies the meaning of the phrase as "that is, the people were relentless and persistent in their sins."

Here is even more context about Nineveh's spiritual state:

 "The Assyrian king acknowledged that his people’s ways were “evil” and characterized by “violence” (Jon_3:8). And they were “carefree” (Zep_2:15), thinking themselves invincible. The Prophet Nahum wrote about several of their crimes (Nah_3:1, Nah_3:4, Nah_3:16). Nineveh was well known in the ancient Near East for the brutal atrocities it inflicted on its war captives. (For more on Nineveh’s brutalities, see the Introduction to Nahum.) This city was also known for its idolatry; it had temples dedicated to the gods Nabu, Asshur, and Adad; the Ninevites also worshiped Ishtar, a goddess of love and war." -BKC

So I think it's less God lacked awareness, but more that the cup of wrath and sin was over brimming, touching upon God's desire for justice. 

Again, the narrator wastes no time or words in verse 3, "But Jonah."  He's fleeing from God's presence, but we know this is impossible (Ps 139)--what does he hope to accomplish?

Another answer from Alexander MacLaren:

"We need not suppose that Jonah thought that he could actually get away from God’s presence. Possibly he believed in a special presence of God in the land of Israel, or, more probably, the phrase means to escape from service." 

I suppose it's easy to forget that Jonah and his culture's perception of God was limited by preconceptions, just as our own. We don't fully "get" God.  And there are aspects we "get" but push away not even understanding fully the push. In this culture, there were gods of cities and specific areas, so it seems possible Jonah's flight operated under this geographically specific understanding of God's dominion. Maybe he thought he could escape or maybe he just wanted out no matter what that looked like. Alistair Begg alludes to Adam & Eve's desire to hide from God in the garden as equally illogical, born of fear.

Thinking more about the geography, Jonah is from southern Galilee, the son of Amittai, from the tribe of Zebulon. The Expositor's Bible observes that the Jews were an inland people emerging from many years in the desert.  Unlike the Phoenicians, they were not seafaring by nature or design. Going to Joppa, a pagan country and putting water between Jonah and God was a rebellious statement of just how far Jonah wished to distance himself from God's plans.  

As an aside, I found this blog entry on Joppa interesting: The Harbor at Joppa, Ferrell's Travel Blog.  I find it helpful to connect with the real world geography, archelogy, and culture of the Bible, and this blog makes an effort to do just that. 

On Jonah's decision to go to sea, MacLaren comments, "The Jews were no sailors, and the choice of the sea as means of escape indicates the obstinacy of determination in Jonah." lol.

The brisk pace of narrative continues with God's response which is a quick repetition of Jonah's "but Jonah,"-- v4 "But the Lord..."  This is a chess match, point and counterpoint.  And although I don't wish for Jonah's defiance, I admittedly admire his close wrestling match with God. My own struggles often feel more distant in nature. 

Another thing I questioned was why Jonah was sleeping instead of being awake and praying. The pagan sailors demonstrate much greater common sense and action in this dire situation.  They may not call on the correct god, but they know enough to call.

R.A. Redford suggests that Jonah sleeps as a response to great stress and turmoil, "the sleep into which the prophet fell instantly that he went down into the ship is quite consistent with a state of perplexity and fear. He was so wearied with the mental strain and struggle, so burdened with the weight of a reproachful conscience, that he gladly hid himself from the faces of his fellow-men, and sought the darkness and solitude of his sleeping place, where nature asserted its demands, and he was soon wrapt in unconsciousness."

Alistair Begg also adopts this perspective, "Presumably, he’s physically and spiritually worn out by his experience. Disobedience is draining, in the end. Haven’t you found that? Disobedience is only exhilarating for the moment. It only gives you a momentary buzz. But it is enervating, not energizing. Disobedience is only exhilarating for the moment. It only gives you a momentary buzz. It is enervating, not energizing."

Looking into the wording and expression "fast asleep," maybe the text does suggest this reason:

Hebrew: râdam, raw-dam'

A primitive root; to stun, that is, stupefy (with sleep or death): - (be fast a-, be in a deep, cast into a dead, that) sleep (-er, -eth).  Total KJV occurrences: 7  (Strong's)  I looked it up more fully here.  

Luke 21:1-19, The Unpalatable Gospel

In the midst of this coronavirus marathon we're in, I don't have a lot of capacity for more heavy.  Like it or not, Luke delivers, more specifically, Jesus delivers.

I'd rather hear his acknowledgement of the widow's offering a few verses earlier. Everyone likes to champion the underdog.  The Pulpit Commentary suggests that this was Jesus' last public teaching, "As far as we know, his comment upon the widow’s alms was his last word of public teaching."  If this is the case, I long to leave with the public in a sense.  

The hardest words are to come, and they are for us, believers and not outsiders. Couldn't we reverse that order? In Luke 21:5, Jesus shifts from commenting on the widow to a "brace yourself for impact" directive to the disciples.

What provokes the speech?  Some of them comment on the beauty and richness of the temple.  His response guts their romantic notions: 

"As for all these things which you see, the time will come when there will not be one stone left on another that will not be torn down."  Luke 21:6

If Anthony Fauci was considered the "skunk at the picnic," Jesus was certainly as much.

Ruble from the Second Temple at the Davidson Archeological Park, Jerusalem 
(Amanda Borschel-Dan/ToI) Source: The Times of Israel

War Within and Without:  Man vs. Man

"When you hear of wars and disturbances [civil unrest, revolts, uprisings], do not panic; for these things must take place first..." Luke 21:9

"Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom." Luke 21:10

Can we skip this season, Lord, and go straight to what comes second?

Imposter Saviors: Man vs. Man

 

"Be careful and see to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name [appropriating for themselves the name Messiah which belongs to Me alone], saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near!' Do not follow them.  Luke 21:8

Natural Disasters: Man vs. Nature

"There will be violent earthquakes, and in various places famines and [deadly and devastating] pestilences (plagues, epidemics); and there will be terrible sights and great signs from heaven." Luke 21:11

Personal Threat: Man vs. Man

"But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, and bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake." Luke 21:12

Intimate Threat: Man vs. His Family

"But you will be betrayed and handed over even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be continually hated by everyone because of [your association with] My name."

Luke 21:16-17

Lord, what are we to think and do in response to this list?  

We are told not to prepare a defense beforehand (v.14) because he will provide words of wisdom none can refute (v.15).

We are told not a hair on our head will perish (v.18) but that some of us will be put to death (v.16).  It seems illogical.

The fruit of living through this?

"By your [patient] endurance [empowered by the Holy Spirit] you will gain your souls." Luke 21:19

Lord, was this specific to the overthrow of Jerusalem? To the early Church?  Does it prophecy the future?

How do we weigh these words and respond to them with intellectual integrity and faith?  Just questions this morning...

And why, to what advantage is it, to know that these horrible things are coming?  You tell us each day has enough trouble of its own, yet there are these looming predictions.  I hate them.  I don't want to endure any of that except for the hope of v.19, "to gain your soul."

Nope, it's not something I can come to the bottom of in a morning. Not the way I'd like to start my day. It is offensive.

However, I think the larger question is not whether it offends me or us.  The larger question should be, "Is it true?"

Luke 20:45-47

The Discipleship Journal Reading Plan that I've been following has several aspects I appreciate.  One is that the Gospels are not divided into chapter chunks as in most reading plans.  Instead, the gospels are subdivided into smaller units of meaning, breaking down into narrative segments or units of speech.  Some plans I've read have you read the gospels several times a year to create a sort of equal weight and emphasis.  I appreciate the smaller bites of this plan as they become something like perpetual reading of the psalms or proverbs; something that washes over me again and again, each time leaving me bits that remain that I can ruminate upon and examine from this light or that.

This morning's "bite" from Luke 20 reminds me that, yes, it is no delusion or distortion to think that social justice issues are huge to God.

Social justice in the Gospels 101:

These [men] who confiscate and devour widows' houses, and for a pretense [to appear devout] offer long prayers. These [men] will receive the greater [sentence of] condemnation."  Luke 20:47

Jesus was pro-widow.

And then, looking through the notes on this passage, there are so many tie backs to the prophets. 

TSK Cross reference: devour: Isa_10:2; Jer_7:6-10; Eze_22:7; Amo_2:7, Amo_8:4-6; Mic_2:2, Mic_2:8, Mic_3:2

This sense of social justice is through and through the prophets and passages listed above.

I look forward to my journey through the prophets in the months to come and recognizing this facet of truth in them--to turn them round and round--a prism through which we see a fragment of a larger truth.

Jonah has emphasized for me this time around that God loves all people. He meets the Ninevites "where they are at," none too far away, none too far gone. The Lord makes that clear to Jonah, to us.

I'm also struck by the way that portions of the scriptures cross check and deepen each other. As a younger Christian, my understanding of this cross-referencing was more wooden--what is predicted in the prophets that happens later in the Bible kind of thing.  

Lately I am seeing more of the "big vision" that all portions reference, a bigger unified character and purpose that transcends the limits of time and space, the here and now.  It's not that the smaller bits just reference the smaller bits; it's more that they all point to Him.  Our God.  The Father.  The Christ. The Spirit.  He is not fragmented or partial---not in character, not in action, not in His purpose or His plan. 

Grace and Peace, absorbing more of Philemon

 I've been sifting through Philemon in different translations for at least a week now. It's still a mystery to me the way a verse, a chapter, or a book, in the scriptures often expands and calls the reader to tarry while the Spirit speaks over it in new ways.

This morning, I was stopped at this common greeting of Paul's:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Philemon 1:3 ESV

"God's best to you! Christ's blessings on you!" Philemon 1:3 MSG

Often I'll go back over scriptures in the Message translation to make sure I haven't missed a thread or concept.  This translation is alternately disappointing and refreshing to me, like most things and people in life, it's good to accept limitations but appreciate the giftings as well.

Here, the Message loses something---grace and peace being reduced to "God's best" is too loose for my liking, especially in light of this commentary from BKC:

"It is important to note the word order. The word “peace” expresses a spiritual state denoting a proper relationship between God and man; it is the effect of only one cause: the “grace” of God. There can be no peace apart from grace." -Bible Knowledge Commentary

Peace precedes grace. Peace is a result of right relationship between God and man.  It's what the angels declared outside the stable:

 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” Luke 2:14

Even pasting in this verse, the connection is more obvious.  It's not an unconditional sense of peace, the peace of the 60's or Asheville hippie's.  It has a prepositional phrase qualifying it: "among those with whom he is pleased."

Peace as a word, as a symbol, feels like an easy warm fuzzy that we can all land on in some sense--common ground. Is the opposite conflict?  This is the way I see it set up--in our modern world, it has a sense of "live and let live" between men without condition.  I wish you well you wish me well kind of thinking.  I let you do what you think best and you let me do what I think best.  And, yes, in  a way, that's ground the non-Christian and the moralist can get together on.  

But, BKC brings it back to "a proper relationship between God and man" as the foundation.

Stepping back into the context of Luke, it was spoken by the angels to comfort the shaken shepherds.  The appearance of divine spirits evoking fear--God sending angels to comfort them and give context? It makes me want to go back and look at the angels again---are they just thrown in there? How do they function? What is their role?  A declaration? A divine confirmation of the event? And the shepherds....how did they function?  More to unravel and absorb...

Looking back at this section in Luke, first a single angel appears to announce "a Savior." Luke 2:11

More questions...why speak to the common shepherds?  God gives the context to the common man of the day first?

Then, comes a multitude of angels and the the message of peace, "among those with whom he is pleased."

As many times as I've set up and looked at a manger scene, the shepherds seemed a given.  There are always shepherds.  I haven't stopped and thought about why or thought it odder than any other part of Christ's birth narrative.

The angels are the catalyst that set the shepherds off to find the baby.  Why did God want shepherds there worshipping?

"And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them." Luke 2:17-18 

Looking at the text--at least Luke, I don't see the worship.  I just see that they verified what God had said via the angels and spread that fact.  And the fact led to wonder....

Mary wondered too, if you look at the next verse--she stored the mystery in her heart.

God delights in mystery, just as we do. What exactly is mystery but the nature of chronological time concealing things and later revealing them?

So God sent first one angel and then many angels to a group of shepherds going about their work.  They were prompted to pivot and take pains to see God's work:

  “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” 

Then after seeing it, they spread news of the event, creating seeds of wonder in the hearts of the people.  And Mary wondered too.

Thread upon thread....I still don't feel I've come to terms with this concept of peace that BKC tossed upon my reading this morning.  But, I do feel things moving in my spirit, my heart, and am left, like the people and Mary, to store up these things in wonder and get about my day.

C. Hassell Bullock's Thoughts on Jonah

 This morning, I'm gathering the embers of my memory from reading C. Hassell Bullock's perspective on the book of Jonah.  This is an exercise of memory--imperfect, but helpful in my efforts to retain and apply what I learned.

Bullock views Jonah as a transitional prophet. He dates the book as quite old in comparison to the other literary prophets, but acknowledges other possible datings.  Jonah has aspects of the pre-literary prophets with the flashy manifestations of physical miracles--his time in the belly of the whale and deliverance, the growth of the vine.  He sees threads of Job's questioning at the end--man confronts God, and God basically blows his mind because His vision is forever grander than we can conceive, grander than our best abilities to love others and want the best for them, smashing our selfish constructs and beliefs about justice and what is right.

Bullock asserts the primary purpose of Jonah is "to affirm God's irresistible will in the world." Indeed, this dominates and ties the various pieces of narrative into a greater whole--his running, his deliverance in the whale, God's provision of the vine and provision for the people of Nineveh.  Again, His perspective is monumental, all encompassing and better than our tiny micro-constructions of  Him, of justice, of our role and outworking in His plan.

I find it interesting that Bullock asserts that the author of Jonah was skillful in his writing and narrative---unsurpassed in the OT.  This book intertwines historical narrative and events with theological truths revealed through the miracles--similar to the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.  I like the way Alexander MacLaren puts this as he makes a similar point: "He [Jonah] is a prophet of Israel, because the lesson of his history was for them, though his message was for Nineveh."  God uses one book to speak to multiple audiences for multiple purposes.

His perspective is that Jonah is eminently self-centered in his concerns. Does Jonah ever really appreciate God's mercy toward the Ninevites?  The book does, but I'm not sure Jonah transcends his selfish legalism.  Mercy is good for him but not for the heathen other.  It's similar to the prodigal son's older brother. In uncomfortable honesty, it's similar to dark feelings in my own heart as I establish my righteousness against others.

As with most things these days, I never get as far as I had hoped when beginning the entry, the task, the thought, the act.  This is a piece of the strength and weakness of maturity--just enough bread for the day but no extra. Mindfully appreciating the bread given instead of making three more loaves and feeling satisfaction at what I've done in strength and energy of youth.  Middle age must be more careful--not too much "extra" to throw against the flaws and mistakes. More careful measuring. More mindfulness as I knead today's dough, praying it is enough. 

Wading back into the prophets

I'm reading the prophets in context for a second time while blogging.  When I have a moment, I'd like to go back and revisit my impressions from last time which was April 2014.  Wow, it's been six years that I've been there--longer than I've thought.  The older I grow, the more distorted my perception of time and memory becomes.  At least I recognize this problem. One of the things abut the blog that I appreciate is that it provides a framework and touchpoint for my reading and re-reading of the scriptures.

Emerging from my study of Kings and Chronicles, my aspiration is to fit these prophets within that historical context. I've learned so much from sitting in Kings and Chronicles for months.  Here is a link to my Google slides from this period of study; honing this document has clarified how the different nations and kings interacted with God and each other.  My goal now is to fit each prophet back into this historical construction.

This time around, I'm reading C. Hassell Bullock's An Introduction the the Old Testament Prophetic Books as a companion resource. 

Bullock organizes the prophets into several categories:

Pre-literary Prophets---prophets who often worked through physical acts and whose stories are recorded in non-prophetic books)

Literary Prophets---prophets who documented their prophecies in text.  The twelve major and minor prophets that comprise the prophetic books of scripture

His other method of categorization is to divide them into three historical periods:

The Prophets of the Neo-Assyrian Period

The Prophets of the Neo-Babylonian Period

The Prophets of the Persian Period

This is particularly helpful for me in understanding their historical context and helping me de-lump them in my mind.  I know from past encounters that it's easy for me to let the "woes" predominate until they all blur together with few exceptions.

In the past, my favorite literary prophets have been Isaiah and Jeremiah.  I'm curious to see if this preference shifts or will include new favorites this time around.  My memory is that Isaiah and Jeremiah communicate pathos with penetratingly vivid imagery.  They remind me of David's psalms in their emotional immediacy--they read like the best music that bypasses the mind to speak to the heart.  Or maybe they speak to the heart and head at the same instance?  It's a blend.

Jonah is an engaging narrative--concise and full of interesting events.

Micah, although brief, again has some of this same immediacy of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Daniel, although historically clear, is grand and crazy lofty when you get away from the narrative strain---like reading Revelation, full of riddles.

And, admittedly, I remember little else. Hosea had to marry a whore. Amos was a shepherd. Ezekiel, I do not recall a single thing. 

Polishing up my thoughts regarding Jonah, I came across this comment from Alistair Begg and find it an excellent perspective on how God worked with the prophets:

"Now, each of these men, as prophets, were, if you like, in-between men. They had a responsibility to stand in between God and the day and age in which they lived. When you read the Prophets, you will discover that their personalities come through and their circumstances pervade their writings—pointing to the fact that while God’s Word, through human instrumentation, is supremely and expressly divine, that God has not picked up people and used them as a stenographer would use a typewriter. He has not used individuals as automatons, but he has taken the circumstances, the life, the background, the personality, the interests, the passions of these individuals, and coming with his Word to them and then through them, it takes into account who they are and where they’re from and the context into which they’re speaking at any given moment in time." -August 6, 2000, "The Man Who Said No"

I think we are at our best when we recognize and appreciate the individuality of others, not just folding them robotically into our plans or purposes. I love this about God; He models this in his relationship with the prophets. 

Philemon

When I think of the book of Philemon, I recall one of my students memorized it and presented it as a dramatic interpretation.  It was impressive!  Although it's only one chapter, there is something concrete about such an accomplishment that bears weight and makes an impression.

Prior knowledge: Philemon was a slave I think---or was it that Philemon had a question about a slave--Onesimus? 

When did Onesimus come up as a name?  Cotton Mather and inoculation....

Written by Paul (a prisoner for Christ Jesus) and Timothy (our brother)

Written to Philemon (our beloved fellow worker), Apphia (our sister), Archippus (our fellow soldier), AND the church in your house. 

"Apphia our sister was most likely the wife of Philemon. She may have possibly served in a semi-official position in the church in their home. “She is as much a part of the decision as her husband, because according to the custom of the time, she had day-to-day responsibility for the slaves” (Arthur A. Rupprecht, “Philemon,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 11:458).

The role of women in the early church is highly interesting to me. Paul's overall tone and diction indicates a respect for women, slaves, and all people, something that was not inherently the case or assumed later in much of the church.

BKC points out there is a close association between this and Colossians as they mention many of the same people--Archippas, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Luke, and Demas.

The Pulpit Commentary asserts it was written during a long imprisonment--either from Rome or Caesarea, although he feels the argument for Rome is strongest.

Love this prayer by Paul:

"And I am praying that you will put into action the generosity that comes from your faith as you understand and experience all the good things we have in Christ." Philemon 1:6

May our faith make us generous--as we perceive and appreciate the ways God has been generous to us.

"I wanted you to help because you were willing, not because you were forced." Philemon 1:14

Paul's tone in this letter is conciliatory, gentle, imploring.  One of the commentators mentioned that his posture is one of civility, a great example of a Christian response to untangling an issue that could cause anger or hard feelings.

He doesn't tell Philemon to free him---at least not that I can tell, leaving much liberty in his response.

"The practice of churches meeting in private homes for worship was common up to a.d. 200."  -BKC

BKC also points out that it was custom to begin correspondence, both pagan and Christian, in this era, with an expression of thanks:

"The words I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers are almost the same ones Paul used in his other prison epistles (see Eph_1:15-16; Php_1:3-4; Col_1:3-4). Paul told when he gave thanks (“always”), and to whom (“God”), and for whom (“you,” i.e., Philemon). Paul also told why (because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints)." -BKC

The specificity of Paul's thankfulness is noteworthy--not just thanks, but thanks to the living and true God.  Not just vague appreciation, but regarding specific people and for named reasons.  This seems an excellent model or "template" for inspiring focused thanksgiving. 

Titus 3

This entry is more of a marking---like making a notch on a tree to count the days.

It's been a long year with the instability of our country within the presidency of Donald Trump, enduring this pandemic. I have felt torn from our local church body by beliefs that, to me, seem out of keeping with what I understand of Christ and His kingdom.  So, I have pulled back.  I have prayed. I have read. I have studied. I have meditated upon the Westminster Catechism. I've asked many questions and received few satisfyingly clear answers.

But, Thursday morning--yesterday morning--after my Wednesday ended with the crazy images of rednecks and "thugs" storming the Capitol of our country, God gave me a solid piece that is rock hard and clear.  It comes from my Bible reading, just keeping with my progress, the next verses in the next chapter, but clearly speaking, affirming, recognizing, and clarifying all of the crap that I have seen parading as Christianity lately:

Be Ready for Every Good Work

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." Titus 3:1-8 ESV 

 The truths that shine through to me?

See people, see friendships, see individuals.  Cultivate connect and relationship. Honor each other--within the church especially, but also give honor to rulers and authorities outside of the church.  Give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  This helps me to love, to connect, to not pull back even though there are large pieces of others I don't understand and that repel me at times.

Consider my own shortcomings: "For we ourselves were once foolish....slaves to various passions and pleasures..." It's much easier to look out, harder to look in. Easier to justify my own actions and thoughts. Harder to stand outside them and question how they appear.  How they may have threads of things that need weeding out.  To be vulnerable. To feel as if I am failing.

Prepare to do good works.  It's easy to see all the not good works out there--they are rife.  My job is yes, to name and reject them as not good, but I also need to prepare to counter them with goodness.  The thought of the "common good" is something that has become foreign to our individualistic culture. But, the call clearly seems to me to seek the common good of all. What might this mean?  It definitely means the first two items above, but it may also mean other sacrifices and postures that I want and need to be open to.

What I see now is not "excellent" or "profitable" for the people around me.  Find what is excellent.  Hold fast to it. Pray for everyone and for God's will to be done.

And it all reminds me again, brings me full circle, back to the critical necessity of reading God's word, the scriptures, every day, first thing to make God a priority, to recalibrate, orient my posture to Him, to be open and listening--not to myself, not to Christian leaders, not to the winds that blow this way or that, but to God---seeking what is true, what I know, where I am given liberty and ability to work, pray, and be each day.

Titus 1--Some Questions and Answers

Yesterday I read through three chapters of Titus and hoped that my anticipatory questions would be answered.  This morning, I reviewed these questions and began re-reading just Titus 1.  In some ways, the book/letter seemed straightforward when I read it yesterday, but as I examined my questions this morning and tried to tease out direct answers, it all became more nuanced.  

Here are the questions and answers I began to work out this morning:

Q: What exactly is an elder?  Were they appointed by a committee, the congregation, or by the main leader?

Answer: The elders at Crete were appointed by Titus (Titus 1:5)---here I don't see them being chosen by the congregation.  

Answer from Believer's Bible Commentary: "It is clear that in the early church, elders were appointed by the apostles and their representatives (Act_14:23; Tit_1:5). This does not mean, however, that the apostles and their delegates had the power to make a man an elder. In order to become a bishop, there must be both divine enablement and human willingness. Only the Holy Spirit can make a man a bishop or guardian (Act_20:28), but the man must aspire to the work (1Ti_3:1). There must be this mingling of the divine and the human."

Further Question: Is there precedence elsewhere for this appointing by the congregation?

Answer from John Gill's Commentary: "What Titus was to do in this affair, was to put the churches upon looking out, and choosing from among themselves proper persons for such service, and to direct, assist, and preside at the elections and ordinations of them: for we are not to suppose, that the ordination of elders was the sole act of Titus, or alone resided in him; but in like manner as Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church, by the suffrages of the people, signified by the stretching out of their hands; in which they directed, presided, and also assisted in prayer, with fasting, Act_14:23."

Scripture: "When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they believed [and joyfully accepted as the Messiah]." Acts 14:23

Q: What exactly is an assembly of Christians?  Is there a suggested way that Christians should assemble and organize themselves?

Answer: The structure here is governance by a group of leaders selected by an apostle/higher leader of Paul.

Answer from Believer's Bible Commentary regarding the modern sense of pastor: "It is generally acknowledged that there was no such person in the early church. The primitive assemblies were composed of saints, bishops, and deacons (Php_1:1)—that is all. The clerical system did not rise until the second century."

Q: What was Titus like as a person? What were his strengths and weaknesses?

A: Paul describes him as "a genuine child" Titus 1:4 (Wuest translation),  "My true child in a common faith" (ESV)

Me: Paul considered Titus an authentic son in faith, as much as a biological son, if not more.

A: Paul trusted Titus.  He left him behind in Crete to finish what he began (Titus 1:5)

Obviously there is much, much more to think through....

Titus

Overview of Book Notes

The chronological order of the pastoral epistles is most likely:

1 Timothy abt. 65 AD

Titus abt. 66-67 AD

2 Timothy abt. 67-68 AD (written during Paul's second Roman imprisonment)

Wuest believes these three books to be written closely together in time as they share the same characteristics of style, and he holds that the style of these three are distinct from Paul's writing in the other epistles. 

Wuest also argues for two Roman imprisonments for Paul.  He believes he lived beyond his first Roman imprisonment and may have been martyred after his second.

In discussing the translation of Greek in this book, he points out that the Greek words often have multiple nuanced meanings and that all of these should be considered when interpreting this book.  Me: I wonder if the Amplified makes a point to translate and include these multiple nuanced meanings.  My guess is that it does.

Titus was a Gentile Christian leader in the early church.  Paul most likely led him to faith and counted him among his most faithful companions.  They were together at Antioch before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.  He joined Paul for this council in 49 AD and was his secretary and interpreter. Titus was sent to the Corinthian church twice. 

Context of Titus' role and connection to the Corinthians churches from Wikipedia:

"Towards the close of the year 56, Paul, as he himself departed from Asia, sent Titus from Ephesus to Corinth, with full commission to remedy the fallout precipitated by Timothy's delivery of 1 Corinthians and Paul's "Painful Visit", particularly a significant personal offense and challenge to Paul's authority by one unnamed individual. During this journey, Titus served as the courier for what is commonly known as the "Severe Letter", a Pauline missive that has been lost but is referred to in 2 Corinthians.

After success on this mission, Titus journeyed north and met Paul in Macedonia. There the apostle, overjoyed by Titus' success, wrote 2 Corinthians. Titus then returned to Corinth with a larger entourage, carrying 2 Corinthians with him. Paul joined Titus in Corinth later. From Corinth, Paul then sent Titus to organize the collections of alms for the Christians at Jerusalem. Titus was therefore a troubleshooter, peacemaker, administrator, and missionary."

After Paul was released from prison in Rome, they preached at Crete together. Titus may have been a native Cretan. 

 Paul's letter to Titus details criterion for town-level leaders of the local church, "elders," and contrasts these characteristics with those of "false teachers." It sets forth principles and characteristics of godly behavior for different age groups and genders. The second half of the book examines the interplay between grace and godly behavior.

Concept: "To be a parent of good works."  This is from E.W. Bullinger's outline.  I find the phrasing interesting...that good works are the children of faith that we are to "parent" and send forth.

Wuest points out that in the Greek language, the nouns "pastors and teachers" are constructed in such a way that the second noun (teachers) is a further elaboration on the first noun (pastors) and not a separate concept.  So, being a pastor is to be a teacher.  Also, the Greek word for pastor means shepherd, so he should be a shepherd "who always leads his flock, never driving it."

Role of pastor per v 12:

Perfect saints--"perfect" has four different meanings in Greek. The sense of this one is to "equip to do a specific work."

Do the work of the ministry--ministry here means "rendering of service"

To edify the body .

Wuest connects all three of these roles and asserts that a pastor is to be a specialist who perfects saints by equipping them to render service which will edify the body, "instead of being a superintendent of an old people’s rest home, he would be nurturing a beehive of activity."  The pastor's role is to nurture the congregation to service.