The Gospel of the Kingdom (Part 1)

This may come as a surprise to some but the concept of salvation in the old testament was not primarily concerned with the idea of an escape to heaven. Salvation in the Old Testament was about deliverance from one's enemies (Exodus 14:30-31), covenantal relationship (Deut 28:1-2,15), forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 4:26), and restoration and renewal (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Humans chosen by God could only be confident in the Salvation that come from the Lord alone (Psalm 62:1-2), that he is trustworthy and we need not be afraid (Isaiah 12:2), and instead might take joy in the God of our salvation (Habakkuk 3:18), just as he delights in that which he has saved (Zephaniah 3:17).

Salvation then is a beautiful and multifaceted thing. There are both material and spiritual ways in which the Lord intervenes in human history for the purposes of life preservation.

Yet salvation, once the concern for the preservation of life now, has over time come to be replaced with the concern that the individual is right with God, and knows where they are going when they die. A subtle move from salvation as a gracious act of mercy by a benevolent God to the helpless individual, to something now contingent upon the individuals agency. The primary goal of salvation, according to this perspective, is hell avoidance with Jesus as the means to mans salvific end.

This has never sat comfortably with me. I find it too simplistic. Jesus spoke more about living life in the present, and the realisation of the Kingdom of God, than he has done about eschatological events. Whilst Jesus does address eschatological themes in his teachings what Jesus actually taught was focussed on the practical aspects of daily living.

To those who would believe in him, Jesus was clear that it was necessary to inhabit his word [logos]; to 'abide' in the present before one could even consider calling oneself his disciple (John8:31-32). This was necessary to not only truly be his disciple but to know the truth; through confrontation with the realisation of the logos of Christ¹.

It is true that Paul urges us to set our minds on the things above (Col 3:1-4), but this is not a call to disengage from all earthly interactions and responsibilities. The purpose of the Christian life is not an escape to heaven, but the realisation of heaven on earth; "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." (Matthew 6:10)

1 Samuel Chapter 11 (Salvation)

Summary

Nahash King of Ammon besieges Jabesh-Gilead in north western Israel, its inhabitants sought terms for surrender, but were told by Nahash that they had a choice of death by sword or having their right eyes gouged out. They are granted seven days to make a decision and seek assistance before they would have to submit to the terms of surrender.

The town's inhabitants seek help from the people of Israel, sending messengers throughout the whole region. Saul is moved by the spirit of God and responds by raising an army which decisively defeated Nahash and his cohorts at Bezek. After the war is over, the Israelites assemble at Gilgal to renew Saul's kingship over Israel.

Meditatio

Saul leads the people of Israel in a decisive victory against the Ammonites. This feature of Sauls ministry (?) was foretold by Samuel back in Chapter 10¹. This victory is inspired by the surrounding nations attempting to bring disgrace to Israel, and the Lords concern with the preservation of his people. Through Saul the Lord brings about their physical Salvation from bodily mutilation and disgrace. This passage has highlighted for me a concern I continue to wrestle with: salvation. So please allow me a tangential indulgence.

Now salvation is a tricky word in scripture. Within the OT, salvation was from ones enemies. Many have read the OT with the evangelical NT lens that has caused them to interpret scripture in a very different fashion. One that see's a foreshadowing of salvation in the new testament. Certainly there are thematic anticipations elsewhere, but I think it's important to recognise OT thinkers didn't have this in mind when writing about the Lords salvation. Indeed it is fairly apparent that verse 13 salvation meant material preservation of one's life.

Within the evangelical circles I frequent, salvation has a very particular meaning. Traditionally individuals are seen as being saved by grace through faith² from their sins to escape eternal punishment. This is then referred to as the good news or Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have also found this perspective maintains a distinctly anthropocentric view of Jesus death burial and resurrection; with sole purpose of his existence to serve this salvific needs of man.

My problem with this is twofold:

1. Jesus does not preach the good news of heaven, he preaches he good new of the Kingdom. This is an important distinction
2. Jesus teachings were not concerned with a future eschatological event but on an eschatological reality. The Kingdom has been realised

I realise we have gone off track considerably but let's keep going and try to define this problem as clearly as we can. If you will excuse the neologism I think branding may help to distinguish between the viewpoints. The former I will call the gospel of salvation and the latter the gospel of the kingdom.

The Gospel of Salvation deals only with salvation for your soul. It is concerned with hell avoidance and the focus is on winning souls for Christ. The Gospel of the Kingdom on the other hand deals with all things that are no affected by the cross including salvation and the reconciliation of all things all things³, including the material world that was lost in the fall. For me the gospel of salvation is incomplete. It fails to capture the full extent of Christs work on the cross.

Throughout scripture heaven is indicated to be the residence of God. In contrast the earth is presented as the domain of man corrupted by sin; a place whose inhabitants cannot bear the glory of God without dying. John writes that Jesus “dwelt” among us — he pitched his tent and tabernacled among us⁴. In Christ, a piece of sinful earth was fully, utterly, and totally redeemed something he indicates we should replicate. For what once was only spirit will now forever have a body of the flesh of the earth⁵.

I need to do some work on this so may take a break from Samuel to explore this idea a little further.

1 Samuel Chapter 10

Summary

Samuel anoints Saul King of Israel and prophesies what is about to happen to him. Saul is given another heart by God and all the signs come to pass with Saul prophesying amongst those at Gibeah. Saul relates all to his uncle about what Samuel has said with the exception of his anointing as King.

Samuel calls all the people together at Mizpah where lots are drawn to decide upon the new king. The tribe of Benjamin is taken, the clan of the Matrites then Saul the son of Kish is taken. But when he is sought after he cannot be found and is hiding amongst the baggage. Eventually Saul is proclaimed King and the people rejoice. Samuel outlines the rules for the King and the people leave, with some rejecting Saul as King.

Meditatio

What is interesting to me in this passage is the sequence of events that leads to Saul's appointment. Firstly there was an anointing by Samuel; this is the selection by God. Whilst God is unhappy about the rejection of the Israelites¹, and demands they present themselves before him, he will not relinquish his position as sovereign. He rules over Israel and will decide who the leadership will be. This selection is symbolic and foretells Saul's appointment as King.

Next it is necessary that the people select the King. In this situation the tribes draw lots seemingly at random. Nevertheless events are guided such that the People are led to see the Lords intention that Saul is appointed as King. Saul is elevated to a position of honour from a position of dishonour and his legitimacy before God and Man is established.

Another necessary event is Saul's acceptance of the role he has been called to play. It is easy to laugh at Saul's concealment amongst the 'baggage', but we should remind ourselves this is a transition of power. The stakes here are high; specifically the entire kingdom. Saul in accepting this role is going to need to say goodbye to a former lifestyle and hello to others perpetually attempting to steal this from him. A forever risk of death, indeed I'm not sure would be a sacrifice I could make.

Finally there is realisation of his role as King. Whilst in the previous section Saul has had to realise, in the sense of gained increasing awareness, of his God appointed role role. He has been appointed by God, accepted by Man, reconciled his relationship to the role himself before finally proceeding to realise it in the other sense of the word. Saul's inauguration as King which is characterised by the acceptance of some and the rejection of others should not surprise us. It seems to be a fairly normative of any transition of power.

1 Samuel Chapter 9

Summary

Saul runs an errand for his father seeking lost donkey's in the wilderness arriving eventually coming to the land of Zuph and needing to return home. Saul is persuaded by his servant to first visit the man of God to seek guidance on the way we should go. Prior to his arrival the Lord reveals to Samuel that Saul is to be the anointed king of Israel.

Saul arrives and Samuel reveals the Donkey that he seeks have been found and honours Saul by seating him at the head of the table. Saul doubts Samuels intentions given he is of the humblest of all the tribes. Samuel is given a place of honour and the choice cut of meat. Saul eats with Samuel then sleeps overnight on the roof before being sent on his way

Meditatio

Several things have struck me about this passage. Firstly the journey to the land of Zuph and the servants statement that he and Saul should delay returning home because of the presence of the man of God and that perhaps he can tell us the way we should go. Given that Saul had proposed they return to his father the implication is that the route home is not what is meant by the way. So what is meant by this?

There are several possibilities here. Perhaps the Lord has spoken to or influenced the servant (how does he have knowledge of the man of God here after all?). As such this may just be the Lord drawing Saul into the right place at the right time so that he can ultimately be blessed and anointed by Saul in Chapter 10.

Perhaps there was some premeditation to this attempt to bring Saul to the man of God? None of this, of course, is clarified by the text and is pure speculation. What is clear is this has been some journey and there is a need to find the way.

So let's ask ourselves what way does Samuel actually show Saul? Here's a few thoughts that emerge from the passage...

1. Firstly that the Lord has engineered the entire situation to bring him to this position. The Donkeys are safe Samuel reveals and have been found. Why then this whole adventure? What a waste of time right? Wrong, this entire situation has occurred to bring Saul to the right place at the right time.
2. Saul is to commune with Samuel in the high place. There is to be an ascension to a position of honour not because of Sauls beauty¹ but because God has decided upon it. There is commentary here of the authority and sovereignty of God to appoint and decide
3. Saul despite being of the humblest tribe of the humblest clan has been chosen; consistent with the Lord's tendency to invert the social hierarchy. The Lord works as the Lord wills, and this is part of the fulfilment of that prophetic song in Chapter 2².

What do I take away from this passage? Sometimes the Lord goes to great lengths to draw someone to himself, to elevate them to a position of honour they have no right nor claim to hold. This is merely the Lord being the Lord. That all blessing, honour and glory be given to him. The inversion of the Social Hierarchy is a consistent pattern picking the barren to father a nation, slaves to be a chosen people and a king to rule the nation from the humblest tribe.

1 Samuel Chapter 8

Summary

Samuel is ageing and his sons are not walking in the way of the Lord but accepting bribes and perverting justice. The elders visit Samuel at home and demand appointment of a king on behalf of the people. Samuel checks this out with the Lord who notes this is not a rejection of Samuel but of the Lord himself.

Samuel is advised to warn the people that they will be given what they have asked for but this will be costly. Samuel warns the people that this will not be as they imagine, but eventually they will cry out against the tyranny of the King. Yet despite this warning the people 'refused to obey Samuel'. So Samuel heeds the words of God who consents to appointment of the tyrant

Meditato

There are some interesting parallels here between Samuel 8 and Samuel 2. Both include men appointed by God to minister before the Lord and judge Israel who fail to raise sons to walk in the ways of the Lord. Both sets of sons take bribes and pervert justice. Given Eli was a kind of surrogate father for Samuel it does make you wonder if this was directly inherited; generationally piss poor parenting.

Yet perhaps there is more to this than we first consider. There is no indication that the failure for Samuels son's to walk in his way is of Samuels doing. Verse 3 points out that his sons did not walk in his ways and as such there is some suggestion that the mistake is their own.

2:22 suggests some level of complicity with what is taking place. Where Eli is conscious of the corruption of his sons but is unwilling or unable to address this. When he actually does his attempt does not resolve the situation and he is ignored. We do not see such an attempt with Samuel who as far as we can tell is only made conscious of the sins of his Children when the elders of Israel gather (although we do not know this).

This passage also outlines Israels rejection of that which makes them distinct as a people; namely their chosenness. Israel have been chosen and set apart to live lives distinct from those of the people around them. Yet they desire to live just like those around them. It is a fundamental rejection of their identity and calling in God. What made Israel distinct from other nations was that they alone were chosen by God.

1 Samuel Chapter 7

Summary

The Ark of the covenant is brought up to the house of Abinadab and his son Eleazar consecrated to have charge of the Ark. all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord. Samuel commands Israel to assemble at Mizpah where they pray and fast and Samuel judges Israel.

The Philistines seek to attack Israel at Mizpah but Samuel offers a burnt offering and the Lordthundered with a mighty sound which caused confusion and won Israel the battle as the men leave Mizpah and pursue the Philistines as far as Beth-car.

Samuel sets up a memorial called Ebenezer (stone of help) given until this point the Lord has helped. The Philistines are subdued and do not enter Israel again. Samuel continues to judge all Israel.

Meditatio

In response to twenty years in which the house of Israel lamentation after the Lord Samuel is sent to lead Israel in an act of corporate repentance. Let's take a moment to just reflect on that sentence. Twenty years. That is some serious time lapse in which we are told the House of Israel has lamented after the Lord.

Firstly through Samuel the people are challenged to examine their motives. If you are returning. Not when, or now you are returning. The first challenge is one in which the people of God must examine their hearts and decided upon their true intent, to return to the Lord.

Secondly once the heart has been examined it is necessary to consider the what actions are necessary to remedy the current situation. In Samuel 6 we are told it is necessary to put away the foreign gods. The ideas and principles that distract or draw us away from the transcendent ideal. There is much that can distract us from pursuit of God; so it is necessary to evaluate what it is that causes our attention to wander.

Thirdly there is action. The people of Israel act to put away the false Gods and serve the Lord only. There is a cost to the decision to return to the things of God, that is more than an evaluation of ones position, and consideration of what distracts. There is necessary action.

Today this might mean walking away from ideas that are of interest but are perhaps unhelpful. It may mean things we watch, relationships we enjoy or even activities in our local Church. It is far easier to occupy oneself with religious activity than it is to live distinctly and to work on one's character.

1 Samuel Chapter 6

Summary

The Philistines return the Ark of the Covenant to the people of Israel on a cart led by two Cows that had just given birth and alongside gifts of five golden rats and five golden tumours that represent the five Philistine settlements. As the Ark returns directly to the people of Israel the Philistine's are satisfied the troubles are directly from the God of Israel

There is much rejoicing by the people of Beth-shemesh in Israel because of the return of the Ark of the covanent, however the same carelessness that lost them the Ark results in the death of 50 men as many look into the Ark of the covenant. It is at this point that the people of Beth-shemesh contact the people of Kiriath-jearim for assistance where the Ark will eventually remain for around 120 years.

Meditatio

The Philistines have suffered significantly with plagues of rats and tumours that have ravaged the land. They are advised by spiritual advisors to create Golden statues of the rats and tumours. In this way the 'suffering' they have experienced at the hands of the people of Israel is elevated to the highest place. By creating such gifts for Israel there is a humility that recognises the value of their chastisement.

We observe here the Philistines make a guilt offering to the Lord¹ sending a cart and two cows for sacrifice. The people making use of such providence upon the return of the Ark to Israel. You would think at this point the people of Israel would have demonstrated caution and restraint. They had lost the Ark to the Philistines who have sinces returned this because of horrific plagues that it has brought upon their people.

Instead Israel continues to demonstrate the same folly as before with a number of men daring to look inside the Ark. This lack of reverence for the Lord God is almost charateristic of Israel at this point. The rebellious and sinful nature of man is revealed again as wanting and in need of the mercy and grace of God.

The men then at Beth-shemesh take the same line as the Philistines; this box is Holy we are not how can we get rid of it? They appeal to the people of another city to come and claim the Ark. This is another pattern that we observe in scripture; that of the people of God's desire for mediation. God is Holy so Moses can talk to him for us; God is Holy so we will speak with someone else thank you very much.

1 Samuel Chapter 5

Summary

The Philistines capture the Ark and bring it to Ashdod where it causes the statue of Dagon to fall face down before the Ark and eventually loosing it's hands and head. The people of Ashdod are also terrified and afflicted with tumours until they gather the Lords of the Philistines and send the Ark to Gath.

After it is taken to Gath the same thing happens to the people of the city who then then forward the Ark once again to Ekron. Ekron panics and sends away the Ark yet those who did not die are struct with tumours and the cry of Ekron goes up to heaven.

Meditatio

This is a tale of three cities. Ashdod, Gath and Ekron. Ashdod and Ekron were both coastal cities and therefore likely important centres for trade. Gath was slightly inland but still considered to be part of the Philistine Pentapolis (five city-states of the Philistines) and an important area of fertile land situated between the coast and the hill country.

The Philistines themselves are believed to have diverse origins as 'sea peoples' that had plagued much of the Eastern Mediterranean. Following an unsuccessful attack on Egypt where Ramesses III defeated a significant invasion force many of the peleset were relocated to southern Canaan where they settled and are believed to have built the five key cities including Ashdod, Ashkelon Ekron, Gath and Gaza. The Philistines eventually disappear from history following the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar II and the Babylonian Empire.

With regards to the worship of Dagon, we should note that Dagon was a deity associate with fertility and prosperity. There is little information to suggest how the worship of Dagon occurred but it is acknowledged that he was a popular diety, considered to be a father of the gods and appearing in many of the Mediterranean cultures history.

What struck me about this chapter is the last part of verse 3. So they took Dagon and put him back in his place. In the ancient world mans relationship with the Gods was transactional. There was no personal or intimate relationship with the transcendent. One merely did what was right and proper in the hope this might appease the Gods and find favour and prosperity.

Dagon is clearly a part of this world. He has his place within the life of the Philistines. The Lord however does not. He has not chosen the Philistines and indeed as we have seen in the last chapter is unwilling to be anyone's trophey. This is initially demonstrated through the desecration of the statue of Dagon; something which was a clear challenge to the power of Dagon. The head and hands of a statue represent the deities ability to see, hear and act.

Yet doesn't this seem strange to you? why would the Lord permit the death of 30,000 men and then only act when taken into the place of worship where Dagon might be found? Well if we consider verse 3 it is clear the Philistines relate to the divine instrumentally. Which is something we saw in Chapter 4 the Lord does not take kindly too. So let's think this through. For the Philistines the presence of Ark as well as a great political and psychological victory over Israel would also be a demonstration of the might and supreme power of Dagon. This is something the Lord cannot tolerate and so Dagon is made to bow before finally being desecrated.

Interestingly when viewed from a different angle we might say that this is demonstrable evidence that Israel had become corrupted by the surrounding nations and the influence of ideas from foreign lands. Rather than pursuant of their own unique identity bestowed upon the by the Lord they seek to demonstrate their mastery over the Lord.

1 Samuel Chapter 4

Summary

Israel go out to battle the Philistines between Ebenezer and Aphek and are defeated. They bring into the battle the Ark of the covenant, but are once again defeated by the Philistines with 30,000 soldiers killed and also the deaths of Eli's sons Hophni and Phinehas. The Ark is lost.

A man of Benjamin runs from the battle line with torn clothes and dirt on his head. Eli is informed of the death of his sons and the loss of the Ark and dies following a fall. His daughter-in-law goes into labour upon hearing of the death of Eli and his Sons naming her son Ichabod just before she too dies.

Meditatio

We read in Chapter 2 how Eli's sons are corrupt. Failing to follow the proscribed order for sacrifices. Instead taking the finest portions of meat by force for their own personal benefit before the appropriate rituals are completed. These son's of Eli have demonstrated real contempt for the sacrifices of the Lord and their own role as spiritual role models ministering before the Lord.

Phinehas and Hophni in this way view the Lord as a means to an end [tool], rather than an end in himself [person]. When this is the absolute state of the religious leadership, perhaps we should not be so surprised when we observe the same behaviour within the people. In my reading of this particular passage what has really struck me here is the significance of this spiritual principle at play.

With regards to death tolls; It's easy to gloss over numbers like this. It is very difficult to imagine what the loss of 30,000 men would look like¹ but I do not think it unreasonable to speculate that few from Israel would have been left unscathed. We can only imagine how many families devastated, children made fatherless and new windows such a number represents.

As far as I can tell verse 3 is key to sense making for this passage so Let's take a look at some distinct translations and see what is going on here...

• ...Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, that it may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies. ESV
• Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, that he may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies. RSV
• ...Let’s bring the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord from Shiloh. If we carry it into battle with us, it[a] will save us from our enemies. NLT
• ... Let us bring the ark of the Lord’s covenant from Shiloh, so that he may go with us and save us from the hand of our enemies. NIV

It seems to me that Israel as a nation has fallen foul of spiritual misalignment and a loss of identity. There is a failure to remember the Lord God of Israel or the nature of it's relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Recalling the events of Genesis 32, Jacob is blessed with the name Israel because he has striven (ESV / RSV), fought (NLT), wrestled (NIV) with God and with men and had prevailed (ESV / RSV) won(NLT), overcome (NIV). Yet we read here that the Israelites do not overcome the Philistines.

The identity that the Lord has given to Israel, is one which requires Israel to actively contend with the things of God and Men. Israel is called to action not apathy. In the case of Eli and his sons we see that this has entirely been lost. Eli when confronted with the sins and corruption his sons have brought to the temple fails to deal with this. Even prophetic utterances about the pending destruction of his lineage cannot motivate him to action. Eli will not wrestle with God or Men.

As such on Eli's watch corruption seeps into the priesthood and there is a failure to treat as Holy that which is Holy. This is a recurrent pattern and a clear sign of the religious spirit. one that neglects the Holiness of God. In each case the Lord responds by removing his presence and the honour that he bestows. The Lord will not be treated as a means to an end; he is not a tool for the Glory of man. As such the Ark which is the physical manifestation of presence of God with Israel is taken from them by their enemies.

Weaved into this pattern we also encounter the fulfilment of the curse brought upon the house of Eli²; Hophni, Phineas, his wife and Eli all pass before the chapter is concluded. That Phinehas' wife lives long enough to name her son Ichabod is poetic to say the least. Through apathy and indifference to the things of God the presence and Glory of God departed and Israel gives birth to only departed Glory

Holy Father, seated in the highest place of honour. Please save us from our own apathy and indifference; may we honour and treat with due respect that which belongs to you. May we know by your blessing, grace and mercy what it means to wrestle with you and overcome.

1 Samuel Chapter 3

Summary

The word of the Lord was rare in the days that Samuel was ministering to the Lord in the presence of Eli. Yet the Lord calls Samuel on three occasions and each time Samuel mistakes this for Eli. Perceiving (eventually) that the Lord was calling Samuel, Eli provides direction for Samuel who then receives words from the Lord concerning what He is about to do among the people and the future of the house of Eli. Samuel communicates this to Eli who is resigned to this being his houses future. Samuel in contrast grows and is established as a Prophet of the Lord.

Meditatio

Eli's blindness is contrasted strongly with the sight and perception of Samuel. Samuel on three occasions mistakenly takes the Lords voice for that of Eli and given the absence of visions or revelation of God within this time it takes Eli a considerable amount of time to finally recognise this to be the voice of God.

Perception is a recurrent theme within this passage with notion of things being seen or hidden or yet to be revealed. Reviewing the most common we observe there was no frequent vision[v1], Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim [v2], The lamp of God had not yet gone out [v3], the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed [v6], Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the boy [v8], the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord. [v21]

The corruption of the priesthood in Israel at this point is such that in those days rare was the revelation of Yahweh. Considered tropologically then, the barrenness spoken of in earlier chapters is not limited to one womans social stigma arising from an inability to bear children. But the very people of God's ability to perceive what God has called them too.

Yet there is a strand of hope that runs throughout this narrative that is emergent from the heartfelt expression of women who knew the shame of her barrenness. Whilst to our modern sensibilities this might seem offensive, we should not let the significance of this pass us by. The religious hierarchy is corrupt to the point is neither listens nor is moved by it's own destruction (see v18).

Yet one woman recognises her barrenness, and through supplication to the Lord in his faithfulness will bears the line which will restore Israel to it's former glory. Not through her loins mind, but through the words of her progeny that the Lord will let none fall to the ground and will eventually lead to the appointment of Saul and David during the golden era of Israel.

1 Samuel Chapter 2 (Part 2)

Summary

Eli's sons treat the sacrifice of the people with contempt failing to give to the Lord what it is his and taking from the people the choice parts of the sacrifice by force. Later Eli rebukes his sons but they would not listen to the voice of their father and as such a Man of God visits Eli and claims that the Lord will cut him off and raise instead a faithful priest.

Samuel is ministering before the Lord and his mother attends annually to make the sacrifice brining a robe for Samuel whilst he ministers before the Lord. Eli asks for blessing on Elkanah and his wife that she will bear him children and she does three sons and two daughters. Samuel continue to grow both in stature and favour with the Lord and man.

Meditatio

There is a clear attempt to contrast the actions of the son's of Eli and Samuel. Whilst the son's of Eli are treating the offering of the Lord with contempt Samuel is quietly ministering before the Lord. Whilst the son's of Eli are falling out of favour with the people Samuel is in contrast growing in favour. This leads to the fulfilment of the bargain struck by Hannah; that her shame would be removed and her firstborn would serve the Lord.

Whilst through many son's Eli has shame and calamity brought upon his own household, yet Hannah through one son has her barrenness and shame lifted. Almost in prophetic fulfilment of 2:5. It is clear that actions have severe consequences particularly those that treat something that is holy as profane. This is precisely the same anger we see in Christ; such zeal for the house of the Lord.

Apologia

This evening marks 24 hours nicotine free. Other than the strong urge to use e-liquid with nicotine side effects have been limited. The main issue has been difficulties with concentration and irritability. For this reason I found today reading particularly difficult. I hope that effects will be notably lessened over time and I will be able to resume my reflections shortly.

1 Samuel Chapter 2 (Part 1)

Summary

Hannah prays to the lord rejoicing in her salvation and exultation. Emphasising the holiness of God and the need for man's humility. The lord as Judge and the inverter of circumstance. The lord as the source of life and death, wealth and poverty; because the pillars of the earth are the Lord. Hannah concludes pointing out that he will guard the feet of his faithful ones and break to pieces his adversaries. Concluding that the Lord will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.

Meditatio

The first thing that strikes me from this passage is the use of the imagery of the horn. Why a horn? One suggestion is that the metaphorical value of the horn comes primarily from the fact that the size and condition of an animal’s horns are indicative of its power, status and health...In general, horn represents power or status in a social context. ¹.

So we see from Hannah's expression of worship the recognition that her social status has changed and this is entirely a gift of God. The barrenness that once plagued her life is no longer a reality. This prayer is an honest expression of praise and worship that acknowledges God for his central role in brining transformation to her circumstances.

There is a recognition that God is instrumental in bringing about the inversion of circumstance. The bows of the mights are broken, but the feeble bind on strength, those who were full must work for bread whilst those hungry cease to hunger. These inversions lead up to the clear pronouncement that the pillars of the earth are the lords and one them he has set the world. A clear emphasis on the sovereignty of God.

This passage employs some beautiful parallelism. A careful reading notes a few interesting points here. The feeble bind on strength and the barren has bourne seven. Not that the feeble are given strength, or the barren has children raised from the very stones at her feet or some other source. This is interesting given it suggests there is the possibility for participation within the sovereignty of God. Yet the text is clear in the vast majority of circumstances these are simply down the pleasure and will of the Lord.

Perhaps my favourite verse in all scripture is v8, because it so wonderfully captures the nature and character of the God of possibility. Raising those from a place of dishonour to a place of honour simply because he can. Freedom from barrenness in our lives is possible through the one who is the horn of our salvation. The one who has the capacity to exalt and humble. Yet it is not through his own capacity that man will achieve this (although he may as we have seen have a part to play). The judge of all the earth will give strength and exalt the horn of his anointed.

1 Samuel Chapter 1

Summary

In the hill country of Ephraim lived Elkanah who had two wives, Peninnah and Hannah. The former had many children whereas the latter had none but was 'loved' by Elkanah and as such there was rivalry between the women. Annually Elkanah would go up to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to God and during one such trip Hannah prays to God for a son

Observed by Eli the priest she is blessed by the priest who mistakenly considers her to be drunk before leaving on her way. Some years later Hannah conceives a child and once he is weaned is brought by Hannah to serve the Lord. He is named Samuel and worships the Lord in Shiloh.

Meditatio

Parts that struct me include the rivalry between Hannah and Peninnah. Rivalry is a translation of the word צָֽרָתָהּ֙ which points to the distress or afliction caused by the tension between the women from Hannah's Barrenness and Peninnah's taunting. Such rivalry between women is thematic within scripture and was present within the account of Sarah and Hagar¹.

Hannah's barrenness is a source of shame to her and has detrimental effects on her marital relationship leading Elkanah at one point question his value to her. Interestingly the Hebrew word ט֣וֹב appears which is also present within Genesis 1 where God creates the world and observes it was or is good. Hannah's shame and discontent with how creation has been structured reveals alienation not only from her husband but also the good nature of creation itself.

This source of alienation leads to an encounter with Eli the priest in which her fervour is mistaken for intoxication. To the point where Hannah feels it necessary to seek favour, empathy and validation in the eyes of Eli. Yet the answer to prayer is not immediate as we can see in v20. 'In due time' is an easy phrase to gloss over. Yet she has brought her burden before the Lord and is able to leave and resume the activities of daily living in v18.

Elkanah then 'knew' Hannah, the phrase also indicative of the ways in which Adam and his sons knew their wives and conceived children. This is evidence of the redemptive power of God and a foreshadowing of the redemption of all creation.

1 Thessalonians Chapter 5

Summary

Paul points out that the Thessalonians are aware that the Lord will return unexpectedly, so to live in accordance with this reality as children of light not children of darkness. God has destined those he calls not for wrath but salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul asks the Thessalonians to respect those who labour in the Lord and discipline the, and to esteem them highly being at peace. Paul urge patience for all not returning evil for evil but doing good to everyone. Rejoicing and praying without ceasing, holding fast to the good and abstaining from evil.

Imagery and themes

This chapter has a clear eschatological edge to it, there is a clear emphasis that the Thessalonians should live in the 'immanence' of Christ's anticipated return. This includes a reiteration of the early instructions we heard in the book to live in an exemplary fashion characterised by faith, love, hope and patience.

This life of moderation is contrasted with those who are given over to intoxication using night and day an an analogy of the distinction between those who are called and those 'outside'. Faith and love are pictured as a breastplate guarding the heart and other vital organs for the preservation of the believer. Whilst hope is a helmet preventing the loss of the individuals cognitive faculties.

Verse 10 is interesting given it notes 'that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him'. Suggesting that there are some who will miss this point to walk in the light and will instead walk in darkness. Yet the mercy of God is still sufficient to guarantee their salvation. God is evidently more merciful than we would consider responsible.

In concluding this book what is interesting is what is not offered as a directive to the Thessalonians. There is no prompting or urgency towards the 'preaching' of the Gospel message. Pauls message is entirely concerned with the character and sanctification of those he is writing to. Indeed he charges the Thessalonians to ensure this letter is ready by all the brothers.

1 Thessalonians Chapter 4

Summary

Paul urgest the Thessalonians to walk in such a way that pleases God for the will of God is their sanctification. That they would abstain from sexual immorality, know how to control their bodies and passions. God has called us to holiness not impurity and whoever disregards this, disregards God who gives his spirit.

Paul commends the Thessalonians for their brotherly love and urges them to mind their own affairs and to work dilligently before 'outsiders' dependent upon no one. Paul encourages them that the Lord will return again and those that have 'fallen asleep' are not lost but will rise first and those who are left will meet with the Lord and be like him.

Imagery and themes

Let's read this passage through the lens of the distinct forms of love we discussed in the previous chapter. First there is a clear warning against unbridled desire and lust (perhaps this might be considered the possession or negative form of eros) in v3. Next we see the use of philadelphias and agapan in v9 where the context is that there is no need for instruction in Phila given the Thessalonians have been taught by God that they might agape one another.

I certainly can't be sure that the words that appear to be derivative above are indeed derivative. I'm no greek scholar. But it certainly seems to be the case that once again all four loves are present within this passage.

It is interesting here the clear emphasis on the process of sanctification rather than perpetuation and expression of the message. Paul's understand of the transmission of the gospel is less of the Mathew 28 'disciple maker' and more the Acts 1 'being witness' with the clear emphasis being the transformation of the individual for the purpose of 'walking properly'. This is seemingly achieved through arresting the form of love that seeks to consume and instead fostering the forms of love that seek to cooperate or give of oneself.

This is apparently achieved through the avoidance of porneias (fornication, whoredom, idolitary), cultivation of eidenai (know [how]) that the individual might 'control the vessel of himself', and avoid being caught up in the passion of epithymias (desire). So then to walk properly before those outside and avoiding dependency upon others there is a need to avoid the passions that consume and to cultivate the kind of knowledge (procedural rather than propositional knowledge) necessary for self control.

Paul is clear that holiness is the charge placed upon believers and the purpose for which God has called us out of darkness into his Kingdom. We should therefore be seeking to cultivate holiness within out lives. To disregard this is not to simply ignore the teachings of Paul but to disregard God himself.

1 Thessalonians Chapter 3

Summary

Paul points out that Timothy was sent to establish the church and to strongly encourage them in the faith. It was made clear by Paul during his stay that affliction is part of course with regards to faith in Christ and this has now become reality for the Thessalonians. Paul finds it reassuring that the reports from Timothy are that the believers have not been tempted to abandon the faith, and the labour for the hearts of the Thessalonians was not in vain.

Paul notes that this brings comfort to him and those that attended to the Thessalonians; there is much thankfulness and desire to see the church once again. Paul prays that there would be opportunity for him to return and that the Thessalonians would continue to abound in love for each other that God may establish their hearts 'blameless in holiness'

Imagery and themes

Again we see Paul the concerned good Father expressing his concern for the welfare of one of the churches for which he feels a strong sense of responsibility. He has sent Timothy back to the church to establish the current state of play concerned that with tribulation many would have fallen away, yet the reports back from Timothy are evidently reassuring.

We can see the extent to which Paul is invested whole heartedly through lines such as For now we live, if you are standing fast in the Lord. Which in other translations includes now we really live. One might consider for a moment here that Paul has perhaps overstepped the mark here. God surely is his source of life not the result of his Labour?

Perhaps a clue to this in the next verse where Paul points out For what thanks giving can we return to God for you...as we pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith?. It is thanks giving for Paul that is the source of life. Yet for Paul thanks giving and labour are evidently intertwined. Paul here is pouring himself out and at the same time labouring to pour himself out.

Interestingly there is also a connection between abounding in love [agape] and holiness made by Paul here. It's helpful for us to revisit the conceptions of love used in Greek which have such a greater depth than our own casual use of the word¹:

• Eros [passion] is the love that seeks to unify itself through consumption; we seek to take into ourselves and become 'at one' with the focus of our desire. This can be in the spiritual sense (at one with nature), or physical sense (sexual intercourse or even eating Pizza)
• Philia [friendship] is the love that seeks to reciprocate; a deep and meaningful connection between individuals in which there is love, trust and mutual respect. This is typically through friendships and acquaintances we form with others.
• Agape [selfless] is the love that seeks to give unconditionally of itself. It is the kind of love that was powerful enough to turn us each of us from non-verbal, incontinent, unregulated eating machines barely able to lift our own heads into fully fledged persons.

I love country music, my wife, my children and chicken vindaloo in distinct ways. Indeed it would be unimaginable (and likely painful) to love chicken vindaloo in the same way I would my wife, or visa versa. As such its important when coming across 'love' in any scriptural sense to grasp the form used. Here we see it's not just the reciprocal opening of friendship.

Paul here is talking about how the costly love of giving of oneself unconditionally is one way to permit the Lord to prepare hearts blameless in holiness. There is no mention here of adherence to any moral code or values. Just sacrificial and costly giving of oneself. It's subtle points like this that make the gospel so controversial.

1 Thessalonians Chapter 2

Summary

Paul points out that despite suffering for doing so he and his companions declared the gospel boldly, not in an attempt to deceive but as those sent by God. Not to attain the approval of men but as a nursing mother taking care of her own. In the process the Thessalonians became very important to Paul et al. Indeed he longs to see them again.

The Thessalonians themselves are witnesses to the blameless conduct of Paul and his companions. Paul charges the Thessalonians to walk in a manner worthy of God, becoming imitators of the churches in Judea. Paul gives thanks that they heeded the word of God brought to them acknowledging the suffering they have experienced at the hands of those who killed Christ and the Prophets.

Imagery and themes

Within this chapter Paul is offering reassurances to the Thessalonians, and it's not hard to see why this might be necessary. Paul has been compelled to leave suddenly, and he has clear fondness a love for the church in Thessalonia. The hostile political climate towards him has likely done considerable character demolition and indeed there is every possibility that even some believers may have questioned his motives.

Paul therefore appeals to the manner in which he has approached the Thessalonians with the gospel. He did not preach a message that sought to elevate himself or to please those in power. Indeed if this was a power play then he has ultimately failed in his mission. Instead it was done to demonstrate the sincere love and care of God.

Paul offers two direct instructions (1) to walk in a manner worthy of God who calls them into his kingdom, and (2) to become imitators of the churches in Judea. The first being a clear instruction to recognise that the moral life they are called to is important. The later seemingly to suggest imitation in relation to how these churches have addressed suffering.

1 Thessalonians Chapter 1

Summary

Paul, Silvanus¹ and Timothy greet the Church. Paul offers high praise for their faith, labour of love and steadfastness. Pointing out that the Lord has chosen them and that there has been genuine transformation. Paul praises the Thessalonians for imitating the example of those who brought the message highlighting that been many positive reports of their exemplary lives. Paul highlights just how far the Thessalonians have come from worshipping idols to waiting for the Son of the living and true God.

Imagery and themes

Faith, hope and love are recurrent theological virtues referred to by Paul and others throughout the new testament². The Thessalonians here are praised for (a) their work of faith, labour of love, and steadfastness of hope. The careful choice of words here implies there has been personal cost and challenge, and no easy ride for the Thessalonians.

Thessalonica was an important and diverse major port city in Macedonian (then a province of the Roman Empire). The population would have be a diverse collection of Greeks, Romans, Jews and various other ethnic groups. we suspect that Paul wrote this particular epistle during the end of his second missionary journey³.

After establishing the church Paul had been forced to leave after the conversion of many Jews to Christianity. Paul wanted to address concerns amongst the believers and offer guidance following this impromptu departure. It must then have been reassuring after sending Timothy to report to have heard the joyful news about the condition of the Church.

Faith is the foundation of Christian belief. It is the enacted realisation (fulfillment) of trust in the Lord. This provides a platform for hope; the recognition that there is something towards which we strive. This is for the Christian is first existential then eschatological⁴. A hope realised in the 'made flesh' sense here in the Thessalonians as they imitated Paul and his companions.

Finally love as the most significant relational virtue which demonstrates we are his disciples, through the ways in which we love each other. Agape love is a love that is a pouring out of one's self for another (in contrast to Eros which is a taking in or 'intimacy')⁵.

Subjectivity and Truth

The knower is someone existing and that existing is what is essential¹

Kierkegaards assertion 'subjectivity is truth' or the variation 'truth is subjectivity' is one of the more disarmingly nuanced elements of his thinking which I have found to be of interest. To the careless ear this might sound like another claim often propounded in our time, namely that 'truth is subjective'. That the condition of truth is determined by contextual rather than universal factors.

For the positivist such statements sit uncomfortably given our commitment to the view that our abstractions (propositions) can and do correspond to actual states of affairs in the world. We are therefore at risk of disregarding Kierkegaard as merely another relativist that has failed to recognise the irony of such a claim. Kierkegaard however is no stranger to irony² and those who take him at face value miss out on the richness of a creative mind.

In the postscript, Kierkegaard makes the claim that human beings have forgotten what it means to exist and what inwardness means³. That is to say that we have come to see ourselves viewed primarily as a knower. That we assume our most important capacity is that for knowledge, and that to obtain knowledge we must adopt an objective, disinterested and dispassionate orientation.

Indeed our natural assumption when Kierkegaard speaks of truth here is to assume we are talking about some kind of propositional knowledge. Whereas what Kierkegaard is instead speaking about is something far more fundamental than knowledge, namely existence. Kierkegaard assertion is therefore an attempt to wake us from our complacency; our leap to 'knowledge' when presented with the concept of 'truth' merely making his case and point.

So what is Kierkegaard actually talking about here? What does he mean by 'truth'?

Kierkegaard sees the essential task of being human as existing, and that existing, the inward absorption in and through existing, is truth⁴. Man is therefore in a state of truth with reference to his essential nature qua human being.

To put it plainly, our existence forces us to confront the problem of our existence. What kind of person am I? How should I live? What should I do to make a living? This confrontation is perhaps the most 'real' thing we experience in life and results in a state of truth.

The term state of truth is used in the sense that a human being is "truly" human when he is in actuality as he ought be. Not in the teleological sense but in so far as we live consistently with the self emergent from the confrontation we are truly human. Rather than pointing to some form of propositional knowledge, truth for Kierkegaard is a state that emerges from the confrontation.

To the extent in which a human exists in some other way, he is not being true to his essential nature. He is "untrue" to it. So the aspiration to become other than one is (objective) is to voluntarily enter into "untruth". It is important to recognise that this does not exclude the possibility of universals or their being objective propositional statements. Nor is it an assault on truth, rather Kierkegaard here has sought to remind us of the primacy of existence.

An example might be useful at this point. An individual may aspire towards living a moral and principled life. This person may be able to effectively articulate and express the propositions that underpin the values to which they subscribe. They may provide detailed compelling arguments to support their claims and even convince others that they are correct. Does this mean that they are a moral person?

No, we would only consider them to be a truly moral person IFF they were also able to 'realise' this in the world. Indeed we would likely consider someone who purports to be a moral person and yet cannot adhere to their own moral standards a hypocrite or liar. Kierkegaard famously issued the challenge that a person's ideas must be the building he lives in - otherwise there is something terribly wrong.

For Kierkegaard a person will only be true to themselves when they learn to first realise this in the real world. Otherwise what they are living is simply a lie. It is not the propositions the individuals maintains to be the case, but one's response to the confrontation with the problem of existence that is the truth of which Kierkegaard speaks.

"Truth" as Kierkegaard uses it here is treated primarily as something to be realised. By realised I do not mean in the cognitive sense that I become 'increasing awareness of'. Rather in the sense of actualised or made real in the world. For Kierkegaard then it is not enough that one simply come to know what one's essential nature is, but that one realises it through inwardness.

Ezra Chapter 10

Summary

A great assembly of men, women and children gather to Ezra and weep bitterly recognising they have broken faith with God. They intend to put away these wives and children according to the law and Ezra, the priest and the Levites take an oath. Ezra withdrew mourning over the faithlessness of Israel and a proclamation was made that all the exiles should assemble.

All attend and Ezra highlights how all have broken faith with God and encourages Israel to confess their sin. The people admit their guilt and recognise the need to put away these wives and children. In total (based on a review of names) around 22 are explicitly named as having been guilty of intermarrying with foreign women with group such as the sons of Levi, Holy Seed, Priests and Levites also guilty¹.

Imagery and Themes

This chapter if anything highlights something of the social, or communal cost of sin.
The Hebrew להוציא is perhaps best described as 'expel' rather than the euphemism 'put away'. So the exiles are required to remove from their presence those strange women who are not part of the people of God. Given within communities at the time this would basically mean to make destitute.

Indeed it is very likely that such women and children would have had very little prospects or sources of alternative income. Indeed the men here either condemned them to the shame of returning to their communities and families of origin, poverty or perhaps even worse fate. The consequences of sin are often seem to be an insurmountable web of complexity. We simply can't seem to find a way forward.

It is small comfort to these individuals to highlight that God had set apart Israel for something special. Their futures are now uncertain, livelihoods and reputations ruined. I wonder how many were forced into prostitution or died of starvation. I wonder how many were actually aware that this might have even been an issue at all. I can only imagine the devastation that this caused the margin of the community.

Passages such as this are a great examples of the kinds of unpleasant realities contemporary Christianity faces. It is hardly surprising many find it difficult to accept the God of the old testament when he is revealed to us as such fierce authoritarian. I mean we can hardly blame the children caught up in this situation, yet they will likely bear the brunt of this social situation. Sin isn't fair. It's consequences far reaching and an uncomfortable reality of the world we inhabit.

Ezra Chapter 9

Summary

Ezra is approached by the officials who announce that Israel the Priests and Levites have intermarried with people of the surrounding lands. This is expressly prohibited by the law of Moses. Ezra is distraught when he hears this tearing his garment and pulling hair from his head and beard.

Ezra then prostrates himself before the Lord and prays to God claiming his embarrassment at the actions of the people in light of the favour of God. Ezra highlights his fear that all will now be swept away in light of the wrath of God; that no remnant of people will remain.

Imagery and themes

To modern sensibilities the ethno-centric concern that centralises this passage might prove offensive. Why the great concern for purity? What precisely was the reason for this? Consider for a moment the role of pastor, elder or priest. Such a role is not for all individuals (myself included in this). Instead there is a subset of human beings who feel a sense of calling to such an office and are ultimately recognised by others as having achieved this status.

Ok,but isn't this a conflation of role with ethnicity? Yes but I did it for the purpose of analogy. I might have equally claimed I will never experience pregnancy, I will never have a bar mitzva, I will never be Danish, I will never be a child again, I will never be a horse; Indeed the number of things I will not be are combinatorially explosive. I was not created to be any of these things.

For the people of God within scripture there is a clear role and function for a particular ethnic group of humans selected by God. They were created to be a people set apart by God. This includes adherence to the 613 laws of God something Which God does not require of the stranger. The obvious question then is "why does God favour the people of Israel?". The short answer is he doesn't. Indeed a cursory reading of scripture demonstrates he instead hold them to a much higher standard.

1. Noahide Covenant

The Bible is often presented as a binary picture of the people of God and the stranger. Indeed the relationship between the people of God and strangers is expressly laid out within the law with hospitality and purity laws clearly outlined.

Yet around 200-600AD Rabbis of the Talmudic period recognised that the stranger as a pattern within the Torah should be observed through a much broader legal and moral framework¹. This actually aligns very well with Jesus objections to ethno-centric view² and is perhaps something that deserves greater attention within biblical discussions.

Suffice to say that God makes a covenant with the descendants of Noah which the people of God accept means that the goyim can indeed have a share in the life to come.

2. God chooses who he wills

In Romans 9³ we are introduced to an equivalent issue. The choice to favour the older brother over the younger an issue raised originally back in Malachi⁴. We might ask ourselves if God is love⁵, how can he favour some over the other?

The reality being that he doesn't. He merely set aside Jacob for a different task; being the vehicle through which the messiah would arrive and ultimately be killed. Indeed Esau and the Edomites were indeed blessed by God⁶ in their own way.

3. Conclusion?

God is more wrathful than we dare consider and more gracious than we deem responsible. He bestows mercy on whom he wills⁷ which is not necessarily in accordance with human conceptions of equity. I for one have sinned and fallen short of the standard, and am deeply indebted to a God that does not deal with us according to our sins, and whose steadfast love towards me has resulted in the separation from my own transgressions⁸.

Ezra Chapter 8

Summary

70 men come up with Ezra from Bablyonia during the reign of Artaxerxes the King. No Levites are found to be among them and so, gathering at the river that runs to Ahava, Ezra sends for the Levites directly, their kinsmen, sons and temple servants. Ezra then calls the men to fast for a safe journey for themselves, their children and their goods.

Ezra then charges the Levites to carry the valuables charging them to keep them safe and to bring them to Jerusalem to the house of the Lord. The people travel and are delivered by the hand of the Lord from any ambush that might have been laid en route. The people then make burnt offerings to God and deliver the kings commission to the Kings officials in the region.

Imagery and themes

Kidner¹ suggests that those returning to Israel within this passage are joining, at long last, the descendants of the pioneers from their own family stock, who had been in the first part to return from Babylon eighty years before. It is of course impossible to validate this based on the text alone, but still is an interesting idea that this is a reunion of sorts.

Whilst the first expedition to Jerusalem was 50,000 strong estimates place this second at only around 5,000 strong and hence the migration with no armed escort presented a legitimate concern for both the safety of those in transit and the goods being transported to the house of the Lord.

Ezra demonstrates again his commitment to place first the things of God and leads his people in a fast. He places his trust not in Kings but instead in the providence of the Lord. So the people are led to fast before their own exodus into the wilderness. Edicts are then delivered to the governers within the surrounding regions to clearly communicate the Kings plans for Israel.

Ezra Chapter 7

Summary

Ezra and many others go up from Babylonia and the hand of the Lord is upon them. Some of the people of Israel go up to Jerusalem with Ezra and he sets his heart to study and enact the law ofd the Lord teaching his statues and rules in Israel. Then King Artaxerxes of Babylonia writes to Ezra granting both permission and resources for the rebuilding and dedication of the temple.

Artaxerxes indicates that Ezra should provide what is required for the house of the Lord from the royal treasury. He also prohibits the requirement for tribute and introduces strict punishments for those who do not live in accordance with the Law. Ezra praises God for his intervention and to place 'such a thing as this' into the heart of the king.

Imagery and themes

Within this passage we see once again the theme of the Lord using secular means to accomplish what he himself has promised. Artaxerxes becomes the vehicle through which the Lord will rebuild the temple and begin the slow process of restoration for Israel and Jerusalem. Not only this but the Kings treasury will foot the bill. This is an incredibly generous offer and one which Ezra appears to have taken full advantage of.

We also note that Ezra, a priest and scribe, takes it upon himself to coordinate efforts of both the physical restoration of both the religious institutions and the people. Not only does he concern himself with the beautification of the temple, but he also involves himself in the study and enactment of the law.

This is a beautiful example of leadership. He sets his heart in a particular direction and subsequently coordinates his actions accordingly. Thus this is a commitment to reform that begins with Ezra. There is a need for an intentionality towards something. A single minded commitment to reform that begins with a cardiographic change in his own life.

Indeed it is only after this that he receives the favour from God which permits the work. Indeed prior to this the task itself must have been insurmountable. Not only is there physical work needed for the temple, but also work on the people to challenge social and moral failings. The people after all have lived amongst the Babylonians, potentially adopted mindsets and patterns of being that reflected the surrounding nations.

It is perhaps then unsurprising that the passage ends with an expression of Worship to God that the desires of his heart had been realised. In this we can see just how authentic Ezra is. Committed to the purposes and designs of the Lord and attributing glory to where it rightly belongs.

Ezra Chapter 6

Summary

Darius makes a search and discovers the edict that permitted the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Darius honours the decree of his forefathers and decrees that the royal treasury will fund these efforts. Furthermore Darius decrees that none shall prevent those involved in the efforts on pain of death by impalement and the destruction of his property.

Accordingly the governor of the province supports the rebuilding efforts and the elders of the Jews prosper. The house is finished on the third day in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. The Jews celebrate by means of an exuberant offerings including 12 male goats, one for each tribe. Later the exiles keep the passover and the feast of unleavened bread for the Lord had made them joyful and turned the heart of the king of Assyria.

Imagery and Themes

Within this passage we see the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem. There is a clear emphasis on the involvement of God in the restoration of the exiles faith, identity and relationship with God. The Lord is involved in addressing the obstacles that have arisen and prevented the continuity and fulfilment of his promises¹, and this is not something accomplished by the hand of man.

The dedication of the temple again is a renewal of the covenant between God and the people of Israel. God has not only foreordained the restoration of his temple, nor does he facilitate this but he also restores his relationship to his people. He accomplishes this through the use of secular political intervention; something which perhaps in our contemporary age might be seen even in our present age as a surprising move.

Darius is not entirely selfless in his decision making here. Evidently Darius wishes for the Jewin both the favour of the people and the favour of God. He see's the restoration of the temple as essential for stability in the region and a means to secure the prayers of the Israelites for his own family and empire. Indeed the Persian Empire is known for it's policy of religious toleration.

Ezra Chapter 5

Summary

The prophets Haggai and Zechariah prophesy to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem and then Jeshua and Zerubbabel arise to rebuild the house of the Lord. The surrounding people write a letter of complaint to Darius I, king of Babylon.

Imagery and themes & Apologia

I suspect my calculations around the timescales in my last post were way off. I was tempted to revisit and revise my last post according, given just how profoundly wrong I was, but have decided instead to leave this post as an apology. It's a good example of how difficult it can be to make sense of the events of history, and how easy it is to make mistakes. The point is to learn from them right? So what can we learn here?

With the help of Chat GPT I have re-evaluated my original estimates. Interestingly the ESV locates the timeline between Ezra 1-5 as only around 20 years which does not correlate with the dates we know from history when the Persian Kings were believed to have ruled.

Let's consider for a moment the chronology from the perspective of kings. We have the return under Cyrus which likely occurred around 539-537 BC, with the opposition under the reign of Artaxerxes around 465-424 BC with resumption taking place around 522-486 BC. It would therefore be approximately 50-60 years or more between the events of Ezra 1-5 not several hundred years as previously calculated.

This, however, introduces some interesting challenges. Firstly how are Jeshua and Zerubbabel still in a position of leadership? The average life expectancy during this time was around 30-40 years of age¹. One is not born a leader but is recognised or appointed to a leadership position because of ones expertise which is acquired over time, meaning they were likely not children during the events of Ezra 2-4. In which case how are they still in power over 50-60 years later?

It remains a matter of scholarly debate whether the Jeshua dn Zerubbabel mentioned in Ezra 2-3 are the same as those mentioned in Ezra 5. I'm not trying to 'catch out' or undermine biblical texts nor invalidate claims to historical validity. I stand by my position these are important books that have an important message. I merely believe we should consider texts critically and consider holistically what they may be communicating. So if a literal interpretation makes no sense here historically what other perspective might we consider?

Perhaps we should consider that the Bible is indicating something more important than the 'facts' as it so often does. Perhaps it is an attempt to promote historical continuity; the suggestion this is the same project as started by J. & Z. Perhaps it was to promote narrative continuity to help readers to follow the progression with greater ease by not needly introducing additional characters. Perhaps there is symbolic significance given Jeshua's meaning is linked with 'salvation' and Zerubbabel is linked with the idea of the 'seed of Babylon' introducing the possibility that salvation emerges from the seed of the returning exiles from Babylon. I actually quite like the idea of the latter, and it adds a richness to the text.

We will likely never know and this is all pure speculation. But this is how I love to engage this text. To ask questions and to let it reveal my shortcomings. I'm no historian, heck I'm not even sure if my re-evaluation of the timelines above are accurate. But I wish for this text to gaze into me as I gaze into it. I appreciate I have done little to unpack the text here but that wasn't the lesson I needed to learn today.

Ezra Chapter 4

Summary

The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin (the two remaining tribes of Israel that had returned following the exile in Babylon) seek to be involved in the rebuilding of the temple to the Lord. Zerubbabel and Jeshua refuse the assistance of their adversaries claiming they alone will build a house to the Lord.

The adversaries then write to the then king of Persia Artaxerxes pointing out that the building work should cease encouraging Artaxerxes to examine the cities former history. Artaxerxes does so and decrees that building work should cease which it does for the duration of his reign.

Imagery and themes

It is easy to miss some of the detail within this passage. For example verses 4 and 5 highlight that there were attempts to frustrate the rebuilding project throughout the reign of Cyrus up until Darius. Let's stop for a minute to see how scholars roughly date the timeline of the Kings of Persia as this is interesting:

• Cyrus the Great (r. 550-530 BC)
• Cambyses II (r. 530-522 BC)
• Darius I The Great (r. 522-486 BC)
• Xerxes I (r. 485-465 BC)
• Darius II (r. 424-404 BC)
• Artaxerxes II (r. 404-358 BC)
• Darius III (r. 336-330 BC)

It's unhelpful that atleast three Persian Kings carried this name but even assuming they mean Darius I that is still 44 years of complaints. But if they meant Darius III that is 220 years of attempts to undermine. We see in verse 7 complaints are brought against Benjamin and Judah during the rein of Xerxes¹ (another 20 years) and the rebuilding work is halted altogether during Artaxerxes reign and doesn't recommence until the second year of Darius III (a potential 70 years later).

It's incredible but the rebuilding project here is clearly multi-generational. Those who laid the foundation would not be those that would live to see it's fulfilment. Those who would take up the work did not see it's inception and may well not see it's conclusion. That's a pretty awesome thing to consider here.

Returning to our 'friends' the adversaries it is interesting to see the strategy employed to frustrate the plans. (a) they offer to co-produce that they might have in their power, (v1-3) then (b) they discourage and dissuade, (v4-5) then (c) they misrepresent to authorities, (v6-16) before (d) they seek legal directive to prevent the continuation of the work (v23-24).

It is surprising how little changes and such patterns emerge to this day.

Ezra Chapter 3

Summary

Jeshua and Zerubbabel rebuild the alter to the God of Israel and begin to make burnt offerings once again to the Lord and observe the feasts and daily burnt offerings. Money is given for the masons and carpenters to bring cedars from Lebanon and lay the foundation for the new temple.

A year on Jeshua and Zerubbabel appoint levites to oversee the work and the builders lay the foundation of the new temple. The priests come forward with trumpets and the Levites with cymbals to praise the Lord giving thanks to the Lord. All the people offer a great shout and there is mixed emotions; some weep others rejoice.

Imagery and Themes

We might for a moment consider the symbolism of the order of restoration. Firstly there came obedience. A returning to the former things ordained within the law; the reinstatement of temple sacrifices. The work therefore begins by ensuring God receives what is rightfully his first. Structure and form are to come later. Once temple sacrifices are reinstated and are presented as a promise for the future.

This included celebration of the festival of booths (or the festival of tabernacles) in which the people built temporary structures called sukkot in which to dwell for the duration of the festival. This was a reminder to the people of Israel of the faithfulness of the God of Israel to his people. The work therefore begins in the heart of the people with a return to the former things that God had ordained.

We see also symbolic significance elsewhere. The involvement of Jeshua is important given he is the grandson of the high priest put to death by Nebuchadnezzar¹. Furthermore the work commencing on the temple begins in the second month as was the case with Solomon's temple². Finally a dedication ceremony is recorded that parallels the original dedication of the temple³.

This moment represents a bitter and sweet moment and the author captures well this mingling of rejoicing and sorrow. Sorrow at the tragic loss and humbling necessary to restore Israel to God and Joy as the future is set in stone. There is some suggestion that the weeping for what has been lost was wrong, but I would tend to disagree. Mourning is an essential process that helps us to come to terms with loss. To mourn the loss of the former glory and the necessity of humiliation is an apt response. But so is the rejoicing at the restoration and reconciliation.

Perhaps then when faced with distance from Christ we should consider this narrative as a pattern we might inhabit. To first put in order the sacrifices God calls us to make, to then prepare and lay firm foundation before building upon what Christ has called us too. Such a process is likely to elicit both tears and joy. Let both come and ride it through until reconciliation brings us back into the very presence of the most holy.

Ezra Chapter 2

Summary

This chapter records the exiles that returned to the homeland following Cyrus decree. The chapter makes reference to the lineage of those that have returned highlighting where such ancestry was in question. In total 50,000 individuals recorded herein return to the promised land following the Babylonian exile.

Upon returning to the promised land the heads of households made freewill offerings for the house of God giving to the 'treasury of the work' a significant sum of both finances, gold (518.5kg), silver (3000kg) and 100 priestly garments.

Imagery and themes

Initially I was in two minds about exploring this passage. Passages such as this can often seem banal, and we can gloss over them without much thought. After all they are only a list of names and numbers right? I am consistently proven wrong and this chapter is no exception.

The chapter reveals to us the startling migration that must have taken place. Some 50,000 people took a 900 mile journey to an unprotected and ruined city. They will face both opposition and hardship to rebuild the temple, and not only that, there is limited infrastructure and they will be forced reside with the ever present ruins of the city a perpetual reminder of what they have lost.

The chapter also has a clear sense of the importance of the ancestry of those returning. Indeed where this is in question we see that some are forced to live apart from the rest of the body. The clear inference is that this is the legitimate community of God that has returned. Those that were direct dependents of the former tribes, had suffered the judgement of God and were now to be restored as his people.

Imagine how difficult this must have been to administrate in a time when bureaucracy was in it's infancy. No formal identification documents are supplied. Where records and memories have been 'shaken up' by war and disruption. One can only imagine the insurmountable challenge. Yet the people rise to the occasion, and Ezra captures this for us in startling accuracy and precision.

Speaking of which, their generosity is off the scale. Let's for a moment play with math to see just how much was given. 61,000 darics weighing 5.8g would equate to 518.5kg of gold or 0.57 metric tons. In today's money the equivalent weight in gold would equate to around £25,778,000. That is a considerable sum by all accounts.

Silver is equally impressive 5000 minas at 0.6kg would equal 3,000kg at £575.41 per kilo that's £1,726,230.00 in today's money. Again a significant and costly sum. One can only imagine how individuals gave sacrificially to see Jerusalem restored to it's future glory.

Though many individuals are mentioned within this passage the emphasis falls towards those that have returned to rebuild the temple and the priesthood which account for about 10% of those returning. Clearly then the author wants us to recognise the significance of this for Gods people. Symbolically this is significant; the main work in restoring Israel will be the restoration of the God of possibility to the heart of the people of God. Based on the sacrificial giving of those returning exiles their heart is in the work.

Ezra Chapter 1

Summary

The book of Ezra begins with a decree from Cyrus King of Persia, which we are told was the result of the Lord stirring the spirit of Cyrus to fulfil the words of Jeremiah. Cyrus attributes his current position to the grace of God and the charge placed on him to therefore build the Lord a house at Jerusalem.

Cyrus charges that those who remain should return freely and be involved within the rebuilding project. The heads of Judah, Benjamin, Levities and various other are stirred to go and rebuild the house of the Lord. Cyrus then returns that which was stolen from the house of the Lord and 5,400 items of gold and silver are brought out of Babylon to Jerusalem.

Imagery and Themes

Cyrus the great is an important historical figure in Iranian and central Asian history. Ruling from 559 to 530 BC he established the Achaemenid Empire the largest empire that has ever been with over 44% of the world population at the time residing under it's rule¹. Cyrus defeated the Babylonian king Nabonidus and claimed Babylon where up until this point the Jewish people had been resident in exile.

The Achaemenid Empire was one of the most diverse and pluralistic empire in the world at the time, unifying different nations, tribes, languages, cultures and religions. Tolerance was one of its most defining characteristics. Under Cyrus rule the Achaemenid Empire promised freedom of religion and permission to those taken into exile in Babylon to return to their homeland. It is disputed as to if this tablet (which does not explicitly mention the Jewish people) should be considered evidence of Cyrus favour towards the Jewish People. In any event it demonstrates Cyrus maintained an open mind towards religious and cultural diversity².

Whilst we are unable to verify the historicity of the opening chapters; we should acknowledged that Cyrus was generally respectful of religious diversity and his actions recorded are in keeping with our current understanding. Cyrus himself may have practised a form of Zoroastrianism which was the dominant religion of the Persian Empire.

This chapter however makes clear several points. The authorship of God in the restoration of the Jewish people to the promised land and his intent to fulfil the words of Jeremiah. God we are told stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia. God is the one who has given Cyrus all the kingdoms of the earth and charged the emperor to build him a house. Cyrus here is not recorded as some self made tyrant (another Pharaoh); but rather the servant of the Lord. There is a clear indication of the origin and source of Cyrus power, wealth and success.

We are here then treated to a vision of Cyrus as the benevolent benefactor who will restore the house of the Lord to it's former glory. Both the Lord and Cyrus are presented in a positive light; the former as the prime mover and the latter as the powerful means by which God will accomplish his goals.

John Chapter 21

Summary

Jesus appears to Simon, Thomas, Nathanael the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. Jesus commands them to let down their nets on the other side of the boat and they catch more fish than they can land. The disciples realise that the person on the shore is Jesus and Peter jumps in the water.

Jesus has breakfast with the disciples and restores Peter after his denial. There is some confusion by Jesus words which seem to indicate John would remain until Jesus returns, but John clarifies that this was intended as a lesson to Peter. The book ends abruptly noting that if everything Jesus did was committed to writing the world could not contain the books.

Imagery and themes

Initially Peter does not appear to recognise the Lord. I can't imagine it particularly helped the mood of those on board to have spent a fruitless night fishing and then to be insulted by a stranger on the bank who calls them 'children'. If we consider, however, for a moment the symbolism of an unsuccessful nights fishing and subsequent success following the directions of Jesus we might unpack much within the symbolic elements of the passage.

Firstly given the lack of success this night we might infer that Peter is not called to be an angler, but fishers of men¹. This is reinforced by the later charge to 'feed lambs', 'tend' and 'feed' his sheep; the idea that Peter has a leadership calling which involves service to the herd. The recurrent use analogies between the common place occupations of those around them is something which Jesus employed regularly. It is not a particular stretch to believe that when Peter returns to what he knew he sucked at it because there were other plans for him.

Secondly let us examine how Peter is dressed. The fact that his state of undress is mentioned gives us reason to consider this significant. Peter upon realisation of who the stranger on the bank clothes himself, being dressed (or more accurately in a state of undress) for fishing at the time. He is not appropriately clothed with what might be conducive to the work he is to be called to. By faith he does what he is asked, and this begins by being properly dressed.

Why then the leap into the water? When I read this at first I imagined it was to swim towards Jesus but this is not explicitly stated within the text. Peter threw himself into the sea seemingly to aid with the catch, whilst the other disciples remain in the boat, all seeking to pull in the nets in. Peter is still undertaking the wrong occupation but through obedience to Christ, has now clothed himself appropriately in preparation for what is to come. But he's still not ready yet.

Recognising that symbolically water represents chaos whilst earth represents potentiality (consider Genesis and the pulling back of the waters to plant a garden). To throw oneself into the sea is to cast oneself into chaos. It represents a significant act of faith and obedience, and presumably being dressed for the occasion didn't help Peter much. By faith stepping into chaos we place ourselves at the mercy of God. There are parallels here we might draw with Jonah, although admittedly Jonah asks to be cast into the sea whereas Peter voluntarily jumps. Yet perhaps the pattern is not so far detached.

Both reluctant hero's that have fled the calling to which God has called them, to which both judgement and restoration is necessary. Yet in the case of Jonah he recognises his failings but is unable to effect change needing others to literally throw him into the Mery of God, whereas with Peter he has the strength of Character to take the step himself. He did after all walk on water².

This passage is dense and I have run out of time to explore everything it has to offer. For those who want more look into the distinction between the Greek words for 'love' used by Jesus in the 'do you love me' verses. As you will see there is much to consider.

John Chapter 20

Summary

Peter and John hear from Mary Magdalene that Jesus was no longer in the tomb and ran to see. John believes and they both return back to their homes. Mary remains weeping at the tomb and see's two angels in white who ask why Mary is weeping Jesus then approaches Mary and she at first does not recognise him but when he calls her by name recognises his voice.

Mary returns and announces to the disciples that she has seen Jesus. That evening Jesus is found among his disciples even though the doors are locked. He breathes on his disciples that they might receive the holy spirit pointing out their power to forgive and with hold forgiveness. Thomas misses out and is unwilling to see unless he witnesses the material resurrection. Jesus arrives again eight days later and revealing himself to him, Thomas believes.

Imagery and Themes

Within this chapter we are presented with contrasting responses to the person of Jesus. Firstly we have Mary who even in the midst of despair visits the grave of her Lord. We have John and Peter who arrive do not know what to make of the situation and ultimately go back home. Mary remains and mourns the loss of her Lord. Soon her mourning is transformed as Jesus reveals himself to her in her distress.

Mary's acceptance contrasts starkly with Thomas doubt outlined in verse >24. For Mary there is a blindness to the truth that is only revealed through a personal connection, whereas for Thomas there was a tangible need to grasp the material substance. Perhaps this is a good exemplifications of the distinct ways in which individuals come to know Christ. Some need to wrestle with the rational tangible aspects. Others are contented with the personal connection.

Indeed we can see in the case of all who encounter the resurrected Christ there is a unique encounter which caters to individual matters of taste. There is also blessing for those (such as myself and others) who have believed without sight. For Christ has since ascended to the right hand of the father and as such is no longer available to us in the flesh. The incarnation was therefore a temporal event with a beginning and a conclusion.

John Chapter 19

Summary

Jesus is flogged by Pilate and humiliated forced to wear a crown of thorns and purple cape. He is then presented to the Jewish authorities who demand he is crucified. When Pilate attempts to release Jesus they claim he is no friend of Caesar because he does not deal with a political adversary. Eventually Pilate concedes and Jesus is handed over to be crucified.

Jesus is taken to Golgotha where he is crucified. The Jews contests an inscription placed over the cross which claims Jesus is the king of the Jews but Pilate refuses to take it. Soldiers cast lots for Jesus clothing and Jesus execution is observed by women and the disciple he loved. Jesus is offered sour wine before passing. His body is taken down intact and Joseph of Arimathea takes his body for burial with Nicodemus.

Images and themes

Here we observe the glory of which Jesus spoke in earlier passages. This cup from which Jesus was required to drink; the path laid out for him. Jesus remains silent before those that accuse him and too follow Jesus to the grave. It is hard to imagine the humiliation of being publicly stripped and executed. Of being wrongfully accused by men that feel such a death is necessary for the people.

His mother watches from nearby with her sisters. I wonder how they felt knowing the punishment and torment he was to endure. At one point evidently the experience was too much for Mary and after being spoken to by Jesus is taken home. This is clearly a significantly emotionally charged event. From the initial flogging and humiliation, to the death sentence, to having ones belonging gambled over, to being fed water on a stick before finally giving up.

Yet Johns passage is not a nihilistic account of the death of God. It remains seeded with the hope of a better future. We see at least two instances whereby the execution of Jesus is proscribed within the scriptures¹. Its hard to grasp what it must have been like to be Jesus and one wonders what awareness he had of what was to come. We know from earlier discussions Jesus had a pretty good idea how this would all end. Yet he still made the conscious decision to continue.

John Chapter 18

Summary

Jesus after speaking with his disciples goes out to a Garden where Judas leads a band of soldiers and offices from the chief priests. When Jesus announces he is the one they are looking for they fall to the ground. Jesus asks that they let the men with him go. Peter takes a sword and cuts off the ear of the chief priests servant.

Jesus is taken to Annas father in law of the chief priest. Peter and another disciple follows incognito and Peter is recognised but denies Christ. Jesus is struck after speaking the truth. Peter then denies Christ a further three time and a rooster crows. Jesus is then led to the house of the high priest Caiaphas. Pilate arrives and questions Jesus before offering the Jews freedom for either Jesus or Barabbas.

Imagery and Themes

Who are you, who am I and what is truth? These are three questions we see leave the lips of Pilate during his interview of Jesus.

He firsts enquires if Jesus is the King of the Jews a question to which Jesus encourages Pilate to examine the motivation behind this statement. Jesus here is far more concerned with the origins of this statement than the statements content. As is so often the case with Jesus his relationship to the individual is of greater concern. He is not concerned with Pilates belief in him but how Pilate conceptualises their relationship.

The answer follows shortly as Pilate questions his own identity; why would his relationship to Jesus matter? Is he a Jew such that the identity of the individual before him should have any great significance? He's a Roman governor and as such has little interest beyond the wrongdoing which Christ has evidently done that requires punishment by the resident authorities. Now the stage is set for a paradigm shift between an ethnocentric and kingdom-centric world view.

Jesus points out that if his Kingdom was of a similar vein to that of Pilates then he would not be before Pilate. Others would have rushed to his defence and there would have been greater resistance on his part. But the reality is that he has not come as a glorified King, instead in humility. Had he come glorified the Jews likely would have flocked too him and defended him. But the reality is that this is not about heritage; the question of the identity of Christ is not an ethnic question of Jew and non Jew. But of earthly and heavenly kingdoms. Jesus isn't here for a repeat of the maccabean revolt that saw the Greeks expelled from Jerusalem but for something else.

Pilate then draws the conclusion that Christ is claiming to be a King and this is a direct challenge to Rome. Christ counters pointing out that he merely comes to bear witness to the truth. Pilate sceptical of the claims of Jesus makes the classic definitional retreat; 'what is truth?'. Pilate externally appears unmoved by the situation; but this has clearly troubled him sufficiently to recommend that Jesus is freed. Interestingly we receive no answer from Jesus to Pilates questions and this is fitting. Jesus has already answered through his claim to have come to bear witness to truth. He is the embodiment of truth; the articulation and ultimate expression of what it means to be Human.

This passage is rich in theological depth. There is much we might draw conclusions from but perhaps in times of testing we might consider (a) who Jesus is and his ambitions and intent, (b) who we are, that is those invited to participate within the truth, and (c) Jesus as the embodiment and fulfilment of the pattern, the logos, the truth. This beacon of hope is sufficient for us in all circumstance to face the cup that the Father has called us to drink.

John Chapter 17

Summary

Jesus prays to the father asking to be glorified with the same glory he was afforded prior to his incarnation. Jesus points out he has manifested the name of the Lord to the people and prays for the wellbeing of those that have been given to him.

Jesus acknowledges all that he has proceeds from the father and asks the father to look out for those that are his. Also for those who will believe based on the testimony of those that now believe. Jesus outlines that he has done all this that the love of the father might be made known to others.

Imagery and themes

It is easy to see why John is considered a more theological effort here in this passage we are presented with some pretty dense theology. Jesus implies that he was glorified with the father prior to his incarnation¹. Through his incarnation he made manifest the name of the lord ². Jesus being entirely dependent upon that which proceeds from the father including recognising that those he considers his own are those sent to him by the father.

Each of these points veil both profound mysteries and incredibly complex ideas such as the divinity of Christ, the names of God, predestination and other complex theological rabit holes. What however stood out to me from this passage was where Jesus here notes that his disciples are rejected by the world because the word he has given 'your word'. This is an incredibly subtle point.

We have already unpacked in John 1 Jesus as the logos which remains a deep and complex idea. But again we are reminded that the pattern has been revealed and given to us in the person of Christ. The intelligibility of what it means to be human is revealed within the son of man; the word proceeding from the father to those given to the word.

In this way Jesus asks for the same level of intimacy and relationship for those that have believed as he maintained with the father. This is pretty incredible. The notion of 'being one' that the world may know that Jesus was sent by the father and loved those to whom he was sent. There is so much we could unpack here, the intercession on behalf of those that have not yet believed, the hatred of the world for the underlying structure, but I will leave it here.

It's incredible to stand back and think for a moment that before I existed, Christ prayed for my protection.

John Chapter 16

Summary

Jesus is aware that his words of parting to his disciples has caused them sorrow and points out it is to their advantage that he goes. Jesus explains that he will send the spirit that will lead his disciples in all truth and he will take what belongs to Jesus and declare it to us.

Jesus is cryptic again and eventually speaks plainly pointing out that his is about to birth joy into the world. He uses the analogy of a woman in labour to advise about the pain that is to come but highlights that the woman does not dwell on the pain but the joy thereafter. Jesus notes that whatever they, his disciples ask in his fathers name will be given.

Jesus acknowledged he has been cryptic but points out that a time will come where he will speak plainly. He advises that that Father is aware of the disciples love for Jesus and that he goes to now be with the father. Jesus points out whilst his disciples profess loyalty they will be scatted but he says this not out of condemnation but to bring peace.

Imagery and themes

The opening to this passage begins with what appears to be Jesus doing containment. Jesus demonstrates clear pastoral concern for his disciples acknowledging that what is about to befall him is going to be pretty darn horrific and indeed will cause them to scatter. Yet this message that seeks to 'keep you from falling away' seems to lack the encouragement that some might expect. Jesus essentially says he's going away, they will be scattered but it's ok because he sends a helper who will convice of sin, righteousness and judement. Thanks Jesus that sound just dandy.

In reality then there are greater things at stake than just the possibility that some may fall away from him. Firstly we are told the helper will convict of sin because others do not believe in Jesus. This is internally consistent with the Gospel message that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation¹. It would make sense that momentary discomfort be suffered that salvation to a much wider target audience be achieved.

In the second point we are told the helper will convict regarding righteousness because Jesus goes to the father and will be here no more. Recalling that Jesus is the pattern for humanity to embody; and that Jesus only did that which pleased and was commanded by the Father². How then can we know what pleases the father and do it without him present to reveal this to us? We learn this through what is revealed to us about the father by the spirit. This is a continuation of the work of Jesus in representing the father to his disciples.

In the third point there is conviction because the ruler of the world will be judged. This is the eschatological reality faced by all humans. The world is not the arbiter of the good. The father is and Jesus has been given authority to Judge and will Judge in accordance with the will of the father.

John Chapter 15

Summary

Jesus makes the claim that he is the true vine and the Father is the vine dresser. Jesus explains that a branch only bears fruit by remaining part of the vine. Jesus points out that those that do not are essentially deadwood, those that do will be granted whatever they wish. Jesus advises that those that keep his commandments abide in his word.

Jesus reminds his disciples that no servant is greater than his master and so they too will face persecution at the hands of others. Jesus highlights that he was hated by others without cause but that the helper he goes ahead to send to the disciples will testify truthfully about him.

Imagery and Themes

Jesus utilises very visual language here to demonstrate his centrality to those that would keep his commandments and remain in him. He identifies as being the vine; that which holds the entire plant together. Here Jesus is identifying as being the centre; the source. It is through abiding in him that we bear fruit, are pruned, or removed.

We might infer much from this passage, notably that we should expect to face times of fruitfulness and times in which we will be cut back. This is always for greater fruitfulness further down the line and as such should give us hope that even when the challenging times come it is only for a season.

The relationship of his disciples with the world will be one that is terse. With individuals facing the reality that they will not out perform the great works of Jesus, and as such may well be subject to a similar fate. Jesus was persecuted and murdered unjustly and this significant travesty of Justice however became the greatest act of mercy with Christ himself substituting himself for those that call on his name.

Jesus is aware that what is about to happen will cause reputational damage but he does not need to justify himself. There is one that he will send to his disciples that will testify on his behalf, and this is the spirit of truth.

John Chapter 14

Summary

Jesus instructs his disciples to not let their heart be troubled as he goes to prepare a place for them. When asked the way Jesus claims that he is the way to the Father. When asked to show them the Father Jesus points out that he who see's Jesus has seen the father. Jesus claims that whomsoever believes in him will also do the works that he does and even greater works as he goes to the Father.

Jesus points out that hose who love Jesus keep his commanments and he will ask the Father to send a Helper to be with them forever. Jesus points out the spirit will teach all things and bring to memory the sayins of Jesus. Jesus leaves his peace with them and gives them peace freely as a gift.

Imagery and Themes

The disciples have clearly been alarmed by the concerns raised in the preceeding chapter, and now Jesus instructs them to not let their hearts be troubled. His assurances are the provision of a place and his presence with them. Yet they are understandibly confused and concerned given they do not understand what is about to unfold.

Indeed, we can almost feel sympathetic for the disciples. the passage is rife with paradoxes and is perhaps some of the most difficult mystical passages we have explored thus far. Jesus himself points out 'You heard me say to you I am going away, and I will come to you'. To advise you are leaving your disciples with peace and then spouting this level of cryptic but alarming messages seems odd to say the least. What does all this mean?

As far as I can tell the author is pointing to the idea that Jesus remains the way, the pattern of what it means to be human. To love him is to keep his commandments and to find the place that he has prepared for us. Our pursuit of him is a pursuit of the Father given that he embodies and abides int the Father. He is the incarnation of the living God; the ultimate logos spoken about in John 1.

There is a veiled life lesson here, that in our pursuit of what it means to be truely human (to be like Christ) we find our place in the world. Jesus may grasp the full picture of our life circumstances and the events about to unfold, many of which will appear like he couldn't be further from 'in control' of the situation. Yet there remains this promise that through the pursuit we find our place in the world.

There are suggestions within this passage that Jesus is not only identifying with both the Father (I am in my father, whoever has seen mee has seen the Father) but also with the Helper that is to be sent. In this way Jesus leaves as the incarnation is killed, but God will return to be with us in the person of the Holy spirit.

John Chapter 13

Summary

Jesus begins to wash the disciples feet. Simon initially refused but following a rebuke from Jesus asked to be completely washed by him. Jesus corrects him again and the disciples retire to eat. Jesus discloses that one of their number will betray him and Jesus gives a morsal of bread to Jesus. He advises Simon that the one he gave the bread to will betray him.

Jesus advises that Judas should go and do what he intends to do quickly and then troubled in his spirit advises his disciples that they should love and serve each other. He notes that this is what distinguishes them from others. He explains that where he is going they cannot come. Simon rebukes Jesus claiming he will lay down his life for Jesus but Jesus begs to differ noting that simon will deny him thrice before the cock crows.

Imagery and Themes

There are some interesting ideas explored within this chapter. Notably the distinguishing characteristic of the disciples of Jesus; namely love. It is a hard pill to swallow to consider that of all the characteristics that the disiples of Jesus might exhibit this is the defining one. They could be patient, passionate, joyous, peaceful, evangelistic. But no they are to love and serve each other as Jesus models within this chapter. This is the pattern.

It is interesting that Jesus makes this the parting lesson. He is evidently aware that the disciples will be scattered and what is about to befall him through the betrayal of Judas and recognises the potential for division following his death. He clearly wishes for them to continue to devote themselves to each other.

This enacted lesson is made all the more profound with the great pains that the passage goes to to explain to us that Jesus has come from and will return to the father shortly. John has hinted throughout his gospel that Jesus will redefine glory¹ and at the time of his greatest betrayal and humilliation becomes the source of his greatest glory. These are some of the great paradoxes that we have come to understand are the reality of existence.

John Chapter 12 (Part 2)

Summary

Jesus is aware of and troubled by the events to come. He make clear his rationale and this receives afirmation from the father in heaven. Despite this audible voice those among him still fail to recognise him as the Christ. This is attributed to the hardening of hearts by the Lord to expose the fear of the religious authorities and the love of the praises of man.

Jesus outlines his mission as one of bringing others out of darkness. He does not come in judgement to those that receive him, but to those that reject him. The words of Christ are a judgement for this individual on the final day. This is because Jesus is essentially a pointer to God and speaks with the authority conferred upon him by the Lord.

Imagery and themes

It is striking here how individuals hear the pronouncements of Christ, observe miraculous signs and wonders and yet still do not accept him for who he is. Within the pseudo mystical charismatic tranditions there has often been an emphasis placed upon the miraculous. Yet clearly here the crowds hear an audible voice and are confused. Some rationalise this as merely thunder, others claim it was an angelic voice few seem to acknowledge this for what it is.

The miraculous does not afford the necessary proof one may believe it does. There is a tendency in man to rationalise away such proofs as merely a spiritual slight of hand, or perhaps to completely miss the point and attribute it to other supernatural causes. Whether an actual audible theophany occured at a particular date or time is less important that the underlying message this chapter presents. What kind of proof is necessary to convince an individual as to the nature of Christ? What would be sufficient?

Some might claim the visible manifestation of God would be sufficient for belief. It wasn't for the individuals within this chapter. Faith remains the fundamental approach to Christ and it is only through this radical subjective commitment to an objective uncertainty that one enters into the light.

There are some other interesting parallels between the notion of Pharoah's choice and the choice of the people of Israel. In the same way that the heard of Pharoah was strengthened to the pursuit of his own will in relation to the fate of the Jewish people, so too have the heards of those that live in the fear or for the praise of man.

Both represent a view of the same snare[^1] through pursuit of affirmation or negation. Firstly, the affirmation of man is one way to avoid occuring the wrath of man. If I fear man rather than God pursuit of that which pleases others over that which pleases God demonstrates my fear of man. Negation is perhaps less obtuse; if I shun or do not publicly support that which others do not then I am also found wanting.

This entire passage is drips with the fickle nature of man an the sufficiency of Christ.

Brief Update

A hardware failure has prevented me from posting recently. I hope to resume business as usual in due course.

[^1] Prov 29:25

John Chapter 12 (Part 1)

Summary

Six days before passover Jesus attends Bethany and is given dinner. Mary anoints him with expensive perfume and Judas complains that this would have better served the poor. Jesus chastises him. A large crowd hear Jesus is present and wish to see him and Lazarus. The Chief Priests plot to have both Jesus and Lazarus killed.

Jesus is given a triumphal entry into Jerusalem but is riding on a colt by those that will be attending the feast. The Pharisees point out that the crowd gain nothing because everyone is following him. Among them were Greeks who ask to see Jesus and Jesus points out the appointed hour has come. He teaches about life, service and dedication.

Imagery and Themes

This chapter reads more like one of the synoptic gospel passages rather than the earlier part of John's gospel we have previously read. There is far greater focus on recalling events, but this is matched with Johns attempt to highlight their spiritual significance.

For example the events of the perfume highlight that need is always present but Jesus is not, Jesus triumphal entry is offered prophetic significance, those who come to see Jesus because of the signs he performed to overcome death do not necessarily grasp the implications of his life. So whilst there are certainly a more rapid succession of events there remains links to spiritual message of such events.

One thing that seems apparent is that all seem to miss what is is that is about to happen and what Jesus seeks to accomplish. Even those closest to him do not grasp it until later. The crowd is there for the spectacle. The Pharisees to find fault. The chief priests to plot Jesus demise. The Greeks to 'see' Jesus.

Jesus simple message to those that have ears to hear is walk in the light whilst the light is with you. Hold lightly onto your life as your life because you will otherwise loose it. Recognise the cost of what it means to come after Christ (in all the sense that one might interpret this). This is sound advice from the pattern.

Update

My son has since returned after a month in Hospital. I have nearly missed the entire first month of his life. This is going to be difficult to come to terms with, but I am nonetheless overjoyed that we are reunited as a family once again. His diagnosis of Hyperinsulinism has been confirmed and he is responding to treatment. Apparently the condition affects less than 1/40,000. Yet this being caught early has saved his life. There is a chance for spontaneous resolution. Failing that there are other options to consider.

Universalism: Part 1: Is death the end?

Introduction

In my own relationship with Christ there is often a word, phrase or idea that gets under my skin. This gets into the very marrow of my person and needs an outlet; some place to unpack the ideas and make my peace with them. Like a magpie's nest I tend to collect shiny treasures to line my nest and inform my world view. The most recent of these has been that of the old heresy of universalism.

Indeed there are several questions that have emerged over the past few weeks that relate to my perspective of eschatology which I have come to realise I have simply taken for granted. I hope to take a brief hiatus on John to explore each in turn and unpack what this question has to offer. What are these questions? I'll unpack them briefly below and then seek to address the first:

• Is death the end or are there opportunities to turn to Christ after death?
• How has the biblical view of life after death changed?
• What is meant by salvation?
• Is salvation limited or universal?

Sadly the church in which I participate is not the kind of place where such ideas can be unpacked. A combination of busy lives, rigid thinking and a pathological obsession with self-replication leaves few brothers and sisters available to really ponder what it is we actually believe. As such like a good auto-didactic-neo-monastic heretic I turn to the internet to find a space to unpack it all.

Some of the questions may seem odd to those who like me find themselves within an evangelical tradition. I believe we are called to a radical commitment to Christ, not the ideological or political ambitions of any institution. As such it would be neglectful to not give balanced consideration to distinct opinions. Many which I have found to have been disappointingly misrepresented by my own tradition. So this next series will really focus on these points and seek to unpack this topic a little and hopefully do it justice for now.

Death is the end

I am satisfied that there is a strong biblical case for Christ being the exclusive means by which individuals are saved¹. Yet what are the arguments that one must reconcile before death? Or that indicates that death is the final end after which the grace of God cannot act? Let's take a look at some of the key passages often used in support. I may add to these as time goes on but we shall see.

• John 3:16 highlights that belief in the Son is necessary for eternal life and that the wrath of God remains upon those who do not believe. However there is no indication that such belief must occur during one's life. One would expect biblical authors to provide such a stipulation if this were the case. They are forthcoming with other clear stipulations so why not this one? Particularly given contextually it's clear one must be born again. An explicit stipulation that claims such a birth must happen in life is notably absent.
• Hebrews 9:27 points out that it is appointed for many to die once (something a universalist would not, I think, deny) and after death face judgement. This is perhaps one of the more stronger points that alludes to a more sequential series of events. However once again does not explicitly stipulate that this must happen in life. Conceivably then, as long as an individual accepts death and judgement as an eschatological reality, one remains biblical. This would not exclude the possibility for repentance following judgement and a returning to Christ after death.
• Luke 16:19-31 points out that there is punishment and a chasm exists between those experiencing punishment and those that are not. The text indicates that it is neither within the power of the rich young ruler or Lazarus to end the punishment. However one must add to the text to claim that such punishment will never cease; that there is no hope of redemption.
• Mark 16:16 which suggests that belief and baptism is necessary for salvation but he who does not believe will face condemnation. Again there is no clear stipulation about when such a belief must be reached and does not exclude the possibility of reconciliation after death.
• Matthew 25 Is the single scripture I can find that implies that punishment is eternal. Yet even this is contested. There are some who argue that the term aiōnion does not always mean eternal² but that any limitation of this term is usually apparent within the text which is not the case in Matthew. That said this then raises issues as if such a punishment is eternal the implication in Rev 20:14 that hades will be thrown into the lake of fire?
• Romans 10:9-13 highlights that confession of the lordship of Jesus is necessary as is belief that God raised him from the dead. Once again however there is no clear stipulation that this must occur prior to death, merely that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Death is not the end

• 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 implies that through one man came death through another comes life. In both instances the same word 'all' is utilised. This raises some questions how can the 'all' be the case. Not all individuals come to repentance. Yet somehow all are saved? How might his be possible if the eschatological reality is that death is the end. Scripture does not mislead so how can resolution between these disparities be achieved?
• 1 Peter 3:19-20 suggests that Christ preached to the spirits in 'prison'. This is yet another eschatological departure from all other passages of scripture where the dead are in Sheol or Hades, and even Gehenna isn't utilised here. As such I would be hesitant to attempt to draw conclusions from what is a pretty opaque passage. Nevertheless this arguably stands in favour of the idea of death not being the end.
• 1 Peter 4:6 There is the suggestion that the gospel has been preached also to the dead that they might also turn repent and live in the spirit. This is perhaps the clearest passage we have that indicates that death may not be the end. Yet as with the other 1 Peter verse the passage is somewhat contextually cryptic.
• 1 Colossians 1:19-20 The inference is that all things will be reconciled, but how can this be if atonement is limited to those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?. Again as with the Corinthians passage there are some individuals who never reconcile with Christ in life and as such we are left with a challenging dilemma.
• Romans 5:18 Indicates that one trespass leads to condemnation and another leads to life for all men. Again we are presented with a quandary. If Matthew 25 is correct in that there is punishment eternal then how does this passage make any sense? Either all men or some face eternal punishment.

Conclusion

This unpacking of some of the key scriptures undoubtedly has missed many that may well add to the conversation. This is unintentional and if I find any later additions I look forward to including them here. I hardly consider this a systematic or exhaustive search. What I do think I have done is covered the key points touted by parties on either side of the debate.

So now as to the question as to what do I think. I think there is a paucity of evidence on both sides to claim with any degree of certainty that death is the end or to explicit accept the view that there are further opportunities after death. I do see clear evidence that salvation is only through Christ¹ and following death comes judgement and punishment.

That said there are some aspects to unpick as it is a particularly thorny issue and not particularly clear. For starters it is necessary to reconcile Matthew 25 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. Either all are reconciled through Christ or some face punishment eternal the two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. For me I would tend to side with the argument that eternal is a poor translation² rather than the punishment being everlasting. My justification being Revelation 20 in which death and hades are ultimately destroyed, being cast into the lake of fire. Either punishment is eternal or it is not.

For me I suspect that 1 Peter 4:6 opens the doors to the possibility of chances after death that other passages do not satisfactorily close. But I accept that one somewhat cryptic verse which is easily misunderstood is a poor reason to construct a rigid theological perspective. That said until something more compelling presents itself I see no reason think differently.

I will therefore naively hedge my bets with 1 Corinthians 15. Death comes to all through Adam and life to all through Christ. For this to be possible, given not all reconcile with Christ in life, there must be opportunities after death. Perhaps then this is what judgement and punishment is for. Typically God chastises to correct his children. In the above passages I do not see any reason to discount such punishment might be corrective rather than punitive.

I am somewhat in agreement with Keith DeRose³ in so far as no doctrine comes even close to competing with "death is the end" as being so widely believed by Christians, so disastrous in it's consequence and having so little by way of scriptural support.

John Chapter 11

Summary

Jesus returns to the outskirts of Bethany and meets Mary and Martha the sisters of a disciple loved by Jesus called Lazarus. Jesus is taken to the place where Lazarus is buried and Lazarus tomb is opened and he commands Lazarus to come out. Lazarus comes out of the tomb and is unbound from the linen and cloth strips.

Some of the Jews believe whilst others report to the Pharisees. The Pharisees are concerned that the nation will believe in Jesus because of the signs and Caiaphas the high priest had prophesied that year Jesus would die for the nation and the children of God that are scattered. They proceed to make plans to put Jesus to death.

Imagery and themes

The responses of Mary, Martha and the authorities stand in stark contrast. Martha goes off to meet Jesus and brings to him her anxiety and concern. That if he had been present then her brother would not have died. We see that Jesus must call for Mary who conceals her grief and the same concerns in private. Moved by the situation Jesus acts. He asks to see Lazarus burial place and weeps. He then calls him out of the tomb into new life requiring Lazarus to be freed from the garments of death.

In this chapter the suggestion is then that Lazarus death and resurrection was necessary that the glory of God might be displayed¹. We note also that it was recognised by the authorities that hearts of the people would be open to one who undertakes the great works that Christ was doing. Indeed interestingly there is even acknowledgement that he is doing great works by the authorities. Yet these same authorities deem it necessary for him to die to avoid a loss of power and for the benefit of the Jewish people. The view that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

What can we learn from this? We can come to Jesus, he can come to us but we must be receptive to him and the works he undertakes. Those that do not fail to engage in the agapic love that characterises the person of Jesus. The principle of the anti-christ is literally to be self seeking, not to give of oneself. Christ is prepared to lay down his life for his bride. The authorities here are unwilling to concede power and believe themselves to be acting in the best interest of the people. In reality they are engaging in the same folly as the judges we read about in Chapter 10.

An initially confusing part for me of this chapter was 11:16. It seems initially as if Thomas is stating that they should go die with Lazarus, but in actuality this could also mean to return with Jesus who's life will be in danger should he return to Judea. The latter makes more sense and adds depth to the narrative of the crucifixion. The disciples intended to follow Jesus even to death but, we know, ultimately failed.

John Chapter 10 (Part 2)

Summary

Jesus is in the Temple at the time of the feast of dedication in Jerusalem. Jews gather around him and ask him to speak plainly about his identity. Jesus points to his works claiming that these demonstrate who he is. He rebukes them claiming their unbelief is because they are not his sheep. Jesus claims he is one with the father.

The Jews seek stone to stone Jesus and Jesus enquires why. They point out he commits blasphemy by claiming to be God. Jesus points once again to his works. He points out they do not believe him but should believe the good works that he does. They seek to arrest him and he escapes again. Jesus returns to where John the baptist was baptising others and many came to him and believed.

Imagery and Themes

There is a subtle enigma within this passage namely John 10:34 which is Jesus response to the Jews. It seems at first glance that Jesus is claiming divinity for all human beings. There is some element of truth in here but the point is both subtle and nuanced. Lets pick at this a little.

Firstly we are all image bearers; created in the image of God with delegated authority and dominion over the earth(for those this offends or who enjoy the power trip, Jesus models precisely what dominion and leadership looks like). In some way then there is some part of us that is a divine gift. This however isn't what Jesus is talking about in the context of this passage. So let's take a look at the law.

The reference to 'the law' is actually a reference to Psalm 82:6. The term 'the Law' can refer to either the first five books of the Old Testament or the entire Old Testament¹. Contextually here in Psalm 82 we have God rebuking the judges who rule unjustly and sit making judgements as though they were God. It is a rebuke against tyranny.

So the point Jesus is making here is that the Jews present are doing likewise. They have set themselves up as God to judge man. Yet despite the evidence of God at work through the good works that Jesus is demonstrating those who sit in positions of authority feel they are justified in stoning Jesus for blasphemy. They do not recognise Jesus because they are not of his sheep and cannot see God at work because it does not conform to their current theological frame.

There is a real danger then of us being quick to judge others and not first examine the fruit of labour. There is also a risk of us observing something as being ungodly or false because it does not fit the theological frame we have constructed. This is something I feel quite strongly about following my own misadventures in evangelicalism.

Historically I have always maintained if it doesn't line up with scripture it isn't of God or God cannot be at work in it. This has excluded much of Gods work within my own life I was too caught up to realise. Please don't miss-hear me I remain committed to the value and authority of scripture. Indeed comparison with scripture should be our first litmus test.

As I see it a blind commitment to an idealogical practice rather than an examination of fruit is a dangerous place to reside. Abraham went to sacrifice his son, Joshua committed genocide, Elijah lay on the corpse of a boy, Mary had a baby without a husband, Peter killed and ate things forbidden for centuries. If we accept morality as complete and not relational we do not need God.

We simply reinvent Judaism. Instead I believe the words of scripture are only brought to life through the power of the spirit. We need Christ and God in relationship to lead an guide us. Christianity is relational.

John Chapter 10 (Part 1)

Summary

Jesus points out that thieves do not enter by the door but find another means of entry. But the shepherd enters by the gate. The sheep know him and follow him, they do not follow strangers. Jesus elaborates due to misunderstanding pointing out that he is the door; the gateway through which individuals find security and pasture. He who enters by the door is saved.

Whilst thieves enter only to kill, steal and destroy, Jesus has come that we may have life in abundance. He is the good shepherd not a hired hand who will flee at the first sign of danger. Indeed he lays down his life because his father permits this. Many are again offended by his words and Jesus brings division once more.

Imagery and Themes

Jesus here positions himself as a source of security for those who belong to him. He is the gateway through which individuals pass into life everlasting and find pasture. He is the good shepherd not one who flees and abandons individuals at the first sign of danger. He cares for his own. He knows his own and they know him.

For this reason he is not only a shepherd but a good shepherd. It is easy for us to loose sight of this point. Jesus is not evil, nor does he wish evil upon others. He cares for and lays down his life. He weeps with those who weep, and rejoices with those who rejoice. There is a clear relational dynamic between Jesus and his sheep.

We also see once again the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and his father. He has been given authority to lay down his life. He does so willingly and the father loves him for this. He also has been given authority to take it up again. This is consistent with his claims that all authority on heaven and earth is given to him.

Jesus then submits to the father in love. He has authority to act and uses this in a way that pleases the father. But not as a martyr to a lost cause like every other false messiah. But as one who has the power to take his life up again. In the same way that Jesus knows his own and they know him so too does the father know him and he know the father.

There is a level of intimacy here that we should ponder and reflect upon.

Apologia

There has been some delay since my last foray into John. This is due to the birth of my Son Joseph on the 12/06/2023. Sadly Joseph was taken very ill two days following his safe home delivery. His blood sugars plummeted to 0.7 and he was taken into Hospital and it is suspected he has transient hyperinsolinaemia.

He remains there in the excellent care of staff and my wife. This is the longest she has been separated from our other children (Joseph is our eighth child). This is a trying time and my faith and love for Jesus has sustained me throughout. He has heard our prayers and what looked like a very poor outcome has since become a prayer of thanks to God¹.

We remain hopeful that both mum and Joseph will come back to us very soon, and have a far greater appreciation for our good shepherd.

John Chapter 9

Summary

Jesus heals a man born blind from birth that was begging in the town. The man is brought before the Pharisee's and there is division amongst them as to who Jesus is. Some claim him a sinner for failing to keep the Sabbath, others point out that a sinner would be unable to heal questioning the man he claims Jesus is a Prophet.

The Jews question the parents of the main believing him to be lying about his blindness but they confirm he was born blind and suggest the Pharisee's listen to him as he is an adult. The Pharisee's ask again and the man points out they didn't listen to him the first time and that he is a disciple of Jesus. The Jews then cast him out.

Jesus visits the cast out man and enquires if he believes in the son of man, and the man believes and worships Jesus. Jesus claims he arrived into the world to enable the blind to see and to take sight from those who claim to see. Pharisee's nearby recognise he is talking about them and challenge Jesus, but he points out that if they didn't see then they would have no guilt.

Imagery and Themes

Again we find another passage in which the identity of Jesus is a subject of debate. In this account we are introducted to the man born blind from birth who is subsequently healed. Our protagnist is on a journey of discovery as to who Jesus actually is. We observe him begin by claiming Jesus as a prophet¹, then by calling into question the doubt that Jesus is a sinner² and finally after his second meeting with Jesus worships him as the son of Man³.

This contrasts with the journey of the Phariees who begin from a place of judgement⁴, attempt to discredit him as a sinner⁵, before rejecting Jesus entirely⁶. Jesus himself addresses this point to point out that he has arrived for the purpose of judgement.

His point here being that the religious claim to have sight; to both see and know the truth yet in reality they are blind to it. They cannot see who Jesus is nor the purpose for which he comes into the world. Instead a blind and now healed beggar manages to grasp what the religious elite simply are not in a position to grasp.

For any religious person this should really give us pause for consideration. Who are we in this narrative? Are we the blind man that begins from a place of helpless ignorance but is eventually led to position of faith, or are we those who already consider ourselves to have the answers and to see things as they truly are.

It's all to easy for us to fall into the sin of the Pharisee's and find ourselves guilty of the very thing we accuse others of being. When in actually blindness would have been a blessing that such a truth might be revealed to us to the Glory of God the father.

John Chapter 8

Summary

In this chapter we find the woman caught in the act of adultery set free¹ by Jesus. Jesus then points out that he is the light of the world and the Pharisees challenge his attempt to bear witness about himself. Jesus claims the father bears witness about him. The Pharisees call into question Jesus parentage and he points out that if they truly knew the father they would know him also.

Jesus points out that he is going away and others cannot follow because they are dead in their sins. He points out that they will know who he is when he is lifted up. Some believe in Jesus and he points out that his true disciples not only believe but abide in his word [logos]. Jesus teaching about slavery to sin and claims that those that seek to kill him because his word [logos] finds no place in them.

The Jews seek to discredit Jesus by claiming he has a demon and is a Samaritan. Jesus calls them out what explaining that the one that keeps his word [logos] will not taste death. Jesus then claims that before Abraham 'I am' alluding to his divinity which results in them seeking to stone him and Jesus hides and leaves the temple.

Imagery and Themes

I find it interesting that within this passage Jesus himself is quoted as having used the term logos². It's unlikely that Jesus himself would have utilised the Greek term given he spoke aramaic meaning that there is likely something significant through this notion that John is trying to convey.

The continual references throughout point to the significance of this term include "If you abide in my logos...", "yet you seek to kill me because my logos...", "because you cannot bear to hear my logos", "If anyone keeps my logos...", "I do know him and I keep his logos...". The suggestion here is that it is not only sufficient to know the words of Jesus, nor to hear them but also to abide [meinēte] in these words.

I have often found a frustrating conflation between concepts of the 'word' or 'words' of God. It may be controversial to say so but the bible is not the word of God. Jesus is the word; the ultimate articulation of what mankind needs to know about humanity and God. I have found the collision of these two concepts of the 'word' have caused much confusion.

Let me be clear I consider scripture invaulable any by no means seek to discredit or call into question the authority of scripture. But we need to ensure that our metaphors do not mislead us. We should be led firstly to Christ who then leads us to the scriptures. We must therefore situate scripture appropriately; that is to say to place Jesus first. Jesus himself clearly places value on scripture and utilises it on various occasions to teach and instruct others, but he must always come first.

Another interesting theme includes that of the identity of Jesus. Jesus claims that he is the light of the world and that unless the Pharisees believe in him they will die in their sins³. As in other chapters he continues to profess his divine vocation being sent by the father to do the will of the father, as opposed to those who merely do the will of the devil [Diablou]. Finally he makes the claim that before Abraham 'I am' which is an audacious claim at divinity which elicits a strong and violent response.

Who Jesus is then is as important as his message. His entire reason for being it to undertake the will of the father. This then too should be the vocation of those that follow after him. Those that claim to be his disciples will demonstrate this through the enaction.

John Chapter 7

Summary

Jesus is encouraged to attend the feast of booths¹ by his brothers, but is clear that he does not wish to attend publicly because his time has not yet come. Jesus brothers then depart to participate in the festival and Jesus follows privately. Jesus then teaches and is challenged by the religious leadership who question his authority. Jesus points out he is sent by the Father and draws parallels with Moses. Many question if Jesus is the Christ because they believe he is from Galilee and not Bethlehem.

On the last and greatest day of the feast Jesus stands and claims that those who are thirsty should come to him and from them will flow out streams of living water. This stirs up controversy and many wish to arrest Jesus but no one does. Nicodemus pushes back against the Pharisees pointing out that any judgement should first afford Jesus a hearing which those presently clearly have no intention of facilitating.

Imagery and Themes

One key image that seems to be recurrent throughout John is the notion that Jesus is the source of life. He is the means by which streams of living water will flow from the hearts of those that come to him. We see also a foreshadowing in this passage of the arrival of the spirit of God.

There is a clear sense of divine ordination for particular events with Jesus pointing out his time has not yet come and as such he should not publicly appear in certain places. Frankly this is a little perplexing as Jesus seemingly goes and presents himself publicly in any case. It's really difficult to make sense of what the significance of these actions are.

One interpretation might be that Jesus is trying to avoid conceding to the desires of his heart and the desires of man. Instead he awaits instruction and direction from the Father which come very shortly after. Other interpretations suggest that Jesus wishes to arrive in secret and so misleads rather than lies to his brothers. This for me fringes too close to dishonesty and as such I think we can rule this out.

In any event it's interesting how Jesus own seeming conflicted nature parallels clearly with the confusion and uncertainty he evokes in others about his nature. Many believe him to be a prophet, others a charlatan, whilst others still believe him to have a demon. The identity of Christ and his mission are thematically obfuscated from both those around him and the reader.

John Chapter 6

Summary

Jesus feeds five thousand and twelve baskets of fragments are left over. Jesus withdraws and his disciples proceed to Capernaum. Jesus follows walking on the sea. On arrival those left behind travel accross the sea of Galilee and seek Jesus in Capernaum. The Jews challenge him asking when he arrived in Capernaum. Jesus observes that these men sought after him because they were filled with the food Jesus provided but encourages them to pursue food that will never perish.

Jesus claims to be the bread of life pointing that those who come to him shall not hunger nor thirst and instead will receive eternal life. Jesus takes this further to claim that individuals must consume his flesh and blood. Many disciples turn away at this instruction, but the twelve remain with him.

Imagery and Themes

What strikes me most about this chapter is the recurrent use of 'eternal life'. Indeed Johns gospel very much speaks of eternal life consistently throughout. The synoptic gospels focus on the kingdom of God, or Kingdom of Heaven, whereas John seems more concerned with the concept of life eternal. In John’s Gospel, one has life through Jesus¹, through entrusting oneself to him², and instead of Gehenna John speaks of wrath, condemnation and judgement³.

We see this clearly reflect in Jesus comments about his being the bread of life. He is the means by which individuals will be sustained. It is only through consumption of Christ, the integration of him into the body that we are sustained. This point stands in contrast to gnostic notions of Christ as purely spirit. Here he makes clear reference to his physicality. The fact that he is embodied.

It is not sufficient merely to replicate spiritual patterns. One must take into oneself and integrate into ones being the very patterns that he has laid down. For some this will cause offence, and indeed the immediate consequences of his words see many disciples leave him directly.

The topic of heaven and hell and the concept of eternal life is something I think needs more attention. I am seriously contemplating exploration of the red letters following this series on John for this very reason. I must confess my eschatiological world view is not particularly biblical and wanting.

There have been a number of articles that have called into question the concept of both Eternal life and eternal punishment⁴. Frankly my reading of John thus far has really challenged my understanding of the afterlife. I had always assumed all individuals lived forever in some metaphysical fashion. What John however seems to allude to is the idea that only those that come to him for life eternal will live forever, and that this eternal life commence here on earth.

This is certainly something that requires more time and attention than I have presently committed.

John Chapter 5

Summary

Jesus attends Jerusalem and meets a man by the pool of Bethesda. Jesus enquires if he wants to be healed to which the man points he does but has not means to enter the pool when the water is stirred. Jesus then tells him to take up his bed and walk and the man does. The man is observed carrying his bead by the Jews and is accused of working on the Sabbath. The man points out he was only doing what he was told.

Later Jesus meets the man again in the Market and the man later tells the Jews it was Jesus who healed him. The Jews accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath and Jesus points out that he is only doing the will of the father in the authority he was sent with. Jesus points to the deficiency within the Jews who trust in the law to save them whereas Jesus offers eternal life.

Imagery and Themes

In this chapter we are not only provided with an account of events, but also Jesus own justification for his acting and behaving in the way that he does. We observe a Rabbi healing on the Sabbath something which was always going to bring about the disapprobation of the religious establishment. It is another clear way (baptism being another) in which Jesus sets himself against the establishment.

Not only this but he has essentially seeks to maximise his unpopularity and practically incited the Jews to kill him by claiming Sonship from God and breaking the Sabbath. This draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the Temple and points to the notion that his actions are right because they are deeply contextually fitted. Jesus has observed in relationship with the Father precisely the right action for the arena in which he is situated.

In this we see something of the intimate relationship between the Son and the Father. This is perhaps best demonstrated through the series of almost paradoxical claims that Jesus proceeds to make. He can do nothing on his own accord, but does what he see's the father to do. All authority has been given to Jesus, yet he only does the will of the Father. Whilst all judgement is his to make he only judges based on the will of the Father. We could see this as Jesus contradicting himself or recognise this as being empowered to act, but living submissively to the Father.

Jesus is his own testimony. His words, actions indeed his entire life is a testament to who he is; the son of man. He remains the divine pattern we are called to follow and commit ourselves too. There is a need for each of us to live in relationship with the Father. There are those that refuse to come to Jesus, to receive life from him. Instead these individuals have set there hopes upon the accuser, the law that reveals the shortcomings in man rather than redeeming him from them.

John Chapter 4

Summary

In response to the Pharisees asking questions Jesus leaves for Galilee and on passing through Samaria meets a Samaritan at the well of Jacob. He asks her for a drink and when she questions him he tells her that if she understood who he was she would ask him for water. Jesus claims that he will give streams of living water that will satiate the individual. He points out that the woman has had five husbands and is living with a man who is not her husband. She leaves and testifies to the village about her experience.

Jesus disciples return and offer him food but Jesus points out that he has food that is to do the will of the Father. This confuses the disciples, as does his talking with the woman at the well. The town visit Jesus and invite him to stay with them. Many believe and Jesus heals the son of an official from Capernaum.

Imagery and themes

A key theme within this passage appears to be that of sustenance. Jesus arrives at the well and is parched, yet he offers streams of living water. Jesus is hungry having sent his disciples for food yet refuses the food when they return claiming to enact the will of the father is food enough. One might well read this passage and see Jesus as being particularly difficult. But actually what this reveals is that Jesus perspective was not rooted in the material.

He certainly has knowledge of material needs and uses this to point to the spiritual needs of man which might otherwise be neglected. So that when he claims to be able to provide water that will continue to satisfy this is not going to be in the material format that the woman at the well is expecting.

There very much appears to be a continuity of the imagery in John 3 with the notion of water representing the eternal life of the spirit. Jesus here is not offering an unlimited refill beverage but is instead pointing out the human need for more than just our material needs being met.

So then what Jesus is indicating is something about the life of the spirit. This flows from Christ and is complimented with a life of obedience to the father. This life will satisfy the individual and result in fruitfulness. Jesus is clear that the principle of sowing and reaping remains but to be led by the spirit is to sow where we will not reap and visa versa.

John here is clearly outlining a number of key theological points. That Jesus was sent by the father. That temple and mountain worship will come to an end. That the true source of life is found in Christ. That fruitfulness needs to be considered broadly not in terms of individual performance. That doing the work of the father is nourishing and satisfying for the soul.

John Chapter 3

Summary

Nicodemus claims that Jesus is sent by God and Jesus responds pointing out what is necessary for one to see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus asks for clarification and Jesus points out that there are two births to entrance to the kingdom. Nicodemus is confused and Jesus chastises him as the teacher of Israel and points to the necessity of his elevation as the son of man. Jesus then points out the love of God and the purpose of the sending of the son of God.

Jesus then travels to the Judean countryside and he baptizes alongside John. A discussion arises around how Jesus is now attracting crowds and John is not. John has a clear grasp of his positionality in relation to Christ and points out he is a pointer to but not the memory address.

Imagery and Themes

This chapter exemplifies well the distinctions between the synoptic gospels and John's own account. With the synoptic gospels providing accounts of events that occurred during Jesus life and John provided much more detailed theological exposition. This can make reading John a little tricky. Indeed significant portions of this chapter utilise allegory and metaphor in such a way that those seeking to approach the text with a materialist mindset are going to struggle.

Let's see if we can unpick some of this.

Firstly 3:8 seems almost out of the blue. We we're talking about being born again Jesus why the reference to the wind? One possible answer here might be that Jesus is making the point that Nicodemus is only accepting what is reasonable to him. What he can tangibly grasp. Jesus points out the wind isn't necessarily visible to him and this is what it is like to be born of the spirit. Nicodemus's approach is the issue.

Jesus points out that he must be lifted up like the serpent was lifted up¹. So there is this idea that we must behold Christ to inherit eternal life. It's not a given, but instead is contingent upon us seeing Christ for who he really is. The principle is really well illustrated in John's response to the Jewish individual that questions his tacit consent to Jesus Baptising others.

John here points out both who he is, his purpose and why it doesn't matter. This is clearly something that has been made clear to him by the Lord. It's evidence of a strong sense of identity and well formed self that recognises one's own relationship to the divine. This entire passage is about the right relationship to the divine for that matter.

John has a very poetic way of veiling truth.

John Chapter 2

Summary

Jesus attends a wedding in Cana with his mother, brothers and disciples. His mother seeks his help when the bridegroom runs out of wine and telling the servants to fill six stone jars with water instructs them to then give the water to the master of the feast. In doing so the water is turned to wine.

Jesus attends the temple in Jerusalem and found monelenders and traders selling animals. Making a whip he disrupts the temple businesses and drives them from the temple. The Jews ask for a sign and he claims that if they destroy the temple three days later he will rebuild this. The author points out here that he is speaking of his body.

Many believe in the name of Jesus as they see the signs he performs. Jesus does not entrust himself to these individuals because he knew all people and what is in man.

Imagery and themes

There are some real areas of interest in this chapter with Mary apparently having some insight into Jesus's pending actions¹, Jesus attending a wedding with his disiples², a pit stop in Capernaum³, and Jesus not entrusting himself to others⁴. There are so many potential lines of enquiry for the sake of brevity I will pick one.

To me it is curious that the first recorded miracle in John's gospel would be one which seems somewhat indulgent. This is no healing of a chronically sick or disabled individual, it isn't a resurrection from the dead or vocalisations from an animal. Instead it's Jesus turning ordinary water into something that will benefit those who likely already have saturated blood-alcohol levels.

Between this and the account of the temple we see two contrasting sides to Jesus character. In the former he is ready to take something ordinary and make it extra-ordinary, in the latter he addresses corruption in the heart of man. Perhaps a clue lies within what at first appears to be an out of place passage in verse 11; "and his disciples believed in him"².

If we consider this passage through the frame of the condition of the heart the disciples observe a miracle and believe. The Jews in Jerusalem on the other hand miss the sign⁵ Jesus and demand further evidence. This contrasts well two clear responses to the person of Jesus, and offers some insight into why Jesus might not 'entrust' himself to those around him, given his understanding of the human heart. Put simple he knows what's in the heart of man.

We still haven't addressed the issue of the wine though...

For me when the apparent meaning is unclear or seems peculiar this usually is a good indicator that we need to adopt a symbolic hermeneutic. It's not a hard an fast rule but has served me well in gleaning the most that I can from scripture. Let's consider then the symbolic significance of water and wine.

Water in Johns gospel represents the second birth and (to use John's words) eternal life. Wine in scripture is symbolic of blood and consequently mortality. We see therefore Jesus enact out the pattern of the eternal become mortal; the divine become flesh. Jesus invites us to participate in an inverted version of the pattern he lays out later in John 3:5 pointing out the first birth is one of flesh and blood. The second birth is water and spirit⁶.

John Chapter 1

Summary

The introduction to John begins with allegory of the incarnation; the word becoming flesh. In the word is the life of men that is light. This word dwells among us and John bears witness to this. John is questioned about his identity by the Pharisees and accounts for his actions but points towards he who comes after him. John proclaims twice that Jesus is the 'lamb of God'.

John explains that he has come baptizing in water that Jesus might be revealed. On the second occasion Jesus is questioned by his followers where he is staying and he leads them to this place. The next day Jesus reveals his knowledge of the heart of Nathanael and when Nathanael believes he points out that he will see greater things than this insight into the actions of man. Including the ascending and descending of Angels on the Son of Man.

Imagery and Themes

Much ink has been spilt over this chapter, and certainly a brief devotional will not capture all of the nuance and complexity that lies within this passage. There is much going on in the Greek and the use of language seems deliberate. As such it seems appropriate to begin with first an examination of what is meant by the use of the word Logos and why Christ, God and Logos are considered one and the same. To begin we need to take a step back 500 years before Christ to encounter a lesser known pre-socratic philosopher named Heraclitus¹.

Heraclitus points out that there is an underlying structure or divine expression that is pervasive throughout all things. That is to say that the world is intelligible it has an order about which we can speak. Heraclitus refers to this as the logos. This is revolutionary for pre-socratic thought as we observe the first attempt at meta-cognition. To think about thinking.

Heraclitus in his writing appears to attempt to imitate the complexity of the real world by presenting the reader with a series of puzzles, paradoxes, and other literary devices intentionally designed to aid in the discovery of the Logos. His statements are not meant literally, but instead are meant to offer the opportunity to discover something about the world.

If this answers the question what is Logos and why is it important to the Greeks, what it doesn't yet clarify is what does this have to do with Christ and God? The author in this passage is making the claim that the order and divine expression that participated within creation; the life that is the light of men is Christ. It is almost as outrageous a claim as the I am claim made in Exodus². This alone would be a significantly bold expression but to proceed further and unite the God of the Hebrews with this underlying structure in the form of a man. Now that's just madness!!!

It would be easy to make the error and divert into pantheism and equate the world we experience with God. But this is not the point that the author is making. Nor is this the panentheism idea that Christ is merely a part of God at play here. Instead we have Jesus who is God as the divine expression that illuminates the light of men. He participates in creation but is not creation itself; the world is contingent upon him but not part of him. He is after all the son of man³, the one who ascends into the realm of archetypes, the pattern.

There is so much more to explore in this passage but time prevents me from proceeding further. For the sake of brevity I'm going to leave it here. But I will likely revisit John 1:1-18 in the future and try to offer commentary on the rest of the passage. One parting gift; Isn't it interesting how the chapter attempts to communicate truth about Jesus through the eyes of others, and in particular John.

Leviticus Chapter 27

Summary

This chapter outlines the regulations that govern the making of vows. This includes vows of people, animals, houses, inheritance and land. The chapter outlines what must be offered in place of the item to be offered to the Lord, and what must be added to the offering.

Provisions are made to outline what it is not lawfull to offer the Lord as a vow offering and how offerings might be redeemed. The book finally finishes with a clear message that these are the commandments that the Lord has commanded Moses for the people of Israel.

Imagery and Themes

Vows made to God in this passage outline an intention to honour the Lord with a specific offering if he is faithful in making the offering possible. The reason that the offering itself was not made was due to the offerer being unable to make the offering at the time the vow was made. Offerings were used by the priests for the maintenance of the Temple¹, and there are numerous examples of vows made throughout scripture².

Vow keeping it seems was therefore common practice in the ancient world and the general thrust of this passage is not on how or if but, what to do when vow keeping cannot be kept. We can see that to make a vow is a serious matter and to break or to seek to withdraw from a vow is a serious matter. If anything then we might draw from this passage that it would be preferable not to make vows to the Lord³.

Why conclude the book of the law with a discussion of vows? I really like the suggestion made here that an appropriate way to conclude the Law is with a discussion not of what people are compelled to do but what they are permitted to do. To embody the principle of the law; that is the desire to worship and honour the Lord and our agreements with him. This leads the individual to move from what is required [Duty] to what is possible [delight].

As to final reflections on Leviticus; I have found this exploration interesting. In particular the symbolism apparent had been a wonderful thing to explore. I will admit that it has been a challenge. Indeed the nuances and exceptions are at times an exhausting and dry read. Nevertheless I feel such a venture was worthwhile and a meaningful task. Leviticus is not a book to be explored in isolation, nor does reading it make an individual a better person. Yet I'm convinced I am better off having read this book than not.

Leviticus Chapter 26

Summary

There is a directive to not make idols nor bow down to created things because Yahweh is the Lord your God. There is a promise made to those who walk in the Lords commandments to increase their fruitfulness and to dwell in the land given to them by the Lord in security. There is also the promise that the Lord will dwell among them and there will be a relationship between God and his people.

There are also provisions made for the serious consequences of failing to listen, respect and observe the Lords commandments. To break his covenant is to make an enemy of God and incur his wrath. The Lord will in fury discipline his people sevenfold for their sins. Yet if his people confess their sins and iniquity then he will remember his covenant with Abraham, but the land will Sabbath and the Lord will not destroy them utterly. These are the statues and rules between the Lord and his people.

Imagery and Themes

There is a clear need for asbestos gloves when handling Leviticus 26. Considerable effort has gone into the vivid description of the consequences of disobedience which extends across 24 verses. It includes being reduced to eating their children and having their dead bodies cast upon their idols. Such strong language overshadows this entire passage and stands as a stark warning to the people of God not take the Lords commandments lightly. To fail to live up to the Lords expectations is to make a clear enemy of the Lord and he will set himself against his people.

It is clear to see why so many individuals struggle to reconcile the Yahweh of the OT and Jesus of the NT. God here not only appears to be suggesting that he will punish rebellion and disobedience, but that he will even be borderline vindictive about it. Hardly the acceptance and forgiveness we find in Jesus's command to "go and sin no more". I find such passages myself deeply troubling, and difficult to understand. This is part of the challenge of faith. Kierkegaard was right, one must allow the dilemma to frame the paradox and then make a leap to faith.

What is a small comfort in this chapter is the olive branch that God extends to a disobedient people. That despite all they have done. Despite his warnings, and the clear requirements that he has outlined to them in written form, he will provide an escape from his wrath. Namely through humble acceptance of their iniquity and a recognition of how they have failed the Lord. The Lord is jealous for his people. He will not permit them to accept another, he will not permit them to loose focus. They are his and he has chosen them and he too will provide the means for reconciliation.

Leviticus Chapter 25

Summary

Provisions are made for the Sabbath year which occurs every seventh year. In this year the land is not cultivated but permitted to grow wildly and whatever food is provided for is for food. Every forty nine years there is the year of Jubilee in which property is returned to it's former owner for a fair payment. The Lord himself will make provision to ensure the people do not starve.

Further provisions are made for the return of property within the year of Jubilee. It is acknowledged that the sale of property belongs to the Lord and he does not permit it's sale for perpetuity. The year of Jubilee it is returned to it's rightful owner. Further provisions are made for those who through poverty sell themselves to provide for their families, this includes appropriate care and opportunity for redemption; such provisions also extend to strangers and sojourners.

Imagery and Themes

Within this passage we observe something of the economic system at play in ancient Israel. The sale of property and labour has defined limitations and there is opportunity to reclaim what was lost through misfortune. The year of Jubilee models the pattern of redemption we see recurrent throughout scripture. The people of Israel now required to live this out as a statute among them from the Lord.

It reveals something of the heart of God and his significant concern for the well-being of his people. The prospect of freedom from slavery and escape from having sold in perpetuity property that were a gift of God represents a stabling force within the community. There is a mechanism by which things will be re-ordered in accordance with the will of the Lord.

I am curious to know if such a system was ever implemented. For it is certainly one thing to outline such a system but another to see it implemented. One also has to wonder if realistically those that were poor would have recourse to legal assistance to challenge the failure to relinquish property sold. I would also be curious to consider what kind of abuses such a system suffered from.

Leviticus Chapter 24

Summary

The Lord speaks to Moses and outlines provisions for a lamp to be kept burning before the Lord. Next the Lord outlines provisions for the preparation and storage of the bread for the tabernacle which is a holy portion and perpetual due for the priests. Twelve loves are to be created and stored in piles of six.

Next is an account of the son of an Egyptian and Israelite woman who blasphemes the name of the Lord during an altercation with another man of Israel. The Lord judges that the son should die by stoning and this is carried out by the people. It is outlined that reparations should be made for those who are sinned against like for like.

Imagery and Themes

One way of understanding this chapter is to consider how four distinct aspects of God's character are revealed through it. Firstly the lamp symbolically represents the presence of God with his people. God therefore is not one who is distant or disinterested but one intimately acquainted with his people and resident amongst them.

Secondly God is revealed as a provider, the provision of the memorial bread suggests that God wishes it to remain a weekly feature of his peoples worship of him. To recall to memory that he has provided for them and sustains them in all things. It is necessary that this is consumed in a holy place; thus the memory is to be given due respect and not entered into lightly.

Thirdly there is a recognition of God as judge, that he has independent will and his people have a responsibility to await his degree. Christianity is not a democratic situation; it is an aristocracy in which God is king and rules by decree, not by committee. As such his people should be attentive to his commandments and carry them out accordingly.

Finally the Lord is the one who seeks reparations for harm done to others through injury. The decree outlines that what injury was done to one shall be inflicted upon the other. Some have attempted to minimise the harsh appearance of such a commandment suggesting this was advisory or that an equivalent injury was a maximum. I read nothing here that suggests such retributive justice not be carried out. It "shall be done to him"¹

When reading such passages it is not hard to see why many individuals struggle to reconcile the loving image of God that seems willing to forgive in the new testament to the apparent tyrant that rules by decree in the latter. Condemning the Egyptians son to death² yet sparing the women caught in the act of adultery³. Is there not inconsistency here? Why is the God of the OT more concerned with the exercising of Justice than the NT?

This passage raises more questions that it answers, and thats fine. Living with uncertainty is a fact of life and one which we should embrace. The assumption that the world and the Lord can be sufficiently reasoned out is just that, an assumption. When faced with such a paradox we have a choice; rejection or acceptance.

Fear and Trembling - Prelude I

Upon first hearing the account of Abraham and Isaac we are attracted to it. We admire the absolute commitment that Abraham demonstrates to God in sacrificing the child of promise. Yet knowledge of the narrative is insufficient for personal growth. The use of age here seems to be in the sense of 'maturity'. That as we mature we recognise that knowing that is distinct from knowing how. As such the mature believer will want to see for his/herself; to inhabit the narrative to obtain the participatory knowledge. What we pursue here is not the systematic web of ideas that explains events but to experience the 'shudder of thought' the fear and trembling for ourselves.

Next we observe an account of the journey to Mount Moriah; in silence Abraham journeys to the mountain and after blessing his son reveals himself to be other than what Isaac believed him to be. This is revealed to the reader to be an intentional ploy, one in which Abraham seeks to birth and preserve his son's own faith in God at his expense. Here Abraham appears very distinct from how we perhaps once perceived him. This paragon of virtue employs at a generous reading concealment, and at a more cynical reading deception, as a means to preserve his sons faith in God. This is hardly the Abraham we expect to find, and likely forever changed their relationship.

Taken in light of the final account which describes the weaning of the child we might draw some conclusions. K perceives Abrahams actions as necessary for the cultivation of a genuine, deep and personal faith in his son. This is an act of nurture in which Abraham seeks to reframe the situation that Isaac might find an independence and not assume that he can merely inherit his fathers faith. Instead it is necessary for him to appropriate this for himself.

Abraham is acting ironically creating a dilemma to frame the paradox. The dilemma being his apparent contempt for his son which reframes his sons view of their relationship. This leads to the paradox whereby Isaac is faced with the reality that he is to be the child of promise, yet he faces death at the hands of an apparently malevolent father. Both are equally true despite the apparent contradiction, and no synthesis is possible. His response is one of an absolute commitment to God in the face of a malevolent father.

From this short but dense portion of the book we can see something of the complexity that K wishes to deal with in this book. Namely the need for the believer not only to know propositionally; in abstraction. But to also foster perspectival and participatory knowledge of faith in the concrete. This is necessary for maturity as a believer who not only has knowledge of the truth but has participated within it.

Fear and Trembling - Preface

Kierkegaard is drawing attention to the spirit of the present age in which the skepticism of modernity appears to cost the individual nothing. Individuals profess to doubt everything or to have faith and then proceed beyond with out so much as a description of how such a movement might be possible. His penetrating question of such ideas "who will actually want them in the end?" emphasises the challenge facing modern man in the relm of philosophy. That for something to be of value it must cost man something. Or to be put more plainly that which costs nothing is worthless. The mistake is one in which we intelectualise matters of passion rather than suffer them.

K asserts that even great doubters such as Descartes did not make doubt a necessary suffering for all, and did not doubt in matters of faith, noting his method held importance for only himself. Yet the assumption of the age is that today's thinkers begin where veterans such as Descartes left off as though such a thing is possible with faith; endogomy after all was the sin of the Pharisees. Gone is the notion supported by the ancient Greeks that proficiency in doubt might be an individual venture that takes a lifetime, or that a life of faith is not something that was acquired in a few weeks but the task of a lifetime. These refined and revered sages profess to succeed at the earliest opportunity to proceed beyond doubt and faith without so much as a word of how.

K asserts that he is no such writer or thinker, has had no such impressive thoughts. Arguing that even though one were capable of converting the whole content of faith into the form of a proposition, it does not follow that one has adequately conceived it, how one obtained it, or how it became a part of us. K neither writes about a system as that of modern thinkers might conceive nor ascribes any value to such systems. K writes because for him it is a luxury; yet he can forsee that many may not pursue his line of thinking because it does not lend itself to comfort or an easy read. Indeed it his expectation to be ignored "...in an age when passion has been obliterated in favor of learning" or worse reinterpreted for the convenience of the reader. K protests that such actions should not be taken with his work and instead wishes those modern philosophers of such systems the best of luck in building their own towers.

Leviticus Chapter 22

Summary

In this chapter direction is given to ensure that those that have become 'unclean' are separated from what is Holy through prohibitions against consumption of what is Holy or has been offered to God. Similar prohibitions are made against lay persons, foreigners and those that are not of the priestly household.

There is reiteration of the necessity for all offerings to be without blemish or mark; the Lord will not accept offerings made where this is not the case. There are also provisions once again about the timescales for consumption and the necessity that the name of the Lord is not profaned by those amongst whom he makes his dwelling.

Imagery and Themes

There is some continuity here with regards to the previous chapter whereby once again the images of 'clean' and 'unclean' are required to be enacted in flesh. It appears necessary that God who is Holy does not come into contact with that which is not. I do wonder how this reconciled with the view that sin entered the world through Man and consequently has contaminated all things. In which case it leaves one curious how anything might be offered to a Holy God given all creation is tarnished by the presence of sin?

The ESV has a particularly poor translation of verse 32 which presents initially as confusing. "And you shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified among the people of Israel..." to the casual reader might appear that God requires sanctification. In reality this should read something like "And you shall not profane my Holy name; I will be acknowledged as Holy". There is a directive here to ensure that the flesh operates in accordance with Holy statutes and acknowledges as Holy that which is Holy.

It is perhaps then clear to see why some may argue that Judaism is a behaviourist religion¹. Indeed the very criticism Jesus himself leveled at the Jewish establishment²; and is perhaps one of the clearest areas of divergence between the two religious traditions. In the case of the Judaism the internal reality is of little concern, whereas in the case of Christianity the internal reality of primary concern. Evidently I am trying to speak normatively and there will be exceptions to the rule.

We have already been given direction in Chapter 1 & 3 about the necessity for the offering to be made without blemish and the reiteration here reinforces the point. The justification given, that God is Holy. This is sufficient, no other explanation is given. The risk of disobedience is outlined clearly in verse 9. Failure to keep the lords charge risks bearing sin and death.

Leviticus Chapter 21

Summary

Clear instruction is given to the priesthood not to make themselves unclean by attending to the dead, except in the case of close relatives. The priesthood will neither make themselves unclean as a husband through deeds done to the body or through union with another. Similar provisions are given for their daughters.

More stringent provisions are made for the chief priest who is consecrated to God and is expected to adhere to even tighter moral regulations extending also to his spouse. Provisions are also made for those to be found with 'blemish' before the Lord God that prohibits consumption of the bread of God.

Imagery and Themes

In our present age prohibitions against the participation of disabled, disfigured or in some way 'other' would be considered able-ist and discriminatory. We might well ask why a God that is so motivated by mistreatment of the poor and marginalised would therefore explicitly exclude their participation in the offering of the Bread of God within the sanctuary? It is small comfort that they are permitted to eat of such bread, for in the following passage we see that they are considered to 'profane' the sanctuary with their presence.

For me such a passage is a clear example of the limitations of blind materialism. Not the kind of materialism that leads us make impulse purchases for items we do not need. But instead the kind that insists that things must be understood 'literally'. Our fetish for correspondance -that our understanding of a thing is only valuable when it corresponds too said thing - is myopic and narrow minded. Such a view limits our perception of reality to something like the 'actual', which presents the risk of missing the underlying message.

I have often been perplexed by the Christan ability to perceive the message within the allegorical and parabolic sayings of Christ, and yet remain insistent that many passages are intended to be understood materially. As though a description of mechanical causality was the intended message of scripture. Let's take for example the Human notion of love. If we contrast the view of love as the mechanically causal biochemical and psychological processes; vs say the Pauline religious perspective 1 Cor 13:4-8. Neither captures entirely what humans mean by love although the latter would perhaps 'feel' closer to experience than a description of mechanical causality.

So if the 'physical' implications of such a perspective make sense what is the spiritual message that is being communicated here? My view would be that this is a way of denoting the purity and Holiness of God through the medium of flesh. Only the purest flesh may be presented before God. Indeed many will not qualify, and of those that do qualify an incredibly high physical and moral standard is demanded. Does this excuse the exclusion of those who in flesh may exhibit what others consider a 'defect'? This is a question I am unable to answer at this point given my own health concerns and passionate campaigning for disability rights.

One response might be the human tendency to pursue the spiritual at the expense of the physical. As though Paul suggests the physical has no benefit¹ like some kind of first century gnostic. I agree there is unhelpful use of flesh to talk about carnal desires and 'the old man'. But Jesus came in physicality, had physical needs and yet was out sin. Drawing the parallel then between the need for not only purity of spirity but also body is a reminder that we are embodied creatures and both aspects require the redemptive power of Christ.

This certainly isn't a decisive answer. What I can conclude is that the standard of purity is impossibly high, and the demands made upon man by God are significant. Not all will qualify for participation within the offering. I am also conscious that through Christ much is revealed about God heart for the marginalised, outsider, despised and poor. In the same way I will never qualify as a Navy Seal, many would not qualify for participation within the sanctuary; the standards are impossibly high. I too would number among those excluded but welcome the chance to eat the bread of life.

Leviticus Chapter 20

Summary

This chapter outlines provisions against the sacrifice of children to Molech, necromancy or the cursing of ones parents. Further provisions are made against incestuous relationships with immediate family members by blood or marriage. Bestiality and Homosexuality are also indicated in this passage. The punishment for deviation from the law is clearly death.

It is made clear to the people of Israel that they are to reflect the Holiness of God or to face being vomited out by the land. The Lord has set apart his people to live distinctly to the nations that surround Israel and there is clear need for the people of Israel to live up to the high holy standards that the Lord has outlined.

Imagery

This chapter paints a clear causal links between sin and death. The punishment in nearly every case is social exile, or physical death. Sexual immorality carries as significant a punishment it seems as necromancy and witchcraft; that is this is completely contrary to the nature and person of Christ. As such this highlights something of the significance that God attaches to sexual activity between persons.

In scripture sexual activity is reserved for the context of a marital relationship between persons. There is good reason for this. The literature on fatherlessness in the UK alone indicates that children under four are more likely to have special educational needs and fatherless children have an increased risk of developing an anxiety disorder in adolescence. Even the most committed fathers will eventually have decreasing involvement in the lives of children they are no longer resident with over time.

This relationships is sacred, not to be entered into lightly with any individual one chooses. Yet it shouldn't be viewed negatively. There is a creative potential that is purposed towards the creation of life in many degrees of resolution. It births new love between persons, new life through procreation, great creative potential through team work and a new way of living sacrificially towards each other when it's purpose is understood. You don't just pick anyone for such a venture.

There is also clear direction for the people of God to live in a way that is distinct from the surrounding people groups. The image of the land vomiting people from the land is vivid. The generous gift of a home is only available to those who recognise it's gift. The same too with marriage. In our current age the social problems that lead to the separation and divorce of persons brought together by God are complex. Domestic violence, infidelity, coercive and controlling behaviours, bitterness, jealousy the list is potentially endless. In such cases there are no winners; everybody looses something that was once meaningful.

In any case this doesn't really relate to the passage discussed but was the way the mind wandered at the time of writing. Marriage is on the mind it seems. Perhaps I will revisit this another time and offer something a little more focussed.

Leviticus Chapter 19

Summary

There are provisions made against the creation of idols or failure to recognise the sanctity of offerings. There are provisions made for social relationships between the rich, poor, and between persons generally. The underlying principle being to love your neighbour as yourself¹ Further provisions are made with regards to purity including the observance of statutes, sexual relations, agriculture, spirituality and justice.

Imagery and Themes

The first part of this chapter outlines the right relationship between persons. There are clear expectations about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable to God. One noteworthy point is how the refraisI am the Lord and I am the Lord your God is repeated throughout the passage.

Clear directives are given to the people with the weight of God behind them. Not a nebulous cloud, nor a father archetype that resides in the sky. This is the God that redeemed his people from Egypt. The theme of memory is a key one within scripture² being the predominant way that all things are held together.

This refrain then is a constant reminder as to both the authority behind the commandment, but also the rationale for obedience. It's a pattern we see elsewhere in scripture³. Bring to memory the deliverance and then act in accordance with the statutes of God.

For me the practice Lectio Divina [Divine Reading] has proven an invaluable pattern to afford rememberance in my own walk with God. Some may consider this an antiquated relic but structure can be powerful. It essentially is a structured way to engage in basic Christian Practice and includes:

• Lectio - Reading Scripture
• Meditatio - Meditation or seeking communion with God
• Oratio - Prayer or dialogue with God
• Contemplatio - Contemplation, that is being present with Christ and permitting him to speak spiritual lessons into my life and resting my cognition in this place.

Many flinch from such practices or words such as meditation and consider such practices guilty by association. Indeed many so-called mystic practices appear almost indistinguishable from eastern counterparts. However, I see mysticism as a way of thinking that seeks to unify the material and spiritual⁴. It is distinct from Gnostic heresy given that it does not favour spirituality over the material. Rather it seeks contextual understanding; that is understanding what spiritual lesson God wishes me to understand in my present context.

Christian mystics often advocate an ecology of practices something notably lacking from Protestant Christianity. Whilst Worship, Word, Prayer and Eucharist play a significant role there are practices Jesus himself engaged within which Protestants like myself have irresponsibly ignored in favour of systemic theological exposition and ethical interpretations. Neither of these are bad things; indeed I'm grateful for what they have offered me as a person.

Protestant Christianity has offered me an accessible way to engage with a deep knowledge and understanding of God. However critical historical interpretations do not position me in the same way that the disciplines do, so as to be transformed. As such, for this I look to my Orthodox and Catholic brothers for patterns that have aided many a great man of God. Too often have I found myself able to answer the question but unable to live the answer.

Leviticus Chapter 18

Summary

Provisions are given for unlawful relations with family members. It is clean that an individuals will not uncover the nakedness of his father, mother, step-mother, sister or step-sister, grandchildren, Aunt, or Uncle. There is also provision against sexual relationships with two women from the same family. Sexual relations whilst menstruation is taking place is also prohibited, as is worship of Molech, sexual relationships between men or bestiality.

The passage is clear that the people are set apart by God and not intended to be like other nations. The land has 'vomited' out these other nations and it has been given as an inheritance to the people of God. So the people of God are charged by him not to engage in unlawful sexual relations.

Imagery and Themes

The notion of approaching an individual to 'uncover the nakedness' is an unusual turn of phrase. There is a sense in which the fall has resulted in the need for coverings of skin that prevent a level of intimacy or disclosure to others. The intimacy of sexual relationships then is not to be taken lightly and clear proscriptions are given for when it is acceptable and unacceptable. It's interesting then to see the notion of 'uncovering nakedness' almost implies a consent issue. As though the individual engaging in the act must first reveal the nakedness of the individual.

Whilst in our current age certain prohibitions would be looked upon with contempt others seem fairly reasonable. We must remember that sex as it is currently constructed perceived in our age very differently. Historically sex between partners was for the purpose of procreation, not for the gratification of participants. That came later with the introduction of the contraceptive pill, the summer of love, and finally the sexual revolution.

It is clear that the people of God were given distinct standards to live by. There is a clear instruction to live lives that do not conform to the pattern of those they have driven out. The promise as before is that God will honour those who honour his commandments. Whilst I hardly think the issue of blood relations is problematic in our present age. Perhaps the underlying message here is that we should give pause before uncovering the nakedness of another.

Leviticus Chapter 17

Summary

Clear direction is give as to where sacrificial offerings to the Lord will be made; at the entrance of the tent of meeting. Offerings made outside the camp incur bloodguilt. Strangers or the people of Israel that make offerings to not in accordance with this statue are to be cut off. There is a clear direction to prohibit offerings made to goat-demons.

Further provisions are given against the consumption of blood; noting that this is prohibited given blood contains the life of the flesh. Furthermore there are provisions for those that sojourn amongst the people of God not to do likewise. There is also provision made not to consume animals that have died of natural causes or been killed by another animal. Those that do must undertake a cleansing ritual or bear their iniquity.

Imagery and Themes

This chapter seems to suggest that sacrifice is a social concern. There are clear guidelines in relation to how this must be conducted and it must be done within the community. To seek to instigate one's own approach or to failure to recognise this as a social concern results in separation from the community. It is immediately followed by another social concern, specifically the sacrifices made to the 'he-goat', or 'goat-demons'. Evidently clear prohibition against unauthorised sacrifices are required to retain the cohesiveness of the community.

The people of God are prohibited from the consumption of blood. Giving consideration to the ancient world view the consumption of a thing could imbue one with the power of the thing. In the Dionysian ritual one consumed bread in an attempt to absorb the Gods powers. Zeus consumes Metis to gain cunning and give birth to wisdom. In a more extreme example, many tribes that practice cannibalism consume the dead not only as an act of terror but to absorb the powers of their fallen enemies.

Such imagery can also be found in the Eucharist, as Christ is symbolically consumed in an act of remembrance in which Christ is integrated into the body. So if there is a precedent why the general prohibition? Symbolically such an occurance would suggest that man consumes and receives life by his own hand. Something which simply is not the case¹. This is likely the symbolic reason for the prohibition, but also the consumption of blood had potential health risks as well.

Leviticus Chapter 16

Summary

Moses is instructed to tell Aaron not to enter the Holy place without appropriate preparations. This includes the sacrifice of a Bull for himself and the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat. Two goats would be presented to the Lord with lots cast between them; one offered as a sin offering the other driven out from among the people to bear the sins of the people.

There are ceremonial provisions made for the consecration of the people, the priesthood and the tabernacle with clear instructions to be carried out in relation to each. This includes the clothes that Aaron must wear and what must be done with both sin offerings. There is finally a provision made for an annual consecration of the people which is commanded to be treated as a Sabbath.

Imagery and Themes

This chapter continues the theme of clean and unclean we have observed recurrent throughout the law. The Lord is sufficiently set apart from man such that to enter his presence without sufficient preparation is to invite death¹. Death is necessary to enter into the presence of God given mans sinful condition; an image that is incredibly powerful and highlights how God is so very distinct from what we understand him to be.

An interesting feature of Leviticus 16 is the use of the term 'Azazel'. There is no clear consensus on what this particular term means with Christians traditionally leaning towards scapegoat whilst some Jewish oral traditions maintained that this was a reference to a mountain cliff from whence the goat was cast down. One medieval Jewish commentator has also suggested this referral to a demon; with the notion that the sins of the people were sent back to the spirit of desolation from whence they came. I have a particular fondness for such theological enigmas which are a gentle reminder of the limitations of our knowledge and understanding.

This notion of the sins of the people being cast out from among them and sent back from whence they came is symbolically powerful. It recognises that the propensity for evil is present amongst his people, the need for atonement, and the foreshadowing of Christ in the recognition that these sins must be carried by one away from the people to root out the destructive power of sin from amongst the people.

In the new testament we see this is fulfilled in Christ² and there are many parallels we can draw here between Christ and his sacrificial accomplishment. It is also interesting that clear provision is made to address this annually; recognition that often we can deviate from our original intent to honour the Lord there is a day from which labour by both Jew and sojourner alike ceases for dedication to the Lord.

Leviticus Chapter 15

Summary

In this chapter we are presented with various forms of bodily discharge. The chapter graphically describes the forms of discharge to which the law applies. Specifically that this leaves the person unclean for seven days and on the eighth day there is a sin and burnt offering made of two turtle doves. The rational given is the need for the people of Israel to be kept separate from uncleanness to avoid death by defiling the tabernacle.

Imagery and Themes

This passage is both specific and graphic in the details concerning bodily discharge. There are conditions provided for health conditions, monthly menstruation cycles and what also appears to be what has commonly been referred to as 'wet dreams'. There is a clear distinction drawn between the clean and unclean but also the suggestion that being unclean is potentially contagious. There is clear suggestion in the early part of the passage how anything that comes into contact with an 'unclean' individual can make another person unclean.

If we were to consider the symbolic significance the most obvious parallel might be that of sin. This notion that it contaminates everything it touches, has the potential to defile the temple of God, and ultimately results in separation from both God and his people. Indeed it would be very easy to draw a causal relationship between uncleanness described in this passage and sin.

Yet we should recall that there are various instances whereby sickness or uncleanness was tolerated to demonstrate the grace and glory of God¹. The problem of evil is a perennial issue for believers. As Epicurus once put it:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

This point rattles around in various different forms and each believer must content with this in some form or another. In each case when sickness or evil occurs it leaves us questioning why? Such cases should be treated pastorally not apologetically; love and mercy of the community should be poured out not platitudes or apologetic rationales.

My wife and I lost a baby in early pregnancy. It remains one of the most destructive and plainly evil experiences of my life. There aren't enough angry four letter Anglo Saxon words in the English lexicon to adequately describe such an experience. There was nothing logical or rational about this experience, or our thoughts and feelings about it. To suggest such an experience was the result of sin on our part, or to in some way offer a display of the glory of God however would be beyond callous².

For reasons I cannot articulate I am actually quite comfortable living with the inexplicable nature of this experience. It changed me in ways that I can only see as being for the better. It taught me how to manage grief as an adult, how to leap to faith in the face of evil. It remains a wound I will likely carry my entire life. I do not expect God to account for the apparent action or inaction on his part³. But I did learn from the experience that it is ok to ask like Job, or to cry out with the psalmist.

I would gladly exchange all this learning and these experiences to meet my lost little one. I would give up anything and everything to have him or her back. Such an experience has opened my eyes to something of the depths of grief moved the heart of God.

Leviticus Chapter 14

Summary

When a priest observes that the leprous disease is healed in a person there is a sacrifice of a bird over fresh water in a bowl. A second bird is dipped into the blood from the first, along with cedar wood and scarlet yarn, and then released. There is a cleansing in water before the removal of all body hair. Following this a guilt offering and a sin offering is made before the individual is pronounced clean.

Where there are concerns about a leprous individuals home There is removal of the plaster and affected stones and a scraping of other stones. If the problem persists the house is destroyed. All waste is removed outside the camp. If the house does not see further infection then a cleansing the house through a very similar sacrifice of birds.

Imagery and Themes

Within this chapter we encounter provisions for the cleansing of a Leprous person and the cleansing of a house with a leprous disease. Leprosy has often been assumed to be a picture of sin due to it's horrific effects and the resultant isolation. Yet it's primary connotation in scripture is one that symbolises the tragic element of life and Human vulnerability¹. Similarly too what we observe in this chapter is something of the symbolic nature of the 'cleansing' ritual which is saturated with meaning. We should bear in mind that the ritual does not heal the individual. A diseased individual completes the ritual once they have been found to be clean². The ritual then is about returning to the community as someone found to be washed clean.

Reflecting on the symbolic nature of the ritual we see that the sacrifice of one of the wild birds in an earthenware container over running water carries great significance. Symbolically the 'waters' represent cleansing, disorder, change or transition. In this ritual it represents the cleansing of the individual and the transition from unclean to clean. The earthenware container is made from the earth; representing the material world. In the ritual one bird is killed and the other freed representing sacrifice and new life. The choice and aromatic wood of the cedar of Lebanon is so synonymous with the Solomonic temple that “Lebanon” becomes a metaphor for the temple and its glory. Cedar was often used in construction because it was believed to be resistant to decay and insects, and was therefore associated with strength and durability. Scarlett thread was used as a symbol of the fragility and insignificance of Human life as well as redemption and the atonement of sins.

Leviticus Chapter 13

Summary

In this chapter we are presented with provisions for various skin conditions including leprosy. This includes what action individuals need to take but makes leaves decision making in the hands of the priesthood. Other condition covered by this passage also include eczema and baldness.

There are provisions for if the condition was a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot [13:1-17]; if it was a boil [13:18-23]; if it was in inflammation [13:24-28]; if it was in the head or beard [13:29-37]; if it was a bright spot, [13:38] or if it was in a bald head [13:40-44]. There are also direction as to what must be done with the leprous individual and leprosy in garments.

Imagery and Themes

Matthew Henry comments on how provisions for leprosy are given far more attention than virtually any other provision (112 verses in total). With diagnosis in Chapter 13 and actions for cleansing detailed in Chapter 14. Evidently then Leprosy, a bacterial infection that leads to nerve, skin, eye and respiratory tract damage, was something that plagued or would plague the Israelites.

Again we see at play the clear distinction between clean and unclean. Those that are considered unclean are charged to publicly declare their illness¹. Reading this verse almost sounds like satire. It must have been absolutely humiliating to have such an infection and the be pronounced unclean by the priesthood. Then to remain in torn clothes, uncovering ones head and be required to draw attention to ones illness.

Certainly in the present age such an act would be humiliating and considered barbaric. So why did the Israelites require it? We could make the argument that Leprosy is infectious (albeit less than 95% of adults exposed will contract the infection) and as such this provision was introduced to protect those vulnerable to such an infection. Or perhaps this is about purity. That a Holy God should not be found amongst those that have been colonised by malevolent bacteria.

In either case it is difficult to reconcile how these provisions demonstrate the love, compassion and grace of God we see in other Chapters. Yet perhaps such a provision is so that these elements can be revealed. By this I mean that such provisions are harsh legal dividing lines between purity and contamination. Yet their instigation, whilst seemingly cruel sets the stage for the grace of God to enter into the scene.

Would Miriam's seven-day leprosy², Elisha's healing of Naaman³, the man with leprosy⁴ or the ten men with leprosy⁵ have had the same effect on us? Yet isn't this cruel? Isn't this God deliberately injuring someone to make himself look good right? Leprosy is a pretty horrific disease. Certainly this would be inconsistent with any coherent understanding of God as good. Yet we get no answer from Leviticus 13; by faith I accept that God is bringing order from chaos as a vehicle for good.

Leviticus Chapter 12

Summary

In this chapter the requirements for ceremonial purification following childbirth are outlined. In either case a woman must remain at home until the blood purification is complete. For a male child this is thirty three days, for a woman sixty six. She remains unclean after a male child for seven days but for a female child this is a fortnight.

Following the ceremonial purification the woman is required to sacrifice a one year old lamb as a sin offering and a pigeon or turtledove as a burnt offering. Two birds are required if she cannot afford a lamb. This is brought to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting and the priest makes atonement and she is made clean.

Imagery and Themes

This is a brief but clear example of the symbolic nature of the law. Here we see that ceremonial purification is necessary for a Woman immediately following childbirth. It highlights how we are born into sin¹ and with our mother live apart from the people of God for a time as ceremonially unclean, and must seek forgiveness from God.

As to the reason for distinctions in the temporal requirement for male and female children Matthew Henry makes a valid point that there seems to be no clear reason for this distinction aside from the will of of the law maker given in Christ there is no distinction between male or female².

Birth is always characterised as a gift of God within scripture. Within the narrative we see that Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samson and Samuel are born through the opening of a closed womb, or by the overcoming of some existential threat. These individuals, who continue the lineage of the covenant and provide direction, salvation from enemies or leadership to Israel are not the product of human effort but that of divine intervention.

If we consider for a moment Jesus' own birth from a virgin womb we see this as the pinnacle of grace and not by human efforts. It demonstrates that Jesus is a gift of grace and not the product of mans own efforts at birthing his own salvation. The life that the Lord births in and through us is an amazing gift of grace.

Leviticus Chapter 11

Summary

Within this Chapter we find the law that makes distinction between the 'unclean' and the 'clean' and what is edible and what is not to be eaten¹. It is permitted to eat animals that chew cud and have a divided hoof; anything in water with fins and scales; birds that are not considered 'detestable'; locusts, crickets and grasshoppers. It is forbidden to eat any excluded animals which are explicitly named or that have been found dead.

To come into contact with any dead animals or any of the animals described above would leave the individual unclean until the evening. Should an insect fall into crockery or a stove it is to be smashed. Other belongings can be kept but must be washed or kept in water until evening. Children of Israel are advised not to make themselves detestable or unclean. There is also an additional point about making selves unclean with swarming things.

Imagery and Themes

The dictionary of biblical imagery suggests that the reasons for the prohibitions against the consumption of certain animals is likely complex. It points out that many have suggested the reasons being health related prohibitions and this may well be true. The Dictionary goes on to outline possible sources of the prohibitions:

• Common Sense - vultures eat carrion, so don’t eat vultures
• Natural Philosophy - Caterpillars do not breath in the conventional sense and therefore do not share the breath of God and are relegated to the category of worms (agents of decay)
• Knowledge of the natural world - Animals such as flies and rodents being correlated with the plagues they carried²
• Superstition - Calls of nocturnal animals viewed as messages from the spirit world (owls, hyenas, frogs) or who themselves seem to be acting as messengers (crows, ravens, bats)

If we consider the passage symbolically there is a clear distinction drawn between what is unclean and what is detestable. The former is about what is safe to eat, the latter about what is to be held in contempt.

For it is detestable for the people of God to associate themselves with nocturnal [messengers of spirits] or carrion birds [death eaters] given the living God is resident among them and life must not make death a part of itself.Similarly too with swarming animals that consume everything in their path, which represent

We see why consumption of the Locusts might be permitted given Locusts swarm inexorably forward without visible leadership³ much like the people of God who are lead and directed by the living God who is not visible. Yet the prohibition against Lizards that are easily caught and frail, but live like kings in palaces⁴ is clearly something God did not wish his people to associate with.

The consumption of another living being in antiquity was often associate with the adoption of that creatures attributes or power. For example Zeus consumed Metis after she became a water droplet and became cunning, birthing her child Athena [Goddess of Wisdom] from his fractured skull. What is outlined within this Chapter then may well point to the attributes that God was willing for his people to adopt.

Leviticus Chapter 10

Summary

Two of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu offer 'strange' fire before the Lord and as such are consumed by fire. Moses then instructs Mishael and Elzaphan (sone of Aaron's Uncle) to carry the bodies of Nadab and Abihu to an area outside of the camp, before warning Aaron not to mourn their passing given they failed to honour the Lord as Holy and as such were consumed.

Moses reminds the surviving sons of Aaron to take their portion of the grain offering and consume this in a place most Holy not leaving the tent of meeting or they will die. The Lord then speaks directly to Aaron and his sons instructing them not to drink wine before attending the tent of meeting.

Moses looks for the sin offering (Goat) but discovers this has been burned entirely as waste rather than consumed by the priests and their families. He is initially angry until Aaron points out that such a thing would be unlikely to please God given the events of the day.

Imagery and Themes

Within this passage we see the consequences of treating the Holy as profane. Nadab and Abihu fail to adhere to the statues of the Lord and the consequence of their actions is immediate and conclusive. We see that the Lord will not tolerate the failure to honour him, nor to treat him as Holy. Yet two of Aaron's sons do just this, either through deliberate action or carelessness.

Whilst the Lord no longer requires such sacrifices of us¹, there should still be care taken on our part not to treat what is Holy as profane. We too are called to a sacramental existence², and as such should recognise the symbolic significance of our actions in each moment. Much like Aaron is advised to do we should be sober minded in attending the things of the Lord³. When we meet with God we need to remove from us the distractions that will prevent our meeting with him and attending to him as he attends to us.

Aaron is warned not to mourn his sons something which would have been customarily unthinkable in the culture of the time. Yet this is to model something to the people about the person of God and his expectations that his people remain Holy as he is Holy. As a father myself I can only think of the internal conflict and turmoil this must have produced in Aaron. Aaron was required to bear his suffering in silence before the Lord, a silent but meaningful act of worship.

In this passage we see that the Lord speaks directly to Aaron. Yet there are no words of comfort but words of warning to be sober minded. This again emphasises how the Lord is set apart and different from His people. Yet what a mercy it is to hear from the Lord after such an event. To watch one's sons consumed by fire, to be prohibited from mourning their passing, and to see their bodies carried outside the camp, literally separated from the people. Whilst the content may not be words of comfort or even assurance that such events will not happen I can imagine they were received well with the knowledge that the Lord cares sufficiently to express the need for sober mindedness when approaching the Holy.

Leviticus Chapter 9

Summary

Moses calls Aaron and his sons and instructs them to prepare a male Goat calf for a sin offfering and a calf and lamb for a burnt offering and a grain offering. They do as Moses commands and Aaron makes the offerrings to God and follows the law according to the rule.

Aaron does all that Moses commands and blesses the people with raised hands. Moses and Aaron go into the tent of meeting and when they return they bless the people once again. The glory of the Lord appears and a fire consumes all that was on the altar. The people shouted and fell on their faces.

Imagery and Themes

In the preceding chapter we observed the appointment of Aaron and his sons as Priests. In this chapter they commence their priestly ministry by making three offerings. There appears to be some structure to the offerings made. First a sin offering us made by for Aaron for himself. Secondly a sin offering is made for the people. Finally the sacrifice of peace offering is made. Peace it seems then would only arrive when the priesthood and people had dealt with their sins, and actively sought peace with God.

The instructions for the undertaking and completion of the offerings are very precise and Aaron it is noted follows these to the letter. Man does not get to determine the method of his reconciliation with God but instead must follow the pattern laid out for him. This includes obedience to what God has called them to, and a recognition of their responsibility to others.

There is significance in the pattern that is laid out for us here. Aaron makes his offering, blesses others, meets with God and returns to bless others once more. Finally God arrives in power in such a way that unsettles the people. The priesthood then has a responsibility to make offerings and meet with God, but equally so there is a duty to be and give blessing to others.

Leviticus Chapter 8

Summary

In this chapter Aaron and his Sons are ordained by Moses. Moses first assembles the congregation, before the entrance to the tent of meeting, before washing Aaron and his sons. Moses then dresses in priestly robes and anoints the tabernacles and all that is within it, the basin and it's stand and the alter.

Moses proceeds to anoint Aaron and his sons before offering a Bull as a sin offering. He then presents a Ram as a burnt offering and another Ram as an offering of ordination. Moses then commands the priesthood to boil and eat the ordination offering at the entrance of the tent of meeting before burning the remains with fire. The priests would subsequently wait there for seven days that they might not die.

Imagery and Themes

The sacrifices here appears to have great symbolic significance. Firstly it was necessary for Moses to clothe himself in the garments of the priests. At this particular time there were no consecrated priests and as such Moses, called by God and appointed over his people, is required to adopt this role. The symbolic significance here should not be overlooked in how Jesus clothed himself in flesh¹ in much the same way.

The sin offering is made first, with the clear focus of this offering one of cleansing. The sacrificial animal wasn't burned on the altar in its entirety, indeed, most of the animal was carried outside of the tabernacle premises and burned in a clean place outside of the camp. The unique thing about this sacrifice is that the sacrificial blood was used to cleanse the furniture in the tabernacle, signifying that our sin pollutes God’s house. In much the same way².

Next came the burnt offering. The burnt offering is the first offering described in the book of Leviticus. What’s unique about this sacrifice is that the whole animal (except the skin) is offered on the bronze altar as a sweet smelling aroma to God. The worshiper identifies with the animal (through the laying on of hands), slaughters it, and then symbolically ascends to God in the smoke of the sacrifice. Jesus is our fragrant offering to the Lord³.

Next was the ordination offering. It's interesting to note that Priests were ordained or consecrated, not dedicated, as is the case of Levites. Neither were they “called” as was the case for prophets. The language of consecration regularly employs Hebrew terms where most mean “to make holy” or “to sanctify”. It is interesting to note that the basic Hebrew term here for “ordination” literally means to “fill the hands”. This seven day ritual then was about the setting apart of those who would will hands filled make pleasing offerings to God. Jesus, however, would pave the way for the priesthood of the saints⁴ meaning that all now have a responsibility to proclaim his excellencies.

Leviticus Chapter 7

Summary

The law of the guilt offering is described which includes all the fat and the organs involved in purification of the blood burnt on the altar as a food offering. All males amongst the priesthood are permitted to eat of the guilt offering it in a holy place. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement including the skin. All grain offerings too belong the priest that offer them.

The laws of the peace offering are outlined which can be made for thanksgiving, a vow or free will offering. Offerings for thanksgiving must be consumed on the day¹, whilst the provision is that for a vow or freewill offering must be consumed by the third day².

Serious consequences are outlined for those that eat the sacrifice whilst unclean. The Lord is also clear that animals that die of their own accord or are killed by another animal should not be consumed and trespassers will face the same consequences.

For peace offerings the breast and fat are waved as an offering before the Lord, and the breast then consumed by the priesthood. Further provisions are outlined for the priesthoods share in the offering.

Imagery and Themes

Within this chapter there are clear provisions for the various sacrifices including the burnt offering, grain offering, sin offering peace offering and ordination offering. There are clear dividing lines drawn between what is clean and what is unclean, what should be eaten in a holy place and what does not. This paints a very clear picture about what belongs to God and what belongs to man.

This chapter clearly highlights what it means by God being holy. Symbolically we see in the guilt offering burning (refinement) of the portions of the slain animal that would have been involved in the purification of the body (Kidney, Liver). Demonstrating that the natural means to purify oneself is inadequate and requires divine intervention and refinement.

The idea that if one partakes in the flesh of the sin offering [Jesus] whilst being unclean he is to be cut off from his people is a pretty heavy consequence. Yet it demonstrates how God is truely 'other' not in a derogatory way, but truely Holy, transcendent and as such different from the people that he has chosen to co-habitate with. That such measure must be taken to permit the divine to reside amongst them should give use pause to consider ways in which we prevent the indwelling of the spirit of God within us.

There is clearly a participatory element here as well. His priesthood are given a portion within which they are permitted to participate. This is no duty but a delight to be permitted to enter into the offering and make it a part of you through consumption. This is consistent with the ongoing narrative within scripture that Christ must be consumed and integrated into our bodies.

Leviticus Chapter 6

Summary

Within this passage we see provisions made for sin offering where individuals have trespassed against a neighbours rights or property. We also see provision made for the offerings expected from the priests. This includes the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the offering of anointing. These provisions have clear instructions that outline what must be done and what portion the priests share in each offering.

Imagery and Themes

Within Chapter 5 and 6 we encounter three types of sins that require guilt offerings. These included the misuse of “the holy things of the Lord” (5:15, 16), sin involving things that “ought not to be done” (5:17–19), and trespass against a neighbor’s rights and property (6:2–7). Within the new testament Peter highlights that Christ is the new covenant High Priest that offered the final sin offering. He bore the punishment for the believer’s sins (1 Pet. 2:24; Is. 53:5) and as such no longer do his people make sin offerings in this manner.

That said there is psychological significance in the act of confession and making restitution for the harm done. As such it is interesting that God commands not only repayment for actions done against another but also commands the sinner make an addition of a further fifth towards the damage that has been done. Here there is the idea that true repentance seeks not only to make amends but to proceed beyond this to ensure that the individual is better off than prior to the incident. There is clear indication here that God wishes individuals to be concerned with the welfare of others. Furthermore it adds to the picture that repentance should be a costly activity. After all the wages of sin are death.

The burnt offering described in this chapter is made by the high priests and intended to continue day an night demonstrating the continual presence of the Lord with his people. Fire itself represents purity and refinement and it is interesting that this is how God's presence will be represented. There is a sense in which God remains concerned for the continual refinement and purifying of his people. God, it seems therefore is not only concerned with obedience but how the individual is changed over time.

The grain offering described represents the fruit of obedience. That as individuals heed the word of the Lord and live in accordance with his laws there is to be refinement of his people, a making holy and a fruitfulness. It is therefore understandable why John might attach the religious establishment and Jesus endorse this. There clearly was a lack of recognition of the purpose behind the law; to make a provision for God to remain among his people, to address maters of sin and to purify and refine them as a people.

But what might be the relevance of this today? Sin is a complex a challenging social and spiritual issue. When one sows in sin one reaps death (another pattern we observe in scripture). There are both spiritual and social consequences to sin which we have to face. Despite the grace of God bestowed upon the believer that means we do not have to raise and sacrifice cattle, we are perhaps somewhat of a disadvantage where the social implications need to be navigated carefully and in relationship with God. What exactly might restitution look like? This is something that we will have to figure out with the Holy spirit to guide us.

Leviticus Chapter 5

Summary

This chapter continues to outline the provision for sin offering and also introduces the notion of a guilt offering. The sin offerings in Chapter 5 cover those who sin unintentionally but then become conscious of sin. For this they must offer a female goat, turtle doves, or a tenth of an Ephaph of fine flour.

Sin offerings in this chapter appear to be for acts of omission; namely things that should have been done but were not. This includes failing to speak, failing to observe hygiene laws, failing to fulfill an oath. Guild offerings are offered here because we have failed to do what we ought, or done what is expressly commanded not to be done.

Imagery and Themes

I find it interesting that the management of sin here is a public and communal task. Public in so far as there is a need to 'bear iniquity' or to 'confess', and communal in so far as the management of sin clearly cannot be done alone. There is need for the mediation of the priesthood.

Again the gender of the animal to be sacrificed here may well hold significance. We can draw upon later teaching in Ephesians about the symbolism in Marriage and how this represents Christ and his bride¹. We might ask why would a guilt offering need to be a ram or male animal? Again the symbolism here points to the idea of Jesus as the lamb of God (albeit Lamb / Ram are different).

It's interesting here that the things we do, the things we fail to do and the things we only later come to realise we haven't done are all covered in the sacrificial system. There is a clear recognition of the nuance of sin and it's various forms as expressed in the lives of humans.

Leviticus Chapter 4

Summary

Chapter four describes the arrangements for a sin offering to the Lord. This relates to unintentional sin and requires the sacrifice of a particular animal. In the case of the priesthood (Bull) or leadership (Goat) it is required to be a male animal once again without blemish. For common folk it is a female goat or lamb but in both cases it is required to be female. For the priesthood and the whole congregation of Israel there is also a requirement that the bull is then carried outside of the camp and burned as a sin offering for either the priest of the assembly.

Imagery and Themes

The first theme that emerges from this passage is that of the cost of sin¹. Death is ultimately the only mechanism to atone for sin. This would have been a costly sacrifice for most and also the requirement that the individual is involved in the sacrifice of the animal they have likely reared from infancy for productivity.

Secondly we can see the symbolism of marriage, and God's union with his people even within the sacrificial arrangements. The priesthood and leadership that represent the rule and reign of God on earth must sacrifice a male. Whereas the people must sacrifice a female animal. We can draw upon later teaching in Ephesians about the symbolism in Marriage and how this represents Christ and his bride².

The point here is one of unity or wholeness. Male and female find wholeness through unity. There is a sense that taken independently they are incomplete. As such the priesthood represent the bridegroom and the people the bride. There is clear recognition here that even the priesthood and leadership will at times fall foul of sin and need to repent. Something that seems to have fallen out of favour in our current age.

The symbolic gesture undertaken by the priesthood and the entire people to seperate themselves from sin is another interesting symbolic gesture. The bull for the assembly or priesthood is physically removed from the camp and placed outside. A clear gesture that sin itself, which the bull comes to represent, must be taken outside of the people. The people of God have been chosen to be holy because he is holy. They have been been set apart and must live apart from sin. If God it to remain with his people there is a clear way they must live. Atoning for sin through blood sacrifice and removing sin from among the body.

The beautiful refrain at the end of each chapter is variations of the priest making atonement for sin and the individual being forgiven.

Leviticus Chapter 3

Summary

This chapter outlines the provision of 'peace' offerings. These can be herd animals, flock animals or a goat. The animal is killed before the tent of meeting and the individual places his hand on the animals head. A portion of the animal is then burnt as a food offering to the lord as a 'pleasant aroma'. There is also clearly outlined the statute that neither fat nor blood is to be consumed.

Imagery and Themes

Unlike other offerings outlined so far the peace offering includes a portion of the animal burned 'as food' for the Lord. We also see there are various reasons for making a 'peace' offering in Leviticus 7:11-18. This can be for thanks giving, as a vow or a free will offering. Unlike the other offerings the individual making the offering is permitted to partake of the animal offered.

In this way the heart of ritual here is a meal of celebration between those who brought the sacrifice, the priests and the Lord. This seems to foreshadow the kind of fellowship that the individual, the church and the Lord would share following the gift of Christ. Yet we warned clearly in Chapter 7 that there are boundaries to this celebratory meal. Specifically that on the third day none should eat what is sacrificed or risk not being accepted.

The consumption of the flesh after death again symbolically demonstrates the individual identifying with the slain animal. Yet it is forbidden to eat flesh on the third day; the third day being the day that Jesus rose from the grave and conquered death. As such to consume flesh on this day would symbolically represent the consumption of new life.

Leviticus Chapter 2

Summary

This chapter outlines the provision for grain offerings. These can be of fine flour, grain baked in the oven, baked on a griddle, or cooked in a pan. In all cases it should be covered in oil and if it is fine flour it should be mixed with frankincense.

No grain offering is permitted to contain leaven and all grain offerings should contain salt of the covenant. A grain offering of first fruits can contain leaven but is not to be burned. It should be comprised of fresh ears roasted in the fire mixed with frankincense. A particular portion of the offering is burned by the priesthood as a food offering.

Imagery and themes

Within this chapter we are introduced to three main types of grain or 'meal' offerings. These were intended to be offered with the burnt offering. Whilst the burnt offering is about the cleaning of the body, this offering seems to relate to the fruitfulness of man. Both the product of his toil and his first fruits belong to God. These are symbolised by the offering of:

1. Unbaked flour ground fine.
2. Baked loaves or cakes, baked in a pan, on a griddle or in oven.
3. Green Ears of corn parched or roasted.

We might also understand this sacrifice to be a precursor to the coming of Christ who describes himself as the 'bread of life'¹. Wherein the imagery becomes also increasingly complex if we also consider the Eucharist. To unpack this a little we recognise that Christ body was given for us. He was without leaven [sin] and with the intention of fulfilling the covenant of moses [salt].

He is the first fruits of the new kingdom and calls man to something that transcends the usual struggle for the necessities of life. He calls for man to accompany to build something that does not perish but to pursue something that is lasting.

The point here about the memorial portion is interesting. A recent conversation between Jonathan Pageau and Michal Legaspi² includes a discussion around the theme of memory within scripture. This is an interesting theme I had not previously considered. Memory as how all things hold together. To name a few instances:

• God remembered Noah and all the wild animals... Gen 8:1
• God remembered Rachel... Gen 30:22
• God remembered his covenant... Exo 2:24
• You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there... Deut 5:15
• David pleads for God to remember mercy and forget his sin Psalm 25:6-7
• This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me... 1 Cor 11:24-25
• God Remembered cornelius alms before God... Acts 10:31
• God remembered Babylon the great... Rev 16:19

This is a very interesting rabbit hole I intend to explore. The theme of remembering and forgetting seems central to God's relationship with his people. As such I think exploring this theme across scripture is something that requires further care and attention.

Leviticus Chapter 1

Summary

This chapter outlines the laws for burnt offerings. Three are outlined in this passage livestock from a herd, a sheep or goat, or a turtledove or pigeon. The first two must be without blemish. Bulls were brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, whilst flock animals were killed on the north side. In all cases the blood of the animal would be placed against the sides of the alter for burnt offerings, and the parts of the animal burned on the altar. There are clear roles for both priests and those making the offering.

Imagery and Themes

The primary concern of these laws is to establish the requisite circumstances for the deity’s habitation among the Israelite people¹. As such in this first chapter we encounter the 'burnt offering'. This is a symbolic offering that demonstrates the individuals guilt ransomed by the death of an unblemished animal.

Cattle in general were of great importance economically to the people of God. They represented both a source of milk and a source of meat. As such providing a male without blemish for the atonement of sins, an animal one would have likely rearer for productivity, would be an offering of significant personal cost.

Interestingly the distinction between cattle, flock or bird is not outlined within this chapter and as such we might conclude that these are economic distinctions. God seems to recognise that there is going to be economic disparity between those that can afford to raise and offer cattle and those that cannot. Yet both are permitted to participate within the burnt offerings at the Temple.

But why sacrifice at all? Ultimately the Jewish people had a covenant with God that if they kept his commandments then he would reside with them. Yet, given human weakness, and the presence of sin, there needed to be provision by which relationship with God might be restored. As such sacrifices of animals are required in Leviticus are made in order to make an unclean person or thing clean, or to make a clean person or thing holy².

An interesting and powerful image of this need for personal reconciliation is how he that offers is required to lay his hands upon the head of the offering. Here there is identification with the animal to be offered as ransom for his sins. The sprinkling of blood also carries significance. The life of this creature is the blood in his veins and as such this belongs to God and covers the offering as a recognition that the wages of sin are death.

Ultimately Jesus would become our burnt offering upon whom we must place our hand and seek coverage by his blood. Only his life, lived without blemish, would be sufficient to atone for sin. He is available for poor and rich alike producing a 'pleasing aroma to the Lord'. This is a peculiar turn of phrase we see here. But I suspect can be understood to mean the appeasement of sin is something which satisfies the Lord; God is after all Just and the resolution of injustice requires punishment.

Matthew Chapter 28

Summary

On the Sabbath Mary (x2) attend the tomb of Jesus. They are greeted by an Angel of the Lord, the guards fall as though dead and he notifies them Jesus has Risen. They depart and tell the disciples and Jesus meets them and they worship him. Jesus tells the Marys to send his 'brothers' to Galilee to meet him.

The Guards went into the City and told the Chief priests and were bribed into remaining silent about what took place. The 11 disciples then travel to Galilee, saw and worshiped him. Jesus then instructs his disciples to go out and make disciples, baptizing them in/into the name, offering assurances he will be with them always.

Imagery and Themes

Matthew 28 is perhaps the most densely packed 20 verses yet. There is a rapid sequence of events including an earthquake, an angel, a visitation, a journey to Galilee and further visitation. There are guards bribed by the high priests and Jesus commissioning his disciples to go and make disciples.

Matthew as such has the feeling of 'Howls moving Castle¹' where so much is poured into world building and the ending is resolved in a mater of a few minutes.

Indeed there is also a distinction in the way the Jesus presents himself. He proclaims that all "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" 28:18. If we recall this is a very different Jesus from the one who refuses to answer the high priests (26:63) or Pilate (27:14). This Jesus is exalted and goes to be seated at the right hand of the Father.

One of the more comforting aspects of this passage are his final words "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age". I find the recurrent use of the word 'behold' a constant reminder to see with our own eyes. Here we are encouraged not only that propositionally Jesus is present with us, but that we will see he is with us. There is an experiential dimension to this proposition.

Matthew Chapter 27 (Part 2)

Summary

Jesus is taken into the governors headquarters and mocked by the entire battalion. They dress him in a scarlet robe and give him a crown of thorns. They place a reed in his hand before beating him with it. On route Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus cross to the place called Golgotha. He is offered wine mixed with gall but would not drink this after tasting it. They crucified him and cast lots for his garments. His cross is labeled 'king of the Jews'.

Jesus is reviled by those crucified with him, passers by and by the chief priests and elders. At the sixth hour there was darkness Jesus calls out to God as to why he has been forsaken before dying. At this time the curtain of the temple was torn in two, the earth shook, tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints were raised appearing to many in the city. The centurian professes Jesus was the Son of God.

Joseph of Arimathea claims the body of Jesus and places in his own tomb. The Pharisees then seek Pilate assistance to prevent the disciples from fraudulently claiming Jesus has risen. Pilate is not interested and tells them to use what guards they have.

Imagery and Themes

If we consider this passage holistically, Jesus is betrayed, arrested, falsely accused, a victim of mob violence, scourged, mocked, crucified and had soldiers cast lots for his personal belongings. It is harrowing to consider the ordeal that this man suffered, and understandable that if this had been revealed to him by the father why this would have warranted a restless nights prayer.

The absence of immediate family is interesting here, but perhaps not all to surprising given Jesus apparent slighting of his family¹. How they believed him to be 'out of his mind'² and ultimately did not believe him³. Understandably there would have also been fear of being associated with one condemned to die. From both the shame his death in this manner would bring him but also the risk of being associated with one essentially being accused (or certainly punished for) offences against Rome.

Jesus has alluded all throughout Matthews Gospel to his impending death and later his abandonment by his disciples. Yet I genuinely wonder what it must have been like to come to this realisation. Jesus had to learn to walk, managing his continence needs, feed and wash himself, talk, and presumably learn who he was. Each day a day closer to the event. How did he even live like this?

What must it have been like to come to the realisation one is God? Then to become aware that the entire purpose of your life is to be the sacrificial offering for all sins? To become aware that the manner of your death will be a brutal and senseless murder at the hand of those whom you act to save.

It's an interesting thought experiment. If you were to know the precise date, manner and time of your death (as Jesus appears to have) what would this change? Would this mean a life spent in pursuit of reckless abandon? Would this be a life seeking to glean every last drop of joy out of existence before that moment? Or would there be simple, quiet obedience to the will of the father.

The death of Jesus remains unique, despite how common place crucifixion was. It was extra-ordinary despite how ordinary a form of punishment this was for those that set themselves against Rome. It is the ultimate expression of love and justice, of wrath and mercy, the greatest paradox that has ever been.

Matthew Chapter 27 (Part 1)

Summary

The chief priests and elders deliver Jesus bound to Pilate the Roman governor. Judas mind is changed after seeing what happened to Jesus and he attempts to return the silver to the temple before hanging himself. This is used to buy the potters field for the burial of strangers.

Jesus before Pilate is asked if he is the king of the Jews and replies that 'Pilate has said so'. Jesus does not answer the charges brought against him, and Pilate is amazed. Pilate then offers the choice to the people for the freedom of Barabbas or Jesus, having been warned by his wife not to have anything to do with Jesus.

The crowd choose freedom for Barabbas and crucifixion for Jesus. Pilate observes that the people were becoming agitated and fearing a riot washes his hands stating that the people must see to this themselves. They answer that his blood be on them and their children. Pilate then releases Barabbas and scourging Jesus delivers him for crucifixion.

Imagery and Themes

The first thing that struck me about this narrative was the symbolism of the betrayal. Jesus betrayal ultimately became the mechanism by which strangers could find peace. In the physical this related to the purchase of the potters field which was used for the burial of strangers. There is some debate as to if this meant gentiles or Jews, nevertheless there is clear symbolic significance in this act.

Jesus death in the spiritual is the mechanism by which those estranged from God through sin might also find peace. Through his death burial and resurrection, ultimately facilitated by his betrayal, Jesus becomes the means by which strangers find peace.

I believe this to be the most powerful and accurate description of the manner through which Jesus accomplished the redemption of all creation¹. Yet this passage is another example of why I do not support the view of biblical inerrancy, for the reference from Jeremiah is either inaccurate or intended to reference Zechariah².

I feel no obligation to account for the 'truth' of such an oversight on the part of Matthew. In my view Kierkegaard is right to clarify³ that the problem of Christianity is not the truth of Christianity but of one's relationship to it. Regardless of how I attempt to discredit the factiticy of the Christian narrative I am still left with the invitation to enter into it by faith alone. One cannot reason oneself into the Kingdom; it is about appropriation not approximation, it is through faith not certainty that one becomes Christian.

Something else that has stood out to me is how Jesus has responded to those he knows will either harm or betray him. When challenged directly her responds 'You have said so'. This is an odd turn of phrase. Why this approach to his accusers? Indeed based on the narrative Judas had not revealed his intent to betray Jesus verbally in Matthew 26:25 and neither has Pilate in Matthew 27:11.

So what gives? I can only speculate at this point but my best guess would be that Jesus use of the word 'say' is not intended to outline what has been verbally articulated. Instead Jesus is talking about the actions of both Pilate and Judas. That their actions betray or express their own opinions. Notwithstanding the possibility that what is not mentioned in the text is explicit expression of these ideas verbally. Yet in the case of Judas it is unlikely the disciples would have permitted his remaining with them if this had been the case. Nor does it make sense to include 'You have said so' but actually omit the verbal expression. In any case this is where my mind has settled for now but I'm open minded if a better view presents itself.

A final note of worth is the actions of Pilate. For each of us confronted by Christ must either accept him for who he claims to be or reject him. Pilate's response is a wonderful example of how we too often try to squirm out of this responsibility. He seeks others to make his decisions for him despite it being his role as governor. Yet this does not yield the answer he had hoped and he is left in the original predicament. He may wash his hands and the people may accept responsibility but he, like all of us, have a choice. Either, Christ or...?

Matthew Chapter 26 (Part 2)

Summary

As the disciples are eating Jesus blesses the bread and wine highlighting that his body and blood are given for the forgiveness of sins. They sing a hymn together and go out to the Mount of Olives and Jesus explains that they will all abandon him. Peter claims he will not deny Jesus as doe all the disciples.

Jesus travels out to Gethsemane and is troubled. He prays to the father and returns to find his disciples sleeping which he chastises them for. He does this three times then states he must face his betrayer. Jesus is approached and kissed by Judas and then subsequently seized by the authorities. Jesus challenges their actions pointing out he was in the temple daily yet they did not arrest him.

Jesus is taken to Caiaphas the high priest. They found no charges to hold against Jesus even though many false witnesses came forward. Ultimately when challenged on is he the Christ Jesus points out the son of many will next be seen seated at the right hand of the father. The priests spat in his face and beat him. Peter then denies Christ three times before weeping bitterly.

Imagery and Themes

In the first part we read of Jesus outlining the symbolic nature of his death. He highlights how his body will be broken and his blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The use of bread and wine ritualistically like this was not uncommon practice in the ancients world. Indeed as pointed out by Herschel below this was common practice particularly with regards to the worship of Dionysus.

"The central rite of the Dionysiac orgies was that of theophagy, i.e., of eating the god. Worshippers, rapt in ecstatic trance, tore an animal—the incarnation of the god—and devoured its flesh. By killing the god, eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, they were filled with divine power and transplanted into the sphere of divinity."¹

Why then would Jesus seek to instigate a practice stooped in the worship of festivity, winemaking and ritual madness? Indeed after his teaching in John 6:22 we see that 'many of his disciples turn back and no longer walked with him'². It is even probably that many would have made this connection to Dionysus.

The act is symbolic ingestion of the deity to take on features of that deity. We see similar examples when Zeus consumes Metis [the godess of cunning] and becomes 'cunning'; and how wisdom [Athena] is born later from a headache. This notion of embodiment and integration then Jesus is seeking to capitalise on.

It is not sufficient to know propositionally that Jesus is the Christ or the Messiah. We see this in the case of Peter. It was revealed to him, we are told, in Matthew 16 by the father. Yet this is not a part of him yet. There is a need for him to 'consume' Christ and make him a part of who he was.

I appreciate this will sound somewhat mystic, but the invitation to the Eucharist is an invitation to engage with Christ at a very profound level. To 'consume' and integrate what it means to be human into our very being. Jesus embodied this and now we are make this our source of life. This idea is a profound mystery but central to the Christian message. Christ's life and death, his body and blood are the focus point for human sustenance and transformation.

I appreciate there is much about the remaining chapter I have left unspoken but this is hardly the last time I will revisit Matthew 26. As such I think it apt to focus on this particular passage and it's salience for now.

Matthew Chapter 26 (Part 1)

Summary

Jesus again foretells his death by crucifixion to his disciples and we learn that the Chief Priests and Elders of the people conspire to have Jesus executed. Jesus is anointed by a woman using expensive perfume and he rebukes his disciples for their complaint that this was a waste of money.

Judas leaves Bethany and attends the Chief Priests to seek payment for betraying Jesus. Jesus then seeks a place for him and his disciples to join in the passover feast. When reclining at table with the twelve he announces one will betray him. Judas enquires if he is the guilty party and Jesus indicates that Judas has betrayed himself.

Imagery and Themes

Plan to tackle this chapter in two parts because of it's length, maybe more depending upon what I find. Let's look at the first part...

I must say this portion of scripture has offered more questions than answers. What strikes me as odd about the first half of this Chapter is the response from Jesus 'You have said so'. Why this particular response? If Jesus was aware of Judas actions or his intent to betray why not call him out?

Jesus highlights on multiple occasions throughout Matthews Gospel that he will be killed. He seems remarkably matter of fact about this reality and does not take active steps to avoid this. Indeed his earlier comments in Matthew 23 and 24 were likely contributing factors to expedite his death. We also recognise that Jesus is in communion with the father and recognises his role and part in all of this.

Jesus it appears see's his death as necessary. To take action to 'call out' Judas may inadvertently prevent it from occurring. What a temptation this must have been. One can only imagine the atmosphere when Jesus announced that he would be betrayed. During a time for festivity I suspect you could have heard a pin drop in that room. Was there a pause before his response to the question from Judas? Did the other disciples suspect Judas? We can only speculate.

Jesus does not attempt to conceal his knowledge that Judas will betray him. Instead his response outlines that he recognises Judas plan. Is this a veiling of Truth to others in a final act of grace towards Judas? He certainly lays out what the implications of his actions will be. I'd like to think this was the case. Perhaps it is also an indication that Jesus wishes Judas to know that he is aware that his actions betray him.

This is an interesting point. How often our actions betray our true intentions even when our words seek to conceal.

Matthew Chapter 25

Summary

Jesus offers the parable of the ten virgins in which five miss the coming of the bridegroom due to their failure to purchase oil. The bridgegroom points out that he never knew them and they are not permitted to enter. Jesus then relates the parable of the talents.

Jesus then outlines how the son of man will sit in judgement on all nations. Those on the right he will gather to himself for their great acts of service to him to everlasting life, those on the left he will separate from himself to everlasting punishment.

Imagery and Themes

Virginity according to the dictionary of biblical imagery¹ has a two fold meaning within scripture. On the one hand it is perceived as something to be prized, whilst on the other it indicated incompletion. As such we might speculate that Jesus in the first parable is talking about blameless individuals. These are those who are considered blameless, yet they miss out because they fail to prepare for the coming of the bridegroom.

Interesting there seems to be a thematic 'preparedness' which we are called to as individuals which is in excess of our position before God. This is somewhat perplexing. Perhaps this is referring to our positionality before God. A readiness to leave this place to be with him which may occur at any moment. In light of the last part of Matthew 23 we can reasonably conclude this does not mean that we are expected to know the time.

Instead then perhaps this is pointing to a readiness. Indeed it is true that at any moment we may experience chronic ill health. Recently a co-worker of mine explained that her mother had been taken ill into hospital. Within days she was advised her mother would pass away at any moment. Sadly her mother passed away only a few days after. A former manager of mine had a similar experience with ovarian cancer; diagnosis to death was two weeks. The reality is that at any moment we could be called home. We should indeed have our affairs in order.

At the end of the chapter Jesus relates here the consummation of the vision outlined in Daniel² of the son of man presented to the ancient of days seated in judgement over all the nations. In this vision we see the victorious son of man and the wonderful imagery of the left hand and right hand. I could unpack this but there is an excellent video by Jonathan Pageau³ that does this far better justice. This is the first time I'm seeing eternal used in the sense 'without beginning or end' in relation to punishment or life so far. As such this should carry weight or significance. There are great consequence for being judged and found wanting here Jesus is indicating.

In the last chapter I made clear my view on end times as being more pragmatic than biblical. It's an honest reflection rather than something I would advocate others to adopt. This chapter again is a clear challenge to that viewpoint. For me this suggests the need for greater thought and due consideration to what Jesus return or the calling home to the bridegroom might actually mean.

Matthew Chapter 24

Summary

Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple. He is asked by his disciples privately about the signs of the end of the age. Jesus highlights that many will impersonate him, there will be wars a rumours of wars, famines and earthquakes. There will be a significant persecution of the church and many will be killed or put to death.

During this time many false prophets will emerge, and the Gospel of the Kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the earth. Jesus highlights that the abomination that causes desolation spoken about in Daniel 11 and 12. Jesus foretells the nature of his second coming and encourages his disciples to learn from the example of the fig tree. Jesus is clear that none know the day and the hour.

Imagery and Themes

The overarching theme of this particular apocalyptic passage is the signs the age is coming to an end and the manner of Jesus return. Much has been written about this and I must say my own views are more pragmatic than biblical. Given recurrent attempts to predict when the end times will occur I would add a further thing is certain in life in addition to taxes; those that attempt to guess will be consistently wrong.

Verse 36 makes explicitly clear that there are none that know. This does not mean, as many have assumed, some who try really hard. Or Only those who frame scripture in a particular light will know. Jesus is making explicit to his disciples there may be signs but the end is not known by anyone. This has led me to a sort of evangelical pragmatism. If I can't know then I'll move on. But there are important things we can glean from this passage.

Things are not automatically going to get better. Last time I checked, war and rumours of war were not a good thing. Famine and earthquakes are also up there in my list of things to avoid in life. Kingdom against Kingdom and also the risk of being led astray all paint a particularly gloomy vision of the immediate future. We can clearly take from this that there is going to be a gradual move from order to chaos. The advance of the Kingdom is going to have some pretty specific challenges to face.

I'm not going to speculate and link these challenges to real life events with one exception. The abomination that causes desolation is believed to have been the sacking of the temple and the worship of Gods other than the Lord. Personally I would tend to agree but it's an open handed issue. There are more core elements that I consider worth speaking about.

For met this stems back to the compulsion we feel as believers to contain God. To have him fit within our view of the situation. God cannot be contained. We need to recognise and move on from this compulsion to master all things. You do not get to master God.

Matthew Chapter 23

Summary

Jesus points out to the crowds and his own disciples to heed what what the Pharisees instruct others to observe. But he notes that inwardly the Pharisees and Scribes are morally bankrupt. Jesus then proclaims seven woes unto the Pharisees and scribes. He claims they:

• Are elitist shutting the kingdom of heaven in peoples faces
• Pursue converts across the sea only to make them more of a monster than they were
• Are blind guides that mislead others
• Tithe in herbs but neglect the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faithfulness
• Are concerned with appearances rather than transformation
• Appear clean but are spiritually dead
• build and decorate the tombs of the prophets forgetting they are descendants of those that murdered them

Imagery and Themes

This passage requires oven gloves. Jesus is clearly distinguishing himself from the religious order of the day and the kind of asceticism that they embodied. If we are to consider this as part of the broader narrative he began with indirect communication but when this failed a more direct approach appears to have been needed. Given the passion and emotion that is captured so clearly in this passage we can see why the religious elite would plan to have him executed.

It's easy to see the Pharisees as villans within the narrative. Indeed I belong to a community that very much has a 'christ against culture' mentality. Whereby the Church is a city on a hill, a light in the darkness. It's easy to become complaisant and believe us to be on Gods side looking back at an evil world and shaking our heads. The reality is quite different. For we stand instead with the world as much in need of mercy as those who murdered him.

I've often been struck by how the Pharisees appeared to head up a religious reformation following the Maccabean revolt. I appreciate there were indeed many religious groups in Jerusalem at the time. For me the Pharisees have always struck me as having the fervor of protestant Christianity in our own age. We might then for a moment consider how Jesus might speak of existing Church communities in our own age.

This doesn't take much imagination, I suspect there could easily be a list such as:

• Elitism - Exclusive social cliques that tend to emerge within religious communities and the complex language that has evolved around Christian theology
• Corruption - Where we seek to make others in our own image, to cohere to our values and beliefs rather than reflecting the image of that which God intended them to be
• Blindness - Failing to see God's plans an intent and leading others astray because of our own lack of heavenly vision
• Selective - In our approach to the kinds of sacrifices we are willing to make for Christ
• Superficiality - Where we fall into asceticism and religious performance rather than permitting the spirit to change our hearts
• Deceptive - In the way we present ourselves; with our words and deed lacking congruence
• Proud - Forgetting that we are as much in need of Jesus as those that came before us

This is not intended to be a direct attack on the Church. Indeed I am probably as guilty of participating in each of these woes as the next believer. Perhaps this list is my own projection of my own failings on the bride of Christ. Whatever the case I simply found it interesting to consider what the contemporary expression of each might be. It is a humbling thought to consider how easily we can fall into sinful patterns within religious communities.

Perhaps each time we read of the Pharisees we will not be so quick to judge them but instead consider how we might unwittingly be just like them.

Matthew Chapter 22

Summary

Jesus tells the parable of the wedding feast before attempts are made by the Pharisees to entangle Jesus with a question concerning taxes. Jesus is then challenged by the Sadducees about the resurrection and pushes back silencing them

Jesus is asked which of the law is the greatest commandment by a lawyer and he responds with the two greatest commandments to love the lord God and to love one's neighbour. Jesus then seeks to test the Pharisees with a question concerning why David calls the Christ 'Lord'.

Imagery and Themes

As with Matthew 21 there are also echo's of former topics discussed in Mark so I will instead this time focus on the latter portion of this chapter.

In the latter chapter we see individuals challenge Jesus firstly Sadducees seek to ensare him with a thought experiment. If marriage is the union wherein two become one flesh¹ then we have a problem. For the law requires² a brother to marry his sister in law and perform the duty of a husband's brother. If resurrection is therefore a thing then is she a part of all of them? One of them? Jesus response demonstrates both his skill as an orator and his insight into the realities of the kingdom. There is no marriage in heaven. Humans instead live as the Angels. The question itself is fundamentally flawed.

Next Jesus is challenged to answer which of the 600++ laws is the greatest. Jesus here responds with two ironic answers. Not in the cynical sense of irony we enjoy today. But to love God and love one's neighbour the very thing Jesus has all but accused the Pharisee's of neglecting.

Finally Jesus then offers his own brain teaser. Why would David call his son Lord³? Ultimately Jesus does not answer them. We could of course leave this here but let's speculate a moment. Christian's recognise today Jesus as being both God and the son of David. In this way he is both "son" and "Lord". It is an indication that the Christ would be both David's son and the Son of God.

What does this tell us about Jesus?

Let's take this first at face value; Jesus is by far the greatest teacher. There are no other teachers that compare or teach with the same knowledge or wisdom. He recognises the precise way to respond to all those that would seek to ensnare him. An incredible role model.

We might also conclude that for Jesus to answer the Sadducees he has had things revealed to him by the Father. How else could he claim that there is no marriage in heaven unless this had been revealed to him? I recognise this might perhaps be flawed given Jesus is God and therefore presumably knew anyway, but Jesus accepted finitude in the incarnation so perhaps this was revealed to him by the father? Speculative but an interesting point nonetheless.

Next we might recognise that Jesus is not afraid to be ironic. Not in the conventional sense. But in the sense that he says one thing "this is what you must enact" whereas what he means is "you are not enacting this". It is a subvertive attack on the Pharisees and one that demonstrates Jesus finesse as an orator.

Matthew Chapter 21

Summary

Jesus directs his disciples to enter into the village of Bethphage to borrow a colt and a donkey for his entrance into Jersulam which duely follows to the adulation of the crowd. Upon arrival in Jerusalem Jesus drives out traders from the temple grounds and begins to heal those around him.

Jesus upsets the Priests and lodges in Bethany. Jesus curses a fig tree and teaches about faith. The authority of Jesus is challenges by the priests and Jesus lodges a counter challenge regarding John. Jesus teaches Parable of the two sons and the Parable of the Tenants.

Imagery and Themes

Matthew 21 includes narratives we have already visited. In Mark 11 his triumphal entrance and the fig tree¹. are explored and in Mark 12 where we have Marks version of the Parable of the vineyard owner. As such I wont focus my attention here. Instead I want to record a painful object lesson in paying attention.

Recently I met with some brothers in the faith who maintain a 'litteral' approach to creation. I have many issues with such a view which are too numerous to mention here. Suffice to say I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the poor application of hermeneutics in approaching a religious text.

Upon reflection I believe this to have been an object lesson. I have found myself on many an occasion falling into what I will call personal legalisim and interpersonal legalism. Personal legalism is something like the pursuit of an ascetic as an end in itself rather than as a positioning of oneself before God. Interpersonal legalism is the desire within humans to manage the beliefs and behaviours of others to one's own.

As I have engaged in lectio divina² with the scriptures It has become increasingly apparent that any conception of God is fundamentally an 'image'. God made me in his image to be the kind of thing that see's God through my image of him. None have, or can see God³. As such I have always supported Kierkegaards defence of subjectivity; the significance not only of the truth but how we relate to it.

All visions are mediated through the limitations of Human sense making. To put this perhaps in a more palatable fashion for believers; God is beyond our understanding. This highlights the significance of our relationship to the divine and to the community. The community is able to keep us from veering dramatically off course and (more importantly) God's love in revealing himself to us is perfected. This image is refined through relationship.

Yet here my responses were distinctly suboptimal. I fell once again into the trap of interpersonal legalism. The inherent desire and compulsion to manage others. This isn't my role or task. I suspect this stems from a desire for control which is beyond my temporal pay grade. In any event how does this relate to the above?

It's clear from the teaching of Jesus that those who are in him bear fruit. Those that are not do not. That many attempted to categorise Jesus as a troublemaker, a heretic, a prophet but in Matthew 21 we see no one has a clear picture of who Jesus really is. There are numerous attempts to place him in a box and ensure that he conforms to the world view. Yet Jesus repeatedly breaks frame to remind us that he will not be confined by the myths, minds or the will of men.

Matthew Chapter 20

Summary

Jesus continues with his discussion around entrance to the Kingdom, this time relating the story of a master that recruits workers at different hours of the day but pays them the same wage. Jesus then foretells his death for a third time pulling the disciples aside outlining what is to happen.

Jesus is asked by the mother of the sons of Zebedee [the disciples James and John] to permit her sons to sit at his left and right. Jesus outlines this is not his to grant and outlines the inversion of traditional hierarchy; the first will be last and the last first. Jesus leaves Jericho and is appealed to by blind men whom he heals and restores their sight.

Imagery and Themes

This passage again highlights the challenge man faces when attempting to understand the intent and purposes of God. If anything it highlights mans complete dependency upon Jesus to lead us into all truth.

We have the Parable of the labourers in the vineyard which highlights man's failure to understand that God is at liberty to do with what belongs to him what he wills. We have Jesus explaination of his pending death which the disciples seem to forget later on in Matthew (or do they?). Finally we have a mother who requests something which it is not permissible for Jesus to grant.

There seems to be an expectation that Jesus will fit comfortably within our convention and normative patterns. Interestingly it has been observed by PVK¹ that there have been various attempts to depersonalise God. Pointing out that Humans seem to be more comfortable with the idea of a particle or impersonal force over which there is the possibility of mastery. However the clear picture from this passage is humans do not master God.

God alone determines the future and defines himself as being that which defines both the present and the future. When speaking with Moses he names himself as 'I am' or 'I will be'². He both determines what is and what will be. He is the God of possibility.

So does that mean man has no hope of understanding God? That this is a futile endevour. By no means. It means it is necessary for us to position ourselves before him. To take time to understand his intention and his ways. Our prayer request to him then perhaps should echo the psalmist³.

Make me to know your ways, O Lord;
teach me your paths.
Lead me in your truth and teach me,
for you are the God of my salvation;
for you I wait all the day long.

Matthew Chapter 19

Summary

Jesus is approached by the Pharisee's who seek to test him again this time in relation to divorce. In response Jesus's disciples seek clarity on if it is better then to remain unmarried which Jesus notes if one is able to receive the gift of Marriage one should do so. Jesus is brought Children to pray for and his disciples rebuke the people for doing so but Jesus challenges them stating the Children should be permitted to come to him.

Jesus goes on to teach of the difficulty for the rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God and the disciples are alarmed and question who might then be saved. Jesus highlights that with God all things are possible. The disciples enquire about their reward and Jesus explains they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Those who loose at Jesus expense will gain considerable inheritance.

Imagery and Themes

There is an interesting theme that emerges from this Chapter in relation to joining and separating. Jesus speaks about marriage and divorce, Children are taken to him then are to be removed, A rich person requires separation from his riches, those who loose at Christ's expense and the reception of 'a hundredfold'.

In each case Jesus seems to point to a 'right' way to relate to each. All good things after all come from the Lord and each should be shown appropriate honour and respect. There is a way to handle a petrol chainsaw and, a way that will result in significant bodily harm. This isn't about morality, this is about well-being.

There is a right way to relate to the one you are joined with as 'one flesh'. There is a right way to relate to Children. There is a right way to relate to material goods, and also to the loss of relationships. Jesus is here providing clear indication of the need to realign not only one's thinking on this matter, but also one's life and positionality. The reference here in verse 8 that “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you ... but from the beginning it was not so." is a clear sign that he recognised that man was incapable of adopting the right relationship to marriage (and we might perhaps also extend this to the other elements discussed).

This isn't intended as a moral commentary on divorce. Please read this with the analogy of chainsaws in mind. Marriage is not something to be entered into lightly and if our relationship to it is not right (intentionally or through no fault of our own) we risk harm to ourselves. This is not limited to monogamous relationships; friendship too carries similar risks.

The reality is that man for complex reasons makes unwise decisions (and perhaps does not even know how to relate to the world in accordance with Godly principles). I have lived long enough to know that I frequently do not know what is the 'right' action in a particular situation. I learned to parent by repeated errors and hope my Children will forgive me. From this arises 'troubles'. The principle of reaping what one sows is relevant here. I cannot expect to relate to my spouse or children incorrectly and reap a healthy harvest. It is more likely the case that I will reap precisely what I have sown; discord, bitterness and contempt. Similarly the same might be said of material goods.

The theme of reaping and sowing is thematic throughout the teachings of Jesus. This is distinct from the contemporary idea of 'karma' in quite a clear way. Jesus highlights that at times I will reap what I have not sown. Here Jesus indicates that future consequences are not always inevitably shaped by present actions ¹. An example here might be someone leaving a considerable sum of work for me to complete. Or drawing insight from something someone else has written; I didn't do the groundwork here, their hard work has made salient something which would have otherwise been unclear.

We will always sow and reap the question is have we adopted the right relationship to that which we are relating to maximise the potential for a healthy harvest? Jesus again here challenges us to consider our cardio-graphic condition.

Matthew Chapter 18

Summary

Jesus is asked by his disciples who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven and he indicates the one the humbles himself. Jesus then points out that he who leads others into sin would be better drowned with a millstone around his neck. Jesus then teaches on temptation before relating the parable of the lost sheep. Jesus teaches on how to resolve conflicts between believers before being asked by Peter how many times he should forgive his brother and Jesus relates the parable of the King who wishes to settle accounts with his servants.

Imagery and Themes

There is a clear juxtaposition between the greatest and the humble. Between he who leads others into sin, he who is led into sin. Between the lost and the found. Between the brother who sins against you and he who is in agreement with you. Between the King that forgives and the servant that does not. The weight of text seems to be aimed at situations of discord between believers and those who do not.

The phrase 'little ones' is also repeated three times in verse (6, 10 and 14 respectively). This is translated from the greek mikron and could mean either young ones, small in quantity or short in the faith. There is clear suggestion that leading the 'little ones' into temptation (v6) and despising their simplicity (v10) are directed at believers. Whilst the point that the father desires that none should perish suggests that the father desires all new should not be led into practices that lead to death. The term elsewhere¹ is translated as 'be lost' which would be consistent with the view that it is possible for 'little ones' to be lost due to temptation or contempt shown by believers.

Discord is an interesting topic of choice and we can perhaps identify well with Peter who asks the question we all want to know the answer too. When is enough, enough? Jesus response isn't direction to remain in an abusive relationship, isn't direction to permit others to walk all over you. But is direction to forgive. Forgiveness is distinct from permitting others to remain in sin (and the earlier teaching on temptation should be considered here), nor is it permitting yourself to come to harm. It is recognition that bitterness and unforgiveness is poison to the soul.

This is an incredible challenge, and hopefully the temporal distance from the event has not dulled the controversy this generates. What if someone kills my child? Should I forgive my abuser? What if the individual themselves are unrepentant? Forgiveness is not for the forgiven but for the forgiver. It is to show mercy because we have first been shown mercy. To recognise that we are not God and do not get to enact punishment as judge jury and executioner. Yet even if this is know it remains easy to speak such words than to enact them in the world.

The significance of practice

It seems that to be 'rational' is to be more than the owner of a robust collection of coherent, sequential axioms. For axioms are necessarily an abstraction from the agent area environment that they describe. As such to be holistically 'rational' seems to indication a stance towards rationality itself that proceeds beyond the merely propositional. I would propose that to be rational is about adoption of the proper relationship with reality.

As human beings we have a tendancy toward egocentric, auto-didactic self reinforcing behaviours. We need practices that help us break the frame we inhabit and to avoid as Schopenhauer warns mistaking the limits of what we perceive as the limits of the world. This is more than just ensuring our proposition have coherence with the actual state of affairs we find ourselves in (although this is important). It is about ensuring our lives cohere with our axioms and are changed by them. The problem is existential.

We in some sense need to falling in love once again with reality.

But how do we ensure that our lives reflect not only propositional knowledge but knowledge from other sources? Vervaeke offers a helpful model that acknowledges sources of knoweldge. This includes the propositional, the procedural, the perspectival and the participatory. Exploring these may help us to understand why axioms alone are insufficient for a right relationship with reality. I have found these are best understood through example, so I'll explore that momentarily but let's first of all try to make sense of what Vervaeke is trying to say.

My participation within an environment generates one kind of knowledge about what 'right action' might be in this context. From this I develop another kind of perspectival knowledge about what it means to be this kind of agent. There are skills and actions which I develop another kind of knoweldge in relation to their use. Finally I can articulate this through abstractions such as the word on this page. There is in some sense a hierarchy to this knowledge with propositions being the final abstraction from acting in the agent arena environment.

To make this less abstract let's consider an example. I learn to be a supervisor by actually supervising a Social Work Team; I have to learn this role by actually participating within it. To do otherwise would be like learning to swim without getting into the water. From this I develop the perspective of a 'supervisor' and the behaviours and actions of those I supervise now become salient or relevant to me. I learn to become proficient in managing and organising other people, I develop tact in how to address concerns and resolve interpersonal conflict between individuals. Finally if asked I might be able to articulate propositions about what it means to 'be a manager' to others.

iThese propositions are only a very small part of what I know about the role. It is an abstraction away from the participatory to the propositional. Away from the particular to the general. This is important because it would be error to assume that I could know what it means to be through the propositions alone. The general will not resolve the particular.

If I therefore choose to engage with the Jesus only as a set of propositions I am missing a considerable amount of what it means to be with and like Jesus. I have pointed out elsewhere that Jesus considered himself to be the template or archetypal human being¹. I am convinced this is central to what it means to be a Christian and like many things Jesus said is hiding in plain sight. Failure to recognise the enacted dimension of what it means to be human is to divorce oneself from a key source of knowledge. One might refute a proposition, but can one refute an existence? Descartes didn't seem to think so.

Matthew Chapter 17

Summary

In this passage Jesus is transfigured and Moses and Elijah appear on the mountain. A voice is heard from heaven instructing the disciples to listen to Jesus. Jesus explains why the scribes rightly outline that Elijah must come and Jesus points out that the scribes and Pharisees missed him (alluding to John the Baptist)

Jesus then heals a boy with a Demon and rebukes his disciples for there 'little faith'. Jesus speaks once again of his upcoming death and discusses paying taxes with Simon outlining the miraculous way in which he intends to pay (with a shekel taken from the mouth of a fish).

Imagery and Themes

This passage captures something of the archetypal nature of Jesus. He is transfigured and revealed to be something holy to the disciples who are so in awe they wish to make there dwelling amongst Moses and Elijah. If we get off the buss to examine this situation we have two holy figures who clearly have been dead for 500-1000 years suddenly appearing. We can only speculate how the disciples knew those talking with Jesus we who we understand them to be.

We should also consider the symbolic implications of this particular narrative. It highlights how Jesus and his teaching are in dialogue or 'communion' with the law and the prophets. Jesus is the consummation of the law and the prophets; it's fulfilment through his life and death. Jesus is therefore transformed into a figure of light or illumination as being the one that brings revelation to Moses and Elijah, perhaps foreshadowing his ascension into the realm of archetypes following his death and resurrection.

We are reminded once again for the third time of the pending death of Jesus. It has always struck me as incredible from the viewpoint we occupy how this all came as a surprise to the believers. Matthew indicates on multiple occasions Jesus outlining his pending death burial and resurrection, yet the disciples seem to have missed this. Or did they? Perhaps (again speculation) one reason the disciples remained together following his death was because the disciples recalled what Jesus had said. It would certainly make for an interesting counter narrative to the idea that the disciples 'didn't get it'. Perhaps they did but the realities of living through it all were too much for them to remain steadfast.

To jump on the buss again we see these portions of the text contrast greatly with Jesus humbly outlining how he will die. Jesus here appears almost fatalistically resigned to what is about to happen. He delivers this with such matter of fact and seemingly without any emotion. So much so that it is almost comical how in v23 it points out the disciples were 'greatly troubled'. I'll bet they were! Most have up to this point bought into the leven of the Pharisees, the notion that the Christ will victoriously deliver them from the Romans. So much so that Jesus has to warn against it. Yet Jesus repeatedly breaks frame outlining a very different and, perhaps for them, disappointing outcome towards which he is moving. Men make their plans...

If we reach the final stop we might ask ourselves why conclude by paying your taxes by fish? What is Jesus communicating here?

One possibility is he is alluding to what Peter observed back in chapter 16 that he is the son of the living God. This talk about paying taxes to the King seems to allude to Jesus status as the son of God. If he is the son surely he does not need to pay taxes? Yet...this is not so much about paying taxes but not giving offence and giving to the father what is due. Jesus miraculous action here is more than a dramatic flair added for effect. The point being that Jesus here demonstrates his total dependency upon the father. For what he gives to the father has first been given to him by the father. As such this occurs miraculously by necessity; to highlight Jesus dependency upon the father to fulfill his purpose.

Matthew Chapter 16

Summary

The Pharisee's and Sadducees come to test Jesus and demand a sign but Jesus refuses. Jesus warns his disciples about the Pharisee's 'leven' but his disciples misunderstand and point out they have no bread with them. Jesus highlights how they have missed the point and they finally seem to grasp his meaning.

Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is and they offer varying responses. Jesus then askes who they say he is and Peter points out that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus commends him for this revelation which came from the father. Jesus then foretells his death and ill treatment and is pulled aside and rebukes by Peter. Jesus then rebukes Peter for his mindset.

Jesus highlights that if anyone would come after him he must first take up his cross and follow him. Jesus then explains that he will come with Angels and repay to each according to his actions. Jesus highlights here that some would not taste death before they see the son of Man coming with his Kingdom.

Imagery and Themes

Jesus makes mention here of the only sign that this generation will receive will be the 'sign of jonah'¹. But what did he actually mean? This is another great example of how Jesus is building upon earlier teaching. If we recall only in chapter 12² was Jesus last asked for a 'sign'. During this Chapter Jesus spoke plainly explaining how like Jonah was in the belly of the Whale so too will he be in the belly of the earth.

We can see that (a) Jesus is fully aware of what is about to happen, and (b) the Pharisees and Sadducees did not believe in faith but persisted in pursing 'signs' from Jesus despite the healing, demon casting and other miracles signs that accompanied his presence.

I have often reflected that if a teenager came to Church claiming divine conception she would be received with disapprobation and scepticism typical of that community. Similarly a parent claiming God has required them to sacrifice their son would also be met (rightly so) with a concerned look and a rapid referral to Social Services. It has consistently struck me how each great act of faith is entirely unintelligible to those around them. Would we recognise it when it manifest itself in the world?

In relation to the theme of Jonah within this Chapter I have already covered something of the 'bar enash' (son of man) imagery in an earlier post³ but verse 17 is evidence again of the importance and prevalence of this idiom. Jesus refers to Simon as bar-jonah or as the NIV translates son of Jonah. Let's get off the bus here for a moment to take a look around; Why call Simon the son of Jonah?

Some have speculated that this is because Peters father was called 'Jonah' / 'John'. Whilst underwhelming this is possible and would make sense. Given surnames weren't a thing this would be an easy way to distinguish individuals. However when read in context we also can't ignore Jesus potentially drawing together the significance symbolically of Simon being the son of 'Jonah' (if that is the case) in light of the demands placed upon him for a sign.

Perhaps also (and this is speculation) Jesus is suggesting in the same way a son inherits from the father the son of Jonah will inherit the responsibility following the time the son of man rests in the belly of the earth. Ultimately Simon is Jesus 'successor' once he ascends. It's a subtle but interesting foreshadowing and whilst a relatively minor comment bears bringing to light.

Matthew Chapter 15

Summary

Jesus is approached by the scribes and Pharisees who complain that his disciples do not observe hygiene laws before eating. Jesus points out that the Pharisee's and scribes also do not honour their parents when they argue with their own parents that what they would have gained is instead 'for the Lord'.

Jesus is then approached by his disciples who point out the Pharisees were offended by Jesus speech. Jesus notes offers a Parable of the 'blind leading the blind' and Peter asks for the interpretation. Jesus subsequently offers it noting that it is what comes out of the mouth not what goes into it that defiles a person.

Jesus is approached by a Cannanite woman who seeks freedom for her daughter who is oppressed by a demon. Jesus points out he came for the lost sheep of Israel and not the dogs, yet the woman is persistent and Jesus rewards her faith. Jesus then feeds the crowds that surround him with only seven loaves and some small fish.

Imagery and themes

One of the key themes from this passage seems to be the notion of clean and unclean. We observe in the opening of the passage the Pharisees criticising Jesus disciples for their poor hygiene practices. Jesus. This is again an issue for the Pharisees because it is about the observance of the law and how the disciples fail to live up to expectations. Jesus defends the disciples here and uses the measure that the Pharisees would use to bring a charge against them¹. There is an issue here with the notion of cleanliness and misunderstanding on the part of the Pharisees as to what truly makes a person unclean. The condition of the heart and not the condition of the hands is of paramount importance here.

This evidently is something which the disciples also are struggling to grasp and we can begin to see signs of a fear of the Pharisees in the disciples. They point out that Jesus has been pretty offensive to the Pharisees and scribes, but they recognise the Wisdom of Jesus and want to understand why he would go out of his way to criticise the religious establishment. Jesus has to be pretty explicit because even his own disciples are caught up in the narrative world view that the Pharisees have spun.

This final portion we see Jesus feeding a multitude of individuals and also cleansing the spirit of the Cannanite woman's daughter². Jesus has moved from talking in the abstract to modeling his teaching here. He is moved by compassion to heal the daughter, and also to feed the crowds. This is perhaps one of the great examples of how Jesus is not only an excellent teacher but also able to enact his own ideas. Even though he was sent for Israel he still takes the time to heal the daughter, even though they have nothing with what they do have he takes, blesses and there is considerable amount of food left over.

These are not the actions of one that is unclean as the Pharisees might suggest. Instead these are clearly the actions of one who's heart is pure and from the wellspring of his heart mercy flows.

Matthew Chapter 14

Summary

The narrative changes to discuss the actions of King Herod. As in Mark 6 this chapter relays the death of John the Baptist and the events that preceded his beheading at Herod order. Jesus withdraws to a desolate place by himself but is followed by crowds and compassionately heals their sick. Jesus then feeds the five thousand with 12 baskets left over¹.

Jesus then dismisses the crowds and his disciples directing them to sail across the sea. Jesus then walks out across the sea to meet them. He is mistaken for a ghost but reassures them it is he. Peter asks Jesus to command him to come to him out on the water. Jesus does so and Peter begins to journey out to where Jesus is located. He is however afraid of the wind and begins to sink. Jesus comes to Peters aid and chastises him for his lack of faith.

Jesus returns to the boat and the storm ceases. All in the boat proceed to worship Jesus as the son of God. Jesus then crosses to Gennesaret where he heals the sick that were to be found there.

Imagery and Themes

In this passage we are first presented with a narrative that seems almost out of place relating the death of John the Baptist. Yet this is important contextually for the remainder of the passage. For following this event we see Jesus withdraw, perhaps we might imagine to grieve the loss of his cousin. Yet despite his own circumstances, despite the loss of a close family relative through the apparent excesses of the King Jesus demonstrates incredible grace towards others.

He is approached by the crowds and has compassion upon them, perfoming a miracle to feed all those that have come to him. He continues to heal the sick. He grants Peter the opportunity to walk on water, and even when he looses his focus comes to his aid to help him. Furthermore having crossed the Sea Jesus once again continues to health the sick within the important Northern shore of the sea of Galilee in a city called Gennesaret [Formerly Kinneret].

There is something profound revealed here about Jesus. If I reflect for a moment, when I experience hardship or trouble my tendency is to withdraw. As an introvert I get my energy from time out essentially. Furthermore I need time to process information trial conversations in private and explore ideas before I face similar tribulation or challenge again. Jesus we see withdraws after the loss of a relative. Yet this grief is not something that distracts him from his mission. He instead enacts the notion in Ecclesiastes that there is a time for all things and takes time for himself before proceeding with the mission.

I have often been curious as to if Jesus was an extrovert or an introvert. Often within evangelical religious communities I have participated within, introversion is prejudicially portrayed as a negative character trait. Something which is a result of being unwilling or unable to break free from fear and step outside the comfort zone into what 'God really has for you'.

Garbage.

Introversion and extroversion is about your orientation to the world and where you find energy. Do you look inward or outwards? Meditation, solitude and silence are notable disciplines lacking in a world that favours the gregarious. We might do well to step outside our comfort zone into what 'God really has for us' in such ecologies of practice.

In any event we see Jesus withdrawing frequently (to speculate a moment; perhaps to energise) then coming back to be among the people and continue his mission. What is admirable here is his commitment, his faithfulness and his gracious giving of himself even at a time in which a close family member has been executed for political reasons. This is the way in which Jesus model what it means to be human in the face of adversity.

World building through serious play

In his article on story, teaching and the development of virtue, Youngs outlines a typology of narrative which, whilst focussed on pedagogy and approaches to teaching, might also offer some interesting insight into the defining narratives at work within serious play. Youngs begins by outlining the context in which the significance of narrative has emerged.

“We are narrative animals whose very orientation to the world is fundamentally shaped by stories...We’re less convinced by arguments than moved by stories; our being-in-the-world is more aesthetic than deductive, better captured by narrative than analysis” (Smith, 2013:108).

Youngs defines teaching as a creative narratival undertaking that produces an implicit 'story'. A world defined by certain modes of discourse and symbolic reference. Whilst modern man prides himself on his enlightened rational analysis of available material data the reality is such a view is as much a narrative as the judeo-christian perspective. Heisenberg a constant reminder that man is as much a part of the system that he seeks to observe and how his quest to detach himself from the system he inhabits may be a greater challenge than her previously considered.

What then of players in serious play? If Teachers are actively involved in world building, it does not seem to be a considerable stretch to consider that players are likewise engaged. Certainly for any coherence to emerge from the primordial soup of phenomenological, philsophical, political and social environments we inhabit something must be built. Yet to recognise this is not merely an attempt to 'frame' serious play as world building; but to recognise that this is what it is. To engage in serious play is to critically examine the plot, characters, themes and motifs at play.

Another point of interest that emerges from Youngs article is the idea of four distinct 'types' or as he rather aptly puts it 'generes' of narrative emerge. Doctrinaire, Socratic, Mythic and Parabolic. Whilst each relates to a 'genere' of teaching they also seem to reflect something of attitudes towards learning generally and as such might be consider 'types' of players engaged within serious play. We should of course add the caveat that typology is generalisation and with humans being complex animals no single individual likely suits or falls neatly within a single type. Perhaps a useful way to perceive this is as being predisposed to a particular 'genre' with tendencies to dip into other 'genere's' from time to time.

Doctrinaire

This kind of individual is in the business of singular and exclusionary Truth. As such the principle concern here is promoting right-think [truth] and avoiding wrong-think [faleshood]. Serious play is, just that serious engagement with the truth. The answers are pre-set and determined and as such the goal of serious play is to 'uncover' the 'right' answers. Questioning orthodoxy in such circumstances is discouraged and the answers provided seek to preempt such questions. To adjust the description Youngs provides to suit serious play a Doctrinaire might approach serious play with the view that "The world contains true things and false things, and only some people believe the truth. Those who do not are either ignorant of the truth or opposed to it. Serious play is for training in truth."

Socratic

The socratic individual contrasts significantly with the Doctrinaire. It is about beginning from aporia [not knowing] and through critical enquiry, arriving at some communally discoverable reality. The socratic approach is about a voyage of discovery rather than the pronouncement of 'truth'. The journey is far more important than the destination and questioning rather than taboo is the essential vehicle by which we travel to our destination. It is not so much that it is indifferent to the truth, for it is dependant upon the idea of there being something that we can communally uncover. Rather, it is more concerned with the process or approach to sense making. Such an approach might be characterised by the idea that "Learning is a journey, and we walk it together in serious play. We all bring something to contribute, and we are all here to challenge and guide each other."

Mythic

Myth is distinct from both socratic and doctrinaire types. It is not concerned with truth itself or it's acquisition. Rather it is concerned with resolution; bringing order from the chaos in which we find ourselves. This type bears a striking parallell with Karl Yung's intuitive type. As such the individual in this situation is seeking to draw together the various threads into a coherent 'mythos' which offers explaination for what we observe around us. As such this type seeks to answer questions; such a view might be summarised in the statement "The world is confusing and diverse, but serious play can show how your questions can be answered, and how a grand story behind it all brings unity to this diversity."

Parabolic

By contrast with the Mythic the Parabolic approach seeks to subvert the 'beautiful harmonies of myth' by revealing the cracks below the surface. As the prince of parables Jesus himself aptly puts is the parabolic teacher does not 'bring peace but a sword'¹. Their purpose is to subvert and to revitalise the questions the myth was first brought forth to domesticate. Unlike the socratic approach which is still contingent upon some kind of 'universal truths' we can uncover together; the parabolic approach makes no such assumption. Instead it is about the business of questioning such answers that myth seeks to supply. It articulates itself through the notion The world is far too sure of itself; every group has its myths, and every myth can be unraveled. Come along, and I will show you, unraveling your own myths along the way

Matthew Chapter 13 (Part 2)

Summary

In the second part of this Chapter Jesus delivers a number of Parables including the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leven. Matthew then makes clear to the reader once again that the use of parables was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophets. Jesus then delivers the parable of the 'weeds' which interestingly it not included with the rest of the Parables. Jesus then relates three more parables; the parable of the hidden treasure, the parable of the pearl of great value and the parable of the net. Jesus uses analogy to describe the activity of scholars of the Kingdom. After delivering his teaching Jesus returns to Nazareth where he is known and ultimately rejected with individuals offended by the possibility that the son of Joseph would seek to teach them.

Imagery and Theme's

To conclude this chapter I wanted to focus upon the Parables of Jesus and highlight the aspects that leapt out at me during this particular reading. I've found this approach is often the best way to address narrative passages as it affords space for relevance realisation. It would seem that narrative has been a technology that humans have repeatedly employed as a compression algorithm to convey principles, moral lessons, truth and other information deemed too important for direct delivery.

Given written language has only existed for around 9,000 years and Humans diverged from apes around 40 million years ago (not to mention various historical examples of oral traditions) it's seems reasonable to assert that narrative communication has played an important role in the development of the species. A recent reddit post on Kierkegaard gathered comments to the effect of why accept truth via convoluted narrative that is materially false?. I've both paraphrased and adulterated this point to strengthen his original question which was slightly more petulant than was necessary. My answer to which is that I am not a materialist. Humans have always used narrative done so and continue to do so. Think for a moment about the narratives we live out every day. Narrative seems to be psychologically necessary, so if one has to choose why not pick one with longevity?

In any case, returning to the actual subject of our enquiry; whilst there are many levels of resolution at which Parables can be read, from this particular reading I observed that these parables seem to be more or less delivered in pairs. This was of interest given it raises the question why it was necessary to repeat and reframe the same point?

• Parable of the Weeds and the Net - That amongst the fruitful harvest that God cultivates can be found weeds or bad fish which are good for nothing except to be gathered and burned or thrown away. Interestingly the 'master' does not countenance the possibility that Weeds be removed prior to the harvest. They are permitted instead to grow amongst those that bear fruit. Similarly the fish in the net are not sorted until such a time as the net is drawn in.
• Parable of the Leven and Mustard Seed - The notion that with the kingdom; from small beginnings big things emerge. The Kingdom has great potential.
• Parable of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great value - That he who finds the Kingdom is willing to make sacrifices to obtain it.
• Parable of new and old treasure - For me this seems to be how something familiar or 'old' can become 'new' based upon the exposition of the scholar. Having studied the bible since I was 11 or 12 and now being 34 one does tend to hear similar points made during sermons. Yet there are always 'nuggets' to be found even in familiar passages that have been heard many many times.

These are by no means exhaustive. The beauty of parables is that as we revisit them at distinct points in our lives they always have more to tell us about ourselves. The beauty of narrative is that it forces the individual to consider where am I in this story? Am I a weed? Do I sell all that I own for the Kingdom? Have I seen the leven of the Kingdom permeating through my life? These are questions on the listener can decided.

Matthew Chapter 13 (Part 1)

Summary

In the first part of this chapter [13:1-23] Jesus tells the Parable of the sower to a crowd gathered on the beach. He explains that a farmer goes out to sow with some seed falling on the path, some falling on the rocks, others among the thorns and more still fell on good soil. Jesus then claims that he who has ears let him hear. He is then quizzed by his disciples as to why he utilises parables for teaching and he explains that this is because to some truth has been given and to others not. Jesus claims that their ears are blessed because they hear and understand.

Jesus then explains the parable to the disciples noting that the path relates to those who hear the word but the enemy snatches it away. Those on the rocks do not root themselves within the Kingdom and as such wither away. Those choked by the troubles of this world fell amongst the thorns, but those that bear fruit are those that fell on good soil.

Imagery and Theme's

The notion of fruitfulness and judgement by fruit is a refrain common within the teaching of Jesus. Only as far back as Chapter 11 did we see Jesus describing the fruit of his ministry to one of the messengers of John the Baptist. Within the first part of Chapter 13 then we see some of the obstacles to fruitfulness. This parable is a great example of how biblical teaching outlines perennial patterns. The parable has multiple levels of resolution. On this particular reading however what struck me was how this might also apply to knowledge. There are times where we can receive teaching, listen to podcasts, watch instructional videos yet that which grabs out attention is easily choked by the worries of this world, or snatched away through distraction or competing demands.

Perhaps this has come to mind given this is the final day of two weeks annual leave before I return to work. As such I'm not particularly looking forward to my return knowing that there will be much to do, much to organise and respond to. As such I remain concerned that some of what I have learned during this break, the memories, the enjoyment of spending time with family will be snatched away. How then does one let this stuff take root? How does one ensure that there is a continual offer of good soil. This is the challenge that I suppose I will need to figure out in the coming weeks.

Another interesting part of this chapter is the discussion around the use of parables. Jesus here has not only a scripture to justify his actions but has clearly reasoned this through as well, beginning with his own understanding and using scripture to enlighten others around him. The intent we can see is that some will understand and others will not. Perhaps this is (figuratively) an attempt to avoid casting pearls before swine. If one wishes to understand the meaning of the parable one has to wrestle with it. We forturnately have a great example (the parable of the sower) which is explained plainly. But others will be less clear. To understand and embody the pattern, we must therefore grapple not only with how Jesus lived but also with what Jesus has said.