procrastination, heresy, and navel-gazing.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

John 11.47-12.11 Chiasm

It's been a while between chiasms but here's another. I like this one as is all focusing around the importance placed on people's response to the person and work of Jesus.

a Responding in fear - Caiaphas (11.47-54)
b Responding in fervour - Martha (12.2)
c Responding in generous faith - Mary (12.3)
b' Responding in incredulity - Judas (12.4-8)
a' Responding in fear - the chief priests (12.9-11)

It opens and closes with the fear of the authorities, which is to be expected, but closer in they're both understandable responses: first Martha's 'Jesus is coming, look busy!', and then the legalistic prioritising of Judas.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

How do you solve a problem like Samaria?

Image result for sound of music
Not the Samaritan woman. (c) 20th Century Fox

In John 4 we meet a Samaritan woman, and the question of her heritage is an important one. Indeed, several times we encounter the people called the Samaritans in the NT, but we don't really know much of them and it's hard to say with much precision exactly who they are.

The OT references are mostly within 1-2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, although there are a smattering of references in Ezra-Nehemiah and in the prophets (Isa, Jer, Eze, Hos, Amos, Obad, Mic).

In the NT there are far fewer references. In  Matthew 10 Jesus tells his missionaries to go nowhere among the Samaritans. In Luke 9 Jesus is not welcomed by a Samaritan village, although he rebuffs the suggestions of his disciples to nuke the town. In Luke 10 the Samaritan is portrayed positively against the unneighbourly Jews, and similarly, in Luke 17, in a border region between Galilee and Samaria only the Samaritan can be bothered thanking Jesus for his miraculous cleansing. Skipping, for the moment, over the extended discussion in John 4, in John 8 'Samaritan' is hurled as an epithet meant to discredit Jesus. Briefly, in Acts, Jesus' prohibition in Matthew 10 is overturned, as the disciples are commanded to go there in Acts 1, and this is followed up in chapter 8 with an official mission to the Samaritans.

If we might summarise, there is a movement from Samaritans and Samaria as a region where Jews are not welcome, where a Jew should expect no help from a Samaritan, and it is only the death and resurrection of Jesus that properly extends the good news to these people and this region.

It might be noted that geographically there is something of an oddity in the NT region we know as Israel/Palestine. The Jewish regions are in the north (Galilee) and south (Judea), while Samaria is in the centre of the land, causing an annoying detour for pilgrims from the north who would head to the temple for the festivals.

The disciples correcting ethnic stereotypes about Samaritans. From That Mitchell and Webb Look.

As a social media relationship status might indicate, 'it's complicated'.

Going Back
The region is in many ways the spiritual home of Israel. It is the geographical centre of Israel, and Shechem, in the centre, is where Jacob's well was bought. But then there was Joseph, Egypt, the Exodus, the period of the Judges, and then the early monarchy, and everything was (relatively) happy. But when Solomon's son Rehoboam took some poor advice, the ten northern tribes split from Judah, taking the name Israel as well as all the northern land (~930BC). For pragmatic reasons - the text makes very clear (1 Kg 12.28) - he set up two golden calves, repeating (doubling!) the sin of Israel in the Exodus (34), declaring them Israel's delivering gods. 2 Kings 17 explains this as one of the key reasons, two centuries later, that Yhwh delivered Israel into the hands of Assyria for destruction. 

We know the same thing happened 150 years later to Judah by Babylon, but there was a difference in foreign policies. The Babylonians settled the Judahites largely together, while the Israelites were scattered, deprived of their national identity, and the region was resettled with similarly dispossessed peoples from other Assyrian conquests. All this meant there was very little identity left for those living in the land by the end of the 6th Century when Judah was returned and allowed to rebuild their temple.

However, and this is where it gets interesting, it seems the Samaritans (if we may call them that) had built their own temple now on Mount Gerizim, next to Shechem, and this stands behind their strong opposition to Judah rebuilding in Jerusalem - jealousy. The Judeans (as we might now call them) however prevailed, and what might have been a polytheistic and idolatrous worship was now a firmly established monotheism, with their scriptures what is now known as the Samaritan Pentateuch. This is much the same as the Pentateuch known elsewhere as the five books of Moses, but there are several additions and revisions to emphasise the importance of Gerizim and Samaria over Jerusalem (such as the extended verse following the Decalogue).

By Jesus' time there was no temple left, as the Judeans had destroyed this in 128BC as retribution for Samaria allying themselves against them in a war, which leads us to the discussion we see in John 4, which prompted this investigation.

John 4
After establishing that Jews and Samaritans have greatly impaired relationships (John 4.9), although not so bad that Jews may not purchase food from them (4.8), the Samaritan woman takes control of the conversation by asking Jesus to explain the riddle with which we began this investigation: how do you solve a problem like Samaria?

“Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”” (John 4.20 NIV11)

We don't have a temple on our mountain; you do; are you telling me that you're right and we're wrong? The question of 'where' one may worship is all important, as this has been the dividing factor for nine centuries. The Jewish (ironic) answer would have been yes, although their temple would only remain extant another 40 years. Jesus however has a different answer, as he explains that behind the 'where' is ultimately the 'who', and the 'who' to which the temple points is standing right in front of her. 

It is probably fair to say the temple Jesus is saying refers to himself is the Jerusalem temple, but he does not seem at all concerned by this. Something greater than the temple is here, for Jews, for Samaritans, and indeed for the whole world.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Where John was baptising

John 1.28  This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

The introduction to John the baptiser in the narrative proper of John's Gospel situates us in a place with two descriptions.
  1. Bethany
  2. On the other side of the Jordan
However there is a problem with this. He is either in Bethany, or he is on the other side of the Jordan. We know from John 11.18 that Bethany is a couple of clicks away from Jerusalem (literally 15 stadia, which works out to 5km), and is on the same side of the Jordan.
So he could be there, except the rest of John 1-2 situates us in Galilee; he meets his first disciples by the sea of Galilee, he goes to a wedding in Galilee, he 'goes down' to Capernaum in Galilee and so on.
Furthermore, at the end of the 'Book of Signs' (the first half of John), Jesus is at the place where John had been baptising (10.40) and takes several days to walk to Bethany (11.17).
How do we solve all this?
D. A. Carson (The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, pp 146-7) suggests that John (the author) has deliberately misspelled a region in Israel's north-east called Batanea (Βετανια) as Bethany (Βηθανια). Batanea is in Galilee, it is across the Jordan, it is pretty wild, and it is several days walk from Bethany.
Currently this area is in the Golan Heights, an area of Syria occupied by Israel for the last couple of decades.

Arik Bridge over the Jordan River. Photo by Ilya Viten (Google Maps)
Why would he do this?
  1. The words sound quite similar - it's only two letters - 'ηθ' (ith) rather than 'ατ' (at).
  2. There's a nice symmetry to the book - the first half of the book begins and ends at Bethany/Batanea, with Jesus being recognised there at the beginning, and then performing his greatest sign at the end - the raising of Lazarus.
Andreas J. Köstenberger (John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004, pp 65-66) explains further:
At Bethany in the (Galilean) north, John the Baptist confesses Jesus as “God’s lamb”; at Bethany in the (Judean) south, Jesus nears his crucifixion. 
In conclusion, it's possible, though not provable, that when John wrote about John baptising Bethany in Galilee on the other side of the Jordan, he was expecting his readers to know that he was discussing Batanea, but drawing a strong link to Bethany. As readers we should be drawing those links too - from the beginning to the end.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Another email

I doubt I will receive a response, but I received another email from GetUp today asking for money to fight the postal plebiscite. It was linked to this campaign. As someone who doesn't support the redefinition, I objected to the way I was characterised in the email.

Here was my response:

Please, stop with the hurtful speech and divisiveness. It is not only the 'hard right conservatives' - this soft left conservative takes action on climate change and cannot stand what is happening in Nauru and Manus.
Your email promotes further division by characterising everyone who holds a traditional view on marriage as a bigot ('prejudice and division'; purveyors of 'anonymous hate').
If you believe redefining marriage to remove gender is best for our society, then make your best case for it. Promoting love as the highest good and describing redefinition as equality is your right, but there are coherent valid arguments for not redefining marriage which are not bigoted or hate-filled, but simply have a different understanding of the essence of what marriage is.
Labor has now had various positions in the last 5 years or so: (1) maintain the traditional definition, (2) support a plebiscite, (3) ban anyone from the ALP who does not support redefining marriage and (4) oppose any form of plebiscite. This is clearly wedge politicking and is not based on principles. So for GetUp and your members who support your stated view on this issue, complaining about/boycotting/fighting the postal vote is one option; putting your best argument for a positive view of society that redefines marriage as genderless, and showing the moral high ground against anyone who would bring the debate down would be a better approach.
Sincerely - keep up the good work on other issues.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Luke 2.8-20 Structure

8 And there were shepherds outdoors in the country nearby watching the watch during the night of their sheep.

9 And a messenger of the Lord stood above them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid (feared a great fear).

10 And the messenger said to them, “Don’t be afraid! for look - I am preaching the good news to you of great joy which will be for the whole people. 11 For born to you today is the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord in the city of David. 12 And this shall be for you the sign: you shall find an infant wrapped and lying in a food trough.” 13 And suddenly there appeared with the messenger a great army of heaven, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and peace upon earth, in people good will.”

15 And when the messengers departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another: “Then let’s go up to Bethlehem and see this thing which has happened, which the Lord made known to us.”

16 And they made haste to go, and discovered Mary and Joseph and the infant lying in the food trough.

17 After they had seen him they spread about the word which was spoken to them about this child, 18 and everyone who heard was amazed about what was said by the shepherds to them. 19 But Mary stored up all these words to consider them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God about everything which they heard and saw, [which had been] just as it was said to them.


As you can see, the Beginning and Ending mirror each other, although the Ending scenario is very much a 'same same but different' - they are still shepherds, but are now shepherds in a brand-new reality.

I haven't been able to work out if the word for 'made haste' in v16 has carried over into the English word 'spew'. The Greek is σπευδω (speudo), which made me think of the Latin vomitorium, a large passageway for getting people out of a stadium quickly - so I wonder if σπευδω also has the same route into English?!

The last thing to note before I preach on this this Sunday is the speed with which the promise is fulfilled. The words 'find', 'infant' and 'food trough' are found in v12 and v16 (interestingly the clothing is not referred to), as Luke emphasises God's faithfulness - he has promised and fulfilled this promise, how much more his other promises of a peace-bringing saviour!

Merry Christmas

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

John 11 Chiasm

Another one - this time John 11. It seems the central verse here is 'Jesus wept' (11.35). With misunderstandings abounding, with the air of despair from the hopelessness of the situation, what else could Jesus do but weep?!

11.1-7 Tale of two cities
11.8-16 It's dangerous for Jesus
11.17-27 Martha and the resurrection of the dead
11.28-34 Misunderstandings
11.35 Jesus wept
11.36-37 Misunderstandings
11.38-45 Martha and the resurrection of the dead
11.47-53 It's dangerous for Jesus
11.54-57 Tale of two cities

Labels: ,

John 9 Chiasm

I'm in a chiasmic mood today. Here's how I see John 9 playing out:

A 9.1-5 Jesus is the light of the world - but darkness is not far away
B 9.6-7 The incredible - the blind man sees!
C 9.8-12 incredulity from the crowd
D 9.13-17 incredulity from the Pharisees I (man)
C' 9.18-23 incredulity from the Pharisees II (parents)
D' 9.24-29 incredulity from the Pharisees III (man)
B' 9.30-34 Credibility of Jesus - the blind can see!
A' 9.35-41 Because of Jesus the blind see and those who see are blind

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Ecclesiastes 7.15-9.13

This section is again structured based on the occurrence of ראיתי (I saw). There are some difficult decisions to make about when to start and finish sections, complicated further by some English translations and the impact their decisions have on being able to make independent decisions on structure. However when we look at the regularity of occurrence of  ראה (to see) helps make those decisions easier, as they come at the beginning and end of each section.

Passage 7.15-28 7.29-8.9 8.10-16 8.17-9.10 9.11-13
First ראה 7.15 ראיתי 7.29 ראה (imperative) 8.10 ראיתי 8.17 ראיתי 9.11 ראה (infinitive)
Final ראה 7.27 ראה (imperative) 8.9 ראיתי 8.16 (2x) infinitive and participle 9.9 ראה (imperative) 9.13 ראיתי

What is very clear from this is there are 'seeing' (ראה) related bookends to each section. Within each section there is a clear theme, as follows:

7.15-28 I've seen it all
7.29-8.9 I saw that God made people upright; they pursued many schemes
8.10-16 I saw the wicked confused with the righteous
8.17-9.10 I saw how hard it is for people to understand God
9.11-13 I saw there is wisdom in understanding the limits of human perception

This section is the final observation section of the book, and is really his concluding remarks on the things he has seen and continues to see around him. Beginning with the totality of sight experiences, then the depravity inherent in people despite their good creator, leading next to the anti-wisdom practice of the fates of the righteous and wicked being confused, and fourthly the difficulty for people working out the full extent of everything that happens under the sun.

This leads to the terse concluding statement in 9.11-13, far shorter than the other sections, and, as flagged earlier, confused by the translations having a paragraph break after 9.12, where there is no reason to separate 9.13 from what precedes it. This short paragraph begins and ends with discussing what can and can't be discerned under the sun, and for the first time is able to say 'This too I saw [to be] wisdom under the sun, and this was very important [lit. 'great'] for me.' At the end of all this observation, Qohelet has finally understood something. What is that something? That there is great wisdom in understanding where the limits of human perception lie.

* I have some more work to do on this section; at first glance it appears each section will be chiastic. Which I have come to expect from Ecclesiastes, but also because of the way the themes are segmented and there are similarities between the beginning and end of each section, clustered around the verb ראה.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 27, 2016

Ecclesiastes Structure in Brief

For those who've been following along, here is where I'm up to in terms of the structure of the book as a whole. It will be interesting to look back in three years to see if this changes dramatically or stays much the same! For the next three years, studying a master's part time, I hope to be thinking more about this, and in particular how the different genres (poetry, observation, wisdom collections) speak uniquely and progress the argument about the search meaning amongst the vain mundanity that permeates all things under the sun.

A 1.1 Frame narrator
      B 1.2 Theme summary: All is vanity
            C 1.3-11 A poem on man's place in the universe
                  D 1.12-2.26 1st person observation (I saw)
            C' 3.1-15 A poem on time
                  D' 3.16-4.16 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E 4.17-5.11 (5.1-12 Eng) Wisdom collection on ethics
                  D'' 5.12-6.12 (5.13-6.12 Eng) 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E' 7.1-14 Wisdom collection on character
                  D''' 7.15-9.13 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E'' 9.14-11.10 Wisdom collection on wisdom and folly
            C'' 12.1-7 A poem on nearing death
      B' 12.8 Theme summary: All is vanity
A' 12.9-14 Frame Narrator

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Ecclesiastes 12.8-14

At long last we reach the end of the book, although there are some sections I haven't been able to get to. But I'm sure over the next three years of studies I'll have plenty of time to fill in the gaps.

Structure of 12.8-12
The big picture structure of the book is:
1.1 introduction
      1.2 'all is vanity'
            1.3-12.7 finding meaning amongst vanity
      12.8 'all is vanity'
12.9-14 epilogue
One of the most interesting things I've read on this was from almost twenty years ago: Andrew G. Shead, “Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’.” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 90. Apart from showing the consistency of the message and vocabulary of the epilogue with the rest of the book, he also points to the interaction between 12.8 ('all is vanity') with the message of 12.13-14: fear God the judge of all.

What I've seen as I've looked more closely at this passage is how 12.8 fits really tightly with 12.9-12 as follows:
It was really the 'in addition' that made this stand out to me; the word with the root יתר (ytr) is translated variously throughout the book, but mostly it is translated as gain or advantage (see Eccl 1.3; 2.11, 13,15; 3.9,19; 5.8,15; 6.8,11; 7.11,12,16; 10.10-11), so if you think about money left over after you've paid your bills, you have something that is both 'in addition', 'beyond' (HCSB translation of 12.9,12 respectively), but is also 'gain' and 'advantage' (see ‏Brown, Driver, Briggs, 451).

So we then have, in between the vanity of the rest of the book and the ironic vanity of writing it all down and studying it as both he and we have done, an explanation of the purpose of the book. These were 'delightful' sayings, but they were also 'goads' and 'nails'. They were good in a way that hurts, or they hurt in a way that is good (I guess it depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist!).

Ending with 12.13-14
The final two verses have three pointers that tell us this is the end of the book:
  1. it literally is the end!
  2. 12.13 begins with the word 'end' (סוף)
  3. the word 'all' (כל) appears four times
They are also tightly structured and terse, with the word count pattern of:
4 4 2
4 2 2
In English we might reflect this with a minimum of fudging (don't count my equals sign!) as:
Matter's end, all's heard
Fear God, commands keep
this = man
God judges all works
all secrets
Taken as a whole these last two verses of the epilogue give us one last word to restrain the extremes of nihilism or licentiousness that may have been the result of reflecting on life under the sun with Qohelet as our guide. Entrusting ourselves, our efforts and our results to a fair God is ultimately all we can do. Seeking to live faithfully under God (which we do in reverent fear and obedience) is what it is to be a creature rightly responding to our creator.

Labels: , , ,

The long read: Same Sex Marriage

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite?

This election has been spruiked as a once in a lifetime election because of one issue: Same Sex Marriage (hereafter SSM). This is one issue that, if carried by parliament, will irreparably change Australian society forever more. Of the four major parties, there is a spectrum of opinions. The Liberal Party have a mixed opinion, with the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, remaining undeclared, and a mixture of supporters and dissenters among the Liberal Senate candidates. The official position of the Liberal party is that there would be a national plebiscite by the end of 2016, whereafter parliamentarians would be free to vote according to their conscience, which would mean either what they think, what their electorate thinks, or what the nation as a whole thinks. The National party, while in coalition with the Liberals, is mostly opposed to both the plebiscite as well as the idea of SSM, so would most likely vote against it in any instance. The Labor party currently have a conscience vote, although at their national conference last year, support of SSM from 2017  became a principle of membership. The member for Parramatta is listed as a supporter of SSM, and her party has pledged to bring about a parliamentary vote (with no plebiscite) within the first 100 days in office. Currently the Labor senators are mixed, but as mentioned above that will change from next year. The fourth largest party, the Greens, are not in favour of a plebiscite, but are in favour of SSM. It is worth mentioning in passing the Christian Democrats, who are unlikely to gain any members in the House of Representatives but may gain (or retain) a senator and thus be part of the cross-bench in the Senate who may be able to vote against changes in the marriage act.

Likely Vote
Mostly No
Mostly Yes

What is still unclear is what the plebiscite would ask, what action would come from it, and what rights to a conscience vote members would have in light of the outcome. This is not a constitutional matter, so the plebiscite is simply a way of indicating our preference, as there is no legal compulsion upon parliamentarians to respond in any particular way. There is, for example, nothing to stop a theoretically defeated ALP or any private member entering legislation before the plebiscite and having it passed through into law. All of this raises the question of why the plebiscite was originally agreed upon. It seems it was former PM Abbott's attempt to kick the ball out of play for a little while without having to do anything. Part of the problem is you can't vote to not vote - you can't pass legislation to say you're not allowed to revisit the marriage act down the track. There have been numerous failed attempts to introduce SSM legislation, but the momentum in the media and inside parliament has been building to the point where one of the two major parties needs to do something about it. So perhaps a plebiscite was Abbott's hope of enabling a conversation about the societal outcomes of normalising SSM. Unfortunately such hopes cannot have been based on reality, as where such debates have happened, dissent has been put down, such as in the Irish referendum where people were reported choosing to don a 'Yes' badge despite intending to vote 'No' as anyone questioning SSM is inevitably labelled a bigot and homophobe. We have been discussing SSM for years now in Australia - I don't see the debate being at all clarified. All we have is extremes from both ends with the sane middle not getting a word in.

When I talk about the sane middle (and of course I include myself in this group!) I mean those who truly see the merits of the other side. For those pro SSM, it means understanding the novelty and untestedness of this change and the strong history of traditional marriage. It also means acknowledging this isn't really a push for 'marriage equality'; I hear no one advocating polygamy/polyandry, I hear no one advocating normalising and recognising incestuous relationships nor pederasty. This is not marriage equality, this is SSM. Using the term 'equality' is simply a political decision which implies dissenters desire inequality and are thus to be equated with those who endorsed slave trading and disallowed inter-racial marriage. Being in the sane middle from the SSM side means acknowledging as much. Being in the sane middle from the traditional marriage side means having genuine sympathy for the historic and ongoing hurts of people in same-sex relationships, or indeed anyone who does not fit neatly in the heterosexual box. There is genuine discrimination, there is all too real abuse, there are higher rates of suicide and self-harm among these people. To affirm traditional marriage at the expense of SSM without recognising the genuine felt needs of people to have relationships validated when so much of their life has been attacked from all sides is a great insult and continues hurt. I think this means there will be some who disagree with SSM who will nonetheless decide to vote Yes for the sake of their suffering neighbour; so too will there be those who vote No even though they themselves have suffered. People unable to recognise this will be forced to continue the yelling match from the poles, but hopefully there will be a more rational and generous debate in the centre.

The question is, will a plebiscite enable such debate between the sane middle, or will it be drowned out by the shouting from the sidelines?

One issue or several?
As I began, the push from several Christian groups has been to maximise this issue without reference to the other issues. This issue is a once in a lifetime vote, or votes, as it will mean voting first for the LNP and then voting No in a plebiscite. The thing that troubles me is the issues which generally determine my vote are not reflected at all by the LNP. I am in favour of supporting Medicare (the Liberals have said they will freeze indexation of rebates). I am in favour of treating refugees humanely (neither LNP nor ALP are willing to depart from the boat turnback, indefinite detention, offshore detention policy in place since Abbott). I am in favour of real action on climate change (LNP and ALP continue to support coal mining and penalising protesters). I believe in generous foreign aid (the LNP has both cut this aid and spitefully reappropriated funds into our punitive detention centres for refugees). I think electoral funding needs reform (silence from the two major parties). As I look through the advertising in our letterbox, as I scroll through policies, I can see maybe a tenth of the LNP policies I support, two fifths of ALP, one tenth of CDP, but four fifths of the Greens. What do I do with this? Of course, not all issues are equal. Is the possibility of a marriage plebiscite (the very plebiscite, let alone the result, being dependent on passing both houses of parliament!) enough to force me to vote against my love of neighbour and pursuit of justice with mercy on the other nine tenths? Or does the vehemence with which I disagree with the one fifth of Greens policies mean I should not vote for the four fifths of things I do agree with them on, where they brazenly stand apart from the LNP and ALP?

I could weight all the issues and work them out mathematically I suppose. I could also think about the numbers of people affected: if  say 3% of the population is same-sex attracted, of that work out how many are in long-term stable relationships and then how many both approve of the institution at all (hello, Marxists!) and also desire to be married? We are left with quite a small number, but then again, this will normalise adoption rights and there will be children without access to a traditional family - although, unless a surrogate baby - they would be without any parents as is. And then I balance that with the number of people being subjected to physical, sexual, medical and psychological abuse at our hands in offshore detention centres, those who are preferring self-immolation to further hopeless waiting. To that I could add the short-term thinking of fossil fuel extraction for surprisingly small gains and devastatingly long-term consequences. I think for me these two are of at least equal value with the marriage plebiscite. 

Of course I could complicate things with the NBN and foreign aid and safe schools and electoral funding etc etc etc. But those are my three: refugees, climate and marriage, and I think they are all worthy of consideration in my vote. For you, you need to do your own maths. Work out what are your biggest issues and how important they are and who best represents your concern. And then vote. But don't just vote, advocate. Tell your local member who you voted for why you did and/or why you didn't. Try to find out their views and speak sympathetically to that where you differ. If they agree with you encourage  them, and if they disagree explain why you do with respect. 

Because even if SSM does become legalised in Australia, what follows will in part depend on how we uphold ourselves now. If vitriol and hyperbole and apocalyptic language becomes our norm, then who could blame anyone for wanting to even the scores when they're in the ascendancy. We can remain part of the conversation or be fringe outsiders. Now, that day may of course come, but while we have the possibility of speaking truth with grace and love I think we should continue to do so.

Labels: , ,

Ecclesiastes Structure

I know the task of finding a structure of Ecclesiastes is the very definition of vanity, a chasing after the wind. Nonetheless this is what I'm working with and has been updated with links to individual posts as the series has gone on.

A Frame Narrator (1.1)
  B All is vanity (1.2)

First Poem What is man? 1.3-11
C Question about life under the sun (1.3)
  D paradox of people on the earth (1.4)
     E always moving sun (1.5)
        F untameable wind (1.6)
     E' always moving water (1.7)
  D' paradox of senses (1.8)
C' Statement about life under the sun (1.9-11)

Two ways to live and work 1.12-2.26
G  Introduction and presumptive conclusion (1.12-13)
  H Why be wise (1)? (1.14-18)
      I The pursuit of pleasure (2.1-11)
  H' Why be wise (2)?  (2.12-17)
      I'  The character that matters (2.18-23)
G' Conclusion: two ways to work (2.24-26)

Second Poem Understanding the time 3.1-15
J Statement about time (3.1)
    K Two extremes (3.2)
        L Four extremes (3.3-4)
        L' Four extremes (3.5-6)
    K' Two extremes (3.7)
            M' Two last extremes (3.8)
J' Question about time and what we can know (3.9-15)

Where is justice? 3.16-4.16
N I saw wickedness under the sun (3.16)
     O God will judge even the dead (3.17-21)
N' I saw that it's good to seize the day while you live (3.22)

P I saw oppression under the sun (4.1a)
     Q that power is with the oppressors makes me wish I was dead (4.1b-3)
P' I saw that working out of jealousy is vanity (4.4)

          R wisdom interlude linking sections either side (4.5-6)

S I saw vanity under the sun (4.7-8)
     T It's not good to be alone in this vain world - it's a miserable task (4.9-12)
     T' It's not good to be 'good' if you're not wise (4.13-14)
S' I saw under the sun that you shouldn't follow someone who'll be forgotten (4.16)

Wisdom Collection I 5.1-12
U Better to be obedient, therefore fulfil what you vow (5.1-4)
V Better to not vow, therefore fear God (5.5-7)
W If you see oppression, be assured that the worker can at least sleep well (5.8-12)

Finding good amongst tragedy 5.13-6.12
X I saw a sickening tragedy (5.13a)
     Y The tragedy discussed (5.13b-15)
X' The sickening tragedy (5.16-17)

Z I saw what is good (5.18a)
     a The good discussed (5.18b-19c)
Z' This is a gift (5.19d-20)

b I saw a tragedy upon humanity (6.1)
     c The tragedy and opportunity for good discussed (6.2-11b)
b' Three questions for humanity (6.11c-12)

Wisdom Collection II 7.1-14
d What is good in the midst of death (7.1-6)
e What is good in the midst of fools (7.7-12)
     f  Seeing what God has made will teach us to live wisely (7.13-14)

I've seen it all 7.15-9.13
ghg  I've seen it all (7.15-28)
iji  I saw that God made people upright; they pursued many schemes (7.29-8.9)
klk  I saw the wicked confused with the righteous (8.10-16)
mnm  I saw how hard it is for people to understand God (8.17-9.10)
     opo  I saw there is wisdom in understanding the limits of human perception (9.11-13)

Wisdom Collection III 9.14-11.10

Third Poem Approaching Death 12.1-7
! Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)
  @ when the eyes fail (12.2)
     # when the face degrades (12.3)
        $ when the hearing stops working (12.4)
     #' when the stomach degrades (12.5)
  @' when the frame fails (12.6)
!' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

Closing 12.8-14
  B' All is vanity (12.8)
A' Frame Narrator (12.9-14)

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Ecclesiastes 12.1-7

The penultimate section of Ecclesiastes is also the third poem of the book, and with a very similar structure.

1.3-11 3.1-9(-15) 12.1-7
5 examples
14 pairs of examples
5 examples
Question & conclusion

The biggest question surrounding this section is the way to read it. If one were to read it literally, then it might well be describing the scene of a town perhaps in the aftermath of a plague. Many have died, this is yet another funeral procession, those looking on know their death is also nigh - the signs are there. 

Another way to look at it is to see past the literal to the metaphorical and ask: what do these signs represent? As such, what we see in 12.1-7 is the description of the effects of old age on the body. This follows on from the discussion in 11.7-10 highlighting the good of youth, yet always with reference to old age being ominously near. 

a Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)
  b when the eyes fail (12.2)
     c when the face degrades (12.3)
        d when the hearing stops working (12.4)
     c' when the stomach degrades (12.5)
  b' when the frame fails (12.6)
a' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

To be clear, the language of this section is quite difficult, with words appearing here and here only in the whole Bible, and there are some questions remaining, but overall this appears to be the flow. 

For structure's sake, I would've loved to see verse 2 in the centre of the structure, as sight has been so pivotal to Qohelet's observation throughout, but to frustrate me (pun intended) he leaves it as the first example of the failing body. Qohelet may also be drawing on a Sumerian proverb quoted in Bendt Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs (1975), quoted in Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary (1992):

My grain roasting fails,
Now my youthful vigor, strength and personal god
have left my loins like an exhausted ass.
My black mountain has produced white gypsum.
My mother has brought in a man from the forest;
he gave me captivity.
My mongoose which used to eat strong smelling things
does not stretch its neck towards beer and butter.
My urine used to flow in a strong torrent.
but now you flee from my wind.
My child whom I used to feed with butter and milk,
I can no more support it.
And I have had to sell my little slave girl;
an evil demon makes me sick.

The Sumerian poem obviously uses different images although there are many similarities, in particular the happy conflation of the literal and metaphorical. 

To conclude, when we note that our poem is bookended with references to God, this is an exhortation to direct our attention to him while we still can. There will be the day (should we live long enough) when our faculties will fail us. Until that day comes we must make every effort to know God and to live the life he has given us to live. For the day will come when joys will be taken, faculties will be taken, and ultimately even our spirit will leave our bodies when the decay has taken over.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Ecclesiastes 5.13-6.12

Again, this is another passage I won't be able to preach this time through, but with 1.12-2.26 and 3.16-4.16 before it, it marks a return to first person narrative and observation with the threefold ראיתי (I saw) structuring Qohelet's observations at 5.13,18 and 6.1. This continues until the second wisdom collection beginning in chapter 7.

Section 1: 5.13-17
5.13 begins with Qohelet seeing a 'sickening tragedy' under the sun, and concludes with the 'sickening tragedy' in 5.16-17. In between  (13b-15) he tells the story of the cruel master wealth.

Section 2: 5.18-20
The bookends to this section are positive, what Qohelet sees to be 'good' (5.18a), the 'gift of God' (5.19d). In between is a description of the good life as received and enjoyed as a gift of God.

Section 3: 6.1-12
This returns to the negative of the first section, with האדם (humanity) bookending the section. The tragedy under the sun which weighs heavily on humanity (6.1) raises three questions about humanity in 11c,12a,c. The discussion in between is one we've heard before in various places, but it is interestingly punctuated by some challenges to enjoy life - to fail to do so is our own problem (6.3b,6,9).

The broader structure of the whole section is A-B-A'; negative-positive-negative. Within them they share that same structure of a-b-a'; I saw x - discussion - x.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Ecclesiastes 5.1-12

I'm not preaching on this passage and I don't have heaps to say on it either. Unfortunately there are more sections than there are weeks and this one and the next will have to be left by the roadside, hopefully to be picked up again another day.

5.1-12 seems to be one of the wisdom sections that punctuate the book, as do the poems. 5.1-12; 7.1-13 and 9.14-11.10 have a very different feel to the first person narrative either side of them, but do maintain thematic similarities with the rest of the book, so they have been assembled/composed and arranged meaningfully.

5.1-4 Better to x, therefore y.
5.5-7 Better to z, therefore a.
5.8-12 If you see b, be assured that c.

x = be obedient, y = fulfil what you vow.
z = not vow, a = fear God.
b = oppression, c = you can sleep well.

As a section, this is perhaps then an attestation of the truths presented earlier, 5.8-12 in 4.1-6 for instance.

The only other thing to mention is the repetition of the negating particle על, which occurs 6 times in these verses, making the positive affirmations even stronger against all the 'shalt not's.

Labels: ,