Psalm 132 - Yhwh's great promises to David

Structure

Although this psalm does not have the heading "for David", it is easily the one most thoroughly soaked in talk of David. As I explain below, it is essentially a retelling of 2 Samuel 6-7. Like Psalm 130 this psalm has an ABAB structure. There is much repetition, and much correspondence, especially between the two B sections. The way I see it, each section has the introduction from the narrator, and then some speech, first from David, then Israel, then Yhwh in the past, then Yhwh looking to the future. The sections have different lengths (respectively, 10,10,8,12), but each AB pair has 20 stichs (which should correspond to the number of lines in the setting out in of most translations), giving the psalm a nice balance.

A intro 1-2 Remember when David swore to Yhwh

speech 3-5 David's vow to build Yhwh's house

B intro 6 The excitement of hearing of David's vow

speech 7-10 The people encourage Yhwh to dwell in Zion

A` intro 11a-b When Yhwh swore to David

speech 11c-12 Yhwh's vow to build David's house

B` intro 13 When Yhwh chose to dwell Zion

speech 14-18 Yhwh's promises to David in the future

Each section has Yhwh and David; in the two A sections they are adjacent, while in the B sections they are not. Furthermore Yhwh and "the mighty one of Jacob" occurs with one word separating them, twice in the first A section (v2,5). Otherwise the first AB section reuses the word "tabernacle" or "tent" (v5,7), and the second A`B` sections reuse the phrase עדי־עד (for ever ever, v12,14). Apart from these, most of the correspondence is between the two A sections and between the two B sections.

1-5; 11-12

The first of these is unsurprisingly נשׁבע - he swore. They both occur in the respective headings of their sections (v2,11), as the respective oaths of David and Yhwh are introduced. The oaths themselves are discussed in both respects with the conditional אם (if); thrice in v3-4a (and assumed in 4b) and once in 12a. In the case of David's oath, this is a Hebrew oddity where it forms the first half of a phrase but where the second half remains unstated. "If I do x before y (then may something bad happen to me)." So in this case, David's oath is that he will not care for his own interests - by going home or lying down or having a nap - before he builds Yhwh a house. But if he does, then something bad may happen to him. 

The second A section (11-12) reuses אם just the once, but in a positive sense, so that if David's descendants do indeed obediently follow Yhwh, then they will sit on his throne forever.  Interestingly the word order is "then your sons for ever and ever will sit on your throne", so that it's not "for ever and ever" which finish the thought, but "your throne" to be the note to finish this thought on. It's not the length, but the place, which is at the forefront.

6-10; 13-18

There are more repetitions between the B sections, with "resting place" being found in v8 and v14, as well as "anointed one" (lit. "messiah") in v10 and 17. The discussions about the priests and steadfast ones in v9 and 16 are repeated almost verbatim.

9	16
כהניך ילבשׁו־זדק	וכהניה אלבישׁ ישׁע
וחסידיך ירננו	וחסידיה רנן ירננו

The perspectives are obviously different - v8 is from the perspective of the people and v16 is Yhwh speaking, but otherwise there are two notable differences. The first is the clothing: v9 the priests will be clothed with righteousness; v16 the priests will be clothed with salvation. The second difference is the enthusiasm with which steadfast ones will rejoice - in v16 the verb is repeated, such that they will certainly, or enthusiastically, sing for joy (רנן).

Both B sections speak then of the joy of a restored Zion; in v6 it is boasted of from far away, while in v13 it is ensured because Yhwh has chosen (or desired - v13, 14) to choose that as his dwelling place. The places mentioned here - Ephrathah and Ja'ar - are interesting choices. David is said to be an Ephrathite, as Bethlehem was in the area of Ephrathah. We have Judah>Ephrathah>Bethlehem. So in David's home region it is heard that something is happening in Jerusalem. But it is found out also in "the fields of Ja'ar" - which is interesting in the other way - it's very confusing what this might mean. 

Everywhere else in the Bible Ja'ar is translated "forest", but the weirdness of saying "the fields of the forest" has led translators to go instead with "the fields of Ja'ar", assuming that there is some other place (maybe alternate name for Ephrathah?) which is actually called "Ja'ar." There are three options:

1. there is a place called Ja'ar that isn't recorded anywhere else
2. there is a field in a forest
3. there is a typo (NIV footnote suggests Jearim or Je'arim - which just means forests rather than forest)
4. Ja'ar is an alternate name for Ephrathah

It could well be that we are to read the two stichs of v6 in parallel, so that, rather than opposite ends of the land like in 120:5 (Meshek and Kedar), Ephrathah and Ja'ar are more or less the same place. If Ephrathah is or was largely a wooded region, then the places people would live and farm within it would the fields, so I think option 3 probably makes the most sense, and that the name was given it because it was a wooded place.

The story of the psalm

In terms of the story this tells, it all hinges around the person of and promises to David. It revolves around the goings on in 2 Samuel 6-7 where the ark of Yhwh (cf. v8 ark of your power) is brought to Jerusalem and David intends to build a house for Yhwh (v2-5). The intent (or vow, v2) is turned on its head, as instead Yhwh swears (v11a) that he instead will build David a house his servant (v10), promises that his descendants will rule after him (v11b-12). 

The final section of the psalm seems to be more eschatological and hoping despite hope, possibly betraying a post-exilic context. Although her priests may be clothed in sackcloth now, "Her priests I will clothe with salvation" (v16). The line of David may not look like much now, but as with Isaiah 11 (although with different lexemes), Yhwh will cause David's line to "sprout" once again, and he will light his path. The glory that his enemies now enjoy will be turned into shame, will be taken from them and given to the anointed descendant of David.

The image used in v18b continues that begun in v17a. The horn which sprouted there is linked to a crown which "blossoms." The messiah is something of a tree - planted by and nurtured by Yhwh. Just as blossoms come from a tree at the right time of year, so too will Yhwh's chosen one be crowned. This quite beautiful imagery of a floral crown is in obvious contrast with the crown of thorns worn by Jesus as he was proclaimed king, but the irony of course is that the ones who crowned him in jest had their joking turned to shame, as Jesus rose like blossoms on a tree which otherwise seemed dead.

Psalm 131 - At peace with Yhwh

With the last few psalms of ascent we come to the shortest psalms of the collection, with 132 the exception. 131, 133 and 134 are each only three verses each, which ties them together as a unit.

131:1

The psalm proper begins with Yhwh as the addressee, and then three לא־ (not) statements: not lifted up (my heart), not exalted (my eyes), not walking (in greatness), and then, with an ellipsis, assuming "not walking", a virtual fourth, as they are not walking (in things too wonderful for me). This introduction of what they are not doing raises an obvious question: if that's what you're not doing, what are you doing? This is a pattern established from the very first psalm, which begins by detailing the blessed one, who does not a, nor b, nor c.

131:2

If they are not haughty, proud, or boastful, then who are they? 131:2 explains exactly that. They have become calm and quieted their soul. It begins by continuing the repeating the pattern of לא, but combines it with אם (if), forming an idiom. אם־לא sometimes means what it looks like: "if not", but other times (eg. Prov 4:16) is something closer to "until". Goldingay (BCOTWP) suggests "No, rather" to continue the chain of "no's" from v1. It seems to me that the precise idiom found here however seems to be close to the one used sometimes by Isaiah (often it's "if not), in for example 5:9 and 14:24, which is better translated "surely", which seems to be its meaning here also. The mix of idioms confuses me a bit, as contrary meanings for the same words makes it hard for a non-native speaker. All this is a reminder that we approach the text from a great distance - thousands of years and cultures and languages - so what is confusing for us need not be for them. On a side note, from Isaiah's usage of the idiom but using both meanings shows that they had no issues grasping the meaning from context. 

In the second half of v2 the comparison comes. Throughout the psalms of ascent one notable feature is that they tend to have just one illustration or a matching pair of illustrations. In this case we are to picture the (often all-too brief!) peacefulness of a young child resting with their mother, completely safe, at ease, at peace. There are two noteworthy features here in the final stich of the verse; the first is the reuse of נפשׁי (my soul) at the end of each half of this verse: I have quieted my soul/like a child upon [their mother] is my soul. This also highlights the second feature, which I think is probably another ellipsis: the first stich of the second half of this verse has, literally, "like a child upon its mother", and the second stich is "like a child upon my soul." I think it's probably correct to say that אמו (its mother) is to be assumed in the final stich, so that rather than imagining first a child with their mother and then a child with my soul, we supply "its mother" and assume the verb "to be", such that we end up with "like a child upon its mother/like a child upon [its mother] is my soul." Craig Broyles has a lovely suggestion, which is:

This juxtaposition leads one to think further of Yahweh as mother, with one’s  soul or self as the weaned child that is quieted upon her (cf. Isa. 46:3; 49:15). (Craig C. Broyles, UTB; Baker 2012; 470).

I should also add that, as Goldingay explains, the idea that גמל means "weaned" in this context is a little odd. Perhaps it's best to think of a child who has not finished nursing forever (the normal meaning of weaned) but one who has just finished a feeding session (weaned until the next time they need to feed!). We often call it "milk drunk," which I think adds to the idea of being completely satisfied and there being no possibility of wanting for anything else.

131:3

As well as being connected with the shorter psalms which follow, 131 also has a clear connection with 130, as the final verses both address Israel, and both tell Israel to יחל (hope) in Yhwh; indeed the first clause of 130:7 and 131:1 are identical: יחל ישראל אל־יהוה. They both do this because they reflect on what has been learned through personal experience and seek to use that to encourage their fellow Israelites.

With Ps 124, but also interestingly, within these final five, Ps 132 and 133, this is a David psalm, so the best way to read that is perhaps as learning from the patience and humility exhibited by David. Interestingly though, the final phrase of this psalm, מעתה ועד־עולם (from now and forever) elsewhere occurs with reference to God's eternal kingdom centred in Zion and around David (the eight exact hits for this phrase are Isa 9.7; 59.21; Mic 4.7; Ps 113.2; 115.18; 121.8; 125.2; 131.3). The first of these is the reading often associated with Christmas:

“Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.” (Isa 9.7 NIV11)

The second Isaiah reference is about his Spirit-endowed servant who always speaks the word of the Lord, and Micah is discussing the restoration of the remnant. I obviously don't know which came first - the psalm or the prophets, but it's certainly interesting to see how this phrase is used in the Hebrew Bible, but knowing from the superscription that this is a David psalm, it certainly adds an extra layer. 

Reflecting on the psalm

The psalm teaches the pilgrim about the approach of their heart as they draw near to God in the temple. Psalm 130 taught them that they can approach, because with Yhwh is forgiveness. In this psalm though, they are reminded that forgiveness must never lead to arrogance, but to humility. Less proud Pharisee and more penitent tax-collector (Luke 18). 

The eschatological quiet taught by this psalm hinges on the trust in Yhwh's character as explained in the previous psalm. "It is well with my soul," "not my will but yours," "to live is Christ and to die is gain" - such expressions reflect well the quiet calm on show here. Even more shocking in the world today where strong-man leaders are all the rage (one commentator perfectly said that we vote not for the one with the best policies but the one who can take over a room), is that for any "David's", whose hope is in Yhwh, that their character is to be peaceable, humble and calm. How wonderful it would be to have some leaders who are peaceful rather than talking themselves up all the time! 

Far better then, to follow the one who did not exalt himself, but gave his life as an offering, and to learn from his mindset (Phil 2).

this is the word of the lord

the response is supposed to go, 'thanks be to God'.

i remember the Don getting a bit sermonic when, getting up to preach after the bible was read, chastigated the reader for not offering a 'this is the word of the lord', whereupon he said it, and all the good Anglicans in the room responded 'thanks be to God.'

this is definitely not having a go at the Don, and his point was well taken, and he was making a point rather than having a go at the bible reader.

but i am reading John Goldingay's, 'Models for Scripture' (Eerdmans, 1994), and he suggested this might not always be the correct response (p10).

so after Mark 14.1-12 was read, he wanted the reader to say 'this is part of God's story'. or after Job or Ecclesiastes, 'isn't is amazing the things you can say to God'.

after either you could still respond 'thanks be to God.'

perhaps after prophetic oracles such as Isaiah 5.1-7 they could say 'this is the word of the lord', but a more appropriate response would be 'God help us.'

now i love formal liturgy as much as the next guy, but i like the point Goldingay is making here - 'word of God' is a model for parts of scripture, not scripture as a whole. it is used by scripture to describe particular words (cf eg Heb 4.12; Isa 55.11).

an automatic response to the reading of scripture can imply an lack of genuine listening; it would be good if there were a flexibility in responses that recognised the diversity of scripture.

read my essays?

you may've listened to my sermons

you may have read the blog posts as i thought through Isaiah 26 here and here

you may have read the blog posts thinking through the historical fall here, here, here and here

well, thanks to jay-z and earngey, you can now read in full the essays that resulted, isaiah (with formatting errors - hebrew and spacing doesn't work so well across platforms it seems), and historical fall.

for other nerdy essays, you can look further at the filing cabinet, on the same topics (OT & doctrine), as well as church history and NT.

but do bear in mind, it's quite nerdy. read with due caution.

'supdate

if you've been grieving my blogospheric absence, let me fill you in on where i've been:

nowhere really – just busy!

i stepped in at the last minute to do a sermon on prayer, a great time - though not long enough - to think through whether i really do value prayer or not.

essay on Isaiah 26 was great fun, but took waaaaay too long - i spent 2 and a half weeks working on the Hebrew, and only a couple of days looking at the theological issues surrounding it.

next on the list was exam fun and games - philosophy was first, and then Church History (European Reformation).

the mayhem was broken up with a weekend camp for SWAC youth, where i had the honour of talking through 2 Peter with them.

i arrived back in time for my New Testament exam, translating and exegeting 2 passages from John 7:29-31 and John 1:11-13. it was good fun, but there was a little too much winging-it, not quite enough knowing-what-on-earth-i'm-talking-about.

i arrived back yesterday from speaking at a vision valley snow camp on the two sons in Luke 15. it was a great couple of days, very tiring, but an awesome opportunity to share the reckless love of our heavenly father with some young people who may not have heard of it ever before.

anyway, i'm off to Gradcon in a couple of days, i just need to knock this essay on the head before then!

anyway, that's where i've been. i hope you've been well too, dear reader.

speak soon,
D5

Isaiah and annihilationism

well, i was surprised to find Isaiah's view of the afterlife is that Sheol, the place of the dead, will be annihilated.

Isaiah 25:7-9

7 And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
8 He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
9 It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the LORD; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

my thesis was essentially that Sheol is the place of both the just and the unjust, but the righteous are not 'natural' residents - as death is a curse, and to be dead, to be in the place of the dead, in the company of the wicked (who are rightly there) is not something that will be eternally countenanced there.

as we meet the rightful inhabitants of the underworld in Isaiah 26:12-19 (esp. 14,19), the OT version of ghosts or ghouls, the Rephaim, we see that they, and their dwelling place, the land of the Rephaim will both be destroyed, and the righteous will be freed.


this understanding came as i worked on my structure a little more, coming up with:

12 Yhwh’s great deeds
13     Others try to destroy us – we will remember you
14           The dead will not rise*
      Others will be destroyed by you – they won't be remembered
15 Yhwh's great deeds

16 Yhwh brings man down
17     Pregnant writhing
              That was us
18     Pregnant writhing
 Man is brought down

19 Your dead will rise
        They'll rejoice
        They'll be sustained
  But their dead won’t rise*

*14 this includes the dead and the rephaim
*19 lit, 'you will cause the land of the rephaim to fall'


so the hope is a positive one for Israel. the rescue and restoration of the righteous, but and end to the wicked dead, the underworld and all that is associated with it. i'm not sure to what extent this rules out a new testament understanding of the underworld, but until i get my essay back i'll stick with this reading of Isaiah!

enjoy the pic if you're into hebrew at all:

(i think you're supposed to click to enlarge)

Isaiah 26 Chiasm

so i have this essay, right, on Isaiah 26:12-19 and what it contributes to an OT theology of the afterlife. i still have no idea of the answer, but i think i've found some more chiasms!

12   God's great deeds
13           Others may take your place - we will remember you
14           Others will be punished - they won't be remembered
15   God's great deeds

16   God brings man down
17           Pregnant writhing
                      That's us
18           Pregnant writhing
     Man is brought down

19   the dead will rise
          they'll rejoice
          they'll be sustained
      the dead will rise

and 19a is even a little chiasm of its own (will live - your dead, my corpse - will rise i.e. A-B, B-A).

BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL HELP ME?

i don't think i need to talk about the chiastic structure - it doesn't change the argument one way or the other as regards the afterlife, so i'm not quite sure what to do with it all!

a wedding telegram of sorts

I will sing for joy in GOD,
explode in praise from deep in my soul!
He dressed me up in a suit of salvation,
he outfitted me in a robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom who puts on a tuxedo
and a bride a jewelled tiara.

For as the earth bursts with spring wildflowers,
and as a garden cascades with blossoms,
So the Master, GOD, brings righteousness into full bloom
and puts praise on display before the nations.

- Isaiah 61:10-11, The Message

(click on pic to view at original location)

while i was at an accordance (mac bible software) seminar today, some friends were getting married. and i'm preaching tomorrow morning on this passage*, which i can now read in dozens of different translations at a glance, because of my new software.

it all comes together so nicely!

i pray Nath and Kat would continue to look forward, from their great day, to this even greater one.

* well, Luke 4:31-44 but my OT reading is Isaiah 61

THE authorised version

hearing in class today about the book burning resulting from the translation in Isaiah 7:14 of

עלמה

'almah - young woman, newly married, virgin - that sort of linguistic range

apparently this bible burning happened back in the 4th century when a new authorised version of the Septuagint came out translating 'almah as young woman, not virgin (as in Matthew 1:23). this also happened last century when the worshippers of the KJV, with it's appeal to the tradition of the LXX and Wycliffe for example, was blasphemed with the alternate translation. they were obviously way too liberal in bearing in mind the range, and quite valid translation, of 'almah as young woman, maiden etc.

it particularly reminded me about this guy preaching on the KJV, being a man and not a male, and signs in German toilets, among other things.try not to get too angry as you listen.
i would have loved to see how his congregation were responding!


remember, y'all - kein pinkeln im sitzen!

Miss Landmine 2008

coming to my attention was the miss landmine context, according to Fox, combining Angola's 1/ love for beauty pageants, and 2/ the devastating toll of Landmines in that country.

from my previous life as a prosthetist, this is both encouraging, yet saddening. the winner receives a top-notch limb from a scandinavian prosthetics supplier. it does seem a bit tokenistic, but when you look at the stats for the distribution and continued supply, you wonder whether, on a human level, much more can be done.

listed as 'partners' in the contest are the countries who continue to produce landmines*:

• Burma
  
• Iran
  
• Russia
  
• Cuba
  
• Korea (N/S)
  
• Singapore
  
• China
  
• Nepal
  
• U.S.A.
  
• India
  
• Pakistan
  
• Vietnam

* Landmine Monitor 2006 www.icbl.org/lm


how i long for the day when the promise made to Isaiah is fulfilled (25:8):

He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.

today tonight is not on this weekend

probably just for programming reasons, but still - convinced that Jesus was a crazy, or if not, then a con, what do you do with the resurrection?

what do you do with THAT, Anna Coren?
my guess, going off "current affairs'" form, is to just ignore the past, and turn it into a puff piece, a nice break from the harsh exposés of the last couple of days. I could imagine it going a little something like this:

little palestinian battler, the boy from the bush made good, the unassuming chippie from the north-west keeps a promise that was made a long long time ago

all they then need is a few emotional friends and relo's talkin' him up, maybe a party, and a slow-mo with some moving background music, perhaps even Jessie, or something similarly moving; a montage of key events - hanging out in the temple with the grown ups (the little rascal), reading from Isaiah in the synagogue, losing it in the temple, healing blind Bartimaeus, holding the little children in one arm, a lamb in the other (or perhaps even a velociraptor, and of course the plethora of emotions flowing out of his arrest and crucifixion.
of course the climax (of the montage, as well as the song), comes when Jesus is running out of the tomb, magically transported to the beach, running towards Mary and the disciples, who all fall down in slow-motion, giggling and laughing and crying because they're so happy.

can you think of a better reaction? i can't.

this post probably makes a little more sense in the light of Friday's and Saturday's posts. and if you've read C.S. Lewis anywhere on Liar, Lord or Lunatic

Christ is risen;
He is risen indeed!

materialism vs hedonism

reflecting tonight on old friends who would work all summer, yet spend their entire wages on weed and grog (marijuana and alcohol), a friend's remark really got me thinking. he said,
"i have much more respect for a hedonist than a materialist."

i guess i had never really tried to work out which i preferred, but in essence he was saying,
rather be the perishing, who echo "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die," with those of 1 Corinthians 15 (and interestingly also Isaiah 22)
than the arrogant (who will obviously also perish), who says "I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods." (Luke 12)

indeed, in the Bible the fool who is perishing is to be pitied, rather than put down, unlike the arrogant farmer of Luke 12.
for instance the words of King Lemuel (from his mum) in Proverbs 31:6-7,

Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

but what difference is there really between the perishing fool who thinks there is nothing beyond the grave but rot and decay (the hedonist), and the arrogant fool, who believes that he is in control of his own destiny (the materialist)?

i ask this because at the end of the day there is none.
in Luke 12, the purpose of his materialism is that he may say to himself, "Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry."

the materialist is really a hedonist, only with superannuation.

well actually,
the materialist responds to eternity by carving it up into manageable chunks (80 years or so),
whereas the hedonist faces it a day at a time, squeezing the most out of every minute.

the problem of evil

are things as good as they can be?
no.
why aren't they?
God uses bad stuff for 3 reasons:

1. as judgement because of sin (c/f isa45:7 dan9, 1cor11:30)
   
2. to discipline us as his children (c/f heb12:10)
   
3. to test/make sure of our faith (c/f 1pet1)

therefore we should be satisfied that God is in control over all, knowing he works all things for good (Rom8:28)

right?
wrong.

reading this article by Matheson Russell, it was good to see his righteous indignation at this "ideology", this apathetic, laissez-faire view of the evil.

Theodicy [This idea of God using evil for good] misrepresents evil by saying that evil is necessary for the good; God is weaving a tapestry and he needs the light and the dark thread to make the picture beautiful. But the analogy won’t wash: while the weaver may need the light and dark threads, the creator of heaven and earth made a world that was good, very good without a drop of blood being spilt. And theodicy puts us in the wrong relationship to evil since it asks us to put our pain, outrage and opposition to one side and to see the bigger picture, the harmonious and rational whole of the universe in which evil has its place. But this does not do justice to victims of pain, loss and injustice. And even more importantly, it doesn’t do justice to the good news of the gospel [...]

and what is the good news of the gospel?
that God is seeking to right the wrongs.
that he will not be content with a world that is self-destructive, consuming itself in hatred.
that no price is too great a price to pay, that this world might be redeemed for that which he purposed it.

ooooooh. ghosts!!!

fatima asked an interesting question about ghosts. well, that was basically the extent of the question, posed in response to my first (and yes, still only) review of Enoch. coincidentally, at the same time i was pondering what the bible has to say on the topic, i happened upon a talk on 2 Peter, which, as does Jude, refers implicitly (Jude explicitly), to Enoch.
this section in particular was telling:

2 Peter 2:10-15 Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray.

the point the speaker was making, was those who go on about the supernatural, described as "angelic ramblings", are perhaps those who are possibly not the best examples of Christian leadership.

that in mind (!), on to ghosts.

as far as i can tell, there are 3 words translated "ghost" in the good book:
obe (ghost, spirit of a dead one), as found in Isaiah 29:4,

And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak,
and from the dust your speech will be bowed down;
your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost,
and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

fantasma (apparition, apparition, spectre), seen in Matthew 14:26 (c/f Mark 6:49),

But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.

pneuma (spirit), found twice in Luke 24:36-43,

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit (ghost). And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit (ghost) does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

now i'm sorry, but all this says is that people were, just as today, aware of ghosts. i mean heck, even i "know" that ghosts have neither flesh nor bones. just as i "know" leprechauns wear green and have little beards and fairies have wings and wands.

all this proves nothing (nor disproves, i might add).
what i'm still not sure of is what the saul/samuel narrative (1 Sam 28), nor the transfiguration with jesus chatting with moses and elijah (Mark 9:2vv) adds to this question. can God retrieve people from sheol? why not! and they were all highly symbolic appearances, God obviously appropriating them for good cause.

so i don't know. did you think i would? the bible is silent, and how am i to dispute people's own experiences? i can imagine the conversation now:

i saw a ghost once
no you didn't
oh. but-
-no, you didn't
...oh. ok.

when beta blogger won't work

as has happened before, when trying to comment on drew's blog, and being repeatedly refused (darn you, beta - don't you know everyone who is anyone has switched to vhs!), i have decided to blog instead.

discussing my leftist leanings today, then further prompted by drew's post, i continue to be reminded of the hopelessness of anything claiming to unite humanity, and the futility of pinning our hopes on the (mankind-led) revolution.

even one of my faves, isaac asimov, picturing a humanity spread throughout the stars (in dust like stars), has the declaration of indepence as this highly prized gem, which, were it escape the hands of the baddies, would finally unite mankind in unprecedented peace and harmony.

thankfully we do not pin our hopes on a revolution of our own creation, but on the son of david. praise be to God!

as drew quotes:

Isaiah 16:4-5"[...]let the outcasts of Moab
sojourn among you;
be a shelter to them
from the destroyer.
When the oppressor is no more
and destruction has ceased,
and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land,
then a throne will be established in steadfast love,
and on it will sit in faithfulness
in the tent of David
one who judges and seeks justice
and is swift to do righteousness.”