Anzac Day and Qohelet

I often feel guilty on Anzac day. I've never fought in war; my immediate line includes only a grandfather who went to Darwin a bit too late for anything of consequence. For 30 years I've stayed away from the marches; even then I was on duty for any of the onlookers who might need a bandaid. I occasionally watch the Gallipoli dawn service, because at least that's on at a reasonable hour. But for the last few years,  nothing. 

But as the years go by, so increases my cynicism. I saw a picture of my cousin marching - why? For whom? Where did he get those medals? And why is the only mention of this rich history he feels he belongs to a secret the rest of the year, discoverable only through a facebook post? (He may have good reason - we've just never talked about it!)

But then I think about the causes of war, and with the rare exception, they're meaningless. Chasing land, resources, energy, prestige. At best, a principle misunderstood by most and forgotten not long into it. At least in the good old days, the kings and generals were in the fight and a loss would mean their life. 

But wars are fought and won and lost and life just goes on around it all. Death, disease, rape, pillage, destruction, PTSD, buried and forgotten landmines, retributive attacks… and then, once you've buried your dead, you are all supposed to get back to whatever life is left to you. 

I don't mean to say war isn't inevitable, but when is it ever best? When does it ever achieve what it's supposed to? Seriously, think back to any war you can, and when did it achieve good? It may have gone some ways to halting great evil, but did it bring about good? 

Reading the book of Ecclesiastes these last weeks has forced me to reflect on what we can actually grasp hold of - what is not just a chasing after wind? And whatever it is we seek in war, it always turns out to be such a task - trying to hold on to something intangible and elusive. 

So today we had lunch with family and friends. We made the most of life under the sun, because, despite the glory of the Commando comics I devoured as a child, war is hell, and life is too short to spend it fighting someone else's fight. 

Sanctuary - first secular or sacred?

In Australia at the moment, in response to the dehumanising treatment of refugees under our care, not a few churches have offered sanctuary to any refugees the government may want to deport against their wishes. Which led me to think about the origin of the word sanctuary.

Sanctuary in the Bible renders either the Hebrew word מקדש (miqdash) or the Greek word αγιος (hagios); sanctuary is the Latin version of a word which means holy place. You may be familiar with the word sanctification which means 'to be made holy.'

Some time in the middle ages, any church which had been sanctified and was thus a sanctuary could offer safe haven in the pattern of Numbers 35. There were to be cities in the land nominated as refuges (the word sanctuary is never used to refer to such a town) so that those worried they would be the victims of retributive justice after an accidental murder could flee and be assured of a fair trial.

What I am interested in is the order. The idea of sanctuary is that God is the true judge; his faithful officers are most able to administer justice when the other powers may have lost their way (think Psalm 2!). So the idea of sanctuary flows from our knowledge of God, and it is in his name that safe have is offered these people vulnerable to the whims and excesses of our governments.

Whether they have any legal status in this country or not is another question; despite the evils uncovered in the royal commission against institutional child abuse, the imagery of churches protecting the people is thankfully an even stronger statement, and one which most Christians will be ready to identify with.

Sabbath - first a noun or verb

In my work for Matthew 12 last week I had a think about Sabbath, what it looks like, and what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 12 with his grain-plucking disciples. (talk available here) Doing some work on the Hebrew word Shabbat - transliterated into English as Sabbath - yielded some interesting discussion on the primacy of either the verb or the noun.

The first time we meet the verb is in Genesis 2.2-3, where we hear that God shabbats after his 6 day creating week. He's done with his creating, now is time for his shabbat. When we talk about the Shabbat in Exodus 20, we find the verb accompanying is not shabbat but nuach - the verb 'to rest'. We also have a rich description of what is not to be done on that day - no one - human or animal, free or slave, is to do any work on that day. What they are to do is nuach - becaue that is what Yhwh did on the seventh day.

Where this gets interesting is that in some cognate languages the verb shabbat means not 'rest' or 'stop work' but 'celebrate the Sabbath'. The primary meaning is not to do with what is done - or should I say, not done - but with the day from whom the action (or inaction!) is named.

What the Pharisees have done is turn celebration and enjoyment of the creation God has made (one he also enjoys) into a regulatory nightmare, centering on what may not be done, so as to prohibit anything that might resemble 'work'.

What (I think) Jesus does in Matthew 12 with his 'the son of man is lord of the Sabbath' line is to explain that the very understanding of the word shabbat is wrong. It is and always has been about enjoying and resting in that joy, trusting that God is good and sovereign and trustworthy. There is no need for work, but a welcome into Sabbath rest - now for a day, but soon for eternity.

Matthew 13 Chiasm Structure

My work for Sunday. The three E's stand out as being key to understanding the chapter.

Power as a tax

As I've been trying to sift through the debates around energy, I keep coming back to this: the government needs to keep us using energy - their livelihood depends on it.

What do I mean? Well, despite repeated encouragements to buy energy-efficient appliances, turn off appliances that aren't being used, and, until recently, to invest in household solar, things have now reached a tipping point.

Energy use has decreased at over 10% for the last three years, whereas investment in the grid is $50bn, in what they fear are now 'stranded assets'. For every person that installs solar with no government feed-in tariff, that turns off lights, that upgrades to more efficient appliances, there are less kilowatt hours to spread the massive costs of the gold-plated poles and wires on to. And as the costs increase, so too do consumers do all they can to decrease their dependency.

But there are government guarantees (that energy companies can charge what they need to recover costs), there are taxes on privatised energy companies, there are always the jobs (gotta save the jobs!), and there are agreements, back-room or otherwise, relating to coal mines and power generation that need to be honoured.

But if it is a tax, and if decentralised, personal or community-based power generation and storage is the future, then why not just tax us, get involved, and do everything possible to move away from the whole damned coal/gas/petrol/nuclear industry to things which have a future.

Amos 8-9 Chiasm

Here's my structure of Amos 8.1-9.10. I think it works pretty well.


A  8.1-2 vision of summer fruit - ready to be eaten

     B1  8.3-8 in that day - songs will be wailing
     B2  8.9-10 in that day - songs into weeping

               C  8.11-12 the days are coming - famine of the word

     B'  8.13-14 in that day - they will fall

A' 9.1-10 vision of the Lord by the altar - everything will be shaken

bookends are the visions,

inside are 'in that day'

and centremost is 'the days are coming'

I think this fits quite well with the whole picture of Amos - having so thoroughly rejected the word of God, God is now handing them over to their sinful desires. Having desired to be free of God's word, he is now deliberately withholding it, with all that goes along with that. This is indeed a dire judgement.

Letters to the editor (SMH) March 5-7

Wednesday:

Surely the conservative call for the freedom to spout offensive racist hate speech would be more convincing if it were matched by a similar call for the freedom to marry whomever you wished, regardless of gender, or the freedom to end your own life with dignity? Or is it that all freedoms are good, but some are better than others?

Sunil Badami Rozelle

Thursday:

In advocating for unfettered freedoms, Sunil Badami (Letters, March 5) does not go far enough. Why just advocate for freedom to marry whomever one wished, without also delimiting however many? Why should polygamists be denied legal access and rights to marriage in Australia? Lifting restrictions on polygamy will help do away with angst about adultery and extra-marital affairs, no?

Hendry Wan Rosebery

Friday:*

On marriage, Hendry Wan (Letters, March 6) makes a good point. We as a society need to determine whether marriage is a good thing for society or not. If the marriage between a man and a woman, the stability and trust it brings, including a secure place to nurture children, if this is truly a bad thing, we should do away with it holus bolus. Otherwise, we need to confess that the permutations, such as multiple marriages (either serial or concurrent) are in fact harmful and we need to redouble our efforts to defend marriage. 

Douglas Fyfe Carlingford

*they probably won't publish it, but I thought I'd have a crack.

Things that flow

Generally speaking*, there are two flows described in the Bible:

1. things that flow (ῥέω) in a good way are: milk and honey in the promised land, water from the rock, and living water from the heart of the believer (Jn 7.38). 
2. but things which may flow away (παραρρέω) or drift if we're not careful are: sound wisdom and discretion for the fool (Prov 3.21) and us from our salvation (Heb 2.1).

The answer to holding onto the good flows and not letting them drift is found in Hebrews also: 6.19 - holding onto our hope which is the anchor** for our soul.

I'm enjoying getting into Hebrews - looking forward to preaching through it for the next two months.

* there are some exceptions. in Leviticus uncleanness is also said to 'flow'.
** hey - anchor's a Greek word: ἄγκυρα - who knew?!

Desired in Daniel

One thing which hit the cutting room floor on Sunday's sermon on Daniel 10.1-12.4 was the root chamad (חמד) which is used several times in these chapters.
The first three are the most interesting, and may bear on the later uses:

10.3 - desirable food
10.11,19 - esteemed man (cf. 9.23 for the only other use in Daniel)

In repentance Daniel refrains from eating choice food, meat and wine, as an outward expression of his repentance.
In answer to his acts of penance, God sends his messengers, for Daniel is a man of high esteem.
Putting this together, it is because of his self-denial of that God has recognised him. Or perhaps, to use synonyms, out of Daniel's desire to please God, he has withheld desired food, and now God has desired him.

In contrast, the further four uses of chamad are with regard to things opposed to God:

11.8 - precious vessels
11.38, 43 - costly things
11.37 - a false god worshipped by women

The first three in the list are quite similar - they are things desired by people. Things which are bestowed worth by the desire accorded them.

The fourth (11.37) is referring to an idol that women get right into. Perhaps it is women's Baal, to men's Ashteroth. 

Whatever the case, all of these things are desired by people who have no self control, whereas food - a good thing created by God to be enjoyed - Daniel refrains from, that he might better focus his affections on God. And because he does this, he is acknowledged by God.

There are surely a bunch of implications that flow from this (I'm thinking 1 Corinthians and food and freedom). But no time on Sunday. Oh well. Enjoy.

The Kingdoms of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 9

A short while ago I put up a preterist reading of Daniel 2. Well, here it is extended to encompass Daniel 7-9 also.

All of these chapters are extrapolated by many into our time (try finding a picture on google which doesn't point to Rome or Obama!), such that the fulfilment is to be found in the very near future. While that is not wrong (Christian eschatology in a sense places the end tomorrow - Cf. Jesus' parable in Luke 12.13-21), it is not the plain reading of the text, and it is incorrect to interpret symbols as signs. What this diagram, and any preterist reading, sets out to do, is show the primary referent of the symbols before they are extrapolated to all powers and authorities which arrogantly set themselves up in opposition to God and their (his) people.

A quick note of explanation on Daniel 9 - Daniel is reappropriating Jeremiah's prophesied 70 years of exile as 70 weeks (literally 70 sevens), which this diagram shows as 70 non-consecutive 'weeks of years'.  This then encompasses not just the exile (which are completed in just 7 sevens), but from Nebuchadnezzar's ascension to  the rededication of the temple and the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the brutal reign of whom is the period especially focussed on throughout the second half of Daniel. Further information on this reading of the 70 sevens can be found in George Athas' article: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_104.pdf

Update: I can't count. Well, I can, so I fixed the picture.

Babylonian and Persian Kings Diagram

I've tried to work out the relationships between the different kings of the 6th to 4th Centuries. Here's my effort (thanks to the highly reliable information source of wikipedia).

The main reason is (going by the post two below) trying to understand what's happening in Daniel. The kings he mentions are Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar his son, Darius the Mede son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and Cyrus the Persian  (in that order).

To explain the diagram as it relates to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar is the king who was at the head of the Babylonian Empire as the Assyrians were finally finished off. Three kings later, Nabonidus usurps the throne, and while hanging out in some desert oasis, gets his son Belshazzar to look after Babylon while he's gone. Calling Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar's son is then a literary device, to make us compare father with son, to see if he would learn from his father's mistakes and humble himself before the one true God (he doesn't).

The gap into which the Danielic Darius should slot into is the one between Nabonidus/Belshazzar and Cyrus. The fact that there is no gap, that the Medes never ruled Babylon (although Cyrus was half-Median), and that the Dariuses we know of came much later means this is a literary riddle, rather than an historical one. That is, why 1) invent a kingdom and a king, and 2) why give him the name Darius and the father Xerxes (Ahasuerus)? I'll proffer my suggestions below:

1. According to commentators, a four kingdom model was quite the thing back in the day. Being in the time of the kingdoms of Alexanders successors (the Diadochi), yet using stories from the Babylonian era, leaves only three kingdoms - Babylon, Persia, Greece. Media was a kingdom north and east of Babylon, and were pretty big, so from a literary perspective, Media seems a pretty good idea.

2. Darius is a pretty well known name, there being three kings with that name, and the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes  (i.e. Xerxes with an 'Arta' tacked on) similarly so. So it's a pretty common name, but there has to be more. Well, Darius III, as you can see from the diagram, is an epoch finishing guy. He was the last of the line, and after him a new mob took over. Less importantly, his familial connection with the dynasty is a bit tricky/murky. Therefore, being relatively unattached, yet still important, his name would seem to be the most appropriate for a literary second kingdom.


Let me know what you think.

If I'm in a particularly masochistic mood I'll have a crack at the successors, that is, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, to complete the table all the way to the 'abomination of desolation', that is, the misdeeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd Century.

Infant Baptism Articles

This is more for my records than you, dear reader(s).
Some articles I've found helpful in thinking about infant baptism.

A 1990 article by Glenn Davies available for download while he's going for ABp: Covenant and Baptism.

A post by Michael Jensen: Baptism in Reformation Anglicanism.

Four posts by Bruce Pass: Why would I baptise my child?

As it stands, we're at a church which practices adult baptism, so we'll be getting our son 'dedicated'. But these articles, and discussions in person with Bruce, have definitely pushed me to defend the importance of infant baptism, and recognition of children as full members of the people of God.

Daniel 2 - The Preterist Reading

For some reason it's impossible to find a picture of the statue in Daniel 2 labelled normally. So here's mine. It's not complicated, and it is what Daniel pretty much is about.

 

 Daniel is set in the 6th Century BC, but is written to a 2nd Century BC audience.

In his schema within the book, Daniel has three kingdoms - Babylon, Media and Persia. Historically we know that Babylon passed directly to Persia, when Cyrus took it (was given it) after Nabonidus was on the nose (Belshazzar was his son and ruler in his absence). So where Media came from is unclear - they did exist, but didn't ever hold Babylon (although Cyrus was half-Persian perhaps) - but that doesn't matter. In Daniel, the order is Babylon, Media, Persia. So, the statue starts off Gold-Babylon, Silver-Media, Bronze-Persia.

Now for the tricky bit. Well, not really.
In the second century, Alexander's kingdom took over from Persia, and more, and when he died, when asked about his successor, he (apocryphally) said 'the strongest'. So, next after Alexander was an AVP-style all-in, with the Diadochi (the successors) fighting it out amongst themselves.

Unfortunately for Jerusalem, they were smack bang in the middle. Lots of horrific things happened in and around Jerusalem, as the Seleucids battled the Ptolemies for centuries. This includes the 'abomination of desolation' - the slaughtering of a pig on the altar in the temple.

So for the writer/editor/compiler of Daniel in the 2nd Century, this was the end of the world. It was the last evil age, when all the evil powers were assembled against God and his people. So, the message of encouragement to them was - the rock - God's intervention - is coming any day now. The horror will end, because God will not leave us in the hands of these mad men forever.

That's the message of Daniel, that's the apocalyptic perspective, and that's really all the statue can mean, both literarily and historically. Enjoy the picture.

Cradle.Cross.Crown.Choice Series

Series finished.
Think it was good.

All the talks are now up:

Cradle
Why it is legitimate to search for God, and why that search is rightly begun in trying to understand Jesus.

Cross¹
That Jesus willingly went to the cross points to a great problem, which can only be solved by his death.

Crown
If Jesus was raised from the dead, it vindicates him, it points to the goodness of our physicality (our bodies), and points to his authority both now and into the future.

Choice²
Jesus' message was that we need to choose between the true God that he reveals, or a false god of our own making.

1Recording failed - re-recorded later on in my lounge room (hence no laugh-track!)
2Projector died, AND laptop also. People had to squint to see laptop, which was crashing every couple of minutes. Fun technological times!

Euthanasia on 702

Every now and then I get a bit upset listening to the radio. Sometimes I even text in or call in.

They were discussing euthanasia on Adam Spencer's show, and people were talking about how demeaning it is to be old and in need of care.

So I asked:
Why is it not demeaning to care for an infant you love, but it is for a parent?

The producer gave me a call, asked if I could say it on air. So I was on hold and then...
Unfortunately there was too little time left; I got cut.

I guess it's the thought that counts!