Sing the new song of Yhwh - Psalm 96

 In my walk through the Exodus psalms, I've come to Psalm 96, a psalm I knew first as a song. It's a wonderful praise psalm, and it clearly tends toward singing: if there were no song (and there are many), someone would have to write one.

The first thing one notes when going through the Hebrew is what a balanced psalm it is. Some of that is evident in this table:

Sing to Yhwh the saviour (1-6)	Ascribe to Yhwh the king (7-13)
Sing to Yhwh x3 Followed by three imperatives (bless, spread, recount), with a fourth implied (recount) Followed by two כי (for) clauses	Ascribe to Yhwh x3 Followed by five more imperatives (carry, come, worship, tremble, say) Followed by two כי (for) clauses
Yhwh 5x Nations 1x, peoples 2x (NPP) Heavens 1x Might 1x Majesty 1x Holy place 1x	Yhwh 6x Nations 1x, peoples 2x (PNP) Heavens 1x Might 1x Majesty 1x Holiness 1x

A psalm of two halves

The psalm divides into two halves, each half beginning with a triple imperative to Yhwh: 3x Sing to Yhwh begins the first half, while 3x Ascribe to Yhwh begins the second. These introductions are then followed by a series of imperatives, and then two explanatory כי clauses. In both halves there is some indication that there is a wrong being overcome by Yhwh. In v4-5 the problem is the honour stolen from Yhwh and bestowed on foreign gods, but those who sing this psalm know that it is Yhwh who made the heavens and not the insignificant (אלילים) gods of the peoples. The problem in the second half would seem to be injustice, because the solution in v13 is that Yhwh comes to judge the earth, to judge the cosmos in righteousness, his peoples with truth.

Yhwh rules

In both halves the overriding concern is to establish Yhwh's rule. In the first half this is primarily in the spiritual realm - in the heavens - against other gods. In the second half this primarily in the physical realm, seen by the word earth (3x) and cosmos (2x) as the areas in which his rule should be known. Interestingly, the phrase which seems to introduce that in the first half is to "spread the good news (בשר) of his salvation", whereas in the second it is to "say ... Yhwh reigns." Perhaps the idea of salvation is therefore to be understood with reference to what gods are able to do, or not do, as the case may be, whereas rule is set up in contrast to earthly rulers. Who can save? Not the gods; only Yhwh. Who can govern justly? Not the kings; only Yhwh.

Gospelling

It's perhaps noteworthy that this psalm contains the "gospelling" word בשר (basar), best known among Christians from the Romans 10:15 quotation of Isaiah 52:7, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" It only appears in three psalms, 40:10; 68:11(12), and here in 96:2. In Samuel it's more strictly a messenger word - it can good or bad news that is brought (9x in 1-2 Samuel, and a 10th in 1 Kg 1:42), but it elsewhere seems to be positive news that is brought and proclaimed. That is most clearly the case here, as it is the salvation of Yhwh which is to be proclaimed, and recounted among the nations. It is linked to the wonders (נפלאות) of Yhwh among the peoples (96:3), which is the keyword linking this psalm to Book IV's Exodus meta-narrative.

Wonders in Exodus 3:20

The root lexeme פלא occurs only twice in Exodus, and as such its usage in Psalm 96 could be referring to either. The first is in Exodus 3:20, "I will strike the Egyptians with wonders that I will perform in their midst." This introduces the many plagues which are to follow, and explicitly explains the context for these plagues is to be in their midst - to be seen (and experienced) by all the people. This links well with the description in our psalm, and could easily be what it being referred to. It links also with the judgement which concludes the psalm, as the wonders in Egypt are judgement on the Egyptians, and especially on their Pharaoh, for enslaving Israel.

Wonders in Exodus 34:10

The second occurrence is at one of the high points in Exodus, at 34:10, after Moses beheld the glory of Yhwh. This too links to the judgement of Yhwh (v7), but by v10 is looking forward to inheriting the promised land and the newly formed covenant with Israel. Yhwh tells Moses, "I am making a covenant before all your people; I will do wonders not done in all the land and in all the nations. The people in whose midst you are will see the deeds of Yhwh, that they are awesome, which I am doing with you." (Ex 34:10) You can see that this situation could well also be what is referred to in this psalm. Indeed, it seems impossible to adjudicate, and maybe that's the point.

Sing Yhwh's song

This psalm proclaims the salvation of Yhwh; it looks back to his saving work, it looks back to his wonders in rescuing and in causing his people to inherit his promises. But it uses that as a foundation to call the people of God to praise him. The gods of the nations are insignificant, but Yhwh made the heavens. He judges in righteousness and truth, and these are the messages which should be proclaimed in heaven and on earth, across the the earth and throughout the cosmos.

Far enough in Numbers 16

"Much to you"

There's an odd little idiom in Numbers 16, רב־לכם, rab lechem, "much to you", which seems to mean something like "you've gone far enough" or "that'll do". It's also in Deuteronomy (4x), 1 Kings (1x) and Ezekiel (3x).

In Numbers 16 it's first from the lips of the rebels: "You've gone far enough, Moses", and then in response Moses turns it back on them, "Yhwh can choose for himself; you've gone far enough, Korah."

"Too little for you?"

What's extra interesting is that where רב־לכם bookends the initial exchange (Num 16:3-7), there's a corresponding המעט מכם in 16:9 and just המעט in 16:13, which asks "is it too little [for you]?", that is, "is it not enough for you?"

In the first instance (Num 16:8-11) it's Moses asking if it's too little to be set aside as priests, while in the second (16:12-14) it's Korah's counterpoint, asking if it's too little for Moses to bring them into the wilderness and not into the land in order to kill them?

Framing

Like many instances of framing or bookending in the Hebrew Bible, these phrases aren't the first word or the last word of any paragraph, but their placement in these exchanges marks them off as structurally important.

That said, it can be at the actual beginning and end, as is the case with the second speech by Dathan and Abiram from the end of 16:12 to 16:14. The phrase לא נעלה, lo na'aleh, "we won't go up," is the first and last words of that speech, marking the beginning and ending of these words with their determination to not be subject to the adjudication.

But back to the two phrases which frame the two exchanges; they set up the hostility between these two groups, and ultimately it will be Yhwh who will adjudicate between them. I can't wait to find out what happens next!

 

Reflection on Psalm 95: a call to listen

Psalm 95 comes a third of the way into the Exodus psalms (90-106), and harkens back to a key moment in Israel’s wilderness wanderings – that point when the spies return from searching out the land but draw back in fear of the land. It is clearly a psalm of two halves, beginning with praise before applying the lesson learned in Exodus 17 and Numbers 14 to whatever the new situation requires.

95:1-7c

The psalm begins with four noisy verbs: praise, shout, “greet with acclaim”, and “shout with songs.” The first half ends with verbs not of noise but of action: worship, bow down, kneel down. To tie the beginning and end together further, it begins with “Yhwh, the rock of our salvation” and ends with “Yhwh our maker.” To be the saviour is not explained further, but maker is, as Yhwh is the great God, the great king, who holds the extremes of the earth and possesses the heights of the mountains; he made the sea and formed the dry ground.

Finally, to close off the first half, the phrase “his hand” occurs thrice, in v4, v5, and finally in v7, as “the sheep of his hand.” This causes us to reflect on his creating and guiding both macro and the micro, the impersonal and the personal.

95:7d-11

The second section of the psalm concludes somewhat abruptly, with a hanging oath phrase, “if they come to my rest…” which we might extrapolate to “they will never come to my rest,” or “so help me if they ever try to come to my rest,” – which is indeed what happened, as those who went up were slaughtered. We can see then that this psalm conflates two incidents: the arguments at Massah/Meribah in Exodus 17, and the rebellion in Numbers 14 after the spies returned. But these stories are tied together together in the similar diseased hearts that are apparent, with testing, trying, stray hearts, not knowing God’s ways.

But the key, holding it all together, in terms of application, is the near-homonyms which bookend this section: shema’ and sheva’, to hear his voice, and to heed his vow. To not hear his voice means he will fulfil his vow – and in this case it means to be destroyed, to be condemned to a generation-long wandering. But to heed his voice means to receive the promises, to enter his rest, to know Yhwh as both maker, but also as saviour.

This is a call to worship, to prayer, but also to listening. Listening means, in context, taking careful notice of the past. God has spoken clearly in the past, through word and deed. In his acts of creation in the beginning, and his acts of rescue in the wilderness. But also through his words of promise and his words of rebuke. We listen to God and take his warnings at face-value, not rejecting his ways, not testing him, but listening to him and to the one he has sent, our creator and our redeemer.

Psalm 95 as Christian Scripture

Reading this psalm as Christian Scripture, we aren’t seeking to tune in to hear God speak in a new and special way, but to listen to the words God has already spoken, which he still speaks today: words of creation, words of warning, words of redemption, words of guiding and guarding. We can see this especially in the use of this psalm in the NT, as the warning and encouragement is repeated to the people of the new covenant, so that they do not turn back or grumble or test God – that they do not harden their hearts. And it is this word—this promise/warning—which is living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing soul and marrow. It challenges us: do you worship? Do you praise? Do you listen? Do you know him in his mighty works? Do you know him as the great king above all gods? And do you listen to him as he speaks through his Son, the word become flesh, and he promises that all his sheep will hear his voice.

Psalm 94 - The God who takes notice

This psalm has four parts which explain the logic of the psalm

94:1 Heading: Yhwh is the avenging God

A 94:2-7 Problem: The wicked are unrestrained

B 94:8-19 Answer: Yhwh takes notice and will act

A' 94:20-23 Result: The wicked will be repaid

The wicked which encircle the suppliant also encircle the structure of the psalm. There are a few different words, such as רשׁע (rasha`, wicked 4x: 94:3,3,13,21); רע/רעה/רעע (ra', evil, 3x: 94:13 (evil days), 16 (evildoers), 23 (evil)); און (awon, iniquity 3x 94:4,16,23). They are clustered in 3-4, 13-16, 21-23), at the beginning and the end to explain the problem and hoped-for result, and in the centre to explain the context against which they call out to God for rescue. 

The description of God in this psalm is twofold. Firstly with reference to God's power and protection, Yhwh is an avenging God, he is the judge of the earth, he is a helper, the one who sustains, a stronghold and a rock of refuge (1-2, 17-18, 22)

Secondly, God is the teacher, the instructor, the one who sees and the one who knows (8-12). And this is where this psalm stands out. They scoff in v7, "Yah will not see us; the God of Jacob will not take notice." The response in v8-11 is an expansive retort, using the same verb בין (bin), "Take notice! ... Wise up! Does the one who made ears not hear, the one who formed the eye, does he not take notice?" 

Because he is the creator of the ears and eyes, to scoff "he will not notice" is to demonstrate a dangerous ignorance regarding the information gathering abilities and activities of Yhwh. The psalmist plays on the fluidity of the verb יסר (yasar, to instruct/warn/rebuke) to explain that the one who instructs nations  with knowledge also reproves them (10), but he also gives this to individuals, to the one who is thereby blessed (12). 

This all explains the way Yhwh cares for his people in the following verses, and in particular, in the context of evil. It is not a military victory that is explicitly promised, but a true knowledge of God and of the cosmos, which gives a calm, which soothes one's soul (v19). 

Is this an Exodus psalm?

I've been arguing that 90-106 (Book IV) is an Exodus collection. How then does this psalm work in that context? It does seem as if there is something of a flow, working through the Exodus story bit by bit, but here, it appears to jump forward to the giving of the law from 20-23, but especially the importance of the law in the context of evil as is described in Exodus 23:2, "Don't follow after the many in doing evil". Rather, be instructed by Yhwh to stand firm in his teaching (תורה, torah), v12 - this word providing the other link back. 

In this way, perhaps Psalm 94 is a hidden wisdom psalm rather than a psalm for rescue. For although the default desire is for divine intervention, in this psalm it is the instruction of Yhwh, which, even if not rescuing, enables one to stand firm despite the evil which encircles, which, if nothing else, is surely one of the key messages from the entire Exodus experience.

The Story of Hosea

I'm now in the thick of Hosea; I decided to spend a term teaching this book, which is all good and well, except the exciting part of the story finishes after only three chapters. And the third chapter is only 5 verses.

It's fairly well known for the story of Hosea, a prophet, who is commanded to marry an adulterous woman, Gomer, as a symbol of God's commitment to the unfaithful Israel. They have three children together: Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi, with all their names having important meanings.

To start off with, there are three important questions to establish:

1. What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?
2. What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?
3. How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?

I'll try to tackle these in order.

What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?

There are five names with meanings:

1. Hosea. From the verb ישע (yasha', to save). Yhwh will save his people.
2. Gomer. From the verb גמר (gamar, to finish). Yhwh is finished with his people.
3. Jezreel. From the verb זרע (zara', to sow). God will sow.
4. Lo-Ruhamah. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the verb רחם (racham, to have compassion). Yhwh will not have compassion.
5. Lo-Ammi. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the noun עם ('am, people). They are not Yhwh's people.

Hosea as a name is only mentioned thrice, and only in the first two verses. Twice in 1:7 the verb 'to save' appears (referring to Judah), but thereafter only three more times in the final two chapters.

Gomer as a name or verb never appears after her single mention in 1:3. She is alluded to as a woman of harlotry, as "she", as a wife, as a mother, but not her name. 

Jezreel turns up three times in the opening verses (1:4a,4b,5), recalling not the verb 'to sow' but the valley of bloodshed known as Jezreel. However at the end of chapter 2 (2:23-23) the verbal meaning is played upon in terms of a reversal. Two further times it occurs, in the famous 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' quote (8:7), and then in the exhortation to 'sow righteousness!' (10:12)

Lo-Ruhamah sounds more like a name, but the connection to comfort/mercy/compassion is easily missed. However, while this comes up both as a name and verb and reversal of the name nine times in the first two chapters, thereafter it only returns in the very final chapter (14:3) as the reversal of judgement means the orphans will find compassion.

Lo-Ammi is easily the most prolific of the names, with 'people' being regularly used in the first two chapters (6x) but also thereafter (13x). Of course, in contrast to the other names, it is much harder to avoid saying 'people', especially when this book is about the people of Israel. 

To summarise, with the exception of 'people', the names which are so important in the first chapter more or less disappear, with the least frequent four verbal roots only occurring a combined 7 times in the rest of the book. This could lead someone one of two ways. It could make you think, "oh, there's no way that Hosea 1-3 is written by the same person as Hosea 4-14." But their absence makes them almost more conspicuous. The avoidance of the otherwise common verbs "to save, to have mercy, to sow" seems more noteworthy than their appearance. This makes me think that their occurrences in 8:7; 10:12 (to sow); 13:4, 10; 14:3 (to save) and 14:3 again (to have mercy) are not accidental but deliberate.

What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?

My default is to read in a linear fashion:

1. God tells Hosea to marry Gomer.
2. Hosea marries Gomer and has kids
3. Gomer runs off
4. God tells Hosea to win her back
5. God instructs Hosea to purchase her 
6. Hosea marries Gomer and they live together "many days"

But it doesn't have to be that way. In particular, I can't see the plot really advancing any in chapter 2. Rather, it restates much of what was already said in chapter 1, and the positive conclusion in chapter 2 seems like part 2 of the conclusion to chapter 1. That would mean we have chapter 1-2 telling the same story, while chapter 3 gives us the next step.

The third possibility is that there's only one story, told in three different ways, with each chapter supplying information the others omitted. This hinges in part with the fourth word in chapter 3, 'again' (עוד, 'od). This could go with the preceding words, "Yhwh spoke to me again," potentially meaning "God told me yet again to go and marry Gomer". Alternatively it could go with what follows, "Yhwh said to me, 'Again go and marry Gomer'", because she has run off. Either reading works, and in the long run I don't think it matters, but the ambiguity is certainly fascinating.

How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?

I ask this question because I'd like to know. They really do seem disconnected, but I haven't yet done enough work to determine whether there is one "voice" throughout the book, or whether the distinctive sections betray distinct authors. I haven't really come across anyone who has discussed this in depth. Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, because we have the one book preserved for us and that's what we have to deal with. But it would still be nice to have some ideas about which came first, and what connections we should be seeing. All that is to come!

On the road with Jesus in Mark

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?”

Mark 9:34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Mark 10:32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him.

Mark 10:52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. 

In the central panel of Mark's Gospel, 8:27–10:52, where thrice Jesus plainly tells his disciples what must happen to the Son of Man (suffer, die and be raised after three days), we have a repeated phrase to remind us what is going on. That is, it is not just the knowledge that Jesus must die (8:31; 9:30; 10:33-34), but that his path is set, there will be no deviation, but from here on in it is Jerusalem or bust.

In that sense, Mark 8:27–10:52 is Mark's long equivalent to Luke's 9:51:

Luke 9:51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.

Thrice in this section, Jesus three times tells his disciples that he must die, and six times (including the very first verse and very last words) we are told that he is on the road. This spatial information brackets as well as peppers this important section, which is only highlighted by the unique interaction with final suppliant, Bartimaeus. 

Bartimaeus is not the first blind man in Mark; the previous section similarly concluded with a blind man (8:22-26). They play a contrasting role to those who can see but are nonetheless blind to Jesus' identity. But where Bartimaeus stands out is he is the first suppliant who is permitted to follow Jesus, and to follow him "on the way" (10:52). He is then fulfilling what the disciples will prove to be unable to do, despite encouraging them to do so (8:34-38) and them assuring him of their willingness to do so (10:28).

But Bartimaeus will follow, because now is the time for Jesus' identity and mission to be made known, as he will presently do in his three trips to Jerusalem (11:1vv). He contrasts to all those Jesus forbade follow, and to the previous suppliant who was unwilling to follow because of his great wealth. 

This important section, highlighted by the repetition of "on the way", reinforces Jesus' mission. It challenges the reader to consider whether they are willing to follow Jesus, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Son of God, counting their life as cursed, that by losing their life for him, they might truly gain it.

What is the word/the seed in Mark 4?

I'm preaching Mark 4:1-34 this Sunday. It's the parable of the soils, followed by a couple of parables explaining the kingdom of God. The parable of the soils talks a lot about "the word", but it's never explained. This is an attempt to explain what it might mean.

When you look at the many times "the word" (ὸ λογος) is in the New Testament, it's often translated in any way except "the word." It's message, thing, statement - usually something word related - but "the word" is undertranslated. Dr John Davies raised this point in an FBS seminar on Luke's use of λογος, which is really straightforward, but rarely commented on.

So what is "the word" which is sown in Mark 4? It's usually generalised to preaching generally about the kingdom, based on the parables which follow. But I think it's more specific than that.

In preparing for this series, I've enjoyed working through Peter Bolt's NSBT volume, "The Cross from a Distance", which reads the whole of Mark through the lens of atonement. He doesn't really go here (although he does have a footnote referencing N.T. Wright referencing McDonald, 1989), but there are a few things which made me think "the word" here is specifically the message of the cross.

Take for instance the parable of the seed growing quietly (4:26-29). The seed is not just "ripe" (EVV), it is "delivered over" or "betrayed". And it is not just picked, but the sickle is sent in (cf Joel 3:13).
The following parable, of the mustard seed (4:30-32), describes a seed, dead in the ground, which comes to life. This same image is used in 1 Corinthians 15:35-37 to describe the resurrection body.
Bringing it back to the parable of the soils, we can see that the first three soils each point to an element of Jesus' passion.

1. The footpath recalls the path Jesus took, as he was led to his crucifixion, mocked by the crowds (Mk 15:16-22).
2. The rocky soil (πετρώδης) reminds us of Πέτρος - Peter - who thrice withered under the heat of the questioning (Mk 14:66-72).
3. The thorns which choke the word (ἄκανθα) are reminiscent of the thorns which crowned Christ's head (Mk 15:17).

I know these, on their own, are a bit hard to connect, but with the context, and their colocation, I think it's fair to suggest something is being said here.

"The word" then is not a general message, nor is hearing about being generally better listeners. But the message is specifically the atonement and the resurrection, with this being the first of multiple calls to follow the son of man who will suffer, die, and then rise.

Structures in Mark 2-3

 I know I'm supposed to be an OT guy now, but I'm preaching through Mark until Easter, and I can't help myself. There are some things which stand out, and I haven't noticed elsewhere, but help me make sense of it much better. 

Jesus, Justify Yourself! Mark 2:1-3:6

Following Francis Moloney, who sees 2:1-3:6 as part of "Jesus and the Jews" (1:14-3:6), it makes sense to go back to the beginning of chapter 2 to make sense of the five scenes (and not just because there's a nice chiasm he identifies).

2:1-12 Justifying forgiving sins before healing, to show that the key ailment is spiritual rather than physical, which demonstrates he has God's power to forgive.

2:13-17 Justifying calling Levi and eating with his friends in order to show that he has come to call sinners, that everyone who recognises they are sick is welcome in the kingdom of God.

2:18-22 Justifying not fasting in order to demonstrate that these days are new and special days, that Jesus is now with them, but will be taken away.

2:23-28 Justifying picking grain on the Sabbath in order to explain that God made Sabbaths for people to enjoy, not people to keep Sabbaths.

3:1-6 Justifying healing on the Sabbath to show God's intention is to save life, in contrast to the Pharisees who are willing to team up with the Herodians in order to kill.

So we can see that each of these short anecdotes in Mark 2:1-3:6 are about Jesus vindicating his and his disciples' actions, and showing how spurious the claims are which will lead ultimately to his death, which his opponents' will from then on pursue (3:6).

Something changes when we hit the next section, and then there is another change when we hit chapter 4, so how does this intervening section work?

Who really understands Jesus? Mark 3:7-35

3:20-35 is seen to be a Markan Sandwich, but the sections before are a little less clear. 3:7-12 is viewed as a summary of the crowds, while 3:13-19 a summary of the disciples, now that all twelve have been called.

However, I’m always on the lookout for parallels. The parallels between 3:20-21 and 3:31-35 present themselves with not too much work, but the clearest one in 3:7-19 I’ve not seen mentioned. The parallel is actually less clear in the Greek than the English, which takes the idea of "his family" (3:21 EVV) from the second half of the sandwich, namely 3:31-32. In 3:21 it only has the ambiguous “οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ” (those with him), which, in light of 31-32 is interpreted as "his family".

For me, the noting of the locations in 3:7 and 3:13 tell us that we are supposed to read these stories together. 3:7 talks about the sea, while 3:13 has them on a mountain. Both pericopes involve groups of people coming together around Jesus; in 3:7-10 it is the crowd, described by their geographical origin, who are coming to him to be healed, while in 3:13-19 his disciples are mentioned by name (and occasionally a little more information).

This leaves in the centre (3:11-12) the description of the behaviour of the unclean spirits, who alone understand and declare who Jesus is, “You are the Son of God.” Compare this with the centre of 3:20-35, namely 3:22-27, likewise a discussion of unclean spirits.

The question dominating these two pericopes (3:7-19; 3:20-35) is, “Who really understands Jesus?” The spirits alone truly understand who Jesus is, and the threat he poses to them. His family on the other hand think he’s crazy, thereby showing they aren’t truly his family; rather it’s whoever obeys God.

Interestingly, the phrase in the beginning which draws the crowd to him is “what he was doing” (ὅσα ἐποίει, 3:8); who is Jesus’ family at the end? “Whoever does the will of God.” (ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:35). Jesus is doing the will of God, so he is the one they should follow.

I'm not sure whether this way of making sense of this section Mark 3:7-35 has been raised before, but with the ποιεω inclusio bracketing the two Markan Sandwiches centring on spirits, this seems a coherent way of understanding what's going on.

Getting behind Jesus in Mark

Ὸπίσω in Mark's first call narrative

We're in Mark for the next term, and I noticed something interesting with the preposition ὀπίσω (behind) in 1:17, 20. It occurs twice in the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20), once with each set of brothers. What I found interesting is that it occupies two different places in each calling, whereas it could easily have been within one or even both callings. 

The first time is in Jesus' call to Simon and Andrew, where he says to come "behind me", and their response is to follow (ὰκολουθέω) him: 

16-18 And going along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Come behind me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately leaving their nets, they followed him.

Ὸπίσω is in the call, but not in response. This contrasts with the second call, to James and John, where there is no speech, simply a report that he called them, and the response that they followed behind him:

19-20 And going on a little, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat fixing the nets. And immediately he called them. And, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the workers, they departed behind him. 

It would have been easy enough to include ὀπίσω in the response in the first instance, or in the call in the second. Instead, what we in effect have is a bracketing together of the two calls of the two pairs of fishing brothers, the call with ὀπίσω in the first being concluded by the response with ὀπίσω in the second. 

Ὸπίσω elsewhere in Mark

Apart from the one time ὀπίσω occurs as an adjective (13:16), it occurs thrice outside of the call narrative. The first is in the introduction (1:7) as Jesus is previewed as the one who will come after John (ἔρχεται ... ὀπίσω μου). If we are able to link this with the calling of the disciples a paragraph later, then John is introducing Jesus as his disciple, albeit the disciple who will become the master. The cluster (if thrice within a chapter can be called a cluster) in the opening of the Gospel indicates that Jesus is to be followed rather than simply learned from.

The other uses of ὀπίσω are found around the turning point of Mark; twice in 8:33-34. This is the paragraph where Peter announces he believes Jesus to be the messiah, and where Jesus details what must happen to the Son of Man. Peter's defence of Jesus quickly leads to a rebuke, as he is told "Get behind me, Satan!" (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ). This is then quickly turned into a teaching point, as he describes to his disciples the life of the one who "wishes to come after me" (θέλει ὀπίσω μου  ἀκολουθεῖν). 

Thinking through ὀπίσω in terms of discipleship, following on from chapter 1, indicates that this odd use of ὀπίσω both for Peter/Satan (8:33) and for true disciples (8:34) might be better understood together rather than separately. That is, for Peter to be told to "get behind me" might be not so much as a dismissal (go away from me) as a command to situate himself in the correct position (follow after me). Peter's problem was that he had gone out in front, trying to tell Jesus what to do, rather than behaving rightly as his disciple: following, learning and listening. 

That was his original calling (1:17) and to that he must return in order to be an authentic disciple of Jesus. 

So many questions about Balaam

In Numbers 22-24 we first meet Balaam (or Bil'am, בלעם) son of Beor, a prophet hired by Balak king of Moab, to curse Israel. 

Amazingly, we know Balaam son of Beor also from extra-biblical material; the Deir 'Alla Plaster Inscriptions (Context of Scripture 2.27, Baruch A. Levine) writes about and translates the reconstructed fragments of an inscribed plaster wall from the 9th-8th century BC, slightly north of Moab in Ammonite territory. 

In those inscriptions he is a prophet who receives messages from the gods, providing a remarkable parallel to the biblical story. 

Balaam gets mentioned quite a lot in the Bible, which is surprising for a bit-player. His name comes up 60 times in the OT and a further three times in the NT. However, 51 of those 63 times are in Numbers 22-24, which is some impressive name repetition! He is mentioned again in Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 13 and 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6. The emphasis in the OT seems to be varied. 

He is also mentioned in the New Testament as an archetypal incitement to greed, in 2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11 and Revelation 2:14. 

In Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6, God's determination to bless Israel despite human attempts to curse them. However in Joshua 13 the problem is his sinning through divination and being put to death as a cleansing of the land. 

Later on within Numbers (31) the Balaam/Balak saga is conflated with what becomes known as the Peor incident, in Numbers 25. In Numbers 31:15-18 Moses is upset that women who are not virgins, as well as boys, have been allowed to live in an attack on Midian. The reasoning is that the women who are not virgins are those who followed Balaam's advice to seduce Israelite men, which occurs in Numbers 25 but is not linked to Balaam in that place. 

That said, there are a few issues in Numbers 25 which are not clear, such as a plague which is stopped but is never explicitly said to begin (although 25:3a, "Yhwh's anger burned against Israel", may be an elliptical reference to the plague beginning). All this is to say the lack of a reference to Balaam is perhaps not that unexpected.

I do have some questions about Balaam, which are about 1) his location and 2) his patronym. 

Balaam of Pethor 

Numers 22:5, Balaam is at Pethor, his native land (NIV), that is the land of the children of his people (ASV), which is by "the river", i.e. the Euphrates. This description is filled out in Deuteronomy 23, as Pethor is further explained as in Aram Naharaim, or Aramea by the (two) rivers, which is identified as north-west Mesopotamia. You can see it right up the top of this map in red (made in Accordance Bible), while Beth Peor and Bezer are the names in red down the bottom, which are part of Moab, also in red below those towns. I've overlaid modern borders for some scale.

It doesn't take long to work out why people have problems with Pethor as Balaam's base and hometown. The plains of Moab, opposite Jericho either side of the Jordan River, are almost 600km away from each other as the crow flies, which is a long long way away. One might even suggest prohibitively far away to make sense in the story. If the details are correct, that Balak sent his messengers 600km to ask, and then they returned unsuccessful, and then they were sent back, whereupon he was willing to come with them (the talking donkey notwithstanding), then they have walked upwards of 2,500km in order to gain some support. The distances are staggering. 

Added to this is when Balak meets Balaam, he asks why he didn't come immediately in response to his "urgent summons" (22:37), which is laughable - the amount of time it would have taken to make two return trips of that distance would make haste or delay essentially negligible. 

It is of course possible that The River is a different river. The Nile could justifiably also be called The River, and the Jordan, for those in that area, could similarly be their The River. Further to this, it is always possible that Aram is Adam, a place attested to elsewhere in the Scriptures (such as in Josh 3:16, as well as a suggestion elsewhere in place of Aram), due to the easily confused pair of letters, the Hebrew daleth and resh, ד/ר. 

If Balaam was indeed from Adam, not Aram, and The River was the Jordan and not the Euphrates, then Balaam is slightly less exotic and the story becomes much less confusing, from that aspect at least. That would also fit more with the archaeological evidence discussed above. 

Balaam son of Beor or Bezer

The other issue I want to try to understand is why, in 2 Peter 2:15, Balaam is called the son of Bezer and not of Beor, as he is throughout the OT. Where has Peter got this from?

The patronymic, Beor, is written both plene and defectively within the same passage; that is, both בעור and בער. 

There were two things I immediately noticed upon hearing the name Beor. First off, there is a nice assonance between the three names in the passage: Beor, Balaam, Balak. This is nice, and a lovely coincidence (if it is that). Second, Beor sounds a lot like Peor, and apart from the B/P exchange, Peor is spelled the same as Beor (the plene spelling). 

I don't know what to make of that. Peor is clearly a real place in the Transjordan, known elsewhere as Beth Peor (not to be confused with another Peor within Canaan). 

If I had to guess, I would say Beor is how you spell Peor if you want it to rhyme with Balak and Balaam, so that Beor, rather than being a patronym, is a toponym. 

If this were the case, it could mean that 2 Peter preserves the name of Balaam's father, Bezer, so he is Balaam son of Bezer of Peor. 

However, it's not that easy. Bezer rhymes just as easily as does Beor, and you don't have to change anything. And Bezer is also a place, near to the plains of Moab (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:36; 1 Chr 6:78; 8:78). 

So which place is his place? Is it Peor, Pethor, or Bezer? 

I think it's safest to go with what the OT has to say, rather than imagining that Peter has access to something that has escaped everyone else's notice for a millennium. This still doesn't explain how the patronym Bezer turns up in 2 Peter. 

The Greek behind it is Bosor, which is how the LXX consistently translates Bezer. However, it seems some scribes had some issues with that, as Vaticanus has Beor, and the original hand of Sinaiaticus combines Beor and Bosor into the horrific portmanteau Beorsor, which I take it is Beor + Bosor. UBS5 gives Bosor an A rating, suggesting that this is the most likely reading and that Siniaticus represents an attempt to correct the text.

There has been much work on 2 Peter and Jude's sources (very little of which I'm across), but I'm unaware of where the Bezer (Bosor) source may have come from, or why Peter didn't go with Beor (unless Sinaiaticus alone preserves the original text). 

Edit/update - I checked Norman Hillyer's UBC (1,2 Pet; Jude) and he suggests Βοσορ (Bezer) is a play on בשר (flesh); Peter then thinks Balaam is then a son of the flesh rather than being confused about who is father is. Why confuse us with the nearby town Bosor/Bezer I'm not sure. That said, the Greek has του, the genitive article, so it broadly means "belonging to", either as the son, or another type of belonging, as Hillyer suggests. 

Conclusion

All in all, there are a whole bunch of riddles associated with Balaam, son of Beor, of Pether. I don't know if I solved any of them, but I hope I have at least scratched the surface and edged towards some possible resolutions. 

The troublesome structure of the third wasf of the Song of Songs

I blogged a couple of days about the four wasfs in the Song; 4:1-7; 5:10-16; 6:4-10; 7:1-9. Of particular interest to me was the back and forth between her (5:10-16) and him (6:4-10). The structure of the interaction is quite clear, albeit complicated.

The section 5:9-6:10 (which I am preaching on in a week or so) comes as a direct response to the conflict in the preceding verses (5:6-7) and the plea to the daughters of Jerusalem to pass on a message to him, should they find him. They ask two questions, which each receive a response from her. The first, in 5:9, is essentially, what is so good about him? The second, in 6:1, asks where he might be found. The section (I discussed the break up here) concludes with his wasf, and that's what I really want to discuss. 

But first, the questions from the daughters of Jerusalem both follow a very similar ABAC structure:

5:9 How's your beloved better

beautiful woman?

how's your beloved better

to charge us so?

6:1 Where's your beloved gone

beautiful woman?

where's your beloved turned

so we can look with you?

Her response to the first question is a wasf (again, check my previous post for a description of this), while the answer to the second is a relatively straightforward answer. Again, to summarise the whole section, we have:

5:9 what is he like?

5:10-16 he's pretty amazing

6:1 where did he go?

6:2-3 down to his garden

6:4-10 she's pretty amazing too

5:9 and 6:1 are very similar, and so is 5:10-16 and 6:4-10. Her second answer (6:2-3) is different, and looks forward to the next scene (beginning 6:11). It is a simple ABAB answer:

6:2a My beloved has gone to his garden

6:2b a description of his garden - spices and lilies

6:3a My beloved and me are each others

6:3b he's browsing among the lilies

So that's all quite interesting, but the wasfs are where I want to get to, and particularly the second. But before we get there, the first wasf has a structure which I foreshadowed in my earlier post, which is to begin and end with praise, and then in the body of the wasf (no pun intended) to talk through the attributes of the body with metaphors and similes. 

A 5:10 my beloved is distinguished among 10,000

B 5:11-16a ten-part wasf

A' 5:11b this is my beloved, daughters of Jerusalem

The wasfs in 4:1-7 and 7:1-9[2-10] are essentially of the same form as this one, even if the one in chapter 7 has a little more going on. But if we can say this is the "standard form"—a list of attributes bookended by a general adoration—then how does the wasf of chapter 6 compare?

The short answer is it's complicated. Sort of. If I were a German text critic of a century ago, I would have no problem excising verses, to make his wasf a mirror of hers. But I would be pressed between two options—mirroring hers and excising 6:8-9, or a chiastic structure excising his wasf (6:5-7) altogether. Here are the two options:

His adoration with wasf (no 8–9):

6:4 my darling is as distinguished as Tirzah and Jerusalem

6:5–7 four-part wasf

6:10 the one who appears like the dawn is as distinguished as the moon and the sun

His adoration with chiasm (no 5–7):

A 6:4 she is majestic like the sight of two great cities

B 6:8 though there be courtly women

C 6:9a my dove, my perfect one, is unique

B` 6:9b the courtly women praise her

A` 6:10 she is majestic like the sight of two heavenly bodies

Both of these have great structural integrity, and I don't know how you could choose between them if you were of a mood to excise one or the other. I really like the way the second chiastic structure draws out the parallel between the three groups of courtly women: 

6:8 Sixty queens there may be,

and eighty concubines,

and virgins (almot) beyond number;

6:9 but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,

the only daughter of her mother,

the favourite of the one who bore her.

The young women (bnot) beheld her

and queens called her blessed

and concubines praised her.

You do need to change the line breaks in the second half of 6:9 to reveal the three-part parallels between 6:8 and 6:9b; EVV have "the young women saw her and called her blessed; the queens and concubines praised her." But the Hebrew order is "Saw her did daughters and blessed her queens and concubines praised her." All you have to do is add "did" before queens (a perfectly acceptable addition in Hebrew) and you've got a perfect mirror to 6:8. This also equates virgins/maidens with young women/daughters, which again makes perfect sense even without the parallelism; with it, it is only enhanced. 

What we are left with then are two wasfs, hers and his, which are a matching pair; his is developed further to include his highlighting her uniqueness, even among the presence of the court harem. 

The final thing to mention is the verb דגל, dgl, a verb which is related to the word for "banner", but, according to HALOT, has some kind of base meaning like to be distinguished, which fits the three uses in the song here. It occurs as a qal passive participle in 5:10 to talk about him, the stand out among 10,000. And it occurs as a niphal participle in both 6:4 AND 6:10 in identical constructions, despite the confusingly different NIV translations. 

What's going on then as the bookends of his speech in 6:4-10 is a comparison of her to two pairs of great things. In the case of 6:4 it is two cities, Tirzah (the erstwhile capital of the Northern Kingdom) and Jerusalem (the capital of the Southern Kingdom and of course all Israel under the United Monarchy). George Athas suggests this is referring to the cohorts of women at two centres of Solomon's power, and others too have problems equating a woman with not just one but two cities. In the case of 6:10 she is compared to the brightness of the moon and the sun. In both cases there are two great objects, there is the exact phrase "as majestic as these distinguished [sights], and there is a description of her to which she these objects are to be compared; in 6:4 it is "my darling" and in 6:10 it is her "appearing like the dawn" which is to be compared to the brightness of the two heavenly luminaries.  

For me the parallelism between the two bookends is primary, and it's worth noting it's not the actual cities and luminaries to which she is compared, but the beauty and brightness of them. And sure, they may be no extant textual evidence of women being compared to cities, but this is the Song, so why not? And I would think the rich history of Jerusalem being personified (cf. esp. Lamentations, Isaiah) would mean this is far from a problem.

In conclusion then, his response in 6:4-10 integrates two separate poetic forms, the bookended wasf, and the chiastic structure, the latter reusing the bookends of the wasf. This enables him to both respond to her wasf (5:10-16) in kind, while also developing on the form to highlight her unassailable uniqueness.

The Gruffalo and the Song of Songs

 As I continue working through the Song of Songs (I preached the first sermon in our series on Sunday), I started looking at the part of the Song which is most easily explained with reference to the popular children's book, The Gruffalo. If you aren't aware of this, it's a fun story about a mouse's ruse to scare off various predators with reference to an horrible, made up, animal. 

He has terrible tusks and terrible claws
And terrible teeth in his horrible jaws.
He has knobbly knees and turned out toes
And a poisonous wart at the end of his nose.
His eyes are orange, his tongue is black;
He has purple prickles all over his back.

Essentially what the mouse is doing is walking his eyes up and down the (supposedly) imaginary creature and describing him. And that's what happens in the Song of Songs! This technique is far older than the Song and is obviously still in use (Julia Donaldson published her tale in 1999). 

This technique is given an Arabic name, "waṣf"  (or just "wasf" if the s with a hireq doesn't come out), and there are four substantial wasfs in the Song. Three of them (4:1-7; 6:4-10; 7:1-9[2-10]) are him describing her, and they are always addressed to the second person ("you"). Only one of them is her describing him (5:10-16), and interestingly it is addressed not to the second person but to the third ("he"). I find this especially interesting because she does most of the talking in the song, but evidently, at least from the wasfs (as well as the vibe), much more about him than too him (I could and should work out the actual proportion some time). 

As they come in chapters 4;5;6;7, they are all found in the latter half of the book (again, roughly; there are eight chapters), but all four of them cover essentially the same sorts of terrain. Of five elements, they all contain at least one instance of it (with one exception), and furthermore, each of them has some mention which could be seen to do with the court or the military or something in that vein. 

Here are the four wasfs then in summary,

You can see that I've smudged a few words together as "lovely/darling", with דוד (beloved), יפה (beautiful), רעיתי (my darling), תמתי (my perfect one), and so on. I think it's fair to lump in belly for him with breasts for her; and commentators love to say that hand (5:14) must be a phallic euphemism, but there's very little that people won't say is a euphemism for something, especially in the Song. But grammatically that's a bit weird, because it's literally "pair of hands" (it's in the dual form). 

If we have a look at the categories across the four wasfs, we can see how common the common things actually are: 

Only breasts/torso fails to rate a mention in chapter 6; otherwise all the categories are consistently found across the four wasfs. There are of course some extra elements (4:7 for instance) which doesn't fit so well into any category, but by and large there is a remarkable consistency both in content and, to a certain extent, in order also (far more than one would expect if it were a collection of various poems).

Of particular note for me is that the lovely/darling category bookends the wasfs (notwithstanding its triple appearance in chapters 6,7). The wasfs are thus sealed off as distinct units, even if they still are important in their context. 

Also of note, reading through George Athas's commentary, is the use of military imagery. Athas reads the Solomon character negatively, and sees references to the tower of David (4:4), the queens and concubines (6:8-9) as signs of her oppression and her immanent assimilation into Solomon's harem. I wonder whether the references to the tower of Lebanon watching over Damascus (7:4-5) and to Tarshish [stones?], pillars, and Lebanon (5:14-15) are further illustrations of this theme. Towers are military buildings, and these places, whilst far off and beautiful, are also places of power and oppression, which simple viticulturists (she) and shepherds (he) cannot hope to withstand.

I don't think I need to say anything about the other categories - they're all fairly self-explanatory. There are some questions around the translation of teeth in 4:2 and 7:9, as there are with many words in the Song. 

So it's worth looking out for these wasfs when you come across them in the Song. They reuse and develop imagery from elsewhere in the Song, they bounce off each other, and as you get into the individual wasfs themselves, there is much more to look into. I'm particularly interested the way 5:10-16 and 6:4-10 work with each other, which I hope to blog about soon - my next sermon, in a couple of weeks, is on 5:9-6:10.

Structure of the Song of Songs

 I started a four week series today on the OT book of the Song of Songs, aka Canticles, aka Song of Solomon. I'm following the four-part structure in George Athas's commentary:

1:1-2:7
2:8-5:8
5:9-6:10
6:11-8:14

As he also did with his Ecclesiastes commentary, these are essentially preaching units rather than clear turning points in the book. And when you survey the literature, it's clear why one would want to be less rather than more prescriptive about the sections. Following especially Michael Fox, recent commentators perceive somewhere between a dozen and four-dozen separate songs; as such the "song" is actually "songs", an anthology of love poems akin to a collection of the short fragments we have of Egyptian love poetry from the New Kingdom (1500-1000 BC). 

David Dorsey has a good summary of the various positions to that point (1990) and suggests yet another approach, which focuses on keywords and refrains, as do Exum (1973) and Shea (1980) before him. They are roughly chiastic, but their choice of keywords and refrains seem somewhat arbitrary. 

The clearest markers in the text to me suggest a straightforward structure as follows. If we take the first verse as the introduction of a narrator, and take the sayings directed to the "Daughters of Jerusalem" as the end of sections, then we are left with the following structure (I have included the final verse of each of the central sections):

1:1 Introduction

1:2-2:7 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

2:8-3:5 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

3:6-5:8 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
— if you find my beloved, what will you tell him?
Tell him I am faint with love.

5:9-8:4 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you:
Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

8:5-14 Epilogue

It is the variations on this key phrase and the not grossly disproportionately different section sizes which are among the reasons to commend this structure. To my mind the other approaches seem vague and mutually contradictory. 

However, by focussing on this one phrase and its variations, there is one clear phrase which divides the text into roughly equal sections, each concluding with a speech to the "daughters of Jerusalem", who play the role of the audience, substituting in for us. The variations are interesting; unfortunately the two most promising journal articles which look like they deal with this are in Spanish and Hebrew, and not available online. 

It is however worth noting that the first two and fuller iterations of the phrase include the words "gazelles" and "does", both of which sound similar, respectively, to "[Yhwh of] hosts" and "[God] most high". Swear, in other words, not just by creatures in the field, but by the God who created both the creatures and their fields. 

The first and second occurrences of the phrase are identical, and the fourth occurrence likewise, but for the middle phrase (as I've arranged it above). The third is the only one which is vastly different, which could suggest that it plays a different role to the others. However, that being said, its similarity is probably key, and its differences only go to highlight its position and importance.

Despite what I've said, I'm still in the early stages and may well change my mind on everything, but it seems good for now. To paraphrase Michael Fox on Ecclesiastes, it's about whether the structure works; does it make better sense of the text? Or, in other words, does it preach? We shall see. 

Reflecting on daily Bible reflections

 Back in late March this year, as we all went into lockdown, as in-person church shut down, I went to sleep thinking maybe I could send something out to encourage people as we were going through all this. My thought was to go through a psalm a day, and, God-willing, by the end of 150 days everything would go back to normal. 

Unless they were very short psalms, I wrote a summary, and at the doxology at the end of each book of psalms I wrote a little reflection on that collection of psalms. I started summarising the NIV11, then the REB, and then I started just translating (the DRV!). I slowed down a bit for Psalm 119, translated the whole stanza, so spent the better part of a month there, but otherwise it took somewhere close to 180 days for the psalms. 

I think often when we read the psalms we don't quite know what to do with them - should we look for the hidden messiah between the lines, like the New Testament seems to teach us to do? I wanted instead to show a Christian reading, which took seriously the struggles of this world (read Psalm 88 for a laugh sometime!) but also knows what it is to rest in God. 

But of course, the pandemic continued. What to do next? People were still struggling, we still weren't meeting in person, and places like Victoria were getting worse, not better. So I moved onto Ecclesiastes, in part because it's comfortable (see my book on the sidebar!), but also because I wanted to give a Christian reflection on each short section of the book. 

With both Psalms and Ecclesiastes, I wanted to model for people how to read Scripture as Christians, not as moralists or legalists, as we often default to, especially with the Old Testament. 

When Ecclesiastes came to an end after a bit over a month, I decided I would do one more book: Genesis. This time something a bit different; I wanted people to read the Bible, not just my summaries. So I asked people to read a whole chapter, and then reflect with me on just one verse. I really enjoyed doing this, and hopefully people appreciated the fact that (if they kept up) they had read a whole book of the Bible - something which some of us take for granted, but many really struggle to do. 

I only got the word out once or twice, and a couple of people join the whatsapp group every now and then. There's a few more than seventy right now, and of those probably two thirds click on the devotion. I don't know how many actually read that, but a couple of people occasionally tell me thanks, or bring it up in discussion - "like you said the other day on Ecclesiastes" - so that's encouraging! I certainly haven't gone viral, but I have encouraged people from my church and a few beyond. 

The way I've done it is start writing at 7:30am and send it out at 8:00am. Sometimes I'll write it in advance, but normally that's my routine, so it's been good for me. It's been pretty labour intensive; here are the word counts from these 262 days: 

Psalms: 73640
Ecclesiastes: 17151
Genesis: 19255

Total words: 110046

So it's taken a bit out of me, but it's also fed me. It's forced me to say something, or, better put, to listen to what God is saying, even from chapters I'd normally skim through (table of nations anyone?). 

But now, I might take a break. I might get back to it, but maybe not. I do hope and pray it encourages people in their own reading and reflecting. I'm grateful that this project was forced upon me, for the discipline it's forced upon me, and for the way that God has used this to encourage others. But now? Time for some time off.

Preaching through a Judges series

We've finished going through Judges; I broke it up into 9 weeks a little something like this: 

Judges 1:1-3:6 - beginning badly

Judges 3:7-31 - God's grace

Judges 4-5 - singing salvation

Judges 6-9 - Gideon's gaffes

Judges 10-12 - outrageous oath

Judges 13-15 - Samson's start

Judges 16 - winning through weakness

Judges 17-18 - grifters gonna get grifted

Judges 19-21 - the evil ending

I should add, I didn't think of the alliteration before today - that only just came to me now - always too late!

I try to preach through whole books where I can (see my complete list here), so that people go away from a series knowing that part of the Bible well, hopefully having read the whole thing, and with a growing picture of how the Bible fits together as a whole.

What I have been most struck by as I've worked through Judges (I had two weeks off preaching - Gideon and Samson #1 were preached by others) is the way the book uses recursion or juxtaposition. That is, every story is to be interpreted with reference to the stories either side of it. That is already obvious as the concentric structure of the book is examined, such that the opposing panels handle similar themes: 

Beginning at the end, we meet a Levite from the hill country of Ephraim. Could it be that this was the young Levite from the previous story, who was also a Levite in Ephraim? Probably not, because he moved up to Dan, but the connection is interesting.

So too with the Dan/Micah saga. The story begins without a beginning - it is as if it has slipped in between chapters 16-17. But when it begins we meet a woman who had 1100 silver shekels. Which other woman do we know with 1100 silver shekels? Delilah, from the previous episode, was promised 1100 shekels from each Philistine if she handed over Samson. Could it be that Micah's mother is Delilah? Probably not, but the connection is interesting. 

Similar connections continue throughout Judges (see my notes on Jephthah for some other examples). What this demonstrates is that Judges as a whole is thoughtfully composed, arranged, and edited with reference to every other story. However many original authors or redactors there may have been, the end result is a masterful illustration of adding meaning from structure; juxtaposing two stories next to each other forces them to be understood with reference to each other, so that two stories (or half a dozen or so) are more than the sum of their parts.  

As you work through or read through or preach through Judges, keep asking questions about juxtaposition. Rachelle Gilmour's book on Juxtaposition in Elisha is a superb guide and introduction to the question in general.