Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Merry Christmas
We're on break right now and will start again in January. Have a blessed Christmas, with a safe and peaceful New Year!
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Hosea - Chapters 2-3
The images and focus of Hosea goes back and forth between his marital situation and Israel – sometimes he is referring to both. The chapter begins with an earnest plea to the children to get their mother to cease her ways. He then offers a dire warning about punishment.
The punishment threatened is of stripping her bare and inflicting tremendous humiliation. This was not a punishment established by scriptural law, which only provided a death sentence for adultery7. There is, however, some evidence (Ezekiel 16:35-39) that it was used within the Hebrew community and it certainly was used elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.
Hosea then moves from the personal anguish to the national one. He foresees a time when the land will also be made bare, surely a frightening image for a largely agricultural society. We may forget the importance of this in today’s world, where less than six percent of the people make their living from the land. Yet all ultimately depend upon it. If the land fails to produce, the people do not survive. (Think Dust Bowl here!)
The threat for the ancient Hebrews had added weight because their spiritual “adultery” had been to worship other gods, particularly Ba’al of the Canaanite peoples. Ba’al was a nature/fertility god, as was his consort, Asherah. Apparently, it had seemed a good idea to the people to get his favor, thinking Ba’al was the one who provided food and drink, wool, flax, oil and perfumes (Hoses 2:6-7). Yet, God will show that Ba’al cannot protect the land, only the creator of the universe can do that.
After the punishment is threatened, the reader sees the dual longing of Hosea for his wife and Yahweh’s longing for Israel to return to relationship. The prophet writes, “I will woo her...” The images are now for restoration after the punishment.
The Vale of trouble referred to in 2:14 is the place where Achan was put to death because of disobedience and treason. But this will be transformed into a Gate of Hope. The renewal is pictured as a spiritual return to the early days of the Israelite journey. This image is interesting when considering those early days after the Exodus. The people were not paragons of faithfulness. When Moses lingered too long on the mountain, they tried to make a god like ones they’d seen in Egypt. They also complained bitterly and tended test the patience of both Moses and God. Hosea could not have been ignorant of this aspect of his people’s history. It could be that, as in many ages of humanity, the past always seems better than the future. That is, nostalgia may have been as big then as ever. Certainly it was a time when the worship of other gods may not have been entrenched and there was a sense of new beginnings. And this could have been the emphasis Hosea was intending.
The reference to the fact that God would no longer be called ‘My Ba’al” may be confusing. Originally, however, ba’al had several possible meanings. It could mean master, owner, lord or husband. It was also a divine title that could be applied to any god. Eventually it was applied in a narrow sense to the Canaanite god almost as a proper name. In the same way in English we use ‘god’ to refer not only to the God of our faith, but also to deities that others worship, and symbolically to anything that gains strong loyalty from people. In Hosea’s time Ba’al would have gained a negative feeling and he foresaw a time when it would not be used of Yahweh at all.
(Our English word of God comes from the word “good.” It was, by legend, first used by an early Christian missionary seeking to communicate the good news.)
In verse eighteen, Hosea’s prophecy extends to a covenant with the creatures of the world. Bow and sword and all weapons of war wold be swept from the earth. (A similar prophecy was made in Micah 4:1-4). Hosea’s comment that all living creatures would lie down without fear is reminiscent also of Isaiah’s image of the wolf and the kid lying down together (Isaiah 11:6-9). (At least one scholar believes verse 18 was a later addition by an editor, yet Isaiah was roughly a contemporary of Hosea and he also wrote of peace in these meaningful terms.)
The reference to betrothal in lawful wedlock may remind some of the situation of Mary and Joseph in the Christmas story. Mary is alternately referred to as Joseph’s betrothed and as his wife. If he was to put her aside, it would have required divorce. Betrothal was in first century Judaism like it was in Hosea’s day. The legal betrothal was as binding as marriage. The contrast here is with the more casual liaisons of ba’alism. Though some scholars question whether ritual prostitution took place in ba’alism, the biblical stance is that it did. Whether or not it did, the covenant was with God, not Ba’al. The “marriage” contract between God and the people would be renewed.
The restoration pictured will be complete. The names of Hosea’s three children are brought into play here. The earth, corn (the general word for grain), the new wine and oil will answer for Jezreel. Love will be showed to Loruhama. Lo-ammi (not my people) will be told ‘You are my people’ and the answer back will be ‘you are my God.’
The punishment threatened is of stripping her bare and inflicting tremendous humiliation. This was not a punishment established by scriptural law, which only provided a death sentence for adultery7. There is, however, some evidence (Ezekiel 16:35-39) that it was used within the Hebrew community and it certainly was used elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.
Hosea then moves from the personal anguish to the national one. He foresees a time when the land will also be made bare, surely a frightening image for a largely agricultural society. We may forget the importance of this in today’s world, where less than six percent of the people make their living from the land. Yet all ultimately depend upon it. If the land fails to produce, the people do not survive. (Think Dust Bowl here!)
The threat for the ancient Hebrews had added weight because their spiritual “adultery” had been to worship other gods, particularly Ba’al of the Canaanite peoples. Ba’al was a nature/fertility god, as was his consort, Asherah. Apparently, it had seemed a good idea to the people to get his favor, thinking Ba’al was the one who provided food and drink, wool, flax, oil and perfumes (Hoses 2:6-7). Yet, God will show that Ba’al cannot protect the land, only the creator of the universe can do that.
After the punishment is threatened, the reader sees the dual longing of Hosea for his wife and Yahweh’s longing for Israel to return to relationship. The prophet writes, “I will woo her...” The images are now for restoration after the punishment.
The Vale of trouble referred to in 2:14 is the place where Achan was put to death because of disobedience and treason. But this will be transformed into a Gate of Hope. The renewal is pictured as a spiritual return to the early days of the Israelite journey. This image is interesting when considering those early days after the Exodus. The people were not paragons of faithfulness. When Moses lingered too long on the mountain, they tried to make a god like ones they’d seen in Egypt. They also complained bitterly and tended test the patience of both Moses and God. Hosea could not have been ignorant of this aspect of his people’s history. It could be that, as in many ages of humanity, the past always seems better than the future. That is, nostalgia may have been as big then as ever. Certainly it was a time when the worship of other gods may not have been entrenched and there was a sense of new beginnings. And this could have been the emphasis Hosea was intending.
The reference to the fact that God would no longer be called ‘My Ba’al” may be confusing. Originally, however, ba’al had several possible meanings. It could mean master, owner, lord or husband. It was also a divine title that could be applied to any god. Eventually it was applied in a narrow sense to the Canaanite god almost as a proper name. In the same way in English we use ‘god’ to refer not only to the God of our faith, but also to deities that others worship, and symbolically to anything that gains strong loyalty from people. In Hosea’s time Ba’al would have gained a negative feeling and he foresaw a time when it would not be used of Yahweh at all.
(Our English word of God comes from the word “good.” It was, by legend, first used by an early Christian missionary seeking to communicate the good news.)
In verse eighteen, Hosea’s prophecy extends to a covenant with the creatures of the world. Bow and sword and all weapons of war wold be swept from the earth. (A similar prophecy was made in Micah 4:1-4). Hosea’s comment that all living creatures would lie down without fear is reminiscent also of Isaiah’s image of the wolf and the kid lying down together (Isaiah 11:6-9). (At least one scholar believes verse 18 was a later addition by an editor, yet Isaiah was roughly a contemporary of Hosea and he also wrote of peace in these meaningful terms.)
The reference to betrothal in lawful wedlock may remind some of the situation of Mary and Joseph in the Christmas story. Mary is alternately referred to as Joseph’s betrothed and as his wife. If he was to put her aside, it would have required divorce. Betrothal was in first century Judaism like it was in Hosea’s day. The legal betrothal was as binding as marriage. The contrast here is with the more casual liaisons of ba’alism. Though some scholars question whether ritual prostitution took place in ba’alism, the biblical stance is that it did. Whether or not it did, the covenant was with God, not Ba’al. The “marriage” contract between God and the people would be renewed.
The restoration pictured will be complete. The names of Hosea’s three children are brought into play here. The earth, corn (the general word for grain), the new wine and oil will answer for Jezreel. Love will be showed to Loruhama. Lo-ammi (not my people) will be told ‘You are my people’ and the answer back will be ‘you are my God.’
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Hosea – chapter 1
Unlike Micah, we know much more about Hosea and the details of his life, especially his marriage. As with most of the bible, scholars may disagree about many details. For example, there are the details about Hosea’s marriage in chapters 1 and 3. The first chapter is reported in third person and appear to tell the story from someone else’s point of view. The third chapter seem to be told from Hosea’s point of view. This may explain some of the differences. The two reports about his marriage are also told for different reasons. The focus of the first chapter is the prophetic names of Hosea and Gomer’s children. The story that Hosea tells in his own voice dwells upon his relationship with his wife.
As one scholar explains, the biographical details for a prophet are only important in how they help convey God’s message to the people. Hosea marries a woman with morals far different than his own. He marries her as a symbolic act in his prophetic career and names his children symbolically. Yet no one seems to doubt that he came to genuinely love Gomer. This in turn had an impact upon his understanding of God and of God’s relationship with the Hebrew people.
In the book we immediately hear how God told Hosea to marry a woman of wanton character. The eighth century b.c. was not a time when a man normally did this knowingly. The statement could reflect a subsequent event in Hosea’s marriage when he redeemed Gomer from a life led in later years. Henry McKeating of the Cambridge Bible Commentary points out that we hear things only from Hosea’s point of view and it may not have been easy for Gomer married to a man of Hosea’s temperament and prophetic career. However she is viewed, she did not remain faithful.
Hosea and Gomer’s first child was named Jezreel. Perhaps he felt more hopeful about his marriage at the time. Jezreel means, “God sows.” Yet it was also the name of the place where Ahab had murdered Naboth and some prophets seemed to view it as a place where vengeance would come upon Ahab and his wife, Jezebel. A violent revolution subsequently took place with the support of the northern prophets. Jehu and his descendents ruled the Northern Kingdom afterwards. Yet Jehu’s reign was also disastrous and his line met its doom also at Jezreel. For Hosea, the failed policy of northern prophets would have been symbolized by Jezreel. All of this to say that, though Hosea might have felt better about his marriage at the birth of his first son, the choice of name still had strong prophetic purpose.
Did the name of Jezreel reflect more than disillusionment? Could there have been a layer of hope that even in the place of failure God still sows?
Gomer’s second child, however, receives a depressing name: Lo-ruhamah, which means ‘unloved.’ Hosea may have questioned whether the child was even his. In the intimate connection between his own private life and that of the nation, Hosea looks at an unfaithful people and considers it impossible that God can continue to love them. A third child comes and is named Lo-ammi, which meant “not my people.” The covenant between God and Israel had been that ‘I shall be your God and you shall be my people.’ But Israel has not been faithful and has worshipped other gods. So they won’t be loved and shall no longer belong in this special relationship with Yahweh.
The seventh verse in the first chapter gives a more hopeful and contradictory image to the message Hosea relayed in the naming of his children. This unusual circumstance could be understood in varying ways. Some scholars say it simply doesn’t belong there and got placed in that position by a later editor or by some corruption of the text. But this story invites also a more imaginative understanding. Could Hosea been struggling with God? Could the prophet have been utterly convinced by both the sinfulness of the people and the destruction of his marriage, that no one deserved a second chance? Did God’s voice whisper of hope that Hosea simply didn’t want to hear? A few verses later (beginning at 10) we hear far more hopeful images. This could have been placed in this part of the book because of the play on the names of Hosea’s children. The book is a collection of prophecies, rather than one unified message. It was put together by a later editor. Yet the contrasting words could reflect, again, Hosea’s struggle.
This is just the beginning of the book, of Hosea’s journey and the arc of his understanding of God. His pilgrimage is both an inward and an outward one. His marriage had to have influenced how he saw God and the people, and his book makes clear that God had a hand in this circumstance.
As one scholar explains, the biographical details for a prophet are only important in how they help convey God’s message to the people. Hosea marries a woman with morals far different than his own. He marries her as a symbolic act in his prophetic career and names his children symbolically. Yet no one seems to doubt that he came to genuinely love Gomer. This in turn had an impact upon his understanding of God and of God’s relationship with the Hebrew people.
In the book we immediately hear how God told Hosea to marry a woman of wanton character. The eighth century b.c. was not a time when a man normally did this knowingly. The statement could reflect a subsequent event in Hosea’s marriage when he redeemed Gomer from a life led in later years. Henry McKeating of the Cambridge Bible Commentary points out that we hear things only from Hosea’s point of view and it may not have been easy for Gomer married to a man of Hosea’s temperament and prophetic career. However she is viewed, she did not remain faithful.
Hosea and Gomer’s first child was named Jezreel. Perhaps he felt more hopeful about his marriage at the time. Jezreel means, “God sows.” Yet it was also the name of the place where Ahab had murdered Naboth and some prophets seemed to view it as a place where vengeance would come upon Ahab and his wife, Jezebel. A violent revolution subsequently took place with the support of the northern prophets. Jehu and his descendents ruled the Northern Kingdom afterwards. Yet Jehu’s reign was also disastrous and his line met its doom also at Jezreel. For Hosea, the failed policy of northern prophets would have been symbolized by Jezreel. All of this to say that, though Hosea might have felt better about his marriage at the birth of his first son, the choice of name still had strong prophetic purpose.
Did the name of Jezreel reflect more than disillusionment? Could there have been a layer of hope that even in the place of failure God still sows?
Gomer’s second child, however, receives a depressing name: Lo-ruhamah, which means ‘unloved.’ Hosea may have questioned whether the child was even his. In the intimate connection between his own private life and that of the nation, Hosea looks at an unfaithful people and considers it impossible that God can continue to love them. A third child comes and is named Lo-ammi, which meant “not my people.” The covenant between God and Israel had been that ‘I shall be your God and you shall be my people.’ But Israel has not been faithful and has worshipped other gods. So they won’t be loved and shall no longer belong in this special relationship with Yahweh.
The seventh verse in the first chapter gives a more hopeful and contradictory image to the message Hosea relayed in the naming of his children. This unusual circumstance could be understood in varying ways. Some scholars say it simply doesn’t belong there and got placed in that position by a later editor or by some corruption of the text. But this story invites also a more imaginative understanding. Could Hosea been struggling with God? Could the prophet have been utterly convinced by both the sinfulness of the people and the destruction of his marriage, that no one deserved a second chance? Did God’s voice whisper of hope that Hosea simply didn’t want to hear? A few verses later (beginning at 10) we hear far more hopeful images. This could have been placed in this part of the book because of the play on the names of Hosea’s children. The book is a collection of prophecies, rather than one unified message. It was put together by a later editor. Yet the contrasting words could reflect, again, Hosea’s struggle.
This is just the beginning of the book, of Hosea’s journey and the arc of his understanding of God. His pilgrimage is both an inward and an outward one. His marriage had to have influenced how he saw God and the people, and his book makes clear that God had a hand in this circumstance.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Micah - conclusion
We now come to the end of the book of Micah. In general, he was a man of faith who was terribly distraught over the failure of his people to keep the covenant with God. The people around him didn't see a problem because there was some prosperity (for the wealthy), the sacrifices were being kept, and the king was on the throne. Yet Micah saw the land-grabbing which was creating a class of extreme poverty, the dishonest weights and measures in the market place, and the tendancy to worship other gods on the side. These were matters of serious concern. What does God want? For the people to walk humbly with God, practicing, to do justice and love kindness.
Verses 7:7-20 may be a psalm(s) which some think was appended to the book of Micah by a later editor. It may relate to Second Isaiah and Psalm 137. Scholars disagree whether verse 7 belongs to the Psalm or to the preceding passage. Also, the Psalm may have been intended as words of liturgy for the whole nation.
In verse 7, after Micah has described a terrible time of disentegration in families and homes, he says: But as for me I will look to the Lord. This is reminiscent of Joshua’s words. After he had presented the Israelites with some of the possibilities of worship, he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Vs 8 -10 Rejoice not over me... some scholars see this as later than Micah - reflecting a time of exile, as in Psalm 137. Read the laments of the psalms and we see often the taunting of enemies being mentioned. It could also be Micah’s own experiences, awareness of his own sins, and determination to remain faithful. As is common in the Bible, the words have rich application to human experience.
Vs 10 - the enemies ask where is the Lord your God? - This theme can be seen in various ways. This was a time when people believed in territorial gods. The defeat of one nation meant that one territorial god had also defeated another. But it is a taunt that has often been raised to people of faith when bad things happen. (If anyone watches the show “House,” this was wrestled with on one level in an episode (November 22). Read also: Psalm 3:2; Psalm 10:4, Psalm 21:7-8 Psalm 42:3. All these express the experence of being a faithful person in the midst of those who taunt someone for their faithfulness.
Vs 11-13 Does seem to refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of its walls. (Compare earlier, when cities would be torn down...might not apply to Jerusalem as its primary function was not as a fortress or war fortification.) “they will come to you...” are words that have a feel of 4:1-4. The thirteenth verse, however, speaks of desolation in the earth because of their sins.
Verse fourteen brings again the image of the shepherd and his rod or staff. The New English Version used “crook” which the Cambridge scholars admit was a free translation, since the Israelite shepherds of the time didn’t use crooks.
Bashan was the most northern part of the region east of the Jordan. It was a wide and fertile plain which grew wheat well, was good for cattle raising and was known for its groves of oak trees. Bashan is mentioned elsewhere in the bible. The strong bulls of Bashan (Ps 22:12) become sy7mbols for the fierceness of enemies against a righteous man. Amos took aim at the pleasure-seeking women of Samaria, calling them the “cows of Bashan.” (Amos 4:1) Isaiah did the same against the proud and haughty describing them as the tall cedars of Lebanon and spreading oaks of Bashan. After Israel divided into two kingdoms, Basham was often a battleground.
Gilead - a region east of the Jordan river. It could also be the shortened names for a community. Its hills and valleys were well watered, making it forested, also good for growing grapes and olives. The balm of Gilead was an aromatic resin believed to have medicinal powers. It was not native to Gilead, but was exported from there.
16-17 - The nations are again pictured as turning to God, but this image is more in humility and fear. (Licking the dust like a serpent refers to an ancient belief that snakes ate the dust.)
7:18-20 - A Psalm of adoration and praise
“Who is a God like thee?” This is a play on the meaning of the name of the prophet Micah, which means “Who is like Yahweh?”
A custom among orthodox Jews is to visit a body of water following worship on the afternoon of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) to repeat the last part of Micah 7:19 three times: “You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” This ceremony is called Tashlik, Hebrew for “You will cast...” It is a celebration of forgiveness to begin the New Year.
Micah conclues with a reminder of the covenant and the promise made to their ancestors.
The book of Micah challenges us to live in ways of holiness today. The high vision of peace among nations has jarring contrast with other words of sometimes vengeance and the desire for political superiority. But in the realities of the world, it is important to keep a higher vision of justice, humility, kindness and peace.
Verses 7:7-20 may be a psalm(s) which some think was appended to the book of Micah by a later editor. It may relate to Second Isaiah and Psalm 137. Scholars disagree whether verse 7 belongs to the Psalm or to the preceding passage. Also, the Psalm may have been intended as words of liturgy for the whole nation.
In verse 7, after Micah has described a terrible time of disentegration in families and homes, he says: But as for me I will look to the Lord. This is reminiscent of Joshua’s words. After he had presented the Israelites with some of the possibilities of worship, he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Vs 8 -10 Rejoice not over me... some scholars see this as later than Micah - reflecting a time of exile, as in Psalm 137. Read the laments of the psalms and we see often the taunting of enemies being mentioned. It could also be Micah’s own experiences, awareness of his own sins, and determination to remain faithful. As is common in the Bible, the words have rich application to human experience.
Vs 10 - the enemies ask where is the Lord your God? - This theme can be seen in various ways. This was a time when people believed in territorial gods. The defeat of one nation meant that one territorial god had also defeated another. But it is a taunt that has often been raised to people of faith when bad things happen. (If anyone watches the show “House,” this was wrestled with on one level in an episode (November 22). Read also: Psalm 3:2; Psalm 10:4, Psalm 21:7-8 Psalm 42:3. All these express the experence of being a faithful person in the midst of those who taunt someone for their faithfulness.
Vs 11-13 Does seem to refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of its walls. (Compare earlier, when cities would be torn down...might not apply to Jerusalem as its primary function was not as a fortress or war fortification.) “they will come to you...” are words that have a feel of 4:1-4. The thirteenth verse, however, speaks of desolation in the earth because of their sins.
Verse fourteen brings again the image of the shepherd and his rod or staff. The New English Version used “crook” which the Cambridge scholars admit was a free translation, since the Israelite shepherds of the time didn’t use crooks.
Bashan was the most northern part of the region east of the Jordan. It was a wide and fertile plain which grew wheat well, was good for cattle raising and was known for its groves of oak trees. Bashan is mentioned elsewhere in the bible. The strong bulls of Bashan (Ps 22:12) become sy7mbols for the fierceness of enemies against a righteous man. Amos took aim at the pleasure-seeking women of Samaria, calling them the “cows of Bashan.” (Amos 4:1) Isaiah did the same against the proud and haughty describing them as the tall cedars of Lebanon and spreading oaks of Bashan. After Israel divided into two kingdoms, Basham was often a battleground.
Gilead - a region east of the Jordan river. It could also be the shortened names for a community. Its hills and valleys were well watered, making it forested, also good for growing grapes and olives. The balm of Gilead was an aromatic resin believed to have medicinal powers. It was not native to Gilead, but was exported from there.
16-17 - The nations are again pictured as turning to God, but this image is more in humility and fear. (Licking the dust like a serpent refers to an ancient belief that snakes ate the dust.)
7:18-20 - A Psalm of adoration and praise
“Who is a God like thee?” This is a play on the meaning of the name of the prophet Micah, which means “Who is like Yahweh?”
A custom among orthodox Jews is to visit a body of water following worship on the afternoon of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) to repeat the last part of Micah 7:19 three times: “You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” This ceremony is called Tashlik, Hebrew for “You will cast...” It is a celebration of forgiveness to begin the New Year.
Micah conclues with a reminder of the covenant and the promise made to their ancestors.
The book of Micah challenges us to live in ways of holiness today. The high vision of peace among nations has jarring contrast with other words of sometimes vengeance and the desire for political superiority. But in the realities of the world, it is important to keep a higher vision of justice, humility, kindness and peace.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Micah - 05
What are some of the icons of human pride and/or achievement? In the class discussion, people mentioned the Colossus of Rhodes (one of the ancient Seven Wonders of the World, destroyed by an earthquake less than a century after it was constructed), the space program, the Challenger & its explosion, the Moon Landing, Martin Luther King march, Titanic, Communism, the “Almighty Dollar,” Sports, Military, and the Hindenburg. All of these are human, some are good, some good in their proper sphere, some bad for the world. Some were hailed as signs of human mastery, only to be proven wrong. Especially ironic is the Titanic, hailed as unsinkable and a proof that humans had prevailed over nature, only to be sunk on its maiden voyage.
All of these areas of endeavor and achievement might be subjects that the prophets, such as Micah, would find interest.
In Micah 5:7, comes an interesting image. The remnant of Jacob is compared to dew from the Lord. This soft, seemingly positve and gentle image of dew was used in I Samuel in the sense of powerful inevitability, which appears to be Micah’s intention here. Micah goes on in verses 8 & 9 to give a vision of the remnant of Israel becoming a strong nation, “like a young lion among the flocks of sheep.” Turn to verses 10-11 and we hear of God’s destruction of military installations and resources. Horses cut off, also the chariots and the cities of the land. In Palestine of that time, horses only had military application. The donkey was the animal of peace. Cities were strongholds, fortresses. As they were associated, therefore, with war, they were to be banished. (This idea seems to accord with the words of 4:1-4). People would not rely on the military (a human achievement).
Verse 12-14 goes on to the subject of religious righteousness. Sorceries were to be cut off, and soothsayers. These had to do with the arts by which people thought they could get miraculous power of people and things, treading on the prerogatives of God. Soothsaying was a way of trying to gain miraculous information. These were to be eliminated to a higher and more spiritual faith life. Idols and aspects of idol worship were also to be eliminated. Standing images may refer to uncarved tree trunks or stones that were thought to hold spirits. Graven images referred to images that have been carved. Asherim were images of the mother goddess, who in the ancient religious belief was the consort of the god Baal. Asherim were associated with fertility rites.
You shall no longer worship the work of your own hands... this comment could be seen as tying together the theme of the two sections. Military might is a human work, as are the poles and images.
People would no longer bow down to the work of their own hands.
This has definite application to the pride of the modern world. What are the icons and lessons of pride? The Titanic? The shock when the Challenger exploded? For some parallel ideas, read Psalm 20:7 and Psalm 33:16-17
Verse 15 returns to an anti-foreign theme. Some scholars see it as displaced, belonging to the earlier element. One suggests it was added by an editor or scribe who couldn’t bear the thought of the only prophecy being against Israel’s disobedience. Some of the other prophetic books have this as a much stronger theme.
All of chapters 4 and 5 contain challenging alternating images of universal peace, restoration of the Hebrew remnant, peace, war, triumph, change and judgement. Many scholars do not believe much, if any of these chapters were by the original Micah. Yet they were placed together by an editor who thought they did fit together.
What do you think of these varying images? What message do you hear out of them? What questions?
Chapters 6-7 returns to material believed by scholars much of which to have been by the original Micah.
The passage begins with a call upon God to arise and plead the case against Israel. The maintains and hills were the jury. (Ecological themes were likely not in Micah’s mind, but perhaps could be applied in modern thought.)
God presents the case. What has God done to the people? Good! God brought them up from the land of Egypt, redeemed them from slavery, sent helpers in the form of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. The reference to Balak and Balaam refers to a later period than the Exodus. You may recall that Balak, king of the Moabites, wanted Balaam to throw a nasty and powerful curse against the Israelites. But Balaam refused, saying he could only curse what God wanted cursed, and bless what God wanted blessed. Shittim and Gilgal are more symbols of more saving acts. Shittim was the last post in the wilderness and Gilgal the first encampment is they entered the land.
One scholar sees 6-8 as a passage inserted on a different subject. However, if the first 5 verses are like the opening in a law case, the next verses might appear as the plea on the guilt box for how to respond, how to make things right. Burnt offerings? Thousands of rams? Rivers of oil? First born child? The last has been taken by some as an implication that human sacrifice was being practiced at the time. But if it was, it was not being done by the people as an approved part of the worship of Yahweh. There are reports of it. Jepthah made a vow and sacrificed his only daughter. Ahaz (735-715 b.c.) and Manasseh (687-642 b.c.) are both said to have sacrificed their own children. But Jeremiah reports God’s anger with human sacrifice: Jeremiah 7:30-1 does the same. When practiced, human sacrifice was a result of assimilation/influence of pagan practices.
What God wants justice, kindness and walking humbly with God. This seems like a remarkable thing to say about a god in those days. In ancient times, a god was seen as a powerful being whose support was achieved through sacrifices and loyalty. Yet here, the service that God wants is humility, justice and kindness. Sacrifice is diminished in importance here. Amos had already lifted this thought (Amos 5:21-5) and possibly earlier thinkers (I Samuel 15:22)
This is not to say that sacrifice was or is unimportant. The entire concept of sacrifice remains to this day. Not animal sacrifice, but the idea of offering of ourselves and our resources unto the same place that our hearts reside. In worship, the offering is the modern rendition of the ancient concept of sacrifice.
After this (verse 9), Micah returns to the issues of social justice. Wicked scales, deceitful weights. Through these verses, the punishment again fits the crime.
The reference to Omri and Ahab has to do with the royal dynasty in Israel (the northern kingdom after the time of Solomon). They were strong rulers, but viewed by the prophets and the faithful as outstanding in wickedness. (Ahab married Jezebel.) Since the southern kingdom had returned to the ways of these evil doers, they would fall.
Chapter 7 has the style of a lament. Woe is me! Life is compared to the situation of someone going out to find something in the vineyard or tree, longing for it, but nothing can be found. In the same way, is the search for the godly individual. It may remind us of the old story of Diogenes going out with his lantern in search for an honest man. Jeremiah would also go out an hunt through the streets of Jerusalem looking for a righteous man - Jeremiah 5:1. It is reminiscent also of legend of Lot or an angel bargaining with God to save the city if a certain number of righteous individuals were located. A TV movie was once made on the same theme called “Human Feelings.”
In verses 5-6 we encounter a VERY dismal picture where no one can trust anyone and there is conflict within neighbors, friendships, marriages, family and home. (One scholars says that Micah must have slipped into an abnormally depressed mood, since he usually seemed to have more faith in the humble poor. -- or at least, his prophecies are uttered more specifically against the rich and powerful. Did he think he was the only good person alive? If so, he would have surely came off as an unbearable prig. On the other hand, a less than perfect person can still hunt with hope in their heart for those who are better. Micah never claimed he was perfect, just that he was conveying God’s message.
All of these areas of endeavor and achievement might be subjects that the prophets, such as Micah, would find interest.
In Micah 5:7, comes an interesting image. The remnant of Jacob is compared to dew from the Lord. This soft, seemingly positve and gentle image of dew was used in I Samuel in the sense of powerful inevitability, which appears to be Micah’s intention here. Micah goes on in verses 8 & 9 to give a vision of the remnant of Israel becoming a strong nation, “like a young lion among the flocks of sheep.” Turn to verses 10-11 and we hear of God’s destruction of military installations and resources. Horses cut off, also the chariots and the cities of the land. In Palestine of that time, horses only had military application. The donkey was the animal of peace. Cities were strongholds, fortresses. As they were associated, therefore, with war, they were to be banished. (This idea seems to accord with the words of 4:1-4). People would not rely on the military (a human achievement).
Verse 12-14 goes on to the subject of religious righteousness. Sorceries were to be cut off, and soothsayers. These had to do with the arts by which people thought they could get miraculous power of people and things, treading on the prerogatives of God. Soothsaying was a way of trying to gain miraculous information. These were to be eliminated to a higher and more spiritual faith life. Idols and aspects of idol worship were also to be eliminated. Standing images may refer to uncarved tree trunks or stones that were thought to hold spirits. Graven images referred to images that have been carved. Asherim were images of the mother goddess, who in the ancient religious belief was the consort of the god Baal. Asherim were associated with fertility rites.
You shall no longer worship the work of your own hands... this comment could be seen as tying together the theme of the two sections. Military might is a human work, as are the poles and images.
People would no longer bow down to the work of their own hands.
This has definite application to the pride of the modern world. What are the icons and lessons of pride? The Titanic? The shock when the Challenger exploded? For some parallel ideas, read Psalm 20:7 and Psalm 33:16-17
Verse 15 returns to an anti-foreign theme. Some scholars see it as displaced, belonging to the earlier element. One suggests it was added by an editor or scribe who couldn’t bear the thought of the only prophecy being against Israel’s disobedience. Some of the other prophetic books have this as a much stronger theme.
All of chapters 4 and 5 contain challenging alternating images of universal peace, restoration of the Hebrew remnant, peace, war, triumph, change and judgement. Many scholars do not believe much, if any of these chapters were by the original Micah. Yet they were placed together by an editor who thought they did fit together.
What do you think of these varying images? What message do you hear out of them? What questions?
Chapters 6-7 returns to material believed by scholars much of which to have been by the original Micah.
The passage begins with a call upon God to arise and plead the case against Israel. The maintains and hills were the jury. (Ecological themes were likely not in Micah’s mind, but perhaps could be applied in modern thought.)
God presents the case. What has God done to the people? Good! God brought them up from the land of Egypt, redeemed them from slavery, sent helpers in the form of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. The reference to Balak and Balaam refers to a later period than the Exodus. You may recall that Balak, king of the Moabites, wanted Balaam to throw a nasty and powerful curse against the Israelites. But Balaam refused, saying he could only curse what God wanted cursed, and bless what God wanted blessed. Shittim and Gilgal are more symbols of more saving acts. Shittim was the last post in the wilderness and Gilgal the first encampment is they entered the land.
One scholar sees 6-8 as a passage inserted on a different subject. However, if the first 5 verses are like the opening in a law case, the next verses might appear as the plea on the guilt box for how to respond, how to make things right. Burnt offerings? Thousands of rams? Rivers of oil? First born child? The last has been taken by some as an implication that human sacrifice was being practiced at the time. But if it was, it was not being done by the people as an approved part of the worship of Yahweh. There are reports of it. Jepthah made a vow and sacrificed his only daughter. Ahaz (735-715 b.c.) and Manasseh (687-642 b.c.) are both said to have sacrificed their own children. But Jeremiah reports God’s anger with human sacrifice: Jeremiah 7:30-1 does the same. When practiced, human sacrifice was a result of assimilation/influence of pagan practices.
What God wants justice, kindness and walking humbly with God. This seems like a remarkable thing to say about a god in those days. In ancient times, a god was seen as a powerful being whose support was achieved through sacrifices and loyalty. Yet here, the service that God wants is humility, justice and kindness. Sacrifice is diminished in importance here. Amos had already lifted this thought (Amos 5:21-5) and possibly earlier thinkers (I Samuel 15:22)
This is not to say that sacrifice was or is unimportant. The entire concept of sacrifice remains to this day. Not animal sacrifice, but the idea of offering of ourselves and our resources unto the same place that our hearts reside. In worship, the offering is the modern rendition of the ancient concept of sacrifice.
After this (verse 9), Micah returns to the issues of social justice. Wicked scales, deceitful weights. Through these verses, the punishment again fits the crime.
The reference to Omri and Ahab has to do with the royal dynasty in Israel (the northern kingdom after the time of Solomon). They were strong rulers, but viewed by the prophets and the faithful as outstanding in wickedness. (Ahab married Jezebel.) Since the southern kingdom had returned to the ways of these evil doers, they would fall.
Chapter 7 has the style of a lament. Woe is me! Life is compared to the situation of someone going out to find something in the vineyard or tree, longing for it, but nothing can be found. In the same way, is the search for the godly individual. It may remind us of the old story of Diogenes going out with his lantern in search for an honest man. Jeremiah would also go out an hunt through the streets of Jerusalem looking for a righteous man - Jeremiah 5:1. It is reminiscent also of legend of Lot or an angel bargaining with God to save the city if a certain number of righteous individuals were located. A TV movie was once made on the same theme called “Human Feelings.”
In verses 5-6 we encounter a VERY dismal picture where no one can trust anyone and there is conflict within neighbors, friendships, marriages, family and home. (One scholars says that Micah must have slipped into an abnormally depressed mood, since he usually seemed to have more faith in the humble poor. -- or at least, his prophecies are uttered more specifically against the rich and powerful. Did he think he was the only good person alive? If so, he would have surely came off as an unbearable prig. On the other hand, a less than perfect person can still hunt with hope in their heart for those who are better. Micah never claimed he was perfect, just that he was conveying God’s message.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Micah - 04
We come now to chapters four and five. These chapters are believed by many scholars to be from authors other than the original Micah. Those who want to claim Micah was the author of the entire book see these chapters as a response to the threatened invasion by the Assyrians under Sennacherib in 701 bc. The reference to Babylon would have to be a later addition (possibly to make the prophecies more relevant to another generation) as Babylon would have made little sense to the people of Micah’s day. The issue is not whether a prophet can “predict” the future with God’s help, but the fact that the reference to Babylon would have made no sense to those who heard Micah.
The chapters are a radical departure from the themes and mood of the first three chapters. Rather than the stern calling for justice, they are words of hope for the future and contain themes generally thought to belong to later generations. Putting later prophesies under someone else’s name would not have been considered inappropriate in that time. The words of the biblical prophets clearly found significance in times other than their own and became living documents to share God’s word. New writers, with new inspiration might have added new dimensions. If understanding the chapters as from later authors helps us gain insight and grow spiritually, this is where the historical question becomes most important.
Some review (Micah 03 covered some of this)
Micah 4:1-4 – a great vision of a future time when all peoples would acknowledge God, all nations would have their disputes peaceably settled by God, all individuals would live in peace and safety.
Verse 5 – appears to be a objection or alternate point of view to the first 4 verses, suggesting idea that pagans would continue to worship their own Gods, but the people of Israel would be faithful to Yahweh.
Some scholars have suggested that this verse was inserted as a statement by someone who thought the preceding was an unrealistic dream. (i.e. he/she was saying, Oh, well, other nations will worship other gods, but we’ll stay faithful). One commentary says it is a flat contradiction of the first four verses in the chapter. This scholar asserts that the verse is saying that paganism is proper for pagans and that Yahweh is for Israel alone. It is true that there was a division of thought amongst the people of Judaism. Some believed that the news of God should be shared with the nations, others believe their faith was to keep for themselves. Christians likely have a bias for the first position (sharing/witness). Jesus was clearly of the school that the news of God should be shared.
A question could be raised as to what the author intended verse 5 to be saying. Is it possible that the author was stepping into the “present” and referring to Israelite calling to remain a light to the nations? In other words, saying ‘this sounds unrealistic, this sounds too good to be true, but it’s God’s promise and in the meantime, we’ll be faithful’?
Micah 4:6- - has subtle differences from 1-4. Jerusalem becomes less of a center from which God will instruct a peaceful world, but the core of a mighty nation. The former dominion, the former sovereignty – probably a reference to an ideal return to political power as in the days of David and Solomon, (re authorship and date, this would indicate a time after the people were taken into exile.)
The reference to the king may indicate that the king has not yet been removed from his throne. However he may be unable to do anything to help in this situation. (Question: scholar here assumes the “king” is an earthly king, but since God is also considered to be the king, what change in meaning would that give these verses?)
4:11 - This verse could describe the period of 516-445 b.c. Jerusalem was destroyed in 485 b.c. Persia was determined there would be no restoration of monarchy in Israel and the neighboring nations also harassed the Hebrews to keep them from power.
Every time progress was made on restoring Jerusalem, they would destroy it. About 445 Nehemiah came from Babylon, feeling the need to help his home country (he’d never been there) and found the people dispirited and under fire. (See Nehemiah 1:3; 4:16-20) But if the other nations believed they could keep the Hebrews down, they weren’t including Yahweh in their calculations. (The class mentioned the two saysings concerning ‘man proposes, God disposes’ and the one about making plans and hearing God laugh.
Israel’s ruler shall be struck on the cheek with a rod: - could be a possibility referring to a ritual known to have taken place in Babylon, and possibly in Israel. This was the New Year’s festival when the king at one point has his crown and royal dress taken away and is struck on the cheek by a priest. If this verse is referring to such a ritual, the verse that follows is the natural follow-up predicting success for the king. If these verse are pre-exilic, the author probably had no Messianic ideas (as in a future ideal ruler).
Rolland Wolfe suggests that these verses refer to the chaotic times after the fall of the monarchy. Judges, like the time before the monarchy, would have been the last stand of civil authority. Yet the surrounding powers were trying to destroy them and any government among the Jewish communities. (Attacking local civic government has happened before in US history. It was not unknown during the civil war for courthouses, for example, to be burned.)
5:2b-5a begings with a verse/image is often cited at Advent and Christmas. Matthew tells the story of the Wise Men quoting Micah 5:2 when they answer Herod’s question about where the Messiah will be born. Scholars indicate that the author probably did not have the Messiah in mind, but a ruler from the line of David who would restore the monarchy. Later people of faith saw Messianic messages in it (the scriptures having the power to speak to many generations).
In 5:5b- Nimrod – son of Cush (in the bible I Chronicles 1:10 giving the descendents of Ham -... “Cush became the father of Nimrod, he was the first to be a mighty one on earth.” Also mentioned in Genesis 10:8-9) He was famous as a great hunter, also for his kingdom on Mesopotamia, one of the major cities of which was Babel (Babylon). He was associated also with Asshur and Nineveh (the city that Jonah was called to prophesy to... the prophet Nahum said of Ninevah: "Woe to the bloody city, all full of lies and booty." Assyria was once called the “land of Nimrod as the poetic parallelism here in Micah illustrates.
The reference to seven shepherds and eight installed as rulers could in one scholar’s opinion reflect thethe time of 218 - 198 b.c. and the conquest of Palestine by Antiochus III. The seven shepherds and eight princes of men could refer to the coalition of leaders known as the Maccabean coalition. The Maccabeans joined together after the temple was plundered in 170 b.c.
Some themes to consider in these passages.
Vs 4:9-5:5a - Childbirth was at the time without pain medications or modern aids. It is interesting, for one thing as a realization of the difficulties of childbirth (in one South American culture, death in childbirth was held in the same honor and class as death in battle). But birth labor is also a productive labor. Could the image be of travail producing something good in the long run? Go to 5:3 and it is seen that the childbirth here is productive. The woman here (IB) is Israel who with God’s help would be successful in giving birth to a king who would restore the nation and the monarchy.
What do you think of these images of childbirth, travail, hard labor, productivity?
Remnant Theology: -
"...the lame I will make the remnant,,,"--Scholars think this might have been written during the exile, looking to a return from exile. The lame, those driven away...makes an accurate picture of what exile must have been like. And in the beginning, it was likely true both physically as well as mentally and spiritually. War leaves many maimed. Even those physically whole would have been driven across the countryside and would have arrived limping and sore.
The idea is that God will take a remnant and make them into a strong nation.
WHAT OTHER THEMES CAN YOU THINK OF THAT SHOW GOD’S POWER USING THE SMALL, THE WEAK?
Peace vs Vengeance/violence
4:12 stands in stark contrast to the images and hope of the first verses in the chapter. People of Jewish and Christian traditions have often struggled with the alternating images in the scriptures and with what feels like unavoidable requirement for violent solutions to world problems.
How do you respond to these radically alternate visions in Micah?
The chapters are a radical departure from the themes and mood of the first three chapters. Rather than the stern calling for justice, they are words of hope for the future and contain themes generally thought to belong to later generations. Putting later prophesies under someone else’s name would not have been considered inappropriate in that time. The words of the biblical prophets clearly found significance in times other than their own and became living documents to share God’s word. New writers, with new inspiration might have added new dimensions. If understanding the chapters as from later authors helps us gain insight and grow spiritually, this is where the historical question becomes most important.
Some review (Micah 03 covered some of this)
Micah 4:1-4 – a great vision of a future time when all peoples would acknowledge God, all nations would have their disputes peaceably settled by God, all individuals would live in peace and safety.
Verse 5 – appears to be a objection or alternate point of view to the first 4 verses, suggesting idea that pagans would continue to worship their own Gods, but the people of Israel would be faithful to Yahweh.
Some scholars have suggested that this verse was inserted as a statement by someone who thought the preceding was an unrealistic dream. (i.e. he/she was saying, Oh, well, other nations will worship other gods, but we’ll stay faithful). One commentary says it is a flat contradiction of the first four verses in the chapter. This scholar asserts that the verse is saying that paganism is proper for pagans and that Yahweh is for Israel alone. It is true that there was a division of thought amongst the people of Judaism. Some believed that the news of God should be shared with the nations, others believe their faith was to keep for themselves. Christians likely have a bias for the first position (sharing/witness). Jesus was clearly of the school that the news of God should be shared.
A question could be raised as to what the author intended verse 5 to be saying. Is it possible that the author was stepping into the “present” and referring to Israelite calling to remain a light to the nations? In other words, saying ‘this sounds unrealistic, this sounds too good to be true, but it’s God’s promise and in the meantime, we’ll be faithful’?
At Tuesday’s session, we discussed this and the question of calling/wtness and the Christian perspective. Although he focused his ministry to his own people, Jesus seems to have the perspective that sharing news of God is important.
Micah 4:6- - has subtle differences from 1-4. Jerusalem becomes less of a center from which God will instruct a peaceful world, but the core of a mighty nation. The former dominion, the former sovereignty – probably a reference to an ideal return to political power as in the days of David and Solomon, (re authorship and date, this would indicate a time after the people were taken into exile.)
The reference to the king may indicate that the king has not yet been removed from his throne. However he may be unable to do anything to help in this situation. (Question: scholar here assumes the “king” is an earthly king, but since God is also considered to be the king, what change in meaning would that give these verses?)
4:11 - This verse could describe the period of 516-445 b.c. Jerusalem was destroyed in 485 b.c. Persia was determined there would be no restoration of monarchy in Israel and the neighboring nations also harassed the Hebrews to keep them from power.
Every time progress was made on restoring Jerusalem, they would destroy it. About 445 Nehemiah came from Babylon, feeling the need to help his home country (he’d never been there) and found the people dispirited and under fire. (See Nehemiah 1:3; 4:16-20) But if the other nations believed they could keep the Hebrews down, they weren’t including Yahweh in their calculations. (The class mentioned the two saysings concerning ‘man proposes, God disposes’ and the one about making plans and hearing God laugh.
Israel’s ruler shall be struck on the cheek with a rod: - could be a possibility referring to a ritual known to have taken place in Babylon, and possibly in Israel. This was the New Year’s festival when the king at one point has his crown and royal dress taken away and is struck on the cheek by a priest. If this verse is referring to such a ritual, the verse that follows is the natural follow-up predicting success for the king. If these verse are pre-exilic, the author probably had no Messianic ideas (as in a future ideal ruler).
Rolland Wolfe suggests that these verses refer to the chaotic times after the fall of the monarchy. Judges, like the time before the monarchy, would have been the last stand of civil authority. Yet the surrounding powers were trying to destroy them and any government among the Jewish communities. (Attacking local civic government has happened before in US history. It was not unknown during the civil war for courthouses, for example, to be burned.)
5:2b-5a begings with a verse/image is often cited at Advent and Christmas. Matthew tells the story of the Wise Men quoting Micah 5:2 when they answer Herod’s question about where the Messiah will be born. Scholars indicate that the author probably did not have the Messiah in mind, but a ruler from the line of David who would restore the monarchy. Later people of faith saw Messianic messages in it (the scriptures having the power to speak to many generations).
The images, as the class discussed, are a little conflicted. The one born in Bethlehem is described as the one of peace. But passages shortly afterwards talk of vengeance against enemies. In discussion, the class considered the difficulties the people were experiencing and how it is not to want to see enemies destroyed and perhaps the alternating images through this section of Micah presents us with the importance of questions about dealing with human nature, our calling as people of faith, and the vitality of having a vision for something God wants.
In 5:5b- Nimrod – son of Cush (in the bible I Chronicles 1:10 giving the descendents of Ham -... “Cush became the father of Nimrod, he was the first to be a mighty one on earth.” Also mentioned in Genesis 10:8-9) He was famous as a great hunter, also for his kingdom on Mesopotamia, one of the major cities of which was Babel (Babylon). He was associated also with Asshur and Nineveh (the city that Jonah was called to prophesy to... the prophet Nahum said of Ninevah: "Woe to the bloody city, all full of lies and booty." Assyria was once called the “land of Nimrod as the poetic parallelism here in Micah illustrates.
The reference to seven shepherds and eight installed as rulers could in one scholar’s opinion reflect thethe time of 218 - 198 b.c. and the conquest of Palestine by Antiochus III. The seven shepherds and eight princes of men could refer to the coalition of leaders known as the Maccabean coalition. The Maccabeans joined together after the temple was plundered in 170 b.c.
Some themes to consider in these passages.
Childbirth – woman in travail
Vs 4:9-5:5a - Childbirth was at the time without pain medications or modern aids. It is interesting, for one thing as a realization of the difficulties of childbirth (in one South American culture, death in childbirth was held in the same honor and class as death in battle). But birth labor is also a productive labor. Could the image be of travail producing something good in the long run? Go to 5:3 and it is seen that the childbirth here is productive. The woman here (IB) is Israel who with God’s help would be successful in giving birth to a king who would restore the nation and the monarchy.
What do you think of these images of childbirth, travail, hard labor, productivity?
Remnant Theology: -
"...the lame I will make the remnant,,,"--Scholars think this might have been written during the exile, looking to a return from exile. The lame, those driven away...makes an accurate picture of what exile must have been like. And in the beginning, it was likely true both physically as well as mentally and spiritually. War leaves many maimed. Even those physically whole would have been driven across the countryside and would have arrived limping and sore.
The idea is that God will take a remnant and make them into a strong nation.
WHAT OTHER THEMES CAN YOU THINK OF THAT SHOW GOD’S POWER USING THE SMALL, THE WEAK?
Some anti-Jewish Christians, unfortunately, used a form of “remnant” theology to suggest that the remnant was the church and everyone else in Judaism is condemned.
Peace vs Vengeance/violence
4:12 stands in stark contrast to the images and hope of the first verses in the chapter. People of Jewish and Christian traditions have often struggled with the alternating images in the scriptures and with what feels like unavoidable requirement for violent solutions to world problems.
How do you respond to these radically alternate visions in Micah?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Micah - 03
The following are notes on the third chapter of Micah and the first portion of the fourth. Because we respect copyrights, we have not printed the scriptures here. Please use the translation of your choice to follow along.
Micah 3:1
Heads of Jacob – those prominent in civil life
Rulers of the house of Israel – governmental personnel
In the ancient near east, rulers were often spoken of as shepherds. There was, therefore, a sense that the ruler had some responsibility for the welfare of their people. But Israel’s leaders did not protect the people, making it easy for land-grabbers and other oppressors to make their lives miserable.
Micah has a clear and unshakeable belief in justice and righteousness. Amos who lived earlier (and 20 miles from Micah’s home) had the same emphasis. Micah applies it here specifically to people in leadership.
Micah 3:2b-4
These graphic, almost savage verses, express Micah’s deep outrage at what is happening to the poor. Micah here continues his prophecy of equitable punishment. They “cry” to the Lord – that is they will pray. But since they gave no help to the people, they will receive none.
Those who were exploiting the poor and practicing injustice still considered themselves to be religious and likely thanked God for their bounty. But God’s opinion is not the same as human opinion. Those who practice injustice are not faithful to God, who (in Micah’s human terms) cannot bear to “look” at people (hiding of face) who make religion into a perverted mockery.
Micah, along with Amos and other prophets, see religion as something that doesn’t stop with rituals, but must be present in daily activities.
Micah 3:5
In the previous verses, it is the official leaders of the people that Micah targeted. Here he turns to the men of the prophetic guilds. They would cry “peace” when it profited them. Jeremiah experienced the same. In his book he speaks of those who treat the wounds of the people with callous disregard saying peace when there is no peace. (see Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11)
Because their words had influence, Micah saw the seers, etc. as particularly guilty. When it profited them, they gave comforting words. But if someone couldn’t afford to pay them, or refused to do so out of principle, they took vengeance. Therefore, Micah speaks a dark word against them.
Micah 3:6 –7
Cover their lips – One scholar says this might refer to putting their beards up over their heads to hide their faces out of shame. Another notes that covering the lips is a ritual of mourning. Note that in standing against their profiteering, Micah must have made himself a target as well. He strengthened himself through the Spirit of the Lord and his passion for justice.
Micah 3:8
Biblical prophets did not practice “humility” in the sense we think of it today, but had to defend themselves against opponents by asserting their status as authentic speakers of God’s word.
Issue to think about: Today we hear many competing voices that claim to speak for God – How do we distinguish between them?
Micah returns to the leadership of the people in verse 9 and speaks more about religious leaders.
Micah 3:9-11
Zion is a poetic variation for Jerusalem. The American Heritage dictionary defines it variously as the Jewish people or the Jewish homeland as a symbol for Judaism. Can also be a place or faith community that is devoted to God or an idealized community. One rousing chorus sings: “We’re marching to Zion, beautiful, beautiful Zion... – probably in the hymn it stands for the idealized community.
"Zionism” refers to a plan or movement of the Jewish people in the diaspora (dispersion) to return to Palestine. This is a post-exilic concern, not connected with Micah’s time. His passion is for the fact that “Zion” is filled with injustice, neither religious nor idyllic.
The corrupt society in that century is seen through the eyes of Micah and other prophets, Isaiah, Amos and Hosea. Here the specific corruption Micah targets is bribery. The leaders are so corrupt that they can be bribed, its priests are also motivated by money as are the professional prophets.
However, people are unaware that they are offending God. They believe God is with them and disaster cannot fall upon them.
The fourth chapter begins a section that most scholars seem to regard as not by Micah. Micah has gone through phases of scholarly interest. One was to try to identify those portions that were definitively Micah’s. Another was to identify the historical settings. One scholar says now that the trend is to look at it as a whole, to understand the vision of the later editor that put the various portions together. Scholars say that 2-4 authors might have had a hand in this section of Micah. There seems to be parallels with Isaiah 40:1-11 (probably also a different writer from Isaiah 1-39 and sometimes referred to as Second Isaiah.)
The vision represented in chapter 4 is not an “end-time” age. That idea only developed in the 2-3 centuries before the birth of Jesus. Micah’s vision is within history for a time coming when all people will follow God. It isn’t idyllic in the sense that there will be no disagreements, but the disputes will not be violent. The author moves from national images to the individual life.
In literary terms, note the poetic form or parallel synonyms.
The fourth chapter of Micah, verse 1-4 are almost a duplicate of 2:2-4. One scholars scholar suggests that neither Isaiah nor Micah originated this oracle, but that it was generally known, and the editor could draw upon it.
Jerusalem here is not the scene of political domination, but of spiritual truth. Beyond this, envisioned is a world where no one practices domination.
Micah 4:5 is an interesting statement in the midst of the vision.
Some scholars have suggested that this verse was inserted as a statement by someone who thought the preceding was an unrealistic dream. (i.e. he/she was saying, Oh, well, other nations will worship other gods, but we’ll stay faithful). One commentary says it is a flat contradiction of the first four verses in the chapter. This scholar asserts that the verse is saying that paganism is proper for pagans and that Yahweh is for Israel alone. It is true that there was a division of thought amongst the people of Judaism. Some believed that the news of God should be shared with the nations, others believe their faith was to keep for themselves. Christians likely have a bias for the first position (sharing/witness). Jesus was clearly of the school that the news of God should be shared.
A question could be raised as to what the author intended verse 5 to be saying. Is it possible that the author was stepping into the “present” and referring to Israelite calling to remain a light to the nations? In other words, saying ‘this sounds unrealistic, this sounds too good to be true, but it’s God’s promise and in the meantime, we’ll be faithful’?
Other ideas?
Looking Ahead:
Micah 4:6- - has subtle differences from 1-4. Jerusalem becomes less of a center from which God will instruct a peaceful world, but the core of a mighty nation.
Micah 3:1
Heads of Jacob – those prominent in civil life
Rulers of the house of Israel – governmental personnel
In the ancient near east, rulers were often spoken of as shepherds. There was, therefore, a sense that the ruler had some responsibility for the welfare of their people. But Israel’s leaders did not protect the people, making it easy for land-grabbers and other oppressors to make their lives miserable.
Micah has a clear and unshakeable belief in justice and righteousness. Amos who lived earlier (and 20 miles from Micah’s home) had the same emphasis. Micah applies it here specifically to people in leadership.
See Amos 2:6-7; 5:7, 10-11, 15, 24; 8:4-7 for similar themes of justice
Note, in the verses from Amos that the gate is the place of public meeting and anyone who lifts a voice in protest at the treatment of the poor is met with hatred and abhorrence.
Micah 3:2b-4
These graphic, almost savage verses, express Micah’s deep outrage at what is happening to the poor. Micah here continues his prophecy of equitable punishment. They “cry” to the Lord – that is they will pray. But since they gave no help to the people, they will receive none.
Those who were exploiting the poor and practicing injustice still considered themselves to be religious and likely thanked God for their bounty. But God’s opinion is not the same as human opinion. Those who practice injustice are not faithful to God, who (in Micah’s human terms) cannot bear to “look” at people (hiding of face) who make religion into a perverted mockery.
Micah, along with Amos and other prophets, see religion as something that doesn’t stop with rituals, but must be present in daily activities.
Micah 3:5
In the previous verses, it is the official leaders of the people that Micah targeted. Here he turns to the men of the prophetic guilds. They would cry “peace” when it profited them. Jeremiah experienced the same. In his book he speaks of those who treat the wounds of the people with callous disregard saying peace when there is no peace. (see Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11)
Because their words had influence, Micah saw the seers, etc. as particularly guilty. When it profited them, they gave comforting words. But if someone couldn’t afford to pay them, or refused to do so out of principle, they took vengeance. Therefore, Micah speaks a dark word against them.
Micah 3:6 –7
Cover their lips – One scholar says this might refer to putting their beards up over their heads to hide their faces out of shame. Another notes that covering the lips is a ritual of mourning. Note that in standing against their profiteering, Micah must have made himself a target as well. He strengthened himself through the Spirit of the Lord and his passion for justice.
Micah 3:8
Biblical prophets did not practice “humility” in the sense we think of it today, but had to defend themselves against opponents by asserting their status as authentic speakers of God’s word.
Issue to think about: Today we hear many competing voices that claim to speak for God – How do we distinguish between them?
Micah returns to the leadership of the people in verse 9 and speaks more about religious leaders.
Micah 3:9-11
Zion is a poetic variation for Jerusalem. The American Heritage dictionary defines it variously as the Jewish people or the Jewish homeland as a symbol for Judaism. Can also be a place or faith community that is devoted to God or an idealized community. One rousing chorus sings: “We’re marching to Zion, beautiful, beautiful Zion... – probably in the hymn it stands for the idealized community.
"Zionism” refers to a plan or movement of the Jewish people in the diaspora (dispersion) to return to Palestine. This is a post-exilic concern, not connected with Micah’s time. His passion is for the fact that “Zion” is filled with injustice, neither religious nor idyllic.
The corrupt society in that century is seen through the eyes of Micah and other prophets, Isaiah, Amos and Hosea. Here the specific corruption Micah targets is bribery. The leaders are so corrupt that they can be bribed, its priests are also motivated by money as are the professional prophets.
However, people are unaware that they are offending God. They believe God is with them and disaster cannot fall upon them.
The fourth chapter begins a section that most scholars seem to regard as not by Micah. Micah has gone through phases of scholarly interest. One was to try to identify those portions that were definitively Micah’s. Another was to identify the historical settings. One scholar says now that the trend is to look at it as a whole, to understand the vision of the later editor that put the various portions together. Scholars say that 2-4 authors might have had a hand in this section of Micah. There seems to be parallels with Isaiah 40:1-11 (probably also a different writer from Isaiah 1-39 and sometimes referred to as Second Isaiah.)
The vision represented in chapter 4 is not an “end-time” age. That idea only developed in the 2-3 centuries before the birth of Jesus. Micah’s vision is within history for a time coming when all people will follow God. It isn’t idyllic in the sense that there will be no disagreements, but the disputes will not be violent. The author moves from national images to the individual life.
In literary terms, note the poetic form or parallel synonyms.
The fourth chapter of Micah, verse 1-4 are almost a duplicate of 2:2-4. One scholars scholar suggests that neither Isaiah nor Micah originated this oracle, but that it was generally known, and the editor could draw upon it.
Jerusalem here is not the scene of political domination, but of spiritual truth. Beyond this, envisioned is a world where no one practices domination.
Micah 4:5 is an interesting statement in the midst of the vision.
Some scholars have suggested that this verse was inserted as a statement by someone who thought the preceding was an unrealistic dream. (i.e. he/she was saying, Oh, well, other nations will worship other gods, but we’ll stay faithful). One commentary says it is a flat contradiction of the first four verses in the chapter. This scholar asserts that the verse is saying that paganism is proper for pagans and that Yahweh is for Israel alone. It is true that there was a division of thought amongst the people of Judaism. Some believed that the news of God should be shared with the nations, others believe their faith was to keep for themselves. Christians likely have a bias for the first position (sharing/witness). Jesus was clearly of the school that the news of God should be shared.
A question could be raised as to what the author intended verse 5 to be saying. Is it possible that the author was stepping into the “present” and referring to Israelite calling to remain a light to the nations? In other words, saying ‘this sounds unrealistic, this sounds too good to be true, but it’s God’s promise and in the meantime, we’ll be faithful’?
Other ideas?
Looking Ahead:
Micah 4:6- - has subtle differences from 1-4. Jerusalem becomes less of a center from which God will instruct a peaceful world, but the core of a mighty nation.
Friday, November 5, 2010
November 2, 2010
Sorry this wasn't posted on the 3rd. We are taking a week "in-between." A new posting will be up next week on the 10th. Have a good week.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Micah 02
Micah Chapter 2:1 - 3:4
Micah gets into some of the specifics of the actions of the people. Like Amos, Micah had a special concern for social justice. Scholar Simundson suggests we look at how Micah tends to match crimes and punishment – the condition inflicted by evildoers will rebound upon themselves.
Vs 1 “Alas” – commonly used in mourning laments and also in prophetic literature.
Graphic image of those who plan their greed in bed, then rise to exercise unjust power. What they are doing is expressed in the second verse.
vs. 2 Israel was originally set up to keep land holdings small and within families. If money was needed, family was to redeem the land and all land was supposed to be returned at the time of Jubilee to original family. But this was a law that was mostly disregarded. The country was turning into a place of large estates owned by a few, with landless and powerless population.
(parallel concern in Isaiah 5:8 concerning those who “join house to house, who add field to field”
One way in which land was taken is the story of Ahab, Jezebel and Naboth. I Kings 21.
Regarding land and ownership: See also Joshua 14-21.
God was seen as the true owner of the land, but it was apportioned as a sacred trust among tribes and families, who were to hand it down to each generation. The ideal for Israel was a nation of free landholders—not sharecroppers or hired workers on great estates.
The concept of Stewardship is here very important. The steward cares for the King/Lord/owner’s land and belongings.
The Jubilee law, etc. were all intended to protect this stewardship, to protect individual family “ownership,” thereby also protecting the health and prosperity of all, rather than the few and the ruthless. This form of economic security fostered things such as such as justice, family ties, etc.
Regarding suffering: some people believe that everything that happens is according to God’s will. Micah here makes it plain that the things happening in Israel are not according to God’s will. God will punish these people who are acting in this way. Here in vs 5 may be an awareness by Micah that some of the innocent may suffer along with the guilty. These kinds of issues have always been difficult for people of faith to address. I..e – why do the innocent suffer? (We ask God that, but considering the abilities God has given us, the ones we should be asking might be ourselves).
Although we do not have the same ideas about land, what kinds of injustice might Micah pinpoint today?
Micah 2:6 (gives some of the response of the people – remember that Micah and his fellow prophets of the 8th century b.c. were working against the tide of popular opinion.) Micah reports their reaction to his preaching.
Vs 7 - House of Jacob refers to the whole Hebrew people. Micah asks these questions. (Are these his doings? – one scholar interprets the “doings” as the injustices, etc., taking place. The implication is then that just because God has in freedom allowed these conditions to continue is not an indication that God approves of them.
Do not my words do good... An awareness that not all who hear Micah’s words are doing evil. These words will do them no harm, only those who are doing wrong.
Vs 8 –9 After answering those who may are upset with his discourse, Micah returns to his theme. The widow and the fatherless were special concerns of the prophets, for they were among the most helpless and powerless of society. Micah may have been referring to them, or to women and children generally. Children – the great asset of the future. But a whole generation of children was being pushed into misery and deprivation. A lost generation – what effect does it have upon a nation?
Vs 10 - Scholars see this as another reference to the coming punishment, their removal from the land. (The word for “rest) menhuha) has a specific use in conjunction with the promised land. It takes the form of meaning “inheritance.
Vs 11 - Some scholars see this as a fragment of Micah’s words that weren’t originally associated with the earlier statements. Yet it does fit with the earlier quotation from his detractors who didn’t want him to preach the kind of things he was saying. There were “false” prophets at the time who only said the things that made people feel happy and self-satisfied with the way things were going.
Vs 12 –13. Shifts to a word of hope. As a consequence Some scholars think these might not be Micah’s words.
Scholarship on Micah has gone through cycles. One way has been to separate out all the parts that are believed to be his original words, another has been to see the book as a whole – partly the work of Micah, partly the work of other prophets, all put together by an inspired editor of a later period who didn’t speak from the time of Micah, but from the overall picture of both judgement and promise.
A brief revew was made of the first portion of chapter 3, verses 1-4. These verses employ graphic and unpleasant images that are metaphors for what Micah sees the powerful doing to the powerless people around them.
Micah gets into some of the specifics of the actions of the people. Like Amos, Micah had a special concern for social justice. Scholar Simundson suggests we look at how Micah tends to match crimes and punishment – the condition inflicted by evildoers will rebound upon themselves.
Vs 1 “Alas” – commonly used in mourning laments and also in prophetic literature.
Graphic image of those who plan their greed in bed, then rise to exercise unjust power. What they are doing is expressed in the second verse.
vs. 2 Israel was originally set up to keep land holdings small and within families. If money was needed, family was to redeem the land and all land was supposed to be returned at the time of Jubilee to original family. But this was a law that was mostly disregarded. The country was turning into a place of large estates owned by a few, with landless and powerless population.
(parallel concern in Isaiah 5:8 concerning those who “join house to house, who add field to field”
One way in which land was taken is the story of Ahab, Jezebel and Naboth. I Kings 21.
Regarding land and ownership: See also Joshua 14-21.
God was seen as the true owner of the land, but it was apportioned as a sacred trust among tribes and families, who were to hand it down to each generation. The ideal for Israel was a nation of free landholders—not sharecroppers or hired workers on great estates.
The concept of Stewardship is here very important. The steward cares for the King/Lord/owner’s land and belongings.
JRR Tolkien (a Christian who expressed experiences relating to faith in his writings) used the concept of stewardship in the Steward of Gondor. Being the Steward of Gondor was a high and honorable position. But the story’s character, Boromir, had asked his father who was then steward how long it took for a steward to become a king, when the king was absent. His father told him that with lesser kingdoms, perhaps a few generations. But with the great kingdom of Gondor, there would never come a time when the steward could take that place.
The Jubilee law, etc. were all intended to protect this stewardship, to protect individual family “ownership,” thereby also protecting the health and prosperity of all, rather than the few and the ruthless. This form of economic security fostered things such as such as justice, family ties, etc.
In considering the words of Micah concerning the actions of the powerful in society, especially the way land and security was being taken from people, the class commented on parallels in the modern age.
Vs 3 – 5 are a pronouncement of judgement. As the evil-doers devised plans for their greed, God is devising plans for them. The land they grabbed will be parceled out to others. They will lose their place in the assembly, essentially being cut off from economic and religious life.Regarding suffering: some people believe that everything that happens is according to God’s will. Micah here makes it plain that the things happening in Israel are not according to God’s will. God will punish these people who are acting in this way. Here in vs 5 may be an awareness by Micah that some of the innocent may suffer along with the guilty. These kinds of issues have always been difficult for people of faith to address. I..e – why do the innocent suffer? (We ask God that, but considering the abilities God has given us, the ones we should be asking might be ourselves).
Although we do not have the same ideas about land, what kinds of injustice might Micah pinpoint today?
Micah 2:6 (gives some of the response of the people – remember that Micah and his fellow prophets of the 8th century b.c. were working against the tide of popular opinion.) Micah reports their reaction to his preaching.
Vs 7 - House of Jacob refers to the whole Hebrew people. Micah asks these questions. (Are these his doings? – one scholar interprets the “doings” as the injustices, etc., taking place. The implication is then that just because God has in freedom allowed these conditions to continue is not an indication that God approves of them.
Do not my words do good... An awareness that not all who hear Micah’s words are doing evil. These words will do them no harm, only those who are doing wrong.
John Godfrey Saxe tells a story that is found in many forms in various The wise elephant tried to help the other animals and saw many needs for reform. He humbly called them together and talked about problems such as laziness, cruelty, selfishness, envy and dissension. The gentle dove, the faithful dog, the obedient camel and the hard-working ant and others listened carefully and thought about how they could improve themselves. But others were quite offended. The cruel tiger and the violent wolf grew angry. The poisonous serpent hissed and the lazy grasshopper departed with indignation. In the end the elephant said, “My words come to all, but those who feel angry by what I have said may be feeling the sting of their own guilt.”
Vs 8 –9 After answering those who may are upset with his discourse, Micah returns to his theme. The widow and the fatherless were special concerns of the prophets, for they were among the most helpless and powerless of society. Micah may have been referring to them, or to women and children generally. Children – the great asset of the future. But a whole generation of children was being pushed into misery and deprivation. A lost generation – what effect does it have upon a nation?
Vs 10 - Scholars see this as another reference to the coming punishment, their removal from the land. (The word for “rest) menhuha) has a specific use in conjunction with the promised land. It takes the form of meaning “inheritance.
Vs 11 - Some scholars see this as a fragment of Micah’s words that weren’t originally associated with the earlier statements. Yet it does fit with the earlier quotation from his detractors who didn’t want him to preach the kind of things he was saying. There were “false” prophets at the time who only said the things that made people feel happy and self-satisfied with the way things were going.
Vs 12 –13. Shifts to a word of hope. As a consequence Some scholars think these might not be Micah’s words.
Scholarship on Micah has gone through cycles. One way has been to separate out all the parts that are believed to be his original words, another has been to see the book as a whole – partly the work of Micah, partly the work of other prophets, all put together by an inspired editor of a later period who didn’t speak from the time of Micah, but from the overall picture of both judgement and promise.
These verses are ambiguous and the class, in discussion, considered that it was possible they could be by Micah and addressing those, for example, who were not offended by Micah’s prophesy. Differing translations sometimes gave alternate impressions. Thus another suggestion was made that especially the 12th verse might be intended as more words of judgement. That is, was it possible that “Micah” was talking about gathering the wicked? Considering the double meanings that ancient writers often enjoyed using, he could have intended both.
Class discussion also mentioned the amazing power of the scriptures. Despite the challenges of preserving manuscripts, wars, invasions, crumbling scrolls, changes in culture, language, and more...the Bible still speaks to the modern age with life-changing power.
A brief revew was made of the first portion of chapter 3, verses 1-4. These verses employ graphic and unpleasant images that are metaphors for what Micah sees the powerful doing to the powerless people around them.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Micah 01
On Tuesday evenings at the church, we have begun a 6-week study on a lesser known prophet by the name of Micah. The following material is provided for users of the Internet Study - Also for members of the Tuesday class who would like to catch up on some of the material from a session they missed or to re-review information.
This includes information presented and a few comments from some discussion that took place.
Micah was a prophet of the 8th century b.c. He was a contemporary with Isaiah, Hosea and possibly Amos. One major difference between Isaiah and Micah is the fact that Isaiah was from Jerusalem a “city boy” whereas Micah was from a small community in the country.
Members of the class commented on the fact that city size at that time were not the same as what we might consider cities today.
Micah and the other Minor Prophets have sometimes been treated as less important than prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. They are called minor, however, primarily because their written works are very short.
In the past, scholars sometimes admit that Micah was regarded as less important. Some of the reasons include the lack of information about the prophet himself and an underestimation of his literary abilities. Though no more is really known about the man, his literary ability and the importance of his prophetic work has gained more attention.
Micah’s words were spoken orally and later written down. He spoke his prophecy in poetic form. Hebrew poetry had different forms than much poetry of today. Rhyme and rythm would be difficult to translate in any case. The forms of poetry found in Micah are:
Synonymous parallelism (repitition of a thought, though with variations in vacabulary, grammar and syntax)
Traditional word pairs
metaphors
similes
Some points of the discussion about the poetry at the Bible Study session on Tuesday, October 19: Poetry would be a very expressive way to communicate. In an oral form, poetry would also be easier to remember. Comments were made concerning Micah’s obvious intelligence, and his awareness of history and religious traditions of his people. Questions were raised over how educated he might be, but with the lack of biographical material, it is hard to know how formal his education might have been.
Moresheth – probably Moresheth-Gath near the old Philistine of Gath – It has been identified with Tell el-Menshiyeh. Micah lived, therefore, in a small village of the low foothills of SW Palesine halfway between Jerusalem and Gaza, near the Judean stronghold of Lachish and close to the Philistine cities.
verse 2 – 3: begins in the manner of an accuser in the law court, then quickly shifts to a vision of judgement
God’s ‘dwelling place’ seen as a place high above the earth
verse 3-4: Fearful picture of God as a gigantic figure walking upon the earth, the mountains dissolving beneath God’s feet.
WHY WAS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN? Verse 4-5
The Eighth century (B.C.) prophets looked at the covenant and the history of the people and presumed from this that since Israel/Judah clearly had failed to keep their end of the covenant, then God would destroy them. The contemporaries of the prophets found this surprising. It wasn’t as obvious to them that the covenant wasn’t being fulfilled, partly because they interpreted religious obligations much more loosely. They saw a “divinely appointed king” and the presence of God in the sanctuary (the holy of holies). These things were to them a guarantee of God’s favor. The prosperity early in the century probably helped cement this idea.
Members of the class discussed how difficult it must have been for these prophets to go against the tide of popular opinion. Prophets didn't do their job joyfully, they didn't enjoy speaking such things to the people. They did it out of love and because they felt called to do so.
In the case of the southern Kingdom, Micah's words were heeded. Reforms were made and there was a period of better times. Jeremiah 26:16-19 alludes to this, as does I Kings 18:1-7a. The I Kings passage doesn't refer to Micah, but does describe the reforms that king Hezekiah made.
The prophets, such as Amos, Micah and Hosea made predictions about what was coming. Their predictions were fulfilled as to the Northern Kingdom (and in the prophets’ lifetime and/or shortly enough afterwards that their predictions were fresh in the minds of people.) Their words were thus treated with respect and in time were written down. Vs 5-6 = crime of Jacob (Israel, the northern kingdom) is Samaria
Crime of Judah (the southern kingdom) is Jerusalem – though not specified, the “crime” is likely the kind of worship that goes on in them – for that is the image that Micah moves to next.
vs 6 - begins comments about judgement.
vs 7 – “carved figures”... refers to idols. In both kingdoms, a considerable amount of worship had been done outside the covenant. (Some scholars have speculated that there was a goddess figure that even stood in the temple during part of its history). The image of harlotry is used here. This was an image used by a number of prophets, picturing Israel in the role of infidelity. Thereby the idols were a result of “harlotry.” When defeated, the idols of one nation normally became spoils to the enemy, offered in their temples. Thus Israel and Judah’s idols came through harlotry and would become a harlot’s fee again.
Vs 8 – The actions of Isaiah as reported in Isaiah 20, indicate that this might not have been speaking only in metaphor. (Isaiah 20:2... at that time the LORD had spoken to Isaiah son of Amoz, saying, “Go and loose the sackcloth from your loins, and take your sandals off your feet,” and he had done so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the LORD said, “Just as my servant Isaiah ahs walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia...”
Verses 10-16 - a Lament, with word-plays, puns and other double-meanings, though the specifics are not always clear. example Beth-le-aph'rah means house of dust. In essence, Micah was saying, 'in the hosue of dust, roll in the dust.'
Questions to consider in the weeks ahead as we look at Micah:
(These were indentified by Daniel Simundson in his commentary on Micah in the new Interpreter’s Bible)
Ways in which God relates to humanity
The anger of God
What does God expect from us?
Interpretation of disaster and suffering as judgement
Where do prophets and others receive their authority?
The pain of a prophet’s job
How do you articulate a message of hope in times of despair?
Micah – prophecy – Jesus
When is the appropriate time to speak of hope?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Ruth, Naomi, Boaz
Ruth 4:13-17
The book of Ruth tells a story of events after the Israelites possessed the land of Canaan, but before the monarchy. Governmental “structure” was limited. It was in the days of the judges, who were men and women who led the people, even in some military actions.
A famine arises in the land. Elimelech and his wife Naomi have been living in the Bethlehem vicinity, but they decide it is better to move to the land of the Moabites. They pack up their belongings and their two sons and leave their home. After a time in Moab, Elimelech dies. Mahlon and Chilion get married. Naomi’s daughters-in-law are Moabite. Ruth and Orpah are good and kind to their husbands and have a good relationship with their mother-in-law.
About ten years after the move to Moab, Mahlon and Chilion both die. Naomi is left alone in a foreign land, with no family, no means of support. Ruth and Orpah stay by her side and for a short time the three women struggle to survive.
Naomi decides to return to her home country around Bethlehem.
Ruth and Orpah set out on the journey with her. But Naomi knows how hard it would be for her daughters-in-law. They are Moabites. It’s bad enough to be a foreigner, but amongst her people in Bethlehem, Moabites have questionable reputations. Besides, as women alone they would be incredibly vulnerable. She doesn’t want to expose them to the dangers. There would be no future in Bethlehem for them and she tells them so. If she’d had other sons, they would have married Ruth and Orpah, but there is no hope, no possibility of hope.
In a world in which there was no concept of free will, it was believed that everything that happened was what God had directed. Famine had driven them out of Canaan, her husband died, her sons died and now there was nothing left for Naomi except to return home to exist for a time before dying.
When she does arrive home and is greeted by old friends she tells them not even to call her by name. For Naomi means “pleasant” and Naomi’s life was bitter, so she tells them to call her Mara, which means bitter. Why? Because, she says, “the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.”
She goes on to say, “I went away full, but the LORD has brought me back empty; why call me Naomi when the LORD has dealt harshly with me, and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”
But Naomi’s life has taken a turn for the better, though she doesn’t yet recognize it. Though Orpha was convinced by Naomi’s logic to return to her home and take up her life there, Ruth has stubbornly refused to leave Naomi. She travels to a foreign land with her mother-in-law, despite the uncertainties of the situation. She promises that Naomi’s land and people will be her land and people. Naomi’s God will be her God.
To sustain them, Ruth goes into the fields to glean. She suggests to Naomi that she may find favor in someone’s sight.
The owner of the fields is Boaz. Boaz sees Ruth and is impressed by her hard work and concern for her mother-in-law. He makes sure she is protected, receives food to eat and is able to glean a generous amount.
A non-biblical tradition about Ruth is that she sought to follow the laws of God very carefully. In gleaning, the law assigns to the poor two ears of grain let fall by accident, but does not refer to quantities more than this. The tradition is that Ruth was trying so hard to follow the new religious laws that she refused to pick up anything more than two. If the reapers dropped more than that, she left it alone. The story adds that Boaz was impressed by her piety. What the scriptures tell us is that Boaz was impressed by how hard she works on behalf of her mother-in-law. He, also knowing that a foreign woman alone could be vulnerable, tells her to stay in his fields where he has ordered the young men to leave her alone. She is also to have access to the water drawn for the workers. At meal time he gave her food and also told the reapers to leave extra for her. Whether the tradition has any historical fact is, of course, unknown. But the words of Boaz to Ruth seem to indicate he was aware of her decision to follow the ways of Yahweh.
Naomi is surprised by how much Ruth has brought home. When Ruth explains what had happened, we see the first tiny break in her bitterness. And Naomi exclaims, “Blessed be he by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead.”
Boaz is a relative of Elimelech, although not the closest. Naomi guides Ruth to approach Boaz, asking for a relative’s protection. Boaz could refuse to help at all. Instead he contacts the nearest relative who has the right/responsibility to redeem some land belonging to Naomi’s family. But he tells the relative that Ruth is part of the deal. The story does not say so, but the impression is clear that Boaz intended all along to marry Ruth, although he wanted the legal part to be dealt with first.
A child is born to Ruth and Boaz, a child to be cherished by Naomi, who became his nurse. Obed was his name. He became the father of Jesse, who was the father of David, who became King in Israel. Ruth is therefore listed in the genealogy of Jesus.
The name of Ruth is familiar to many people. Her words have been quoted at wedding ceremonies, although she spoke them first to a mother-in-law.
Ruth is the well-known name in the story. But what qualities do you think Naomi had to inspire Ruth’s loyalty? How much about God do you think Ruth learned from her mother-in-law? What about the character virtues that Boaz displays?
The book of Ruth tells a story of events after the Israelites possessed the land of Canaan, but before the monarchy. Governmental “structure” was limited. It was in the days of the judges, who were men and women who led the people, even in some military actions.
A famine arises in the land. Elimelech and his wife Naomi have been living in the Bethlehem vicinity, but they decide it is better to move to the land of the Moabites. They pack up their belongings and their two sons and leave their home. After a time in Moab, Elimelech dies. Mahlon and Chilion get married. Naomi’s daughters-in-law are Moabite. Ruth and Orpah are good and kind to their husbands and have a good relationship with their mother-in-law.
About ten years after the move to Moab, Mahlon and Chilion both die. Naomi is left alone in a foreign land, with no family, no means of support. Ruth and Orpah stay by her side and for a short time the three women struggle to survive.
Naomi decides to return to her home country around Bethlehem.
Ruth and Orpah set out on the journey with her. But Naomi knows how hard it would be for her daughters-in-law. They are Moabites. It’s bad enough to be a foreigner, but amongst her people in Bethlehem, Moabites have questionable reputations. Besides, as women alone they would be incredibly vulnerable. She doesn’t want to expose them to the dangers. There would be no future in Bethlehem for them and she tells them so. If she’d had other sons, they would have married Ruth and Orpah, but there is no hope, no possibility of hope.
Leverite Law: This was a law that was intended to keep a man’s name “alive.” If a man died without children, his brother was to marry the widow. Lacking a brother, it was to be the closest male relative. The first child of the union was considered to be the child of the deceased. Another benefit of the law to provide for the widow and fulfill her right to have children. Naomi is alluding to this when she is trying to convince Orpah and Ruth not to come to Bethlehem with her. She asks that even if she was to marry that night and if there was hope for her (to have children), would they want wait for those sons to be grown? There were similar laws/customs for the land, for if land was to be sold, then the closest relative was to be given the first opportunity to purchase it. All of this came into play later in the book of Ruth as well.
Naomi is lost in despair and says that the hand of the Lord has turned against her.In a world in which there was no concept of free will, it was believed that everything that happened was what God had directed. Famine had driven them out of Canaan, her husband died, her sons died and now there was nothing left for Naomi except to return home to exist for a time before dying.
When she does arrive home and is greeted by old friends she tells them not even to call her by name. For Naomi means “pleasant” and Naomi’s life was bitter, so she tells them to call her Mara, which means bitter. Why? Because, she says, “the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.”
She goes on to say, “I went away full, but the LORD has brought me back empty; why call me Naomi when the LORD has dealt harshly with me, and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”
But Naomi’s life has taken a turn for the better, though she doesn’t yet recognize it. Though Orpha was convinced by Naomi’s logic to return to her home and take up her life there, Ruth has stubbornly refused to leave Naomi. She travels to a foreign land with her mother-in-law, despite the uncertainties of the situation. She promises that Naomi’s land and people will be her land and people. Naomi’s God will be her God.
To sustain them, Ruth goes into the fields to glean. She suggests to Naomi that she may find favor in someone’s sight.
The owner of the fields is Boaz. Boaz sees Ruth and is impressed by her hard work and concern for her mother-in-law. He makes sure she is protected, receives food to eat and is able to glean a generous amount.
A non-biblical tradition about Ruth is that she sought to follow the laws of God very carefully. In gleaning, the law assigns to the poor two ears of grain let fall by accident, but does not refer to quantities more than this. The tradition is that Ruth was trying so hard to follow the new religious laws that she refused to pick up anything more than two. If the reapers dropped more than that, she left it alone. The story adds that Boaz was impressed by her piety. What the scriptures tell us is that Boaz was impressed by how hard she works on behalf of her mother-in-law. He, also knowing that a foreign woman alone could be vulnerable, tells her to stay in his fields where he has ordered the young men to leave her alone. She is also to have access to the water drawn for the workers. At meal time he gave her food and also told the reapers to leave extra for her. Whether the tradition has any historical fact is, of course, unknown. But the words of Boaz to Ruth seem to indicate he was aware of her decision to follow the ways of Yahweh.
Naomi is surprised by how much Ruth has brought home. When Ruth explains what had happened, we see the first tiny break in her bitterness. And Naomi exclaims, “Blessed be he by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead.”
Boaz is a relative of Elimelech, although not the closest. Naomi guides Ruth to approach Boaz, asking for a relative’s protection. Boaz could refuse to help at all. Instead he contacts the nearest relative who has the right/responsibility to redeem some land belonging to Naomi’s family. But he tells the relative that Ruth is part of the deal. The story does not say so, but the impression is clear that Boaz intended all along to marry Ruth, although he wanted the legal part to be dealt with first.
A child is born to Ruth and Boaz, a child to be cherished by Naomi, who became his nurse. Obed was his name. He became the father of Jesse, who was the father of David, who became King in Israel. Ruth is therefore listed in the genealogy of Jesus.
The name of Ruth is familiar to many people. Her words have been quoted at wedding ceremonies, although she spoke them first to a mother-in-law.
Ruth is the well-known name in the story. But what qualities do you think Naomi had to inspire Ruth’s loyalty? How much about God do you think Ruth learned from her mother-in-law? What about the character virtues that Boaz displays?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Joshua 2:8 14 - Rahab
This week’s study is on Rahab. Like many people in the Bible, she is not a prominent figure, though better known than some. She is also an example of the fact that just because someone is mentioned in the Bible, that doesn’t mean she is someone whose entire life is an example we would want to emulate. Rahab was a prostitute. The book of Joshua is quite specific on the subject. She may have also been the ancient equivalent of a “madam.” The Jewish historian, Josephus, however, said she was simply an innkeeper.
Rahab was not an Israelite. But she is considered a heroine in the Israelite history. She played an important part in the Israelite conquest of Jericho. Though she was not born an Israelite, she married into that nation.
According to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab married Joshua and was the ancestress of at least eight prophets, including Jeremiah. Also according to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab was one of the four most beautiful women in the world.
Rahab was the mother of Boaz who was Ruth's (of the book of Ruth) second husband.
It was in the midst of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. Joshua was heading up the Israelite forces and he sent spies into Jericho. Given Rahab’s reputation for beauty and her profession, it is probably not surprising that the spies went to her house. Her establishment was of the kind that sees many people come and go. It would been a place where they could pick up information, from men who weren't guarding their tongues as carefully as they normally might. Strangers to the community might also blend in more easily there.
Canaan was at that time, not one nation under one king, but, rather, a collection of small city states. Jericho was one of these. The king of Jericho soon heard about two individuals who seemed suspicious. He sent word to Rahab telling her to keep them occupied until he could do something about it.
Instead, Rahab hid the two men up on the roof underneath the sheaves of flax that were there drying. She told the king's men the strangers had already left and they’d better hurry if they wanted to catch them.
Then she went up to talk with the two men. She said that everyone was afraid of them and she was certain that Jericho would be theirs. She’d also heard about their God who seemed to her to be Lord of heaven and earth. She asked whether, if she helped them get away, if they would spare her family when they took Jericho.
The spies agreed, giving her a scarlet cord to hang outside her house so that the Israelite soldiers would know which house to leave alone. They did point out that they couldn’t be responsible for anyone outside her home.
Rahab lived in a house that was built on top of the two city walls, so she smuggled the spies out of the city by lowering them out on ropes.
Every man, woman, and child inside the city was killed, aside from those in the house of Rahab. It is clear then that Rahab saved her family from certain death. Rabbinnic tradition says that she lived a pious life from that time forward.
What values did Rahab have regarding family, country, neighbors, life style, faith?
How would her neighbors and fellow citizens of Jericho have described her values?
How would the Israelites have regarded Rahab’s values?
Rahab was not an Israelite. But she is considered a heroine in the Israelite history. She played an important part in the Israelite conquest of Jericho. Though she was not born an Israelite, she married into that nation.
According to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab married Joshua and was the ancestress of at least eight prophets, including Jeremiah. Also according to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab was one of the four most beautiful women in the world.
Rahab was the mother of Boaz who was Ruth's (of the book of Ruth) second husband.
It was in the midst of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. Joshua was heading up the Israelite forces and he sent spies into Jericho. Given Rahab’s reputation for beauty and her profession, it is probably not surprising that the spies went to her house. Her establishment was of the kind that sees many people come and go. It would been a place where they could pick up information, from men who weren't guarding their tongues as carefully as they normally might. Strangers to the community might also blend in more easily there.
Canaan was at that time, not one nation under one king, but, rather, a collection of small city states. Jericho was one of these. The king of Jericho soon heard about two individuals who seemed suspicious. He sent word to Rahab telling her to keep them occupied until he could do something about it.
Instead, Rahab hid the two men up on the roof underneath the sheaves of flax that were there drying. She told the king's men the strangers had already left and they’d better hurry if they wanted to catch them.
Then she went up to talk with the two men. She said that everyone was afraid of them and she was certain that Jericho would be theirs. She’d also heard about their God who seemed to her to be Lord of heaven and earth. She asked whether, if she helped them get away, if they would spare her family when they took Jericho.
The spies agreed, giving her a scarlet cord to hang outside her house so that the Israelite soldiers would know which house to leave alone. They did point out that they couldn’t be responsible for anyone outside her home.
Rahab lived in a house that was built on top of the two city walls, so she smuggled the spies out of the city by lowering them out on ropes.
Every man, woman, and child inside the city was killed, aside from those in the house of Rahab. It is clear then that Rahab saved her family from certain death. Rabbinnic tradition says that she lived a pious life from that time forward.
What values did Rahab have regarding family, country, neighbors, life style, faith?
How would her neighbors and fellow citizens of Jericho have described her values?
How would the Israelites have regarded Rahab’s values?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Bartimaeus
Mark 10:46-52
Bartimaeus' name means son of Timai or son of the unclean. Bartimaeus was a blind beggar who called for the attention of Jesus, begging for mercy.
Luke and Matthew each tell a similar story, although neither name the blind man. But the healing in all three stories were of blindness being healed in the vicinity of Jericho. It is believed, therefore that Luke and Matthew are telling of Bartimaeus' healing. (Matthew 20:29-34; Luke 18:35-43)
Matthew relates that there were two men who called out to Jesus asking to receive their sight. Luke and Mark only tell of the one.
Upon hearing a commotion, Bartimaeus learns that it is Jesus of Nazareth. All three gospels give Jesus this designation. Bartimaeus cries out to catch his attention. This indicates that Bartimaeus knew who Jesus was, and that he had a power to heal. (Jesus was a common name in those times, so knowing that it was Jesus of Nazareth distinguished him from other men.)
When Bartimaeus called out to Jesus, the crowd was excited by what was going on and didn’t want the blind man to interrupt what was happening. A blind beggar clearly had little importance to them. He would have been among the helpless and pushed-aside fringes of society. But he would not be silenced. Likely both desperation and confidence in Jesus himself was involved. He found the strength to persist. And Jesus, who did not ignore the helpless or the despised, stopped.
When asked what he wanted, Bartimaeus asked for his sight. Jesus heals him, saying, “Your faith has saved you.”
Bartimaeus then followed him. Luke adds that he was glorifying God and all the people who saw it also praised God.
The voices of the world frequently try to silence the followers of Jesus, to drown them out or simply co-opt them into conforming to worldly ideas. Bartimaeus may remind other followers of Jesus to be focused and to persevere.
It is noteworthy that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. He would not live much longer. But he found time for the needs of an individual.
An old fable tells of a blind sheep who was approached with the offer of being healed. That sounded good, but before the procedure, he asked what he’d been missing during the time of his blindness. When told of cruelty and war, selfishness and greed and hate, he declined to be healed. He said it would be a punishment to watch the terrible deeds of the world and its people. Soon after receiving his sight, one of the things that Bartimaeus may have had to endure was to watch the crucifixion. Did he wish he was blind once more?
Bartimaeus is noteworthy for his perseverance, faith and thankfulness. Consider a particular area where perseverance is especially needed now in your life.
Bartimaeus' name means son of Timai or son of the unclean. Bartimaeus was a blind beggar who called for the attention of Jesus, begging for mercy.
Luke and Matthew each tell a similar story, although neither name the blind man. But the healing in all three stories were of blindness being healed in the vicinity of Jericho. It is believed, therefore that Luke and Matthew are telling of Bartimaeus' healing. (Matthew 20:29-34; Luke 18:35-43)
Matthew relates that there were two men who called out to Jesus asking to receive their sight. Luke and Mark only tell of the one.
Upon hearing a commotion, Bartimaeus learns that it is Jesus of Nazareth. All three gospels give Jesus this designation. Bartimaeus cries out to catch his attention. This indicates that Bartimaeus knew who Jesus was, and that he had a power to heal. (Jesus was a common name in those times, so knowing that it was Jesus of Nazareth distinguished him from other men.)
When Bartimaeus called out to Jesus, the crowd was excited by what was going on and didn’t want the blind man to interrupt what was happening. A blind beggar clearly had little importance to them. He would have been among the helpless and pushed-aside fringes of society. But he would not be silenced. Likely both desperation and confidence in Jesus himself was involved. He found the strength to persist. And Jesus, who did not ignore the helpless or the despised, stopped.
When asked what he wanted, Bartimaeus asked for his sight. Jesus heals him, saying, “Your faith has saved you.”
Bartimaeus then followed him. Luke adds that he was glorifying God and all the people who saw it also praised God.
The voices of the world frequently try to silence the followers of Jesus, to drown them out or simply co-opt them into conforming to worldly ideas. Bartimaeus may remind other followers of Jesus to be focused and to persevere.
It is noteworthy that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. He would not live much longer. But he found time for the needs of an individual.
An old fable tells of a blind sheep who was approached with the offer of being healed. That sounded good, but before the procedure, he asked what he’d been missing during the time of his blindness. When told of cruelty and war, selfishness and greed and hate, he declined to be healed. He said it would be a punishment to watch the terrible deeds of the world and its people. Soon after receiving his sight, one of the things that Bartimaeus may have had to endure was to watch the crucifixion. Did he wish he was blind once more?
Bartimaeus is noteworthy for his perseverance, faith and thankfulness. Consider a particular area where perseverance is especially needed now in your life.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Jonah 1:7-16 – Sailors on Jonah’s Ship
There are two ways in which the book of Jonah has been understood. One way is to understand it as a historical account of a prophet’s experience. This would make it unusual in the sense that there is only one sentence of prophecy in the entire book. Other prophetic books in the bible are primarily the words of the prophet with only minor narrative about the individual’s life.
If Jonah is not a historical account, it may be that the entire book is a prophetic parable. Story and metaphor was and is a common communication tool, one that Jesus used extensively.
Either way, the characters of Jonah are vividly presented and reflect personalities and traits that would have been familiar to those who originally received the book.
The Captain and Mariners on Jonah’s Ship are the focus of this look at lesser known personalities of the Bible.
These sailors are unnamed. They probably were not Hebrew, or at least most of them probably weren’t. The book mentions that they cried, each to his god. It is true that the Hebrews sometimes failed to hold to the law of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” They were not always convinced that there weren't other gods to consider, even if they were only supposed to worship the one. Nonetheless the wording of ‘each to his god,’ probably intends the reader to understand that these men come from various cultural backgrounds and thus worshiped a number of gods.
It is noteworthy, however, that the author represents them as faithful men into their own religious beliefs. They prayed. The captain was disturbed that Jonah was simply taking a nap. He didn’t insist Jonah work alongside the sailors, but he did think Jonah should do his part by praying to his own god instead of snoozing.
Though there may be no atheists in fox holes, nor on ships in danger, the sailors appear to have a definite religious view of life. They took gods seriously. The violence of the storm convinces the sailors that someone on board has a god angry at them. So they cast lots to determine who it is.
The lot fell upon Jonah, who of course already knew what the storm was about. The sailors asked him what they should do to save the ship and Jonah told them they should throw him overboard. (Interesting that he could not bring himself to throw himself into the water, just left it up to other people, though we should give him credit for his honesty about the matter.)
The next act of the sailors may seem surprising. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief and sending Jonah overboard, they tried once more to save the ship. Clearly these men did not want to sacrifice someone else to save themselves even through it might be argued that the guy had brought it on himself. This seems to indicate that the sailors were decent and kindly men. A purist or legalist might argue that they were irreligious at this point for not acceding to a god’s wishes. In return it could be argued that they knew nothing of Jonah’s god and wanted to be sure there was no other way. In either case, it still speaks to the fact that they weren’t callous to the welfare of a powerless stranger among them. This theme of the foreigner is important in the book of Jonah, as is seen by the later portion of the story, where Jonah is chastised for not caring about the non-Hebrew people of Ninevah.
When all the efforts of the sailors to save the ship by their own strength had failed, they finally did send Jonah overboard, with the prayer that his god wouldn’t hold it against them. When the storm ceased, they offered sacrifices and prayers and vows to Yahweh. Their part of the story ends here.
How could the attitude and actions of these sailors speak to the way the powerless are treated by the strong?
The sailors cast lots to determine divine will – in what ways do people of faith seek that understanding today?
If Jonah is not a historical account, it may be that the entire book is a prophetic parable. Story and metaphor was and is a common communication tool, one that Jesus used extensively.
Either way, the characters of Jonah are vividly presented and reflect personalities and traits that would have been familiar to those who originally received the book.
The Captain and Mariners on Jonah’s Ship are the focus of this look at lesser known personalities of the Bible.
These sailors are unnamed. They probably were not Hebrew, or at least most of them probably weren’t. The book mentions that they cried, each to his god. It is true that the Hebrews sometimes failed to hold to the law of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” They were not always convinced that there weren't other gods to consider, even if they were only supposed to worship the one. Nonetheless the wording of ‘each to his god,’ probably intends the reader to understand that these men come from various cultural backgrounds and thus worshiped a number of gods.
It is noteworthy, however, that the author represents them as faithful men into their own religious beliefs. They prayed. The captain was disturbed that Jonah was simply taking a nap. He didn’t insist Jonah work alongside the sailors, but he did think Jonah should do his part by praying to his own god instead of snoozing.
Though there may be no atheists in fox holes, nor on ships in danger, the sailors appear to have a definite religious view of life. They took gods seriously. The violence of the storm convinces the sailors that someone on board has a god angry at them. So they cast lots to determine who it is.
CASTING LOTS
Today we might cut cards or roll for the highest number on the dice to choose between people. But the idea behind the ancient casting of lots generally was that divine power would guide the choice. Casting lots was done by the Hebrews along with the peoples around them, and was not considered superstitious or connected with witchcraft. Saul cast lots (sacred stones) trying to decide who might be at fault for God’s silence, for he assumed it must be because God was angry at a sin (I Samuel 14:37-43). The disciples of Jesus cast lots in trying to determine which of two men should take the place of Judas (see Acts 1:24-26). They prayed that God would use the casting of lots to show between the two men they had singled out from the rest.
The lot fell upon Jonah, who of course already knew what the storm was about. The sailors asked him what they should do to save the ship and Jonah told them they should throw him overboard. (Interesting that he could not bring himself to throw himself into the water, just left it up to other people, though we should give him credit for his honesty about the matter.)
The next act of the sailors may seem surprising. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief and sending Jonah overboard, they tried once more to save the ship. Clearly these men did not want to sacrifice someone else to save themselves even through it might be argued that the guy had brought it on himself. This seems to indicate that the sailors were decent and kindly men. A purist or legalist might argue that they were irreligious at this point for not acceding to a god’s wishes. In return it could be argued that they knew nothing of Jonah’s god and wanted to be sure there was no other way. In either case, it still speaks to the fact that they weren’t callous to the welfare of a powerless stranger among them. This theme of the foreigner is important in the book of Jonah, as is seen by the later portion of the story, where Jonah is chastised for not caring about the non-Hebrew people of Ninevah.
When all the efforts of the sailors to save the ship by their own strength had failed, they finally did send Jonah overboard, with the prayer that his god wouldn’t hold it against them. When the storm ceased, they offered sacrifices and prayers and vows to Yahweh. Their part of the story ends here.
How could the attitude and actions of these sailors speak to the way the powerless are treated by the strong?
The sailors cast lots to determine divine will – in what ways do people of faith seek that understanding today?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
King Melchizedek of Salem
Genesis 14:17-24
(See also the study about Bera from September 1, 2010)
Abram was returning from battle. Four kings were making sweeps of the area and among others had just defeated the king of the city-state of Sodom. Sodom was looted and its people captured. Among those people was Lot, the nephew of Abram.
When Abram got the news, he gathered his allies and the trained men of his camp and went in pursuit. He battled by night and brought back what had been taken.
A man named Melchizedek stepped up to meet him on his return. One biblical scholar calls Melchizedek a mysterious figure. We know little about him. He appears here and is mentioned in a psalm. Then the author of Hebrews uses him in symbolic ways. But historically, our information is scanty.
Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Salem is what would later become Jerusalem.
Melchizedek is also a priest of God. He brings wine and bread to feed Abram and blesses him. Or rather, he notes that God has blessed Abram. Melchizedek lifts a blessing upon God for the victory.
Now, previous to this, God hasn’t been mentioned in regard to the politics and the war that has taken place. Abram didn’t ask for help from God. Abram didn’t get permission or instructions from God.
But Melchizedek thanks God anyway, and that brings up a side issue.
People of faith, especially in the modern era, wrestle with this whole question. We struggle with the place of God even in wars that we believe are necessary and as righteous as anything can be where people get killed.
We also sometimes struggle with thanking God for things we’ve received—when we know that other good and faithful people may not have been so blessed. We know we aren’t more deserving. We don’t want to be callous to the fact that others could be suffering while we are rejoicing. At the same time, we need to show our gratitude for the author of all good things.
We don’t know if Melchizedek experienced any of that ambiguity.
Probably not. He and Abram have had a common enemy. The threat was now averted, at least for a time. This was a moment for rejoicing. It was a time to praise God.
Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of what he’s brought back. This was not a political or military division of booty. Melchizedek was a priest and it was thus intended as a religious gift. Giving ten percent as a religious act seems to have been fairly common in ancient times. It wasn’t an idea that was exclusive to the worship of Yahweh.
But in this case, both Abram and Melchizedek were worshippers of the same God. That may be more significant that it first appears. After all, Melchizedeck was essentially a foreigner to Abram. He is not of the same family. He is not of the line of people that would become the Hebrews. But he worships the same God and Abram’s tithe acknowledges this.
In fact, the other Old Testament mention of Melchizedek also recognizes him as a legitimate priest of God. Psalm 110 says: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” The book of Hebrews picks up the theme again.
Although it has been often ignored, there is ample evidence in the scriptures of God’s connection with people outside the “recognized” family.
(See also the study about Bera from September 1, 2010)
Abram was returning from battle. Four kings were making sweeps of the area and among others had just defeated the king of the city-state of Sodom. Sodom was looted and its people captured. Among those people was Lot, the nephew of Abram.
When Abram got the news, he gathered his allies and the trained men of his camp and went in pursuit. He battled by night and brought back what had been taken.
A man named Melchizedek stepped up to meet him on his return. One biblical scholar calls Melchizedek a mysterious figure. We know little about him. He appears here and is mentioned in a psalm. Then the author of Hebrews uses him in symbolic ways. But historically, our information is scanty.
Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Salem is what would later become Jerusalem.
Melchizedek is also a priest of God. He brings wine and bread to feed Abram and blesses him. Or rather, he notes that God has blessed Abram. Melchizedek lifts a blessing upon God for the victory.
Now, previous to this, God hasn’t been mentioned in regard to the politics and the war that has taken place. Abram didn’t ask for help from God. Abram didn’t get permission or instructions from God.
But Melchizedek thanks God anyway, and that brings up a side issue.
People of faith, especially in the modern era, wrestle with this whole question. We struggle with the place of God even in wars that we believe are necessary and as righteous as anything can be where people get killed.
We also sometimes struggle with thanking God for things we’ve received—when we know that other good and faithful people may not have been so blessed. We know we aren’t more deserving. We don’t want to be callous to the fact that others could be suffering while we are rejoicing. At the same time, we need to show our gratitude for the author of all good things.
We don’t know if Melchizedek experienced any of that ambiguity.
Probably not. He and Abram have had a common enemy. The threat was now averted, at least for a time. This was a moment for rejoicing. It was a time to praise God.
Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of what he’s brought back. This was not a political or military division of booty. Melchizedek was a priest and it was thus intended as a religious gift. Giving ten percent as a religious act seems to have been fairly common in ancient times. It wasn’t an idea that was exclusive to the worship of Yahweh.
But in this case, both Abram and Melchizedek were worshippers of the same God. That may be more significant that it first appears. After all, Melchizedeck was essentially a foreigner to Abram. He is not of the same family. He is not of the line of people that would become the Hebrews. But he worships the same God and Abram’s tithe acknowledges this.
In fact, the other Old Testament mention of Melchizedek also recognizes him as a legitimate priest of God. Psalm 110 says: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” The book of Hebrews picks up the theme again.
Although it has been often ignored, there is ample evidence in the scriptures of God’s connection with people outside the “recognized” family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)