Sunday, 4 November 2018

Zephaniah on All Saints Sunday

I am going through Zephaniah in an eight-week sermon series which includes Bible Sunday, All Saints Sunday and Remembrance Day. Here are some notes for a sermon from Zephaniah 3:1-5 on All Saints Sunday.

Why All Saints? Are not all the baptised “saints” – set apart for God? Does the separation of All Souls from All Saints suggest that something has gone wrong? Let us begin to explore this by paying attention to the translation of verse 1.

“Ah, distinguished and ransomed, the city, the dove” – this, translated into English, is how someone in antiquity rendered the Hebrew text into Greek. Spot the difference to NRSV (“Ah, soiled, defiled, oppressing city!”). What is going on? The poet used three Hebrew words that can be understood in very different ways.

The city that should be distinguished in revealing the ways of God has become rebellious against him (as I would render it) – or soiled, as the NRSV interprets it.

The city that has been ransomed, redeemed for God’s purposes has become defiled – a city like any other.

The city is meant to be a dove, a term of endearment in the Song of Songs (2:14; 5:2; 6:9), maybe evoking freedom (cf. Ps. 55:6) and security (cf. Jer. 48:28) or senselessness and hence vulnerability (cf. Hos. 7:11) or innocence (Mt. 10:16). But instead of being like a dove the city is oppressing – no freedom, no security, no admission of vulnerability, no innocence, nothing here to endear her to us. The dove has become a vicious creature.

The people of God should appear glorious, a picture of redemption, innocent like a dove. Instead we so often partake in humanity’s rebellion against God.

In Hebrew, the word for “dove” is also the name Jonah, reminding us of the response of Nineveh (which had just been mentioned in Zephaniah) to the preaching of repentance. Not so Jerusalem.

Verse 2 speaks of a lack of attentiveness and a lack of submission (in Hebrew “listening to a voice” has connotations of obeying). We know of course cases of bad submission in slavish, denigrating obedience. But we see the importance of good submission when it is missing as is the case in verses 3-4.

In the ancient world, not just in the Bible, people were often compared to sheep and rulers to shepherds whose task it is to protect and provide for the sheep. To be good officials and judges, rulers must submit their agendas to these wider and higher tasks. Politicians who refuse such submission and put their own interests and careers above the welfare of the communities they serve are a disaster – “roaring lions” rather than shepherds.

Judges whose decision making does not submit to the law (God's law in this case) but to their own agendas, maybe driven by the amount of bribes they received, are “wolves at dusk” – nocturnal animals at their most hungry. Their greed – alluded to with the comment that “they leave nothing until the morning” – is a threat to the community.

In such situations prophets ought to be speaking truth to power but if, e.g., they are more concerned about their own reputation – like newspapers whose chief concern is to make a profit – they will not submit to the truth, they become “faithless persons”.

The tasks of priests should have been the most straightforward of them all. God’s word lays down clearly their tasks and responsibilities. But it takes courage to distinguish between what is holy and profane, between what belongs with God and what does not, to declare right and wrong in accordance with God’s word when these distinctions are not popular and so the priests here are taken to task for doing violence to God’s instruction.

We all submit to something or someone. The question is whether we submit to God, to what is good and right and beautiful, or whether we submit to tradition, to an ideology, to the needs of our family, or purely to our own desires.

What happened in Jerusalem at that time is that a people that was linked with God’s name and revelation, that was committed by covenant to submit to Him – as our baptism commits us to submit to Christ and gives us the name Christian – have instead submitted to other gods and agendas, mostly their own.

There was no attentiveness, no submission, no obedience, no trust in God. The city “has not drawn near to its God” and so had become indistinguishable from any other city.

So far so bad, but then comes verse 5.
The LORD within it is righteous; he does no wrong.
Every morning he renders his judgement,
each dawn without fail;
but the unjust knows no shame. (NRSV)
Right there, in the midst of this unfaithful city, is the LORD God – righteous, just, committing no iniquity, no unjust acts, doing no wrong. As the apostle Paul put it, “if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). Here is good news: God cannot be compromised. His integrity, truthfulness, and justice remain unchanged.

But what good is that? What does it mean to say
Every morning he renders his judgement,
each dawn without fail?
How is that evident when God loves to delegate, loves to rule indirectly? He has given his word to his people. Does he not render judgement through his human agents, the priests, the prophets, the judges, the officials? If God’s agents fail, how is God’s judgement rendered? Well, imperfectly at best.

But the saying (wrongly?) attributed to Teresa of Avila that “Christ has no body but ours, no hands but ours” is not entirely true. Other parts of creation fulfill Christ's command. And there is a hint of that in the Hebrew poetry.

I reckon that the expression translated “each dawn” in the NRSV has a double use and meaning, belonging with both poetic lines (in what scholars call a pivot pattern). God renders his judgement, implements his decree each dawn by bringing forth the light of morning. Poetically speaking, the reliable movement of the sun – coming up, traversing the sky and going down, day by day – is an implementation of God’s decree, without fail because there is no will involved other than God’s.

In reality, of course, the sun is the fix point and it is the earth – it is us – that are moving. And this also presents us a beautiful image, as we remember that the sun shines forth its light whether we see it or not, whether we can see the sun brightly in the sky or whether it is hidden behind clouds, whether we and our part of the earth are turned towards the sun, feelings its warmth, or whether we are turned away from it at night.

The sun is constant and in this an image of God’s constancy and the fact that he has ordered the universe in a way that offers some stability (reliability and therefore predictability), even when we mess things up. The light and warmth of his love are unchanging.
but the unjust knows no shame.
The final line reminds us of the reality on the ground. God does not commit unjust acts but the unjust know, i.e. experience, no shame (in the objective sense = disgrace) – not at the moment anyway.

This will in fact change – the whole book is about the disaster that shook things up in the sixth century BC. But for most of the time we live in a world in which many who bear God's name sully his reputation and do so without being taken to task for it -- and this is why we have saints days and celebrate All Saints.

Sadly there are many who have been set apart for God in baptism but have no knowledge of God, whose mind is set on things of this world rather than on Christ, and whose lives dishonour the name of Christ by which they are called.

And so we remind us of those saints, those set apart for God, through whom the light of Christ shone so brightly that they show us what it means to live with and in Christ. They were of course not perfect but there was, as it were, credible evidence in their lives which could be used in a law court to convict them of being Christian.

We sometimes use the saying “I’m not a saint” to mean “I am not perfect” but it would be foolish to dismiss our call to be saints on the grounds that we will never be perfect in this life.

The question is one of identity. We are all sinners, falling short of the glory of God - of our calling to reflect him into this world. Those of us who are baptised are all saints in some sense, namely set apart for God, bearing the name of Christ. But some are saints by name only and in reality sinners who live without God in the world. Others are saints in a fuller sense – they depend on Christ, draw close to him, listen to his voice and seek to implement his will – while still being sinners, falling short of their calling in one way or another.

For them and us saints days and All Saints may be useful after all as an inspiration to keep going and to pray fervently that the light and warmth of God’s righteous love would ever more clearly shine through us too and we would be Christians not in name only but as those who live in Christ.

This is one of the things it means to pray Hallowed by thy name.

Saturday, 3 November 2018

Zephaniah on Bible Sunday

I am going through Zephaniah in an eight-week sermon series which includes Bible Sunday, All Saints Sunday and Remembrance Day. Here are some notes for a sermon from Zephaniah 2 on Bible Sunday.

If every part of Scripture is profitable for our learning, to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), how is Zephaniah 2 useful? All this talk about long-gone nations seems remote.

Without even much study reminds us of one or two things:
  • God deals with tribes, nations and empires which is to say God’s purposes are for communities, not just individuals
  • and related to that: God has purposes in history, the messiness of our political lives
Note how  the events in v.4 are given as a rationale for the exhortation in vv. 1-3.

In the Gospel we heard Jesus claim: “the scriptures...testify on my behalf” and looking at Zephaniah 2 we may be reminded straight away of three things:
  • “when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son” (Galatians 4:4)
  • historical events matter (pace Jordan Peterson and others)
  • God has intentions for the body of Christ

Humility: it’s not all about me and the here and now. It’s about God and his purposes across time and space for all of humanity. This is one reason for the Bible not being a self-help book of useful lessons for individuals.

If we dig deeper, we see an emphasis in Zephaniah 2:5-15 on cities at the beginning (the Philistines) and end (the Assyrians with focus on Nineveh) and a concern with describing the (rural!) aftermath of the destruction rather than the military events themselves (vv. 6 – 9b – 13b, 14). This reinforces a contrast implied earlier in the book (cf. 2:15 with 1:12) between the urban elites and the poor. The two groups embody different attitudes in Zephaniah.

The dispossession and devastation is characterised as leading to the end of a whole socio-economic system - “the end of the world” for the communities concerned. Why? Because injustice had become endemic and systemic.

Assyria was thought to be the major power at the time but with v.12 (“killed by my sword”) which alludes to the destruction of Thebes by the Assyrian army in 664 YHWH claims this for himself.

Reading this chapter as part of the whole Bible, we must not let it denigrate culture in favour of “the simple life” of the poor - after all the Bible's story ends in a city - but there are reminders here that can serve as reproof and correction for us about the typical temptations of

  • urban life and commerce (Philistines - called "Canaan" = merchant),
  • enjoying greater peace and security than others (Moab and the Ammonites)
  • enjoying prosperity and being able to shape the world to suit us (Assyria)

Let us never think that we enjoy peace and security and success and prosperity because we are better than the people of Aleppo, the refugees sleeping rough in the forests in northern France or the people who go to food banks when we go to the supermarket. Let us not ignore those who live on the margins of society and associate with rather than merely give to the poor.


Note also that God’s judgement has a positive purpose, it is in another sense not the end of the world. Twice we read about a Judean “remnant” (the word reminds us that Judah goes through the disaster as much as the other nations; it is not the beneficiary as such) and there is a glimpse of hope for non-Judeans as well in verse 11, to be teased out further in the next chapter: Disaster demolishes idols and so enables recognition of the one true God. This must be a good thing.

Ultimately we will see such victory of the truth over fake news and gods only in the final judgement but there are glimpses of this victory in modern history as well, e.g. in the way militant atheism has been unable to suppress the Christian faith in China and Russia.

We should not see God as being bent upon bringing disaster, as if he delights in the death of anyone, but able to bring good out of disaster.

Almighty God, our only strength and refuge, forgive our pride and arrogance and wean us off a false sense of security. Have mercy upon our nation. Grant us repentance sooner than disaster. Let your kingdom come and all the world acknowledge your majesty.

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Preaching Zephaniah

I am half way through an eight-week sermon series on Zephaniah. For last week's Bible Study I produced a crib sheet to remind us of the first three sermons. This may not make a great deal of sense to those who have not heard the sermons but I put it here anyway.

Zephaniah 1:1-7
Deuteronomy 18:15-22; “The word of the Lord that came to Zephaniah.”
The end of the world, announced in 630s or 620s BC.
  • disintegration of the present political system in early sixth century BC
  • on the cross
  • “at the end of days”
God’s involvement in such disaster; God’s aim.
Invitations to face up to God, e.g. James 5:14-16.

Being silent before God: 
  • stopping the routine, 
  • pausing the activism, 
  • stopping the talking 
– but here ironic.

Zephaniah 1:7-18
“How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:23, 25)

The risk factors (cf. 1 Timothy 6:17):
(1) with great power (<- resources) comes great responsibility
(2) wealth & power often disconnect people from those who are less well off
(3) wealth ~ greed + violence and fraud nexus
(4) wealth creates an illusion of independence and safety

“Madame missionary, I never realized that Jesus was all I needed, until Jesus was all I had.”

Zephaniah 2:1-3
The well-off asked to act as if they were poor – as a matter of urgency! Why?
--> Learning about dependence (humility)
--> Developing a longing/hunger for justice (righteousness)

What might this look like for us?
Not simply to give to the poor but to belong with “the humble of the land”.

The “humble of the land”... (who are responsive to God)
(a) humble circumstances, low rank
(b) having a modest estimate of one’s importance
... are asked to seek

(1)  the Lord
(2) righteousness = rightly ordered relationships > justice for me
(3) humility – seeking humility > humbleness being forced upon me

Friday, 7 September 2018

Hebrew Bible Perspectives on Economic Ethics


Thomas Krüger, “Wirtschaftsethische Perspektiven der Hebräischen Bibel,” in A. Härter, E. A. Kunz, and H. Weidemann (eds), Dazwischen: Zum transitorischen Denken in Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaft (FS J. Anderegg). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2003. Pp. 333-347.

observes
  • the location of the Torah in the wilderness following the experience of slavery and mistreatment,
  • that the wilderness where everyone is provided for by God and no-one knows whether they are going to be rich or poor in the land is an ideal place to agree to a law which serves rich and poor
  • that the people’s voluntary agreement is required for the divine laws to be put into force (Exod. 24; Deut. 26:16-19; 28:69);

notes
  • the importance of key terms within the prophetic critique such as zedakah (the preservation and restoration of a life-promoting order for the community and the world), mishpat (which aims at the amicable resolution of conflicts in a balancing co-ordination of interests), and hesed (the elementary bond, solidarity and loyalty in the manifold human relationships such as between relatives, between friends, between host and guest, between master and slaves),
  • the ideal of the economic independence of individuals or individual families (ideally shalom);

argues
  • that the social critique of the prophets assumes that the ultimate aim of social and economic action is to safeguard the freedom of all members of the community which requires a certain distribution of goods and especially of the means of production (which can well be uneven but not such that the rich become richer at the expense of the poor);

traces
  • a development within the composition history of the Torah from (1) Exod. 21-23 which focuses on the reconciliation of interests between the rich and the poor, via (2) Deut. 12-24 which aims at the elimination of poverty – a goal which is considered worthy even if not achievable, to (3) Lev. 25 which has even distribution of income as its goal;

emphasises
  • the biblical insight that the freedom of the individual and of the individual clan requires economic independence  and
  • the biblical conviction that an economic system oriented towards freedom and justice will be more successful in the long run than ways of running the economy which ignore them;
  • makes the point
  • that the difference of treatment between members of the community and foreigners is not to take advantage of foreigners but to prevent being taken advantage of, given the less charitable systems in Israel’s neighbourhood,
  • that the Psalms and wisdom literature qualify the value of wealth and prosperity in favour of justice (e.g. Prov. 10:2) and love and peace (e.g., Prov. 15:16-17), not least with God and the afterlife in view (e.g. Ps. 4:6-8; 17:14-15; 73:25-26), so that wealth can be considered problematic as much as poverty (Prov. 30:8-9);

suggests
  • that the most detailed and thoughtful reflection on the value of material wealth and its just distribution is found in Ecclesiastes, esp. chap. 4, reinforced in 5:9-6:9, where it is emphasised that material goods are means to an end, namely the enjoyment of life which God intends for every human being with the consequence that (a) the rich can only lay claim to that part of their wealth actually needed for their enjoyment of life and (b) a distribution of goods which allows everyone to enjoy life is desirable;
  • that Eccl. 11:1-2 then reinforces the second insight of Eccl 4 which given the uncertainty of life draws the conclusion that it makes sense for the rich to work towards a system that balances  discrepancies of income, not least as they might be in need of such a system themselves in the future.

Krüger concludes
  • that we obviously cannot simply transfer the ethical deliberations and economic concepts of the Hebrew Bible to our situation in which economic structures and processes are vastly more complex but
  • that the biblical texts can remind us of some of the basics easily overlooked in our complex world, namely that freedom presupposes economic independence, that wealth and propserity are means to an end, that success of human endeavour does not depend only on effort and skill but also on factors beyond human control,
  • that the biblical aim of an an even distribution of “land” (which in those days meant means of production, labour, and food) is at least worth considering.


Monday, 5 March 2018

Understanding Nationhood


“The contradictions in modern understandings of nationhood are obvious. On the one hand, the notion of nation-sates that matured in Europe in the nineteenth century was based on a romantic ideal of matching ethnic, linguistic, and cultural boundaries with political borders. At the same time, these same nations were caring the rest of the world up into subject states in which state boundaries often bore no relationship whatsoever with ethnic boundaries. But this raises the question: What does it mean to be a nation? Modern Western answers to this question tend to be as inconsistent as the perceptions of the ANE. Several factors that contributed in varying degrees to the ancients’ national self-consciousness may be identified.
1. Ethnicity. The importance of this factor varied. In the territorial states of northern Syria (encompassing the Phoenicians and Aramaeans) this element appears to have been inconsequential in the determination of national boundaries. In the national states farther south ethnicity was one of the primary determinants of nationality...
2. Territory... In territorial states membership was determined simply by residence within the territory of the state [גּוֹי], without consideration of ethnic origin or affiliation [עָם]. The size of such states tended to depend on the political, military, and economic power of the king ruling in the capital city. Accordingly, a single ethnic or cultural group [עָם] could be divided into a series of states [גּוֹיִם], a pattern evident in Aramaean and Phoenician regions (e.g., Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, Sidon). In national states membership was determined by affiliation with an ethnic group, and ethnic borders tended to coincide with political boundaries (e.g., Israel, Ammon, Moab, Edom...The boundaries of territorial states fluctuated, depending on the ability of the king to control his region or incorporate more land. For both types of states territory played a critical role in national development...
3. Theology. In the ANE, nations tended to be identified with their own distinctive patron deity...In the minds of Phoenicians and Aramaeans, like the Mesopotamians, a people related to a specific god by virtue of residence in that god’s land. The Hebrews, by contrast, viewed their association with Yahweh as primary; the land of Canaan represented his grant to them after he had established himself as their God by covenant...But this notion of national deities was not absolute. The gods of the nations outside Israel tolerated the worship of other divinities by their subjects, even within the homeland or city, and the subjects felt free to worship other gods at home, and especially when they traveled to a new land...
4. Kingship. In both territorial and national states the institution of kingship served as a glue holding the subjects of a nation together...
5. Language. Several types of evidence in the OT suggest that people of the ANE recognized a link between language and nationality...However, [other evidence] suggests that the relationship between language and nationality may not have been the subject of much reflection...The OT traditions imply that all the nations of southern Syria (the Philistines, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Israel) gave up their native tongues in favor of the Canaanite dialect without any loss of national self-consciousness...
From Daniel I. Block, “Nations/Nationality,” NIDOTTE 4:966-972.

The Decalogue and Confession


Lent has long been considered a good time to take stock, to confess our sins before God. And the Ten Commandments (see previous post) are sometimes recommended to help us prepare for confession. As I encouraged my congregation to prayerfully reflect on the Ten Commandments for this purpose I asked them to remember this: When we ask ourselves, “have I kept this law?” the question is fundamentally not “have I done anything that contravenes it?”

Much more basic are these questions:
  • Do I believe what these commandments imply about the nature of reality? Do I trust God?
  • Do I want to keep these commandments? Do I love to do God’s will?
Because if I am merely interested in not getting on the wrong side of the law or if I try to earn brownie points with God, I have completely and utterly misunderstood what this is all about. Christ delivered me and so I need not fear God’s judicial punishment or earn his favour. Christ lived the perfect life here on earth. I want to follow him and so I want to read and reflect on the Ten Commandments in order to learn about my God, to trust him more, and to live as a human made in the image of God, as a child of my heavenly Father, and as a disciple of Christ. And I pray that God’s Spirit would enable this.

And so, e.g.,  when reflecting on the last commandment I want to “learn how to make distinctions between desiring that which is wholesome and good and beneficial for both people and nature and that which only feeds a hunger for more than we need.” (Janzen, Exodus, 238) I want to ponder the question why it is that we have more than some and less than others which leads me to two other questions: what does God want me to do with the resources he has given me and what might he want to tell me by not giving me someone else’s resources?

The Ten Commandments

Some notes in preparation for a sermon about the Ten Commandments

1. The Ten Commandments are God's words and that is why we pay attention to them. Indeed, they are God's words in a special sense because this is the only time God spoke to his whole people together and these are the only words God is said to have written down himself. 

2. They are not all that can or needs to be said about how God’s people are to live. Thus the Ten Commandments instruct us not to murder (“kill without authority”), not to commit adultery, and to honour our parents but they do not spell out what this means. For this we need – and are given – more words from God. The same applies to the great commandment to love God and neighbour. We need to learn what it means to truly love.

3. The Ten Commandments are God's words for a people he has delivered from slavery. This suggests two things:
·         we do not become God’s people by obeying his commandments; we have become God’s people by his gracious act of deliverance; God’s instructions are to help us to become more and more his holy people
·         the commandments are not to enslave us; God has liberated from slavery – the law is a gift of his grace; it shows us the good life; the commandments are the boundaries that make true freedom possible, a bit like a play ground fence facilitates safe play for children and guard rails on mountain roads help safe driving

4. The first commandment is the basis for the other commandments. 
“All sins are sins against the first commandment; the first commandment contains the whole of the Decalogue. For all sin serves some other god, obeys another commander: the world or the flesh or the devil. So if we obeyed only this one commandment perfectly, we would need nothing more. St Augu­stine says, “Love God and then do what you will.” For if you give your whole heart and will and love to God, then what you will will be all that God wills.” (Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, 205)
This is not payback for God’s deliverance; this is an expression of our belief that God is worthy to be feared, to be loved, and to be trusted above all things. God deserves the allegiance of those he delivered. More fundamentally, the nature of reality demands that worship is only given to God. Idolatry consist in treating as God what is not God. This links closely with the next word.

5. The living God who transcends all of creation cannot be represented by a lifeless statue. To confuse the Creator with a part of creation has serious and far-reaching implications for our life as God’s people. The Israelites were told that if they disobeyed, the effects would be felt by whole households for several generations.

6. God’s reputation is of the utmost importance - for us. (The old blasphemy laws were not about protecting God, but protecting us against fundamentally misconceiving reality.) If God’s name is besmirched, people are not drawn to him. God’s name must be honoured and praised, celebrated and invoked. To treat God’s name with disrespect is to treat his gift lightly and to misrepresent his nature. Arguably the worst way in which we can break this commandment is by calling ourselves Christians without living as disciples of Christ. How can they call upon him whom they do not know because those who bear his name misrepresent him? 

7. We are not to live as if all time were our own, to do with as we please. “The God of all time retains the right to determine how one day shall or shall not be used.” (Janzen, Exodus, 229). Remembering the Sabbath by creating “a sanctuary of time” aligns us with the pattern of creation. God built into the very order of things a working/resting rhythm. “By resting on the seventh day, Israel is not just following God’s command, but actually following God’s lead.” (Enns, Exodus, 419)

8. The commandment to honour one’s parents (notice: both father and mother) is open-ended, not clearly defined. It finds expression differently at different stages of our lives. For young children to “honour” one’s parents means to trust and obey them; for mature adults, especially when their parents get to a stage that is closer to the dependence of childhood again, to “honour” one’s parents means to make sure that they are properly cared for and to make time for them.

This is the first commandment with a promise, as the apostle reminds us (Eph. 6:2). This should not be understood in an individualistic way. The nation Israel is here warned that breaking God’s commands, “will jeopardize their possession of the land God has given them.” (Enns, Exodus, 421)

9. God protects the integrity of his creation by prohibiting attacks and so the next few commandments give us
  • God’s “No” to attacking another’s life
  • God’s “No” to attacking another’s marriage
  • God’s “No” to attacking another’s property
  • God’s “No” to attacking another’s reputation
These commandments are not about personal morality only but protect society from the corrosive effect of violence and injustice. They can remind us that
  • life belongs to God and he alone has the right to end it 
  • sexual union in God’s purposes is linked with procreation and parenthood 
  • theft is an attack on human dignity and their work 
  • false witness compromises justice and gossip corrodes community
10. The last commandment concerns our hearts rather than actions. Lust, envy, and greed will lead to breaking other commandments. In this sense the tenth commandment is a ‘summary commandment’, as one commentator pout it (John Durham). Coveting of course cannot be regulated or policed and this reminds us again at the end that it is all about God. Only God can look upon the heart. “These commands are not given so that we can be good citizens, but so that we can reflect even more fully the image of God in which we participate through our union with the risen Christ.” (Enns, Exodus, 430)

Final reflection in the following post.