Job 20-21
Sometimes I wonder if our modern public policy debates took their cues from God, because it looks and reads very much like Job and his friends are talking past each other. Job is fixated on having a right to question God, while the other's seem to be interested in having a theological discussion on conventional theology of the wicked and righteous.
Now, in Job 20, Zophar comes back against Job, who hopes to have a way in the future to be vindicated either dead or alive, addresses the assumed reality that Job is wicked, has suffered because he is wicked and since the wicked have no future recourse, will not find any vindication. If he wants to be vindicated, he needs to come clean and confess his sins.
In his address, Zophar speaks of the greed and the veracious appetite of the wicked who devour the world and then vomit it out. It is not a pleasant imagery, which I think is the point. However, the bottom line is that they will die and not be remembered, they will be forgotten for the wicked are fleeting, but the righteous are those that live on. Zophar, in a rather abrupt way, is trying to get Job to understand his predicament and turn back to God. He does not understand that it is possible that Job never turned away from God.
While not really interested in discussing the outcome of the wicked, Job cannot help but respond to Zophar. Job knows the philosophy of the eventual downfall of the wicked, but as he looks around the world, he wonders, really? He snaps in Job 21, the wicked are punished, really? Job looks around the world and sees how the wicked are prospering, living off the wealth of the land and the on the backs of others. Where is their justice? Where is their comeuppance? If Job is suffering because his is wicked, then why is he the only one? In his observation, Job ventures into the reality of the situation. This is not some abstract theological discourse, the wicked are not being punished!
I agree Job! What the heck is going on?
Luke 20
What is the difference between the way of God and the way of humanity? The author of Luke goes a long way to describe this difference in our present chapter. When the elders, chief priests and scribes question Jesus on his authority, are they not really asking if they have given him permission to teach? That is truly their question. Yet Jesus wonders what their authority is to question him and turns the question around.
The response is telling, for it demonstrates that the scribes, elders and priests have no authority if their response depends upon the politics of the day. How can one be authority of God when one cannot even discern what God is doing in the world and if one fears for the response of the people to what God is doing in the world? Since the religious leaders abdicate their authority and feign ignorance, then Jesus has no need to explain his own authority.
In a like way, in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, the tenants attempt to gain land, or the Kingdom, by means of this world; they lie, cheat, steal and murder. But if they must gain the land, which does not belong to them, by tactics of depravity, will not the true landowner bring recompense? The ways of this world will not lead us to the Kingdom, only the way of God can get us there. Neither the wicked tenants or the religious leaders seem to have grasped this reality.
Perhaps realizing this the author now offers the story of paying taxes. It is familiar enough, I need not explain it in detail. But needless to say, when Jesus says "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" the reader must understand that the only thing that belongs to Caesar is the coin. Everything else we have belongs to God. But I think most of us read this passage to say that our spiritual life belongs to God, or our church life, but we would be wrong to draw the line there. Everything about us belongs to God.
Similarly, the question of the Resurrection demonstrates the continued attempts to anthropomorphise God and God's teachings. They cannot and will not be. If one is in heaven, what is the need to marry? To be married was more of a social security compact at this time. It provides for economic security, future prosperity, etc. (I know I sound like a romantic. Yes people got married for love as well.) So if one is in heaven, does one need the security of marriage? I think not.
The closing passages demonstrate the failure of some "religious" people to realize the truth of faith.
Backlogged Posts
1 Chronicles 19-21
While I am not trying to sound like a broken record, I fear I am. If you have read the story of how David and Israel defeated the Ammonites and Arameans after the rebellion of Hanun in 2 Samuel, then 1 Chronicles 19 is repetitious for it almost is word for word. Some names have changed, place names that later generations would recognize as opposed for ancient names. This is one of the ways that historians will date a text, and why are are pretty sure that the chronicler was writing post-exile.
The continued emphasis on the unity and power of Israel under David could be a call for the returned exiles to work together with all the remnants of Israel to rebuild.
Ah ha! A difference. Yes, a real difference. If you recall, 2 Samuel tells of the story of Uriah and Bethsheba following the war with Hanun, but it is not in 1 Chronicles 20, instead it just speaks of David's sacking of the city of Rabbah. The author is intent on maintaining the intregrity of David, and later Solomon, so he leaves out the sordid details of David, Uriah and Bethsheba.
The chapter then closes with the defeat of the Philistines; the wars had opened with the Philistines and now they close with the Philistines. In the battle, it would seem that the last of the giants have sided with the Philistines but David's warriors can even defeat giants! Perhaps even Goliath and his brother.
David's affair with Bethsheba leads to God's wraith which in turn leads David to call for a census which is a no no unless God asks for one. This is turn leads to divine punishment through a plague. 1 Chronicles 21 changes it a bit, it is not God's anger that leads to David's sin of the census, it is instead the actions of Satan. Either way, Israel is punished for David's sin, but through this action, David comes across the site for the temple, on the threshing floor of Ornan.
Psalm 69
The psalmist calls out for deliverance. They have been afflicted, perhaps an illness or perhaps suffering from the slings and barbs of the enemy. The person mourns and seeks relief from their predicament. It is possible that the setting is post-exilic with references being made by one who is zealously trying to rebuild the temple. However, it is clear that the persons faith and commitment to God have lead them into their present situation. They feel that if they had not been so zealous for God, they might not be in this position. So they seek God to deliver him or her.
Yet the psalmist proclaims their trust in God, even through their suffering and even though the nation of Israel itself has been conquered. God will redeem them, that is the trust of the psalmist.
No comments:
Post a Comment