Job 22-23
Again, much like the modern era, when people tend to talk past each other, frustration mounts and when frustration mounts, so do personal attacks. In Job 22, Eliphaz kind of snaps, he goes right after Job. Whereas the conversation about wickedness has been largely third person to date, now Eliphaz charges Job with being a wicked person in league with fellow wicked people. Job has favored a system in which the wicked can prosper, Job has sided with the rich and greedy. To answer Job's own question of does God punish the wicked, Eliphaz holds out Job as the example of one who has been brought low by God. "Yes, Job, God does punish the wicked, look in the mirror!"
Perhaps, Eliphaz gains control of himself and finds softer side half way through the chapter. Job, just repent, God will relent. More of the same, but still missing the point that Job was righteous previously but now he suffers. And no one can point out his transgression!
Sensing that things have gotten out of hand, hearing now the personal attacks, Job begins to turn from his friends and directly addresses God. Job frames his own action as rebellion, but true piety, for he stretches out to God in prayer. He is not seeking to run away from God but seeks to enter into relationship with God. Job 23 demonstrates the audacity of believing, the audacity of seeking God and desiring a response. Job will search out the world and the universe to make his case, for his foot has not left God's "steps." Job has not left God, he contends that God has left him. (Gee, he might be right.)
Psalm 85
If this psalm comes for the post-exilic community that it is believed to eminate from, then Israel is looking back upon a God who has forgiven its sins in the past and redeemed them. Israel is now seeking this forgiveness for its present context.
The psalm raises the hope of a God whose steadfast love and faithfulness will be demonstrated in real terms, that Israel will again recover its favored status.
Backlogged Posts
1 Chronicles 22-23
The Chronicler now provides new content in the story of the building of the temple. First, David is very involved in building the temple in that he makes provisions for the building of the temple because his son, Solomon, is too inexperienced in 1 Chronicles 22. He then charges Solomon to build the temple, since too much blood resides on David's hands, perhaps through warfare but also because of the recent plague.
Second, there is no story of the intrigue of the succession of David, no feuding sons or bickering supporters. Solomon is the heir, and there are no questions. The author continues to focus the spot light on the righteousness of David and Solomon, and no others.
Finally, David charges all of Israel to join and support Solomon in this undertaking. Perhaps again the author is seeking to unify Israel in the rebuilding of Israel after the exile by demonstrating that the temple was built by all of Israel the first time.
1 Chronicles 23 provides another list of Levites and their roles but more importantly it demonstrates an orderly transition from David to Solomon and then a listing of the Levites new role in assisting in temple worship.
Galatians 2
Paul continues in his biographical information but now it is pointed at the issue at hand, whether Gentiles need to be circumcised in order to fully be welcome into the body of Christ. Paul has always seen himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, a commission that he received from Jesus on the road to Damascus. As the issue became a problem for the unity of the church, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem, where his position and the unity of the church was upheld. Paul not only can lay claim to the ministry to the Gentiles from Jesus but he can lay claim to the orthodoxy of the position on whether Gentiles need to be circumcised, for the Church upheld his interpretation. Any other view is not consistent with the Gospel's ministry of grace.
The second half of the chapter revolves around an encounter with Peter in Antioch in which Peter changes his practice of eating with Gentiles. It had been common for Jews and Gentiles to eat together, this was not up for debate, but the question of why Peter changed his practice is an interesting question. It is possible that due to political pressure in Jerusalem over what it was to be Jewish, Peter thought it best to withdraw from the Gentiles to ease the pressure on the believers in Jerusalem. Recall at this time, there is not a split between Jews and Christians, Christians by and large were considered to be a sect within Judaism. Therefore practices within Christianity that were no "Jewish" could bring pressure down upon the church leaders in Jerusalem.
For Paul the issue is a very important theological point, that launches into a description of being justified by works vs. being justified by faith. This is the basis of Paul's larger body of work in Letter to the Romans, and it was the basis for the Reformation. Here it has its birth in an inner conflict within the early church.
No comments:
Post a Comment