www.stephendawes.com
BIBLE STUDIES etc
go to university diploma or degree
go to university certificate (1)
go to university certificate (2)
go to Truro Theological Society
go to powerpoint presentations
This page contains material which we hope might be useful for House Fellowships, Bible Studies and Discussion Groups, as well as for personal study, devotions or reflection.
INDEX
The following items on the articles page could also be useful for such things:
- 1. ‘Preaching the Cross of Christ’.
- 2. ‘The Bible and Human Sexuality’.
- 6. ‘Playing God’ could form the introduction to a discussion on Genesis 1.26-31, ‘made in the image of God’, and ethical questions arising in modern medicine.
- 10. ‘A God who care and provides’ could be used for a Bible Study on Psalm 23.
- 15. Any one of the psalms discussed in ‘Twelve Psalms’ could be used for a Bible Study. They are Psalms 1, 8, 18, 19, 24, 42, 51, 82, 100, 103, 131 and 150.
- 16. ‘The Importance of Christmas’.
- 17. ‘The Importance of Easter’.
Some of the shorter lectures might also be useful for Discussion Groups, especially:
- 8. ‘Making sense of the Old Testament’.
- 10. ‘Assisted Dying – a speech in support’.
- Lecture 13 on Exodus 34 from the university - certificate page might be useful too.
Each of the 13 chapters in Looking On - Reflections around the Cross (on the books page) provides a possible Bible Study on aspects of the Triumphant Entry, Good Friday and Easter around imagined characters on the scene. Each chapter ends with a question for reflection or discussion.
Likewise each of the 17 chapters in Thinking Things Through – Prayer (on the books page) ends with discussion questions which have been used with profit for House Group sessions and courses in a number of places.
Desert Island Hymns (on the books page) has no discussion questions, but each of the 8 chapters is on a well-known hymn which illustrates one of the big themes of the Christian Faith, and any of those chapters could be used for a House Group session.
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, May-August 1997)
The first verse of the old Sunday School hymn, "God has given us a book full of stories" ends,
- "It begins with the tale of a garden
- and ends with the city of gold".
The second begins, "But the best is the story of Jesus ..." and best implies that there are other Bible stories which are not so good. Some of those in 1 Samuel 1-16 come into this category. Here is a collection of ancient tales, adding up to a sad and not very edifying story.
Whenever and wherever these stories were first told they appear where they do in the Hebrew Bible as part of a longer tragedy. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings tell the story of the People of Israel from a bright beginning on the wrong side of the Jordan River into, and then out of the Promised Land, and away to exile in Babylon. This tragic story is followed by four explanations (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and The Twelve) which repeat the same message - the People of Israel are the People of God and the tragedy is that their misfortune is of their own making. The theme of the story and the message of the explanation is the same - they have brought the catastrophe of the exile upon themselves by their disobedience and wrongdoing.
Occasionally this message is made explicit, as when Samuel says to the people,
"If you will fear the LORD and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God, it will be well; but if you will not heed the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you and your king". (1 Samuel 12:14-15)
Mostly it lies hidden in the story itself. And no doubt this story wasn't told and retold simply as a history lesson. It had a moral for the present and the future of the People of God.
So the message of 1 Samuel 1-16 is this, heard early on in Hannah's Song,
- "He will guard the feet of his faithful ones,
- but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness;
- for not by might does one prevail". (1 Samuel 2:9)
But the plot is much more subtle, for who are the "faithful ones" and who the "wicked"? Hannah sings of risings and fallings, but in the story each rise leads to a fall and there are no heroes. Neither Samuel nor Saul come out of it very well. It is a story of fathers and sons. Eli's bad sons bring about Samuel's rise, but his sons turn out no better than Eli's and Saul's good son cannot prevent his father's fall. At the end we come to David, the true anointed one, in whose story the same themes of risings and fallings and fathers and sons will continue. In all its characters the story teases us with the ambiguities of human success and failure.
The version used here is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Bibles with footnotes will make it clear that in these chapters the traditional Hebrew text often varies considerably from the ancient translations and from a Hebrew text recently discovered at Qumran.
1 Samuel 1.1 – 3.18. 4-10 August
1 The scene is set. Read 1 Samuel 1:1-18
First we meet a man with a childless wife. Here are echoes of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16-17), Rebekah (Genesis 25:21) and especially Rachel, childless and taunted by her husband's other wife (Genesis 30:1). The story of Samson begins with exactly the same words as this one (Judges 13:2). All these are stories of God doing something special. So a mood begins to be created.
In the first scene are Elkanah, Hannah and Peninnah. And God. A family from another culture and another age: but not a happy family. Here, as often in Bible stories, the on-stage actors only know half of what is going on. Hannah knows she is childless: but only we readers know the cause (v.5), and we wonder why God should be doing this. In the other stories he opens wombs. But there is humour too, as in the portrayal of Elkanah. For the life of him he can't see why Hannah should get so worked up about not having a son; after all, doesn't she have him? Verses 5 and 8 are unclear but that's the gist of them.
In the second shot we see Hannah and Eli. In distress Hannah prays and vows to give the son she prays for to God in a special way. Every first-born male was dedicated to God: but in the case of Hannah's son there would be an extra dedication. She would give him to the LORD for all of his life, and that would be a teetotal life without a razor! NRSV uses the technical word here for such a consecrated person, nazirite (see Numbers 6:5). Eli watches, apologises, listens and blesses. Hannah leaves the matter with God, believes and goes in peace.
These opening verses set the scene and raise our expectations: a childless woman and an unsympathetic co-wife, a prayer out of deep affliction, a promise to God. We are invited to read on, wondering if God will answer Hannah, and if this is a significant story we are starting to read?
2 The gift is given. Read 1 Samuel 1:19-28
The gift is given (vv.19-20). Returning home Elkanah makes love to Hannah ("Elkanah knew Hannah") and the LORD fulfils his plans for her ("the LORD remembered her"). Like most recent translations NRSV perseveres in using Hebrew idioms for these two events, even at the risk of misleading us into thinking that God might forget something. So a son is born and named, the first of several namings in 1 Samuel. The boy is called "Samuel", which Hannah explains as "Asked of God," because that is how he came about. Unfortunately the proper etymology of this name is rather different, which has led to theories which divert attention from the story. The point of these two verses, incorrect etymology included, is to emphasise that the conception of this child is emphatically the LORD's work.
The vow is honoured (vv.21-28). Elkanah's prayer that the LORD will "establish his word" (v.23) reads a little oddly at first, and some modern translations and ancient versions change his to your, which certainly makes sense. But in so doing they miss a point, which is that all of these events are the work of God. Elkanah has seen this, and so he prays that as the child's conception was really the LORD's work, so may his total dedication be.
Hannah's offering, when it is finally given, is more than generous. Not only does she offer her firstborn son, but also a generous offering besides. The Hebrew text makes it more generous still, for in its v.24 Hannah takes three bulls up to Shiloh. Our modern translations follow the ancient Greek and Syriac and the manuscript from Qumran. Verses 27-28 contain a play on words which our translations cannot reproduce. Petition and made in v.27 (literally "the asking which I asked") are from the same verb as lent and given in v.28 (I suppose there is even a connection between those four English words if you look hard enough). The facts that the three root letters of these words spell the name Saul, and that the etymology of "Saul" really is "Asked of God," is another reminder, if we needed one, that this story is no simple tale. But, as the hymn says, God is working his purpose out. So far, so good.
3 Hannah's Song. Read 1 Samuel 2:1-10
Hannah's Song echoes through the Bible: in Mary's Song in Luke 1:46-55, in those psalms which talk of a God who turns things upside down (eg 18:27, 75, 94, 113:7-9, compare Isaiah 2:7-19) and in those places where earthly values are stood on their head (eg in the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-12). In a real sense Jesus lives out Hannah's Song.
It is a feature of storytelling in the Old Testament to insert songs, poems or psalms at key points, as David's Song (which is Psalm 18) is inserted in 2 Samuel 22. Hannah's Song is one such psalm, though we have no other version of it anywhere else. It has all the features of a "royal psalm" in the form of a thanksgiving spoken by or on behalf of the king. It links with Hannah's experience specifically in v.5 and generally in its theme of God raising up the despised and bringing down the proud. It fits too as part of the longer story, with its final reference to God's "king," his "anointed" one (messiah) in v.10. Messiah is simply the English form of the Hebrew word for Anointed One, which was what kings of Judah were called because they were anointed at their coronation.
Verse 10 sets the scene for much of what follows, for the stories of Samuel, Saul and David are stories about struggles for power. This verse insists that there is only one king-maker, the LORD, and that it is the LORD alone who gives strength to his king and exalts the power of his anointed. But who is his king? And who is his anointed? For the story which follows is not only of the failure of the first anointed king, Saul, and the beginnings of the reign of David, but the longer story of the failure of David's monarchy too! The importance of this song in the context of the exile is clear. The exile is God's punishment on the proud and any hope for the future lies in his raising those who are poor and broken.
4 False sons and a true. Read 1 Samuel 2:11-26
This is a section of contrast, but before we trace it look at what is missing from v.11. There is no mention of Hannah, or her feelings, at all!
The contrast is made by alternating glimpses of the goodness of Samuel (v.11, vv.18-21, v.26) with longer scenes of the badness of Eli's sons (vv.12-17, vv.22-25). Elkanah leaves and Samuel remains to minister to the LORD. He is now old enough to act in the story. He does what he should, watched by Eli, and everyone approves of him - Eli, the people and God. Behind his back Eli's sons do not behave as priests should, and even their bad behaviour is inconsistent, do they want boiled meat or not (vv.13-15)? The people are horrified by their behaviour, as is Eli when they tell him, and so is God. They refuse to listen to Eli, but what are we to make of the last sentence of v.26? The story simply says that this is all part of the LORD's overall plan, the same LORD who before had "hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7:3 etc) and later will send an evil spirit into Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). Some commentators explain this by saying that here Hebrew identifies cause with effect, and that may be true: but it is perhaps better simply to recognise that the storyteller is not a twentieth-century Christian.
Samuel is growing into a true son for Eli and a faithful priest to God, though he is neither natural son nor of priestly line. Those who are the sons of Eli and of priestly descent are no proper sons or priests at all.
5 God against Eli. Read 1 Samuel 2:27-36
Here is the first significant bit-part in the story. An unnamed "man of God" (that is, a prophet, someone who speaks for God) comes to Eli and his opening words, "Thus says the LORD" are traditional ones which confirm that he brings a message from God.
The message is devastatingly simple. He announces the replacement of Eli and his family as priests. Tracing priestly lines in the Old Testament is highly complicated, and the reality was no doubt more complex still: but here the point is simple. God can change his mind if things don't work out as he intends. They haven't. So he will.
v.28 is a neat nutshell description of a priest's duties. The ephod mentioned here is not the simple priestly robe of v.19: but either (as in Exodus 28:5-35) the elaborate garment which contained a pocket for the Urim and Thummim, stones by which the priest could cast lots to ascertain God's will, or (as in 1 Samuel 14:3, 23:6,9 and 30:7) some sort of box or pouch for carrying them.
Running through this message is a deliberate confusion - Eli and his house are confused with the whole House of Israel - as the prophet looks both backwards and forwards. Looking backwards, who is this "ancestor" in v.27, is it Aaron, the official ancestor of the priests, or Moses, the ancestor of all the people? Looking forwards, the fate of whoever is meant in v.33 is very close to that of King Zedekiah in the exile in 2 Kings 25:1-7. So whose wrongdoing and punishment is announced here, Eli's and his family or Israel's? The good news in v.35 picks up the promise of 2:10, but is this new future about Samuel as God's faithful priest, or a new king to come after the exile? The message is deliberately vague: but its allusions and implications, bad and good, for those of the exiled generation would be clear.
6 "Samuel! Samuel!" Read 1 Samuel 3:1-18
Those who went to Sunday School will remember this as a favourite lesson. Others might be familiar with the Victorian hymn, "Hushed was the evening hymn," which is still a helpful meditation on the passage. The story itself is simple and touching and needs little comment.
At first sight v.1 seems odd. We have only just read a "word of the LORD" from the unnamed prophet. Perhaps this shows one of the joins where two stories were put together, but as it is it serves to reinforce God's total rejection of Eli and his line. If God's word was rare, then for the same person to receive the same message twice it must be important.
The ark of God appears for the first time in v.3. It features large in later stories and we will look at its significance then.
For me the central character in this story is Eli rather than Samuel. I read of the faithful listening ear of the old man, who encourages Samuel to listen to the voice and then insists that he tell what it says, even though he knows what he will hear will destroy him. Then in v.18b he responds, not with resignation, but with the sort of trustful obedience that is the mark of faithfulness in many Old Testament stories, seen at its highest in the Authorised Version translation of Job 13:15, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in Him."
Guidelines
An obvious question is, why read an ancient story like this? One answer is - because it's a true account of the events it portrays. But if it isn't, and it is very difficult for us to believe that it is when it tells, for example, of God opening and closing a womb, then that answer falls flat. Another answer might be that like all good fiction it has important things to say about God and the meaning of life, the universe and everything. And we have already seen that it is a good story with an intriguing plot and real characters. There are obvious dangers in turning stories into doctrines or in hardening poetry into prose: and Jesus' use of parables encourages us to read a story like 1 Samuel (which perhaps we might call "historical fiction") with our eyes open. It is as if the those who included this book in our Bibles are saying to us, "If you have eyes to see, then see!"
11-17 August. 1 Samuel 3.19 – 8.22
1 A capture and many deaths. Read 1 Samuel 3:19-4:11
In vv.19-21 the storyteller moves us quickly down the years. Samuel fulfills his early promise. He is now a national figure, known from far north (Dan) to deep south (Beersheba). His credentials are superb: he is a prophet to whom the LORD appears regularly (unlike in the old days of v.1) and gives messages. NRSV makes unduly heavy weather of v.21. But we will hear nothing more of Samuel for twenty years (until 7:3).
Chapters 4:1b-7:2 tell a new story about the ark.
The disaster which has been lurking since God's messages to Eli now strikes. The Philistines, unheard of since Samson's time (Judges 16:30), reappear. They were a Mediterranean people (part of the Sea Peoples, as the Egyptians called them) expanding eastwards, arriving in the west of Palestine and settling on the coastal plain just as Israel was emerging in the central highlands. And contrary to our use of the adjective philistine, they appear to have been both cultured and technologically advanced. They are major actors in the unfolding drama.
After their initial defeat the Israelities resort to Plan B, bringing the "ark of the covenant of the LORD" from Shiloh to the battlefield. This is a holy war. With the ark, the LORD himself takes to the field (v.3). The Good News Bible calls the ark the "Covenant Box," an accurate if not very elegant description of this most sacred object. It was a portable shrine or chest, later said to contain the tablets of the Ten Commandments, symbolising the presence and power of the LORD (Exodus 25:10-22, Deuteronomy 10:1-5). It was seen as God's throne or footstool with cherubim (winged sphinxes?) standing guard over it and God "enthroned" on or above them (v.4). Note the association of the ark with the name of God as "LORD of hosts." This is an old title which honours God either as the Lord of the Israelite armies, or, more likely, as the king of the heavenly hosts, which may be the heavenly beings which surround his throne or the stars etc. Much better to leave the possibilities open than to translate it as "the Lord Almighty" as is sometimes done.
The Philistines refuse to give in to their real fear (vv.6-9). They fight. They win.
2 "Ichabod". Read 1 Samuel 4:12-22
The news of defeat is brought to the aged and infirm Eli. He hears the news of his sons unmoved. The news about the ark kills him.
His obituary is brief, "He had judged Israel forty years" (v.18b). He will be the last but one Judge (leader (NIV), chieftain (NJPS)). Some commentators point out that Eli has little in common with the charismatic leaders of previous groups or generations after whom the Book of Judges is named, and that is so. But then neither has Samuel who takes up this task after him (1 Samuel 7:6), because our story is a story of transition. We are moving towards the time when it is a king who will, rightly or wrongly, well or badly, exercise this role of being the saviour and deliverer of God's people (1 Samuel 8:5, 1 Kings 3:9 where NRSV has "govern").
The chapter ends with another birth and naming, but one very different to the last. Before she dies the nameless mother gives her son the desolate name, "Ichabod," and the meaning of the name, "The glory has departed from Israel" is given twice. We are left in no doubt of the desolation it implies. Here again an incorrect etymology adds to the meanings of the story. "Ichabod" probably means "No-glory" or "Where is the glory?", but the mother gives it a much stronger one. It is, "The glory has departed" or better "The glory is exiled," words full of meaning for all later readers.
For the mother the name signifies the tragic loss of the ark and the deaths of her father-in-law and husband. But the storyteller doesn't tell it like that. Their death is not loss but a long planned gain. We have known that it was coming since 2:12. And although we have not been prepared in the same way for the loss of the ark, our reaction to its loss is less than hers. We feel that it has not been lost by the bravery of the Philistines, but by the will of the one who is enthroned on it. We are learning that Israel cannot manipulate or control God, not even by using his most sacred symbols. What matters is obedience. Nothing else. It is a hard lesson.
3 A terror to its captors. Read 1 Samuel 5
Now it is the Philistines who learn that it is the ark, and the LORD enthroned upon it, which is in control. In vv.1-2 they carry "the ark of God" hither and yon at will, just as the Israelites had. Their lesson begins in v.3. They begin to discover that they have a trophy, "the ark of the LORD," they could do without. The ark is mentioned 36 times in these chapters, referred to mainly as the ark of the LORD, the ark of God, and the ark of the God of Israel. Notice where the different titles are used and who uses them.
The Philistines controlled the coastal plain from what we call the Gaza Strip north for thirty miles and east for twenty with their five cities of Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron. Dagon was an old Canaanite god - in their pantheon he was the father of Baal - adopted by the Philistines as their main deity. There was possibly a temple to him in each city, though only the ones at Ashdod and Gaza (Judges 16:23) are mentioned in the Bible.
In the Ashdod temple Dagon was represented by a statue in human form, and the first disaster the ark causes is to that statue. Dagon prostrates himself in worship before the ark of the LORD! Whether this is satirical, ironic, humourous or serious each reader has to judge. v.5 is an example of a reference to the origin of a custom or saying which we find from time to time in Old Testament storytelling (eg Genesis 22:14, 32:32, Joshua 4:9), though what this particular custom was is hard to say. Then disaster strikes the city, and each city to which in desperation they move the ark. In v.6 the Hebrew text mentions a plague of "tumours," and the Greek adds one of mice, who appear in the Hebrew in the next chapter. This suggests that the writer has bubonic plague in mind. The Authorised Version and the New Jewish Publication Society translation have haemorrhoids rather than "tumours." In 6:4 the idea of gold images of plague tumours is bad enough, but images of piles ....
4 Getting rid of it. Read 1 Samuel 6-7:1
In vv.1-2 we see that the Philistines have recognised what the ark really is, that it is the ark of the LORD, and so they wish to return it to its proper place with due reverence to him. The religious experts advise sending a "guilt offering" with the ark when it is returned. In this way they will be healed, "ransomed" (NRSV is following the Greek and the Qumran Hebrew manuscript here) and left alone. There may be hints here of the "spoiling of the Egyptians" (Exodus 3:21) for the exodus stories are referred to explicitly in v.6, or simply of the principle that God should not be approached empty-handedly either when thanking him or seeking something from him (Exodus 23:15, Deuteronomy 16:16-17). To give their gold in the forms of tumours and mice reflects belief in the same sort of magic that prompted Moses to hold up a bronze snake to save the people from snakebite (Numbers 21:9).
In vv.8-12 we see the same sort of test as Gideon putting out his fleece (Judges 6:37-40) or Elijah covering his altar with water (1 Kings 18:33-35). If cows which have never been hitched to a cart and which have only just been separated from their calves keep going away from them it must be God at work. Note the last part of v.9 about "chance".
The ark is welcomed back to Israel by the folk of Beth-shemesh and the Levites offer appropriate sacrifices (vv.13-15). The Levites, seen elsewhere as the proper guardians of the ark, appear only three times in Samuel and Kings. Suffice to say that they are another branch of the priesthood which complicates the already complex picture, both in the Old Testament and beyond it.
6:19-7:1 looks like a fragment of an older and primitive story, but the meaning is clear. The LORD's holiness is not to be trifled with (see also the other story of the ark in 2 Samuel 6:6-8). The details are difficult even after our English translations follow the Greek in removing the worst textual problems (the Hebrew text suggests 50,070 victims!). We do not know who Jeconiah was, nor what his descendants did to deserve what they got.
5 "Ebenezer". Read 1 Samuel 7:2-17
Here is a cycle of blessing-disobedience-misery-repentance-deliverance-blessing and the role of God and his "judge" in it all reminiscent of the book of Judges.
If v.1 reflects the blessing, v.2 hints at the misery. Contrary to what we might have expected after 3:19-4:1a and 7:1, the next twenty years were not good. NRSV's "lamented after" is a very literal translation of the Hebrew. The sad state of affairs is confirmed in Samuel's speech which follows.
Samuel reappears in v.3 and calls the people to repent. Though the ark had returned safely, the people have not been loyal to the LORD. As often in Judges this speech cites worshipping "foreign gods" as the main symptom of disobedience. From exodus to exile the story is of Israel's repeated apostasy from its one true God, the LORD: but the story oversimplifies the realities. Even as late as the exile belief in the LORD alone was only one of the theologies in ancient Israel. See for example Jeremiah 44:15-19, where worshippers of the Queen of Heaven argue with Jeremiah about who is the real heretic responsible for the fall of Jerusalem. Baal ("Lord" or "Husband,") was the main god of the Canaanites who appears frequently in apostasy stories and Astarte was his consort. The "Baals" and "Astartes" (Ashtaroth in some versions) are the local versions. These verses are full of irony: Dagon and the Philistines had acknowledged the LORD; not so his own people.
So Samuel invites all Israel to the sanctuary at Mizpah, where they perform some sort of ceremony involving water, fasting and confession. Saved or delivered is a better translation of the verb in the last sentence of v.6, and in vv.7-11 that deliverence is completed by God. In a passage typical of Judges, the Philistine enemies are routed by God rather than anything the Israelite fighters do. Even Samuel plays no military role. Then in vv.12-14 we have another naming, of the Ebenezer ("Stone of Help") memorial stone.
The chapter ends with blessing. Samuel is an honoured leader, but the picture of him as "Judge" is moving away from the old style military leaders and towards that of a "circuit judge". He has, however, considerable power, because in addition to being "judge" he is prophet and priest.
6 They want a king. Read 1 Samuel 8:1-22
Samuel's sons turn out as badly as Eli's. So the elders gather with a pivotal request - they want a king. Historians exploring the origins of the monarchy in ancient Israel find much conflicting material in chapters 8-12. If one thing is clear, it is that these chapters reflect what we read in much of the Old Testament, that the monarchy is seen as a mixed blessing, and that it evoked very mixed feelings. One extreme sees it as an unmitigated disaster - it was the failings of the monarchy which led to the catastrophe of exile! The other extreme saw the monarchy as the good old days - which would return when a new anointed king, God's Messiah, came to the throne. No doubt there were views everywhere in between.
Samuel, reflecting the views of many of the prophets and of the editors responsible for the story from Joshua-2 Kings, is deeply suspicious of the whole enterprise. The storyteller will have had no trouble in collecting the material for Samuel's speech in vv.10-18.
This chapter is a watershed in the books of Joshua-2 Kings. The old ways are shown to have failed, and not even the most fervent anti-monarchist could say that all had been well in the days before they had kings. The question is, will the new ways fare any better? Samuel begs leave to doubt that they will. And they don't. Verses 7-8 suggest that the only way to keep all things right is to have God as king: but surely it is as impossible to ask that of a nation as it is to expect priests like Eli, charismatic leaders like Samuel or anointed kings to rule as God requires?
Guidelines
These stories are set around 1075-1025BC and the storyteller has got the background history and geography right, as any good storyteller would. I have not commented on any of the dates or places mentioned in the stories, nor on the logistics of the battles. Some commentaries focus on precisely those things. Others ignore them, as I have, except where clarifying them helps to follow the story. My reasoning is that 1 Samuel is not a book about ancient history but about God. But avoiding one set of problems only leads us into another.
In these stories God acts. He closes and opens wombs, causes plagues and fights battles. Are we to read these stories literally and conclude that God acts in today's world? Some Christians have no problem in answering Yes, and saying that he cures the sick, finds you a car-parking space in a crowded city centre or protects your church from wartime bombs. Others, and I am one, have real problems with a God who acts, mainly because so often he doesn't! All this raises acute questions, for example, about what we are doing when we say prayers of petition or intercession.
Another difficulty this raises is with the idea of God's providence, that he has a plan for us. There are no problems with this idea at a very general level (God wants to bless us, God wanted me to be a Methodist Minister etc) but it becomes more and more problematic the more specific you get. There are not many references in the Bible to things happening "by chance," and 1 Samuel 6:9 is one of them. If there were more, perhaps Christians might be more ready to say, "It was an accident" or "It's just one of those things" when faced by some of the terrible, or the nice, chances and changes of life?
I had a conversation recently with someone who said that he found it very uncomfortable to believe that God was not in control of his life. It was like being in a boat without a rudder. I said that it didn't feel like that to me, and I quoted two texts which are precious to me. The first was the hymn, In heavenly love abiding, no change my heart shall fear (I could have added the other one, O love that wilt not let me go). These hymns speak of us being held, no matter what, in God's love. The second was the old translation of Deuteronomy 33:27, "The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms." Knowing that I am held in the love of God helps me to live without believing that God plans every detail of my life. It also helps me to pray for others, that they too may know what it is to be held in those arms, and also that I and others may be used by God as extra arms for those in need.
1 Samuel 9-13. 18-24 August
1 Saul arrives. Read 1 Samuel 9:1-21
Verses 1-2, written in the same style as 1:1-2, begin a new chapter in the longer story. We know that the last chapter turned out very differently from what its opening sentences suggested (for its hero was the childless wife's son!); so what about this one? It seems that Saul has everything going for him, but will it turn out that way?
The story begins innocently enough with Saul, searching for straying donkeys, arriving at a strange town to ask the local holy man where they might be. The boy with him knows that he has a good reputation, but neither of them know his name. When the boy says, "whatever he says comes true" (v.6), we begin to realise that all this is may not be as innocent as it looks, for we know what this "man of God" has just said (in 8:11-18). In the Old Testament the new word "prophet" (which replaced the older word "seer" v.9) covers everything from the national preacher to the local clairvoyant. The boy has enough to pay him for telling them what they want to know (does this boy remind you of another in a later story?).
Verses 11-15 emphasise Samuel's responsibilities at the shrine. He is the one who must bless the sacrifice and the people must wait for him to do it. Much will be made of this later in the story.
Unknown to Saul God has been at work and Samuel has been told what to do. He must anoint Saul as "ruler" (never "king" in 9-10:16, one of a number of signs in this chapter that we are reading a story made out of several older ones). The LORD's words in v.16b echo those to Moses in Exodus 3:7.
Samuel's last sentence to Saul and Saul's reply can be read in many ways. Perhaps it is that the innocent Saul just doesn't understand and so responds respectfully and humbly to these strange words. Perhaps he is being evasive, as was Moses in Exodus 3:11. Or are Samuel's words ironic, or even sarcastic? Is Saul's modesty true or false? See also Gideon's reticence in Judges 6:15 and that of Jeremiah in 1:6.
2 The Lord's Anointed? Read 1 Samuel 9:22-10:16
The bemused Saul is invited to the feast and eats as Samuel's honoured guest, vv.22-24. He is given a special portion. The cut of the meat matters less than the fact that Saul is given it, unlike Eli's sons (even Samuel's?) who used to take what they wanted. Likewise after the meal Saul is given a place to sleep, rather than taking someone to sleep with.
Next day Samuel blesses Saul and the boy on their way, privately appoints him king by anointing him with olive oil (see also 1 Kings 1:39, 2 Kings 9:6) and tells him his God-given commission. Verse 2 is very short in the Hebrew, because everything between the first and second "ruler" in NRSV is missing. This is a good example of how a scribe looks up, looks down again and continues copying, not noticing that he has started again at the same word later in the sentence.
Samuel promises Saul three signs. The first will confirm Samuel's ability to see beyond the ordinary (v.2). The second will confirm Saul's changed status (vv.3-4). The one who had no bread to give to Samuel (9:7) is now given bread by those who are going to worship God. The third will confirm God's choice of Saul by filling him with God's power to do what is needed (vv.5-7). Even so, v.8 sounds a warning. It is Samuel who is still in control. The "heart" in the Old Testament is the seat of the will rather than the emotions, so "another heart" in v.9 means a new will, courage, inner resolve, commitment.
The story only recounts the fulfilment of the third sign (vv.10-13). Prophets working themselves into an ecstatic frenzy are a feature of many cultures, ancient and modern, and this group is yet another example of the variety of prophets and prophecy in the Old Testament. Verses 6 and 10 vividly express the power of the experience for Saul: but vv.12-13 seem ambivalent about it, or even sceptical. The un-named man's question sounds disdainful, and the meaning of the proverb is not clear. In 19:24 it seems to be used about disreputable behaviour on the part of somebody who ought to know better! These verses are difficult to explain, as is the sudden appearance of Saul's uncle and Saul's evasion of his question.
3 The king is proclaimed. Read 1 Samuel 10:17-27a
Samuel, as national leader, convenes an assembly: but this Samuel is the one we last saw in chapter 8. They can have the king they crave: but he makes his objection clear. He speaks as a prophet using the classic "Thus says the LORD" introduction. Note the key idea that they owe their life as a nation to the LORD who delivered them from slavery in Egypt and oppression from elsewhere and who now protects them. Whatever the actual origins of the various groups who eventually became the People of Israel, God's deliverence of the ancestors from Egypt became a key part of their folklore and the idea that they were a saved-against-the-odds nation of freed slaves was an important part of their national identity as well as of their faith. Thus the way God speaks in v.18 (compare 8:8 and 12:7-8) is found in many other places, eg Exodus 20:2, Joshua 24:6 and 17-18, Judges 6:7-10, Psalm 81:10, Jeremiah 11:4, Ezekiel 20:6, Amos 2:10 and Micah 6:4.
Tribes, clans and families are not easily defined or described. The familiar twelve tribes of Israel is a later systematisation of a messy situation. In v.22 the sort of clairvoyance used to find the lost asses is now needed to find Saul. We are left to imagine why he was hiding. God's secret choice and Samuel's secret anointing is confirmed by lot and acclamation.
Note the phrase about the "rights and duties" of kingship in v.25. The king in Israel is answerable to the LORD. When a later king reads a similar book discovered in another temple, he is brought up with a jolt and radical reforms follow (2 Kings 22:8-13). According to our storyteller most of the kings in between ignore both the LORD and their "duties."
The people go home. There is no doubt that God has blessed Saul. We see that in the comment about the "warriors" who go with him, and in the fact that the only opposition to him now is from "worthless men" (literally, "sons of worthlessness (belial)," ie godless men, the same word as in 1:16 but which has become a proper name by the time Paul writes 2 Corinthians 6:15). Saul "holds his peace". In the traditional Hebrew Bible the chapter ends here, but very much on a to be continued note.
4 The king is accepted. Read 1 Samuel 10:27b-11:15
Another story in the old style. The obvious question at the end of reading it is, How did Nahash the Ammonite keep his job? It is a bizarre tale with the usual exaggerated numbers and the requisite amount of gore. The Ammonite kingdom was in the highlands east of the Dead Sea (around modern Amman); Jabesh Gilead and the other places mentioned were further north on the east bank of the Jordan.
The theme words are deliver, deliverer and deliverance (10:27, 11:4, 9, 13), though NRSV uses "save" for variety in v.4 . In the last three of these verses (v.27 is only in the manuscript discovered at Qumran) we have the familiar words also translated as save, saviour and salvation (soteria etc in Greek and teshua' etc in Hebrew). The point is made in v.13 that it is the LORD who delivers his people, and that it is Saul, his agent in doing it, who recognises it.
As a result of this victory Saul's kingship is accepted and "renewed" in a religious ceremony at another old shrine, Gilgal. Samuel had told Saul to go there and wait for him (10:8) but subsequent events had overtaken them both. Now they arrive together and all is well. Saul's magnanimity in v.13 will be featured later in the story with very different results. The next time Saul and Samuel meet at Gilgal they will part acrimoniously with Samuel announcing the end of Saul's reign (15:10-35). All round the kingship seems a temporary and performance-related job.
Recent translations use a variety of names for the sacrifices in the ceremony : "offerings of well-being" (NRSV, cf NJPS), "communion sacrifices" (NJB), "fellowship offerings" (NIV, cf GNB) and "shared offerings" (REB). The older translations called them "peace offerings," from the Hebrew word shalom - peace, harmony, fulfilment. These were celebratory sacrifices in which having offered part of the sacrificial animals to God the worshippers then had a feast with the rest, celebrating their fellowship with God and each other.
5 Strong words from Samuel. Read 1 Samuel 12:1-25
This long speech by Samuel adds nothing new to the argument. It does show, however, in vv.1-5, just how vulnerable leaders can feel in the lonely places of power, and how much support and encouragement they need. Here is a good text for a sermon on the need to affirm and support one another, and a preacher might even speculate on what the outcome of it all might have been if Samuel had had a support group or someone to cuddle him. For from now on Samuel himself feels increasingly threatened by what is happening and vents his feelings on Saul.
This chapter neatly encapsulates the view of the person or persons who finally put together the books of Joshua-2 Kings, whom scholars have traditionally referred to as the Deuteronomic Historian. These books illustrate the central theme of Deuteronomy that God rewards goodness with success and sin with trouble. It is vital therefore, that God's people make the right choice in life (see the classic passage which is Deuteronomy 30:15-20), but sadly they have failed to do so, and the exile is the consequence of that failure. God wants only the best for his people (and for all people) and so by reminding them of what God has done for them and warning them of the consequences of ignoring God's advice, Samuel urges them to make the right choice and live in the right way.
Note the place of repentance and forgiveness in vv.19-22 and the role of the prophet as teacher and intercessor in v.23. "For his name's sake" (v.22) may mean that God is concerned for his reputation (as in Ezekiel 36:22-32): but a better understanding of the phrase is that he will act like this because it is his very nature to do so. Therefore we could paraphrase this verse by saying that he will save, because as his name is Saviour, he can do nothing else but save! To "fear the LORD" (v.24) is more than honouring or revering him by taking his teaching seriously; and a better modern translation of this expression would be to "worship" him. Verses 23-25 are an excellent summary of the speech, of the teaching of the Book of Deuteronomy, of the Old Testament and of the whole Bible!
6 Samuel against Saul. Read 1 Samuel 13:1-23
In the Hebrew text of v.1 the number is missing from Saul's age and half a number from the length of his reign. The whole verse is missing from the Greek text. Little things like this have to be taken seriously when we think about the controversial question of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They rule out the sort of oversimplifications about what the Bible is and how it can be used which we see in the militant fundamentalism which is such an issue in many churches today.
The real threat was not the Ammonites but the Philistines, and after an initial skirmish the Philistines muster for serious war. Saul calls the Israelite troops together, calling them "Hebrews," a name more often used for them by others than by themselves (4:6, 13:19, 29:3). It refers to the Israelites as the descendents of Eber, who was Abraham's great, great, ever-so-great grandfather according to the genealogy in Genesis 11:16-27. It might be related to the word Habiru, a term used in texts from around 1000 BC for bands of lawless and marginalised people who caused problems to the settled societies in the region, and if so it would be another pointer to Israel's origins.
Saul waits (v.8), taking up the words of Samuel from 10:8: but much has happened since then. Here again is one of the seams which shows that our present story is made up of several older ones. Saul offers the sacrifices for obvious reasons. He offers the burnt-offering (a prayer of petition) but Samuel arrives before he can offer the celebratory one. We have not so far read of any such commandment as Samuel quotes, and later kings will do what Saul did without censure (2 Samuel 6:12-19, 1 Kings 3:15). What he says prepares us for Saul's failure and the choice of another king, though the following stories tell of the heroism of Saul and especially of his son.
The odds are against Israel, both in terms of numbers (vv.15-18) and equipment (vv.19-22, which throw interesting light on the development of technology in the region).
Guidelines
Readers of Guidelines will not, I hope, be among those who believe that the Old Testament is a book of outdated rules imposed on us by an over-demanding God. That is to miss its point and its good news, as well as to create a false opposition between the New Testament and the Old. In the Old Testament, as in the New, we read of a generous God who wants only the best for people (see especially Exodus 34:6-7 and all the places where this is echoed in the Old Testament, not least throughout Psalm 103). It is God's generosity which has rescued his oppressed people, and which then gives them advice about how to continue to make the most of their new life, as we see in the opening of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2, Deuteronomy 5:6) and also in John 1:16-17. Faith is therefore an invitation to remember God's generosity and be guided by it in all of our living. Only secondarily, and then based on experience, does Bible and Church warn us of the pitfalls of trying to live otherwise. Thus 1 Samuel 12:23-25 is an excellent summary of the Bible's invitation to respond to the love which has made itself known to us. If we are still unsure, towards the end of the Decade of Evangelism, what it is that we have to say to our world then here is a reminder.
This week's chapters deal with issues of power and responsibility. No doubt the strong anti-monarchy feeling which emerges often in Samuel's speeches reflects the unfortunate experiences of the Israelites under their kings, and many before and since would echo it. Power corrupts and can so easily oppress. But the dream of everyone living peacefully and prosperously without such centralised power (as perhaps lies behind verses like Judges 17:6 and 21:25) or of everyone freely obeying God's law with the same result (as in Micah 4:1-4) is unreal. Much more practical is Psalm 72, which talks of the king's role as protector of the weak and vulnerable and which is a prayer that the king will use his power in that way. Systems of government vary, but Psalm 72 is a fine prayer for all in positions of power and responsibility.
1 Samuel 14-16. 25-31 August
1 A good son. Read 1 Samuel 14:1-15
The sons we have met so far have been bad sons of good, or at least good-enough, fathers. Now we meet Jonathan who will turn out to be a good son of a not so good father. Being a good son does not stop him being disobedient, prepared to act without his father's knowledge or approval (v.1).
The story has an old and familiar theme, set out in v.6b: but as we have already noted it is difficult to make this sort of bold statement about God's power in a world which has seen the like of Auschwitz. It tells of the victory of Israel over their enemies against overwhelming odds, achieved because the LORD fights for them. Here the odds are doubly stacked against Jonathan and his armour-bearer. Not only are they two against a garrison, but the garrison is secure in a cliff-top fort. The armour-bearer is another of the fine minor characters portrayed in the story, a model of trust, enthusiasm and reliability. Jonathan's courage, or foolhardiness, pays off.
Note that in v.3 a great-grandson of Eli is with Saul's troops "carrying" rather than wearing an ephod (see on 2:28 in week 1). In v.6 the Philistines are scornfully called "these uncircumcised" (compare Judges 14:3, 15:18). The origin of the practice of male circumcision in the ancient Near East is obscure. It was certainly not unique to the Israelites, for all their semitic neighbours and relatives practised it as did the Egyptians. In fact the Philistines would be the first group that the ancient Israelites met who did not, hence "the uncircumcised" was such a handy mocking slogan. "The LORD has given them into our hand," (v.10) is a phrase from the Holy War traditions (compare Joshua 6:2, 8:7, 10:19) and also the meaning of the name Jonathan! "Hands and feet" in v.13 is too literal; "hands and knees" as in GNB is better. Verse 14b refers either to the small area in which the slaughter took place (GNB, NIV and NRSV, though this makes heavy weather of the distances) or of the speed and ease with which Jonathan mowed the enemy down (REB). "Panic," "trembling" and "earthquake" often feature in stories of the power of God at work (compare especially Exodus 15:14-16, Judges 5:4-5, Exodus 19:18).
2 A compassionate king? Read 1 Samuel 14:16-35
As panic spreads among the Philistines so Saul takes advantage of it (reminiscent of the story of Gideon's victory over the Midianites in Judges 7). His troops are joined first by the Israelite mercenaries in the Philistine army and then by those who had deserted him before. We will read later of David and his men serving as mercenaries with the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:2-12, 29:1-11).
Verses 16-19 form a somewhat confused interlude. In v.18 the Greek version refers to the ephod rather than the Ark, and in v.19 it is not clear what the priest is to withdraw his hand from. Has Saul finally seen what is happening and so no longer needs the priest to consult the Urim and Thummim in the ephod? In any case one is left wondering why Saul is dithering so much.
Verse 24 introduces an incident about an oath, reminiscent of the story of Jephthah and his daughter in Judges 11:29-40 though the outcome of this one will be very different. The NRSV follows the Greek with the reference to Saul's rash act. The Hebrew text speaks of the Israelites being "distressed" by the hunger forced on them by Saul's curse. Jonathan, ignorant of the oath his father had made, eats the honey he finds and is greatly refreshed by it. When his error is pointed out he simply remarks that it was a silly thing for his father to have done!
At the end of the battle the troops are so hungry that they slaughter the Philistine's livestock and eat without the usual procedures for draining off the blood. According to the blood regulation in Leviticus 17:10-14 the consumption of blood, the very life of a creature, was strictly prohibited. To save his troops from sinning Saul sets up an altar so that the animals can be killed properly and due sacrifice offered for the offences already committed. Verse 35 notes in a factual way that this is his first altar, and it would not be the last one built and used by the kings who would come after him (2 Samuel 24:18-25, 1 Kings 9:25). But remembering what happened the first time he offered sacrifices (13:9-15) we are apprehensive about the consequences which will follow his good intentions here.
3 A powerful king. Read 1 Samuel 14:36-52
Saul intends to turn the rout of the Philistines into annihilation: but Ahijah, Eli's great-grandson, proposes that God be consulted first. Lack of an answer indicates that something is seriously wrong, and so the Urim and Thummim are used to pinpoint who is to blame. In a verse full of irony Saul swears that whoever it is will die (v.39). Finding that it is Jonathan he repeats his oath (v.44).
The people, showing more common sense and compassion than Saul, counter his oath with one of their own and their oath-cum-threat succeeds. Jonathan is "ransomed" (v.45). This may be a technical term implying that the people paid a ransom price or sacrificed an animal, or even another person, to free Jonathan from this oath. More likely, however, the word has no technical sense and should be translated by "saved" (GNB, NJPS), "rescued" (NIV), "delivered" (REB) or the like.
The outcome is that the Philistines survive to remain a threat to Israel (v.46), though the chapter ends with the picture of Saul as precisely the sort of successful military leader that the people had said they needed. He is personally courageous and proves to be very effective in his kingly role as protector of the Israelites against their local aggressors. In vv.49-51 we see Saul's family. No great point is made of their names, but in his three sons and two daughters there is potential for creating a dynasty. Control of the army is kept safely in the family too.
The first part of half of this passage makes for terrifying reading, even if we make major allowances for the storyteller sharpening it up for dramatic effect. No small part of its terror lies in the fact that there have been, and still are, in all faiths those who would see Saul at fault here for failing to honour his obligations to God. Surely a good test of any faith is to ask if it makes its practitioners sane and humane?
4 God against Saul. Read 1 Samuel 15:1-21
The reappearance of Samuel in the story marks the beginning of the end of Saul's reign, and opens a chapter full of difficulties. God orders a Holy War against the Amalekites for something that happened centuries before. They and their animals are to be "put under the ban" (REB), ie totally destroyed as an offering to God (v.3). This punishment seems all the more terrible as the Amalekites had been soundly beaten in the incident referred to anyway (Exodus 17:8-16), though it is fully in keeping with the vengeful sentiments of Deuteronomy 25:17-19. This horrendous practice was not confined to Israel; it is mentioned, for example, on the Moabite Stone erected by Mesha of Moab around 830BC to celebrate a victory over the Israelites. However, before we condemn ancient Israelites (or Moabites) we might pause to reflect on the history of total war in our own century.
Saul musters considerably more soldiers than ever before. Once his army is in place he encourages the Kenites to escape while they can. This is their reward for helping where the Amalekites had hindered, though it is not possible to point to any specific scene in the exodus stories (v.6). The Kenites are generally thought to have been travelling smiths or tinkers and therefore groups or families of them would have been found living among other tribes. The ensuing victory is total: but the ban is not!
Saul's fate is announced to Samuel and to us by the formal expression, "The word of the LORD came," not heard since chapter 3 (vv.1,7 and 21). Samuel's reaction is anger, which he vents at God (v.11). Many of the Psalms show that expressing anger to or at God was a feature of ancient Israelite spirituality, and it may be one from which we could learn some useful lessons. The prophet pleads with God to try to change his mind (as Moses did in Exodus 32:30-32 and Amos in 7:1-6), which is odd when we read what Samuel says in v.29. Receiving no answer he condemns Saul for disobedience, though Saul defends himself and his motives (vv.15 and 21).
Note v.12. Saul sets up his own version of the Moabite Stones at nearby Carmel, not the famous mountain, but our storyteller can see nothing good in Saul now, for this stone honours himself not God (contrast 7:12).
5 Samuel and God against Saul. Read 1 Samuel 15:22-35
Samuel's reply in vv.22-23 is sometimes used as an attack on formal worship (with Isaiah 1:10-17, Hosea 7:7, Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 6:6-8 all equally taken out of context). In context it is a powerful statement about the central importance of obedience. Note the parallels and contrasts - obey and heed as opposed to rebellion and stubbornness; the seriousness of disobedience - it is equivalent to divination (REB - witchcraft), iniquity and idolatry; and that the consequence of rejecting God's word is to be rejected.
Verses 24-31 raise questions about sin, confession and forgiveness. Is Saul's confession genuine or the result of emotional manipulation (contrast v.24 with vv.15, 20-21)? Why is there no possibility of forgiveness and a new beginning? If lessons are to be learned and principles upheld, why does Samuel help Saul to save face (vv.30-31)? It all seems hard on Saul.
Verse 29 (compare Numbers 23:19) raises many questions by itself. It insists that God does not "recant" or "lie" (most translations) or "deceive" (REB). Neither does he "change his mind." However, having chosen Saul and now rejected him that is precisely what he appears to be doing, and in v.11 says he is doing! This problem is even clearer in the Hebrew where the same verb is used four times. NRSV translates it by "regret" in v.11, "change his mind" twice in v.29 and "was sorry" in v.35. Commentators struggle with this. God has changed his mind about Saul's kingship - but God does not change his mind! One possibility is that we read too much into v.29. Samuel's reply to Saul might mean no more than that he has had one chance and there will not be another. In any case it is difficult to build doctrines out of stories. "Glory of Israel" is only found here as a title for God, and the word used is not the usual word for "glory." In its one other association with God in the ascription of God's greatness in 1 Chronicles 29:11 it is the fourth word in the list and is translated "victory" in NRSV. Another translation would be "Eternal of Israel".
The matter-of-fact tone of the note that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD is particularly frightening (v.33). The note in v.35 is not accurate, for they meet again (19:24).
6 The new Lord's Anointed. Read 1 Samuel 16:1-23
Samuel has to put the past behind him and is instructed to anoint another king. He looks first at Jesse's eldest son: but here as so often in the Old Testament God's choice lies elsewhere. It is the youngest who is chosen. Although v.7 notes that appearances are unimportant, vv.12 and 18 show that David had the looks as well as the character. David experiences God's powerful blessing, whereas Saul finds his blessing and well-being gone and replaced by something equally real but very nasty - "an evil spirit from the LORD."
This expression creates difficulties for some people. How can an "evil spirit" be said to come from God? Isaiah 45:7 gives us the clue. In the AV God says bluntly, "I make peace and I create evil." This verse is not, however, offering an explanation of the origins of cosmic evil. Such a question is not on the Old Testament's agenda. Isaiah 45:7 explains the woe, distress and evil which the Israelites suffered in the destruction of Jerusalem and exile to Babylon. To the question of why that happened Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah and the Deuteronomic Historian all have a simple answer: it is your own fault! You have brought your misfortune on yourselves by your own misdeeds. It is God's punishment. The same reasoning is found here. Saul is suffering severe misfortune, possibly depression. It is his own fault, God's punishment for his misdeeds. We may not be comfortable with the idea of God punishing people, but there is no doubt that the Bible doesn't share our scruples. As I have written in these Notes before, this is classic Deuteronomic and Wisdom teaching that faithfulness is rewarded and sin punished. Though it is a rather rough-and-ready, rule-of-thumb sort of doctrine, and protests against its shortcomings are found elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet is there not some truth in it?
The stories of Saul's first meeting with David are as confused as those of how Saul first became king. The picture of David in vv.11and 19 differs from the one in v.18, and another story will have their first meeting when Goliath issues his challenge (17:19-37). Their relationship begins well. It will not end well.
Guidelines
Reread Samuel's words in 15:22-23. In our own discipleship there are times when this hard demand of obedience needs to be heeded, and others when what we need to hear is the different tone of Psalms 130, especially verses 3-4 or 103. Often our real difficulty is in knowing which of the two is the word from God in our particular circumstances, so prone are we to hear what we want to hear.
This week we have read of holy wars and of God's demands for total religious obedience, and seen a particularly gruesome example of the latter. Sad to say, we read similar things in our daily papers. The end of the twentieth century seems to be marked by the emergence of a militant right in all the major world faiths, a new cult of violence and nationalism and a contempt for all whose common sense or compassion prevents them from seeing things in black and white. Such was the world of Samuel, and of the one who told these stories about him.
Why read these stories in 1998? Perhaps because all human life is there; in its strength and weakness, its glory and shame, its joys and terrors. The main characters have been Samuel and Saul and neither are heroes, nor villains. We can recognise something of ourselves in each of them, and much of our society in theirs. For me 1 Samuel 1-16 is therefore a book of warnings, raising important questions about what is a civilised society, how is it to be governed and what is the place of religion in it. It is also a book of hope, offering us the possibility of a future:
"If you will fear the LORD and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God, it will be well; but if you will not heed the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you and your king". (1 Samuel 12:14-15)
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, January-April 2000)
Moses has led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. They have travelled to and fro through the desert for forty years. They stand assembled on the Plains of Moab looking across the River Jordan to the Promised Land which awaits them. Their aged leader addresses them and gives them the manifesto for living in the new land. The Book of Deuteronomy tells of that assembly and gives the text of the address Moses gave.
That is how Deuteronomy is presented in our Bibles, though it was actually written, with all the usual editings and re-editings, half a millennium or so after the events it portrays. It was produced by a group of people we call - not very imaginatively - the Deuteronomists. They were firmly loyal to what they believed to be the old religion of Moses. For them the LORD alone was the God of Israel. He had delivered their ancestors from obscurity and slavery and made them into a distinct people and nation. He had made his will and purpose plain through prophets, teaching them to walk in his ways and in no others. But things had gone wrong. Their nation's history had been marked more by failure than success, and the Deuteronomists believed they knew why. It was because Israel had worshipped other gods, strayed into other ways and failed in its loyalty to the LORD. The final editing of their book took place during or just after the exile in Babylon, and that tragedy gave their viewpoint new credibility. Looking back they explained it quite simply as the result of their nation's failure to live as God had showed them. Looking forward towards a possible return to their homeland they saw themselves standing again where Moses stood, ready to re-enter that Promised Land. They had a message for the new age that awaited them. The Book of Deuteronomy contains that message. It is the manifesto for moving into the future with God. So, believing themselves to be his true heirs and successors, they wrote in the name of that ancient leader from the old time of new beginnings. From now on I shall simply call the speaker "Moses", without any inverted commas and trust that you will remember to put them around his name.
The version used is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
Deuteronomy 6:1-7:11. 14-20 February
1 Good advice. Read Deuteronomy 6:1-3
Chapters 5-11 form the second part of the introduction to the great Law Code which forms the centre of Deuteronomy (chapters 12-26). Last month Margaret Killingray looked at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and here we follow on to look at the "commandments, statutes and ordinances" which God taught the people through Moses so that they might live long and happy lives in their new land.
"Commandment" (singular in verse 1, plural in verse 2), "statutes" and "decrees" (the same word is translated in these two different ways in verses 1 and 2) and "ordinances" are, like "Law", much misunderstood words in Christianity. We associate them with "legalism", which is bad, in contrast with "the gospel", which is good. In the Old Testament, however, all these words are used in an entirely positive way. The "Law" (Torah) is God's great gift to Israel, his life-giving guidance, instruction and teaching. It is no exaggeration to say that the word "gospel" itself would be a good translation for Torah, for Torah is God's "good news" for his people. We see this clearly in Deuteronomy 5:6. God has rescued his people from Egypt and now he gives them his good advice about how they can live their new and liberated life, free from bondage and terror in the land he is giving them. This "Teaching" or "Law" goes into detail at times, for there are practical and specific things to do or to avoid if such freedom is to be protected (see 4:40 and 11:8-15), but Torah is not burden and demand. It is gift and blessing (see Psalm 119).
The threesome of commandments, statutes and ordinances does not refer to three different kinds of regulations or obligations but is a standard expression for the details of the good advice which God has given to Israel.
In this keynote paragraph we see the main theme and theology of Deuteronomy. You must "hear" and "obey" what you are told by "the LORD your God". If you do so, you will prosper. If not, you won't. Such a starkly simple approach has both its strengths and weaknesses, as we shall see.
2 The "Shema". Read Deuteronomy 6:4
Verse 4, called the Shema after its first word in the Hebrew ("Hear!"), is Judaism's basic cry of faith. In synagogue services it is read with verses 5-8 and often Deuteronomy 11:13-21 and Numbers 15:37-41 are included too. Various translations of the core words are possible. In addition to "The LORD is our God, the LORD alone" the NRSV margin offers three more possibilities: "The LORD our God is one LORD", "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" and "The LORD is our God, the LORD is one". To these we can add: "The LORD is our God, the LORD our one God" (REB) "Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh" (NJB) and "The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God" (GNB). Verses 5-8 express the consequences of such faith in the LORD alone.
Note the two elements of mystery in this "creed". All except one of these translations follow Jewish tradition in refusing to speak the name of its God, "Yahweh", which it always replaces with his title, "Lord". Secondly, the variety of translations illustrate how difficult it is to define this God. What does it mean, for example, to say that he is "one"? Does it mean that he is the one and only God? Or that he is the one God whom Israel is to worship? Or that he is whole and complete in himself? Once Christians began to define God as "Trinity", Jews would insist that it meant that the True God was One and not Three-in-One, but that controversy and the statements it generated were undreamed of by the Deuteronomists. The Shema insists that the LORD is Israel's God and that the first point of Israelite religion is not to name or define God but to give him total loyalty.
3 Love, learn and remember. Read Deuteronomy 6:5-12
In the Old Testament dictionary the verb "to love" and the nouns "heart" and "soul" do not mean what they do in Christian or modern ones. Neither "love" nor "heart" suggest emotions and intimate relationships and "soul" is not one of the two or three parts which make up a human being. Instead, to "love the LORD with all our heart, soul and might" means to be totally committed to him (verse 5). That commitment consists of having every intention of observing God's commandments (verse 6).
To be able to keep God's commandments they have to be both learned and taught. The point about teaching them to the children and so passing them on down the generations is an important one in Deuteronomy (see also verse 2 and verses 20-21). They also need to be constantly remembered. Verses 8-9 were taken literally by later generations of Jews who adopted the practice of tying a copy of the Shema in a leather container (a phylactery) to their left arm and forehead for prayer and putting one in a little box (a mezuzah) on their doorposts which could be touched and the Shema recited at every "going out and coming in".
Verse 12 puts it the other way round. It is so easy to forget! It is also so easy to give yourself the credit for your achievements, but that theme is not to the fore here (as it is in 8:14-17). Here, the danger is that the Israelites will give the local gods of Canaan (especially Baal) the credit for their prosperity in their new land "flowing with milk and honey" (verse 3). In so doing they will both fail to give the LORD their total loyalty and provoke his jealous anger.
4 Harsh Words? Read Deuteronomy 6:13-15
The Deuteronomists believed that God was passionately involved with his people and they have no hesitation in talking about his feelings of love (4:37, 7:13, 23:5) and anger (as in verse 15). He is a "jealous God" (see also Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9) who expects the total loyalty of his people just as he offers himself totally to them.
For some readers this all-too-human language is too strong to take. They can ascribe the best of human emotions to God and say that he "loves" us: but when the Bible ascribes the harsher emotions they draw back. There are two points worth remembering here.
First, the Old Testament is fully aware of the shadow sides of human life, especially of how damaging "iniquity", "sin" or "wickedness" can be. The prophets, for example, insist that sin, in all its chameleon colours, makes God "angry" because it fouls up creation and spoils life for everyone. The results are hatred, despair, darkness, sadness, injury and doubt as St Francis puts it in his famous prayer. In the face of this it would be a poor God who did not get angry, just as anyone who looks at the misery of so many people and so much of our planet and feels neither pain nor rage can hardly be human. Thus the God of the Deuteronomists gets angry because he sees what has happened to his creation and feels for what his people are missing. As good parents get angry when their children hurt themselves and others and miss out on the good they have it in them to be or become, so too God's anger is a sign of his love.
Second, Deuteronomy 5:9-10 and Exodus 20:5-6 put God's anger in perspective, especially in the NRSV and GNB translations which follow the traditional Jewish interpretation. His punishment might last for three or four generations, but his blessing lasts for a thousand generations! Exodus 34:6-7 is an important mini-creed which crops up often in the Old Testament. It speaks of God's love as "steadfast" and his anger as "slow", contrasting how long-lasting is the one and how brief the other (compare Psalm 30:5).
We will look at the way God's anger and jealousy is directed here at the "other gods" and those who worship them in the next sections.
5 The hardest words in the Old Testament. Read Deuteronomy 6:16-7:2
The threat of verse 15 is followed by the warning not to put the LORD "to the test". In the incident at Massah they had doubted whether or not the LORD really was with them in the desert as he had said he would be (Exodus 17:2-7). Here Moses warns them against doubting God's promises or his presence in the future, especially by looking to other gods for help.
Deuteronomy 7:2 is "the most forthright demand for racial genocide to be found anywhere in the Old Testament" (R E Clements) and it is a theme repeated in Deuteronomy and in the work of the Deuteronomistic Historians (the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). Its harshness is barely mitigated by the fact that there were very few attempts to implement such a policy. There were instances of towns being "put to the ban" or "utterly destroyed" as a total offering to God in a "holy war", and that is terrible enough, but not of genocide on the scale envisaged here. Nevertheless, as I wrote in a previous Guidelines about Judges 1:29-2:5, this idea causes us immense problems. Anyone today who said that the troubles in modern Israel were due to its failure to rid itself of the land's indigenous Arab population would quite rightly be seen as a dangerous fanatic, but that is clearly what our authors believed. To put it bluntly, their God demanded ethnic cleansing but our God prefers peaceful co-existence in a multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic world. There are conflicting values here and the old American hymn speaks for many when it says,
- New occasions teach new duties;
- Time makes ancient good uncouth;
- They must upward still and onward
- Who would keep abreast of truth.
But that verse also suggests that we should take the message of this passage to its original audience seriously and verses 20-25 point out that there are serious issues at stake. Through Moses God has set the Israelites free from slavery and on no account should these liberated people allow themselves to be enslaved again, which is exactly what might happen if they get involved with other gods, as the passage goes on to point out.
6 How to stay free. Read Deuteronomy 7:3-11
The LORD has delivered his people from slavery in Egypt in a great act of grace and love, and they are not to let themselves become slaves to new enemies over the Jordan. That is the issue at stake and the reason for the hostility to the inhabitants of Canaan.
Ancient Israel, according to the Deuteronomists, was not a society in which Religion and Politics could be kept separate, as some today insist they should be. It was one, they believed, where God's will and purpose were to be worked out in every part of life. It was essential, therefore, to get the religious question right because values, lifestyle and public policy followed from it. This is illustrated very clearly in the story of Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21:1-19. Jezebel and her Baal brought alien values into Israelite society which threatened Israel's values and lifestyle. She came from a country where kings ruled, not where they let ideas of accountability and stewardship render them impotent. She cared nothing for Naboth's notion of "ancestral inheritance", nor for the idea that kings must obey the laws of God. In her country the king spoke in the name of god. His word was law. The ninth commandment did not therefore detain her for a moment (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20) and Naboth paid the price. Jezebel had no respect for Israel's laws or its religion, for her god did things differently. The Deuteronomists knew what Jezebel and those like her had done, and they were determined that such things should not happen again. We might disagree with their policy but their motivation is understandable in the circumstances.
The "therefore" of verse 11 echoes that of 6:3 and these verses end with yet another plea to the Israelites to observe the commandments God has given them for their guidance and well-being. God has committed himself to them by his own choice (verse 7) and maintained that obligation through the generations (verse 8). The exodus deliverance is the most recent and the greatest of the signs of his commitment to them (verse 9). Note again the contrast made in verses 9-10: his eternal love can be relied on, but if it is rejected the consequences are immediate.
Guidelines
Churches Together in England have said to all the churches in England that the task of the Churches in the Millennium is to forge a link between the year 2000, the name of Jesus Christ, and the possibility of personal meaning and public hope. To help us to do so they have suggested that the phrase New Start sums up the best approach to marking the Millennium, because it offers an umbrella under which a wide range of existing and new activities can take place. New Start has three key messages: a new start with God, a new start at home, eg projects in, with and for our local communities and a new start for the world's poor, eg in the Jubilee 2000 campaign.
Deuteronomy - the Moses Manifesto - aimed to forge the link between the name of the LORD and the Israelites' new life in their new land. It invited them to make a new start with God in their new home.
- Eternal God, Help us to hear what these old and difficult words can say to us in our new Millennium
Deuteronomy 7:12-9:24. 21-27 February
1 Keeping Covenant. Read Deuteronomy 7:12-26
One of the key words in the Deuteronomic outlook is "If" - if you are obedient to God you will prosper, if you are not you won't. Faith is therefore a matter of making the right choices, as seen in the classic summary of the Deuteronomic outlook in Deuteronomy 30:15-20. Another way of expressing this is to use the language of "covenant". As he had bound himself in promise to their ancestors, so God had brought his people out of Egypt and bound himself again in covenant agreement to them at Horeb, as Deuteronomy always calls the Holy Mountain of Sinai (4:9-13, 5:2, 7:8-9). He will be their God and they his people.
Note the use of "the LORD your God" in verses 12-16. This is a characteristic way of speaking about God in Deuteronomy which both reinforces the call to faith in the Shema and reminds those who use it of their covenant relation with God. Verse 12 promises that their God will maintain "covenant loyalty" with them as he promised their ancestors (as in verse 9). RSV follows the Hebrew here and says that God will keep with them "the covenant" and "the steadfast love" (hesed) which he promised their ancestors. Separating these two is helpful. The LORD, the God of Israel, is unique and his uniqueness lies in his steadfast love and his covenant bond with Israel. To say that God "keeps covenant" speaks of his reliability in keeping his promises and standing by his chosen people. To say that he keeps "steadfast love" takes us to the heart of the Old Testament's teaching about the love of God. Hesed is that love which greets us, new every morning; which seeks us out with generosity and embraces us with kindness and which will not let us go. It is a rigorously committed love, like parental love at its best; committed and tough rather than sentimental (see 8:5). God's commitment to Israel expects a response of committed living from Israel. Thus the covenant obligation on Israel is to do what their God requires and the covenant promise of God is to bless his people. Verses 12-16 outline the forms which that blessing will take.
2 As you have seen. Read Deuteronomy 7:17-8:9
The Israelites are standing outside the Promised Land looking in. Their fear is natural for the nations they face have already been described as "mightier and more numerous" than they are (7:1). Taking their anxiety seriously Moses reminds them of two things: what they have already seen of the power of the LORD their God and the fact that this is the land that God promised to their ancestors.
If you are anxious about the superior forces opposing us, Moses says, just remember what you have seen of the power of the LORD (7:18-19). If you are anxious about settling into that new land, just remember how God provided for you as you wandered through the desert (8:2-4). The escape from Egypt has been mentioned at 6:12, 6:16, 6:21-22 and 7:8 and these references serve as the ground for Israel's hope and the assurance for its future. The events of the exodus are impossible to reconstruct, and may have involved only a fraction of the people who called themselves "Israelites" as that nation slowly emerged in Canaan in the twelfth century BC. Nevertheless the Old Testament and the faith of ancient Israel see the exodus as the decisive and formative event in Israel's history, much as Christians understand the resurrection of Jesus to be in theirs. The language about "signs and wonders" and God's "mighty hand" and "outstretched arm" emphasise that Israel owes its past and future victories to God's power alone. "There is none other that fighteth for us but only Thou, O God", as the Book of Common Prayer put it. This and the high miracle content of the stories create problems for modern readers. Some will want to read the miracle stories as plain accounts of how it was, others will see them as ways of saying that we owe everything to God. Note that they must eradicate the religion of their new land lest it "ensnare" Israel (7:16 and 7:25).
Deuteronomy 1:8 is the key to the storyline in Deuteronomy. The Israelites are a people chosen from of old and the land they are about to enter is a land "promised" of old. The repeated reference to the promise to the ancestors in our readings (6:3, 10, 18, 22 and 7:8, 12), including the two in these verses, reinforces the promise of their success.
3 The Chosen can be unchosen. Read Deuteronomy 8:10-20
Verse 10 indicates how blessed they will be in their new land. They will "eat their fill". As they do so, the verse teaches, they should "bless the LORD" (in most translations) or "praise" him (NIV) or "thank" him (GNB). The traditional translation is by far the best, for to "bless the LORD" is much more than to thank or praise him. The modern tendency to think that "bless", "praise" and "thank" are interchangeable terms is reinforced by that verse and response - "Let us bless the Lord"/"Thanks be to God" - which gives the misleading impression that to bless the Lord is to thank him. It is to do more than that. It is to affirm that He Alone is God, the good giver of all that is; that He Alone is the God we acknowledge and worship. That message is central to Deuteronomy. To acknowledge any other deity is idolatry and it leads to social disintegration.
The Promised Land is pictured as "a land flowing with milk and honey", beautiful and fertile (6:3). Verses 7-10 painted a picture of its natural resources and potential and verses 12-13 assure the Israelites of their future prosperity and success in the land which God will give them. With that picture comes a warning against taking all the credit for such prosperity when it arrives and forgetting its true source (verses 14 and 17). Their desert experiences must not be forgotten once they enter their paradise for as God both "humbled" and "fed" them there (see verse 16 and verse 3), so he will do more than humble them if they forget the source of their new prosperity (verses 18-20).
If verses 19-20 are read beside Deuteronomy 7:6 the warning is stark. The Chosen People can be unchosen! 7:6 is the plainest statement of another of the book's key themes: that Israel is God's Chosen People (see also 10:15 and 14:1-2 with Exodus 19:5-6 and Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2). They are "holy", set apart by God and for God; "chosen" as his special possession. The fact that they are God's Chosen People is due entirely to his generosity, not to any kind of specialness on their part (7:7-8). Verses 19-20 insist that this special choice cannot be presumed upon (see also Amos 3:2 read together with Amos 9:7-8).
4 The wicked Anakim. Read Deuteronomy 9:1-5
"Hear,, O Israel" introduces a new note of urgency (verse 1). Used first to introduce the Ten Commandments (5:1) and then the Shema (6:4), here it announces that the action is about to begin. Moses calls the tribes to arms. He reminds them of the scale of the opposition (verses 1-2) and assures them that God will fight for them (verse 3).
Verse 2 is worrying if you have been reading Deuteronomy from the beginning. The book opens with a speech in which Moses reminds the Israelites of how they have come to be where they are. One of their lowest points had been when they had stood at the border of the Promised Land before. Their spies had returned with horror stories about "giants" (GNB) in the land (1:26-28 and Numbers 13-14). They had been so terrified by these reports that their courage had melted. The price of their fear was to wander through the desert for another generation (1:34-40). How, then, will they respond now when Moses describes what faces them?
Moses has already told them that their Promised Land is occupied by more powerful people than they (7:1 and 17). Now he uses the dreaded word "Anakim" which had so terrified their parents (Numbers 13:28). The Anakim (-im is the masculine plural ending in Hebrew, eg one cherub, three cherubim) were thought of as descendents of the Nephilim, legendary giants from the olden days (Numbers 13:33 and Genesis 6:4).
He immediately reassures them. They can face the future because they will be entering the Promised Land in the power of God who is a "devouring fire" (verse 3 and 4:24). The LORD their God had spoken to them out of fire on the mountain (4:11-15, 36 etc) and guided their night-time journeys by fire (1:33). The same fire will destroy their enemies.
Verses 4-5 introduce a new variant on an old theme. We have been told that God chose Israel either out of sheer grace or because of his love for their ancestors and it has been emphasised that it is not because of anything special on their part. What is new here is the statement that the original inhabitants are being dispossessed because of their wickedness, though what that wickedness was is not spelled out. What this means for the future behaviour of the Israelites will become clear later.
5 A stubborn people. Read Deuteronomy 9:6-24
This section reinforces the point that the Israelites are not to be given “this good land” because of their good behaviour or anything like that. The opposite is the case (verses 6-7). In an indictment which lasts until verse 24 Moses recounts the persistent “stubbornness”of an Israel which has been rebellious towards the LORD for as long as he (ie the LORD) has known them (NRSV, REB and NJB). AV, RSV, GNB and NIV follow the Hebrew in verse 24 and understand this to be Moses saying that they have been like this for as long as he has known them.
Verses 8-21 are an extended account of their most blatant act of disobedience to date which took place “even at Horeb”. They made an image of a calf at the very time when Moses was receiving the “tablets of the covenant” on which were the Ten Commandments, one of which expressly forbade such a thing (see Margaret Killingray’s explanation of this prohibition of idols/images). All this so angered the LORD that he came near to utterly destroying them. For a fuller version of the incident see Exodus 24:12-18 and 32:1-29.
Note the actions of Moses: fasting for “forty days” (ie a long time) and then doing it again in intercession for them all and for Aaron (verses 18-20). He took a risk, for God had told him to go away (verse 14)! He also continued to identify with the people, instead of taking up God’s offer to be the one through whom God could make the sort of new start he had made with Noah (see Genesis 9:1) and Abraham (see Genesis 15:5, 17:2).
A list of four more examples of rebelliousness follow (verses 22-24). For Taberah (“Burning”) see Numbers 11:1-3, for Massah see Exodus 17:1-7 and for the unpronouncable one see Numbers 11:10-15, 31-34. The fourth one is the incident alluded to in 9:2, when they had arrived at the Promised Land and been too afraid to enter it.
It is all a sorry tale of rebellion and stubbornness. The love of God to them is steadfast and sure: but the only consistency in their response to it is a stubborn persistence in rebelling against him (see Exodus 34:5-9). They are a “stiffnecked” people, as the AV so graphically puts it.
6 Prayers of intercession. Read Deuteronomy 9:25-10:5
Verses 25-29 fill in the detail about how Moses pleaded with God in verses 18-19 and what they describe looks much more like crude bargaining than intercession as we would recognise it. He begins in verse 26 by giving God a threefold reminder that he has very publically committed himself to Israel in making them his “possession” and acting for them. In verse 27 he asks God to remember the ancestors and overlook Israel’s current failures because - and this is his clincher argument in verse 28 - if he doesn’t then the Egyptians will be able to say that he is a god who doesn’t keep his promises and can’t do what he wants to do. If you want to maintain your credibility as a god, Moses tells the LORD, you’d better not destroy the Israelites. It is a clever tactic, brilliantly executed, and it works. What it says about God is, however, impossible for us to take seriously.
The Old Testament contains several examples of the role of prophets as intercessors (eg 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:34-37, Jeremiah 14:7-9, Amos 7:1-6). Intercession was also an important part of public prayer, as it still is. Even without the crudities of Moses’ method here, however, it raises serious difficulties for many people. If intercession is asking God to do something good which he hadn’t intended to do, why had he not so intended in the first place? If prayers of intercession are offered in the hope that having heard our prayer God will then act and do something to change the situation, what are we to make of it if nothing happens? And, most fundamental of all, how does God “act” in our world anyway? Does he control events? Can he intervene in human life to help and heal? This is a huge set of questions which are guaranteed to produce very different answers in equally sincere Christians.
Moses succeeds in winning God around, to use the language of the story, and the extended illustration continues into chapter 10 with God giving the Israelites a second chance. He commands Moses to prepare two new stone tablets and an “ark” to keep them in. GNB accurately but inelegantly usually calls this “Ark of the Covenant” the “Covenant Box”.
Guidelines
This week we have heard another twenty minutes of Moses’ long sermon, and remembering that they are from a sermon is a helpful way of making sense of what has been a difficult set of readings. Sermons, like preachers, come in all shapes, sizes and styles. Some sermons appeal to some hearers and others to others. Some parts of the same sermon mean more to a hearer than other parts. Most sermons, however, begin with a prayer that the preacher may speak in the name of God and that the congregation may hear God speaking to them through the sermon.
Moses draws exclusively on the story of the exodus for his illustrations. He may allude to it by a single word or outline an incident but since 9:8 he has been retelling part of that story in detail. As in any sermon, the illustrations may help or hinder, and this particular illustration poses its own difficulties for us. We have no problem with the idea of God “speaking” to Moses, for we too talk about God “speaking” to us: but what are we to make of God behaving like a petulant adolescent or writing the Commandments onto the tablets with his finger? The temptation, to be avoided, is to reject the sermon because the illustration gets in the way. Here too, equally committed Christians will differ widely about whether this story is all fact, all fiction, bits of both or that neither of these modern categories are quite appropriate.
This preacher is intense, deeply committed to God and passionately concerned that his congregation get it right. The message is clear, if not a bit repetitive. It is a call to faith and action, to make the right decision, which is to choose to live in God’s way. The exhortation is repeated time and again, backed up by encouragement or threat, looking to the future but drawing lessons from the past. The preacher’s favourite vocabulary is: “If”, “the LORD your God”, “covenant”, “Remember!” His key themes are that God is love - tough and demanding love, that we are the Chosen People and that we have a choice to make.
Deuteronomy 10:6-11:32. 28 February-5 March
1 Some verses in brackets. Read Deuteronomy 10:6-11
The long sermon illustration which began at 9:8 is interrupted by verses 6-9 which NRSV and most modern translations put in brackets. These verses tell of more journeyings, the death of Aaron and the special role of the Levites. There is more disorder still when the illustration resumes in verse 10, for there Moses is still on the mountain from which he had descended in verse 5. Various explanations are offered for this obvious hiccup in the text. The simplest is to say that that is just what it is and that the reasons for it are lost in the obscurity of history.
The interruption gives an explanation of the role of the Levites. They have particular responsibility for the Ark of the Covenant, for offering sacrifices and for blessing the people in the name of the Lord (verse 8, compare Numbers 3:5-10). The history of the priesthood in ancient Israel is complicated and almost impossible to reconstruct. The position set out here - of Aaron and his son named as priests with his fellow Levites sharing in other priestly tasks - was not actually how things developed. Eventually two distinct orders emerged, the Priests (who traced their origins to Zadok and took the leading role in offering sacrifices etc) and the Levites (who did all sorts of other things in the worship life of the Temple and were most definitely a second-class order). Because of their liturgical responsibility they would not be allocated any land in Canaan (verse 9). The result of this was that the Levites would always be dependent on the offerings of others (as everyone is reminded in 12:12, 18-19). The place names in verses 6-7 cannot be identified and are different from those in the story of the death of Aaron in Numbers 20:22-29.
Verses 10-11 resume the sermon illustration. Moses is instructed to take his place at the head of the column and lead the people onwards. Their rebellion is behind them and the journey begins again. And so the illustration ends. Israel has been saved from destruction by its own God only through the fervent pleading of Moses. Thanks to him they have a future into which to move.
2 What does the Lord require of you? Read Deuteronomy 10:12-13
The sermon illustration ended at verse 9. It is immediately followed by a crucial “So now”. They have been saved by God’s grace, or at least by the fact that he had listened to Moses and let himself be persuaded to give them a second chance. Everything that has happened should have taught them the lesson that the LORD their God has their best interests at heart and that following his torah is the way to enjoy the fulness of life which is his will for them. Today’s brief passage spells that out. Again.
Deuteronomy 10:12-13 is one of several Old Testament summaries of “what God requires” of his people. The best known is probably Micah 6:8 and others would include Amos 5:14-15, Hosea 12:6 and Isaiah 1:16-17. Note the significant use of the word “only” here. The same Hebrew expression is found with the same force in Micah 6:8 where NRSV translates it with “but”. In both places it emphasises that the LORD’s requirements are neither difficult nor unduly demanding, that they are attainable and that there is no reason why anyone should not attain them! The same point is made in 30:11-14. Of course people can go wrong, sometimes appallingly so, as we have heard in the long sermon illustration but, this little word suggests, that is not the first and last word about being human.
This passage offers a more positive affirmation of human life than the traditional Christian one which begins from the conviction that human beings are serious sinners. It suggests, in contrast to the way we have been taught to see ourselves, that most of the time most of us are not. It implies that ordinary people - not just the spiritual elite - can “fear the LORD”, walk in his ways, love him, serve him and keep his commandments; and that most of the time most of us do. For these things do not add up to being wonderfully godly or terribly good or anything like that, but to living our lives responsibly.
There is no straightforward English equivalent to the Hebrew expression translated as “fear the LORD”, but that doesn’t excuse modern versions from continuing with that traditional but out-dated translation. GNB’s “worship the Lord” is several steps in the right direction and NJPS’s “revere the Lord” is better still.
3 God of gods. Read Deuteronomy 10:14-20
This reading opens with two familiar themes interweaving each other: that God has inexplicably chosen Israel to be his people and that the Israelites are stubborn. Putting these together the preacher calls on them to “circumcise the foreskin of their heart”, a startling, if not crude, metaphor (see also 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4). Whilst it is memorable it is not entirely clear what it means. The heart was regarded as the seat of the will, where decisions were made and intentions formed. Does it mean, therefore, that instead of lives marked by doing their own thing they should be marked by commitment to God? Or that they should truly repent and turn back to God, however painful that experience might be? Or that they must be marked as God’s people inwardly as well as outwardly? Or does it just mean that they should cut their stubbornness out of their character?
In the story so far we have met a God of fearsome power and passionate love, “mighty and awesome”, who does “great and awesome things”. Here two new elements are added to the picture. Verse 17 speaks of the LORD their God as the most exalted and powerful of all the divine powers. He is “God of gods and Lord of lords” (titles for God used only here and in Psalm 136:2-3). This common Hebrew idiom, seen also in the phrase “heaven of heavens” in verse 14, is like our superlative. This verse is therefore calling the LORD the greatest of all gods and the most powerful of all lords (just as “the heaven of heavens” means the highest of all heavens). He is the supreme, indeed the only, God (as in 4:35). In the next breath, following that statement of transcendence, the sermon speaks of his practical, down to earth care for the least and lowest. Psalm 138:6a makes exactly the same jump. The orphan, the widow and the “stranger” or “resident alien” are the Old Testement’s usual shorthand for the marginalised and vulnerable. Two conclusions are drawn from this. First, that as God cares for such people, and as the Israelites have themselves been in that position anyway, walking in God’s ways etc involves caring for such as these (verse 18). Second, that as God is the supreme God, to “revere him” means to revere only him (verse 20).
4 Therefore! Remember! Read Deuteronomy 10:21-11:7
For Jews and Christians alike religious commitment is a response to the God who meets us, and so verses 21-22 end the exhortation which began at verse 12 by focussing attention on who God is and what he has done. The “great and awesome things” which he has done for Israel refer, as always in Deuteronomy, to the events of the exodus. The “ancestors” have been mentioned often and verse 22 reminds readers of the longer story of the promises made to Abraham (Genesis 15:5, 22:17), Isaac (Genesis 26:4) and Jacob (Exodus 32:13) now being fulfilled (see also 1:10). “He is your praise” (NRSV, NIV) or “He is your proud boast” (REB) is an unusual phrase (reminiscent of Psalm 109:1 and Jeremiah 17:14). Some translations treat it as an instruction (NJB - “Him you must praise”, GNB - “Praise him” and NJPS - “You must revere the LORD your God only”) but this is inadequate. Following on from verse 20 the expression is the first of two parallel titles of “the LORD (their) God”: he is “Israel’s Praise” and “Israel’s God”.
We meet, again, a “therefore” in 11:1. God has taken the intitiative and set the Israelites free from slavery in Egypt. Israel is, “therefore”, to “keep the commandments” in response to this. Faithful living is both a sign of gratitude for who God is and what he has done and the way to ensure that what he has done is not wasted. Thus they must “remember” the “great and awesome things” they have seen and make sure that their children are taught about them (verse 2).
Verses 2-7 look backwards to the land they have left. They are another summary of the exodus events, illustrating how God defeated their enemies and “disciplined” the Israelites themselves. For the details behind verses 3-4 see Exodus 14-15 and for verses 5-6 see Numbers 16. In verse 4 NJB and NJPS boldly give the waters crossed their proper name - the “Sea of Reeds” (Yam Suph) - a series of lakes and marshes between the head of the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean. Sadly this is no match for long use of the title “Red Sea” and the visuals of Cecil B de Mille and Steven Spielberg.
5 A land flowing with milk and honey. Read Deuteronomy 11:8-25
The sermon now turns to the future. These verses, which contain some fascinating geographical details, look forward to the land they are about to enter and contrast it with the Egypt they have left. Needless to say the contrast between Egypt and Canaan is overdrawn, because the sermon is interested in theology rather than geography, but the details are still interesting. Agricultural production in Egypt is hard work, heavily dependent on irrigation, though what is meant precisely by “irrigate by foot” in verse 10 is not clear. Suggestions range from literally using your feet to scrape water channels and then direct the water flow round individual plants, through carrying buckets to water wheels worked by pedal power. “By hand” is the English idiom which perhaps best catches the sense of the Hebrew. Canaan needs no such irrigation, for “it is fed and watered by God’s almighty hand”. There have been some significant geographical changes in the western Mediterranean area over the past three thousand years, most notably the desertification of much of the north African coast, but even allowing for that the description of Canaan as a “land flowing with milk and honey” was always an exaggeration. It may have been looked a bit like that compared with the desert areas surrounding it to the south and east but the accounts of famines and droughts in the Old Testament should alert us to the fact that life there was no picnic either. Verses 14-15 illustrate the vital importance of the “early rains” in October and November and the “later rain” in March and April for the staple crops of wheat and barley, vines and olives (remember that New Year is September in their calendar).
As always the Deuteronomic “If” is ever present and verses 13-17 highlight it once more. As before, they are warned to be on their guard against being “seduced” by other gods and promised success in all their ventures if they observe “this entire commandment”. Verses 18-21 repeat the instructions given in 6:5-9 and provide a method for continuing to remember that “All is of Grace”. The territory described in verse 24 (see also 1:7) matches the theoretical limits of the empire created by David.
6 The time for decision! Read Deuteronomy 11:26-32
These verses bring the sermon in Deuteronomy 5-11 to a powerful climax as Moses calls the congregation to decision. It has been a passionate, evangelical, uncomfortable sort of sermon, preached with more shouting than subtlety; and it has overstated its case more than once. It has rambled a bit too, revisiting the same key points time after time. But the preacher’s urgency has been unmistakable. For him, life and death issues are at stake. Two conflicting futures are presenting themselves. The congregation is standing at a crossroads and must choose which road to take. In the sermon he has used threats and promises to plead with his hearers to make the right decision. In its climax he sets the choice starkly before them - blessing or curse. They must decide. And they must decide now! Today!
All of this is typical of the “covenant sermon”. A good example is found in Joshua 24. The Israelites have crossed the Jordan and occupied the Promised Land. Moses’ successor gathers all the tribes together at Shechem. His much shorter sermon also ends with a call to decision. In response to it the Israelites decide to “serve the LORD” and Joshua makes a covenant with them, sealing that decision by writing it down and setting up a standing stone as a witness to it. Deuteronomy 12-30 is a longer example which ends in 30:15-20 with the same call to decision. In that sermon Deuteronomy 28 spells out the effects of the blessing and curse between which they must choose.
A feature of this sermon has been the importance of “reminders”; the phylactery and the mezuzah, for example. In verse 29 the peaks of Gerizim and Ebal are used in the same way. From Shechem, Gerizim rises to the south and Ebal to the north. Because of their different geologies the one is fertile and green, the other bare and rocky - visual aids to the choice which Israel must make and go on making (see Joshua 8:30-35 for a covenant ceremony in the area). Verse 30 points to the action which has to be taken: the Jordan must be crossed and the land of the Canaanites entered. The mention of the “oak of Moreh” is important. It was the place at which God had given Abraham the promise of the land (Genesis 12:6).
Guidelines
The Deuteronomists lived in the same real world that we do. The people they knew were good, bad and indifferent and the same mixture of all of those that we are. The events of their daily lives were the same combinations of the up, down and the ordinary that ours are. They knew joys and delights, terrors and despairs, just as we do. They felt what we feel, hoped what we hope and feared what we fear.
The written sermon that we have been reading was the Deuteronomists’ word to their world, written in the name of the Lord their God. Its message for their time of new beginnings was that God is; that he cares passionately, generously and sometimes frighteningly; and that his care makes demands on us. Their vision for their new society was one of a community which took God and his care seriously and responded positively to the demands which came with it. The sermon was a call to praise God for all that was past and to trust and obey him for all that was to come.
The sermon is, of course, rooted in the culture of its day and age. Therefore, some of its illustrations are lost on us and we find some of its attitudes unacceptable; but that happens with modern sermons too. We need therefore to pray about this ancient sermon as we would about any sermon, that God will help us to hear his word to us through it.
- Lord, for the years your love has kept and guided,
- Urged and inspired us, cheered us on our way,
- Sought us and saved us, pardoned and provided:
- Lord of the years, we bring our thanks today.
- Lord, for our land, in this our generation,
- Spirits oppressed by pleasure, wealth and care:
- For young and old, for commonwealth and nation,
- Lord of our land, be pleased to hear our prayer.
Timothy Dudley-Smith
For further reading
- A C Phillips, Deuteronomy, Cambridge Bible Commentary series
- D F Payne, Deuteronomy, Daily Study Bible, St Andrews Press
- Still worth finding secondhand is God’s Chosen People by R E Clements, SCM Press
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, January – April 1996)
If the Book of Isaiah as we now have it is a symphony, containing many themes and developing them in many ways into a finished whole, chapters 1-12 are the first movement and chapter 1 is the overture in which all the themes are introduced. The symphony comes from an unknown composer who used the works of others, acknowledging a debt to one in particular in the title given to the finished work, "The Vision of Isaiah". In these studies we look at the "First Movement", sometimes taking an overview and sometimes concentrating on no more than a moment in the melody. This symphony is part of a wider collection. In the Hebrew Bible it is the first of four "Explanations" (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve) which follow four symphonies which make up "The Tragedy" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings). The Tragedy is the story of the People of Israel from a bright beginning on the wrong side of the Jordan River into and then, after a series of sorry tales, out of the Promised Land and away to exile in Babylon. It ends with the tiniest glimmer of hope for a new future. The theme of all four "Explanations" is the same - the People of Israel are the People of God and the tragedy is that their misfortune is of their own making. They have brought it upon themselves by their disobedience and wrongdoing. If there is to be any future for them it will be by God's generosity in giving them a new start. That too is the theme of the First Movement of the Isaiah Symphony in Isaiah 1-12. The recording we listen to is that of the NRSV.
Isaiah 1.1-3.15. 15-21 January
1 The time and the place. Read Isaiah 1:1-9
The Bible's title for the Isaiah Symphony is "The Vision of Isaiah". "Vision" immediately suggests a secret look at what is not really ours to see and an experience which is frightening and hopeful at the same time. It invites us to see things from God's perspective. It promises to reveal the real state of present affairs, to expose their causes and to show their consequences. We are invited to listen with both foreboding and excitement.
In verse 1 the vision is set in a particular time and place - Judah and Jerusalem from 742 to 701 or 687 BCE - and given to a particular person. These were years of international crisis. For much of the time Assyria dominated the region, exacting tribute, causing panic and wreaking havoc. The prosperous kingdom of Israel was destroyed in 722 with the fall of its capital, Samaria. The smaller kingdom of Judah struggled through, but was devastated after Hezekiah rebelled in 705. Jerusalem survived siege in 701 only because it surrendered. This is the historical situation which forms the scene for God's message through "Isaiah the son of Amoz". In it we see not only the national and international scene, but also the local and the personal in which ordinary people lived and died, prospered, suffered and survived, and we hear what God has to say about it.
In verses 2-9 we see the incomprehensible horror which is at the heart of Isaiah's vision. God calls on heaven and earth to witness the shame - his children have rebelled against him. Every attempt at correction has failed. They have brought terrible destruction upon themselves. In it all we feel God's pain, frustration and despair. Is there any future for his children and for Zion, his "daughter"?
2 Worship or blasphemy? Read Isaiah 1:10-17
The second "Hear" of Isaiah's message is addressed to the national leaders in Jerusalem. This city is so far from what it should be that Isaiah calls it by the same name as the proverbially sinful city of "Sodom" and its twin, "Gomorrah". It is also, thanks to God's grace and nothing else, only fractionally away from sharing the same destruction (verse 9).
We have already seen that the nation is deeply if not mortally corrupt (verse 4). Despising their God they are estranged from him and from each other - these two relationships being indissolubly bound together in every strand of Old Testament thought - and the result is chaos. But as yet no one else is aware of the tragedy which Isaiah has been shown. Life is good. God is good. The religious life of the Temple is flourishing. But God sees it differently and rejects all of it (verses 11-15). These verses (akin to Amos 5:21-24, Hosea 6:6 and Micah 6:6-8) are not an attack on worship itself, but on that sort of spirituality which allows the rest of life to remain untouched by God's demands. Such religion is fatally flawed, and verse 15 says why with brutal simplicity. By contrast, true religion begins with listening to God's "teaching" (torah, verse 10) and continues by putting it into practice, negatively by "ceasing to do evil" and positively by "learning to do good" (verses 16-17). The mark of such practice is "justice" (mishpat) and its litmus-test is the care of the vulnerable.
3 God's anger. Read Isaiah 1:18-31
Having shown them in starkly simple terms what he requires (verses 16-17), God speaking through his spokesman now asks them pointedly if they are going to change their ways (verses 18-20). If they are, the past is forgiven; if not, they will reap what they have sown. This is classic Deutoronomic and Wisdom teaching that faithfulness is rewarded and sin punished and it runs through this whole section. Though it is a rather rough-and-ready, rule-of-thumb sort of doctrine, and protests against its shortcomings are found elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet is there not some truth in it?
Verses 21-23 take up again the picture of "daughter Zion", no longer virginal but prostituted, the victim of abuse by those in positions of power and responsibility. Note again how the treatment of the vulnerable ("the widow, the orphan and the poor" is the common Old Testament designation for them) is singled out as a marker at the end of verse 23. But Jerusalem is not yet beyond help. The process might be drastic ("smelting" verse 25), but by justice (mishpat) and righteousness (tsedaqah) it can be done (verse 27). These two great and warm Old Testament words, so often misunderstood by Christians, refer both to God's strenuous effort to put things right and keep them right arising out of his deep love for his people and to our living and working in the same spirit for the common good.
Verses 29-31 give us our first encounter with horticulture. Of that more later.
The overture ends with a vision of fire which no one can quench. In it there have been glimpses of hope, but are these only fleeting moments in an overall mood of gloom and doom? This question will be raised throughout the first movement and all through the Symphony. We have heard the theme rehearsed in the overture: the Holy One of Israel (see chapter 10 on p46 for this distinctive title for God) has a claim on his people, and they have failed or been failed by their rulers. The consequences are shared by ruler and people alike - chaos leading to destruction. But will it come to that? If God is in all of this, then out of it or after it might there be possibilities as yet undreamed of?
4 Swords into ploughshares. Read Isaiah 2:1-9
Verse 1. The overture is over and the first movement continues with a new heading about the "word" ("message", "matter" or "content") which Isaiah saw in his vision.
In verses 2-4 the prophet sees the first of those visions of hope and dreams the first of those dreams of peace which are such a moving and memorable feature of the Symphony. A day will come when people of all nations will listen to the teaching (torah, "instruction", verse 3) of Israel's God, and in living by it ("walking in his paths") will find harmony and fulfilment. Note again the positive sense of "judge" in verse 4, that "God will put all things right between the nations ..." Maybe all we can do after reading this is to pray, "Thy kingdom come ... " or to ask with the Psalmist, "How long, O Lord, how long?" A longer form of this vision is found with some detail differences in Micah 4:1-4.
Verses 5-6 are an invitation by the prophet to the people of Judah to walk with him "in the light of the LORD", using the metaphor of "walking" already seen in 2:3 and familiar especially in the Wisdom tradition with its contrasting "two ways" or "paths" (eg Proverbs 2). They are lost and the prophet offers to put them back on the right road.
But no sooner is that said than the prophet begins a sustained attack, taking what will prove to be a distinctive line. Instead of talking to his hearers ("you" in verse 6a) he distances himself from them and begins to talk about them in the third person ("they" in verse 6b). They are doomed! Why? Because of their pride!
The situation in Jerusalem is the reverse of what Isaiah had seen. Instead of foreigners coming to Jerusalem to learn of God they are welcomed as religious teachers (verse 6). Instead of beating swords to ploughshares they have multiplied their chariots (verse 7). Instead of recognising the true God they have created their own idols (verse 8). So instead of going up to the Temple they will be brought down to hide in caves and even in the dust (verse 10). Because they have exalted themselves they will be humbled. Verse 7a hints at the cause - pride comes with prosperity (compare Deuteronomy 6:10-12, 8:11-17, Hosea 13:4-6 and Proverbs 30:8-9).
5 Humbling the proud. Read Isaiah 2:10-21
If in verse 9 Isaiah expresses his revulsion at the level of degradation to which those who worship idols have sunk, though they of course are completely oblivious to it, in verses 10-21 he shouts them awake to the humiliation which is coming upon them which none of them can escape. They will be humiliated because of their pride.
There is of course a proper pride and an improper one, as there is a proper humility and an improper one. Isaiah is in no doubt that Jerusalem has exhibited the sort of "inordinate exaltation" which is Thomas Aquinas' definition of pride as a vice. There is also no doubt about the rigour of his condemnation in verses 10-19 of such self-confident attitudes and behaviour, piling on adjectives (haughty, proud, lofty, lifted up, high) and metaphors (cedars and oaks, mountains and hills, the latest technology of architecture or transport). Pride is condemned as that attitude which refuses to accept the sovereignty of God and which expresses itself in arrogant behaviour towards others and in an overweening opinion of one's own qualities or achievements. It is the abuse of power. It is anti-social in its outlook and destructive in its results.
All of this will be exposed "in that day" (verses 11, 17 and 20) when God "rises to terrify the earth" (verses 19 and 21) for the presumption that it is. Then the true majesty and glory (verses 10, 19 and 21) will be seen as God's and God's alone (verse 17). Here Isaiah uses traditional Day of the Lord and theophany language but like Amos (in 5:18-20) he gives it a violent twist: God's coming Day is against Jerusalem in its pride. Its terrors will indeed be experienced by God's enemies, but those enemies are his own proud people! That Day will also expose the idols these people cherish for the futility that they really are (verse 20). There is no reason for NRSV to translate the repeated phrase with "in that day" at 2:11 (and 3:18 and 4:1) but with "on that day" at 2:17 and 20 (and 3:7 and 4:2).
6 Misleading rulers. Read Isaiah 2:22-3:15
In verse 22 the prophet again speaks directly to his hearers and gives them advice. His advice is to recognise where real help and real power are to be found. When human beings get angry the most they can do is huff and puff, when God gets angry he can destroy as well as terrify. The wise person will therefore take notice of God.
3:1-8 is a strange passage. It talks of God taking the nation's leaders away - all the politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, generals, scholars and priests. The result is anarchy and the suffering it brings (verse 5). This might be a reflection of what was actually taking place, leaders being exiled or those with the means to do so escaping to safety from a stricken city and leaving the rest in the lurch. Verse 8 points out that such chaos is a consequence of rebellion, which is pride.
In verses 9-11 the familiar reaping-what-you-sow theme recurs. The sarcasm of verse 12 prepares for the charge in court in verses 13-15, that "your leaders have mislead you". The courtroom drama is a popular device in the repertoire of the prophets (the best example is Micah 6:1-8). In Isaiah 1:1 God called on heaven and earth to be witnesses in his complaint against his people. In 1:18-20 he issued a challenge to his adversaries. Now in verses 13-15 he rises as Prosecutor and Judge to argue his case, and his accusation is the familiar one in other prophetic scores - Amos (2:6-7, 5:10-13, 8:4-6), Hosea (4:1-4) and Micah (2:1-2, 3:1-3, 9-12). The leaders will pay for their injustice. Note that the word "judge" in verse 13 is not the common and warm "judge" = "save" verb related to the noun in 1:27.
Guidelines
The naming of the kings in 1:1 alerts us to the fact that much of the vision will be to do with power - God's power and human misuse of power. It also exposes the folly of those who say that religion should be kept out of politics.
1:24 talks of an angry God. Some Christians jib at this idea. But is a God who doesn't get angry worth worshipping at all? There is much around us for a good God to get angry about! Isaiah believed that God got angry and took action. Many find it more difficult these days to think of God taking action in the way that Isaiah could, and ask how God can act in our world other than through his people. Does this mean that the Church should get a lot angrier than it does? Isaiah leaves us in no doubt what about.
The Vision of Peace in 2:2-5 is beautifully paraphrased in the hymn, "Behold the mountain of the Lord". The hymn by Lewis Hensley, "Thy Kingdom come, O God", combines prayer for the coming of that day with asking the Psalmist's question. Both hymns could usefully be used in your prayers or meditation.
The overture and what we have heard of the Symphony so far tells of threat and hope, "punishment" and "redemption", though more of the former in each case than the latter. Does this in fact speak to the realities of all times and all histories, ours included?
Isaiah 3.16-8.15. 22-28 January
1 Contrasts. Read Isaiah 3:16-4:6
The mention of "grinding the face of the poor" (3:15) in the courtroom drama is followed in verses 16-17 by a return to the theme of pride. This time the accusation is made specifically against the women of Jerusalem, "the daughters of Zion", using a variation of the previous metaphors of "Daughter Zion" in 1:8 and the prostituted city in 1:21. Isaiah is not quite as crude as Amos in his condemnation of the female idle rich (Amos 4:1-3) but the point is the same. They are haughty, vain and promiscuous and they will get what is coming to them (compare verse 9). From verse 18 he spells out what they will suffer "in that day", and the loss of their fine wardrobes will be only the start. "In that day" the daughters of Jerusalem will suffer appallingly and so will Daughter Jerusalem (verse 26).
Then "in that day" this shame and degradation will be replaced with something really beautiful. There will be a new Jerusalem (verses 2-6). Verse 2 paints a picture of its rich agricultural prosperity. In verses 3-4 the picture is of the "holiness", that is the purity and moral goodness, of the washed and cleansed "remnant" who have been "selected to live" in the new Jerusalem after its purging by "judgement" (mishpat) and fire. Verse 4 might suggest that all the guilty have been cleansed (compare 1:18) but probably means that they have been eradicated (compare 1:20). The aim of God's "judgement" might be redemptive rather than punitive: but the prophets were in no doubt about what ought to happen to those who wouldn't see the error of their ways.
In verses 5-6 the picture is of God's blessing on the new Jerusalem. His newly rescued people will not follow a pillar of cloud and fire like their ancestors did, they will live safely under it. "Cloud" and "fire" are frequent metaphors for God's presence, most often for his terrifying power to destroy, but now he is present to protect and shelter. The prosperity, happiness and joy of the new Jerusalem is summed up in the word "glory" (kabod). Perhaps there is a hint in these verses that Jerusalem has now become the beacon pointing to God which the Vision of Peace dreamed for it?
2 The Song of the Vineyard. Read Isaiah 5:1-13
Something new happens at this point in the symphony. God sings a ballad to his loved one, though a song about an unproductive vineyard might not sound like much of a love-song. The ballad has the feel of a parable about it. It is very short and provocative. At the end God asks the audience for their verdict, but without waiting for an answer goes on to say what he will do to his useless vineyard (verses 5-6). The punchline comes in verse 7, and is reminiscent of the greatest Bible punchline of them all (2 Samuel 12:7). The defective vineyard is "the house of Israel" and "the people of Judah". So far "Judah" has always been paralleled by "Jerusalem", so finding these two together here might be significant.
Israel and Judah are the LORD's vineyard, and on them he had lavished every vinicultural care: but the result has been bad fruit. Two of the themes we have heard before are now back: exploitation (verses 7-10) and idle luxury and extravagance (verses 11-12). Verse 7 sums up God's disappointment with a play on words. He expected justice (mishpat) but got bloodshed (mishpach), hoped for righteousness (tsedaqah) but got cries of anguish (tse'aqah). Verse 13 has a timeless feel as it points out that the consequences of such living. Living as they do inevitably (note the "therefore" at the beginning of the verse, and again at the beginning of verse 14) brings death instead of life. In the future this might be exile, away from their land as the Assyrians exiled the people of Israel in 722 or into a wasteland of anarchy for Judah (compare 3:1-5). In the present, though they don't recognise it, they are already starved of that basic necessity of life - a sense of meaning ("knowledge").
3 Injustice and its rewards. Read Isaiah 5:14-30
This section spells out the threat of verse 13. The consequence of wrong living is death, "Sheol" (verse 14). The Old Testament knows the "kind and gentle death" of St Francis' hymn, but also death of another kind - greedy, voracious and devouring. The picture is of "Sheol", the underworld of the dead, like a giant octopus whose tentacles are always reaching out to grab victims and drag them down. In the Psalms, for example, we see illness or other forms of suffering as an individual being dragged down into the pit (eg Psalms 18:4-6 and 116:3-11). But Sheol, always trying to undermine and destroy life, attacks society too. Here the prophet uses this vivid metaphor to speak of the disintegration of society which he sees in his vision given by God. Note again the pride and humiliation language in verse 15 and the way that verse 16 insists that things are only right (justice and righteousness - mishpat and tsedaqah) when God is enthroned, exalted, in life and society, even if this means the destruction of those who make things wrong. Verse 17 is difficult in Hebrew and can be read either as a dismal picture of depopulation in which the ruins of Jerusalem are inhabited only by animals and foreigners or, preferably, as a picture of hope along the same lines as 11:6-9.
Verses 18-24 form a series of four "Woes", reminiscent of Amos 5-6, against the same target audience of the rich and powerful. ("Woe to ..." is better than NRSV's "Ah" here or "Alas" in Amos). These people are harnessed to evil like a horse and cart (verse 18), but they believe that God is on their side guaranteeing them victory and success. They are utterly mistaken. They have got things completely the wrong way way round (verse 20), just as Amos says. They have rejected God's torah (verse 24) and ignored his advice, and Amos says that of them too (2:4-5).
In verses 25-30 you can hear the din of battle and smell the smell of fear in a passage which is typical of so many in which we see the belief that God will punish his enemies by using other nations to attack and conquer them.
4 Isaiah's "call". Read Isaiah 6:1-13
In chapters 6-8 we meet the messenger for the first time. Isaiah's name was mentioned at 1:1 and 2:1, but so far we have only heard the message that he "saw". Now we meet the man and his family. Chapter 6 seems an odd place to hear his testimony to his "call", as it's usually called, for we would expect to hear that at the beginning of a prophet's work, as we do with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But here again the Book of Amos gives us something of a parallel. We don't meet the messenger there until chapter 7 when the priest Amaziah confronts him and demands an explanation. In Isaiah 1-5 we have been reading largely threat and denunciation after threat and denunciation. Is it now the time for an explanation? Who is this man? Can we trust his words? What sort of a prophet is this? Does this message have any credibility? These are the questions answered in the testimony.
Isaiah's testimony is about a vision in the Temple in 742. His words cannot describe what he felt but the outline is familiar to us. He saw God, enthroned on high as a King and attended by six-winged seraphs. He heard shouting or singing and God himself speaking. He smelt smoke and incense. He felt the building shake and he was terrified, ashamed and burned clean. It was an experience of the transcendent otherness of God, and it was awesome. In it he felt the "Woe" with which he had threatened others. But he also felt needed. He was confused but also commissioned. Yes, the message he had to give was indeed largely threat and denunciation. And no, nobody would take much notice. But in this testimony Isaiah tells us who he is, and where his message comes from (compare Amos 3:7-8 and 7:14-15).
The picture of God as King is not as common in the Old Testament as we might expect. It seems to have been part of the special theology of Jerusalem and the liturgy of the Temple, and we see it in such "Enthronement Psalms" as Psalms 93, 96, 97 and 99. The Isaiah Symphony's distinctive title for God is the "Holy One of Israel", a title used only four times outside the book but thirty-one times within it. The seraph's chorus, "Holy, Holy, Holy", focusses on God's holiness and celebrates it. To call God "holy", qadosh, is to acknowledge both his power and majesty and his love and purity, as Reginald Heber puts it in these words from his famous hymn,
- "Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
- perfect in power, in love and purity".
"Glory" means much the same thing. Isaiah, as in verses 3 and 5, also often calls God, "the LORD of hosts" (YHWH Sebaoth, "YHWH of hosts"), a title which was probably intended to honour him as the King of the Heavenly Host, that is, of the heavenly beings who surround his throne, or possibly of the stars or even of the armies of Israel. Much better to leave this ancient name with its possibilities open than to translate it as "the LORD Almighty" as is sometimes done.
Verses 9-12 are full of irony here and when they are quoted in Matthew 13:14-15. No doubt the irony reflects the experience of most of the prophets. Nobody takes any notice. The more they speak, the less anybody listens. If only people would listen it would be different, but they won't. The result is that the prophets see the worst of their fears come true. So verse 13 points out that at the very most there is only a tiny remnant left, a tree stump, cut off, separated, and we are left asking if these few good people are enough for a future?
5 A sign for a king. Read Isaiah 7:1-17
This chapter is narrative. In the story Syria and Israel (Ephraim) have formed a coalition against the rising power of Assyria and are pressurising Judah to join. King Ahaz panics. Isaiah goes to him with a simple message from God, "Don't worry about this threat. Ignore it and it will go away. Put your trust in God. If you don't he will give you something far more terrible to worry about than these two tiny nations, the full might of the Assyrians themselves!"
There is comedy in the detail, for example in Isaiah's contemptuous treatment of all the kings involved. "What are you worrying about?" he asks Ahaz. "Worrying about Syria? Syria is no more than Damascus its capital! Worrying about Damascus? It's no more than Rezin its king! Worrying about Rezin? He's nothing more than a "smouldering stump of a firebrand"! You are terrified of a devouring fire, but it's only a bit of charred smouldering stick!" Then again when Isaiah loses his temper. He invites Ahaz to ask for a sign, and suddenly Ahaz becomes the model of trusting faithfulness and comes out with the pious, "Far be it from me to ask the LORD for a sign". Isaiah, thoroughly irritated, says that he's getting a sign whether he likes it or not!
The sign itself is straightforward. Isaiah points to a young pregnant woman and says that by the time she has her son and he is old enough to tell right from wrong, then the threat from Pekah and Rezin will be long past. The Hebrew says simply, "the young woman has conceived and she will bear a son ..." Most recent translations get the tense right and NRSV and NJB also put in the definite article. The result is different from the traditional translations which are heavily dependent on Matthew 1:23 and its talk of a virgin birth. Although Isaiah's children were given distinctive names to reinforce his message (7:3 and 8:3) it is more likely that this woman is one of the king's wives and the name a "throne name" given to a royal child at birth (like those in 9:6) for "Emmanuel" ("God is with us") is mentioned again at 8:8 where he appears to be growing up to be king.
6 Signs and stumbles. Read Isaiah 7:18-8:15
This passage is difficult in places but essentially it is a commentary on the simple message of the previous chapter. In 7:18-25 four "In that day" threats clarify what will happen on God's Day of Action when he brings the Assyrians down on Judah, as he said he might (7:17). The first uses the language of plague, the second the vivid metaphor of "shaving", the third of depopulation when what few animals remain will be more than enough to feed the tiny population which survives and the fourth pictures fields reverting to wilderness.
8:1-4 gives a second "sign" involving birth and naming. The prophetess's son is named, "The spoil speeds, the prey hastens" emphasising that destruction is fast approaching. Before this child can say "Mummy" or "Daddy" Syria and Israel will be destroyed.
In 8:5-8 the threat is turned against Judah and pictured as a flood which the royal child of 7:14, now grown up, will see devastating his land. Or will he? Will the onlooking nations see Judah survive, with both the tiny threat of Israel and Syria and the huge one of Assyria coming to nought? That seems to be the sense of verses 9-10.
In the soliloquy of 8:11-15 we return to the simple choice God is offering Judah through Isaiah - trust him or come to dread him, expressed in a metaphor used in both Testaments - God is a stone which either offers protection or trips you up.
Guidelines
Most scholars regard 4:2-6 (and such verses as the last lines of 6:13 or 7:17) as coming from a later prophet than "Isaiah of Jerusalem", as they call the lyricist whose life and words form the basis of chapters 1-35 of the Book of Isaiah. They may well be right on both counts. But we are listening to a symphony in its final form, and the precise origins of some of the tunes are not of major concern. In the First Movement of the Isaiah Symphony the two parts of the reading in chapter 7, for example, form a vivid contrast and make good sense where they are - the gaudy and fragile finery of Jerusalem in the present set against the "solid joys and lasting treasure" of the Jerusalem to come.
Many times over Christmas you will have heard or sung that our Lord's birth "fulfilled" Isaiah's "prophecy", the point made in Matthew 1:23. But we have seen that the prophecy was not that sort of prediction, which means that Matthew has taken the verse out of context and made it mean something it does not mean in the story. He does the same in all the fulfilments of prophecy he quotes in chapters 1-2. At one level his use of Isaiah 7:14 is illegitimate, for the plain meaning of the Emmanuel sign is the one Ahaz understands. But at another level Matthew makes a valid point. In the story the sign is about salvation. Isaiah promises Ahaz that Jerusalem will be saved from Pekah and Rezin - and it was. Is Matthew using the old story and the old sign to say that a greater and fuller salvation is now here? Is he saying that though God's deliverence of Jerusalem in Ahaz's time was real enough, now in Jesus Christ we have something that makes that pale into insignificance? I think so. Matthew the theologian points us to "Jesus, our Emmanuel", in whom salvation is "fulfilled".
Isaiah 8.16-12.6. 29 January – 4 February
1 Glorious hope. Read Isaiah 8:16-9:7
Verses 8:16-9:1 conclude our Meeting with the Messenger which began at 6:1. We have heard him testify to his call, seen his encounter with King Ahaz and heard his message of doom and hope reiterated in different ways. In this parting speech he asks for his message to be kept safe by his "disciples", for everything he heard in his call has happened. He has spoken but few have listened. God is "hiding" from them (see 3:1-3) - for they cannot see his signs (verse 18) and are looking anywhere but in the right place for guidance (torah) (verses 19-22). So let it be. If they follow delusions they will be disillusioned. But then, for this is God's purpose through it all, they will be brought out of gloom into light (9:1).
"Disciples" may mean a formal group showing that Isaiah was head of a "school" of prophets, or it may simply refer to those who have taken him seriously. 9:1 alludes to events lost to us, but the meaning is plain. Isaiah signs off on a note of hope.
9:2-7 is another Vision of Peace (like 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 5:16-17) and another Isaiah reading used at Christmas. A new day is dawning, a day of light and joy, war and oppression are over, a new king comes to reign with God's power and blessing. This is sometimes called a "messianic" vision, which is an accurate description if we understand "messiah" in its original sense as "God's anointed", a title for the King of David's line in Jerusalem. Only after that dynasty was long extinct did hope for a future "messiah" emerge.
For the "Day of Midian" see Judges 7:15-25. Verse 6 might refer to the birth of a prince but probably refers to the accession of a king (see Psalm 2:7-9). The four names are "throne names" which express the hope placed in the new king and pray for its fulfilment. Some translate "Mighty God" as "Divine Warrior" or "Mighty Hero" (REB) but there is another reference to the king as God in Psalm 45:6. Whatever we make of these titles the passage clearly refers to a human king of David's dynasty. In the new reign of this Prince of Peace the land will enjoy harmony, prosperity and wholeness ("peace" - shalom) through his care (mishpat and tsedaqah). The Vision ends on a sharp note which we take up next.
2 Misfortune explained. Read Isaiah 9:8-21
In 9:7 the Vision of Peace ended on what I called a "sharp note", saying that the power behind the new peace is God's jealousy ("jealous love" - NJB) or "zeal" (see 37:32 and 63:15), a word which is translated as "fury" in 42:13 and 59:17. The "LORD of hosts" is the "jealous God" of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:5). This divine love which wants the best for its loved one has all the force of passion, and is as dangerous as it is warm. This passage shows the violent savagery of such passion, and it does not make pleasant reading.
9:8-21 is an explanation of the destruction which has come upon the northern kingdom, Israel. It repeats the message we have heard constantly, that the consequence of living against God is destruction from him. As before arrogance and pride are cited (verses 9-10) as at the root of this attitude. As before foreign nations are cited as God's chosen agents to punish Israel (verses 11-12) though again the historical allusion here is lost to us. As before we read that people are culpable because they have not turned back to God (verse 13). As before the faults of national leaders are said to have put everyone in jeopardy (verses 14-16). As before we hear of the terrors of anarchy (verses 18-21).
But there is an angry relentlessness in these verses not heard before. Three times we read that God's "anger has not turned away" and that "his hand is stretched out still" (verses 12, 17, 21). Now he has no pity on any, not even on the innocent and the vulnerable (verse 17). We cannot take the easy way out and say that this passage speaks of the evil consequences that wrongdoing brings upon itself by some sort of cause and effect. Here God is pictured as active and responsible. He is the one who makes this happen.
At least we are left in no doubt about God's feelings.
3 No special treatment for Jerusalem. Read Isaiah 10:1-11
Having described and explained the suffering that has come upon Israel and its capital Samaria ("them" and "their" throughout 9:8-21) the prophet now addresses the listeners directly ("you" and "your"). In verses 1-4 he warns them that they will share the same fate, repeating in verse 4 the refrain used three times in chapter 9. We have met the complaints in verses 1-2 before. In verses 5-11 God speaks in the first person. Previously we have heard him speaking in this way only in the courtroom drama and the Song of the Vineyard. Now we hear him say that he is about to do what he threatened then (verse 6). But this announcement of "Woe" ("Ah" = "Woe" ) is as much a threat against Assyria as it is against Jerusalem. God intended to use the Assyrians to punish his own people who were so far away from him that he can call them a "godless nation", but in their arrogance the Assyrians went far beyond what he intended. They boast of their superiority (verse 8), their conquests (verse 9) and their future victory (verses 10-11).
You could be tempted to think that this reading only makes the bad impression of the one in the previous chapter worse. The God who announces that he was responsible for sending the Assyrians against Samaria admits that they were out of control! Yet there is another way of looking at it. Isaiah, together with the rest of the Bible, pictures God acting in history by manipulating nations and people to achieve his purposes. We see such a view clearly in Isaiah 10:6 or 45:1. At the same time Isaiah 10:16 also shows the shortcomings of such a belief, for the Assyrians do what they want to do rather than what God intends, which is exactly what Israel and Judah do most of the time. We can, of course, go for one or other of these two pictures and harden it into a doctrine: but the Old Testament does not do theology that way. For the Old Testament God is beyond doctrine and definition, so it paints pictures, tells stories and uses metaphors. Sometimes the result is dramatic and frightening, as in this passage and the previous one, but no less than some of the pictures in the parables of Jesus, and we don't read them literally or turn them into doctrines.
4 Or for Assyria. Read Isaiah 10:12-27
This passage contains two prose interruptions which act like points of emphasis in the music, and we will hear another one in the next reading. They are all no doubt later additions to Isaiah's original message, and it is easy enough to see when they were themselves composed and added: but we are listening to the finished symphony, and such questions belong elsewhere. Thus verse 12 interrupts the flow of Assyria's arrogant boasting and it puts God firmly back in control.
Verse 13a is an excellent nutshell description of pride.
Verses 15-19 announce that God will bring the boasting of Assyria to an end and destroy its power. Isaiah 36-39 (a duplication of 2 Kings 18:13-20:19) tells the story of the failure of the Assyrians at the siege of Jerusalem in 701, just when it looked as if they were at the height of their powers and on the verge of total success. Needless to say the Assyrian records which tell of their campaigns in Judah at this time don't tell the story in quite the same way. The picture in verse 15 holds pride up to ridicule, and the whole passage plays on the metaphor of timber.
The prose verses 20-27 take up the remnant theme from verse 19 but talk about the remnant of Israel and Judah. "A remnant will return" (verse 21) just as Isaiah had said when he called his first son by that name (7:3). "On that day" they will no longer be dependant on their conquerors but on their God (verse 20). But it will only be a chastened few, for though they had been like the sand of the sea they have been punished, for God's threat about putting things right even if it meant an end for wrongdoers was not an idle one (verses 22-23). Having been told who they really ought to fear, verses 24-27 reassure them about the Assyrian threat. The terrible destruction which the Assyrians were threatening (verses 10-11) will not take place. It is a burden and a yoke but no more, and in due course it will be removed. This should not cause them, nor us, to forget that God's threat of destruction is "decreed" (verse 22).
5 A new day is dawning. Read Isaiah 10:28-11:9
The dramatic poetry of verses 27b-32 marks the advance of the Assyrian army and the fear and flight it causes. They march to the very wall of Jerusalem and threaten it. In verse 33 the mood changes again and we return to the picture of 10:18-19. The forest of mighty trees will be chopped down, and in its place a little shoot will grow.
We first met Isaiah's horticultural interests in 1:29-31 and saw his use of "cedars of Lebanon" and "oaks of Bashan" as metaphors of arrogance in 2:13 and again in 10:17-19 and 33-34. There was also the "branch of the LORD" at 4:2 and the Song of the Vineyard in chapter 5. This is a different "branch" in 11:1 which in addition mentions shoots, a stump and roots (also at 11:10). There was a different "stump" at 6:13. Later on the term "Branch" become a title for the Messiah (Jeremiah 23:5, Zechariah 3:8) but it does not have that sense at 4:2 where the word is best translated as "plant" (REB) or "seedling" (NJB), not as "Branch" with a capital letter as in NIV, but it does have something of that sense at 11:1.
Verses 1-9 need little comment but much reflection and prayer. In 11:1-5 we have the picture of a new community or more likely its new leader. His qualities are spelled out but above all he is one who honours God (verse 3). Again we see that the care of the vulnerable is the test of true justice and the use of power. In verses 6-9 we see another vision of peace, a dream of the harmony and beauty of life when power is used rightly. The contrast with 10:27b-32 could not be more marked.
6 In praise of God. Read Isaiah 11:10-12:6
Verses 10-11 are the last prose section in the movement and repeat the "on that day" theme from the previous one (10:20). Verse 10 emphasises that all the world will look to the new messiah as 2:3-4 had dreamed, and verse 11 speaks of the remnant of the exiled and refugee Israelites being brought home. The first time that God "extended his hand" might be the Exodus or when he saved the local remnant, or it might be when he "stretched out" his hand in punishment (see 9:12 etc).
The poetry in verses 12-16 takes up the picture of returning exiles, and adds that the long hostility and suspicion between Israel and Judah will be ended. The note of hostility against traditional enemies in verse 14 is sad and reflects a certain ambiguity about the position of the nations who will flock to Jerusalem "in that day". The themes of crossing waters and making highways in verses 15-16 are not only exodus themes but also draw on the ancient story of the Battle against the Chaos Monster (see 51:9-11). They will cross the water by God's power, but this time it will be the Euphrates (= "the River") as well as the Red Sea. The highway through the desert is also taken up in 40:3-5.
Chapter 12 is the retrospect which brings the First Movement of the Isaiah Symphony to an end and contains two psalms of thanksgiving. In verses 1-2 the hearers are assured that "in that day" they will look back, recognise that God was rightly angry with them and be able to rejoice that now he has saved them (the word "conforted" is taken up again in 40:1). "In that day", when they have drunk from the wells of salvation (what a lovely phrase) they will sing praise to the God who has delivered them and testify to the watching nations of that deliverance (verses 4-6). Both of these short psalms echo the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and a number of psalms, especially Psalm 118 (verse 2 quotes Exodus 15:2 and Psalm 118:14 and there are many other links), as well as many other places in Isaiah. Here and in Psalm 118 the restored and comforted Zion sings praise to God for her experience of salvation, and it is the "old, old story" which they sing (Exodus 15). However, the psalm which for me best summarises Isaiah 1-12 is Psalm 99. The parallel in plot, language and themes is quite remarkable.
Guidelines
Looking back on Isaiah 1-12 as a whole we can see it as a constant interweaving of the themes of threat and hope. These are the two possibilities which face us corporately, and our choices, individual and corporate, go a long way towards determining the outcome. But not all the way. Isaiah is ultimately optimistic, because he believes in the God he does, a God who is a saving God and whose will in the end will be done. In that perspective Isaiah's visions of peace are not daydreams.
Meditate on Psalm 99 and let it remind you of what you have read in these studies.
Now that we have listened to the First Movement of the Isaiah Symphony let me leave you with the words of one modern critic. At the end of a chapter on the prophets in A Rabbi's Bible (SCM Press 1991) Rabbi Jonathan Magonet says this,
The prophet as the loyal opposition in our society is to be searched out, listened and responded to - provided we do not neglect at the same time to strengthen the authority and self-corrective powers of government and the discipline and self-purification of our religious traditions. But on another level, the prophet is also our dreamer of dreams who brings us the vision of what might yet be. To him or her we owe images of restoration and rebirth, of hope and reconciliation; of a humanity restored to unity, of the harmony of animal and human beings, and of a world without fear. These visions are always beyond the horizon, for the watchman on his tower can only see with growing dread the arrival of the foe. Without this vision we are condemned to a world without meaning or hope, but with it we might survive, yet again, the onslaught of our own self-mutilation.
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, Judges 1-8 in May-August 1998 and Judges 9-16 in January-April 2001)
The Book of Judges is not one of the easiest books of the Bible for twentieth century consciences to read. It is not simply that it contains ruthless, barbaric and harrowing scenes, but that the author obviously has no qualms about making God the perpetrator of much of the violence he portrays and that those who decided that his book should be sacred scripture had no qualms either. We can, of course, deal with this at one level by simply reminding ourselves that here is an ancient book, author and religious community whose values are different from ours; and if we remember that there is much that we can read in Judges with profit. But our problem goes deeper. It concerns not only the morality of Judges but also its theology. The backbone of the book is the doctrine that goodness is rewarded and evil is punished and we know, just as other parts of the Bible also recognise, that this theology does not work in real life where the bad prosper and the good suffer every bit as much as the other way round. None the less this is a powerful theology and its lasting legacy is known to everyone who has been faced with the agonised and often accusatory, "What have I done to deserve this?" So a major difficulty in reading the Book of Judges is that it focusses, maybe more clearly than anywhere else, the moral and theological problems of reading the Bible in the late twentieth century. It makes us ask - How can we say "This is the Word of the Lord" after readings such as these?
The version used is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
Judges 1:1-3:11. 18-24 May
1 After the death of Joshua. Read Judges 1:1-15
We join a long story partway through. In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua-Kings tells the story of Israel from a bright beginning on the wrong side of the River Jordan into the Promised Land and then away to exile in Babylon. Its moral is simple - Israel is God's People and the tragedy is that they have brought the catastrophe of the exile on themselves by disobedience and wrongdoing. The story so far is that the Israelites have crossed the Jordan and conquered their way into the Promised Land. Canaanites a-plenty remain, stubbornly defending their homeland and preventing the Israelites from occupying it completely.
Verse 1 sets the scene and reveals the theme of the book. The great Joshua is dead and the Israelites faithfully "inquire of the LORD" about how his leadership is to be continued. Here is a picture of complete faithfulness. They know that they depend entirely on God and that they must look to him alone for their security. The following verses illustrate that such real faithfulness is rewarded by real blessings. The remaining Canaanites will not stand a chance.
The Israelites appear as a loosely organised group of tribes who sometimes pull together and sometimes act independently. In verse 2 Judah is singled out and as the larger story unfolds in Samuel and Kings this tribe proves to be the most faithful of them all, though even Judah's story will end in tears. In verse 4 we meet the first enemy alliance. It is defeated. With hardly a murmur Adoni-Bezek ("The Lord of Bezek") recognises that he has got his just deserts and that God has payed him back in his own coin (verse 7, compare Matthew 7:2). Verse 8 hints that this will happen to Israel too, though it will take them centuries to get the message; for as the Judahites capture and destroy Jerusalem so later will the Babylonians (2 Kings 24-25). Verse 12 introduces us to a feature we will meet again - rash promises and their consequences. This one is fine. Others will not be.
2 An incomplete victory. Read Judges 1:16-28
Next to its genealogies the names of peoples and places in passages like this are among the Bible's most formidable deterrents to an easy read. Many commentaries fill pages with attempts at identification, but we must ignore many of them here if we want to see the wood for the trees.
The tribes of Judah, Simeon and possibly Manasseh are portrayed as individuals ("He went" etc), Benjamin is referred to as "the Benjaminites" ("the sons of Benjamin") and Joseph as "the house of Joseph." Are these different ways of referring to these brother tribes preparing us for some of the later disagreements between them? There were also smaller groups which belonged to this emerging nation (verse 16). The reality was more complicated than the traditional family tree of the "Twelve tribes" suggests.
The "city of palms" in verse 16 is Jericho (see 2 Chronicles 28:15).
Verse 17 tells of a city being "put to the ban," totally destroyed as an offering to God. The Hebrew word for the practice is herem, hence the renaming of the site as "Hormah" - "Destroyed in Dedication to God."
Verse 18 presents a problem. These are three of the five Philistine cities, and the Philistines appear later as Israel's most powerful enemy which is not subdued until the time of David. The Greek version of this verse reflects that and says that Judah did not capture these cities, and verse 19 supports this. However, GNB is the only modern version to follow it, though others refer to it in the margin.
There is confusion also over the fate of Jerusalem; taken by Judah in verse 8 but back in Jebusite hands in verse 21 where it remains until David captures it (2 Samuel 5:6-10).
"To this day" (verses 21 and 26) occurs over thirty times in our longer story, often in explanations of customs or place names. In verse 26 it reinforces the point that the consequences of obedience or disobedience are real and lasting. We might deduce from verse 21 that the writer was at work before David's capture of Jerusalem, but few scholars do.
Verses 27-28 begin to sound warning notes. Here are continuing Canaanites, and the most that Israel can do is enslave them. In the light of Deuteronomy 11:8 what is going on?
3 From "Rolling Stones" to "Weepers". Read Judges 1:29-2:5
The worrying trend continues. The Israelites may subjugate the Canaanites but they cannot evict them and in the case of one group of Amorites they cannot do even that (verse 34). The Amorites, occupying territory in the north of the region and east of the Jordan, are the third major ethnic group to appear in these chapters following the Philistines in the coastal plain and the Canaanites everywhere else. The other names in chapter 1 are of inhabitants of towns or areas, though the Perizzites and the "three sons (clans) of Anak" might be small ethnic groups and verse 36 should probably read "the border of the Edomites" rather than the "Amorites".
The "angel of the LORD" brings the truth home to them in a salutary way (verses 1-5). He comes from Gilgal, the place where Joshua had set up the memorial stones celebrating God's help when his people first crossed the Jordan (see Joshua 4:19-24 and 5:9). "Angels" in the Old Testament are usually members of the "heavenly host" sent to deliver a message, but they can be human "messengers" such as prophets. We will look at them again in connection with Judges 6. As there is no sign of anyone being terrified by his appearance, this angel may be one of the latter variety. This messenger, divine or human, speaks in the name of God and in language and style reminiscent of Joshua 24, but here his words are a dire warning that the consequences of their failure to drive out the Canaanites will not be peaceful co-existence but conflict and temptation. In contrast to Gilgal they will now see the LORD's power used against his people rather than for them. The place of this message is not named "Bochim" ("Weepers") for nothing. They might weep but it won't change things, the die is cast.
Our problem here is obvious. Anyone who went around today saying that the troubles in modern Israel are due to its failure to rid itself of the land's indigenous Arab population would quite rightly be seen as a dangerous fanatic. But that is clearly what our author believes. To put it bluntly, his God demands ethnic cleansing but our God prefers peaceful co-existence in a multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic world. There are conflicting values here.
4 True and false allegiance. Read Judges 2:6-15
All the main themes of Judges are found in 2:6-3:11. Verses 6-10a are an expansion of Joshua 24:29-30 and review the failure of the Israelites so far. With Joshua and his generation all had been well. Not so with the next generation. Verses 11-15 preview how the sad story will continue. The issue is allegiance to the LORD.
Verses 6-10 give three illustrations of how Joshua and his generation had prospered because they had given true allegiance to the LORD: everyone had taken possession of their inheritances, Joshua had lived to a great age and the whole generation had died in peace. To be "gathered to their ancestors" is not a reference to life after death. This idea was unknown in Israel until later and was still controversial at the time of Jesus. It means to die a good death in old age rather than an untimely one. Here this expression is used about a large number of people, elsewhere it is only used about the deaths of the great heroes Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Josiah. It and the "Moreover" emphasise how faithful this whole generation has been. Giving true allegiance to the LORD ("knowing the LORD") is demonstrated by recognising what he has done and by worshipping only him.
Verses 11-15 tell a different story. The next generation suffers because they fail to give true allegiance to the LORD. Their inheritance is plundered, their enemies overcome them and every battle ends in defeat. They do not recognise what he has done and abandon him to worship Baal (or the Baals) and the Astartes (or the Ashtoreths or the Ashtaroth). Baal - "Lord" or "Master" - is used in the plural or without a capital letter to refer to local gods (as in verse 11): but Baal was also the name of the Canaanite high god (as in verse 13). Astarte (the Greek form of her name) or Ashtaroth (the Hebrew one) was one of the three chief Canaanite goddesses, her speciality being love and fertility. In the plural and without capital letters the word refers to local "goddesses". Although ancient and modern translations get quite muddled in both cases the picture is plain enough, Israel is guilty of apostasy and the consequences are devastating.
5 The "Judges". Read Judges 2:16-23
In this passage we see God's frustration. The long story so far is that he has saved the Israelites from Egypt (the Exodus etc), given them good advice for living in their new freedom (the Ten Commandments etc) and helped them into the Promised Land. But his generosity is rewarded by betrayal. And no sooner does he rescue them from the consequences of their misdeeds than they do it all over again. He feels both pity (verse 18) and anger (verse 20). Whatever we make of these emotions, they show that God is not remote from or indifferent to his world and his people but passionately involved with both.
God takes the initiative in rescuing his people by "raising up judges" ("leaders" GNB, "chieftains" NJPS), the characters who give our book its title. This is a rather misleading term for these people, for most of them are charismatic heroes rather than anything legal, guerrilla leaders with a local or temporary mission, though there are some who seem to have a responsibility for administering justice (Judges 4:4, 10:1-5 and 12:7-15).
Note the variety of expressions for Israel's faithfulness and unfaithfulness, one of the main ones being that of "walking" (verses 17 and 22). Faith in God involves making choices (to go this way or that? to do this or that?) and decisions (about belief, behaviour, values). The possibility of "walking" in other "ways" than those offered by the God who has made himself known to them is to be their real test (verses 22-23).
6 Faithfulness is tested. Read Judges 3:1-11
How Israel moved from believing that the LORD was the only God for them to its final view that he is the only God there is (as in Isaiah 40-55) is a long and complicated story. In this passage, set in an age of many gods, the test for Israel is to give its exclusive allegiance to only one of them, the LORD, the God who had brought them out of Egypt. Some scholars see other reasons for this insistence on loyalty to the LORD alone, such as that the worship of the other local gods included immoral sexual acts or that these other religions condoned or promoted social structures which exploited the poor. They insist that the way of the LORD involved a commitment to moral values and a vision of social justice which could not be compromised.
That may be so or it may not: but exclusive allegiance to the LORD is a test which Israel fails. In verses 6-7 intermarriage is seen as both the cause and the example of such failure (compare 1 Kings 11:1-8, Ezra 9:1-2). Asherah is the main Canaanite Goddess (eg 1 Kings 18:19) and asherim (the Hebrew masculine plural) are sacred poles or trees erected as her symbols (eg Deuteronomy 12:3). Verse 7 is the only place where the feminine plural is used (the Asherahs or Asheroth).
With Othniel we meet the first of these charismatic leaders, empowered by God's spirit and thereby victorious. Verse 10 is a good example of the Old Testament's understanding of the "spirit of the LORD" as God's dynamic power given to someone to empower them for a specific task. I do hope the name Cushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim is not the awful play on words (Cushan Double-Trouble of Aram of the Two Rivers) that my NRSV footnote says it is.
Guidelines
The longer story of which Judges is a part probably began originally with Deuteronomy and so we usually call the one who wove it all together the "Deuteronomic Historian". The NRSV follows ancient Christian tradition and calls Joshua-Esther "The Historical Books". This can be misleading unless we remember that this history, like all history ancient or modern, is not straight reporting but has a message to convey.
Ideas about the early days of Israel are complex and controversial. For some scholars the Bible story tells it the way it was, beginning with Abraham and getting clearer as it goes. Others are much more cautious. What is increasingly widely agreed is that Israel as a people and an embryo nation came on the scene ("emerged" is the favourite word) around 1200 BC. Major population growth and changes in the settlement patterns in the central highlands of Canaan around this time and accompanying social upheaval in the older city states in the region, which the historians observe, is not very different from the way the story is told in Judges.
The NRSV calls the Book of Judges "the story of a new community emerging from disparate groups that were trying to create an entirely new pattern of life ..... one in which all citizens had an equal range of opportunities. The Israelites rejected the absolutism of the Canaanite city states with their oppressive political and social systems ..... the creation of this new society was an immense struggle. In the midst of revolutionary social upheaval, the Israelites found support in their belief that they were ruled by the LORD who took the side of the lowly against their oppressors."
Whatever difficulties we may have with the ethics or theology of Judges, this way of reading it gives us a powerful message for church and society today. It also gives renewed urgency to our prayers that God's kingdom will come and his will be done on earth as in heaven.
Judges 3:12-5:31. 25-31 May
1 Ehud son of Gera. Read Judges 3:12-31
Here are tales of wit, cunning and strength. The story of Ehud has a fine cast of characters (a fat enemy king, a left-handed hero, non-plussed servants) and a witty plot. The note about Shamgar and the Philistines (a trailer for the longer story of Samson) may only be short, but it packs a real punch - six hundred Philistine infantrymen equipped with the latest weaponry (remember 1:19) defeated by one Israelite with a home-made farm implement. An ox-goad was a light wooden pole about eight feet long with a small iron spike at one end with which to tap your ox and a small blade at the other for cleaning your plough.
There is another character in the Ehus story. It is the LORD, who fattened up King Eglon (verse 12), raised up Ehud (verse 15) and finally gave the Moabites into the hands of the Israelite militia (verse 28). He is a character who makes things happen. But reading the story like this causes problems for some who read it today. Does it mean that we must accept a God who acts in our world, who intervenes now to punish or to bless, who controls our history? Many Christians say yes and point to signs of his activity today. Others say no. They see rampant injustice, suffering and death and can only explain this by dispensing with an intervening God. If such a god exists, they say, and doesn't act or intervene, then he doesn't deserve to be called God at all. These are serious questions, perhaps the most serious questions of all, but they overlook three basic points. They overlook the fact that we have been reading a story; that the world in the story is not the same as the one we live in and that stories can be good stories which fire our imaginations, nerve our souls or change our ways with all sorts of odd characters and unlikely events in them.
The Ehud story has six parts, most of which recur in standard form in all the stories of the judges which follow: Israel does "what was evil in the sight of the LORD;" God delivers them into the hands of an enemy; they cry for help; God sends them help; the enemy is defeated and the land "has rest" for a period.
2 Deborah the prophetess. Read Judges 4:1-10
The cycle begins again. Israel "does what is evil in the sight of the LORD" (verse 1). What that is exactly is not specified, but the fact that "the LORD" is mentioned three times in three verses is enough to show that true or false allegiance is again the issue (as at 3:7). The "LORD", written in capitals in most translations, represents the not-to-be-pronounced personal name written as "Yahweh" in NJB. A major question in Judges is simply, who is to be Israel's God? The writer's conviction is that it can only be the LORD, as we see in the titles added to his name so far: "the God of your ancestors" (2:12), "your God" (3:7) and "the God of Israel" (4:6). This time the oppressor comes from the north.
Women in positions of authority are few and far between in the Old Testament, and of them Deborah, a prophetess who "judges" all Israel, is second only to Miriam (Exodus 15:20 and Micah 6:4). Five female Israelite prophetesses are mentioned in the Old Testament and four of them are named - Miriam herself, Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14, Noadiah in Nehemiah 6:14 (who was a dubious one) and Isaiah's wife in Isaiah 8:3. Verse 4 refers to Deborah as "a" prophetess rather than "the" prophetess, maybe indicating that the phenomenon of a woman in this role was not as unusual as the scarcity of their names and appearance in the Old Testament might suggest. In addition to being a prophetess Deborah is one of those "judges" who had an established role. Her responsibility in administering justice was widely known and used (verse 5). There is also no mention of her being empowered by God's spirit to undertake the task she is given to do. She summons Barak and she speaks to him with all the authority a prophet has as the messenger of God.
Often in call stories there is a note of reluctance, and Barak exercises that prerogative here. He will only go if Deborah goes with him. Deborah agrees, but the price he pays for his hesitation is that a woman (no mention yet of which one) will get the credit for the victory. He calls the militia from two of the northern tribes, and no doubt their numbers are as exaggerated as those of Sisera's chariotry.
3 Jael and the tent-peg. Read Judges 4:11-24
Quite how many fathers-in-law Moses had is an interesting question. Three names are mentioned: Reuel, the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:18-22), Jethro, the priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, 18:3) and Hobab the Kenite (Numbers 10:29, Judges 1:16 and 4:11). As Reuel and Jethro are both referred to as Zipporah's father, they must be the same person, as in all likelihood is Hobab. Just to complicate matters Hobab's father is called Reuel in the Numbers passage, where he is also shown to be a Midianite.
We see from these references that Jethro first appears in the exodus and settlement stories at the key point where Moses is commissioned to lead the LORD's people out of Egypt, and Hobab first appears as a guide to lead the Israelites through the desert to Mt Sinai. The special relationship between the Kenites (possibly a sub-group of the Midianites and usually regarded as a tribe of wandering smiths) and the Israelites is seen again in this passage and later on in 1 Samuel 15:6. Here their appearance introduces the story of how another woman, Jael, brings victory to the LORD. Notice how this passage in a book of heroes highlights Israel's dependence on foreigners and women.
It is God who fights the battle (verses 14, 15 and 23) - "because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou O God" - a theme which is taken up in the song in the next chapter. The battle takes place on the plain of Jezreel, which puts Israel at even more of a disadvantage against Sisera's massed chariots. Most translations talk about the LORD throwing the Canaanites "into a panic" at verse 15; only NIV follows the Hebrew which has the LORD throwing them down before the sword.
Deborah's gift of looking into the future (remember that you could go to prophets to ask them to use that power just to look around for your lost asses - 1 Samuel 9:5-10) is shown to be accurate. In a simple tale we read how her words were proved true. Jael greets Barak at her tent door with the announcement that the man he is seeking is inside. Dead.
4 The Song of Deborah and Barak (1). Read Judges 5:1-9
This song is probably the oldest part of the Hebrew Bible and the oldest Israelite poem in existence. The meaning of this victory song is obvious, but much of the detail is so obscure that the translations vary enormously.
NRSV keeps the reference to long hair in verse 2. It is a sign of dedication to God, as with the Nazirites (Numbers 6:5) and Samson. Most other translations have leaders offering leadership and people willingly following. NJB combines both possibilities.
To "bless the LORD" is much more than to praise or thank him; it is to affirm, acknowledge and acclaim him. In verses 2 and 9 the LORD is acclaimed as the victorious God; later in the Old Testament as the true and only God. Hence the response "Thanks be to God" to the call, "Let us bless the Lord" is very weak, and a much better response would be "We will sing his praise and exalt him for ever" or the people's cry in 1 Kings 18:39.
Verses 4-5 are a good example of "theophany" language which speaks of the LORD appearing in a terrifying storm (see Exodus 19:16-20 and Psalms 18:7-15, 68:7-9 and 97:1-5). But note that in the other famous story about Elijah, God is no longer found in the earthquake, wind and fire (1 Kings 19:11-12). Seir (possibly another mountain), Edom and Sinai are all dry and desert southeastern places, and anyone who has experienced a desert storm knows the devastating power in this picture. It is a terrifying sight to see this desert God, the LORD, marching on to war (see also Deuteronomy 33:1-5).
The victory is God's, but the poem still celebrates the contribution made to that victory by others, especially Deborah in verses 6-9 and Jael in verses 24-27. The first part of verse 7 is difficult. NRSV talks about prosperous peasants enjoying the new life which was born with Deborah's leadership. Other translations agree that she brought to birth a wonderful change, but see verse 7 as describing the barrenness and hardship that existed before she came on the scene. Verses 8-9 emphasise the impossibility of the task she faced and the amazing result she achieved. So many people had gone after new gods that there was no one left to fight for the true God until Deborah took the lead.
5 The Song of Deborah and Barak (2). Read Judges 5:10-21
In verses 10-11, rich (those who ride on top-of-the-range asses) and poor (those who walk) alike are invited to join in the song of the LORD's victories or "righteous acts" (AV). The AV is helpful here as long as we remember that in the Old Testament "righteousness" is a warm and positive word. A righteous person is someone who takes action to put things right. Used about God it indicates that he takes the initiative in putting wrong things right again. That sense is clear here and made even clearer in NJPS's translation of the word by "gracious acts".
The call to Deborah and Barak to "awake" and "arise" in verse 12 is not a matter of rousing them to action but of celebrating their certainty of victory because the army is "marching in the power of God". Although more tribes are mentioned in the song than in the prose version in chapter 4, it was still a David and Goliath sort of contest (verse 13). The song celebrates the heroism of the tribes which responded to the call, singling out Zebulun and Naphtali who were the only tribes taking part in the prose version (verse 18). It also harangues others for not joining in who were never invited in the prose version. Machir was the son of Manasseh (Joshua 17:1) and that name in verse 14 stands for the either the whole tribe of Manasseh or a significant part of it.
The army of Israel marches to battle only to see the enemy defeated by the mighty power of God (verses 19-21). Heaven and earth combine as his weapons and the Canaanites are defeated. The vivid metaphor of fighting stars is found only here in the Old Testament but there are parallels in various ancient Mesopotamian texts. There is no need to resort to such prosaic explanations as chariots getting bogged down in the mud.
At this point, just as she had in verse 9, the singer interrupts the poem with a shout which can't be held back ("March on, my soul, with might") because she is so caught up with emotion at this great victory. But why "she"? And why does tradition and the NRSV call this song the "Song of Deborah" when according to verse 1 it was a duet?
6 The Song of Deborah and Barak (3). Read Judges 5:22-31
The battle may have been fought and won by the LORD, but that does not excuse the nearby villagers of Meroz for staying at home (verse 23). He might not have needed their help, but they were not to know that and at least it should have been offered. Their curse is contrasted by the richest blessing upon Jael for what she did to help (verses 24-27). Only a woman, and a "tent-dwelling" foreign woman at that, Jael gave help where it was needed, first to Sisera and then to the LORD. The sacred laws of hospitality are honoured and then broken, though the song gives us no clue to her motives. The Merozites had every reason to help the LORD and didn't; she had every reason not to and did.
The final scene in verses 28-30 introduces a third woman, Sisera's mother. Any sympathy we may feel for this mother's pain in verse 28 is dissipated by her callous indifference in verse 30 to the feelings of other women, let alone that of their mothers or their men. None the less, here is the first picture in Judges of an innocent victim. She is not named, but she is at least described and her suffering acknowledged. Amid all its glorying in war, with hosts of slain scattered all over the place, here and in one other place (11:34-40) Judges hints that there is another side to this violence. It is the price paid by women, the mothers or the daughters of these heroes.
As the singer had introduced the song and twice interrupted it, so she concludes it. Hers is a simple world of good and bad. And so is the writer's. He simply adds his concluding note to this particular cycle. Once more, his point has been made and illustrated.
Guidelines
Much of this week we have been reading what is by anyone's standards a most magnificent poem. Yet it is one which for many expresses the most dreadful and unacceptable of sentiments.
What, as praying and worshipping people, are we to make of these pictures of a "Lord of battles, God of armies"? Parts of the church today are very reluctant to sing hymns like "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" or to use any sort of language which suggests that the church or its God is militant here on earth. At the same time other parts of the church in the West will sing quite happily about God "building a people of power" and see this reluctance as a sign of weakness and lack of faith. In some other parts of the world our Christian brothers and sisters would say that if God is not actively campaigning on the part of the poor and the marginalised then he is not the God of the Bible, and that any church which is not campaigning in that way is not the Church of the Christ who was and is the champion of the poor.
In all of this we can see how much we are all shaped by the values of the world we live in and of the place we occupy in that world, and of how different all our modern worlds are from the world of the Song of Deborah and Barak.
It may be that those of us who are less "militant" need to be gripped by the passion and commitment of this song. For it is quite clear that in the Old Testament's stories of true and false allegiance much more is at stake than the LORD's personal reputation. The Elijah stories, which we have mentioned a couple of times this week, show that one of the things which was at stake in the question of who was God in Israel was that set of moral values and community standards in which justice, care for the weak and love of neighbour were important. Other gods did not share that vision and demand that ethical commitment, or so the Deuteronomic Historian believed. So acknowledging that the LORD is God means joining a battle for the cause of "justice, peace and the integrity of creation".
Perhaps therefore, imagery about fighting the good fight should have some place in the mission of God's people today? If so, those who are doing it need a place in our prayers.
Judges 6:1-8:35. June 1-7
1 A prophet, the angel and Gideon. Read Judges 6:1-18
After "forty years" the cycle begins again. There is no need to count the years or mark off the days when we meet this favourite Old Testament number. "Forty years" signifies a generation or two, long enough to forget what matters and to relearn it the hard way. This time the Midianites are God's chosen teachers. These nomads with their uncountable camels and their allies from the eastern desert swarm like locusts and devastate Israel's crops as far as Gaza in the farthest west. Israel can only cry to the LORD for help.
An anonymous prophet appears. "Sent" by the LORD, he begins his message in the proper way, "Thus says the LORD" (verse 8). In the message reminders of God's goodness far outweigh the reminder of his explicit command and this highlights the starkness of the message's ending. If they have ears to hear the message is plain, their seven years (another favourite number) of misery is a consequence of their own misdeeds. But there the message ends, with neither announcement of more punishment to come or good news of imminent rescue.
The story moves on from the prophet with the message to the Israelites to a confusing scene featuring "the angel of the LORD" with a message for an individual. This is the third angel or "messenger" (which is what the Hebrew word means) to appear so far (see 2:1ff and 5:3) and another will follow (13:3-23). At first Gideon does not recognise this messenger as any kind of "divine" visitor at all, though he treats him respectfully (note the "sir" or "my lord" in verse 13). In verses 14-19 the writer confuses the messenger and the one who sent him while Gideon continues oblivious to his real identity.
Gideon is the son of no-one special from nowhere in particular. He is just a strong and healthy young farmer with enough gumption to harvest a crop against all the odds (verse 11 gives an example) and a healthy scepticism towards religious professionals and their theology. He is not unduly impressed by the way he is addressed (verses 12-13) nor with the commission he is given (verses 14-15) and asks for proof of the messenger's credentials (verse 17). He hardly looks like hero material.
2 Three altars and a new name. Read Judges 6:19-40
Gideon's unmentioned surprise at being told to pour the broth on the ground turns to terror when a touch of the messenger's staff incinerates his extremely generous meal (an ephah of flour is about 10 kilos) and the messenger vanishes. His shock on discovering that he had been talking to a divine messenger leads him, somewhat oddly, to cry to God for help as the Israelites had done in their predicament in verse 6. "The Lord GOD" in verse 22 is the NRSV's way of showing that the Hebrew here is the divine name plus the title "Lord." The altar which he sets up is not mentioned elsewhere. For other stories of setting up and naming altars see Genesis 33:20, 35:7 and Exodus 17:15.
In verse 25 attention moves from the altar called "The LORD is peace" to the other altar in which Gideon has an interest, the family one to Baal. To add insult to injury the sacred pole (or possibly the wooden image of the goddess Asherah) provides the wood for the sacrifice to the LORD which Gideon offers on the new altar he builds. Contrary to expectations, his father Joash is the first to defend him and to put the fundamental challenge of "Who is on the Lord's side?" to his fellow Israelites (verse 31). This incident is echoed in the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 18:20-38.
But does Gideon deserve the new name he receives? He may have contended against Baal in pulling down his altar, and he may be a living challenge for Baal to contend against, but he was not brave enough to pull down Baal's altar in daylight. Even after calling out the militia against the gathering Midianites, he twice asks for more proof that God will do what he said he would (verses 36-40) despite being empowered by God's spirit (verse 34). Compared with Deborah, who went out fearlessly to war without any such empowering by God's spirit, Gideon still cuts a poor figure as a hero.
The tribes of Manasseh, Zebulun and Naphtali had followed Deborah before and they are now joined by Asher, chastened by the taunt in Deborah's Song (5:17)?
3 Preparing for God's battle. Read Judges 7:1-14
The preparation for battle resumes a theme we have already encountered, Whose battle is it anyway? It is the LORD's! To think otherwise is Israel's perpetual temptation (compare verse 2 with Deuteronomy 8:17). Hence the sifting and weeding out. Quite what happened at the side of the stream is not clear. NRSV rearranges the Hebrew to make it a straight choice between the 300 who lie down and lap the water with their tongues and the 9,700 who kneel down and cup it in their hands. To lie full-length on the ground and lap water with your tongue was not, and is not, a good way to drink out of a stream, which is presumably why so few of them did it. Most translations, however, follow the Hebrew and talk about those who lie full-length on the ground and lap the water with their hands, which doesn't make too much sense. The commentators, ancient and modern, offer all sorts of explanations. However we read it, the point seems to be not simply that the LORD was left with only 300 soldiers, but that he was left with some very strange soldiers indeed, what we might call 300 "oddballs" who were very much lacking in common sense!
Who is giving or taking what in verse 8 is not very clear either, though the "jars" and "pitchers" of NRSV and REB are better than the "provisions" of NIV and NJB.
These three hundred not very bright soldiers are led by a leader who is afraid. Verse 10 gives yet another reminder of Gideon's inadequacy, and what follows shows that the LORD both recognises his fear and offers him a way of overcoming it. Dreams were widely believed to show the future and the one in verse 13 is such a simple and vivid one that the dreamer's comrade has no problem in giving its interpretation. Notice again the David and Goliath proportions, both on the ground between Gideon's three hundred and the countless Midianite force (verse 12) and in the dream between a little round barley cake and a tent.
4 The battle. Read Judges 7:15-25
The story unfolds quickly. "Thanked God" or "gave due appreciation to God" is better than "worshipped" in verse 15. Gideon now knows the certainty of victory and where the credit for it is due and so in rousing the troops he points away from himself to the LORD as well as giving the three hundred a place in God's purposes.
The night attack with its crafty ploy is entirely successful, though we are not told who came up with the winning stratagem. Each soldier breaks his jar and blows his ram's horn "trumpet" (shofar). This was a special instrument. In the story of Moses and the Giving of the Law on Mt Sinai it is the sound of this instrument which announces the presence of God (Exodus 20:18). It featured in the same special way later on in the Temple (as in Psalm 47:5) and it is still used in worship in the great festivals in synagogues today. The story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho in Joshua 6 tells how it was sounded to great effect in the original conquest of Canaan. Its use here is another reminder that this battle is part of God's holy war. The Israelites don't quite get the battlecry right (verses 18 and 20) but none the less it causes the panic by which the LORD destroys the enemy. As so often in Judges the places in verse 22 cannot be identified, but enough is said to show that two different (possibly opposite) directions of flight are intended. The massed enemy is now scattered.
As with Barak and Sisera it is the LORD's victory, and all that is required of the rest of the Israelite militia is to do the mopping up. Men from three of the tribes set off in pursuit of the fleeing enemy (verse 23) and the Ephraimites are called out to block their escape over the Jordan (verses 24-25). No prisoners are taken (see 8:10). The Ephraimites capture and kill two of the Midianite chiefs, princes or leaders, all of which titles are better than NRSV's "captains."
5 Mopping-up and vengeance. Read Judges 8:1-21
Gideon's skill with words defuses the situation when the Ephraimites express their feelings of being slighted when there was a chance of action (verses 1-3).
The Midianites have been routed and Gideon's three hundred are unscathed though exhausted. The towns of Succoth and Penuel, probably Canaanite towns, refuse Gideon's request for provisions on the grounds that the battle isn't over yet and their safety depends on maintaining strict neutrality. Gideon, who is now sure that the LORD will help him, replies with a threat which he subsequently caries out. The threat to Succoth is that he will "tear" or "thresh" their flesh "with" thorns and briars (as with most translations) rather than "trample" their flesh "on" them (verse 7) or "with" them (verse 16) as the NRSV puts it. Here are innocent bystanders caught up in a conflict not of their making. Do they honour Gideon's humanitarian request, backed as it is by ancient codes of hospitality, or do they not? Whatever they do their security is put at risk. Here is one of life's moral complexities for which Gideon has no time at all.
Gideon pursues and captures the two Midianite kings, his exhausted and still hungry three hundred defeating their remaining fifteen thousand. "Panic" is again the weapon used, but this time it is wielded by Gideon himself (verse 12). Is this the beginning of the "by my power" temptation?
In verses 13-17 the threatened vengeance is executed, though no modern translations follow the Hebrew in verse 16 which says that Gideon "taught them a lesson" with the thorns and briars. The vengeance on Penuel goes way beyond what was threatened. Much inconclusive scholarly debate about levels of literacy in those early times has focussed on the young man in verse 14.
Verses 18-21 present difficulties. What happened at Tabor, for no such incident has been mentioned so far? Mt Tabor was the place where Sisera attacked Barak, but that battle was between Israelites and Canaanites not Midianites and was several generations ago. What does the kings' first answer mean? Despite uncertainty about these details, the antagonism and arrogance which fuels this exchange is obvious. But what of its wider message? Gideon obviously fails to see the implications of his own words about violence breeding violence.
6 The peace. Read Judges 8:22-35
Gideon's temptation, hinted at before, materialises in verse 22. He is invited to rule over Israel and promised a dynasty as well. Others, his own son Abimelech first of all, will jump at the chance. Who is king in Israel? is the recurring question in Samuel and Kings. Though Gideon and those like him might insist that the LORD alone is Israel's ruler, the others eventually got their way and, as the Deuteronomic Historian is at pains to point out, paid for it (1 Samuel 8:4-22).
Having insisted that the LORD is king, Gideon sets up a golden "ephod" to symbolise that fact. This is not the elaborate priestly garment of Exodus 28:5-35 or the simpler one of 1 Samuel 2:28. Nor was it a box in which sacred stones for casting lots were kept (as in 1 Samuel 14:3). Whatever it is, it is made of 20 kilos of gold, most of which came from the earrings worn by the soldiers (Midianite and Ishmaelite are interchangeable terms for the same people). The clear inference of verse 24 is that Israelite men did no such thing!
Gideon's good intentions lead to the recurring problem of "images" and their attendant dangers (verse 27). "Prostitution" is a common metaphor for apostasy (see verse 33 and Exodus 34:15-16, Deuteronomy 31:16, Hosea 4:12 and 9:1). Nevertheless, while Gideon lives all is well.
With the introduction of Abimelech we meet the theme of good fathers and bad sons which features strongly in the books which follow (eg Eli and his two sons, Samuel and his sons, David and Absalom, Solomon and Rehoboam). Abimelech was not an illegitimate son. Though there was a difference in status between marriage (a relationship between two free Israelites) and concubinage (a relationship between a free Israelite man and a slave woman), the children of both relationships were legitimate, as we see from the "twelve sons of Israel" - four of whom were born to Jacob's concubines.
The saga ends where it began. Memories are short and things relapse. This time "Baal-berith" (Covenant Lord) is the god of choice. In verse 35 NRSV translates hesed as "loyalty". This key Old Testament term is traditionally translated as "steadfast love", and that translation here would bring out more of the pathos of the verse and of the ongoing relationship between God and Israel.
Guidelines
Whatever we make of "angel messengers" in the Old Testament (and they are rather different characters to the angels in heaven of later Christian theology), they are yet another example of the Bible's conviction that God communicates with people. Faith and religion are not only about seeking after truth; because truth is also seeking after us!
I began these readings by saying that one of the issues we would have to face as we read the Book of Judges was whether or not such uncongenial stories could be a "word of the Lord" to us. We have seen that although Judges comes from a world very different to ours, yet there have been some very modern issues touched on in these readings. One has been the question of "Our Faith" and "Other Faiths". Another has been the place of nationalisms and ethnicity in our one tiny world. A third has been about the role of women. We might conclude that in this last case the relatively enlightened view of the book can indeed be such a word to us, but we cannot say that about its attitude in the other two cases. Or at least this reader can't. So is there any moral or theological or religious value in the book at all, except perhaps as a warning about what not to do or think?
I think there is. Judges forms part of an explanation about how God's People came to find themselves exiled from his Promised Land. At the same time it was advice about how to stay in the Promised Land when God let them back in again. No doubt many of its attitudes are wrong and its constant theme that goodness is rewarded and wrongdoing is punished is much too rough and ready, but maybe there is enough truth in that theme to make it something of a guideline for living. If in reading Judges we come to grasp that there is such a thing as individual and corporate wrongdoing - no matter how hopelessly old-fashioned and moralistic that word sounds - and that wrongdoing does have consequences, not necessarily for the perpetrators but certainly for others, then perhaps this is its "word of the Lord" to us after all?
Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing that you have made, and forgive the sins of all those who are penitent. Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that, lamenting our sins and acknowledging our need, we may receive from you, the God of all mercy, perfect forgiveness and peace. Amen.
For further reading
- G Auld, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Daily Study Bible, St Andrew Press
- J D Martin, Judges, Cambridge Bible Commentary, CUP
Judges 9-16. January - April 2001
In May and June 1998 we read Judges 1-8, now we continue from chapter 9 with the stories of Abimelech, Jephthah and Samson. With apologies to those who have retentive memories, I must repeat part of the introduction I wrote then and say that Judges is not one of the easiest books of the Bible for twenty-first century consciences to read. It is not simply that it contains ruthless, barbaric and harrowing scenes, but that the author obviously has no qualms about making God the perpetrator of much of the violence he portrays. Those who decided that his book should be sacred scripture had no qualms either. This should remind us that here is an ancient book, author and religious community whose values are different from ours; and if we remember that there is much that we can read in Judges with profit. There is another problem, however, the theology of the book. Judges works with the doctrine that goodness is rewarded and evil is punished. We know, just as other parts of the Bible also recognise, that things are not so simple in real life where the bad prosper and the good suffer every bit as much as the other way round. Therefore some dismiss this theology as simplistic: but I suggest that Judges is more subtle than this and that its theology points to some realities we would be unwise to ignore. We shall see.
The version used is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
Judges 9:1-10:5. 28 January – 3 February
1 Abimelech. Read Judges 9:1-6
We join a long story partway through. Joshua-Kings tells the story of Israel from a bright beginning on the wrong side of the River Jordan into the Promised Land and then away to exile in Babylon. Its moral is simple - Israel is God's People and the tragedy is that they have brought the catastrophe of the exile on themselves. The story so far is that the Israelites have crossed the Jordan and conquered their way into the Promised Land. Canaanites a-plenty remain, stubbornly defending their homeland and preventing the Israelites from occupying it completely. The Israelites settle here and there. Things go well when they do as God requires. When they don’t, the Canaanites regain the upper hand. Oppressed Israelites then cry to the Lord who sends them leaders who free them from their enemies (the “Judges” after whom the book is named). Things go well for a bit before going wrong again. So the cycle goes on.
Judges 8:22-23 and 29-35 set the scene for the story of Abimelech. Gideon (Jerubbaal) the hero - who had refused to let himself be made king after his successes against the Midianites - is dead and it’s relapse time again. Baal-brith (“Covenant Lord”) is the local god the Israelites are flirting with this time. Although there was a difference in status between marriage (a relationship between two free Israelites) and concubinage (one between a free Israelite man and a slave woman), the children of both relationships were legitimate. Warning bells sound about Abimelech, in the word “also” (v. 31).
Chapter 9 opens fatefully. Ignoring Gideon’s stance Abimelech plots to become king, a new departure in tribal Israel. His method of safeguarding his rule will be followed by later dynasts in Israel (1 Kings 15:29, 16:11, 2 Kings 10:1-11), as will his failure to do it thoroughly (2 Kings 11:1-3). “Lords” (verses 3 and 6) are simply “men”, “leading men” or “citizens” in other modern versions. The reference to “one stone” in verse 5 suggests that he was making his slaughter into a sacrifice, but there is no reference anywhere to the God of Israel. The LORD’s rule over them is quite forgotten (see 8:23). So much so that the Shechemites make Abimelech king at the very same sanctuary at which the Israelites had bound themselves in covenant to the LORD (Joshua 24, especially verse 26). That covenant is badly broken now.
2 Jotham’s fable. Read Judges 9:7-21
Jotham, the only other surviving son of Gideon, resorts to the only weapon he has – words. Or more accurately, satire. The city of Shechem stands in the pass between Mount Gerizim to the south and Mount Ebal to the north and Jotham climbs the one to shout his message to the citizens below. His opening gambit looks as if he is still prepared to give them a chance, suggesting that if they listen to him and act on his words, God will listen to them and not regard their election of Abimelech as king as an act of rebellion (v. 7). By the end of his speech, however, when he flees to Beer (location unknown) to escape from his half-brother, it is obvious that he holds out no hope for them.
His satire is in two parts. The first is a joke about Abimelech. Three productive and useful trees decline the request from the trees to reign over the forest, but the bramble or “thorn bush” in most modern versions – “bearing no fruit, giving no shade, yielding no timber; a useless and noxious cumberer of the ground” (G F Moore) - will agree to their request if it is made “in good faith”. Then all the trees may rest in its shade. If, on the other hand, their request is not made “in good faith”, fire from the bramble will destroy even the mighty cedars. Abimelech is absurd and so are they for making him their king. But he is also dangerous and they are in danger from him.
The second part of his satire addresses the leaders of Shechem directly and turns on the word “If” (twice in verse 16 and reiterated in verse 19). “If they have elected Abimelech in good faith”. Once posed the absurdity of the question is obvious (v. 17). So with the warning that they will rue their choice ringing in their ears Jotham flees.
3 An evil spirit from God. Read Judges 9:22-25
No one takes notice of Jotham and Abimelech rules for three years, but they are not three happy years. Nor would any reader of Judges expect them to be. “You reap whatsoever you sow” is the message preached from chapter 1 onwards, and we know what it is that Abimelech has sown.
Verse 23 is difficult, especially if we forget that we are reading a story and begin to think too literally. The idea of God sending “an evil spirit” is also found in 1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10 and 19:9 with reference to Saul’s madness and similar to one in 1 Kings 22:21-23 which refers to God deluding Ahab’s prophets. In the longer story we have met a God who “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 10:1 etc) and who incited Sihon to resist so that he could punish him (Deuteronomy 2:30), as he will do later to David (2 Samuel 24:1). The key to understanding this lies in the Deuteronomic theology which underlies most of these passages, that actions have consequences, that we reap whatsoever we sow. Abimelech has sown violence and disorder, and he – with a little prompting from God, for there is no escaping the consequences of one’s actions – is about to reap the same. This principle is woven into the warp and woof of life, our author believes, but occasionally God has to tweak a thread or two. NJB and NJPS take some of the difficulty away by translating the phrase as “God sent a spirit of discord”.
Shechem stands at a strategic location where important routes from south to north and east to west cross. By robbing travellers on these routes are the Shechemites depriving Abimelech of his tax and customs revenue (v. 25)?
4 The end of Shechem. Read Judges 9:26-45
The antagonism between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem intensifies. With the arrival of Gaal, about whom we know nothing, they see the chance to oust him. Gaal wins their confidence, perhaps he is something of a demagogue (though verse 28 is obscure and the translations vary). They celebrate “in the temple of their god” (verse 27). Remember that this is Shechem, the site of Joshua’s holy covenant (Joshua 24), a place in which solemn promises have been made which are not being kept. Under the influence of alcohol and religion, surely a dangerous combination (but a teetotal Methodist would say that, wouldn’t he?), conspiracy is sown, boasts are made and believed.
But Abimelech still has support in the city, in the form of Zebul the governor, who sends him a report. He is now, presumably, back home on the family farm at Arumah (as in verse 41 though it is called Tormah in the Hebrew of verse 31). They devise a strategy. It works. Gaal just escapes with his life. Many of his supporters are not so lucky.
Verse 41 seems out of place, as the action continues the next day. Abimelech storms the city, kills all its inhabitants and razes it to the ground. It might have been a tactic to “sow” a defeated area “with salt” so that it was made permanently infertile and uninhabitable, but it is more likely that the expression simply denotes total destruction.
This destruction of Shechem prompts historical questions: Did it really happen? Can it be dated or proved? Such questions are inevitable and for some Old Testament scholars they are proper questions. These scholars read Judges as one of the “Historical Books” and believe that, despite exaggeration and bias and all that kind of thing, these stories contain a kernel of fact. Others, equally faithful and committed, believe that such questions are misguided and that they are based on a misunderstanding of what kind of books Judges and its companions are. For these scholars the question to ask is not What happened? but What does this story mean? For them, and for me, an archaeological expedition to check out this destruction of Shechem would be as pointless as looking for the remains of Noah’s ark.
In the story, Jotham’s warning has come true. They have reaped Abimelech’s wrath. The bramble’s fire has burned the cedars.
5 The end of Abimelech. Read Judges 9:46-57
A victory and a defeat.
The scene moves, according to NRSV, to a neighbouring town called “Tower of Shechem” but the Hebrew is uncertain at a number of points. NJB calls the place Migdal-Shechem and leaves it unclear whether this is a separate town or the tower/citadel of Shechem itself, which is how GNB, REB and NIV understand it. The leading citizens, on hearing of the destruction of the nearby city, take refuge somewhere in the Temple dedicated to El-berith (“Covenant God”), another name for the Baal-berith (“Covenant Lord”) of Judges 8:33. Quite where is another uncertainty: in its crypt according to NJB and REB, its tunnel according to NJPS and its stronghold according to NRSV, GNB and NIV. Abimelech, however, has done his military homework. He collects brushwood from a local hill (Mount Zalmon) and fires the place. There are no survivors.
Then he moves against Thebez, though no reason is given for an attack on this hitherto unmentioned place, and takes it as its inhabitants take refuge in its fortified tower. Abimelech proceeds with the same strategy as before, but is fatally wounded when a woman drops a millstone on his head. Too proud to die at a woman’s hand, he asks his armour-bearer to finish him off. He killed his brothers “on a stone” (verses 5 and 18); now he is killed by a stone. God is not mocked, as Paul puts it in Galatians 6:7. Abimelech reaps what he has sown – note the “repaid” of verse 56. As do the people of Shechem. Jotham’s curse has done its work.
We have reached the end of the sad saga of Abimelech. As the long story unfolds the total loss of the northern kingdom, Israel, in 722 BC and Judah’s exile to Babylon in 597 and 586 will be blamed to a large extent on the nation’s kings. The “Deuteronomist” (the name we usually give to the author or group of authors responsible for Deuteronomy and Joshua – 2 Kings) sets out rules for the kings (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) but it’s not hard to see that he thinks that even duly appointed kings are not a good idea. The Abimelech episode illustrates the damage that can be done when such power is taken by the wrong hands. A city is destroyed and hundreds or thousands die. Here is a warning indeed.
6 Interlude. Read Judges 10:1-5
The circle turns. The evil brought about by Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem is neutralised from within as it were. Blessing is then restored through Tola who “rose to deliver Israel” and subsequently maintained by him and Jair who between them “judge” Israel for a total of forty-five years.
Tola and Jair are sometimes counted as “minor judges” whose main responsibility was administering justice, but even here we see that the term “Judge” for these characters is somewhat misleading. GNB usually calls them "leaders" and NJPS “chieftains” which are better terms for these charismatic heroes and guerrilla leaders who God raises up to save his people. The thirty of everything in verse 4 simply denotes the kind of prosperity and success which are to be expected, at least in the Deuteronomist’s theology, when people live by God’s guidance (as also in Judges 12:14). Kings ride such donkeys (Zechariah 9:9). They can be used for carrying treasure or as ordinary working farmyard animals (Isaiah 30:6 and 24). “Havvoth” means either “villages” or possibly, “tents” or “encampments” (NJB) and Jair is the name of the legendary fighter who originally conquered them (Numbers 32:41). Note the other sign of prosperity in these verses, that these two judges “died and were buried”. Their lives had reached their natural end and the proper formalities are observed. The contrast with Abimelech is nicely drawn.
Guidelines
Ideas about the early days of Israel are complex and controversial. For some scholars the Bible story tells it the way it was, beginning with Abraham and getting clearer as it goes. Others are much more cautious. What is increasingly widely agreed is that Israel as a people and an embryo nation came on the scene ("emerged" is the favourite word) around 1200 BC. Major population growth and changes in the settlement patterns in the central highlands of Canaan around this time and accompanying social upheaval in the older city states in the region, which the historians observe, is not actually very different from the way the story is told in Judges.
The NRSV calls the Book of Judges "the story of a new community emerging from disparate groups that were trying to create an entirely new pattern of life ..... one in which all citizens had an equal range of opportunities. The Israelites rejected the absolutism of the Canaanite city states with their oppressive political and social systems ..... the creation of this new society was an immense struggle. In the midst of revolutionary social upheaval, the Israelites found support in their belief that they were ruled by the LORD who took the side of the lowly against their oppressors."
The contrasting stories of Abimelech, who grasped at power, and Tola and Jair who were given it illustrate the conflict of ideology in ancient Israel. In the Book of Judges Abimelech represents the values of “Canaanite society” and Tola and Jair represent the authentic way in which Israel is to live. If Israel wants to live happily in the Promised Land – and such happy living is quite mundane and everyday as we see in the picture of it in Micah 4:4 – it must do so by walking in the ways of the Lord. So whether we think of how Israel is to live in the Promised Land after they have crossed the Jordan after the death of Moses, which is how the story is unfolding in Judges; or of how they are to live in the New Jerusalem and the New Israel when they return from their exile in Babylon, which is what the final editors have in mind, the choice is starkly simple. They either follow God’s guidance or do what every other nation does. The choice is set out plainly as an either/or in Deuteronomy 30:15-20. That is the text for which the books of Joshua to 2 Kings is the sermon in which Judges 9-10:5 is one graphic illustration.
Judges 10:6-13:1. 4 - 10 February
1 Prelude. Read Judges 10:6-18
The cycle moves on. From peace and prosperity to trouble and oppression. This time the effect is felt in Gilead, which is today that part of Jordan east of the River Jordan and which had been so prosperous in the time of Jair. The West Bank territories in the south (Judah) and centre (Ephraim) suffer too (v. 9). The cause is the same as before; Israel “did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” and in the same way as before (2:11-13, 3:7-8). They worshipped other local gods, six of which are mentioned and in so doing show that they do not appreciate what it is that God has done for them (verses 11-13). Abandoning him they worship the Baals (or Baal) and the Astartes (or Astarte or the Ashtoreths or the Ashtaroth). Baal – “Lord” or “Master” – is used in the plural or without a capital letter to refer to local gods, as here, but Baal was also the name of the Canaanite high god. Astarte (the Greek form of her name) or Ashtaroth (the Hebrew form) was one of the three chief Canaanite goddesses, her speciality being love and fertility. In the plural or without capital letters the word refers to local goddesses, as here. Although ancient and modern translations get quite muddled, the picture is plain enough: Israel is guilty of apostasy and, according to our author, the consequences are devastating. See the comment in this week’s Guidelines.
This passage does not hesitate to speak of God’s emotions: his anger in verse 7, his petulance in verses 11-14 and that “he could no longer bear to see them suffer” in verse 16. It is common, but quite wrong, to contrast God’s “anger” and his “love” (and then worse still to think that the Old Testament describes the one and the New the other). As good parents get angry when their children hurt themselves and others and miss out on the good they have it in them to be or become, so too God’s anger is a sign of his love, not a contradiction of it. Whatever we make of this talk of God’s “emotions”, however, it shows that he is not remote from or indifferent to his world and his people, but passionately involved with both.
2 Jephthah. Read Judges 11:1-11
As yet we do not know whether the Israelites’ prayer of confession in 10:15 and subsequent act of repentance in 10:16 has been heard. Will the LORD deliver them or not? At first the signs are not good. The Ammonites mount another invasion of Gilead. The Israelite commanders do not look to God but look round for a military leader. The next character introduced into the story looks even worse than Abimelech. Though Jephthah is a “mighty warrior” (as was Gideon in 6:12), he is the son of a prostitute rather than of a concubine, at odds with his brothers and supported by outlaws rather than kinfolk. This is the one they seek out and send for. Neither is Jephthah’s initial response to their request encouraging to them or to us. Is this another leader out to win power and all that goes with it for himself? Even the picture of the deputation of elders from Gilead is ambivalent. Do we admire them for their pragmatism in facing Jephthah’s sneering question with the frank admission that circumstances alter cases. Or are they just like any other set of politicians who will change their principles as well as their policies the moment they become inconvenient?
That Jephthah might turn out to be very different from Abimelech begins to be a possibility in verse 9. He names the name of the LORD. Any fighting that is done, he insists, depends on the LORD for victory and not on the commander of the troops. The deputation, moved by his faith, swear an oath in the LORD’s name. So Jephthah returns with them and in the sanctuary at Mizpah, confirms his commission before the LORD.
Finally a note about Jephthah’s mother. Although we suspect that it is less his parentage than his success which threatens his half-brothers, it is his mother’s profession which they use to exclude him. Jephthah’s mother may be slighted by his half-brothers but no comment is passed about his father’s role in his conception. The story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38:12-26 is a classic exposure of same double standards around prostitution: it is okay for a man to use a prostitute, but not okay for a woman to be one.
3 Jephthah the negotiator. Read Judges 11:12-28
Valiant warrior though he might be, Jephthah first attempts to negotiate with the king of Ammon, the only example of the use of diplomacy to resolve conflict in Judges. His point is quite simple and relies on a theology that he and the Ammonites share. In fact it was the common theology of the day, as we see in the inscription on the Moabite stone carved around 830 BC on which King Mesha of Moab celebrated his victory over Israel. Chemosh, God of Moab, had given him victory over Israel, just as he had conceded victory to King Omri of Israel forty years previously because he was angry with his people. The belief was that a nation’s god or gods fought for it and the fate of a nation lay with its god. “So”, Jephthah suggests, “why does the King of Ammon not accept that the LORD, the God of Israel, has given Israel this land which used to belong to the Amorites? It was never yours in the first place, so why are you trying to lay claim to it now? Why not simply make do with what your own god has allowed you to keep? Why tempt fate? After all, one’s god does not necessarily guarantee one a victory, but sometimes permits his own people to be defeated in order to punish them …” This is exactly the same theology on which the Book of Judges has been operating, as we have seen. Jephthah points out that the LORD gave victory to Israel over the Amorites, who had opposed them, but left Edom, Ammon and Moab, who had not, entirely alone. Thus the king should accept the will of his own god and leave Israel alone now (verse 27). If the King will not accept that, concludes Jephthah, we must see to whom the LORD will give the victory.
For the attitude of Edom (v. 17) see Numbers 20:14-21, for the defeat of King Sihon of the Amorites (verses 19-23) see Numbers 21:21-32 and the story of King Balak of Moab (v. 25) see Numbers 22-24. There is, however, an error in verse 24 for the god of the Ammonites is Milqom (or Molech), not Chemosh, who was the god of Moab.
4 The Tragedy of Jephthah’s Daughter (1). Read Judges 11:29-33
Verse 29 is encouraging. The “spirit” or power of God comes upon Jephthah as it had on his predecessors Othniel (3:10) and Gideon (6:34). In that strength he advances on the Ammonites. So why does he make this fateful vow? He has already committed himself to the LORD and sealed that commitment in a solemn act of dedication (assuming that to be the meaning of verses 10-11). He has already told the Ammonite king that the outcome of their conflict is in the LORD’s hands. Thus, against that background the vow can only be regarded as an act of faithlessness, a desperate attempt to guarantee the desired outcome by bribing God, an extra insurance against failure.
It also looks like an act of the most outrageous and inexcusable folly, though it is quite interesting to see how many commentators down the centuries have come to Jephthah's defence at this point. Even the NRSV footnote does. It reads, “Given the arrangement of homes with courtyards that housed domesticated animals, it is likely that Jephthah assumed that one of these animals would be encountered first upon his return home” G F Moore dismissed that idea - and several more – splendidly in 1895: “That a human victim is intended is, in fact, as plain as words can make it; the language is inapplicable to an animal, and a vow to offer the first sheep or goat that he comes across … is trivial to absurdity”.
Jephthah is deadly serious. This is no rash vow, but a carefully calculated and deliberate one. He is foolish, but worse than that, he is faithless.
The LORD, however, grants him the victory he seeks. If we ask how God works and acts in the world, as the Bible pictures him doing, verse 32 might be helpful. It says that Jephthah went out to fight and the LORD gave his enemies “into his hand”. It appears that God cannot achieve anything by himself, that he needs the skill and willingness of a Jephthah. It appears too that Jephthah cannot succeed by his own skill and courage, that he needs the “spirit” of God to empower him.
5 The Tragedy of Jephthah’s Daughter (2). Read Judges 11:34-40
Victory turns to tragedy as Jephthah’s daughter comes out to meet him on his return. She, the nameless victim of her father’s lack of trust in God, is then sacrificed to his refusal to try to sort it out with God (for 1 Samuel 14:43-45 shows that even vows can be renegotiated). Then Jephthah blames her. She has “brought him low” and “become the cause of great trouble to him” (verse 35)! She has actually done nothing at all. Whatever trouble he feels himself to be in is entirely of his own making. No wonder feminist interpreters of this passage have little difficulty in pointing to the patriarchal bias of the story. Whose tragedy is it, they ask, Jephthah’s (because she is his only child and he is upset) or his daughter’s? Perhaps it is because he knows that that he vents his anger with himself on his daughter?
Jephthah’s daughter is remarkably calm about it all. Her sadness is that she will die childless and a virgin. Note how ideas change. In the understanding of ancient Israel she dies an unfulfilled woman. In the medieval church her virginity would be regarded as the highest possible state of womanhood. Today we would see her as a victim of a particular stereotyping which sees the fulfillment of womanhood in terms of being a wife and mother. And a contemporary narrator of her story would probably feel it necessary to slip in a warning to anyone who dared to offer any definition of what constituted fulfillment for a woman. And rightly so.
For the narrator the story functions as an explanation of a particular custom, but there is no other reference to such a custom in the Old Testament. Attempts to link it with “Canaanite fertility rites” of “weeping for Tammuz” (Ezekiel 8:14) are forced. Likewise it is hard to see this story as a condemnation of human sacrifice, which was undoubtedly practiced in ancient Israel before it was eventually outlawed (Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2).
The story is a double tragedy. First, she dies because of her father’s faithless folly. Second, her name is forgotten but her father is remembered as a hero (1 Samuel 12:11, Hebrews 11:32).
6 Tribal conflict and an Interlude. Read Judges 12:1-15
We have met touchy Ephraimites in similar circumstances before (8:1). Jephthah lacks Gideon’s ways with words and this time fellow Israelites come to blows. The Gileadites are incensed by the insults hurled at them in the process, though verse 4 is too obscure for us to know exactly what it was the Ephraimites said. The Gileadites win and occupy the fords of the River Jordan, blocking the retreat of the fugitive Ephraimites. Identifying disguised enemies, however, is easy. Their dialect gives them away. “Shibboleth” means either “ear of corn” or “flood” but any word beginning with sh would have done just as well. The numbers of Ephraimite dead are obviously excessive – there are more dead Ephraimites here than any other figure of dead enemies in the whole of the Book of Judges except one (8:10) and more than in the tribal census figures given in Numbers 1:33 and 26:37. Biblical numbers are always difficult - from the great ages of the ancestors to the numbers of those crossing the Reed Sea or eating the bread and fish on a Galilean hillside. They only become a problem, however, if we want to read these stories as accurate historical or factual narratives and if we do that, the numbers are among the least of our problems.
There is no explicit connection in the story between this incident and the preceding tragedy of Jephthah’s daughter. In each one, however, there is a connection between words and blood: Jephthah’s vow and his daughter’s sacrifice in the one and the Ephraimites’ insults and their slaughter in the other. Is that perhaps why the summary of Jephthah’s achievements in verse 7 sounds rather muted?
Three unknowns are listed in verses 8-15 who “judge” Israel for a total of twenty-five years after Jephthah’s death. This, added to the six years of his leadership, makes a total of thirty-three years of relative peace since the Israelite’s had cried to the LORD for help when they were oppressed by the Ammonites. As with Jair (see 10:3-5), their personal prosperity indicates the blessing of God on Israel at this time.
Guidelines
The issue raised in 2:11-13, 3:7-8 and 10:6-8 is a key one in Judges and in the Old Testament as a whole. “You shall have no other gods beside me” - and woe-betide you if you do – is also the message of the First Commandment (Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5:7) and of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), both of which demand absolute allegiance to the LORD and the LORD alone.
It is not easy for some of us in our multi-faith world, particularly those who incline towards a pluralist understanding of religion, to appreciate this exclusive and hard line stance towards other faiths and their gods. It is, at the same time, all too easy for some others to use this way of looking at things to justify ethnic cleansing and religious totalitarianism. Perhaps all of us need to accept that ideas in this area are as much open to change and subject to other influences as we saw in connection with the views on virginity and motherhood in 12:34-40?
To appreciate the reasons for the hard and exclusive line taken in Judges we need to remember that what was at stake, at least according to the Old Testament writers, was not simply Israel’s religious purity or theological correctness, but also her social morality and community values. The Deuteronomists, for example, believed that there was a battle going on for the soul of Israel, because with other gods came other world-views and value systems. We see this conflict of lifestyles and values perhaps clearest of all in the stories about Elijah in 1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 2. Queen Jezebel and her religion sees nothing wrong with killing Naboth in order to acquire his vineyard. Elijah, on the other hand, believes that the God of Israel is one who defends the weak and upholds the rights of all. Baal and the other gods of Canaan, according to the Old Testament writers, do not value that social justice which is very near to the heart of Israel’s vision of society. There is no doubt that to defend their ideology and theology they paint their pictures in the starkest of either/or terms, but for them they were in, literally, a life and death situation.
This is not how it seems to be for most readers of Guidelines, who live in a multi-faith, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural world in which tolerance and acceptance of diversity are key values. At the very least, however, it is no bad thing for us to be reminded by reading Judges that religion has consequences and that these consequences should be taken into account in evaluating the different religions currently on offer. Unlike today, the ancients in Israel did not believe that anything goes when it comes to one’s faith and that of one’s community, nor that religion was a harmless leisure pursuit which made no real difference to anything. We post-moderns might do well to pause to reflect on that.
Judges 13:1-16:31. 11 – 17 February
1 Samson. Read Judges 13:1-5
The wheel turns. Now it is the Philistines alone who are God’s agents of correction. For the next hundred years they will loom large in Israel’s story. They were a Mediterranean people (part of the Sea Peoples as the Egyptians called them) expanding eastwards and arriving in Palestine (to which they eventually gave their name) just as Israel was emerging in the central highlands. Contrary to our use of the adjective “philistine” they were both cultured and technologically advanced. As usual with the Old Testament’s “forty years” there is no need to count them for the phrase signifies a generation or so, long enough to forget what matters and to have to relearn it the hard way.
Verse 2 immediately gives a signal for “barren women” – the older the better - are always a sign that God is about to do something special. Such was the case with Sarah (Genesis 16-17) and Rebekah (Genesis 25:21) and so it will be with Hannah (1 Samuel 1-2): but unlike the others this one is not named. She is only “Manoah’s wife” or “the woman”. The last woman we met in the story was, of course, Jephthah’s daughter: young but virgin and childless. Add to this mix the angel messenger and his message and you can see from where Luke weaves his story of the birth of Jesus. You can also see why.
“The angel of the LORD” - last met when he appeared to Gideon in 6:11-22 (and previously in 2:1 and 5:23) - reappears. Old Testament “angels” (or “messengers”, for that is what the Hebrew word means) are usually members of the “heavenly host” sent to deliver a message: but they can be human “messengers” such as prophets. The Israelites in 2:1, Gideon in 6:11f and Manoah in this incident do not at first see the angel to be anything other than a human messenger, but Manoah’s wife has an inkling of her visitor’s true identity (v. 6).
The message is that she will “conceive and bear a son”. He will be nazir, “consecrated to God”. Not, as usual, for a time but for life; even from conception, for his mother too must live under nazirite rules (see Numbers 6:1-21) until he is born.
Note the “begin” in verse 5. A long struggle “to save Israel” lies ahead which will not end until the time of David.
2 Manoah takes charge. Read Judges 13:6-25
The woman reports this meeting with an impressive prophet (“man of God”) to her husband, omitting the bit about not cutting their future son’s hair but adding that he will be a nazirite from birth “to the day of his death”. Is the storyteller preparing us for something here?
What follows has a vein of comedy not far below the surface. Her husband - because he doesn’t believe her? – asks God to send the prophet back with further instructions. When the angel returns the woman was “sitting in a field” (?) and has to run to fetch her hasband. When Manaoh eventually repeats his question it is not answered. Instead the angel – knowing a little bit about women? – tells Manoah that “the woman” must be very careful to do as she has been told.
Manoah offers their guest hospitality, and another clear link is being made here with the story of Abraham and Sarah and their visiting strangers (Genesis 18:1-15). This visitor, contrary to custom, declines to accept it or to tell Manoah his name. With what is happening slowly dawning on him, Manoah turns his meal into an offering as Gideon had done (6:19-24). All the modern translations except NIV and NJPS see a play on words in the Hebrew between the angel’s reply and a title or description of God “the Wonderworker” (NJB). What happens next confirms the messenger’s true identity and the couple, like Gideon, are overcome with awe and fear. The common sense in the woman’s reply contrasts beautifully with her husband’s lack of it.
Verses 24-25 prepare us for the action which is to follow. She bears a son and names him. Sometimes our storyteller plays with the meanings of names of people or places (eg 1:26, 6:32) but mostly not, as here. The boy grows, blessed by God (is this another phrase which Luke picks up in 2:40 and 2:52?) As with his predecessors Samson is empowered by the “spirit of the LORD” (3:10, 6:34, 11:29), though the verb translated as “stir” or “move” is only used elsewhere in the Old Testament about someone being “troubled” by bad dreams.
3 Tate and Lyle. Read Judges 14:1-20
Although we know, more or less, when and why Judges was published, when and why the stories it uses were first told – and who first told them - is a matter of conjecture. Some of them, like the poem in chapter 5 are ancient and deadly serious, but some, like the stories of Samson have all the characteristics of an ancient “tall tale”. We can imagine the regulars in the Spotted Camel chuckling at the jokes, shaking their heads over Samson’s inability to understand women, laughing at the discomfiture of the Philistines and gasping at Samson’s amazing strength as old Beniah tells the even older tale. It’s a favourite. We can also picture the Deuteronomist toying with the idea of including this good old story in his book and deciding that, with a proper introduction (chapter 13) and a little comment here and there (as in v. 4) it would do nicely. Lighten things up. But serious too.
Chapter 14 is not what we expect after chapter 13. Samson’s behaviour as an adult hardly accords with someone living under the nazirite rule of life. Likewise there is something cheap about the way Samson uses the power from God which “rushes on” him (verses 6 and 19, see also 15:10). None the less it is a rollicking tale which romps along.
Embedded in the story are a number of interesting glimpses of life in ancient Israel, not least of marriage customs. The marriage is an arranged one and first choice for a son’s wife is someone from your own closer kin (v. 3 and as in the stories about the patriarchs in Genesis 24:1-9, 28:1-5). There is a stag night. Weddings require special dress and a best man. Samson’s riddle is not, however, entertainment to enliven the reception. The word is used of the Queen of Sheba’s hard questions to King Solomon (1 Kings 10:1), of the enigmatic sayings of prophets (Numbers 12:8, Psalm 78:2) and of the proverbs and allegories of the sages (Proverbs 1:6, Ezekiel 17:2). Though riddles can be a form of entertainment or reflection (Psalm 49:4) they can also be used to mock (Habakkuk 2:6), and that is how Samson asks his. Note too the antiquity and effectiveness of nagging. Sadly, we also see that racial abuse is age-old for the “uncircumcised Philistines” sneer (v. 3) was hardly coined by the author of our story.
4 Mayhem. Read Judges 15:1-20
The drama (and the coarse humour) continues. When he has calmed down Samson returns to Timnah with “the ancient Near Eastern alternative to our box of chocolates”, as one commentator puts it. Outraged by what he learns from his father-in-law he takes out his anger on the locals. What are we to make of verse 3? Does it suggest that Samson has a conscience about his previous action? Or simply point us forward to more and greater violence to come? REB has “jackals” instead of foxes in verse 4, taking up the suggestion that foxes are solitary animals and rare in Palestine whereas jackals are common and found in packs and so this would be easier to do with jackals rather than foxes. The comic absurdity of the whole enterprise seems to be lost on commentators who resort to such explanations. The Philistines in turn take their vengeance on the poor woman and her father. Samson retaliates. The colloquial “hip and thigh” of verse 8 becomes a “sound and thorough thrashing” in NJPS. After that he hides. The Philistines come looking for him and his own countrymen hand him over to them. But that too is a ruse and leads to a spectacular slaughter followed by twenty years of peace.
Embedded in this folk tale are the usual explanations and sayings. The location of Lehi (“Jawbone”) - mentioned elsewhere only at 2 Samuel 23:11 - is unknown. Ramath-lehi means “the Hill of Lehi” or “the Hill of the Jawbone”. The rhyme in verse 16 can be translated in two different ways. One reads two identical Hebrew words with different meanings (“donkey/ass” and “heap/mass/pile”) in the first line of the verse, as in NRSV, RSV, AV, NJB and GNB but best of all in NJPS,
- “With the jaw of an ass, mass upon mass,
- With the jaw of an ass, I have slain a thousand men”.
The other reads only the one Hebrew word (“donkey/ass”). This is preferred by REB and NIV which gives,
- “With a donkey’s jawbone I have made donkeys of them,
- With a donkey’s jawbone I have killed a thousand men”.
En-hakkore means “the Spring of the Caller” (v. 19).
Verse 20 is repeated at 16:31 and is another of the Deuteronomist’s comments inserted in the traditional tale he is using. We will consider it and Samson’s character in general when we look at 16:31.
5 Samson and Delilah. Read Judges 16:1-22
With the editorial note in 15:20 the years pass, the scene changes and the final episode of Samson’s life begins. Attracted to a Philistine woman, as before, his night of pleasure ends with another demonstration of his strength in which he outwits the Philistines yet again. Gaza to Hebron is 40 miles and that walk involves a climb of 3000 feet.
Samson’s first two women have been unnamed. He had “wanted” his first wife (14:3) and used the Philistine prostitute. The one he now “falls in love with” is named, Delilah. The story makes no attempt to play with the name, though that hasn’t stopped speculation about its meaning. Neither does it give her nationality. The story unfolds. As before, Samson gives in to persistent nagging (verse 16, see 14:17). Shorn of his seven plaits of hair (we have engravings of the ancient hero Gilgamesh which show him having six, three on either side of his face), Delilah hands him over to the Philistines. 1100 pieces of silver makes it quite an easy thing to do (verses 5 and 18). The Philistines take their revenge. But verse 22 opens up the possibility of another scene in the story as his hair begins to grow again.
Readers with short memories might be forgiven for forgetting that Samson was any kind of religious hero at all. He has certainly not behaved like one. Perhaps that is why the Deuteronomist slipped in his note in 15:20, to remind us that Samson was in fact one of the “judges” or “saviours” of Israel. Samson himself, however, had not forgotten. He had given the credit for his feat at Ramath-Lehi to the LORD, albeit as a justification for his churlish demand for a drink (15:18). Now he tells Delilah his secret, that, whatever his sexual morals may have been and no matter how much he may have been involved with foreign women, he is consecrated to God, a nazirite. It is interesting to note that neither in the ancient story itself, nor in the additional comments made by the Deuteronomist, is any judgement passed on either of those two things, the latter of which is certainly seen as a failing in Joshua 23:12 and Deuteronomy 7:3.
6 Death in the Temple of Dagon. Read Judges 16:23-31
Our raucous tale moves to its happy ending. A happy ending, that is, for Samson and the Israelites. Samson calls on the LORD for the second time, this time more politely but still primarily for his own sake rather than God’s or Israel’s. The title by which he addresses God in verse 28, “Lord GOD” in NRSV, is the title “Lord” (= Adonay) plus the special divine name (= “Yahweh”, probably). He dies a hero’s death, taking a final vengeance on his enemies. The temple of the Philistine god, Dagon, whose statue had a human head and body and the tail of a fish, is destroyed and thousands with it. Don’t puzzle over the architecture – trying to picture this temple and work out how those on its possibly flat roof could expect to see anything in the courtyard immediately below – just enjoy the story. Samson’s body is retrieved by his brothers – so after his barren mother had given birth to Samson, she was obviously infertile no longer – and he is buried in the family grave. His life is over. He lies at rest.
Verse 31 is Samson’s epitaph. He had “judged Israel” for twenty years. Samson is not to be seen, the Deuteronomist insists, as a legendary strong man whose great strength was only matched by his folly with women and his love of a brawl, but as someone whose life and strength was used in the service of God and his purposes. Raised up by God when Israel had suffered enough for its sins and on God’s own initiative without the usual cry for help from Israel (13:1), for twenty years he had protected Israel from the Philistines, as the angel had promised (13:5). His death, which was in the usual way of looking at things a bad one because it was both untimely and painful, was actually a great victory in which he had further damaged the enemy. In his death, as in his life, Samson was different and odd and the stories about him can hardly be classified as edifying religious literature. Yet despite all of that, the Deuteronomist asserts, Samson could and should be numbered among the “judges”.
Guidelines
When we read the Samson story we must not take it too seriously. It started life as a folk-tale with a strong vein of rather coarse humour running through it. That, at heart, is what it remains. There is, however, a theological lesson to be learned from it.
The Samson folk-tale has attracted an enormous amount of interest from Old Testament scholars in recent years. Attention has been focussed on it particularly as an excellent example of a storyteller’s art and technique. The Samson folk-tale may be particularly instructive in that regard, but in its present setting it is more than a story told and enjoyed in whatever settings in ancient Israel stories were told and enjoyed. It is a story included by the final editor or writer in a longer story and retold in that setting for a theological purpose. Thus, though we who read it for theological purposes can admire the technique and appreciate the finer points of the storyteller’s craft it exhibits and appreciate the narrative art in the story, that is not our only purpose in reading it. Just as it was not, if we may be so bold as to speak of the intentions of an ancient author or editor, the sole aim of the editor who included it – however admiringly – in his book.
The hero of the Samson folk-tale is the Old Testament’s most unsavoury hero. No one can hold Samson up as an example of faithfulness and devotion to the LORD whose life and faith is to be a model for ours. Yet the Deuteronomist numbers him among the “judges” through whom God’s saving project was accomplished. At the very least this suggests that “God is working his purpose out as year succeeds to year” as the hymn says, even if to some of us, the people he is using are not necessarily those with whom we might be comfortable. In fact, although Samson is the most unsavoury hero in the Old Testament, he is far from the only defective one. Many of its leading characters have faults and failings and moments of shame. Thus the Samson folk-tale is an encouragement as well as a good read. It helps us to see that in the end God’s purposes will be achieved even if, in the meantime, he has to use flawed characters. Like Samson. Like me. Like you.
For further reading
G Auld, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Daily Study Bible, St Andrew Press
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, January – April 1999)
The Song of Songs is unlike any other book in the Bible. Some readers will read it as an anthology of love poetry and welcome its uninhibited celebration of human love. Others will read it as an allegory of God's love for us and ours for him.
We do not know who wrote these poems, who produced the anthology or how it came to be included in Judaism's holy scriptures. We do know that there was some dispute about its status, possibly on the grounds that it did not contain the Divine Name. Rabbi Akiba (who died in 135 AD) insisted on its holiness, was adamant that it was not a collection of love lyrics and protested against its songs being sung in public houses. He said that the whole world was not worth the day when this song of God's love for Israel was given to his people. And that is the how it is still read in the synagogue at Passover. The Church Fathers took the same allegorical line and read it as a song of God's love for the Church or for each human soul.
I therefore offer you a choice, to read the Song as a book of ancient love poetry or to follow tradition and read it as a celebration of God's love. I divide each section into three. Part a/ explains some of the difficulties in the reading. Part b/ treats the reading literally as a love poem and Part c/ treats it as an allegory. Those who find its explicit sexuality too much can miss b/ and those who are not enamoured of allegorical readings can miss c/. In this way I hope that everyone may find something of value in this strange, difficult and beautiful book.
Whichever way we read it the Song is not an easy read. Hebrew poetry is harder to follow than traditional western poetry or Hebrew prose, and in the Song it is often not clear where individual poems begin and end or who is speaking. The poems abound in vivid metaphors and rich allusions to places and customs, flora and fauna, perfumes, colours, fashions and jewelry and the meanings of many of these are lost to us. Often the Hebrew is "obscure" as well. These difficulties lie behind many of those differences between the modern translations which are too numerous to mention.
The version used is the Revised English Bible (REB) which divides the poems between three speakers: Bride, Bridegroom and a chorus of Companions (the "Daughters of Jerusalem", see on 3:5). Some other translations do the same but do not always agree on who says what.
The Song Of Songs 1:1-4:14. 5-11 April
1 Sweeter than wine. Read Song of Songs 1:1-8
a/ "Song of Songs" means "The Best Song" or "The most beautiful of songs" (GNB). GNB also notes that the book may be "by Solomon", "dedicated to Solomon" or "for Solomon". Few scholars think that Solomon wrote it, largely because much of its language is too late for his time. Attributing new books to old heroes was common, and as the epitome of wisdom (1 Kings 3:3-28, 4:29-34, 5:12, 7:14, 10:1-23) Solomon's name was attached to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Perhaps this Song was attributed to him because of his reputation as a great - though unwise - lover (1 Kings 11:1-13).
The speakers are: Bride (verses 2-4a, 5-7), Bridegroom (verse 8) and the Companions who sing to them both, rejoicing for her and repeating her praise of his love (verse 4b).
Verse 6 shows that the "dark and lovely" Bride is embarrassed by her sunburned complexion and needs to explain it, though her explanation is not very clear. Like Cinderella she is put down and put upon: but she knows her lover will transform everything for her (verse 7). Kedar and Shalmah (Solomon in some translations) were bedouin tribes. The Bride follows her royal metaphor in verse 4 with a rural one. Her lover is the shepherd and she wants to find him rather than be left passing the time with the other shepherdesses delousing her clothes. Other translations of verse 7b are equally problematic though less earthy.
b/ The Bride offers herself to her future husband and addresses him as her "king" (verse 4a). There are parallels in Egyptian and Syrian love poetry for this, as there are widely for the rural idyll of the shepherd and his lass. She yearns for his kisses (verse 2) and company (verse 4a). She flatters him, boasts of her good fortune in securing him against the competition (verse 3) and teases him that she does not know where he is (verse 7).
c/ According to the ancient Jewish commentaries the Song tells of God's love to Israel and abounds in references to Old Testament incidents and characters. The kisses of verse 2, for example, refer to God's gift of the Law to Moses. Charles Wesley is indebted to the Greek of these verses for,
- "Jesu, lover of my soul,
- let me to Thy bosom fly".
2 Shall I compare thee? Read Song of Songs 1:9-2:7
a/ The lovers exchange compliments: Bridegroom (1:9-10), Bride (verses 12-14), Bridegroom (verse 15), Bride (verse 16a), Bridegroom (verses 16b-17), Bride (2:1), Bridegroom (verse 2) and Bride (verses 3-6). The Companions interrupt with encouragement (verse 11). The poem ends with the Bridegroom's enigmatic word to them (verse 7, also 8:4, see on 3:5).
1:9-10 is the first of several "descriptions" in which each tells the other how attractive they are, though not every woman would regard being compared with a royal chariot horse as a compliment. The now proverbial "rose of Sharon" was a crocus (see Isaiah 35:1) which grew abundantly in Sharon, the inland part of the coastal plain. The lily is a common wild flower, probably red (see 5:13), and not the plant we know by that name. Whether this "apple tree" and its fruit are related to modern apples is another open question (NEB has apricots). The perfumes and fruits here were almost certainly thought to have aphrodisiac qualities.
b/ Bathed and perfumed the lovers lie in each other's arms whispering endearments (1:12-2:6). On the whole Christianity has been suspicious of pleasure in general and sex in particular. By contrast Judaism tends to insist that life, food and sex are good. The Old Testament is, of course, well aware of the downside of these good things and roundly condemns their abuse. This lovers' dialogue, full of anticipation, excitement and then fulfilment, is a powerful statement of the beauty, joy and mutuality of physical love.
c/ We know about loving our neighbour and one another, but Christians find it very easy to overlook that part of the commandment which talks about loving yourself. We are brought up to see ourselves as sinners and much of our worship reminds us that that is what we are. In 1:8-10 and 1:15 the Bridegroom keeps on telling his beloved how beautiful she is. In these words Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), who preached prolifically on this book, heard God telling us how beautiful we are in his sight! May God give us ears to hear what he wrote, so that we too can sing,
- "But what to those who find? Ah! This
- Nor tongue nor pen can show:
- The love of Jesus, what it is
- None but his loved ones know".
3 A season for love. Read Song of Songs 2:8-17
a/ This poem divides between Bride (verses 8-13), Bridegroom (verse 14), Companions (verse 15) and Bride (verses 16-17). The Bride rejoices that her Bridegroom is back. May is here (as can be deduced from verses 11-13) and as nature blossoms so does love. Her love has come and waits for her to go away with him. Verse 17 might mean that he has come at dawn and the new day is theirs, or that it is now evening and the night is theirs.
We have no idea what verse 15 means. The animals are foxes rather than REB's "jackals" and they were widely regarded as vermin in the ancient Near East.
b/ The Bridegroom twice calls on his "darling" to "rise up" and "come away" (verses 10 and 13). Here is that love which needs no one and nothing but itself which climaxes in verse 16a.
Are the Companions reminding us in verse 15 that the course of true love doesn't always run smooth, not least because there are always those who want to spoil the happiness of others?
c/ At the heart of the Bible is an experience and a conviction that God is love (Exodus 34:6-9 and its numerous echoes and 1 John 4:7-12). This is expressed in the Old Testament in the Covenant God makes with Israel in which he commits himself to them as their God and they commit themselves to him as his people (Hosea 2:23, Jeremiah 24:7, 31:33, Ezekiel 34:31, 36:28). One New Testament expression of this is to picture the Church as the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25, Revelation 21:2). Verse 16a is frequently quoted by the rabbis and the Church Fathers to illustrate this love of God to us and ours to him.
Allegorical interpretations of verse 15 are legion. The "little foxes" who spoil God's vineyard have been seen as anything from the little nations surrounding Israel to those who try to change the rules of a monastery. As one commentator puts it, "The Church has never lacked foxy foes, within and without, to spoil the vineyard and to whom this verse could be applied".
4 Night after night. Read Song of Songs 3:1-5
a/ Verse 1 is the beginning of a new speech by the Bride. The chorus of "Companions", which the Song itself calls the "Maidens (or Daughters) of Jerusalem", have spoken three times (1:4b, 2:11, 2:15). In verse 5 (which repeats 2:7 and is found again in 8:4) the Bridegroom speaks directly to them (REB and NJB, in NIV it is the Bride who says these lines). What he says is full of problems. He adjures them either not to push them along too quickly or possibly to leave them alone. He swears by the "hinds and gazelles of the fields". This oath, which might have links with pagan fertility cults, could be referring to the sexual potency which these animals proverbially had. Or these two words may be substitutions for titles of God to which they are very similar and so be an example of the tendency to avoid using names for God in secular settings. REB follows the Greek which speaks of the "powers and forces of the fields" but goes too far when it names them as "the spirits and goddesses of the field".
b/ Note the change in tone. So far every poem has been rapturous: but now we meet our first hint of love's pain. Either the Bride lies in bed waiting for the Bridegroom who does not come, or she yearns for his presence in her dreams every night. Also the whole world may not love a lover. The city police of verse 3 will reappear with much less patience in 5:7.
c/ Some early Christian writers saw this as a poem about seeking and not finding. One commentator on verse 1 writes, "As applied to the individual soul .... it was taken to indicate the impossibility of finding Christ while reclining in carnal pleasures and in the darkness of sin. Those who seek Christ the easy way do not find him ..." Others have seen it as about seeking and finding. The Venerable Bede related verses 1-4 to Mary Magdalene. She looked for her Lord in the night after his crucifixion, came to the tomb with spices, met angels there and asked them about him. Then she found him and tried to hold him. Finally she took the good news of his resurrection back to the room where the disciples were.
5 Who is this? Read Song of Songs 3:6-11
a/ These are verses sung to welcome the Bridegroom, though the singer varies in the different modern versions. They are sung by the Companions in REB, by the Bride in NIV and by the narrator Poet in NJB. The Bridegroom is pictured as King Solomon making his royal entry into Jerusalem, though there are also clear overtones of the "pillar of smoke by day and the fire by night" of God's triumphant progress through the wilderness (Exodus 13:21-22, but also Judges 5:4 and Isaiah 63:1). Here the metaphor of the Bridegroom or lover as king which was hinted at in 1:4 and 1:12 is given full play. His wedding day is the day when he is crowned with joy (verse 11). These verses are a clear allusion to the custom of crowning brides and grooms which ceased when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The role of the groom's mother in the process is unique to this poem, though Solomon himself did owe his throne to his mother (1 Kings 1:15-31). The "terrors of the night" in verse 8 is a telling phrase and even for desert caravans these would not have been confined to thieves and robbers.
b/ One modern commentator describes this poem as a "lovers' fantasy" and a "romantic pipe dream" in which one rich image is piled on another. On the lips of the Companions it is a celebration of marriage in which no pictures, however exaggerated, are quite adequate to describe its importance and how it makes the couple feel.
c/ Jewish tradition delights in seeing the exodus here. Following the pillar of cloud and fire the People of Israel are coming out of the wilderness and entering the Promised Land, carrying with them the memory of Abraham in the myrrh, Isaac in the frankinsense and Jacob in the powdered spices.
Some of the Church Fathers see here a picture of the soul of a Christian about to leave the wilderness of the world and go to Christ her lover. The pillar of smoke represents a soul stripped of evil habits, the myrrh denotes mortification of the flesh, frankinsense the purity of prayer and the powdered spices are the other virtues, ground to a fine powder by true contrition. Jerome saw in this poem a picture of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
6 Love's portrait. Read Song of Songs 4:1-14
a/ In this long speech the Bridegroom paints a picture of his virgin love and verse 7 says it all. Verses 1-5 (part of which is repeated in 6:4-7) and 10-14 fill this out with colourful comparisons in which he lavishes praise on her beauty. Her hair is long, wavy and black (verse 1b) and her graceful neck is adorned with several necklaces one above the other (verse 4) but it is impossible to say what is meant by the references to her eyes (verse 1), breasts (verse 5) or cheeks (verse 14). It is equally difficult to understand the reference in verse 8 to the wilds of the mountain range which forms Israel's northern horizon, except possibly to see here a promise of luxury and security to his love. There are frequent parallels to the "sister"/"bride" metaphor in ancient Near Eastern love lyrics.
b/ Verses 1-7 is a typical wasf, a love poem which refers to the beloved's body part by part, using imagery which is both extravagent and sensuous. Others are 5:10-16 and 7:1-7.
c/ Let your imagination play with this picture as a poem of Christ's love for the Church, "adorned like a bride for her husband" (Revelation 21:2, 9).
Guidelines
These songs can be read as love poems or poems of the love of God. I have tried to illustrate both meanings for each reading. For your meditation I suggest that well-known hymn of Wesley,
- "Love divine, all loves excelling,
- Joy of heaven to earth come down"
which speaks about the love of God and is also commonly sung at weddings!
Song Of Songs 4:15-8:14. 12-18 APRIL
1 Everything in the garden .... Read Song of Songs 4:15-5:8
a/ Here are speeches by the Bride (verses 15-16), the Bridegroom (5:10) and the Bride again (verses 2-8).
In the first two speeches the metaphor of the garden with its running water, lush fruit and cool breezes reminds us of the Garden of Eden. But here there is a significant difference. The climax of the story in Genesis 2-3 is that everyone and everything are at odds, not least the man and the woman. There is enmity between them, and although the woman still desires the man the mutuality has gone out of the relationship (Genesis 3:15-16). Here, by contrast, her desire is very real and so is the mutuality of their feelings for each other. Everything in this garden is lovely.
Things have changed in the Bride's second speech. She dreams of her lover and her dreams are disturbing. It is wonderful when he comes to her, but when her teasing (in verse 3) goes wrong and he goes off she is distraught. This time her search through the town leads to ridicule. She cries out to the Companions to tell her love that she needs him.
b/ Most commentators see verse 3 to be a lover's tease, though here her lover seems to have lost his sense of humour. As humour adds much to a loving relationship, so the wrong sort of humour can hurt and spoil, especially that "fun" which is at the other's expense. Here she plays that little bit too hard to get. Others see verses 2-5 as amongst the most sensuous in the whole book and read verse 3 as an invitation to her bed.
c/ Here are some examples of "spiritualising" readings or meditations which go beyond the plain meaning of the text. Who are these watchmen who strip off the Bride's veil (verse 7)? They are those pagan rulers who strip the martyrs of their flesh, or whose persecution robs the Church of its external clothing when its priests are imprisoned, its altars torn down and its Scriptures burned. They are evil spirits who prowl around and strip the faithful of their faith. They are Guardian Angels or Saints who lovingly smite Christian souls with the Word of God to strip them of their carnal thoughts or habits.
2 For he is mine and I am his. Read Song of Songs 5:9-6:3
a/ In this part of the Song the Companions ask questions (5:9 and 6:1) and the Bride replies (5:10-16 and 6:2-3). Their tone is not mocking but gently teasing and their questions give "the fairest of women" (compare 1:8) the opportunity to sing about her "Beloved". The search has a happy ending. The lost is found.
5:10-16 is another wasf. This one is unusual in that its subject is a man (though there is something of a religious parallel in the description of Onias the High Priest in Ecclesiasticus 50:6-12). She portrays her lover almost as a statue, though here as elsewhere some of the metaphors are lost on us (eg the doves and the milk in verse 12) and some of the words are guesses (eg "palm-fronds" in verse 11). REB's "fair and desirable" in verse 10 appears as "white/radiant and ruddy" in a number of translations. The Hebrew word translated "ruddy" is a double pun on the words for "ground/earth" and "man" which gives us yet another link with the Garden story in Genesis 2-3 (see Genesis 2:7).
b/ 6:3 ("I am his and he is mine") repeats 2:16 ("He is mine and I am his") but turns it around. These two verses put together present the ideal of a loving relationship and offer a profound challenge to today's society. Two become one, but in a unity which fulfills them both. Each surrenders their individualism and receives back their individuality. Love is a complete mutuality and equality of two people in which neither possesses or dominates the other.
c/ The editors of some Victorian hymnbooks were wary of hymns which were "too personal". They would not have approved of "Loved with an everlasting love" by the Irish Congregational minister George Wade Robinson (1838-77). The final verse of this splendid and now almost totally neglected hymn is heavily dependent on 6:3,
- His for ever, only His:
- Who the Lord and me shall part?
- Ah, with what a rest of bliss
- Christ can fill the loving heart!
- Heaven and earth may fade and flee,
- First-born light in gloom decline;
- But, while God and I shall be,
- I am His, and He is mine.
3 She made me a prince. Read Song of Songs 6:4-12
a/ She has praised his beauty and in this Bridegroom's Song which repeats parts of 4:1-3 he sings of her beauty. The poem continues the royal metaphor. No one in the harem can compare with his true love. Two verses present real difficulties.
Verse 4 in REB has only two short lines, in which the Bridegroom compares his love's beauty to the cities of Jerusalem and Tirzah, the original capital of the Northerrn Kingdom before Samaria replaced it. NRSV and most translations have another line about "terrible as an army with banners" or something like it, which reappears at the end of verse 10. REB has a footnote that the Hebrew adds, "majestic as the starry heavens" and that translation appears in verse 10. This meaning is a possibility, but only one of several. Some commentators suggest that "terrible" really means "terrific", and so her beauty is as wonderful to see as an army with all its banners. GNB's "breathtaking" captures that nicely, but it doesn't mention any armies. "Hebrew unclear" perhaps says it all.
Verse 12 is widely regarded as the most difficult verse in the Song, and that is some accolade because the competition is stiff! REB makes good sense with,
- "I did not recognise myself:
- she made me a prince
- chosen from myriads of my people".
He is a nothing and a nobody (verse 11): but his Bride, the fairest of all women and the queen of all queens, has chosen him. Her love makes him feel like a prince. Whether the Hebrew means anything like this is another question. Compare these other two translations,
- "Before I was aware, my fancy set me
- in a chariot beside my prince" (NRSV - here the Bride is speaking)
- "Before I knew .... my desire had hurled me
- onto the chariots of Amminadib" (NJB - the Bridegroom is speaking)
Not for nothing does the note "Hebrew obscure" appear in all the margins here.
b/ "To love and to cherish" are important words in the Wedding Service. In verses 4-10 he cherishes her, verbally at least. In REB's translation of verse 12 we see the effect of her cherishing him.
c/ So far my examples of allegorical readings have been devotional or doctrinal ones. Verses 8-9 have been put to moral use to attack polygamy and defend monogamy.
4 You are my heart's desire. Read Song of Songs 6:13-7:9
a/ Verse 13 is also difficult. The Bride has gone into the garden and the Companions call her back, or possibly ask her to dance (GNB). The Bridegroom takes this as a cue for another description of his Bride's beauty. "Shulammite" might mean "Girl of Shulam" (GNB, NJB, NJPS), the village in the Esdraelon valley which was later called Shunem, "Solomon's girl" or "Perfect one": but what lies behind that designation is not clear. Neither is where she moves. Is it between two lines of dancers (REB, NJB) or in the "Mahanaim dance" (NIV, NJPS) - whatever that might be - or between two armies (AV, NRSV)?
In the rest of this passage in REB the Bridegroom praises her physical beauty, starting from her feet and working upwards. There are no major translation problems, but as before we cannot follow all the allusions. For seductive sandals see Judith 16:9 where the heroine sings of her conquest of Holofernes. What does the compliment about her belly mean (verse 2b)? Does it refer to her nicely rounded tum and its tanned, tawny colour? If so, what about the lilies? Commentators suggest that the allusion is to the custom of storing grain in piles protected by thorn cuttings: but that seems a curious way to store grain! We can see what "pools of Heshbon" suggests, but why were its reservoirs singled out? And what is special about its Bath-Rabbim gate? That is a question REB readers don't have to ponder, for it translates the phrase as "crowded city". The reference to her luxurious black hair in verse 5b may continue the royal metaphor if it is translated as "a king is held captive in its tresses" as in most translations though not in REB. In verse 4 we have the last of the Song's allusions to Lebanon. We can't always follow the details but the picture is clear.
b/ There is no mistaking the sensuality of this poem. The Bridegroom celebrates and enjoys his love's body. Verse 9 (and the poem which follows) shows how passionately she responds.
c/ 6:13 and the Shulammite offer endless scope for allegory. In these four "returns" (REB omits one) the Targum sees that Israel was saved from four oppressors and some Christians see the four gospels which call Israel to return to God.
5 O perfect love. Read Song of Songs 7:10-8:4
a/ In REB the speech of the Bride in 7:10-8:3 is followed by a charge from the Bridegroom (verse 4). The Bride invites her lover out into the countryside. Is it to consummate their love (verses 10-13)? Even if it is, and that is not certain, it is second best. She yearns for the day when their love will not need to be hidden, and their love-making will be possible under her mother's roof (8:1-3). She yearns for marriage, though saying that she wished her lover was her brother is a strange way to put it.
The garden imagery we saw at 4:15-16, 5:1, 6:2-3 and 6:11 reappears in verses 10-14. The first part of verse 10 reminds us of 2:16 and 6:3 and the second part takes us straight to the Garden of Eden and Genesis 3:16. The Hebrew word for "longing" or "desire" occurs in this sense only in these two places in the Old Testament. Unfortunately REB translates it differently in each place. Mandrakes appear in the Old Testament only here at verse 13 and at Genesis 30:14-16. Both places feature their proverbial aphrodisiac properties.
8:3 repeats 2:6 and pictures the couple in each other's arms. 8:4 repeats 2:7 and many commentators suggest that the editing of the poem is poor here because such a sentiment is simply too late, the couple have already made love. Reading REB as it is, however, could equally suggest that the couple are waiting until the time is ready.
b/ Genesis 3:16 speaks of the woman's desire for the man. 7:10 speaks of the man's desire for the woman. Genesis 3:16 says that the power which that gives to the man will be felt as domination, even abuse, by the woman. 7:11-12 challenges that sort of relationship between men and women, ancient or modern. It suggests that love's power means giving and liberating rather than taking and controlling.
c/ Reading the Song as a song of God's love to us, there are few more vivid and dynamic descriptions of that love than in the words of the second part of verse 10, that God "desires" us.
6 Unquenchable. Read Song of Songs 8:5-14
a/ Commentators do not agree on the divisions between these speeches or on the identity of the speakers. Some think that the poem really ends with verse 7 and NJB actually puts the rest of the chapter in two appendices. Robert Davidson helpfully suggests that this section is like a curtain-call at the end of a play in which each of the three voices has a final say.
REB suggests that it goes something like this. In verse 5a the Companions begin their question in the same way as 3:6, but here they introduce the Bride arriving on the Bridegroom's arm. He has eyes only for his Bride and tells her of the passion of his love (verses 5b-7). He recognises that money can't buy her love, and so he offers himself to her as a free gift, but a precious one (seals were among a person's most treasured possessions). The Companions reappear to tease the Bride with a riddle of some kind (verses 8-9) and she answers them with another (verses 10-12). Money will not buy her love. She will give it to whom she pleases. The Bridegroom asks if she and the Companions will stop talking in riddles and tell him her decision (verse 13). With the last word she does (verse 14).
b/ On what note should this volume of love poetry close? Those who would end at verse 7, after the three pairs of powerful images in verses 6-7, would end it on a serious and heavy note, for those images speak of the agony and the ecstasy, the passion and the angst of love in which lives are made or broken. On the other hand, when I read on to verse 14 I see lightheartedness in the poetry. The Companions tease the Bride with a riddle. She is irrepressible and flings one back at them. The Bridegroom asks, "What about me?" and off they go together. The humour of this ending says to me that love is a serious business, of course it is: but for love's sake not that serious!
c/ William Cowper's, "Hark, my soul! It is the Lord" is a dialogue between God and the human soul. In this verse, based on verses 6-7, God declares his love,
- "Mine is an unchanging love,
- Higher than the heights above,
- Deeper than the depths beneath,
- Free and faithful, strong as death."
Guidelines
a/ On the one hand, the Song of Songs is not easy to read. It is obviously a translation from an ancient and foreign world, no matter how well our modern English Bibles disguise the fact. It is full of dazzling images, rich metaphors and lush descriptions. There are many obscure words and phrases. Even the briefest explanation of these or of the differences between the REB and any other modern translation would have taken up more space than is available. On the other hand, because it is a volume of poetry some of these things don't matter too much. In any case its topic, love - whether the love of God or human love - is one which defies description and definition anyway. If the Song was a treatise on either love in good, plain and straightforward prose it would not move or excite us in the way that a poem or a hymn can. I hope therefore that you have found reading the Song a joy and a delight as well as a challenge.
b/ The modern way to read the Song is to see it as a collection of love poems, some of which are sexually explicit. Read in this way it is a celebration of love. Not only that, but also a celebration of youth and of nature. As Robert Davidson puts it, the Song is "from beginning to end a liberating celebration of human sexuality as something which is good and holy". God is not mentioned in the Song, yet it echoes with praise for his creation gifts. And not the least of these is that he makes two people into "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
- "Praise God who has created courtship and marriage,
- joy and gladness, feasting and laughter, pleasure and delight".
c/ The Old Testament is full of stories of God's love for Israel. The prophet Hosea in particular compares that love to a husband's love for his wife as well as a father's for his child (2:14-17, 11:1, 14:4-6). The Christian faith shares that view of God. Reading the Song of Songs as a hymn of God's love is an ancient way to express our thanksgiving for that love of God which is
"so strong and true, eternal and yet ever new".
For further reading
Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon by Robert Davidson in The Daily Study Bible series published by the St Andrew Press
6 Jonah and Matthew: Readings for Passion and Holy Week
(These Bible Study notes appeared in the Guidelines series published by the Bible Reading Fellowship, 29 March - 4 April 1993)
The reasons for reading the last chapters of Matthew’s gospel in Holy Week are obvious, but why read Jonah in passion Week and why link the two?
One answer might be that there is already an ancient connection between them, for the Gospels refer to “the sign of Jonah” in connection with the death of Jesus. In Luke 11:29-32 the “sign of Jonah” is the way the Ninevites repented at Jonah’s preaching. The parallel passage in Matthew 12:38-41 shares that idea and adds a second, about the whale, pointing to the resurrection of Jesus. Another reference in Matthew 16:1-4 is stark, and no clue is given to what it might mean. “You know the story of Jonah,” Jesus seems to say, “so think about it, and thing about what is happening now and is going to happen next!” here is our invitation to put the stories of Jonah and Jesus alongside each other.
Another answer might be that both stories have similar themes: obedience to God, mission, suffering, success and failure.
But another question might be, why not? Why not simply read the stories of Jonah and Jesus side by side? Reading them this way we might discover features of both stories that illuminate each other. We might find new things that stimulate our imagination, challenge our understanding and deepen our commitment. Reading the unexpected can be particularly fruitful.
There are some books where questions about authors, dates and reasons for writing are a great help towards understanding what we read. Reading Amos, for example, without knowing its origin around 760 BC and what was going on then, is like reading the sermons of Martin Luther King and not knowing anything about the United States in the 1960s. We would miss much of the point. But there are other books, perhaps the majority in the Old Testament, where scholarship is moving on to new questions. We are being encouraged to begin from the text in front of us, to see it as literature, and use the techniques of contemporary literary studies. Such an approach seems well suited to Jonah and to Matthew, for both are carefully crafted literary works, and in the case of Jonah the question about author and date have yielded few answers anyway.
What sort of book is Jonah? History, allegory or parable? It is common to call it simply a “short story”, though that leaves the matter open. How are we to read it? It has been seen as a polemical attack, or as commentary (perhaps on Exodus 34:6 or Jeremiah 18:8), or again as satire, satire is humour using the fantastic and absurd to attack a recognizable target, and there is indeed humour and the absurd in Jonah. But is the prophet the target of attack, is he satirized? There may be no agreed answers to these questions either, but they invite us to pay detailed and careful attention to the story as it unfolds.
In Holy Week we read Matthew’s stories of the last week of Jesus’ life. Here too we shall try to read the story itself, without asking questions about what “really happened”. In this case something did happen, and Matthew is a Christian, preaching for a verdict. The author believes in Jesus, and writes what he writes so that others might share his faith (cf. John 20:30-31). That is what we mean by calling Matthew a “Gospel”. These stories are theology presented in a narrative, again inviting us to use our reading skills.
Reading Jonah and Matthew. 29 March – 4 April
1 Whom shall I send? Read Jonah 1:1-16
“The word of the LORD came to Jonah” (v.1) is a conventional introduction to a prophet’s message. Jonah, son of Amittai, is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25, and the tale is woven around this otherwise unknown prophet. Some see significance in the names, which mean “Dove, son of Faithfulness”. This might be playing on the dove of the Flood story (Genesis 8:8), which fulfilled its task when sent out by God, or the symbol of Israel as a dove. If this is so, then expectations are set up in our minds at the very beginning of the story.
The Jewish prophet is commissioned to go to Nineveh and pronounce God’s judgement on that “great” (a favourite adjective) and evil foreign capital. He disobeys God and flees in the opposite direction. We are given no clue to his motive. Is it a perfectly natural fear, for this commission has been likened to sending a Jewish Rabbi to Nazi Berlin in 1936? Or is it compassion, that Jonah does not wish to be God’s instrument in this fearful judgement? He receives instructions and he disobeys.
Notice the verbs used. Jonah is told to “get up” (v.2) and “go” to Nineveh, but when he does “get up” he “goes down” to Joppa, “goes down” again into a boat (v.3), and “goes down” further into the hold (v.5). he “gets up” only when woken by the captain and told to “cry” to his god (v.6), an ironic twist because the cause of the crew’s plight and Jonah’s flight was his reluctance to go to Nineveh to “cry” against that city (v.2). His disobedience is total, but already it seems that he cannot escape.
Also notice the contrast in who calls on God and the names they use. The special Jewish name of “the LORD” (Yahweh in Hebrew) occurs eleven times. Six times it is the narrator or Jonah, as we might expect, who use this special name. but the other five times, in verses 14-16, it is used by the pagan sailors. Here is a tension between the disobedient Jonah and the increasingly faithful pagan sailors, a tension that comes to a climax in the story.
The strength of the sailors’ religion is also pointed up in the “great” wind and “great” storm. Their fear is as real and their prayers as urgent as their frenzied attempts to save the ship. Meanwhile Jonah sleeps. Even when they discover, to their “great” fear that he is the cause of their distress they do their best to save him. The episode closes with a pointed comment, greatly weakened in the translations, about how serious their religious commitment is: “They feared the LORD, and vowed vows” (v.16).
Here is disobedience on the part of someone who should have known better, and obedience to God by unlikely people in unlikely places.
2 Out of the depths. Read Jonah 1:17-2:10
The Hebrew Bible makes 1:17 the beginning of the next chapter, a psalm with two verses of introduction and a prose ending (2:10). You can’t escape from God, Jonah discovers. God takes steps to bring him back on course, though he doesn’t hurry.
What is puzzling is the sort of psalm that Jonah prays, and when he prays it. One would expect a lament, containing confession of sin and an urgent appeal to God for help (as in Psalms 6, 38 or 130). Instead, after seventy-two hours, we get a thanksgiving, praising God for deliverance. Nowhere in the entire story does Jonah ever admit to having been in the wrong.
The psalm is a collage of what must have been well-known phrases from other psalms (Psalms 120:1 and 31:22 in v.2; 69:2 and 42:7 in v.3; 31:22 and 5:7 in v.4; 69:1 and 18:4 in v.5; 103:4 in v.6; 143:5 and 88:2 in v.7; 31:6 in v.8; and 116:17-18 and 3:8 in v.9). But how strange it sounds coming from Jonah, even hypocritical. Or by hearing our songs on his lips are we being invited to see ourselves as Jonah?
The details of the psalm match the plot in which God uses a “great” fish. In the Old Testament the sea, the deep, is a powerful symbol of chaos (Genes 1:2), of the forces of evil ranged against God. In creation God defeats the sea and the chaos monsters it contains, and in times of crisis appeal is made for him to demonstrate his power again (Psalms 74:12-23 and 89:8-11; Isaiah 51:9-11). In Jonah’s psalm references to Sheol, the underworld of the dead (v.2) and the Pit (v.6), are combined with numerous “chaos-words”: the depths (v.3), the seas, the flood, the waves, the waters, the deep (v.5, as in Genesis 1:2). These contrast with the temple, the place of light, life and God’s supreme rule (vv.4,7).
But who is Jonah to pray like this, boasting of his faithfulness (v.() and scorning pagan idolaters (v.8)? Already we have our suspicions about him, and they will be confirmed as we read on. So the psalm ends with a very ironic comment (v.10). God speaks to the monster, creature of the chaos and the deep, and it obeys. It delivers the disobedient Jonah back on to dry land, the place of order and obedience. Things really are upside down.
3 The end is nigh. Read Jonah 3:1-9
Jonah gets a second chance. Verses 1-2 repeat his commission from !:1, with one change. Now he is to “cry to Nineveh”, not “against” it. Is this a hint of something to come, an unexpected response leading to startling results? His new obedience is noted in a very matter-of-fact way (v.3).
What happens next is far from matter-of-fact. It is comic, and the humour helps us to suspend our disbelief. Nineveh is wicked and huge (exceedingly “great”), yet before Jonah has time to get anywhere near the city centre, and after only the briefest warning shot, the people believe and repent. The king does the same. Another amazing twist in the plot.
Notice two familiar verbs and a new one. As soon as the warning reaches the king he “gets up” and takes action, just as, this time, Jonah had “got up” and done as he had been told. As soon as Jonah has “cried” his message, the people declare a fast (literally, “cry” a fast, v.5), and in his decree the king orders them to “cry” to God (v.8). If the people “turn” from their violence and evil (v.8), God might “turn” and “relent” (v.9a), then “turn” away from his fierce anger (v.9b). Note how carefully structured it is. This is certainly no “simple tale”.
Here are more believing pagans: but they are not quite like the sailors. Jonah does not mention the LORD, and his general warning is understood in a general way. The people believe “God” (Elohim, the multi-purpose Old Testament word for God, god or gods, v.5). The king orders them to pray to God (v.8), in the hope that God might change his mind (v.9), so that they don’t perish (the exact words of the captain in 1:6).
By verse 9 Jonah has been forgotten, upstaged by the faith of the Ninevites. Now the focus is on God. His message has been delivered, and it has evoked an amazing response. What will happen next?
4 Amazing grace. Read Jonah 3:10-4:5
What happens next is that God does change his mind. When he sees that the Ninevites have “turned” from their evil ways, he “relents” (or “repents” as in RSV) and does not carry out his threat (see Jeremiah 18:7-10). There is a rich ambiguity here, for this very “relent” also means “to have compassion” (compare 4:2).
The translation of 4:1 is weak in most of our English versions. “But this evilled a great evil to Jonah, and he was angry”, is hardly English, though it conveys something of the force of the Hebrew. Once Nineveh had been evil (1:2; 3:10); then Jonah’s flight had brought evil on others; finally it comes to rest on Jonah.
Jonah prays again, another self-justifying and self-centred prayer. Here too he takes on his lips great traditional words which speak of the LORD’s love (see Exodus 34:6-7; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 103:8). But here they have a hollow ring. Can we believe this explanation of his flight? Can we take his death-wish seriously?
The LORD’s reply is enigmatic (v.4), and reminiscent of the equally obscure reply to Cain’s anger in Genesis 4:6-7. Jonah doesn’t answer, but leaves the city to wait and see what will happen. The question will be asked again (v.9) and will lead directly into God’s final statement.
5 The end? Read Jonah 4:6-11
The beginning of the final scene is marked by a familiar expression (as in 1:17, and again in 4:7 and 8) but with a new name for God, the LORD God (Yahweh-Elohim). Perhaps this is a deliberate combining of the general word used by the Ninevites with the personal name known to Jonah.
God has Jonah’s welfare at heart and “appoints” some sort of bush to give him more protection than that afforded by his own makeshift shelter. Jonah has “great” joy over this plant which “saves him from his evil” (v.6).
Next day God “appoints” a hot wind, and the withering of the plant reduces Jonah to self-pity. He repeats his death-wish, and God repeats his enigmatic question, though now with a significant addition: “Is it right for Jonah to be angry about (NRSV, GNB AND NIV) or for (RSV AND KJV) the plant?” This is ambiguous, as the different translations show. Jonah falls into the trap. “Indeed it is right!” he says.
God’s reply assumes that he was angry “for” the plant, because he felt sorry for it (v.10). Knowing Jonah as we do by now we suspect that he was nothing of the sort; that he was angry “about” or “over” the plant’s removal. But this humorous trick is necessary. His being sorry “for” the bush is the lead-in to the punchline of the story.
And what a punchline it is. Has not the LORD created Nineveh? Dows he not love all that he has made?
Guidelines
What is the meaning of the book of Jonah? It has sometimes been seen as an attack on the Jewish exclusivism encouraged by Ezra after the Exile: but this is too simplistic. No consensus, however, has taken its place. It could be a satire on a certain kind of prophet, or an attempt to grapple with the question of how a good and just God can forgive flagrant evil, or a word of hope about the effectiveness of repentance.
Can we talk about the meaning of Jonah at all? It is a story, possibly a parable, and we no longer think it right or possible to summarize the “meaning” of these. A good story produces a variety of meanings and interpretations. “If you have ears to hear, then hear!” may be all that can be said at the end of any story or parable.
In my reading of Jonah I hear about faith which is not found in the prophet where it might be expected, but in the pagan sailors and at Nineveh. I hear about a God who changes his mind, commissioning Jonah with a message of judgement, but responding with amazing grace to a people who repent. I hear about a prophet who find such grace difficult to accept. All of these wer live issues in the ministry of Jesus, and are no less so today.
Some prayer topics
* Lent is for many a season of special discipline: let us each pray for a true repentance, and give thanks for the overflowing generosity of God.
* Easter is at the heart of the Christian faith: in the decade of Evangelism let us give thanks for all we can learn from other faith communities worldwide, and pray for wisdom and sensitivity in the mission of the church.
* Jonah 4:11 is an invitation to intercession. In a world adjusting to the end of an old order and the rise of new nationalisms, pray for those who suffer in the interim, and give thanks for the hope enshrined in new beginnings.
Reading the signs in Matthew. 5-11 April
1 Entering the city. Read Matthew 21:1-17
In Matthew’s story Jesus is frequently on the move. Chapter 16 verse 21 makes us aware that he must move towards Jerusalem. The journey begins at 19:1-2. In 20:17-19 we are reminded that this is a dangerous destination. Thus when chapter 21 begins with a reference to “drawing near” to Jerusalem and “arriving” at Bethphage we reach a significant point in the story. Jesus obeys the divine command. The story reinforces this by talking about what happens next as a “fulfilment” of prophetic predictions) vv.4-5; see Isaiah 62:11 plus Zechariah 9:9; v.9 echoes Psalm 118:26).
Then comes a short break in the tension. Jesus is in control, as his confident instructions make clear (vv2-3). The city welcomes him (vv8-11). Claiming God’s authority he “cleanses” the temple (vv 12-13, quoting Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11), and welcomes the outcasts of society into it (v. 14). The objection by the temple authorities is dismissed with another Scripture verse (v.16 quotes Psalm 8:2). Still in control he leaves the city to lodge in Bethany (v.17).
One characteristic of Matthew’s story telling is obvious here. Everything moves according to plan, and that plan is laid down in the Old Testament. There are at least six quotations or allusions to the Old Testament in seventeen verses, one of which is expressly cited as a prediction now fulfilled. This is a key feature of Matthew’s storytelling, and we can both admire and learn from his ingenuity in finding ways acceptable to his culture to express his understanding of Jesus.
Who is Jesus? Note the ambiguity of “Lord” in verse 3 (does it mean “Master”, or even “owner”, or is it referring to Jesus as Messiah?). The title “prophet” is used in verse 11, and there are “messianic” titles in verses 5, 9 and 15.
Verse 14 is a “care for outcasts” theme not found in the other versions of the “cleansing” of the temple. This is a theme found already in Isaiah 56:3-8, which overturns the restrictive measures of Deuteronomy 23:1ff.
Are there any resonances with the Jonah story? The obedient prophet, Jesus, enters the city which welcomes him immediately. There is, however, no immediate repentance, and he is forced to drive the evil out of the temple. The authorities prove antagonistic. He leaves the city to lodge outside.
2 Against all expectations. Read Matthew 21:18-32
Resonances with the story of Jonah echo throughout this reading about the activities of the next day.
It begins with an encounter with nature. For Jonah and the bush we have Jesus and the fig tree (21:18-22). One blesses, the other curses. The fruitful one proves useless, the fruitless one useful. Here is allegory, and we read between the lines and identify Jesus’ opponents as useless because they are lacking in faith (vv.21-22). Here is an enigmatic Jesus, causing fear and amazement (v. 20).
Next the leaders confront Jesus with an obvious question that Jonah was never asked, “By what authority are you doing these things?” (v. 23). Jesus refuses, with good rabbinic technique, to answer their question directly. The answer to their question lies in the answer they give to the question Jesus put to them. The crowd acknowledges Jesus to be a prophet just as they had acknowledged John the Baptist (v.26; compare v.11). Why then will their leaders not believe?
The theme of belief and unbelief unfolds in the parable about two sons (vv. 28-31). The first son refused to go where he was told, but afterwards went (like Jonah!), whereas the second son promised to go but didn’t. Who is the faithful one? They get the answer right but don’t see the connection (they finally get the point two parables later in 21:45). The son who does the father’s will is the one who does what the father wants, even if it means changing his mind to do it. Those who believe are the “harlots” and “tax-collectors” who listen to Jesus. So, as in the story of Jonah, true belief and real faith in God are found in the most unlikely places (note v. 43). The world is upside down.
The cursing of a fig tree, mountains which can be hurled into the sea by faith, and harlots and tax-collectors who are more ready to do what God wants than religious people are. This is the same language of deliberate shock as that of a prophet who flees from God, a great fish which swallows him and Ninevities who repent.
3 A heedless city. Read Matthew 23;1-12, 37-39
Jesus’ second day in the city is spent in the temple, and it is long and eventful. It features controversy, an attempt to arrest Jesus (21:45-46), plotting against him (22:15), and debates which silence his opponents and astonish the crowds (22:33, 46). Then it is Jesus’ turn to attack the religious leaders (chapter 23) before telling the disciples what the future of the city and temple is to be (chapters 24-25). In the evening he explains that he will be arrested at Passover, two days hence (26:1-2). At this point the scene switches to the High Priest’s palace where that event is being planned (26:3-5).
The first three Gospels all have stories of Jesus teaching in the temple. Matthew 23 is one of the least read parts of that teaching, and it is not hard to see why. Here is an uncompromising challenge to the religious leaders of the day. Snatches of the same material are found in Mark and Luke, but Matthew’s attack is concentrated and sustained. The chapter probably reflects the controversy which developed later between church and synagogue. And still it challenges to rigorous self-examination all who are called to leadership.
The accusation concerns hypocrisy, last mentioned at 22:18, and defined in 23:3. But the chapter is about leadership, power and responsibility. How is this exercised in Israel and, by implication, in the church?
It is sometimes said that the virtue of humility began with Jesus. But the idea goes back through Judaism into the Old Testament. In verses 11-12 we have a powerful statement about it. The disciples are to follow the example of their “Servant King”, who turned the usual ideas of power upside down in a ministry of self-denial and service to others (e.g. 11:29; 20:20-28 and not least John 13:1-16).
The chapter ends on a sad note. Jesus looks over the city and “laments” over it, like a mother grieving over her wayward children (vv. 37-39). The mother is helpless if the children choose to go their own way.
How are we to understand verse 39b? The crowd has already used these words to acknowledge Jesus when he entered the city (21:9). What is Matthew pointing forward to now? This “prediction” is never fulfilled. Is this an invitation to us, as readers, to make this our acclamation when we meet the risen Jesus?
4 Who are the faithful? Read Matthew 25:31-46
Here we have more teaching on the same day. The parable of the sheep and goats is the climax of Jesus’ teaching. After this there are no more “sayings” (26:1). The parable answers the implied question from chapter 23 and the two parables in chapter 25: Who are God’s faithful people? It also answers a second question from these parables, and the question of the future and the coming judgement from chapter 24: What will happen when the king comes?
The answer is disconcertingly simple and highly revolutionary. Those who find themselves selected as “sheep” and receiving praise and reward seem surprised (vv.37-39). Those who were expecting a reward for their faithfulness find themselves set aside as “goats”, receiving a very different reward (vv. 44-45). The basis for the king’s decision seems to come as a shock to both groups: if, when, and how did they care, or fail to car, for the needy? God is looking for faithfulness measured by active compassion and concern.
It is salutary that Matthew ends the teaching of Jesus on this note of concern for the poor and disadvantaged. He has stressed throughout his Gospel that Jesus is the “Teacher” whose teaching is to be listened to. His next reference to the teaching of Jesus is in 28:20, where the risen Jesus commands the disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations”, and to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you”. If readers think back at that point to the last formal teaching that Jesus gave, they arrive at this parable of the sheep and goats!
5 Gethsemane. Read Matthew 26:30-46
When the teaching is over the plot moves forward quickly. The events which we commemorate on Tuesday and Wednesday in Holy Week are mentioned briefly: the plotting to kill Jesus (26:3-5), his anointing (26:6-13) and Judas’ decision to betray him (26:14-16). But the pace of the narrative slows down again when we come to the preparations for Passover and the Last Supper (26:17ff), for this is the moment when “the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified” (26:2). After the Last Supper are two incidents in which the disciples affirm their commitment and show their lack of it.
The first incident (vv. 30-45) has ominous tones. Jesus and his disciples arrive on the Mount of Olives after “singing a hymn” (v.30). This would have been Psalm 115-118 which traditionally form the conclusion to Passover. Matthew makes no comment on it but if we read those psalms we are struck by the abrupt move from their joy and triumph to the tragic warning which Jesus gives (v. 31) in words quoted from Zechariah 13>7. It is not without significance that the next picture in Zechariah (14:4) is of God standing on the Mount of Olives before asserting his kingship of all the earth.
Matthew uses the Old Testament saying and location to set the scene for a conversation, which reminds us of the last conversation on another hill, the Mount of Transfiguration, between Jesus and Peter (17:1-8). Peter asserts his rock-like reliability. Once again he thinks knows best (16:13-23)! So tensions are created: what will Jesus do? What will happen to Peter? How will it work out? Who will be proved right?
They move on to Gethsemane. The story focuses on two contrasting scenes, pointed up three times: the agony and urgency of Jesus’ prayer, and the sleep of the three disciples. Jesus shares with them his fear about what is to come, and seeks their support. This is real prayer, pleading for a way out, and if not, for the strength to see it through, and all under the overarching will of God. In the end neither Jesus’ agony nor the disciples’ weariness delays the fateful moment. At Jesus’ word the four of them “rise and go” to meet Judas and the mob.
6 Reading the signs. Read Matthew 27:27-54
The incident on the Mount of Olives showed that there are different levels at which we can read these stories. Those more familiar with the old Testament will read them in a different way from those who are less aware of the images and allusions being used. Matthew tells his own story and there are important differences from the other Gospels, especially in verses 45-54. He gathers rich Old Testament images together in a picture of the significance of Jesus and of his death. When God appears in power in the old Testament (a “theophany”), it is often pictured as a great storm and darkness (Exodus 19:16; Psalm 18:9-11; 97:2). So in verse 45 we are reading not simply about natural darkness but about that darkness which surrounds God’s awesome presence (Deuteronomy 4:11) or heralds his judgement (Amos 8:9) or the end of the world (Matthew 24:29). Hence the mention of Elijah who was expected to return before the day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5 and Matthew 17:10-12). The curtain of the temple and the believing Gentile centurion are also “End of the Age” images of destruction and new beginnings (Hebrew 10:19-22; Zechariah 14:16-17; Tobit 14:6-7). Clearest of all, and found only in Matthew is not so much reporting what happened on Good Friday afternoon as confessing his faith in Jesus. He sees him as Messiah, the King of the Jews, words used in mockery by the soldiers (v. 29), the charge over the cross, and the leaders (vv. 37, 42). The event of his death has heralded the day of the Lord. In the cross Matthew sees the kingdom of God come in power (compare Mark 9:1).
The Gospel does not end at v. 54. It is incomplete without the resurrection joy of Easter and the unnamed day when the risen Jesus commissioned his disciples, “Go, therefore …” Matthew does not see the cross as defeat from which Jesus had to be rescued by the resurrection. For him the cross is itself the great sign of God’s New Day which the resurrection confirms. He continues to talk of opposition as well as of faith, and ends by including us in the story, assured of the continuing presence of Jesus.
Guidelines
Looking at the story of Jesus in the light of “the sign of Jonah” we can list the obvious resonances. Jesus faithfully goes up to Jerusalem, whereas Jonah flees in the opposite direction. Jesus delivers a message of salvation which falls on deaf ears, in contrast to the positive way the pagan Ninevites respond to Jonah’s threat. Both had occasion to cry in despair to God, and both knew the ambivalence of success and failure. Each story leaves the reader to supply the ending.
Here are stories about obedience to God, mission, suffering, success and failure. They raise all kinds of questions. What is mission, what is evangelism, and what is the place of good news and bad news in it? Where is God to be found? Who are his faithful people? They warn us against simplistic answers. Jonah and Jesus are both enigmas.
Here is good storytelling. But what has that to do with faith? Matthew’s Gospel and the Book of Jonah are ways in which, by stories rather than in creeds, ancient writers share their faith with us and invite us to respond. Many today are choosing to talk about faith as joining in the story of Jesus, that to be a Christian is to say, “This is my story”.
The old hymn, “Tell me the stories of Jesus”, says much the same thing. All through we are invited to join in the story. So in the Palm Sunday verse we find ourselves singing,
- Into the city I’d follow
- The children’s band,
- Waving a branch of the palm-tree
- High in my hand;
- One of his heralds,
- Yes, I would sing
- Loudest hosannas!
- Jesus is king!
The Christian takes the story of Jesus (and of Jonah) and lives in it, lives out of it and lives by it, as well as living it out! Of course Christianity is more than reading stories, even Bible stories: it is entering into the story itself.
* An Easter Day Meditation
Resurrection joy and evangelism. Read Matthew 28.
7 St Mary Magdalene - Saints, Sinners and Stereotypes
(A Quiet Day for the Truro Diocese Affirming Catholicism group, held at Feock Parish Church on Thursday July 21st 2005)
Homily 1.
Finding the Mary Magdalene of history is easy enough – though saying anything much about her is not. In the synoptic Gospels she features in two places. First, with other women, in the cross/tomb/resurrection stories - though these are elaborated slightly differently in the three Gospels. She was there when they crucified her Lord (Mk 15:40/Mt 27:56). She was there when they laid him in the tomb (Mk 15:47/Mt 27:61). And she was there when God raised him from the dead (Mk 16:1-8/Mt 28:1-10/Lk 24:10) though on whether she did what she was told and told the disciples Matthew and Luke disagree with Mark. Luke mentions her, briefly, much earlier on, saying that with other women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary followed Jesus in Galilee and supported him financially (8:2). In this note he gives us two pieces of information about her: one, that this particular Mary was called ‘Magdalene’, which presumably means she was from the town of Magdala. Marys were two a penny and here was how this one was distinguished from the others. And two that her illness had been particularly severe or her exorcism particular spectacular – that ‘7 demons had gone out of her’. And whoever added the longer ending to Mark’s gospel identifies her in this same way (16:9). If we turn to the Fourth Gospel, John repeats the bit that she was there at the cross (19:25) and makes her the central character in his early morning story of the tomb, the garden and the Risen Lord (20:1-18) as we have just read. Mary Magdalene is the first to see the risen Jesus, the first to tell others what she has seen, the first disciple of the risen Lord, the first Easter Christian.
The Mary Magdalene of faith – St Mary Magdalene - was made a bit more colourful by Gregory the Great, who added that she was the notorious sinner who washed Jesus’s feet with her tears and anointed them with ointment in the home of Simon the Pharisee, and from this we get all those depictions of Mary as a sexy and fallen beauty in western art or Jesus’ lover in western film. Older legends were less erotic. She went to Ephesus with the Blessed Virgin Mary and John the Apostle, whose fiancée she had been before Jesus called him to the life of a celibate disciple; or she went, with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus (confusing the Mary’s there again of course) and evangelised Provence. All of this is now known for what it is, pious fiction on the one hand and a plain mistake by Gregory the Great on the other, and the Roman Catholic Church says so plainly: but the genie is out of the bottle, and the Mary Magdalene of faith, or at least of popular imagination, is the patron saint of repentant sinners, as the stereotypical fallen woman. And that is deep in our psyche when we read of this woman who will not let Jesus go, weeps at the foot of the cross, follows his body to the tomb, and wants to hold him tight. There is still another Mary Magdalene, leader in the early Church, theologian and preacher, the Mary Magdalene who features prominently in the second century Gospel of Mary, but of that more later.
Labelling is not quite the same as stereotyping, but they have much in common. They can both be used to depersonalise, reduce, demean. Mary Magdalene has certainly been stereotyped in later Christian tradition: and it’s clear that in early Christian tradition she was labelled too. She was given two distinguishing labels to mark her out from the other Marys. She was the one from Magdala, and for lack of knowledge we can assume that that geographical label is quite neutral. But she was also the one ‘from whom Jesus had exorcised 7 demons’. There would have been some, no doubt, even in the early Church who labelled her like that to hurt and demean her: but that’s not how I read Luke and especially the anonymous writer of the ending of Mark. Like John, he knows she was the first, and special. Unlike John he uses the label, and I wonder why? Was it that Mary Magdalene used it herself – just as John Wesley used the insulting label ‘Methodist’ with pride? Perhaps, perhaps not, who knows? But did that anonymous writer of Mk 16:9 use it, I wonder, to challenge some of the stereotypes of his day? That this first and great Easter disciple was someone, a woman even, from whom 7 demons had been exorcised? John, of course, uses no such label, but for him Mary Magdalene was the first of the three disciples who Jesus singled out for special treatment in his resurrection appearances: Mary Magdalene, Thomas and Peter. For him each was flawed, Mary by her grief and by her gender, Thomas by his doubt and Peter by his denial: but each, equally, is addressed in their need and each, equally, responds.
For the Mary Magdalene of history and her faith, financial backer and resurrection witness, whose exorcism had been dramatic, thanks be to God this day; and let’s find space even for the mistake, the Mary Magdalene of faith, transformed from sinner to saint and evangelist. For these ancient and holy stories, thanks be to God.
Homily 2.
‘St Mary Magdalene’ – patron saint of repentant sinners – in this second homily I want to pick up on those two words – ‘saint’ and ‘sinner’.
It is very interesting to see how the stereotyping of these two Biblical words has gone:
Saints:
OT = ‘all Israelites’ → NT = ‘all Christians’ → today = ‘stained-glass window characters’, ie exceptional Christians
Sinners:
OT = ‘wicked few’ → NT = ‘all before conversion?’ (because of Rom 3.23) → today = everyone, including all Christians (because of I John 1:8).
I want to make a little bid here today to reverse the trend:
- 1. re ‘saints’, I want to maintain the contemporary usage of the term for special Christians, but to urge all of us to strive for that kind of saintliness
- 2. re ‘sinners’ to play down the term and to urge Christians to stop beating themselves up so much for mistakes, foibles and inevitabilities
And to say that the place we need to work on this is in worship.
Homily 3.
In this third homily I want to return more specifically to St Mary Magdalene and to look a little bit at how we have stereotyped her
The Garden Scene in John 20 is actually a quite remarkable piece of writing – just as is the garden scene in the Synoptics – remarkable because the key first resurrection witness, the one who tells the others – is a woman (who in OT terms cannot ‘witness’ about very much) though in John’s case a woman without a history
But notice how this changes things in the total Gospel picture of Mary Magdalene. All we have heard of her so far is that she is a typical woman fulfilling typical, stereotyped women’s roles: a victim being healed of an illness and a provider of meals and support for the men. Now she becomes something else, at least in Matthew, Luke and John.
But what happened to Mary Magdalene next? As far as NT is concerned – nothing. No mention in Acts or in the personal parts in any letters, nor is there any of any of the other Galilean women either, of course. It’s as if ‘the usual rules’ apply and Mary Magdalene and the other important women disappear. She can become, and does become, a ‘stained-glass window’ saint, because that is a category open to women, but as to power, authority and position in the church – nothing of that. There are a few glimpses of women in authority in the personal endings of Paul’s letters, but that too proves to be a dead end
There is, however, the ‘Gospel of Mary’ – a 2nd century document, non-canonical of course, a significant part of which was discovered in Cairo in 1896. It contains a spiritualising and Gnostic interpretation of Jesus’s teaching, plus a portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a leader among the disciples. After the resurrection it is Mary Magdalene who rallies the disciples, and is asked by Peter to teach them because of her special status as the woman favoured by Jesus. Andrew and Peter don’t like what she teaches, but she is then vigorously defended by Levi. This odd text finds echoes in some other 2nd and 3rd century writings which glimpse her importance as Teacher and Leader. All of that, however, disappears and it is Mary Magdalene the repentant sinner which becomes the predominant image we have of her
So there’s plenty of stereotyping there – just as there is in the current retrieval of Mary Magdalene as Leader/Teacher. This is not the place for theological controversy: but maybe reflection on the role and place of Mary Magdalene and the stereotyping which has accompanied it, is quite timely
8 John15.5 - Jesus said, 'I am the vine'
(This is the text of my half-hour talk at the Plympton Churches Lent Group held at Colebrook Methodist Church on 6.4.11. I didn’t use it in full, and some parts (especially the references in brackets) were never intended to be read at all)
John 15.5 -
Jesus said, ‘I am the vine’
1 Thanks
for your welcome. Tonight we
are looking at no.7 of the famous ‘I am Sayings’ in the Fourth Gospel,
‘I am the vine’
I’m not sure that I am the most appropriate speaker
for this session being both one of that increasingly rare species - a
Methodist teetotaller - and someone who has a lifetime aversion to gardens
and anything that grows in them
Anyway – let’s read the whole section: John
15.1-11
2 Let me
start with five minutes on how I am approaching this saying
There’s no doubt that the big seven ‘I am’
sayings of Jesus in John are among the most-loved verses of Scripture for
many Christians, giving inspiration for faith and providing help in times
of trouble. It’s therefore
not surprising that questions like – ‘Did Jesus really say that?’ -
are rarely heard about these sayings from the pulpit or even in the
discussion group. For some
Christians they are never asked simply because they see no issue here –
if John says that Jesus said this, then he did: end of argument.
I am one of those who think that there is a question here, and my
approach to these sayings is to see them not as the words of Jesus
but as testimony to Jesus by John.
At the end of a long life of discipleship, this old author is
writing down what Jesus means to him; that he has found Jesus to be ‘the
Light of the World’, ‘the True Vine’ and the ‘Bread of Life’ and
so on. Putting it like that
is, I believe, what Clement of Alexandria was driving at when he coined
the famous description of John’s Gospel as ‘the spiritual gospel’
around 200 AD - ‘Last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts
had been made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, and
inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel’ [*1]
I think this is important for understanding John.
From early on the first Christians recognised that John’s Gospel
was different [*2], and Clement, one of the great Bible scholars among the
Church Fathers explained this difference by saying that John was a
‘spiritual gospel’. What
he meant by this is that John’s Gospel is the one that gets below the
surface in order to explain who Jesus really was and is and what was
really happening during his ministry.
And so I’m going to work on the understanding that this great
saying – ‘I am the vine’ – is the author of the Gospel’s
testimony to Jesus, his statement of what Jesus means to him and can mean
for us
If we ask who this author was, then the consensus
view, though not unchallenged, is that the author of the Fourth Gospel is
‘John the Elder’ who ‘lived to a good old age in Ephesus’.
That means, so the consensus view holds, that this gospel is late,
being written between AD 90-110. This
consensus is being strongly challenged at the moment, but my NT friends
tend to think that the challenge is not succeeding [*3]
Finally, before we get down to the saying, I just
want to say that this approach to the Fourth Gospel is not new.
It’s found in Peake’s Commentary of 1919 and has been taught to all clergy and
ministers since then. Whether
they have believed it is another question, of course, and whether
they’ve shared it with their congregations is yet another.
It’s just mainstream NT scholarship and sometimes, sadly,
there’s a gap between scholarship and the pulpit
3 Let’s
get down now to this famous saying which our author puts on the lips of
Jesus and in so doing bears testimony to the huge significance which Jesus
has had for him in his life, faith, discipleship and spirituality.
What does he mean by saying that Jesus is ‘the vine’? [*4]
The place to start to unpack this rich metaphor is,
as with most of the NT, the OT. Jesus
was a Jew, his first disciples were Jews and the OT was his and their
theological dictionary, textbook and frame of reference, so let’s have a
look at what the OT says about vines and vineyards
The OT says that wine is good:
- so good that Isaac blesses his son Jacob with the words, ‘May God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, plenty of grain and wine’ (Gen 27.28);
- so good that the picture of the Great Banquet to be held when Messiah comes is ‘a feast of well-aged wines’ (Isa 25.6) and in those great and happy days ‘the mountains shall drip sweet wine and all the hills shall flow with it’ (Amos 9.13, cf Joel 3.18);
- so good that in the banquet half of the famous 23rd Psalm, the psalmist sings that God is such a generous host that his ‘cup runneth over’
Wine can, of course, be abused and there are Bible
warnings against alcohol abuse (Prov 20.1, Ho 4.11-12, Eph 5.18) and
pouring wine can be used as a metaphor for God’s anger being poured out
(Isa 63.6, Jere 25.15): but in the Bible wine is a great gift of God to be
enjoyed [*5]
Things are not so rosy when we turn to vines and
vineyards in the OT. Israel
was a land of vineyards, and we’ve just seen how much they appreciated
wine: but in the OT when vine and vineyard are used as metaphors things
take a downward turn. The
place to look is Isaiah’s ‘Parable of the Vineyard’ – so let’s
read that now - but the idea is found frequently [*6]
Israel is God’s vineyard, prepared, planted and
tended: but it’s all gone bad
And finally, the vine becomes a national symbol,
minted on coins in the Maccabean period, for example; and we know that at
the time of Jesus there was a great golden vine on the front of the Temple
with clusters of grapes as tall as a person (Middoth 3.8; Josephus Jewish Wars 5.4)
So there’s rich symbolism here
4 And
then, very briefly, there’s the horticultural background we need on
vines. The books tell me that
vines need careful preparation of the ground and a lot of attention, that
they are prolific and produce two sorts of branches, fruit-bearing ones
and non-fruitbearing ones, so pruning must be vigorous, and that the wood
of a vine is soft and useless [*7]
5 So now to John 15 with that background in our minds, and I have 5 reflections on this ‘I am the vine’ saying.
Reflection 1: Jesus is the Vine (v5)
The two plain meanings of this saying could not be
simpler or bolder. If we ask
why John wrote his Gospel we have his editorial note at Jn 20.30-31,
‘Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name’
‘Jesus is the vine’ means, first, that he is the Messiah – the Expected One. Forget all the other claimants, says John, the Messiah is Jesus. And so ‘Jesus is the vine’ means, second, that he is the true source of real life and rich blessing. Jesus came, John testifies, that we might have ‘life’ (a great key word in John). He says the same thing in the famous verse at 10.10 in the ‘I am the Good Shepherd’ section, ‘I have come in order that you might have life – life in all its fullness’ (GNB)
This final great ‘I am saying’ is saying exactly
what the first of John’s ‘signs’ said, the one about turning the
water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2.1-11).
It should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Gospel
stories about Jesus to find John telling us a story about Jesus at a
wedding. That’s the sort of
partying he enjoyed, and he enjoyed it so much that he got himself a
reputation with the teetotallers and weightwatchers as a ‘glutton and a
drinker’ (Mt 11.19). Like
all the stories in John’s Gospel though, that water-into-wine story
isn’t newspaper reporting about what Jesus did, but committed preaching
about what Jesus does, and it’s full of symbolism.
Some of it is lost on us – why 6 purification jars, for example,
and not 5 or 7 or whatever? – but the big theme is clear.
The synagogue was God’s vineyard but, the sign shows, what Jesus
brings from God is just so very much better, as the best wine is so much
better than water. So come on,
dear readers, the story preaches, you see who Jesus is, so go for the
wine!
‘I am the vine’ is therefore John’s testimony that Jesus is the
Messiah, and the source of authentic life, the fullest, richest and finest
life there is – that is the faith and life experience to which John is
testifying in this ‘I am the vine’ saying.
I must confess that I am no fan of Graham Kendrick and that modern
‘worship songs’ are not my scene at all, but if you want a good
commentary on what John means by ‘I am the vine’ then the last chorus
of Graham Kendrick’s ‘Knowing You’ supplies it,
Knowing You, Jesus, knowing
You.
There is no greater thing.
You're my all, You're the best, You're my joy, my righteousness; (x3)
and I love You, Lord.
6 Reflection
2: God is the vinegrower who grows vines to produce fruit (vv1-2)
This passage builds on that OT imagery about God
planting a vineyard and growing vines for a purpose.
You grow vines to produce grapes.
But did you notice how much space is occupied in these 11 verses by
talk about unproductive vines? There’s
a sense of warning here, just as there is so often in vineyard imagery in
the OT, about the quality of the grapes that are produced.
We often find that in Jesus’ teaching.
In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, he talks about trees and
their fruits, that we can tell a tree by its fruit, good fruit good tree,
poor fruit poor tree - ‘by their fruits you will know them’ (Mt
7.17-20). And Paul picks up
that metaphor for discipleship in Galatians when he writes about ‘the
fruit of the Spirit’ and contrasts that fruit with ‘the works of the
flesh’ (Gal 5.19-25)
Perhaps John has, in his long Church experience, seen too many of those Christians who are always at worship and immersed in the details of liturgy; or always at prayer and going on retreats and reading everything they can about spirituality and spending hours on their inner life; or always campaigning and getting involved in one good cause after another to make the world a better place; or always at committees devoting time and energy to keeping the show on the road and all the necessary processes functioning; or always at study groups and reading books and blogging theology with ideas buzzing and minds on overdrive – just write your own obsession in at this point - but who have somehow in all this busy-ness just missed the point that discipleship is about transformation which produces good character, good living and good works? Look at v8 – ‘My Father is glorified in this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples’, or better, ‘that you bear much fruit and so become my true disciples’. God is the vinegrower who grows vines from which he expects to get fruit
Reflection
3: We are the branches (v5 and passim)
‘I am the vine, you are the branches’ is the full
but short and snappy sentence in v5. The
word ‘branch’ (κλημα - vine-branch - after
which we get Clematis) is found 6 times (5x in the Greek) in my NRSV in
six verses here and the emphasis is unmissable - fruitless vine-branches
get lopped, fruitful vine-branches get pruned and treated, branches that
aren’t connected to the vine don’t grow any more, they wither and are
put on the bonfire
Just before ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’
is a verse which begins, ‘Abide in me as I abide in you’, and
immediately after it comes, ‘Those who abide in me and I in them bear
much fruit’ plus two more verses about ‘abiding in’ Jesus.
That verb ‘abide in’ (‘remain in’ in NIV/TNIV, GNB, NJB and
‘dwell in’ in NEB/REB) is found 11 times in these 11 verses (μενω
- 10x in the Greek), so it’s obviously central to what John is wanting
us to understand here. Christians
are branches of the vine which is Christ, and to be healthy,
grape-producing branches, they need to stay connected.
I’m sure there’s a better vinicultural word than
‘connected’, but if there is John didn’t use it either.
And neither did he use any technical word from a spirituality
dictionary or a word with any kind of mystical association: the word he
used is an ordinary Greek word for living in a place, remaining at a spot
or dwelling in a building – and the much despised old William Barclay
says that that is spot on here, because what is meant couldn’t be
simpler, it’s all about ‘keeping contact’ or, to use my phrase,
‘staying connected’
If we ask how we stay connected to Jesus, John gives