Gospel Translations - User contributions [en]

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 31

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:57:54 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 31" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 31 ====

2 Chronicles 36; Revelation 22; ''Malachi 4; John 21''

OF ALL THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES of Jesus, doubtless the one that probed Peter most deeply is the one reported in '''John 21'''.

It starts off with seven disciples going fishing, catching nothing overnight, and then pulling in a vast catch at Jesus’ command. It continues with a breakfast over coals on the beach (21:1-14). There follows the memorable exchange that reinstates Peter after his ignominious disowning of his master.

(1) In the interchange between Jesus and Peter (21:15-17), the interplay of two different Greek words for “love” has convinced many commentators that there is something profoundly weighty about the distinction (though the distinction itself is variously explained). For various reasons, I remain unpersuaded. John loves to use synonyms, with very little distinction in meaning. The terms vary for feed/take care/feed, and for lambs/sheep/sheep, just as they varied for “love.” In 3:35, the Father “loves” the Son, and one of the two verbs is used; in 5:20, the Father “loves” the Son, and the other of the two verbs is used—and there is no distinction in meaning whatsoever. Both verbs can have good or bad connotations; everything is determined by context. If we are to probe the significance of this exchange between Jesus and Peter, we shall have to depend on something other than the interchange of the two Greek verbs. So drop the “truly” in 21:15 and 16 (which is the NIV’s way of trying to maintain a distinction between the two verbs).

(2) “Simon son of John, do you love me ''more than these''?” (21:15, italics added). Does “these” refer to “these other disciples” or to “these fish”? In Matthew 26:33, Peter boasts that he will never fall away, even if all the other disciples do. That boast is not reported in John’s gospel, even though John records Peter’s awful denials. Alternatively, since the men have just been fishing, perhaps “these” refers to the fish. But if so, why pick only on Peter, and not on all seven disciples? On balance, I suspect this passage is reminding Peter of his fateful boast, and this is one of the passages that provides a kind of interlocking of accounts between John and the Synoptic Gospels. Is Peter still prepared to assert his moral superiority over the other disciples?

(3) Three times Jesus runs through the same question; three times he elicits a response; three times he commissions Peter. As the denial was threefold (18:15- 18, 25-27), so also are these steps of restoration. Peter is “hurt” by the procedure (21:17); the next verses show he still retains streaks of immaturity (see vol. 1, meditation for March 31). But while Jesus here gladly restores a broken disciple who has disowned him, he makes him face his sin, declare his love, and receive a commission.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 31

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:57:48 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 31 ==== 2 Chronicles 36; Revelation 22; ''Malachi 4; John 21'' OF ALL THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES of Jesus, doubtless the one that probed Peter most d...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 30

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:55:43 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 30" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 30 ====

2 Chronicles 35; Revelation 21; ''Malachi 3; John 20''

PEOPLE MAY BE FAITHLESS, but the Lord does not change. That changelessness threatens judgment; it is also the reason the people are not destroyed (Mal. 3:6). Hope depends on God’s gracious intervention, grounded in his changeless character ('''Mal. 3''').

(1) “‘See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,’ says the LORD Almighty” (3:1). This promise sounds as if it is responding to the cynicism that set in after the second temple was built. There was the temple, but where was the glory Ezekiel had foreseen (Ezek. 43:1-5)? Only when the Lord comes will the purpose of the rebuilding of the temple be fulfilled. And the Lord will fulfill that promise. First, he will send his “messenger,” a forerunner “to prepare the way before me.” And then suddenly “the Lord you are seeking” will come to his temple, “the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire.” Despite valiant efforts to explain the text some other way, the most obvious reading is the one picked up just a few pages later in the Bible (though actually a few centuries later). Before the Lord himself comes—the Lord they seek, the messenger of the new covenant long promised—there is another messenger who prepares the way. Jesus insists that the forerunner of whom Malachi spoke is none other than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:10).

(2) Whenever God discloses himself in a special way to his people, and not least in this climactic self-disclosure, there is wrath as well as mercy. Anticipation of the “day of his coming” (3:2) therefore calls for profound repentance (3:2-5). Such repentance covers the sweep from the ugly sins listed in 3:5 to something more easily passed over, but clearly ugly to God: robbery, robbing God of the tithes and offerings that are his due (3:6-12). Away with the cynicism that says serving God is a waste of time and money, that there is no percentage in putting God at the center, that it is “futile” to serve the Lord (3:13-15).

(3) Not a few of the Old Testament prophets faithfully discharged their ministry and saw little fruit in their own times. Others witnessed something of a revival. Haggai saw the Lord so work among the people that the temple was rebuilt. Malachi, too, saw fruit in the lives of those who heeded his message and began to live in the light of the promise yet to be fulfilled: “Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other [presumably encouraging and stimulating one another to faithfulness], and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name” (3:16).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 30

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:55:36 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 30 ==== 2 Chronicles 35; Revelation 21; ''Malachi 3; John 20'' PEOPLE MAY BE FAITHLESS, but the Lord does not change. That changelessness threatens jud...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 29

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:53:55 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 29" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 29 ====

2 Chronicles 34; Revelation 20; ''Malachi 2; John 19''

ONE OF THE SIGNS THAT A culture is coming apart is that its people do not keep their commitments. When those commitments have been made to or before the Lord, as well as to one another, the offense is infinitely compounded.

There is something attractive and stable about a society in which, if a person gives his or her word, you can count on it. Huge deals can be sealed with a handshake because each party trusts the other. Marriages endure. People make commitments and keep them. Of course, from the vantage point of our relatively faithless society, it is easy to mock the picture I am sketching by finding examples where that sort of world may leave a person trapped in a brutal marriage or a business person snookered by an unscrupulous manipulator. But if you focus on the hard cases and organize society on growing cynicism, you foster selfish individualism, faithlessness, irresponsibility, cultural instability, crookedness, and multiplied armies of lawyers. And sooner or later you will deal with an angry God. For God despises faithlessness ('''Mal. 2:1-17'''). Within the postexilic covenant community of ancient Israel, some of the worst examples of such faithlessness were bound up with the explicitly religious dimensions of the culture—but not all of them:

(1) The lips of the priest should “preserve knowledge” and “from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty” (2:7). The priest was to revere God and stand in awe of his name (2:5), convey true instruction (2:6), and maintain the way of the covenant (2:8). But because the priests have proved faithless at all this, God will cause them to be despised and humiliated before all the people (2:9). So why is it today that ministers of the Gospel are rated just above used car salesmen in terms of public confidence?

(2) As do some other prophets (e.g., Ezek. 16, 23), Malachi portrays spiritual apostasy in terms of adultery (2:10-12).

(3) Unsurprisingly, faithlessness in the spiritual arena is accompanied by faithlessness in marriages and the home (2:13-16). Oh, these folk can put on quite a spiritual display, weeping and calling down blessings from God. But God simply does not pay any attention. Why not? “It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant” (2:14).

(4) More generically, these people have wearied the Lord with their endless casuistry, their moral relativism (2:17).

“So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith” (2:16).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 29

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:53:49 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 29 ==== 2 Chronicles 34; Revelation 20; ''Malachi 2; John 19'' ONE OF THE SIGNS THAT A culture is coming apart is that its people do not keep their com...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 28

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:51:22 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 28" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 28 ====

2 Chronicles 33; Revelation 19; ''Malachi 1; John 18''

WE DO NOT KNOW MUCH about Malachi. He served in the postexilic period, later than the early years when the greatest crises took place. By his day, both the wall and the temple had been rebuilt. Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua were names in the past. The returned remnant had settled down. Nothing of great significance had occurred very recently. There was no spectacular restoration of the glory of God to the temple, envisaged by Ezekiel (43:4). The ritual was carried out, but without fervor or enthusiasm.

This is the situation Malachi addresses. It makes his words peculiarly appropriate for believers living in similar days of lethargy. There is not much going on: the political situation is stable, religious freedom is secure, the prescribed rituals are carried out—but all of it lacks not only passion but integrity, life-transformation, zeal, honor in relationships and promises, the fear of the Lord. The returned Jews are characterized by a world-weary cynicism that will not be moved.

Already '''Malachi 1''' sets the stage:

(1) The people are not convinced that God really loves them. “How have you loved us?” they protest (1:2)—especially considering the generally sorry state of weakness and relative poverty in which they find themselves. God appeals to his love in choosing them in the first place. He chose Jacob above Esau; there was nothing intrinsic to the two men to prompt the choice. The choice is traceable to nothing more and nothing less than the electing love of God. Believers must learn to rest securely in this love, or they will be bushwhacked by every dark circumstance that comes along.

(2) In their religious practices the people perform the rituals but treat God with a distinct lack of respect. That is shown in at least two ways. (a) The law specified that those who bring a sacrifice should bring an unblemished lamb, not the weak and the crippled. Yet these people bring the worst animals from their flocks—something they would not think of doing if they were presenting a gift to an earthly monarch (1:6-9). (b) Above all, by word and deed the people treat the worship of Almighty God as a burden to be endured rather than as a delight to enjoy or at least as a happy duty to discharge. “What a burden!” (1:13), they moan, sniffing “contemptuously” (1:13).

What is at issue is that God is a great king. These people act in a way that despises him. “My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun” (1:11). “For I am a great king . . . and my name is to be feared among the nations” (1:14). Do Malachi’s words shame our approach to God?

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 28

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:51:16 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 28 ==== 2 Chronicles 33; Revelation 19; ''Malachi 1; John 18'' WE DO NOT KNOW MUCH about Malachi. He served in the postexilic period, later than the ea...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 27

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:49:30 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 27" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 27 ====

2 Chronicles 32; Revelation 18; ''Zechariah 14; John 17''

FROM TIME TO TIME IN THESE two volumes I have drawn attention to the fact that the way a biblical writer uses a word may not be the same way we use it. The serious reader of the Bible will then want to take special pains to avoid reading into the Bible what it does not say.

On the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus prayed for his followers in these terms: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified” ('''John 17:17-19'''). Observe:

''First'', this side of the Reformation “sanctification” usually refers to the gradual growth in grace that flows out of conversion. In justification God declares us to be just, on account of the sacrifice that his Son has offered up on our behalf; in sanctification, God continues to work in us to make us more and more holy, “sanctified,” maturing into conformity with Jesus Christ. There is nothing wrong with talking like that: in the domain of systematic theology, the categories are reasonably clear. And after all, whether or not the word “sanctification” is used, there are plenty of passages that depict this sort of growth in grace (e.g., Phil. 3:10ff.).

''Second'', that sort of use of “sanctification” makes little sense of 17:19. When Jesus says that for the sake of his disciples “I sanctify myself,” he does not mean that for their sakes he becomes more holy than he was, a little more mature and consistent perhaps. Rather, in the light of John’s closing chapters, he means that he totally devotes himself to his Father’s will—and God’s will is that Jesus go to the cross. Jesus is entirely reserved for what the Father wants; he sanctifies himself.

''Third'', Jesus’ purpose in such obedience is that his disciples “may be truly sanctified” (17:19). Because of Jesus’ self-sanctification he goes to the cross and dies for his own; in consequence of this cross-work, his disciples are truly “sanctified,” i.e., set aside for God. This sounds like what systematicians call “positional sanctification”: the focus is not on growing conformity to God, but on the transformation of one’s position before God owing to Jesus’ decisive atonement.

''Fourth'', what Jesus asks for in his prayer is that his Father “sanctify” his disciples by the truth, i.e., by his word which is truth (17:17). He may simply be asking that they be decisively “sanctified” by the truth of the Gospel. But if an experiential, long-term dimension is also in view, this passage tells us how to become more “sanctified”—in line with Psalm 1:2; 119:109, 111.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 27

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:48:30 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 27 ==== 2 Chronicles 32; Revelation 18; ''Zechariah 14; John 17'' FROM TIME TO TIME IN THESE two volumes I have drawn attention to the fact that the ...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 26

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:45:38 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 26" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 26 ====

2 Chronicles 31; Revelation 17; ''Zechariah 13:2-9; John 16''

IN SOME WAYS '''ZECHARIAH 13:2-9''' continues with the theme of leadership. But it has two parts, each with very distinctive emphases:

(1) In 13:2-6 God condemns the false shepherds—a common theme, of course (e.g., Jer. 23:9ff.; Ezek. 13; 34:1-10). Moreover, it fits the immediately preceding verses. There, we saw, a fountain is opened up for the cleansing of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in general, and for the house of David in particular. But if citizens and royalty alike are purified, so also must the religious leaders be purified. “On that day” (13:2), God declares, he will banish not only the idols but the false prophets from the land. So transformed will be the situation that the covenantal ideal will be in force (Deut. 13:6-11): if someone says “Thus says the Lord” when the Lord has not spoken, his closest family members will be the first to silence him. Those who in the past have been false prophets will be so ashamed of themselves that when they are challenged they will insist that they are farmers (13:4- 5). If there are “prophetic scars” on their bodies (doubtless from self-inflicted wounds tied to ecstatic paganism, as in 1 Kings 18:28) they will lie through their teeth and insist that the scars were the result of some brawl or other that went on “at the house of my friends” (13:6).

The point is that in the final arrangements of things, false teaching and false prophecy will be a thing of the past. Those with ears to hear should therefore abominate all such “prophecy” already, as a mark of attentiveness to the true word of the Lord.

(2) Some have wondered if the final three verses (13:7-9) have somehow been misplaced from the end of chapter 11, where Zechariah has devoted a lot of attention to shepherds. In fact, these verses would not have made much sense there but they are admirably suitable here. Chapter 11 ends with Zechariah representing the worthless shepherd who undergoes divine disapproval. But the shepherd in 13:7-9 is one God approves. The connections with the preceding two sections are easier to demonstrate. In 12:10—13:1, Yahweh himself is wounded, pierced through; and then false prophets are denounced (13:2-9). But there is still a need for the ''right'' shepherd. The right one is God’s shepherd, “my shepherd . . . the man who is close to me” (13:7). God ''commands'' the sword to strike him (reflect on Acts 4:27-28). Elsewhere, God himself is the shepherd, and so is his servant David (Ezek. 34); so here, God himself is pierced through, and so also is his shepherd. The first result is that the sheep scatter (13:7; see Mark 14:27; Matt. 26:31); the ultimate result is the purification and faithfulness of the people of God (13:9).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 26

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:45:32 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 26 ==== 2 Chronicles 31; Revelation 17; ''Zechariah 13:2-9; John 16'' IN SOME WAYS '''ZECHARIAH 13:2-9''' continues with the theme of leadership. But i...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 25

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:42:31 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 25" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 25 ====

2 Chronicles 30; Revelation 16; ''Zechariah 12:1—13:1; John 15''

THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS OF Zechariah (chaps. 12—14) develop themes that appeared in chapters 9—11. But there is a rising intensity, signaled by the phrase “on that day,” repeated sixteen times. The climax is in the last chapter, where God’s universal kingdom is fully established.

'''Zechariah 12''' is part of this rising intensity. The first part (12:1-9) is superficially easy to understand, but at one level its interpretation is difficult; the second part (12:10—13:1) is immensely evocative, and is cited in the New Testament.

(1) The first part pictures the formerly scattered exiles, now returned to Jerusalem, facing the onslaught of hostile nations. It appears that even Judah initially abandons Jerusalem: the NEB’s translation is probably right: “Judah will be caught up in the siege of Jerusalem.” Then the Lord intervenes and makes “Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling” (12:2). God confounds the cavalry charges (12:4), and the people of Judah take courage from the steadfastness of the Jerusalemites (12:5). As a result, the fact that they are among the enemy is turned to advantage: they are like fire that ignites dry tinder (12:6). The triumph is glorious (12:7-9).

So far, so good. But of what does this speak? The question cannot be answered without recourse to other Scriptures, to an entire way of putting the Bible together. Some think that this refers to empirical Jerusalem at some point in the future, with (presumably) suitable shifts from cavalry to something more modern. Others think this is an apocalyptic vision of final assaults on the people of God, on the citizens of the new Jerusalem. Does the next section shed light on the debate?

(2) The second section is in stunning contrast to the first. The house of David and the Jerusalemites have just been powerfully encouraged. Yet now God himself pours upon them a spirit of contrition (12:10), certainly not a spirit of triumphalism. They find themselves mourning for someone put to death in the city, and being cleansed from their sin and impurity by a new fountain “opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (13:1). Who is this person, pierced through, for whom the people mourn? The most natural reading of the Hebrew is that it is Yahweh himself: “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn” (12:10). At one level the “piercing” can be understood metaphorically: Yahweh is “wounded” in exactly the same way that he is cuckolded in Hosea. But there is a more literal fulfillment, a more literal piercing (John 19:34, 37). What is the good of a merely military triumph unless the people of God mourn for what they have done to God—and discover that he has opened a fountain to cleanse them from their sin (13:1)?

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 25

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:42:26 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 25 ==== 2 Chronicles 30; Revelation 16; ''Zechariah 12:1—13:1; John 15'' THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS OF Zechariah (chaps. 12—14) develop themes that ap...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 24

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:40:31 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 24" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 24 ====

2 Chronicles 29; Revelation 15; ''Zechariah 11; John 14''

ZECHARIAH HAS ALREADY USED imagery associated with sheep and shepherd (9:16; 10:2, 3, 8-12; 11:3). Now he deploys it at length ('''Zech. 11:4-17'''). The passage is difficult. Probably it is an extended allegory, rather than something acted out, if only because of all the other people involved. Quite certainly its purpose is to overturn a major assumption about leadership. Many think that if a nation has the right ruler, all will be well. But here the right shepherd is hated and rejected.

(1) The “LORD my God,” Zechariah says, gives the people one last chance (11:4-6). God commissions him to serve as shepherd of a flock “marked for slaughter,” i.e., raised for their meat. The “sheep” are oppressed people, while their oppressors are variously their own shepherds who fatten them for the slaughter, and the traders who “slaughter them and go unpunished” (11:5). The language that describes their owners is scathing: they sell them for slaughter and say, “Praise the LORD, I am rich!” (11:5)—as if wealth were a reliable index of the Lord’s favor (cf. Mark 10:23). The “buyers” in the parable are the occupying powers. Thus the “sellers,” the leaders of the covenant people, are complicit in “selling out” their people. Zechariah’s mission as a shepherd, to save this flock, appears doomed to failure. God himself will turn the people over to their own neighbors and their own king. They are not loyal to him, and he abandons them to their fellow citizens—and God will not rescue them (11:6).

(2) In the second section (11:7-14), the good shepherd, Zechariah, is rejected. One might have thought that the flock would turn to him for rescue, since everyone else—sellers, shepherds, buyers—are intent on selling them and profiting from them. But the flock detests the good shepherd (11:8). Eventually he abandons the sheep to follow the course they are determined to take (11:9). The staff called “Favor” or “Graciousness” is broken, as is the covenant made “with all the nations” (probably referring to the Jewish colonies scattered among many nations, as in Joel 2:6). So the merchants who provided Zechariah’s salary, and who doubtless wanted him to be gone, unwittingly accomplish God’s judicial will and buy off Zechariah with a final payment of thirty pieces of silver. These Zechariah is commanded to throw to the potter (a craftsman who worked with both clay and metal), presumably so that he could make a little figurine, a little godlet (11:12-13). Those who reject the good shepherd are left with idols—and disunity (12:14).

(3) In the closing lines (11:15-17) Zechariah acts out the only alternative to a good shepherd: a worthless shepherd. How much did Jesus meditate on this chapter—the good shepherd rejected by so many of his people and dismissed for thirty pieces of silver?

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 24

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:40:24 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 24 ==== 2 Chronicles 29; Revelation 15; ''Zechariah 11; John 14'' ZECHARIAH HAS ALREADY USED imagery associated with sheep and shepherd (9:16; 10:2, 3,...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 23

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:38:19 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 23" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 23 ====

2 Chronicles 27—28; Revelation 14; ''Zechariah 10; John 13''

THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS WASHING his disciples’ feet ('''John 13:1-17''') is narrated to establish several points:

(1) Walking on dusty roads in open sandals took its toll. Many homes would assign the lowest of the servants to wash the feet of visitors. On this occasion, however, Jesus and his closest disciples are on their own, and no one thinks to take on the role of the humblest servant—no one, that is, but Jesus himself. The way John marshals the facts shows that, decades later when he is writing these lines, he is still awed by the dimensions of the deed. Jesus knows that it is time for him to go to the cross, “to leave this world and go to the Father” (13:1), but he is not self-absorbed. He knows that one of those whose feet he will wash is Judas Iscariot, who, sold out as he is to the devil, is in the process of betraying him. Jesus knows whence he has come, “that he had come from God and was returning to God” (13:3). All along he has “loved his own who were in the world,” and now he shows them “the full extent of his love” (13:1)—not only the footwashing itself, but the cross, to which the footwashing points (as we shall see). Knowing all this, loving like this, “he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist” (13:4)—it is as if every step has been indelibly burned onto John’s memory, and he can play it back, again and again, in slow motion. In the hush of the room, Jesus washes his disciples’ feet.

(2) Peter balks (13:6-11). The exchange that follows is multi-layered. On the surface of things, there is a form of humility that is actually proud. In one sense, the most humbling thing to endure in this setting is Jesus washing your feet. So there is a lesson in humility. But there is something deeper: “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand” (13:7); Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet anticipates, symbolically, the washing that is accomplished by the cross, the supreme self-humiliation that is displayed in the cross. Peter will understand such things only after the events. And then, in a moment of flip-flop enthusiasm, Peter wants a bath, and a third level is peeled back to view: a person who is already clean does not need a bath, but only to have his feet washed (13:10). And in some respects the disciples, with the exception of the son of perdition, are already clean. Here, then, is a picture of the “once-for-all” element in the cross (cf. Heb. 9:11-14, 23-26); we do not need a new sacrifice, but fresh confession (1 John 1:7, 9).

(3) And always there is the demand to be like Jesus. Reflect on 13:12-17 and its bearing on us today.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 23

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:38:13 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 23 ==== 2 Chronicles 27—28; Revelation 14; ''Zechariah 10; John 13'' THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS WASHING his disciples’ feet ('''John 13:1-17''') is narra...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 22

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:32 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 22" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 22 ====

2 Chronicles 26; Revelation 13; ''Zechariah 9; John 12''

ZECHARIAH 9—14 CONSTITUTES A second and distinctive part of the book. With their apocalyptic images and colorful metaphors, these chapters include many units hard to understand. Usually, however, the main line of thought is clear enough. '''Zechariah 9''' can be divided into three sections:

(1) The first is “an oracle” (9:1-8). The peculiar word used suggests something of compulsion: this oracle is a “burden” to the prophet, and he cannot keep it in. In the past, most of Israel’s enemies have come from the north. In this oracle, however, it is Yahweh himself who advances on the Promised Land from the north. The sequence of cities mentioned establishes the geography: he will conquer all the cities down the coast and come to his own house (9:8) and defend his own people. The ultimate hope of God’s people resides in something more dramatic than the return from exile that they have already experienced. It resides in the supreme visitation of Almighty God.

(2) The second section depicts the arrival of the king (9:9-10). These verses are steeped in allusions to earlier Old Testament passages—to the figure pictured in Genesis 49:10-11, to the kingly deeds of Micah 5:10, to the extent of his kingdom in Psalm 72:8, and so forth. The figure, in short, is messianic, yet the preceding verses depict Yahweh himself coming to rescue his people. Thus in some respects the passage is akin to Isaiah 9:1ff.: there, too, a prophet looks forward to a Davidic king, yet one who is called “the mighty God.” Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 allude to this passage in their respective accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Neither of them refers to verse 10, for both of these evangelists are aware that only a partial fulfillment has taken place in their day. Unqualified disarmament and unqualified peace among the nations (9:10) await the consummation. In this sort of partial quotation of an Old Testament text they follow the example of the Lord Jesus, who for exactly the same reason—that is, because the final judgment still lies in the future—cites certain parts of Old Testament passages and not others (cf. Matt. 11:2-19, and meditation for July 1).

(3) God still speaks, and he gives all the reasons for rejoicing (9:11-17). He himself will come and free the prisoners, for his covenantal faithfulness has been sealed in blood—not only in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 15:9-11) but in its extension in the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 24:8), and supremely in the blood of the new covenant that was shed on a hill outside Jerusalem (see Mark 14:24).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 22

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:27 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 22 ==== 2 Chronicles 26; Revelation 13; ''Zechariah 9; John 12'' ZECHARIAH 9—14 CONSTITUTES A second and distinctive part of the book. With their apo...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 21

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:35:12 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 21" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 21 ====

2 Chronicles 25; Revelation 12; ''Zechariah 8; John 11''

AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNT OF the resurrection of Lazarus, John pens a short section steeped in ironies ('''John 11:45-53'''). All of them point unerringly to the cross.

(1) The authorities are thoroughly frustrated. No one can deny that the miracle Jesus has performed actually occurred: it was too public, and Lazarus was genuinely dead—so dead that the smell of decomposition was public and obnoxious (11:39). So how can the Sanhedrin trim Jesus’ rising authority or quell the messianic fervor that is likely to erupt when the report of the miracle circulates? Eventually, they fear, “everyone will believe in him,” the rebellion will become established, “and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (11:48). There may be irony even in their mention of “our place”: the peculiar expression could refer to the temple (as the NIV footnote suggests), yet it is hard to deny that their real interest is not so much the temple as their place of privilege in society. Yet there is a deeper irony. As the story unfolds, they take action against Jesus, and he is crucified. Yet this fails to preserve their “place.” Within forty years, the Romans descend on Jerusalem and crush it. They destroy the temple. And the “place” of the authorities is wiped out.

(2) But that is still in the future. It is Caiaphas who first formalizes the concrete proposal to pervert justice, sacrificing judicial integrity on the altar of political expediency. “You know nothing at all!” he exclaims (11:49), his pique belittling his colleagues as, in effect, a bunch of nincompoops. “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (11:50). Note: it is better ''for you''—that is the real locus of interest, the political selfishness behind the political claptrap. Bump off Jesus, and the messianic fervor dies and the nation is spared: it all seems so clean, so logical—and besides, it will be good for “our place.” So Jesus dies—and the tragic irony is that the nation perishes anyway. Not even A.D. 70 was the end of it. Six decades later the Bar Kochba revolt brought in the Romans again (132—135). Jerusalem was razed to the ground. It became a capital offense for any Jew to live anywhere in the environs of Jerusalem.

(3) But there is a deeper irony yet, which John detects in Caiaphas’s words. Caiaphas speaks as high priest, and in God’s providence he speaks better than he knows. Jesus dies for the Jewish nation, and not only for them “but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one” (11:52).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 21

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:34:54 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 21 ==== 2 Chronicles 25; Revelation 12; ''Zechariah 8; John 11'' AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNT OF the resurrection of Lazarus, John pens a short section st...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 20

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:32:34 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 20" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 20 ====

2 Chronicles 24; Revelation 11; ''Zechariah 7; John 10''

THE LAST TWO CHAPTERS OF the first part of Zechariah are triggered by a question. The question is posed by a delegation from the exiles about liturgical observance. The Jews in Babylon wanted to remain in liturgical sync with the Jerusalemites. Their delegation is pretty early in the life of the returned community— late 518 B.C., just over twenty years since the initial restoration and only a year since the commitment to rebuild the temple, under the preaching of Haggai, had taken hold. The formal answer to their question is not given until 8:18-19. Yet the focus on fasting as a ritual to be observed calls forth sermonic material and various oracular sayings from the Lord that press beyond merely formal observance and call the people, yet again, to fundamental issues. '''Zechariah 7''' is the first of these two chapters, and verses 5-14 provide the first barrage of the prophetic response. We may usefully organize this material by asking three questions:

(1) ''Is our religion for us or for God''? The prophet Zechariah faithfully conveys God’s question to the delegates of the exiles: when across seventy years (i.e., from 587) they faithfully fasted on certain days, thinking those were the “proper” days, did they do so primarily as an act of devotion to God, or out of some self-centered motivation of wanting to feel good about themselves (7:5-7)? Fasting may be no more than self-pity, or faithfulness to a cultural mandate, or passive acceptance of tradition. How much of the religious practice was offered to God?

(2) ''Does our religion elevate ritual above morality''? That is the burden of Zechariah’s stinging review of earlier Jewish history (7:8-12). Implicitly, Zechariah is asking if their concern for liturgical uniformity is matched by a passionate commitment to “show mercy and compassion to one another,” and to abominate the oppression of the weak and helpless in society (7:9-10). Indeed, a genuinely moral mind extends to inner reflection: “In your hearts do not think evil of each other” (7:10). Implicitly, Zechariah asks us precisely the same questions.

(3) ''Does our religion prompt us passionately to follow God’s words, or to pursue our own religious agendas''? “When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen” (7:13), the Lord Almighty announces. Passionate intensity about the details of religion, including liturgical reformation, is worse than useless if it is not accompanied by a holy life. ''In true religion, nothing, nothing at all, is more important than whole-hearted and unqualified obedience to the words of God''.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 20

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:32:20 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 20 ==== 2 Chronicles 24; Revelation 11; ''Zechariah 7; John 10'' THE LAST TWO CHAPTERS OF the first part of Zechariah are triggered by a question. The ...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 19

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:30:25 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 19" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 19 ====

2 Chronicles 22—23; Revelation 10; ''Zechariah 6; John 9''

THE LAST OF THE EIGHT VISIONS and a related oracle now unfold ('''Zech. 6'''). This last vision (6:1-8) is in some ways parallel to the first. In the first, there were horses but no chariots; here there are both. In the first, the setting was a valley; here, two mountains. There the horses were coming in to report; here they are sent out—indeed, they are eager to be off. In both, they are part of the Lord’s worldwide patrols.

Although various explanations have been offered for the two mountains made of bronze, the most likely recalls the gigantic bronze pillars that stood on either side of the entrance to the original temple (1 Kings 7:15-22). Bronze and iron were used in defense against attack (e.g., Jer. 1:18). No one can force entrance to God’s dwelling. I cannot deal here with the intricacies of the colors and destinations. Zechariah is told by the interpreting angel that the four horses/chariots are “the four spirits [= winds] of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole world” (6:5). Like the winds, they are God’s messengers (Ps. 104:4), ranging over the whole world, for the whole world belongs to God. Chariots were the panzer divisions of ancient warfare. If they already control “the north country” (6:6, 8), where the mightiest pagan empires flourished, then they control everything. At the end of the vision, the angel is more than an interpreter for the prophet. The verb “He ''called'' [literally, ‘cried’] to me” introduces a proclamation. This angel of the Lord discloses his identity, for he speaks either for or as the Lord of the whole earth. The promised rest and salvation have been achieved.

Yet the final oracle (6:9-15) leaves the chapter with a slightly different feel. The climax of God’s redemptive purposes lies not in a temple or a ritual, but in a person. Asking for a share of the silver and gold recently arrived in a new caravan from the exiles in Babylon, Zechariah is to make a magnificent crown (its magnificence is hinted at in the Hebrew plural). This crown is for the head of the high priest Joshua the son of Jehozadak (6:11). That is so stunning that some contemporary commentators want to emend the text. Surely the ruler with the crown is the Davidic king, they argue, not the high priest. Others think this reflects a very much later time when the priests picked up more political power. But the truth is simpler: ''here God brings together into one figure both the kingly symbolism and the priestly functions''. His name is the Branch (6:12; compare the use of this title in Isa. 4:2; Jer. 23:5; 33:15). New Testament readers cannot doubt where the fulfillment is found.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 19

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:30:20 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 19 ==== 2 Chronicles 22—23; Revelation 10; ''Zechariah 6; John 9'' THE LAST OF THE EIGHT VISIONS and a related oracle now unfold ('''Zech. 6'''). Th...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 18

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:28:45 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 18" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 18 ====

2 Chronicles 21; Revelation 9; ''Zechariah 5; John 8''

BEFORE REFLECTING BRIEFLY on the two visions of '''Zechariah 5''', I must go back and add a note on Zechariah 3—4.

Chapters 3 and 4 clearly carry messianic overtones. For Zechariah 3, see the meditation for December 16: though the primary reference is to the reconstruction of 519 B.C., the stone (3:9), the Branch (3:8), and the temple all point beyond themselves. That significance is tied in Zechariah 4 to the two “sons of oil” (i.e., “the two who are anointed,” 4:14) who “serve the Lord of all the earth” (4:14). In the historical context, the two are Zerubbabel the governor, who is also the Davidic prince, and Joshua the priest. The one rebuilds the temple; the other offers the sacrifices prescribed by the covenantal sacrificial system. These two “messiahs,” these two anointed ones, exercise complementary roles. Together the two point forward to the ultimate Davidic king and the ultimate priest. The people of Qumran (a monastic community by the Dead Sea, still operating in Jesus’ day) actually expected two different messiahs, one Davidic and one priestly. They did not know how both the kingly and the priestly functions would come together in one man, the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth.

The two visions of chapter 5 leave aside the messianic overtones of the previous two chapters and focus on the continuing lawlessness and violence in the land. Yet the change of theme is not arbitrary. One of the functions of the Davidic king was to enforce justice (3:7; see 2 Sam. 15:2-3). Priests, too, were charged with administering justice (e.g., Deut. 17:9). The prophets foretold a time of perfect justice (Isa. 11:3-5; Jer. 23:5).

The first of the two visions (the flying scroll, 5:1-4) promises judgment on the lawless. The scroll represents the whole law, not least its sanctions on those who defy God. These are God’s words, and God’s words have the power to accomplish all of God’s purposes. The second vision, of the woman in a basket (5:5-11), deals with the persistence of evil in the community. Because the Hebrew word for “wickedness” is feminine, it is personified in this vision as a woman—the Old Testament equivalent of the woman Babylon, the mother of prostitutes, in Revelation 17. Just as evil is often hidden, so is she—until she is exposed. The only answer is God’s: she is taken away to “Babylonia” (5:11) where she belongs. Thus God removes sin from his people as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:11-12). He washes away the uncleanness of his people (Ezek. 36:25), and the filthy garments are replaced by clean ones (Zech. 3), or else we have no hope at all.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 18

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:28:38 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 18 ==== 2 Chronicles 21; Revelation 9; ''Zechariah 5; John 8'' BEFORE REFLECTING BRIEFLY on the two visions of '''Zechariah 5''', I must go back and a...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 17

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:26:14 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 17" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 17 ====

2 Chronicles 19—20; Revelation 8; ''Zechariah 4; John 7''

RATHER NAIVELY, SOME OF US THINK that if Jesus were alive today, our tolerant culture would not give him a really rough time, much less crucify him. We would simply marginalize him, treat him as if he were a harmless eccentric. Is that true? Not according to John. The issues are bound up with the nature of fallenness and its response to holiness.

Nowhere is this clearer than in '''John 7:7'''. Jesus’ brothers have been egging him on to return to Jerusalem. If he wishes to become a celebrity, they argue, he must show himself in the capital city on the high feast days. They are thinking like politicians: what will bring you public notice? But Jesus says that the “right time” for him has not yet come. They can follow their own timetable; he does and says only what the Father gives him to do and say (7:6; cf. 5:19ff.). Eventually he will go up to the Feast, but not yet (7:8). And when he does go, he goes quietly, without fanfare (7:10), refusing to draw attention to himself, with all the political fuss that would make. One important reason for this self-restraint is provided in 7:7: “The world cannot hate you,” Jesus tells his brothers, “but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.”

Four brief reflections. (a) The “because” clause is both disturbing and revealing. The assumption, of course, is that the world is not only evil, but desperately hates to have its evil exposed, shown up for what it is. Both by his flawless character and by his candid speech, Jesus makes “the world” horribly uncomfortable. How long would Jesus have lasted in Stalin’s Russia? In Hitler’s Germany? Or in Northern Ireland? Or the Balkans? Or in the United States? The least we would do, I imagine, is have him committed for psychiatric evaluation. (b) But I doubt that it would end there. Consider just one small arena: Some of my friends have had their lives repeatedly threatened because they publicly oppose homosexual marriages. These are not homophobes or gay bashers. Some of them have proven wonderfully fruitful and loving in their ministries to gays and straights alike. Were Jesus ministering among us today, I have no doubt that such death threats would have become assassination. (c) The implication of 7:7 is that Jesus’ brothers belong to the world. That is why they fit in so well. Are we being faithful if ''no one'' hates us? (d) This candid exposure of the world is not smug one-upmanship, disgusting self-righteousness. Jesus is righteous; he ''is'' holy. Where sin and holiness collide, there will ''always'' be an explosion. And we sinners ''must'' come to recognize our deep sinfulness, or we will never turn to the Savior for help.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 17

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:26:07 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 17 ==== 2 Chronicles 19—20; Revelation 8; ''Zechariah 4; John 7'' RATHER NAIVELY, SOME OF US THINK that if Jesus were alive today, our tolerant cult...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 16

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:23:43 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 16" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 16 ====

2 Chronicles 18; Revelation 7; ''Zechariah 3; John 6''

ZECHARIAH’S FOURTH VISION ('''ZECH. 3''') envisages the reinstatement of the high priest in the person of Joshua. At the same time, it envisages someone who transcends him, making Joshua a pointer along the stream of redemptive history, just as at the end of the prophecy of Haggai, Zerubbabel is a pointer along the stream of redemptive history (Hag. 2:23; see meditation for December 13).

The first three visions look at Jerusalem from the outside. This one and the next find the prophet within the temple courts. Here he finds Joshua the priest teetering, as it were, between the angel of the Lord and “Satan”: the word means “accuser.” Joshua is dressed “in filthy clothes” (3:3). The filth is a sign of guilt, as the second part of verse 4 makes clear. The accuser tries to destroy Joshua by the charges brought against him, and in truth Joshua is a guilty sinner (as indicated by the filthy clothes)—so how can he possibly be an effective priest? The answer is that the angel of the Lord, standing in for the Lord himself, gives him clean clothes, rich garments. The situation is akin to Isaiah’s experience in Isaiah 6. When Isaiah sees the Lord, he becomes terribly aware of his sin. But God provides the means of removing the sin—in that case, a live coal from the altar. The implication here is that Joshua must walk in God’s ways and keep his requirements (3:7).

So Joshua is recommissioned. But the vision says much more. Joshua and his associates (presumably other priests) are (literally) “men of good omen”—or, as the NIV puts it more prosaically, they are “men symbolic of things to come” (3:8). They point to “my servant, the Branch” (3:8). Nothing more is revealed about his identity here, but he crops up again in 6:12-13, where we shall reflect on him further (see meditation for December 19). The metaphor then changes to a stone with seven “eyes” or “facets” (or even “springs”); the precise meaning of the metaphor is disputed, but the result is that the Almighty declares, “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day” (3:9). As God removed the filth from his high priest, he does the same for his people, removing “the sin of this land in a single day.” The result is utter contentment (which is the substance of the visionary ideal in 3:10).

Living this side of the cross, we have no doubt who the ultimate high priest is, and how he fully bore our sin in his own body on the tree. By God’s action, the sins of his covenant people were dealt with at one decisive moment. The “men symbolic of things to come” served better than they knew: “Joshua” is the Hebrew name for the Greek form we know as ''Jesus''.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 16

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:23:37 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 16 ==== 2 Chronicles 18; Revelation 7; ''Zechariah 3; John 6'' ZECHARIAH’S FOURTH VISION ('''ZECH. 3''') envisages the reinstatement of the high pri...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 15

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:22:08 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 15" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 15 ====

2 Chronicles 17; Revelation 6; ''Zechariah 2; John 5''

THE LAST FEW VERSES OF ZECHARIAH 1 (which we did not think through in yesterday’s meditation) are fairly straightforward. “Horn” represents strength or kingdom or kingly power. The four horns that scatter Judah and Israel may not be four empires, but a way of referring to all the powers that had any hand in it (as in “from the four corners of the world” or “the four winds”). But the “craftsmen” ultimately overcome them—again, four, to correspond to the four who decimate the people of God. Historically, of course, the Persians overcame and incorporated the territory of the preceding empires into their own. The general point is clear enough and is repeated in many ways in the prophets: all nations meet divine retribution, especially those that attack God’s covenant people.

That sets the stage for '''Zechariah 2''' and the third vision. Here Jerusalem has a divine protector: it no longer needs walls. Indeed, the great number of people and livestock belonging to the city makes walls impractical. But Jerusalem is not thereby threatened. Far from it: “‘I myself will be a wall of fire around it,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will be its glory within’” (2:5). Parts of this vision anticipate the vision of the new Jerusalem (see especially Rev. 22:1ff.).

Elements of this vision resonate with other biblical themes. (a) The Lord will plunder the nations that have been faithless and cruel. That theme crops up in every major Old Testament corpus, and it surfaces in the preceding chapter. (b) The Lord’s covenant people are “the apple of his eye” (2:8). True, to be the elect of God may mean being first in line for chastening (Amos 3:2), but it also means being loved by God from before the foundation of the earth, cherished by him, preserved by him, and finally brought into eschatological glory. (c) The missionary theme surfaces again: “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people” (2:11). This should come as no surprise. The first announcement of the covenant with Abraham promises that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him (Gen. 12:3). (d) “Be still before the LORD, all mankind, because he has roused himself from his holy dwelling” (2:13). In other words, in light of the glorious revelations God has given through Zechariah, the appropriate response is quiet reverence, hushed awe. How much more should that be our response as we contemplate the fulfillment of these promises and glimpse something of the horizon of the achievement in the Gospel and its entailments!

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 15

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:22:02 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 15 ==== 2 Chronicles 17; Revelation 6; ''Zechariah 2; John 5'' THE LAST FEW VERSES OF ZECHARIAH 1 (which we did not think through in yesterday’s med...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 14

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:20:40 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 14" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 14 ====

2 Chronicles 16; Revelation 5; ''Zechariah 1; John 4''

LIKE HIS CONTEMPORARY HAGGAI, Zechariah is a postexilic prophet. If Haggai is largely responsible, under God, for encouraging the people to get going and build the second temple, Zechariah’s contribution, though in some ways more significant, is harder to pin down. Here one finds searing apocalyptic, enigmatic visions, decidedly difficult passages, soaring perspective. However difficult they may be, chapters 9—14 constitute the Old Testament section most quoted in the passion narratives of the canonical Gospels, and the second most important source (after Ezekiel) for the countless Old Testament allusions in the book of Revelation. Few Old Testament prophetic books have called forth a wider diversity of “partition theories”—theories that assign chapters 9—14, or certain parts of them, to some writer other than the historical Zechariah.

This of course is not the place to address all these debates. We shall be concerned to grapple with parts of the text as they stand. For the moment, we focus on '''Zechariah 1:1-17'''.

The opening six verses constitute an introduction to chapters 1—8. The word of the Lord comes to Zechariah in October or November 520 B.C. The burden of this introduction is to review the catastrophic judgment of 587, when Jerusalem and the temple fell, and what led up to it and what flowed from it. “Return to me . . . and I will return to you” (1:3) is the lesson to be learned. Initially the people would not listen. But eventually they were carried off into exile and began to reflect more seriously on all the messages that had been given them. In exile they came to their senses: “The LORD Almighty has done to us what our ways and practices deserve, just as he determined to do” (1:6). The implication is obvious: the covenantal blessings and judgments still stand, and the people of God must come to him in reverence and godly fear, lest they repeat the stubbornness of their ancestors and call down judgment on themselves.

There follow eight visions (1:7—6:15), sometimes collectively referred to as “the book of visions.” These eight visions have a more-or-less standard form. After an introductory expression we are told what the prophet sees. He asks the angel what these things are or mean, and the angel provides an explanation. With four of the visions there is an accompanying oracle (1:14-17; 2:6-13; 4:6-10a; 6:9-15), usually but not invariably at the end. The eight visions are thematically chiastic: the first and eighth are similar, the second and seventh, and so forth. All of them disclose something of the future of Jerusalem and Judah. What contribution is made by the first?

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 14

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:20:28 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 14 ==== 2 Chronicles 16; Revelation 5; ''Zechariah 1; John 4'' LIKE HIS CONTEMPORARY HAGGAI, Zechariah is a postexilic prophet. If Haggai is largely r...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 13

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:19:18 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 13" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 13 ====

2 Chronicles 14—15; Revelation 4; ''Haggai 2; John 3''

AS WE SAW IN YESTERDAY’S MEDITATION, Haggai 1 is set in August 520 B.C. '''Haggai 2''' is set in the same year, but is broken up into two parts. The first oracle comes to Haggai in October (2:1-9); the second, in December (2:10-23). The first is measured encouragement to the remnant that is beginning the task of rebuilding the temple; the second promises blessing (2:10-19) and an ultimate “Zerubbabel” (2:20-23).

The first section promises that the new temple, “this house,” will be filled with more glory than the first. If this “glory” is measured in terms of wealth or political influence, that simply did not happen before the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. But if instead the glory of “this house” is bound up with the coming of the Messiah who graced its structures and who was himself the ultimate “temple” toward which it pointed, the claim is not extravagant. The expression “the desired of all nations” (2:7), taken as a singular, has often been understood to refer to the Messiah. The Hebrew, however, is plural (“the desired things,” i.e., “the treasures”), suggesting a time when all nations will pay homage to the God of Israel. After all, as verse 8 reminds us, all the silver and gold are God’s anyway.

The words “give careful thought” now recur (2:15, 18), reminding the reader how Haggai has used this expression in chapter 1 to call Israel to reflect on the two decades that have elapsed since their return. God’s blessing on them has been restrained, almost miserly. “From this day on” (2:19), however, God will bless the people.

But the greatest blessing is still to come. God predicts that in the vague future, the prophetic “on that day” (2:23), he will overturn kings and kingdoms and make Zerubbabel “like my signet ring” (2:23). Why? Because “I have chosen you,” the Lord Almighty declares. This cannot be a simple reference to the historical Zerubbabel. Too many indicators point beyond him. God is referring to “that day.” Zerubbabel is not only the governor (2:21), but “my servant” (2:23)— a title used of David (Ezek. 34:23; 37:24), as well as of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah. “Servant” and “chosen” are juxtaposed in Isaiah 41:8; 42:1; 44:1. David, Judah, and Mount Zion are similarly “chosen” (Ps. 78:68-70). Recall, too (yesterday’s passage), that Zerubbabel’s grandfather was King Jehoiachin, so that Zerubbabel is in the Davidic line, the messianic line. So Zerubbabel (whose name still appears with honor in contemporary Jewish liturgies for Hanukkah) sets a pattern, part of a larger Davidic pattern, that points to the ultimate Zerubbabel, the ultimate David—King Jesus.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 13

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:19:12 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 13 ==== 2 Chronicles 14—15; Revelation 4; ''Haggai 2; John 3'' AS WE SAW IN YESTERDAY’S MEDITATION, Haggai 1 is set in August 520 B.C. '''Haggai 2...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 12

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:17:31 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 12" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 12 ====

2 Chronicles 13; Revelation 3; ''Haggai 1; John 2''

THE PROPHET HAGGAI IS ONE of several “postexilic prophets,” i.e., prophets who addressed the covenant people of God who returned to the Promised Land after the exile. '''Haggai 1''' can be dated to about August 520 B.C., almost twenty years after the first groups of Jews returned home. Although initially addressed to

Zerubbabel and Joshua (1:1), almost immediately it is clear that the message is intended for everyone (1:3-4), for “the whole remnant of the people” (1:14). Zerubbabel was a grandson of King Jehoiachin, who had been taken to exile in 597. He was thus the heir apparent to the throne of David. Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, Jehoiachin’s third son (1 Chron. 3:19); apparently the first son, Shealtiel, was childless. Perhaps Shealtiel adopted his eldest nephew, who would thereafter be called by his name (as in 1:1). In any case, Zerubbabel was “governor of Judah.” This would have allowed him very little freedom, as the relationship of his authority to that of the governor of Samaria, the provincial center, and the borders of their respective territories, were ill-defined. Joshua was son of Jehozadak the priest, who was taken captive in 587 (1 Chron. 6:15). He was responsible for the religious affairs of the community.

The burden of this first chapter, set out in the challenge of the prophet’s message (1:1-11) and the response of Zerubbabel and the people (1:12-15), is that they have delayed far too long in building the new temple. They have had enough time and energy to build their own nicely paneled homes (1:4), but not enough to get on with the temple. That is the reason, God says, why the previous twenty years have been as hard as they have been. He refuses to pour out great blessings on them when they have been so short-sighted with respect to that which should have been at the very heart of their enterprise: the joyful and committed worship of Almighty God. “Give careful thought,” the prophet repeats (1:5, 7), and they will find this assessment of their recent past entirely realistic. “You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why? . . . Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house” (1:9).

The fundamental issue is not one of buildings, but of priorities. Our generation faces this challenge no less than any other. Why bother to ask God to bless us unless our priorities are conscientiously aligned with his? That will affect our conduct and speech, our pocketbooks and our imaginations, our vocation and our retirement, where we live and what we do and how we do it.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 12

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:17:18 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 12 ==== 2 Chronicles 13; Revelation 3; ''Haggai 1; John 2'' THE PROPHET HAGGAI IS ONE of several “postexilic prophets,” i.e., prophets who address...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 11

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:15:55 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 11" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 11 ====

2 Chronicles 11—12; Revelation 2; ''Zephaniah 3; John 1''

JOHN’S PROLOGUE ('''JOHN 1:1-18''') is one of the richest quarries in the Bible for the mining of wonderful truths about Christ. Here there is space for only the most introductory reflections.

(1) In the first verse, the one who is eventually said to become flesh, the Lord Jesus himself, is called the “Word.” The label is not only intrinsically peculiar, but at first glance is especially odd because it is not taken up in the rest of the Gospel of John. But perhaps that is the first clue. If in this first verse John had used one of the titles ascribed to Christ throughout the book (son of God, Son of Man, King of Israel, Messiah, and so forth), that title would have been elevated to the place of first importance. Instead, John uses an expression that encompasses all of them. He recalls that in the Old Testament God’s “word” is regularly the means by which he discloses himself in creation, redemption, and revelation. “The word of the Lord” comes to prophets; by the word of the Lord the heavens were made; God sends forth his word and heals the people. John finds it wonderfully appropriate: in the eternal “Word” that becomes flesh, God discloses himself in creation, revelation, and redemption. Even the word ''Word'' is evocative. We might paraphrase, “In the beginning God disclosed himself, and that self-disclosure was with God, and that self-disclosure was God.”

(2) If God’s “Word” was with God even in the remotest beginning, that Word was God’s own fellow, and distinguishable from him. If God’s “Word” was God even in the remotest beginning, that Word was God’s own self, and identified with him. Here are rudimentary pieces of what comes to be called the doctrine of the Trinity. From the beginning, God has always been a complex unity.

(3) Verse 2 picks up the middle clause of verse 1, in preparation for verse 3. In other words, the fact that the Word was with God in the beginning makes it possible for him to be God’s agent in the creation of everything. Moreover, the insistence that God created absolutely everything by means of the Word’s agency drives the conclusion that neither God nor the Word is part of the creation; pantheism is ruled out, as well as any suggestion that the Word is a created being, an inferior god.

(4) In verse 14, John declares that the Word became flesh (i.e., a human being) and (literally) “tabernacled” among us. Readers of the Old Testament instantly see that this means that in some sense Jesus, for John, is a new tabernacle, a new temple (cf. John 2:13-25). Indeed, there are half a dozen allusions to Exodus 32—34 in John 1:14-18. Find them. What do they mean?

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 11

Luhmanjh — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:15:39 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 11 ==== 2 Chronicles 11—12; Revelation 2; ''Zephaniah 3; John 1'' JOHN’S PROLOGUE ('''JOHN 1:1-18''') is one of the richest quarries in the Bible ...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 10

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:20:53 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 10" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 10 ====

2 Chronicles 10; Revelation 1; ''Zephaniah 2; Luke 24''

THE RESURRECTED JESUS APPEARED to his disciples on several occasions. Here we reflect on '''Luke 24:36-49'''.

Notwithstanding what the Bible says about the transformed nature of the resurrection body (especially 1 Cor. 15), in this section Jesus goes out of his way to demonstrate that he is not a dematerialized body or a disembodied spirit. He can be touched; the scars of the nails can be seen (that is the significance of his words, “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself!” [24:39]); he speaks of himself as having “flesh and bones” (24:39); he eats some food in the presence of his disciples (24:42-43). This is entirely consistent with other voices in New Testament witness. It is unimaginably glorious: death has been beaten, and the longpromised king, once crucified, is now alive.

But Jesus insists that at one level his disciples should not have been surprised. He had been predicting for some time that he would die and rise again, but they had no categories for accepting his words at face value. Now he goes further: what has happened to him has fulfilled what was written about him “in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (24:44—i.e., in all three divisions of the Hebrew canon, which were often referred to in just this way). That Jesus has to explain this to them presupposes, of course, that as far as he is concerned they really have not properly understood the Scriptures up to this point. So now he opens their minds in order to overcome this deficiency (24:45). He does this by synopsizing what the Scriptures say—just as on the road to Emmaus he explained to the two disciples precisely the same thing. On that occasion he began with Moses and all the Prophets and explained “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (24:27).

Clearly Jesus read the Old Testament in an integrated way, with himself at the center of it. From the New Testament records written by Jesus’ immediate disciples and heirs, we can gain a pretty comprehensive glimpse of his self-understanding in this regard. He saw himself not only as the rightful messianic king in the line of David, but also as the suffering servant who would be wounded for our transgressions. He knew he was not only the atoning sacrifice but also the priest who offered the sacrifice. He was not only the obedient Son who discharged the mission his Father assigned him, but also the eternal Word made flesh who disclosed the Father perfectly to a generation of rebellious image-bearers. And so much more. And all of these things we should see, too, and bow in solemn, joyful worship.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 10

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:20:46 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 10 ==== 2 Chronicles 10; Revelation 1; ''Zephaniah 2; Luke 24'' THE RESURRECTED JESUS APPEARED to his disciples on several occasions. Here we reflect o...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 9

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:19:23 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 9" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 9 ====

2 Chronicles 9; Jude; ''Zephaniah 1; Luke 23''

I WANT TO COME AT '''ZEPHANIAH 1:12-13 '''rather obliquely.

There is more than one way to relegate God to the sidelines of history. Some do so by arguing that God acts intermittently. When good things happen, that’s God; when bad things happen, that’s the devil—and there is no sense in which God remains sovereign over the devil. Others argue that God’s providence arches over everything, but invariably in line with what takes place in the natural order. For instance, in the past most theistic evolutionists argued that God intervened at dramatic moments in the process of evolution. Nowadays, there is a rising number of theistic evolutionists who say that, at the level of the actual physical processes, their position is undifferentiable from that of the atheist who understands what took place exclusively in term of natural processes. The theistic evolutionists, of course, insist that God’s providence was operating throughout the process. But they say that if God had actually intervened we would be returning to some discredited “God-of-the-gaps” scenario. They can be quite vehemently opposed to those who cite the rising evidence for ''design'' in the created order, for that simple notion would radically transform naturalistic assumptions and change the mechanisms that naturalistic scientists are forced to espouse. But are they sure they want to go down this route? Would they apply the same reasoning to the resurrection of Jesus? Would they want to propose that all the forces that brought Jesus back from the dead with a resurrection body can be explained on purely “natural” terms? Or would they say that in this case God dramatically intervened, setting aside the structures of normal physical forces to introduce a stunning miracle? And if God did so in this case, why should it be so difficult to imagine that he did so in connection with the creation—''especially'' when the evidence for design, evidence ''from the physical order'', is multiplying? Transparently, there are many ways of relegating God to the periphery.

But perhaps the worst is simpler and far more damaging than either of the two ways I have mentioned so far. The two that I have mentioned involve a wellthought- out scheme, a worldview. But the worst is rarely systematic or intentional. It simply ignores God. It may formally espouse providence, but in practice it thinks through none of the implications of serving and obeying a God who is irrevocably in charge. It may happily confess the resurrection of Jesus, but expects no other interventions by God. It reads history, but learns nothing that is in line with holy Scripture.

Now meditate on Zephaniah 1:12-13.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 9

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:19:16 GMT

Luhmanjh:

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 9

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:19:04 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 9 ==== 2 Chronicles 9; Jude; ''Zephaniah 1; Luke 23'' I WANT TO COME AT'''ZEPHANIAH 1:12-13 '''rather obliquely. There is more than one way to releg...'

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 9 ====

2 Chronicles 9; Jude; ''Zephaniah 1; Luke 23''

I WANT TO COME AT'''ZEPHANIAH 1:12-13 '''rather obliquely.

There is more than one way to relegate God to the sidelines of history. Some do so by arguing that God acts intermittently. When good things happen, that’s God; when bad things happen, that’s the devil—and there is no sense in which God remains sovereign over the devil. Others argue that God’s providence arches over everything, but invariably in line with what takes place in the natural order. For instance, in the past most theistic evolutionists argued that God intervened at dramatic moments in the process of evolution. Nowadays, there is a rising number of theistic evolutionists who say that, at the level of the actual physical processes, their position is undifferentiable from that of the atheist who understands what took place exclusively in term of natural processes. The theistic evolutionists, of course, insist that God’s providence was operating throughout the process. But they say that if God had actually intervened we would be returning to some discredited “God-of-the-gaps” scenario. They can be quite vehemently opposed to those who cite the rising evidence for ''design'' in the created order, for that simple notion would radically transform naturalistic assumptions and change the mechanisms that naturalistic scientists are forced to espouse. But are they sure they want to go down this route? Would they apply the same reasoning to the resurrection of Jesus? Would they want to propose that all the forces that brought Jesus back from the dead with a resurrection body can be explained on purely “natural” terms? Or would they say that in this case God dramatically intervened, setting aside the structures of normal physical forces to introduce a stunning miracle? And if God did so in this case, why should it be so difficult to imagine that he did so in connection with the creation—''especially'' when the evidence for design, evidence ''from the physical order'', is multiplying? Transparently, there are many ways of relegating God to the periphery.

But perhaps the worst is simpler and far more damaging than either of the two ways I have mentioned so far. The two that I have mentioned involve a wellthought- out scheme, a worldview. But the worst is rarely systematic or intentional. It simply ignores God. It may formally espouse providence, but in practice it thinks through none of the implications of serving and obeying a God who is irrevocably in charge. It may happily confess the resurrection of Jesus, but expects no other interventions by God. It reads history, but learns nothing that is in line with holy Scripture.

Now meditate on Zephaniah 1:12-13.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 8

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:16:26 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 8" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 8 ====

2 Chronicles 8; 3 John; ''Habakkuk 3; Luke 22''

HABAKKUK’S FINAL PRAYER ('''HAB. 3''') is in large measure a response to the Lord’s perspective in chapter 2. It is a wonderful model of how to respond to God’s revelation when it says things we may not like. Dominant themes include the following:

(1) Habakkuk continues to pray for revival. Who knows whether or not this is one of the instances when God will respond to fervent intercession? In the preceding chapter God does not absolutely rule out the possibility of such a visitation. So Habakkuk prays: “ LORD, I have heard of your fame; I stand in awe of your deeds, O LORD. Renew them in our day, in our time make them known; in wrath remember mercy” (3:2).

(2) In highly poetic language, Habakkuk then recalls a number of instances in the past when God ''did'' in fact save his covenant people by thrashing their opponents. “In wrath you strode through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations,” Habakkuk recalls (3:12), clearly intimating, “So why not do it again?” After all, he adds, on those occasions, “You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one” (3:13—note how “anointed one” here apparently refers to the entire people of God, not just the Davidic king).

(3) Yet Habakkuk has heard what God has said on this occasion. As much as it makes his heart pound and his legs shake (3:16), he resolves to pursue the only wise course: “I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us” (3:16). In other words, he will wait for what God has promised— the righteous judgment of God upon the oppressors, even if the people of God have to suffer judgment first.

(4) Yet the loveliest and most insightful part of Habakkuk’s prayer is reserved for the end. His ultimate confidence does not rest on the prospect of judgment on Babylon. At one level his ultimate confidence is utterly detached from political circumstances and from the material well-being of his own people. “Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines,” he writes, “though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior” (3:17-18).

That kind of faith can live without knowing; it can triumph when there is no revival; it can rejoice in God even when the culture is in decline. “The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights” (3:19).

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 8

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:16:10 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 8 ==== 2 Chronicles 8; 3 John; ''Habakkuk 3; Luke 22'' HABAKKUK’S FINAL PRAYER ('''HAB. 3''') is in large measure a response to the Lord’s perspect...'

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 7

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:13:30 GMT

Luhmanjh: Protected "For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 7" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

{{info}}

==== DECEMBER 7 ====

2 Chronicles 7; 2 John; ''Habakkuk 2; Luke 21''

GOD’S RESPONSE ('''HAB. 2''') TO Habakkuk’s second complaint (see yesterday’s meditation) answers it in part and evades it in part. More precisely, it implicitly dismisses one part of Habakkuk’s question by putting all the weight on another part. Clearly God judges his answer to be so important that he wants it circulated (2:2), so what starts off as private communication takes the first step toward becoming incorporated into the canon.

God describes the “typical” Babylonian (2:4-5): puffed up, with corrupt desires, often intoxicated, arrogant, restless, greedy, violent, and oppressive. He is precisely the opposite of what God wants a human being, a divine image-bearer, to be: “the righteous will live by his faith” (2:4). There is a long-running dispute over whether the word for “faith” should properly be rendered “faithfulness,” not least because this line is quoted in the New Testament (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:37-38). Although there are strong voices on both sides, a good case can be made for preserving the ambiguity. Over against the person whose wretched conduct God lists in the surrounding lines, God certainly wants people to be “faithful.” On the other hand, the preceding two lines depict the wicked as “puffed up” and with desires “not upright”—just the opposite of a person with genuine “faith,” which in the Bible depends on God and therefore cannot be either puffed up (which presupposes independence from God) or corrupt.

Whatever the responsible way to take that line, the Babylonians themselves are so wicked, God says, that all of their erstwhile victims will one day rise up and taunt the oppressors with a long list of “woes” (2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19)—dramatic curses pronounced on them because of their grievous sins. These woes should be pondered by any nation that hungers to act justly. The last one is bound up with idolatry: “Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!’ Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’ Can it give guidance? It is covered with gold and silver; there is no breath in it.” By contrast: “But the LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him” (2:19-20). It is as if the wickedness of the Babylonians is traced back to their idolatry. The words are a powerful reminder that God reigns over all the nations, and he abhors the idolatry that drives people to pant after created things rather than the Creator who made them and to whom they owe everything (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.).

So God has not explained how he can use a more wicked nation to chasten a less wicked one. Rather, he has said that he knows more about Babylonian wickedness than Habakkuk does, that he keeps accounts, that justice will one day be meted out.

For the Love of God, Volume 2/December 7

Luhmanjh — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:10:30 GMT

Luhmanjh: Created page with '{{info}} ==== DECEMBER 7 ==== 2 Chronicles 7; 2 John; ''Habakkuk 2; Luke 21'' GOD’S RESPONSE ('''HAB. 2''') TO Habakkuk’s second complaint (see yesterday’s meditation) ...'