I’ve been here since Saturday and yesterday we did a lot of walking, including some good hills. So I thought today would be a great day to run! I started at a house at the bottom of the hill in the complex we’re staying at and ran to the school at the top. Three other people ran with me which was great.

So did I mention this was all uphill? Did I mention that we’re at about 7,000 feet? Did I mention it was uphill? Anyway, we got to the top and there was a football field. By this point “we” equals two of us. So Dan and I did laps. That was much, much easier. The trip down the hill, man, I could have run forever. Almost kept going and called our hosts to pick us up on the valley floor! (Not really.) 2.7 miles and an 11 minute per mile pace. But hey, I ran in Kenya!

Our hosts told us that the tribe here in Kenya that is known for running lives on the floor of the Rift Valley. They are still incredible runners but running up here in the mountains isn’t the same.

Gillian and I are packing tonight. Tomorrow we get on a plane and head to Kenya for two weeks. Before we’ve even left it has been an amazing trip. One that two and a half months ago I said was impossible. Jesus disagreed and guess who won?

So we’re going to work with a friend. He was here in the States working on his PhD when we met. He and his family attend Lakeland and we were in a small group together. I’ll be teaching in his church on leadership. Me and another man on our team will be preaching Sunday morning messages and teaching men’s Bible studies. The team will be doing a Vacation Bible School and working with a group of orphans (from AIDS and poverty) his family takes care of. We’ll do some evangelism, open air and some door-to-door. And his church owns a house which we’ll help paint.

This trip came together very quickly. We got to a point that we didn’t have enough to purchase tickets and the prices kept going up but we found a cheaper fare. That got us to Kenya but didn’t give us money to live and eat there. But we kept pressing on and now we have enough money to cover all of the things needed, including excess baggage fees which are pretty steep these days!

This is the first time I’ve lead a team like this and it has been exciting, energizing, terrifying and fun. I have a very good team, one couple were missionary kids and have been to Africa before so they have some cross cultural experience. I am excited and ready to go!

It didn’t take much reading for my theory on Ecclesiastes to be tested. In chapter 6 Qoheleth talks about toil, the working man’s world, not the domain of the rich and powerful. “All the toil of man is for his mouth, yet his appetite is not satisfied.” (Eccl 6:7) So is Qoheleth talking about all of life being futility and not primarily the rich? Perhaps not.

Now come on, would I bother writing another post if I was wrong? :) Maybe but the temptation would be to just not say another thing. So how do I worm my way out of this one? If I’m any kind of Bible student, I’d better not worm out of anything the Bible says! However, I do notice that chapter 6 begins by addressing “a man to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that he lacks nothing of all that he desires.” (v 2) So maybe just because Qoheleth talks about “toil” it doesn’t mean that he’s talking to blue collar workers after all.

The lesson of chapter 6 is that we can’t take it with us. This is a lesson we’re well aware of today, especially from the influence of naturalism on our thinking. Once you die, the thought goes, your light goes out and that’s that. If there is no afterlife there is nowhere to take your stuff to, right? Ancient cultures used to pile artifacts with their dead so that they could use them in the afterlife. PBS and National Geographic then employ the euphemism that these great kings and queens now live forever in our museums. Yea. That’s what they had in mind when they built those things. Sure.

So what’s the lesson today then? Michael Jackson isn’t going to be buried at Neverland with all his junk under a large pyramid. Is he? He isn’t, right? No? Okay, just checking. Anyway, there are modern ways to try to “take it with you.” One is the idea of dying broke. There’s a book on that subject and I’m not going to link to it. The idea is to figure out how long you’re going to live and then spend your money so that when you’re broke, you dies. I’m guessing the hard part is knowing when you’re going to die. But this is the modern idea of taking it with you. Spend it. America at her present day best, this.

The older way to take it with you was to leave your children a large inheritance. You “take it with you” by being well remembered after your death. Fat lot of good that does you, being dead and all, but there it is. This is a method Ecclesiastes comments on:

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. (Eccl 2:18-19)

So if you can’t take it with  you, you shouldn’t blow it on yourself and giving it to the kids doesn’t help, what are we supposed to do with it? The lesson is to not fixate on it. It comes, it goes, you go. So what? So don’t blow it foolishly and don’t cling to it, instead hold it loosely. The greater good, the greater joy is to delight in God. If he gives you wealth, that’s great, but ask yourself what would happen to you if you lost it all. Where would you go for consolation? The Teacher doesn’t give us answers yet, but he does paint us in to a pretty bleak corner.

I started on Amos this morning. The Minor Prophets have a bit of a bad reputation because they’re perceived to be all doom and gloom.  Except Jonah who is probably the only Minor Prophet to get his own flannelgraphs and Veggie Tales episode. And he was the biggest jerk of them all. Christians. Sheesh.

True to form, Amos starts in on judgment: “For three transgressions of _____, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment” is the repeated refrain. Amos doesn’t understand marketing, that kind of thing just doesn’t make for good “Kidz Fun Zone” (or whatever your children’s ministry is called) material. It seldom makes it into the adult Sunday school program for that matter. But it should. The Minor Prophets are speaking God’s word to his people every bit as much as the Major Prophets are and therefore we need to hear them.

To begin to make Amos accessible it helps to understand when he wrote and who he wrote to.  In chapter 2 the woes fall to Judah and Israel. That means that Amos wrote before the Assyrians took Israel into captivity in about 722 B.C. Given the two kings mentioned in the first verse, it is most likely that Amos wrote around 760 B.C. As I’ve noted, his message is largely judgment and though he rails at  a handful of nations in the first chapter and mentions Judah in the second chapter, the bulk of his message is aimed at Israel, the northern ten tribes.

And that’s what makes the first few chapters most remarkable to me. Israel is prophesied against using the same “formula” the prophet used against the other nations, even Judah. This is the general judgment when everyone stands before the LORD and gives account. God’s people and strangers all. No one escapes. But that isn’t it. The unjust are dealt with and then God turns toward his own. Judah is judged. But God’s greatest complaint is against Israel.

This kind of reminds me of how the church will be judged but won’t be condemned because of Jesus.  God looks at Judah and announces his displeasure.  The then most chilling part of the judgment. There will be those who remind Jesus that they worked miracles in his name and he will tell them “I don’t know who you are. You have nothing to do with me.”

Now that isn’t what was going on in Israel. They were pretty rotten from the moment the nation split. They were guilty of flagrant idolatry from the beginning. And Judah wasn’t a shining example of piety either. They had their ups and downs and judgment would come to them in a short order. So the picture painted (or flannelgraphed) by Amos isn’t a perfect image of the final judgment, but you should expect to find the basic shape of the judgment to be the same as the final judgment. I mean, it is the same Judge in both cases. And that’s what stood out. God judges his people just as he judges the nations. But he expects more from us.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. – 2Co 5:10

For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” – Heb 10:30

So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. – James 2:12

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. – James 3:1

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile – 1Pt 1:17

For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? – 1Pt 4:17

And the good news for us is “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1) Amen.

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity. – Eccl 1:1

I’ve started on Ecclesiastes today and it once again brought up old questions about the nature of the book. The typical approach is to say that Solomon wrote the book at the end of his life, looking back at how much he’d wasted and missed by living what is essentially a hedonistic life. There is merit to this approach but there are problems too. One of the big problems is that there is Aramaic in the book. Solomon wouldn’t have written in Aramaic, it points to a post-exilic (at least) editing.  Also, the author identifies himself only as “Qoheleth” which can be “Teacher” or “Collector” but he never specifically identifies himself as Solomon. He does say that he “have been king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Eccl 1:12) and that he had “acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before” him (Eccl 1:16) which rather sounds like Solomon. However, who ruled in Jerusalem before Solomon? Only David and is that really something to brag about? Being wiser than one other king?

So if Qoheleth isn’t Solomon, then what is all this “vanity of vanities” stuff about? It could be some other hedonist who figured it out late. I don’t think it is important to nail down which king in Israel it was. And as far as the post-exilic part, it could be that it was a work that was edited after the exile.

What still isn’t setting quite right with me is what this “vanity of vanities, all is vanity” stuff is about. Is Qoheleth saying all of life is vanity? I have this theory that I’m going to test as I read more of the book. I think the author is talking about a life of riches and affluence, lived apart from God specifically. True, any life lived without God is vanity and chasing after the wind, but I think Qoheleth is pointing out specifically that a life of luxury doesn’t make it any better.

This is not terribly different from the way I’ve understood the point of the book previously, it is just a slight change of emphasis. If the book is about the futility of a life of power and wealth without God, I don’t think it implies that the converse is true. A life of poverty without God isn’t great either. However, people often think that if they just had what “those people” had they’d be happy. So Qoheleth is saying that he’s had it all and it is just as pointless as any other way of living if you don’t have God.

Well, we’ll test my theory as I read through the book.

The elders of the Jews said of the centurion, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” – Luke 7:4

The centurion said of himself, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.” – Luke 7:6

Jesus said “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” – Luke 7:9

This could easily be handled as a text on humility. The centurion said he was unworthy, the Jews said he was worthy. Isn’t that how humility works? It isn’t what you say about yourself but what others say about you. Well sort of, but Jesus’ reply shows that it isn’t about humility in this case. In an interesting turn, this story is about authority!

The centurion was a man who understood authority. A centurion commanded a squad of 80 troops and some commanded cohorts which consisted of 480 troops. That is a lot of authority. And when Jesus comes to heal the centurion’s servant, the centurion response comes from what he knows. He understands that Jesus has authority over the sickness and death and life. The centurion understood that if Jesus issued the command for disease and death to depart that they would. This is why Jesus responds the way he did. He didn’t say “I haven’t seen this kind of humility in Israel” because though the centurion was being humble, it was his faith in Jesus’ authority that was most noteworthy.

The next string of stories continue to show the extent of Jesus’ authority. He raises a boy from death. When John’s disciples ask if he is the one, he point to the miracles he’s done. He shows his authority to forgive sins when a “sinful woman” washes, kisses and anoints his feet.

Just as it would be an oversimplification to say that the centurion story was only about authority, it would likewise be wrong to say that these other are only about authority. Each story has major and minor themes and applications in the book. I just found it interesting how the word “worthy” showed up twice and then how it really wasn’t the point!

Justin Taylor posted an excerpt from an essay on the New Covenant by D. A. Carson. I really like Carson on a lot of things and count myself blessed to have sat under his teaching at Trinity, but this is one of the areas I don’t agree with him on. I am a credobaptist (one who believes the proper subjects for baptism are those who credibly profess faith in Jesus) and so it is a bit painful to disagree with Carson on this point as I might seem to disagree with his basic premise. So I need to take care. Here goes.

In discussing what make the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant, Carson says:

[When Israel’s] leaders sinned, the entire nation was contaminated, and ultimately faced divine wrath. But the time is coming, Jeremiah says, when this proverb will be abandoned. “Instead,” God promises, “everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes his own teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30). This could be true only if the entire covenantal structure associated with Moses‘ name is replaced by another.

I agree but disagree. Is this really the difference between the covenants? That each will be held accountable for their own sins? I mean right off, there is a problem with saying that when the king sinned, the entire nation faced divine wrath. What about Elijah and Ahab? Ahab was a skunk and Elijah thought he was the only one left but God reminded Elijah that he’d kept 700 who had not bowed to Baal. Did Elijah face God’s wrath for Ahab’s sin? Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of flame, Ahab got hit by a “random” arrow (1 King 22) and Jezebel got eaten by dogs (2 Kings 9).

As to the idea of each being held accountable for their own sin being a unique New Covenant feature, consider 2 Chronicles 25:1-4. King Amaziah ascends to the throne because his father Joash had been assassinated. How does he handle it?

And as soon as the royal power was firmly his, he killed his servants who had struck down the king his father. But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not die because of their children, nor children die because of their fathers, but each one shall die for his own sin.” (2 Chr. 25:3-4)

Amaziah didn’t do what newly enthroned kings usually do: kill all potential opposition. Instead he handed out justice by executing those who had killed his father but he also obeyed God by not killing their families. This is an Old Covenant king obeying Old Covenant law and not exacting justice on children for their father’s sin. In this sense, Carson is wrong, a new covenantal structure was not required. At least not in the manner he’s speaking of.

To be fair,  there is sense in which this kind of thing did happen. Reading through Kings and Chronicles makes that case. There was a good king and the people did what was pleasing to the Lord. There was a bad king and the people did what was not pleasing to the Lord. Or think of what happened to Achan and his family after the fall of Jericho in Joshua 7. ¹Something to keep in mind with Achan is that he had hidden the stolen treasure in his tent. Not a place the family wouldn’t have known about it so they shared some guilt in this too. Or the way David avenged Saul’s killing of the Gibeonites in 2 Samuel 21 as another example.

The problem is in that the Old Testament is not clear on how this worked. In Exodus 20:5 God said “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.” And then there’s Deuteronomy 24:16 which Amaziah cited. And the example of Achan. And on and on. It can be a fuzzy picture in the Old Covenant. But when we come to the New Covenant we have a much clearer picture. When Ananias and Sapphira sin against the Holy Spirit in Acts 5, each is called before Peter and made to answer for their sins.

So I don’t think the distinction is as clear cut as Carson makes it out to be. Carson wants to throw out the previous covenant and replace it with the New Covenant. That doesn’t seem to mirror the way the Bible deals with that relationship.

I don’t want to pile on Carson here because I think that overall he’s excellent but on this issue, I don’t agree with him. Since he sees a fairly sharp distinction between the New Covenant and the previous covenants, he handles Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, in an odd way. My old internet friend and now philosophy professor Greg Welty took on Carson’s exegesis of Matthew 5 pretty thoroughly here. I believe Greg sent that to Carson after he wrote it. My take on Matthew 5 (like Welty’s) is that it isn’t Jesus overturning the Old Covenant law and establishing the New Covenant law. One of the significant things that indicates that is that Jesus keeps saying “you have heard it said.” Had Jesus been talking about the Old Covenant law, he would have said “It is written” or something like it. I mean, this is exactly what he says in Luke 6:3 when he cites an Old Testament example of David doing something “illegal”. Furthermore, where does it say in the Law  ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ (Matt 5:21)? Surely the law says you shall not murder but Jesus didn’t quote the Law when he spoke of the judgment. This comes from some other source, apparently an oral source for understanding the law.

What I think Jesus is doing in Matthew 5 is not overturning Old Testament law but overturning the Pharisees’ teaching and tradition on the Law. Their teaching on it made it doable. Jesus explains to them that they’ve made it too easy. What we need is not additions to the Law to save us by keeping us from violating it, we need a Savior to perfectly fulfill the Law on our behalf. The way Matthew 5 applies to us is to give us a clear understanding of the true nature of the true law, not a distorted version that we can perfectly obey, and its intent is to lead us to call out to Jesus to save us. He is the covenant keeper while we are covenant breakers.

I know Carson wouldn’t disagree that Jesus is our covenant keeper and so the disagreement is not that severe. Carson is still one of the good guys!

“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry…how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the presence which is not lawful for any but the priest to eat?” – Luke 6:3-4

This always gives me pause. What exactly is Jesus up to here? Is he condoning what David did in 1 Samuel 21 or is he kind of pushing it in the Pharisees’ faces? I’ve gone back and forth on this. This morning I’m “forth”. This confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees comes in the middle of a string of controversies about obedience to commandments. At the end of chapter 5, the issue is fasting, then comes our current story about “harvesting” on the Sabbath, then the appropriateness of Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath. Given this kind of context, I don’t think the issue is so much David’s breaking the law as it is the appropriate place of obedience to the law. That’s kind of vague. Hopefully I can clarify some.

David was not a sinless man. God remembers and scripture reminds us about his sin with Bathsheba and at the end of 2 Samuel we hear of his sinful presumption in numbering Israel. However, the story in 1 Samuel 21 that Jesus cites is not mentioned again except here and Jesus doesn’t seem to condemn David as much as confront the Pharisees. So I’m back to thinking that Jesus isn’t holding up David’s “sin” in a manner aimed at embarrassing the Pharisees. Besides, the Pharisees’ hope was more in Moses than in David. (John 5:45)

Let’s return to the context of this story. Luke, of all the Gospel writers, seems to me to be thing one who tried to bring together all of the events of Jesus’ life in an orderly fashion, paying attention to this timing of the events. (Luke 1:1-4) However, biography as we’re used to it is a fairly recent literary invention. Luke was an excellent historian but he wasn’t writing a research paper or a detailed biography. He was writing an accurate account of Jesus’ ministry for the purpose of discipling Theophilus which is a purpose more than mere historical accuracy. With that in mind, I think that Luke picked these stories to place together on purpose. The theme running between the issues of fasting and picking grain and healing on the Sabbath have to do with ceremonial observance. The issues faced in these stories are a bit complex but important. Why did the Pharisees expect Jesus’ disciples to fast? That isn’t addressed so Jesus addresses it for them. Would it be better for Jesus’ disciples to observe the Sabbath (as the Pharisees define it) and grow weak and hungry as they followed their Master or to snatch a few handfuls of grain to eat? Could that really be considered working on the Sabbath?

The last one of the series gets me the most. Jesus healed a man and the Pharisees figure they have to “do something” about him! This kind of healing was clearly a work of God; it wasn’t something a man could fake or the result of a psychological condition. The power of God was at work in making a shriveled hand whole. This isn’t Bruce Almighty! God didn’t abdicate his power to a man and then allow the man to use it any way he wanted. This is God at work through the man Jesus Christ and the Pharisees decide that something must be done about it?! What they’re really saying is that God Himself has violated the Sabbath and that they’re in the position to correct him. Amazing hubris.

So draw all of these together for a moment. Is the law, primarily the Sabbath, meant to be observed above need or mercy? Obviously not. Eating some grain from the field you’re walking through isn’t the same as harvesting. It is meeting you basic human need of the moment. It isn’t building wealth or storing up for the future. Is there any way that healing a person on the Sabbath can be considered as a sinful Sabbath violation? Isn’t mercy actually in keeping with the Sabbath principle? So now to the verses at hand. Would God be pleased for Ahimeleck to see David starving as he fled for his life from Saul and deny him the only bread available? Really, that would have cost David his life. He couldn’t have continued to flee Saul without something to sustain him.

The Law is good but a strict, wooden application of the Law is not. Had Jesus’ disciples been walking through the field with sickle and scythe in hand I’m sure he himself would have corrected them. There is wisdom needed here. It isn’t like we always take an easy breezy approach to God’s commands any more than we should take a rigid, inflexible stance either. The disciples (and me with them) thought they had gotten Jesus’ emphasis on acts of mercy and kindness when a woman poured out over $1,000 worth of expensive, scented oil on his feet. Surely a better use of this would have been to sell it and provide for the poor, right? Isn’t that what Jesus had been preaching and teaching? ¹So Judas was the exception here. He just wanted to cash in the group purse so he could snag some for himself. Not really. Not exactly. The more important, needful thing was that Jesus be prepared for burial since his death would come so quickly that there wouldn’t be time.
In the end, Jesus’ explanation of which is the greatest commandment is still the guiding rule. Love God. That means to obey him and to love the things he loves. Love fellow human being. That means to provide and care for them. It does not give us permission to bludgeon them with the first. And together the first and the second remind us that it isn’t loving to tolerate and condone sin.