The Words of Young Elihu, Part 2

Job 35-37

            Elihu points out the inconsistency that Job wants to declare his own righteousness and at the same time to cast doubt on God’s justice. God is so far above humans, Elihu argues, that our behavior doesn’t affect Him or change Him. Job’s problem, as Elihu sees it, is an arrogance that expects the Almighty to answer a human’s petty demands.

In a different metaphor, one might say that humans are like toddlers, stomping their feet, threatening to run away or hold their breath until they die, and God is an adult, ignoring their baseless threats. Well, not ignoring exactly. The Lord listens; He knows what His people need. But He doesn’t take our ranting very seriously.

In chapter 36, Elihu argues for God’s justice. The Lord does listen to the cries of His children. If Elihu sees a sin in Job, it’s that instead of simply laying his cries before the Lord, Job has demanded an explanation. To grab my previous metaphor, the problem is not that Job is upset; it’s that he’s throwing a tantrum.

For most of chapter 37, Elihu warms to his theme that God is great; he exalts in the power of the Lord shown in the storm. In verse 14, he brings it back to Job: “The Lord is so much bigger than you,” he says. How would Job ever even formulate his question to the one who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16)?

The Words of Young Elihu, Part 1

Job 32-34

            Job’s friends have run out of things to say, so Elihu, who has been unnamed until now, steps in. He pleads his youth as the reason for his prior silence, but now he is brimming with things to be said. Indeed, his four speeches will occupy six chapters of the book! Elihu’s method is a little different than the other friends. Having listened carefully, his approach is to quote Job himself and show how his arguments don’t add up.

            In 33:8-11, Elihu objects to Job’s claims of innocence. True, Job has not claimed perfection; he has only claimed innocence from the brazen sins that 1) his friends have laid at his feet and that 2) would warrant his suffering. In 33:12 and following, Elihu objects to Job’s arguments that God is silent. By the end of the chapter, he puts them together: suffering brings us to repentance and its relief brings glory to God.

            As Elihu’s second speech opens, he addresses himself to all the so-called wise men. Everyone has come terribly close to misrepresenting the Lord: Job has all but accusing the Lord of wrongdoing, and his friends have made Him vengeful. Elihu reminds them that the Lord’s grace is seen in the way He sustains life. Next, Elihu extols the omniscience of God and applies this to Job: “Surely, the Lord knows better than you,” he suggests. “Would a little humility before Him kill you?”

Job’s Summation

Job 29-31

            This section of Job ends with the main character reciting an extensive monologue—chapters 29-31. Chapter 29 ponders Job’s former prosperity: he was blessed by the Lord and honored by men and he anticipated living out his life in that state.

            I was talking to a fellow pastor recently. He had been through a difficult run in ministry, and he talked about his arrogance. Now, I’ve known him for a while, and I told him arrogance was not a word I’d ever associated with him. His reply has stuck with me: he said it was the arrogance that said, “It could never happen to me.” I think a lot of us—like my friend, like Job—think that way. I’m still not sure I’d call it arrogance, but it’s certainly a kind of naivety. We just kind of assume that nothing bad will happen to us. So when it does—when the diagnosis comes in or the tragedy happens—we’re unprepared. Job certainly wasn’t prepared for the turn in his fortunes and he and his friends have been searching for a reason.

            In chapter 31, Job laments his losses. He has lost his honor, and men that he formerly would have counted as of little account lead in mocking him. The Lord has taken hold of Job’s collar and thrown him to the ground; He no longer listens to Job’s cries.

            Finally, Job protests his innocence in all of this. For those of us raised in the Lutheran church, with a keen sense of Romans 3:23, that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, we tend to side with Job’s friends: no one is blameless; all have sinned; and so on. True enough. But Job is not claiming perfection; he’s claiming blamelessness. He’s not saying he’s never sinned; he’s saying that he has always followed the Lord. We sin all the time, whether consciously or unconsciously, but that doesn’t mean that we have knowingly rejected the ways of the Lord.

            As we end this section of Job, let’s be reminded that both Job and his friends have in many cases spoken the truth about sin and its consequences, about faith and its expected blessings. But they’ve overstated their points and they’ve reduced their theology to caricature. Theology calls for balance, a yes-and-no approach—not so much either/or as both/and. And in the mess of life, that theological balance is even more important. So far in Job we haven’t really seen it.

Three Friends Silenced

Job 25-28

            Bildad doesn’t have much to say, just repeating that God is great and humans are not and wondering just who Job thinks he is. Job knows exactly how little he knows. He spends most of his speech marveling at the God’s power (26:5-13) and ends by reflecting that that is only a corner of His glory. Job doesn’t disagree that God’s wisdom is broader and deeper than his own; he has never disagreed about that. But he still wants to stand before his God; he wants his day in court; he wants an explanation and vindication. Interestingly, Zophar doesn’t have a third speech; his friends seem to think either that Job simply won’t listen or else they realize that their comfort is hollow.

            In chapter 27, Job makes a final discourse. He begins with an assertion of innocence (vv. 2-6). He likens his three friends to his enemies and adversaries (vv. 7-12). In verse 11, it seems like we might gain an insight into what is wrong with Job’s approach. His friends have been asserting that he must have sinned somehow, and Job has been (and continues to) declare his innocence. We Lutherans recoil at Job’s insistence that he is blameless, and rightly so (Romans 3:23). Job is guilty of “protesting too much,” for sure. But he (and his friends) are guilty of great presumption, revealed when Job says that he will teach them the ways of the Almighty (v. 11).

            Chapter 28 might be a continuation of Job’s speech; there is no indication of a change of speaker. But it may also be the author’s own commentary. This is supported by the fact that Job is listed as the speaker again at the beginning of chapter 29. Whether this is an interlude as the NIV suggests or Job’s own words, Chapter 28 has three points: first, humans dig and labor to find precious stones (vv. 1-11), but, second, wisdom can’t be found like that and it can’t be bought (vv. 12-19). No, the third point, only God knows the ways of wisdom (we’ll have more to say about wisdom when we come to Proverbs) and for humans the fear of the Lord—that is wisdom.

Round Three; Things Intensify

Job 22-24

            As third round of debates begins, we see something that we see all the time in our lives: people are just repeating the same tired arguments and becoming more and more incalcitrant in them. Eliphaz, who up to now has been the gentlest of Job’s friends, comes out firing, asserting all sorts of social sins—charging interest, ignoring the poor and hungry, failing widows. His reasoning is exactly backwards: Job must have done this because it’s the only way to explain his suffering (22:10-11). In 21:13, Eliphaz makes his most devastating case: Job sounds exactly like the unrighteous that Job describes; Job himself is asking, “What does God know?” Finally, in calling Job to repentance (21:22-30), he implies that Job loves his wealth more than he loves his God.

            On the increasing harshness of Job’s friends—and even Job, I guess—I observe something that I have often observed: humans hate the very idea of randomness. That something might just happen, without rhyme or reason bothers us. I maintain that is one of the reasons that conspiracy theories of various sorts are so common: we just can’t bear the thought that terrible things just happen. For Christians it’s doubly hard because we believe in a God who is all-powerful and good. If bad things happen, it casts doubt on either His power or His goodness. I think it’s helpful to remember the 3^rd Petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” because it reminds us that God’s will is not unopposed. The devil opposes Him; the world opposes Him; our sinful nature opposes Him. The Lord could, of course, end all opposition immediately, but for His own reasons He does not, and that’s a mystery we don’t like either. (2 Peter 3:9 says that the Lord is patient because He doesn’t want anyone to perish.)

            For his part, Job is becoming more strident in his demand to face God. In his suffering, Job complains about God’s seeming absence. He’s sure God wouldn’t press charges, that He would vindicate Job, but Job doesn’t know where to find God. Tellingly, Job ascribes his present suffering to the Lord (22:14-15). Chapter 24 begins with Job longing for judgment and a long list of the ways that the truly ungodly sin against the Lord. The truly wicked, Job says, will perish eternally. Job longs for that day, when the ungodly will be punished and the godly will be vindicated.

Round Two Ends

Job 20-21

            Zophar takes his second, and he doesn’t have much new to add. His argument is that the wicked die and disappear. Everything good the wicked have will turn bad for them. They will never know contentment. It’s the same thing we’ve heard before: the wicked don’t prosper; Job hasn’t prospered; therefore Job is wicked; he must have some secret sin.

            Job won’t have it. He tells Zophar that he’s no comfort. And, frankly, Job doesn’t think any of his friends’ answers are true. Job argues that wicked do thrive all over the world. Job would like to see the wicked punished, but the wicked always seem to get away with it. God alone, Job says, will judge. (Job’s issue, of course, is that God does it in His own time and without telling anyone what he is doing.) 

Bildad and Job, Round 2

Job 18-19

            Bildad’s second speech is more inflammatory than his first, but it’s really more of the same: the wicked get what’s coming to them. That’s a common thought and we’ll encounter it a lot in the wisdom literature, but if we’re honest we should add a word: eventually. Eventually, like maybe not until the last day. The Psalms are a counterpoint to this. Some of them reflect that the wicked will get what they deserve; others lament that the wicked always seem to get away with it. Either way, we trust the Lord to sort it out.

            For his part, Job is starting to lose perspective. In 19:7-20 he complains that the Lord has harmed him and that the Lord is not listening to him. “Though I cry out, ‘Violence!’ I get no response.” By the end of the chapter, however, he recovers: 19:25-27 expresses a beyond-this-life confidence, a confidence that though Job die yet he will see the Lord and have his day in court. There still remains in Job a longing for the Lord. Sometimes it’s that he wants to present his case and get God’s answer; sometimes, as here, it seems Job simply longs to be in the presence of God. 

Things Intensify

Job 15-17

            Eliphaz, the first speaker, had started gently enough, but hearing Job’s responses, he takes the gloves off. Again, his argument isn’t exactly wrong: he asks if Job sits in God’s council (15:8), a question the Lord Himself will later ask. He highlights that all humans are sinful (15:14). But sometime even the best theology, improperly applied does more harm that good. (I’m reminded of Martin Luther’s maxim: he who can properly apply Law and Gospel deserves a doctor’s cap. CFW Walter wrote a whole book of that topic!) Eliphaz reasons from the doctrine of original sin to a position in which the sufferer deserves his suffering (15:17-26); even his apparent success is doomed to be lost. The last is particularly pointed since the upright and blameless Job, outwardly successful, lost everything in chapters 1-2.

            As usual, Job will not take it lying down. His jab in 16:4 is telling: what kind of comfort would this be if our roles were reversed? In 16:6, Job stops addressing his friend and addresses himself to God instead: you’re killing me! Even in this lament, though, Job has this messianic hope: there is one in heaven who will witness for him, a true friend who will plead for him (16:19-21). Compare this to Romans 8, where Paul says that both the Holy Spirit and the Son, Jesus, both pray on our behalf. Job recognizes that only God can vindicate him (17:3).

Zophar and Job, Part 1

Job 11-14

            Zophar, the third friend to speak, has had it. He outright says that Job must have sinned. He says that Job has sinned so much, “God has even forgotten some of your sin!” On the one hand, this is orthodox; look at what Paul says in Romans 3, or what he says in 1 Timothy 1 when he calls himself the chief of sinners. Surely, we are born and conceived in sin. On the other hand, Jesus’ conversation in John 9 proves that suffering is not generally linked to specific sin. Sometimes, sure: eat poorly and never exercise, you’ll have health problems; talk badly about people and you’ll be lonely. But God doesn’t play those games.

            For Job’s part, he doesn’t need instruction in the greatness and power of His God. He knows (13:1). Job wants to speak with God, to understand his losses, but his friends insist on smearing him making his losses his fault. Job rebuts that his friends aren’t pure, either (13:9-10). Job provides a reason for wanting his day in court, namely, he hopes in Him (13:15). He also astutely notes that only one whose confidence is in the Lord can come before Him; if he, Job, was so fallen, he’d have no chance with the Almighty (13:16-19).

            Job recognizes the smallness of man before the Lord; he is but a leaf. Mankind is nothing, a few days, full of trouble. He dies and does not rise, at least not until the heavens are no more. Here, as in chapter 19, Job seems to anticipate the resurrection (14:12-17), even though his present condition has no hint of the future glory.

Bildad and Job, Round 1

Job 8-10

            Bildad doesn’t even bother with the compliments to start with; he gets right to it: Job is wrong to doubt the Lord’s justice. He bluntly states that Job’s children sinned against the Lord, implying that is why they died. The wisdom of the ages, he says, says that the problem is that somehow Job or his children have forgotten God. If only Job will seek the Lord, all will be well.

            Job doesn’t disagree; he knows full well that one should seek the Lord; he was introduced to us as upright and blameless and dedicated to Him. But how can one prove one’s innocence to a God so wise and powerful, a God whose passing one cannot even perceive? “Though I were innocent, I could not answer Him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy (9:15). Turns out the omnipotence of God is as much a source of intimidation as a source of comfort.

            Job goes on to ponder the ways of the Lord. As things stand, Job is having a hard time thinking of the Lord as personal and compassionate. He describes Him in His power almost a bulldozer, running over anything in its path.

            9:32-35 demand some attention. Job longs for someone to mediate between him and God. Whether Job knows it or not, he is longing for a Messiah, 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” What Job is longing for is Jesus, who makes peace between God and men (Ephesians 2), who removes God’s rod from us by taking it on himself, who removes our terror of God and allows us to speak to Him, who pleads our cause for us.

Job’s First Response

Job 6-7

            Job responds to his friend Eliphaz with three thoughts. First, his agony is immense; God Himself has wounded him. It’s hard not to look at your life, when you’ve been devoted to the Lord for all of it, and wonder, “Why me?” Second, his suffering is real, not hypothetical. Third, Eliphaz’s words are like tasteless food. Job reiterates his desire to die, lest he live in pain and curse the Lord. He likens Eliphaz to a dried up river—no help to anyone in need of water. As chapter 7 begins, Job disagrees with Eliphaz’s theory: it’s not the case, Job says, that only the wicked are punished. Hard service is the lot of every human. In the midst of this, Job prays for mercy, that the Lord would see that his life is but a breath. If this is God’s fatherly discipline, as Eliphaz suggests, Job doesn’t want anything to do with it.

Empty Consolation

Job 3-5

            I know that Job 3 was part of yesterday’s reading, but I addressed the book in general yesterday. So, let’s start with Job’s initial complaint: he wishes he had never been born. His unhappiness is profound; he sees no bright side; he doesn’t buy into the line, “Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.” If he were dead, he says, he would be equal with kings and rulers. If he were dead, he would be free and at rest.

            Before we get too hard on Job, let us remember that a lot of people feel that way—maybe not to such an extreme, but I’ve ministered to a lot of people who have wished the Lord would let them die so that they could be free of their pain and seeming uselessness. This is the danger of a faith that has too much an other-worldly focus; we can start to scorn the life we already have for a perceived life to come. A healthy view of the resurrection reminds us, though, that this life is the same as the life to come and that it diminishes the life of the age to come when we scorn the beginnings of that life in this age.

            Still, Job’s grief, his suffering, is palpable.

            Eliphaz, Job’s friend, feels the need to address Job’s musing. In some ways, that’s the big mistake of this book. At the end of chapter 2, Job’s friends sat in silence with him, and sometimes that’s the best thing you can do for someone who is suffering: be a supportive presence for them without descending into explanatory platitudes.

            Eliphaz seems to start off in a complimentary mode, acknowledging how Job has been a source of comfort for others. But then he wonders why Job can’t have the same wisdom in his own trouble. “Should not your piety be your confidence?” He implies that Job’s grief actually betrays a guilty conscience. “It’s the guilty who get punished,” he says. He rightly observes that a mortal cannot be more righteous than the Lord, and he rightly notes that Job should accept the Lord’s discipline (cf. Hebrews 12). Yet his words about having a secure tent and property accounted for and many children are needlessly cruel for a man who has just lost everything. Eliphaz may be right in theory, but in practice he offers little of value to Job.

Introducing Job

Job 1-3

            Job is a tough book. It starts with two encounters between God and Satan, and that right there is enough to give one pause. Why in the world is Satan presenting himself along with the other angels? (Short answer: I don’t think Satan was fully banished from the Lord’s presence until the ministry of Jesus; cf. Luke 10.) An interesting tidbit is that the name Satan is only used once before in the Bible, in 1 Chronicles 21, but it is used 11 times in Job. The name Satan is not a proper name at all; it should be satan, or more literally, the satan, a word which means “the accuser.” So, the challenge between the Lord and the satan is between the one who accuses humans of sin and the Lord who holds up Job as an example of righteousness. The long and the short of the first two chapters of Job is that the Lord gives the satan permission to test job in the most extreme way and Job loses his wealth, his health, and his children. In chapters 1 and 2, Job bears this with assurance: “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” “Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?” In this, he is shown to be a righteous man, clinging to his God.

            Chapter 3 begins the central (and main) portion of Job—chapter 3-37—in which Job and his friends argue about the cause of his suffering. Here’s where things can get a little dicey, especially since we will only be reading a chapter or two a day for three weeks: none of them get it exactly right. The first three friends, who are the main dialogue partners, basically argue over and over again, “You must have done something to deserve it.” For his part, Job counterattacks, “No, I didn’t.” Job overplays his position so that he almost seems to deny that he is a sinner at all. As we work through this section, it might be helpful to think of Job as the voice of the sufferer, trying to make sense of what he did to deserve this and coming up with nothing bad enough to warrant the trouble. In this reading, Job’s friends are well-meaning meaning folks who try to explain suffering with well-worn platitudes, like, “God has a plan.” Maybe true in some sense, but not much comfort to someone dealing with devastating loss.

            So a whole book on how we respond to trouble and suffering—our own and that of our loved ones. We’ll see what kind of wisdom we can glean! 

The Great Reversal

Esther 8-10

            In Esther 1 and later in the book of Daniel, we learn that a law of the Persians, once made, cannot be repealed. So, too, the edict that Haman had issued in Xerxes’ name. But Esther convinces Xerxes to issue a counter order, allowing the Jewish people to defend themselves and even to go on the offensive a little. And they do. With a vengeance.

            Some commentators see Israel’s historical conflict with the Amalekites in the background of Esther. They point out, for example, that Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (2:3), famously the name of King Saul’s father. In 3:1, Haman is noted as a descendant of a man named Agag, the same name as the king of the Amalekites that Saul had ransomed instead of killing. In 9:7, the Jews in Susa kill the 10 sons of Haman, about which my study Bible notes, “The Jews attend to the unfinished business of blotting out the name and memory of the Amalekites (Ex 17:14-16; Dt 25:17-19). Significantly, and in marked contrast to Saul, these latter day Jews refuse to seize the plunder, even though this time it is allowed to them. Thus, the story of Esther is connected to the Exodus; Israel is finally proved faithful; and the violence is explained.

            One of our Wednesday Bible study participants pointed out to me that the book of Esther is built around three sets of feasts: the wild feasts of Xerxes which set up the choice of Esther; the banquets of Esther in which she sets up her plea for her people; and the feast of Purim which is a yearly celebration of God’s (unmentioned) deliverance of the Jewish people, a day of rejoicing, and a fitting capstone to Israel’s Old Testament history. An early rabbi makes the comment in the Talmud that on Purim one should drink until he can’t tell the difference between “Haman be cursed” and “Mordecai be blessed,” a statement that has led to certain excesses in the celebration. Later rabbis explain the statement to mean that one should celebrate until one realizes that the Lord blesses in two ways: 1) by destroying one’s enemies, and 2) by establishing an order such as Mordecai’s on behalf of his people. So, one is to see the hand of God both in the negative (the destruction of enemies) and in the positive (the delivering of blessing).

Humility and Pride

Esther 5-7

            Esther’s approach to the king is the very picture of humility. Even though the king offers astonishing generosity—“Up to half the kingdom” is repeated several times!—Esther asks only for a banquet. At that banquet, she asks for another banquet. The author offers no explanation for the delay or the second request, but maybe she was just waiting for the perfect moment. She had no presumption the king would look favorably on her ultimate request to save her people, but she plays it easy to ease the way to her petition.

            No so Haman. He is all, “Look at me!” and bluster. He is enraged that Mordecai doesn’t see how special he is. He brags to wife and friends about his importance. He assumes that the king is talking about him when the king asks how he would honor a person. If he weren’t such a despicable, arrogant man, one might almost feel sorry for him, because he doesn’t know that Esther is Jewish nor does he know that she is related to Mordecai.

            And so we have an instance where the wicked get what they deserve and Haman is impaled on the pole built for Haman. Here we see Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction,” at work. The God of Israel, never named, casts down the mighty and raises up the lowly (Luke 1:52).

Death Threats and Divine Providence

Esther 3-4

            Chapter 3 sheds light on how the Jewish people became a persecuted minority: Mordecai refused to pay homage to a mere man, no matter how high up the government ladder he was. This was emblematic of life for the post-exilic community. They had learned their lesson about worshiping anything or anybody who was not the Lord God Almighty. This refusal made them stand out in all the worst ways for their neighbors. In the Greek period, “all” their overlords asked was a veneer of Greek culture, but the Jews refused. In the Roman period, the Romans would have been satisfied with a few token sacrifices so that they could be sure of the Jews loyalty to the empire, but the Jews refused. Their faithfulness to the Lord put a target on their backs. When Christians today dare to stand against the culture, to demonstrate exclusive loyalty to the Lord, they should expect the same.

            Esther is scared to put the target on her back. Remember she had entered the harem without revealing her Jewish identity. If my hypothesis yesterday was right that she was recruited to the harem, then we should look at her experience a little closer. She didn’t volunteer for the king’s little beauty contest; she was taken for it. She did her best to survive, hiding her identity and taking the advice of the chief eunuch on how to get ahead. The story is a little bit Hunger Games. So, she had endured that trauma. Then, she won the king’s favor and basically condemned herself to being a sexual object. More trauma. Now Mordecai told her that she had to do something to save her whole people at the risk of her own life. This young lady endured more than a surface reading communicates. No wonder she was reluctant!

            Yet, Mordecai suggests that, though unnamed, the Lord is present and active. He suggests that there is meaning and purpose in her suffering. He suggests that for just such a time as this she went through all of that. We’re going to have to think about suffering a lot the next couple of weeks and months: next up is Job, a book all about suffering, and after that is Psalms, in which many of the psalms talk about suffering. For today, I’d invite you to reflect on young Esther, taken from her family, humiliated, facing an existential threat not just to her family but to her whole people, and being asked to believe that in all of that darkness the Lord is using her for some purpose she can’t imagine. I don’t know how much comfort that brings in our own darkness, when suffering engulfs us, but it brings some suffering to think that the Lord will make something of the mess…

A Challenging Book

Esther 1-2

            Esther recounts events that occur between 482 and 474 BC, before Ezra returned to Jerusalem, in that gap of years between Ezra 6 and 7. It presents some historical difficulties for us. For example, according to Greek historian Herodotus, Xerxes queen was named Amestris, not Vashti. A lot of the problems are more apparent than real, and scholars can resolve most of them. In our example, names were pretty fluid in the ancient world, with people bearing several names and many of them spelled differently as they moved between languages.

            The bigger issue, as far as I’m concerned, is what position exactly Vashti and Esther hold. They are both called queens in the book of Esther, but I wonder if they are really favorite concubines from Xerxes’ harem. Esther 2:3 refers to Hegai, the king’s eunuch, and eunuchs were often associated with the harem because, well, they wouldn’t be tempted… And the harem is specifically mentioned several times. It seems to me (and others) that Esther was not being chosen as a wife. Truth be told, the only wife mentioned in Esther is Haman’s wife, Zeresh. No, it seems to me that Esther is being fitted for the harem, one concubine among many, maybe the favorite but still a concubine, an object.

            If this is correct and Esther was a concubine, the fact really highlights what humiliation Esther endured in order to eventually save her people. (Sorry, don’t mean to spoil the rest of the book for you!) And contemplating that humiliation will certainly lead us forward to Jesus and the humiliation he endured for us (cf. Philippians 2). 

Too Holy?

Nehemiah 11-13

            When is holy too holy? Between the dissolution of mixed marriage in Ezra (reiterated briefly here) to stern Sabbath enforcement to the exclusion of all of foreign descent, we see post-exilic Israel trying, striving, to live in obedience to the laws of Moses. They had seen the consequences of disobedience, and they were not going to make the same mistake again! The problem is they repeated the error of Eve. In Genesis 3, she added to the Lord’s command: she said they were not only not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but also that they were not even to touch, something the Lord had never said.

            “Neither add nor subtract,” the Lord had said (Deuteronomy 4:2). Here’s when holy becomes too holy—when we start to demand things the Lord never demanded. The Lord had indeed excluded Ammonites and Moabites from the sacred assembly (13:2; Deuteronomy 23:3-6), but they extended the prohibition to all who were of foreign descent. No buying or selling on the Sabbath was indeed the law, and Nehemiah had every right to close the markets (and the gates) against the merchants of Tyre. But threatening to have non-Israelites arrested for waiting outside the gates—doesn’t that seem a bit extreme? Before the exile, Israel’s idolatry was of the usual sort—embracing the false gods of other peoples. After the exile, they still struggled with idolatrous hearts, but the idolatry was more subtle; they were making the law of Moses into a sort of idol all its own and they were making their own faithful observation of it an idol of sorts. Israel after the exile would have done well to remember the words of Psalm 51, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O Lord, you will not despise,” or the words of Hosea 6, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

Renewal

Nehemiah 9-10

            The latter part of Nehemiah describes the returnees being taught the Law, probably initially (8:3) only the book of Deuteronomy. In some ways  the entire section—chapters 8-10—seem to be a reenactment of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, the people were instructed right before they went over into the promised land, including a recitation of their own sacred history, and they renewed the covenant before setting out. Here they are instructed (chapter 8), they recount their sacred history (chapter 9), and they renew the covenant with curses and blessings (chapter 10). In the period between the testaments, the re-telling of Israel’s sacred history became a regular feature of much of their literature, and renewal of the covenant was well-attested. One can make a strong case that that is exactly what John the Baptizer was doing when he summoned Israel into the wilderness to symbolically cross the Jordan again.

            Periodic renewal is a fine thing. There’s nothing wrong with a church that plans special events to re-focus on their dedication to God and to His mission. On the other hand, every day ought to be a day of personal renewal for the child of God. In the Small Catechism, we read about the ongoing significance of Baptism, namely, that “the old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.” Periodic renewal is fine, but it becomes less necessary if we are renewing ourselves in our Baptism every day!

Reading and Interpreting the Law

Nehemiah 7-8

            Nehemiah 7 is basically a repeat of Ezra 2, but Nehemiah 8 has some interesting bits. First, Nehemiah and Ezra appear together. To my mind this resolves a number of the chronological issues that Ezra presented.

            More importantly, Ezra reads out the Law. This fits a pattern we’ve seen repeatedly: the people of Israel regularly forgot the Law. Now, in fairness, it’s not like everyone had a Bible sitting around; we have an extraordinary advantage over them in that regard. Still, it is remarkable how often Israel was disconnected from the distinctive way of life that the Lord had commanded. It seems to me that is why they people wept that day: they realized how much of God’s law they had neglected from sheer ignorance.

            There’s an important development in this chapter, because verse 8 talks about the Levites reading the law and making it clear so that the people understood. This may be the historical beginning of two things. First, it may be the historical root of the synagogue, a nearly universal institution in the Diaspora, the scattering of the Jewish people, which took place after the exile. Any place that had 10 Jewish men was to have a synagogue, and in the synagogue there was reading of the Law and explanation of it. (Christian worship from the earliest times to today actually has a lot in common with the synagogue, especially the prevalence of Scripture reading and teaching.) Second, some scholars see this event as the genesis of what are called the Targums, a sort of free translation from Hebrew into the more commonly spoken Aramaic. My study Bible points out that Aramaic Targums exist for every book of the Old Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. It reminds us that the Bible’s original languages are not available to all believers and faithful and competent translations are necessary. And for that we can thank God for the era we live in, because we have English translations that are simply excellent. (There will always be a place for those who can read the original languages, and I am grateful to belong to a church that requires her pastors to be able to do so.)

A Crisis in a Crisis

Nehemiah 4-6

            The old phrase, “It never rains but it pours,” aptly applied to poor Nehemiah. His building project was ambitious and it was opposed by powerful interests. Sanballat was the governor of Samaria, a relatively minor post in view of the huge holdings of the Persian Empire, but still a position of local influence; Tobiah may have held a similar position in what we call today Jordan. If we speculate about their opposition to a strong Jerusalem, it may well be that they simply feared the loss of power and income that a new player would inflict on them.

            Then, in the midst of all of that, Nehemiah was confronted with widespread reports of economic disparity: the landless were starving, landowners were mortgaged to their necks, and the king’s taxes were too high. The problem had several causes, most of them relating to the influence of men like Sanballat and Tobiah. First, the nobles of Jerusalem were charging interest of their countrymen, a thing forbidden in the law of Moses (Exodus 22; Leviticus 25). Second, given the geography of Jerusalem, it is entirely likely that most of the grain they didn’t have was due to having to import it from the territories of Sanballat and Tobiah. Nehemiah’s solution to the third problem, high taxes, was to forego the rights and privileges he should have had as governor and to pay his expenses out of his own pocket.

            Already facing military and economic pressure, Sanballat increased the pressure. He tried repeatedly to lure Nehemiah into traps where he could capture or assassinate Nehemiah. He spread outright lies about him. He arranged false prophets to prophesy against Nehemiah. He had a spy network to learn about Nehemiah’s progress.

            The opposition was fierce and the challenges great, yet Nehemiah finished the wall in 52 days. The Lord blesses the faithful!

Opposition and Cooperation

Nehemiah 2-3

            Today’s reading relates two competing phenomena in Nehemiah’s project: opposition and cooperation. The opposition comes from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem—non-Israelites who hold secular power and influence in the region. Sanballat, at least, is a regional governor. Geshem may have opposed the strengthening of Jerusalem because it threatened his hold on trade in the area. This opposition will coalesce and organize in chapter 4.

            On the other hand, Nehemiah is at pains to show how the Judahites cooperated to rebuild the wall. He describes the work in a circuit around the city from gate to tower. In many cases, the work was right in their neighborhoods, near their homes. I suppose that shows that there’s often an element of self-interest in our good works. The more practical point, though, may be simply to note how much easier it is to do work close at hand. Indeed, it’s easier because of the proximity but also we bear more responsibility for the work close at hand. We have the greatest responsibilities to those who are nearest to us: family, friends, co-workers, people we see frequently. We have some responsibilities to acquaintances and people we see occasionally—at the clubhouse, at the children’s activities, etc. And we have some responsibility for those far away—foreign missions, for example. But the farther we get from our actual day to day life, the different the responsibility is. Unfortunately, too often, it takes less personal investment to support far away things. It’s easy enough to mail a check for foreign missions. It is a much different thing to share our faith with a co-worker. On the one hand, the latter is easier because we interact all the time; on the other hand, he is harder because it’s scary. It’s good to be reminded to ask, “What is the work at hand?”

Introducing Nehemiah

Nehemiah 1

            For a long time—centuries—Nehemiah didn’t have a separate existence as a book; it was counted as part of Ezra. My study Bible doesn’t even give the book its own introduction; it literally says, “See introduction to Ezra.” The first verse of the book of Nehemiah, though, is a usual introduction in Hebrew to a new work, so there’s reason to consider these two men, these two contemporaries, separately.

            So, first, Nehemiah was a man of some importance. Verse 11 tells us that he was cupbearer to the Persian king. A cupbearer ensured that the king’s food was not poisoned; he was a man entrusted with the highest level of personal security. Between Nehemiah and Esther, we learn that the Jewish people prospered in what is called the Diaspora, the scattering that occurred in the wake of the exile, holding positions at the highest level of government. (Daniel will make the same point.)

            Second, although he was thriving in Persia, Nehemiah’s heart was in Judah. He had been born in the exile: the events of the book of Nehemiah occur 141 years after the destruction of Jerusalem! It’s likely Nehemiah has never even seen Jerusalem. Yet, his prayer for Jerusalem is powerfully emotional.

            Third, it’s 141 years after the exile, but Nehemiah is still clearly aware of the idolatry that had resulted in the exile. In verse 8, he alludes to Deuteronomy 28, with its list of curses and blessings. Nehemiah sees Israel still bearing the marks of their unfaithfulness. It strikes me the scar that the exile left on Israel’s heart. Nehemiah sees Israel’s ongoing troubles and wonders if they are still under that curse.

            Fourth, Nehemiah is a man with a plan: he will leverage his position with the king into a blessing for his people Israel. Notice the last verse of his prayer, “Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of this man.” Who is ‘this man’? Probably King Artaxerxes. Now, the events in chapter one are said to occur in the month of Kislev in the 20^th year, probably November or December of 445, and Nehemiah doesn’t actually make his request until the month of Nisan, probably the next March or April. Why the delay? As we’ll learn in Esther, speaking to the king without first being spoken to was an extremely presumptuous and dangerous thing to do. Probably we are to understand this that the Lord answered Nehemiah’s prayer, but it took several months. The Lord doesn’t follow our timelines!

            So, a number of issues that make Nehemiah worth reading and struggling with.

Intermarriage

Ezra 9-10

            Early in his tenure in Jerusalem, Ezra discovered that intermarriage with the surrounding peoples was a common occurrence. Intermarriage is not a large topic in the law of Moses. (In Ezra 9:11-12, Ezra doesn’t seem to be quoting any direct passage.) The danger was learned more from the example of Solomon, who was famously lead astray by his many foreign wives, than from a law of Moses. Ezra highlights the danger by naming the peoples who had been such a temptation to Israel for so long: Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, etc. His fear is that Israel will again engage in the disastrous idolatry that led to their exile.

            Ezra’s response is rather draconian: those so married must send their foreign wives away. The book of Ezra generally sees this as a positive move, but it does note the objection of four men, who may object because they are implicated, although only Meshullam is mentioned in the list of priests who had so married. It’s possible the others were guilty and just not priests. It’s also possible that they objected on moral grounds, that sending these women away would put them at a disadvantage in the world. We don’t know.

            We do know that from a modern point of view, the measure seems harsh. The struggle seems to be how to live a distinctive life as one of God’s holy people. On the one hand, you have the path of stringent separation. “They can’t infect us if they’re not near us.” On the other hand, how will you evangelize the unbeliever if you don’t know any unbelievers? There’s no easy answer for the contemporary Christian; we must always work to maintain the balance between being in the world, but not of the world.