Medicine Hat Joe

Week 22 Job

Right away as I start reading Job I’m kind of forced to think about Non-Preference-Based Faith.
In general Preference-Based Faith is preferable.
Preference-wise I personally prefer the idea of Preference-Based Faith, a faith that the Lord will give me some pretty good and enjoyable outcomes.
With Job I see a guy with a faith that seems to say: religious faith does give me some pretty good outcomes and it also gives me some pretty bad outcomes. Both…and.
I don’t guess I’m alone in being more partial to Preference-Based Faith than I am to Non-Preference-Based Faith. Let’s say I do a poll among religious people in Alberta:
Do you prefer a religious faith that gives you pretty good outcomes; or
Do you prefer a religious faith that gives you pretty bad outcomes?
Predictable results: 1000-0.
But it’s a dumb poll, really. I don’t think Job would even answer it because his personal preferences weren’t the issue, didn’t determine his state of faith.
After a bunch of bad things happened to Job: he fell to the ground and worshiped. And he said…the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.
A bit later he asked his wife: shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?
Job was a Preference-Based and Non-Preference-Based guy.
And one was way, way simpler to be.

Note: quotes from Job 1:20-22 and 2:10 (NASB version)

Week 22 Esther

When Haman’s Extermination Law was enacted Mordecai told Esther she had to do something. Had to make a decision.
His appeal wasn’t very sensitive. He just bluntly told her she wouldn’t get out alive anyway: you and your father’s house will perish.
I’ve wonder about that forecast, wondered if it was true, wondered if Esther couldn’t have finagled her way, kept under the radar. Mordecai made it seem like she had no chance. But maybe she did. Even a slim chance would be worth a shot.
Mordecai’s second argument was a bit different: who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?
So Esther’s dilemma shifts from: can I save myself? to: is saving myself my top priority?
I thought about the story of the widow of Zarephath. Elijah asks for food. She says I only have food for one last meal and then my son and I will starve to death and Elijah says okay will you give me some of that?
Elijah and Mordecai are just about equally demanding. And the widow and Esther are just about equally heroic in deciding – in the face of their different potential deaths – to look out beyond themselves.
So the big question for these women was: is there something bigger than you?

Notes: quotes from Esther 4:14 (NASB version). Widow of Zarephath story is I Kings 17.

Week 21 Esther

If a gallery curator mounted a photo exhibition of the worst guys in the OT and arranged the display in ascending order-of-badness Haman would be right near the end. He was lunatic-bad.
I’m tempted to go to the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and find a technical term to classify Haman. I’d be able to convince myself there’s a huge gap between him and me. And there is a big gap between us at the end when Haman was hanged. But there’s also how the whole thing began.
Mordecai the Jew wouldn’t defer to Haman. So Haman got mad, enraged-mad. Of course while Haman’s rage stayed inside his own head, ricocheting around in a kind of random-animation, well, that was okay. But then his rage slipped through into the real world of action. That means, unfortunately that my Big Gap is quite a bit smaller at the front-end, the anger-end, like the point of a flopped-over V. 
Haman’s extermination plot started in anger. The bible is interested in dots that connect, and it connects the dots of anger and murder, sees an evolution taking place, a murderer’s scheme the symptom of his indigenous anger.
In Alberta we have an unwritten law that says as long as my internal anger doesn’t spill out into anti-social action then I’m okay.
But the bible is attentive to the disease, not only its symptoms.

Note: the Mordecai-Haman story begins in Esther 3.

Week 21 Esther

My guess is that if a guy is living his life in the natural world and figures the natural world is pretty much all there is – no gods, no angels, no postmortem places of the dead, no supra-normals, things like that – and if that guy wanted to read a book in the bible that wasn’t cluttered up with mysterious interventions from some non-material source, then my best recommendation would be to read the book of Esther.
As far as I know God is not once mentioned in the book, so a guy could read it as an outside-influence-free book.
The story of Esther is an account of life in the Persian court in the 5th century BC. Things happen, life goes on, decisions are made, people get divorced and remarry, they act out their romantic and sexual instincts, anarchist’s plot assassinations, state history is chronicled, personal mania blossoms into an extermination campaign, an inattentive king is influenced by his right-hand guy, predatory laws are enacted.
In Esther’s book people’s lives are lived out in a normal series of events. It’s a natural story; no rabbits, no magicians hats. As great stories go, I would rate Esther as number one for the natural guy.

Note: Esther was likely one of the last books written in the OT. I figure that by that time the narrator assumed his readers would fill-in-the-blanks, could read coincidence and see purpose. Still, it’s a great natural story for the natural guy.

Week 21 A Parable from Nehemiah 9:5-38

Once there was a Great Benefactor who decided to give a lot of benefits to a bunch of people.
The benefits were top-quality, and the benefit-ees were so enchanted by them that they gradually forgot about the Benefactor.
Which was a bit strange because the Benefactor and the benefits were pretty clearly a package-deal. But the stand-alone benefits were so terrific that they started looking like independent consumables. And even though the benefits were maximally beneficial in combination with the Benefactor they seemed to retain a lot of value even when the Benefactor was subtracted.
In reality benefits-minus-Benefactor weren’t of much value and they had a short shelf-life. But things played out for awhile because the Benefactor was super-patient. He understood the limitations of the benefit-ees – their foibles, quirks, eccentricities, their dunderheaded calculus. So he took a pretty kind, long-suffering, gracious, charitable, accommodating approach to them. Not indulgence, but a compassionate sympathy that extended over a long time.
The benefit-ees had to work very hard to prove beyond any doubt that they only wanted the depreciating benefits.
And eventually they were able to convince the Great Benefactor they really had no interest in him at all.

Note: Nehemiah nine is a history summary and a public prayer, and it makes it clear over-and-over that the Benefactor is: a God of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to become angry, and full of unfailing love and mercy (Nehemiah 9:17, NLT version; along with 9:19, 20, 27, 28, 30 & 31).

Week 21 Nehemiah 8

If someone polled modern Albertans and asked what they thought about the OT a majority would likely say: boring, irrelevant, obnoxious, etc. Historical value? Some. Contemporary pertinence? None.
If someone had polled ancient Israel and asked the what-about-the-OT-question a high percentage would have agreed with boring, irrelevant, and obnoxious. Cultural interest? Maybe. Applicability? Don’t make me laugh.
That’s why chapter eight is kind of shocking. There’s a mass gathering in the public square by the Water Gate. The people: asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel. Why? To hear it read out loud. So it was read: from early morning to midday.
The audience was men and women: who could listen with understanding.
They were: attentive to the book of the law.
They all: stood up (except for when they: bowed low and worshiped the Lord).
At the tough passages the readers were stopping and: translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
And as they listened: all the people were weeping when they heard the words of the law.
So something is going on here that doesn’t fit the popular view of OT religion.
Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers are affecting people.
This chapter is a reminder that I might be missing something when I’m in a what-good-is-the-OT-? frame of mind.

Note: quotes from Nehemiah 8:1 through 9 (NASB version)

Week 21 Nehemiah

The OT doesn’t hesitate to show the flaws of its high-profile people. But there aren’t any skeletons in Nehemiah’s closet.
Like Joseph, Ruth, and Daniel, Nehemiah comes through with a pristine record. One of those character guys who – without even trying – makes me feel a bit inadequate.
Nehemiah wasn’t only a good guy. He was super-competent.
He already had his career-job as cup-bearer-to-Persian-royalty. The king knew him, respected him, was interested in him, and talked with him like a guy, not a serf. So Nehemiah was able to negotiate a leave-of-absence to go to Jerusalem: the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it. He even got state financial backing.
What he did during his Jerusalem leave was impressive:
     he spearheaded the wall-rebuilding project
     faced-down a cartel of strong opponents
     organized a civilian militia
     corrected economic inequities and class conflicts in the city
     manoeuvred around innuendo, false prophets, and mud-slinging
     registered the citizens
     organized mass religious gatherings for teaching and worship
     addressed religious and social abuses
And those weren’t even his real jobs.
He was smart, organized, efficient, a good motivator and project manager, determined, focused, almost devoid of self-interest, deeply committed to the resuscitation of Israel, and heavily dependent on the Lord.
Nehemiah had asked Artaxerxes for a time-out to travel to Jerusalem. By the time he went back to work in Susa he had helped reset priorities in Jerusalem in a big way.

Note: quote from Nehemiah 2:5 (NASB version)

Week 20 Nehemiah

The backstory is that in February I was falling behind in my reading. One fix was to add a psalm to my daily plan. So I’ve been reading the psalms.
Now today while I’m reading Nehemiah’s prayer I notice this: O Lord, please hear my prayer! Listen to the prayers of those of us who delight in honoring you.
This sounds just like psalms I’ve been reading:
     hear-the-voice-of-my-supplications
     hear-my-prayer-O-Lord
     hear-my-cry
     hear-my-voice
Something I notice is that the prayer has a kind of pre-prayer request: please hear this prayer.
It got me thinking about a couple of things:
a) it seems like some people praying in the bible didn’t always instantaneously get what they asked for, and
b) the response-lag was understood as inattentiveness or deafness on the Lord’s part, so
c) that made it necessary to add a please-hear-me reminder to the Lord.
Personally, even though I understand that sentiment I’m pretty sure the Lord hears well enough. I think he has the capacity to manage very large volumes of audio signals simultaneously and to process them at a very high rate of speed.
So I suspect that a please-listen-to-me appeal to him is more a signal of my own anxieties over not getting the reply that I want, or not getting it when I want it.
Do I need to tell the Lord to listen-up? I doubt it.
But he seems to put up with it.

Notes: quote from Nehemiah 1:11 (NLT version); and Psalms 28:2, 39:12, 61:1, 64:1 (NASB version).

Week 20 Ezra

While I’m reading through an easy tendency is to read the text as a bunch of stand-alone stories – like biblical free-radicals just floating around unattached to anything.
It’s easy to forget that events happen inside the envelope of the material world.
Ezra reminds me about this when he starts naming known historical world rulers. He uses three Persian kings – Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes – to date events.
Which means I’ll have to step outside the bible to find out when things happened. So I do that:
Cyrus (559-530 BC)
Darius (522-486 BC)
Artaxerxes (465-424 BC)
This is useful info because Ezra says: in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia…he sent a proclamation. Ezra doesn’t say Cyrus’ public announcement happened in 559 BC. I have to figure that out for myself.
Ezra says that opposition to the temple-project lasted: even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. So…that’s in the long period of 522-486 BC – which is a bit better than nothing.
Later Ezra says that more exiles left for Jerusalem: in the reign of Artaxerxes. But then a couple of verses later he adds that they left: in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, which is more helpful. So that looks like about 459 BC.
Mostly I don’t have enough time to go outside. But when I do it can be a help.

Notes: quotes are from Ezra 1:1, 4:5, 7:1 & 7:7 (NASB version). Disclosure: some dates are a bit uncertain; others are not disputed. So that’s part of the mix.

Week 20 Ezra

I don’t know how many verses of name-lists there are in the OT.
And I don’t know how many bible-readers wish there were more.
What I’m pretty sure about is how many of us read the lists carefully (it’s some number close to zero).
But in Ezra 2 there’s a story of a small group of people who were keenly, personally interested in combing through the lists.
The exiles-from-Babylon had returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. Temple-related workers were in demand, and priests were a big part of that mix. Some people claimed that they were priests, claimed they were born in the bloodline of Levi. Because lineage wasn’t on an honour-system these people had to prove their claim. If they had been Albertans they would have gone to the Office of Vital Statistics, but since they weren’t they went to the genealogical name-lists. Unfortunately for them, they: were not able to give evidence of their father’s households, and their descendants, whether they were of Israel…These (people) searched among their ancestral registration, but they could not be located.
They couldn’t be documented, so they couldn’t be priests.
Which meant they had to find other employment.
This story’s a good reminder to me that there are different kinds of materials in the bible, and they have different purposes. Which means I need to ask: if they’re not there just to entertain me, why are they?

Notes: the story is in Ezra 2:59-63; the quote is from Ezra 2:59, 62 (NASB version)