WELCOME

This is an online repository of study notes, theological blessays and attempts by me, Jim Lockey.

I have no theological training.

Navigation is easy simply scroll down to meander your way through recent posts.
Regular features can be accessed through the menu at the top of this page.  You can search for studies by date using the ‘categories’ and ‘Archives’ widgets on the right. Or you can use ‘search’ to browse by content.

Please check out the About tab above for my statement of faith and more info about this blog’s beginning and its aims.

Jim x

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Judges 15

This post continues a chapter by chapter study of the story of Samson. Please check out these links to Judges 13 and 14.

The Judges 15 portion of Samson’s saga is in a sense the most simple: Its a polemic on revenge. Unlike the previous chapter that seemed to drip with portentious moments and theological conundrums, most of this one appears as a simple moral tale. The import of which is the lesson that revenge only escalates and does not satisfy. It teaches that anger is not a fuel for justice but only for the proliferation of wrongdoing. It is the prototypical example of the futility of revenge- it never satisfies.

Rob Bell spoke insightfully on that lesson from judges 15 in one of his more lucid periods. It’s a sermon called ‘drop the jawbone’ and can be found on Mars Hill Bible Church’s podcast archive.

Samson kills 1000 men, on nintendo (from an upcoming 8bit bible animation)

Samson kills 1000 men, on nintendo (from an upcoming 8bit bible animation)

The revenge plotline, like all of the Samson story is just as much about political conflict as it is just about one man. Due to the larger than life character of this guy named Samson, we can miss the the fact that he represents the total military and political might of Israel- both as a literal judge, but also figuratively as a kind is synecdoche. One need only look at modern day Israel’s conflict with palestine to see the revenge narrative played out again- with both sides taking revenge in an unending circle of increasing severity.

But what interests me for this post are a number of verses that work against the clearer anti-revenge narrative; verses that undermine what otherwise appears to be the simple moral lesson. I’m talking about verses like the following-

As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. (Judges 15:14-15 NIV)

And

Because he was very thirsty, he cried out to the Lord, “You have given your servant this great victory. Must I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?” Then God opened up the hollow place in Lehi, and water came out of it. When Samson drank, his strength returned and he revived. So the spring was called En Hakkore, and it is still there in Lehi. (Judges 15:18, 19 NIV)

In the first quoted verses the spirit comes on Samson in order for him to kill a thousand men. The phrase ‘the spirit of The Lord came powerfully upon him’ seems ominous because it seems as if Samson’s desire for revenge just meets with all of God’s approval. The phrase is repeated throughout the book of Judges so we’re familiar with it by now. It’s most often an impartation of power for battle, but in this instance we have to realise that this battle with the philistines is only happening because Samson has brought it on himself. It’s all about his revenge. So on this occasion the phrase seems to be about God being nothing more than a tool for Samson’s wish fulfilment. And here was I thinking that the God of the Old Testament was all judgmental.

Just what does the spirit coming upon Samson say about God?

An issue of Samson is that because of the promise on His life, a lazy reading assumes that everything he does as an adult was god’s plan for his redemption of Israel. But I don’t think that’s the case, in fact judges 15 deals directly with the gap between God’s way of doing things and man’s way.

The first half of the chapter in which Samson does some killing, and ruins the philistine food supply and economy by burning it up was all done by samson in his own strength, without mention if God or the spirit.
One might think thatSamson’s actions weaken the philistines and is part of Israel’s redemption. But it doesn’t have that effect. In fact it only serves to make the philistines more hostile toward Israel. Read over these verses and you’ll find that not only is God not involved, but that Israel resents and fears Samson for his rash and selfish behaviour.

The spirit only turns up to aid Samson after he’s bound and it looks like he’s going to die.

The spirit’s appearance is for the sparing and protection of Samson. This is also true elsewhere in Samson’s tale- that phrase ‘the spirit of The Lord came powerfully upon him’ also appears when Samson is pounced upon by the lion in Judges 14.
The spirit appears in Samson’s story at moments of mercy. Samson should never have been walking through a vineyard (because of his oath) and yet God spares him from the danger he finds there. God also spares him from the hands of the philistines here, even though he kind of deserves it.

So whereas Samson is characterised by anger and revenge, a close reading reveals God’s character to be unimaginably merciful.

The massacre that ensues after the spirit breaks his ropes (yes the text says that it wasn’t Samson but it was God that broke his ropes) is massive in scale. This has two effects, firstly it demonstrates God’s greater might, greater even than that of Samson in the first half of the chapter. But the blows from Samson’s jawbone are inflicted upon the fighting men sent out for him from Timnah. Unlike Samson’s burning foxes, an act if terrorism that damages everyone. This act of violence seems is a face-to-face military engagement.

As a modern day reader and a pacifist I’ve got to say that I find the idea of drawing a distinction between types of violence to be pretty distasteful. It is all morally difficult. But I think it is possible to say that though Samson is the aggressor in the first half of chapter 15. By the end he is actually on the defensive- and it is the defence of Israel and Samson that we see god at work in this chapter.

Samson deserved all he got from the philistines but we see God acting out mercy and out of his greater promise to keep Israel. The God we see in judges 15 is more merciful than Samson deserves. And he is perfectly faithful.

Samson starts his aggressive action because his wife’s father gave her away to a companion because he was sure Samson hated her. It is the result of a misunderstanding brought about by Samson murdering those people in chapter 14 and running away. It’s the strangest of misunderstandings but an honest one. I love the detail of the father offering his other, prettier daughter it reminds me of Jacob expecting to receive the pretty daughter but from the father receiving Leah. Samson gets a reversal, how about better than you bargained for! But it was no use.
Samson’s second act of aggression (a slaughter of many men) was his reaction to the Philistines actually trying to appease Samson. Hearing about why Samson is so mad the go and put his wife and her father to death (verse 6) to try and give Samson justice. But this is no good either.
On both occasions Samson takes revenge because he feels personally slighted and yet both timesaver no-one is actually hurting him by intention. It makes you think about those people who seem angry at the world, who feel as if they are owed something but who still find it hard to receive kindness. Samson seems like such a miserable character, even shouting at God for a drink.

The spring that God provides Samson by way of a miracle is called En Hakkore, meaning ‘the callers spring’. It seems significant that the spring is named after Samson as the caller, and not after God the one who actually brought about the victory and the miracle. This underlines Samson’s self absorption and God’s boundless mercy. Samson is so expectant for God to provide what he asks that he does not even stop to thank or worship The Lord.

The chapter ends with this line- Samson led Israel for twenty years in the days of the Philistines – foreshadowing Samson’s coming death. It reminds us of Samson’s mortality. Judges 15 shows Samson as a powerful but flawed champion that the people equally hate and look to. We’re not all like Samson but we all have the choice to follow the Samson’s of this world or to one who might be ignored by those around us, but whose power and  faithfulness is not limited.

Posted in notes / blessays, studies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Foreknowledge & Predestination. An idiots guide

Foreknowledge & Predestination. An idiots guide

(By which I mean, a guide written by an idiot)

I might be wrong about a lot of this

 

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined. – Romans 8:28

Romans 8 has a section that is at once comforting and troubling. Paul talks about how we have received the gift of the spirit and that God’s will is to do good to the people who love him. But then Paul uses this strange word predestined. In other letters Paul writes that God chose his people before creation (2 Thes 2) and whilst it seems only correct that God has supreme authority over his creation, the idea that God hand picked the believers before they believed calls in to question just what faith is. In Romans 4 Paul says we are saved because of our faith in Jesus. And in Romans 10 he says that salvation comes to those who call on Jesus as Lord. But what does it mean for me to joyfully say ‘Jesus is Lord’, if predestination means that God always planned for me to do that and moreover that he planned for those who do not believe not to believe?
What kind of faith do I have, and what kind of confession can I make if I did not choose it? Surely I have some agency? I chose to follow Christ. I feel strongly that I want ownership of that choice because I want to say to God that I follow him willingly. But doesn’t predestination mean that it is in fact God who chose my choice. What kind of a follower am I if I didn’t make the choice to follow… I didn’t really make that choice.

That’s the central trouble with predestination, or at least predestination if we define it as God hand picking his people before we’ve even had a chance to hear the message. John Calvin is a looming figure in discussing the theology around this idea. So I should probably mention his name, by his reading of predestination, the picture we get puts a lot of emphasis on God’s children being a group chosen and blessed by God. Our coming to faith is an event pre-chosen by God that merely confirmed our prior earmarking for sonship.

The position makes sense of a lot of the language of scripture, phrases like the people of God being called ‘the elect’. But it seems to make a mockery of faith and of any concept of human choice. If our eternal destiny were merely the result of some hidden and seemingly arbitrary process carried out long ago, then who today can truly determine who is saved?

For me these issues cause me to differ – for the most part – from a purely Calvinist perspective. Here’s the thing, we’re dealing here with a much too simple view of predestination: One that makes out every human choice to be part of a deterministic web of inevitability with God at the centre spinning out the conclusion to every story. Yet such a god wouldn’t be so interested in what people actually did, nor would he be hurt when they turn away. Quite simply how could such a god be justified? The trait within humans that allows us to pursue or own will is really important in shaping my view of predestination. Read the account of the first people God made and you’ll see how he gives them a capacity for reason and more importantly choice. Not only does he give them the ability to make a choice but presents them with a scenario in which they could chose to reject him: At any time Adam and Eve could eat the fruit he had forbidden. God told Adam that he ate the fruit he would die. It was an opportunity to opt out of the destiny of life in Eden that God had put in place. (That same choice between God’s way and another gets presented to us daily.) The story of Adam and Eve – the Bible’s first story about the interaction between God and people establishes themes that remain at play throughout the rest of scripture and throughout our lives:
It’s about the tension between God’s plan for us and our ability to chose or reject it.

What then does that mean for predestination? Did God predestine us all for sonship but some miss out on that destiny because they’ve rejected it? Or perhaps something else is going on: Notice how in Romans 8 Paul links predestination with foreknowledge:

For those God foreknew he also predestined.

The link here seems to say that God set the destiny of those he knew would follow him. But by what means was and is their destiny secured? Is it merely by nomination? Nope, predestination was not merely a decision but an action of love put into motion before we were even born. An action outworked throughout God’s faithfulness to his people and that reached its apex at the cross of Jesus.

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace – Ephesians 1:3-7

So by this understanding, faith is paramount to our being counted as heirs as it is because of God’s foreknowledge of our faith that we are predestined. This is different from a Calvinistic view that draws a stark difference between foreknowledge and predestination. It emphasises predestination as being an act of God’s will actively determining future events in spite of human choice.
Yet the reading of predestination being guided by foreknowledge presents its own issues. Namely why should God do this?
OK, so to understand foreknowledge we need to accept that time is not experienced by God in the same way as we do. Isaiah 57 says that God lives in eternity, but of course we only live in the present. So in a sense we could say that anything God has done is true in any time, whether it has actually occurred yet from our standpoint or not. But why does Paul take particular time in a number of letters to assure recipients that their destiny was secured before the creation of the world. Why does he need to be so specific about when God chose us? I.e. why wasn’t our destiny set at the point at which we came to faith? If it is that choice and confession that our salvation through Christ relies upon then why not just predestinate us then? (predestinate? That cant be a real word)
While pondering this conundrum I couldn’t help but be overwhelmed by a couple of thoughts. Firstly that predestination understood this way is immensely comforting. Rather than seeming like a highly prejudiced and somewhat arbitrary selection process on God’s part it is instead God making good on his promise on relationship with us through Christ before I was even aware of it. Because I am adopted in his family he has carried me from eternity and is carrying me into eternity. This is true for all who count Jesus as Lord. That’s the extent of God’s love; it scales and crosses time enveloping every moment and every quark with an inescapable truth that he loves us and he has made a way for us to experience eternity with him through Jesus. Predestination is our name put into that book of life. Its in the psalms, its in the prophets, its in revelation. It is amazing to think that when the psalmist wrote of the book of life in psalm 68 that it is a book that already bore our names counted amongst the righteous even though we were yet to exist, let alone believe.
There is comfort in that thought but also there is a sense in which our destiny being set before the time we believed reminds us that it isn’t actually because of our deeds that we are saved. Though we chose to believe it was God that set that choice before us from eternity. It is only by his mercy that we can be saved, only by his grace through Jesus that we can choose life. Predestination reminds us that nothing we do can decide our status with God. It is not something God hands out by random ballot, nor something anyone can prove his or her own worth for. But it is something only the eternally loving God can offer and provide. In this sense it is totally by his decision and action and so in that sense Calvin has a point. It’s a realisation that challenged me when I was thinking about the subject. I was so sure that I wanted to own my choice to have faith, and while I think that its good that I wanted to stand before God and say that I followed him willingly, I also need to realise that the only choice I have made is to submit to his love and grace – he’s doing all the work, I’m just a sinner. If anybody owns my faith its God.

Yet foreknowledge based predestination does not give us a full and satisfactory answer to the problem, because the narrative of the Bible does not give us a picture of God as a being with perfect foreknowledge. Aside the actual future predictions of some prophets, we often read that God is surprised by the actions of people. There are even times when people pray and God seems to change his mind, but wouldn’t he have known he was going to do that all along?
Or take the example of Abraham, the first man expressly counted as righteous because of faith (Genesis 15:6). God tested him and it was only at the point when his knife was raised over the bound body of his son that God was sure of his faith.

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” – Genesis 22:12

This doesn’t sound like a God of perfect foreknowledge. It strikes me that there are a number of ways to explain this apparent disparity between the claim of foreknowledge and the historical accounts of God’s not-knowledge. Some of those explanations are specific to the stories. Others have to do with getting all tied up with just what can be foreknown, for instance had God not tested Abraham, would he have been able to foreknow the test’s result? But those answers are nothing more than silly thought puzzles that present more problems then they solve. To illustrate the kinds of problems they create: if God did not have foreknowledge of potential events how would he have known to choose Abram, or Moses, or Gideon and not others?

I think that the answer to the question of God’s foreknowledge vs. his apparent lack thereof is one that we can only begin to answer in any kind of a satisfactory fashion by considering God’s heart and nature rather than by the consideration of any guessed mechanics.
What I reckon is that we’re dealing with a God who denies his own foreknowledge in order to give his creation true freedom. After all if all future history is laid out, then just what is the meaning of any choice in the present. It is clear from Genesis 2 and 3 (mentioned earlier) that God’s desire for the people he has made is that they should choose to be his, that they should come to him willingly. And so his denial of his own foreknowledge allows for people to have true freedom in that regard and also to be free to wrestle with and petition God.
That’s hard to get our heads around, why would a loving God give us that freedom to hurt ourselves? That needs its own massive blog post in order to unwrap but I think that we can say that what people choose to do is of primary importance to God and that therefore it is natural that he should give them opportunity to choose. Think of the story of the prodigal son. One of the strangest parts of the tale is the way that the father (representing God) just gives his son his part of the inheritance when asked. He doesn’t deny his son nor get angry that his child has essentially wished him dead. Instead he allows his son to choose his own path. I don’t get why he does this. It makes little logical sense but I think that is an accurate picture of what God does. The possibility of rebellion was not restricted from Adam and Eve and it is not so for us. It seems that God’s desire for us to be close to him is matched by his desire for us to WANT to be close to him. By denying his own foreknowledge in the stories of the Bible we see him able to extend every part of his love and every chance to people. There are no hopeless cases with God, he never stops extending his hand of love, even to those he (presumably) knows will reject it. His loves trumps his foreknowledge. He does not use it to do bad to people, only good. His foreknowledge only comes into play in order to lead and comfort his people (Daniel, revelation etc) and to make us his heirs (predestination). He does not use his knowledge of the future to punish or penalise people in the present, in those cases he seems to almost blind himself so that he can ever extend his love and offer of salvation. God absorbs the hurt we cause him and still wants to take us back. Just like Hosea who had to take back his wife every time she put it about even though he knew she’d just go and prostitute herself again.

How does God’s foreknowledge and predestination work? I don’t know that I can say for sure but I can say that however they work, they do so as expressions of his eternal love. I can say with complete assuredness that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.

Predestination to sonship is for those God choses, and those God has chosen are those who put their faith in Jesus and have received salvation through his death on the cross. This does make Calvin’s notion of God’s supreme authoritative choice completely true, but I hope I’ve argued that the story is a little more nuanced. It’s one of those strange answers in which seeming opposites can both be true. They’re both true most fundamentally not in some Doctor Who philosophy ‘timey wimey’ sense, but in an intense and profound sense in which God and his love are constantly seen to be supreme.

Posted in studies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

How to be held

How to be held
or
The discipline supports the experience and the truth we’ve already received

I’ve been like a broken record at youth discipleship recently, saying every week that prayer and reading the bible are really important things to do if we want to know God better and be effective in our ministry. And while that is totally true and I think that being disciplined in these areas can only be good, I’ve begun to realise that it isn’t necessarily in those times that I hear God most profoundly.

Those precious (and sometimes rare) moments in which the presence of the Lord feels close have a tendency to sneak up unawares rather than come by way of any religious activity I do. It isn’t as if taking half an hour out of my day to read the Bible buys me a half hour of Jesus speaking.

What I’m coming to realise is this: Though I’ve been saying over and over, ‘take time to read your Bible, take time to pray.’ It’s not because those things are a requirement for experiencing God but because doing those things gives us tools to recognise God’s voice and touch. It gives us a means to put a name to those mysterious experiences of God when they do occur.

What do those experiences look like? I’ve not got the space to write it here, and it could happen any number of ways. Often for me it happens when I’m doing something that I think has nothing really to do with God, but then suddenly I see it with a different perspective and it has everything to do with him. Other times it’s a dream. Other times its just nothing more than a feeling; but none the less an overpowering feeling of his love for me.

I believe that most of us have probably had more tangible experiences of God’s presence and power than we realise. We just don’t give those experiences enough credit because perhaps they don’t happen in church, or in the time we put aside. I’m talking about moments when you come to have a little more understanding of Jesus and it somehow felt like a God experience, but not a religious one.

At the beginning of Romans, Paul discusses how a certain perception of God, of a power beyond ourselves, is a natural part of what it is to be human.

Here’s what he says;

since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Romans 1)

Paul essentially says here that everyone has seen something of God. And in one sense it’s obvious: Of course I was aware of God’s presence and power before I was a Christian – that’s what I responded too.

But why then do so many people appear to be blind to God, and why sometimes… if we’re honest… do we find it hard to recognise him ourselves?

Paul writes that for the unsaved, it’s their sin that willingly blinds them. But for us? Yeah, sin probably plays a role. Yet I also think there’s something else happening. Look at how Paul describes the experience of God – he talks about God’s eternal power, his divine nature. The reality of God’s self is much greater than ourselves that it’s really difficult to comprehend or put into words. After having a clear experience of the presence of God we can lose that sense of awe and wonder because we simply don’t know how to hold onto it – it is too much for us. That can make it hard to be truly aware of God in our daily lives and it can make it hard to pray.

So, then it is for the holding of what God has imparted that our Bible study and prayer is most important. The Bible’s witness to the character of God confirms that our experience of his love is true. And through prayer the spirit forms and articulates our awe of God in ways we never could and allows us to remain and abide in him. Later on in his letter to the Romans Paul writes about how the spirit intercedes for us because we don’t know how we ought to pray (8.16). I love how blunt Paul is about it: We don’t know what we should pray about. Not the Pope, not Rob Bell, not John Partington, none of us know by our own means how to talk to God properly.

If you’ve ever been in that place where you feel as if you’re losing sight of God even as he reveals himself then that’s the moment to turn to prayer and to the Bible, not so that you can work it out and hold onto God, but so that the Spirit can intercede on your behalf: In praying and reading we aren’t so much holding onto God, but we’re allowing him to hold us.

Posted in notes / blessays | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judges 14, Samson as riddler

This post assumes the reader to have a familiarity with the plot of the story of Samson as it appears in Judges. It is also helpful if your familiar with the story of Dinah (Genesis 34) that I refer to but do not retell.

Like a number of stories in the Old Testament, that of Samson finds its origin in an earlier folk tale. That shouldn’t be a surprise as the entire book of judges is a gathering together of tales about Israel’s champions over a 300 year period.
There are those that say that the judges version of the story of Samson did very little to clean up its violent and ethically repugnant parts to make it appropriate for a collection of holy scripture. While I agree that what we read in Judges seems to have undergone very little by the way of revision, I do not think that this was due to an oversight on the part of the writers. I also don’t think that they wrote with any kind of ignorance: consider how the annunciation scene in Judges 13 plays on the conventions laid down in Torah. the writers of the Judges version of the Samson story compose each part with intention. (check out my preach on judges 13 to hear more)
This isn’t to mention that as Christians we kind of have to assume that God intended for us to have received this story in the way that we do. So what does this tale of one man’s arrogance, anger and sexual misconduct have to tell us about God, or even about ourselves?

Samson’s tale takes place over 4 chapters of Judges (13-16) and I’m going to take a bit of time on each chapter. This will make a sort of mini-series. I hope that by breaking it down I’ll be able to spend more time with its different themes. I covered chapter 13 the last time I preached at Harbour Community Church. So for the rest of this post I’ll be looking at chapter 14.

Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.”
His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?”
But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)

Judges 14 1-4

Judges 14 is our first view of Samson as an adult and from the very get go there seems to be something fishy. We’re told that Samson goes off to the philistine town of Timnah, though we’re given no reason why. Its an odd thing to do, to go and hang out in the towns of your enemies – unless you’re in the habit of causing trouble of course. So while Samson’s there he sees a girl that he falls for and he’s got to have her. So he goes back and tells his parents about her and they’re not impressed. Marrying outside of the tribe is a massive no-no. But we, the readers, are told in verse 4 that this was God’s plan.

But does that strike anyone else as odd? I mean we’re told that this is God’s plan as a quiet aside, in the NIV its even in brackets. This is not anything like the clear and unequivocal voice of the Lord that we see in chapter 13. This side note in Judges 14 isn’t God speaking; its the author or recorder of the scriptural narrative popping up. It doesn’t have anything like the weight or authority of the previous chapter. This is significant. Its as if the person recording the story realises how odd the narrative sounds and just wants to assure us that God is in it even though it looks on the surface as if Samson is only looking after his own wants and desires. We have to be assured of this early on because throughout the tale it will be Samson’s rigorous pursuit of his own gratification that defines him. It’s like the writer wants to give us a heads up and say that even though Samson’s story seems perfectly disastrous, actually there is some wisdom and power at work behind all of it. Judges 14 verse 4 is a stage whisper, a nod and a wink: Even a man like Samson comes under the Lord’s authority.

But as I mentioned before the assertion of verse 4 just doesn’t bear the same authority as the appearance of the Angel of The Lord who has already rocked up and pronounced stuff about God’s plans earlier in the story. I believe that chapter 14′s assurance of God’s plan is supposed to seem weak comparatively. Its supposed to make us watch more closely for God’s involvement in what unfolds. It invites us to question just which (if any) of Samson’s actions meet with God’s sanction, if God always intended for Samson to be so awful, and also whether Samson knows any better than his parents just what God’s will is for him?

That’s the first observation down. I’ve argued that even something as small as a set of brackets or the word ‘but’ was placed with utter precision and attention. Now I’d like to argue that even these first few verses of Chapter 14 have made an allusion to an earlier story and that it was no less accidental in its occurrence.

So if we forget the characters and just look at the events of the beginning of chapter 14 we can uncover a surprising correlation with another Bible tale. Let me explain,

So the facts of the story so far are these: There are two politically apposed nations having to share a proximity of space. A young champion from one of the nations decides that he wants to marry a girl from the other nation and petitions his family to get the girl so that they can marry.

Those same facts are true of Genesis 34, a story in which we find Jacob in a foreign area and the ruler’s son has his heart set upon marrying Jacob’s daughter Dinah. Here though, the roles are flipped, its the enemy champion that desires an Israeli girl. But the reaction on Israel’s side is the same: The idea is detestable because we’re circumcised and they’re in a sense unclean, they are not God’s chosen. Both stories make the ritual circumcision of the Israelites to be the thing that is the big difference between the two groups. Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” – cry Samson’s parents presumably in creepy unison. And in the Dinah story, her brothers claim that a union between the Hivites and Israel is detestable because the Hivite men are not circumcised. There are differences in the stories too, I don’t want to suggest that they are mirrors but there is a correlation here.

I want to suggest that this correlation isn’t just accidental but that this is just one of a number of points in Samson’s saga in which the scripture is doing something quite radical. The way that the story of Samson does this kind of role reversal, with it being Israel’s champion imposing himself on a daughter of the enemy presents something like, and this is going to sound controversial but I think its backed up by other things that happen in the story… it’s something like a cultural relativism. This runs counter as what we see in the surface narrative in which Israel are the good guys and the Philistines the bad guys. But really the book of Judges is all about how God is continually working for a people who perpetually ignore him and do whatever they want (each man did what was right in his own eyes), and so the role reversal on Genesis 34 points out to the reader that actually Israel is by its own merit no different to the philistines (who coincidentally are only in power because God them there in the first place). To channel Paul in his letter to the Romans the Israelites break the law so regularly that they may as well be uncircumcised.

Why does the story do this? well I think that it has something clear to say about how we should treat the favour God has given us: From before his birth Samson was set apart. God promises that he will bring about great things through Samson. It is an act of pure nomination on God’s part; Samson did nothing to earn his privilege. So, his job then is really to steward the gift he has been given. After-all he did not earn the right to have God’s spirit aiding him but he was given it. But as we know from the things Samson gets up to he doesn’t steward it well, in fact he acts as if he’s entitled, as if he’s boss instead of God. He does not act like a lowly man given a gift by God but as if he’s a big man, that he is special. The message here is that being set apart by God is not licence to act as we please. Just because we’ve received an assured and predestined future does not mean that we deserved it, or that we are better than anyone else by our own merit. This message is true for Christians today and it was true for the Israel of the Old Testament who often displayed a sense of diminished responsibility for their actions assuming that God would always be there to back them up.

So there are ways in which Samson resembles the enemy from Genesis 34 but later on in the story his reactions to the situation will match Jacob’s sons. But we’ll come to that in due course. First lets look the next part of Samson’s tale.

Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done. Then he went down and talked with the woman, and he liked her.

Some time later, when he went back to marry her, he turned aside to look at the lion’s carcass, and in it he saw a swarm of bees and some honey. He scooped out the honey with his hands and ate as he went along. When he rejoined his parents, he gave them some, and they too ate it. But he did not tell them that he had taken the honey from the lion’s carcass.

Now his father went down to see the woman. And there Samson held a feast, as was customary for young men. When the people saw him, they chose thirty men to be his companions.

“Let me tell you a riddle,” Samson said to them. “If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes. If you can’t tell me the answer, you must give me thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes.”

“Tell us your riddle,” they said. “Let’s hear it.”

He replied,

“Out of the eater, something to eat;
out of the strong, something sweet.”
For three days they could not give the answer.

Judges 14, 5-14

golden syrup samson

So after an odd encounter with a lion in a vineyard, not to mention the stranger act returning to the carcass and eating the honey from within it, (vineyards and dead things both being things Samson shouldn’t go near) Samson gives a riddle. Why he sets a riddle we don’t know. There is no aside to help us, it seems to be just for the sport of making a bet. Yet, I believe that once again there is a greater thing at play thematically. As we all know, the most famous part of Samson’s saga is all to do with the riddle of his strength. So really one of Samson’s primary duties is to know when to reveal the secret, when to reveal the answer to the riddle.

The writers of Judges could not have known at the time but this theme of riddling creates a really strong typological connection with Jesus. This duty is really a connection to christ that is even as strong as the image of Samson freeing Israel by dying with his arms outstretched. To my mind it connects with the riddle of Jesus identity. Throughout all 4 gospels there are occasions in which Jesus is candid about his identity but just as many occasions when he urges secrecy about who he is, or even about the works he has done. Both Jesus and Samson are met with times in which they must hold onto the secret of what sets them apart, but where Samson fails Jesus does not.

On with the text;

On the fourth day, they said to Samson’s wife, “Coax your husband into explaining the riddle for us, or we will burn you and your father’s household to death. Did you invite us here to steal our property?”
Then Samson’s wife threw herself on him, sobbing, “You hate me! You don’t really love me. You’ve given my people a riddle, but you haven’t told me the answer.”
“I haven’t even explained it to my father or mother,” he replied, “so why should I explain it to you?” She cried the whole seven days of the feast. So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him. She in turn explained the riddle to her people.
Before sunset on the seventh day the men of the town said to him,

“What is sweeter than honey?
What is stronger than a lion?”

- Judges 14 15-18

So we see quickly that Samson can’t keep his riddle a secret. What a baffoon. But notice in particular how the philistines answer Samson’s riddle. They not only give the right answer (honey and a lion) but they pose their response as a second riddle. Now before we look to see how Samson takes it, think for a moment how you would answer their riddle?

What is sweeter than honey? What is Stronger than a lion?

Well the Bible describes God’s word as being sweet like honey on a number of occasions (take Ezekiel as one example). And the Lion of Judah is a symbol used in Genesis that is used again in revelation to describe Christ.

So perhaps we might see God, or Jesus as being appropriate answers to this riddle. Without understanding what they have said, the Philistines are really evoking Yahweh when they answer Samson. They point to the source of Samson’s strength and his power which is the Lord. So not only has Samson been bested but if he also perceives the answer to his enemy’s riddle than he will have been convicted about who is really in charge: In Judges 14 Samson pushes ahead with a questionable wedding, he flouts the laws that were supposed to set him apart and he tries to establish and assert authority for himself by becoming the setter of riddles. He’s got a lot of confidence in himself and he’s forgotten to rely on God. The reminder of God’s greater strength and goodness must smart.

So what does Samson do…

Samson said to them,

“If you had not plowed with my heifer,
you would not have solved my riddle.”
Then the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of everything and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he returned to his father’s home. And Samson’s wife was given to one of his companions who had attended him at the feast.

Judges 14 18-20

Samson goes on a killing spree, he burns with anger. Yet the fault for the riddle being solved was his own. He really over-reacts here and there is no clear defence for his actions. There is no other way to understand his actions but as something that is totally reprehensible. Anger and revenge also plays a part in the mass murder Jacob’s sons commit in Genesis 34: The killers in both stories are motivated by the desire for revenge, the desire to pay others back instead of following God and letting him deal with it. In both cases this only serves to make matters worse:

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.” – Genesis 34

Then three thousand men from Judah went down to the cave in the rock of Etam and said to Samson, “Don’t you realize that the Philistines are rulers over us? What have you done to us?” – Judges 15

At the end of Judges 14 we’re left with another riddle. How can it be that God chose Samson and that he motioned the events of the chapter by prompting Samson to marry the woman from Timneh. How can this be God’s plan, how can it be defended?

I believe that we cannot say that Samson is a hero, or that he is obedient. But what is fascinating is how despite Samson’s recalcitrance God still brings about his purpose. The message is all about how God is the true power and strength in the universe. The story of Samson is in part a satire on heroic literature. The real hero here is God. Its another example of Israel’s God setting himself apart from other cultures.

How then do we answer the riddle of Samson’s story? How can we express this idea of God bringing about his purpose despite the utterly disastrous life of Samson. We could perhaps describe it by saying…

Out of the eater, something to eat;
out of the strong, something sweet.

Samson is both an eater; all he does is eat and destroy and consume and live by his libidinous desires – and of course he is strong. Yet through him God begins the work of redeeming Israel from the Philistines, bringing them peace and provision.

If you rely on man and you rely on the sum of his vices and it ends badly, but if you rely on God then you rely on one strong to keep his promise despite whatever circumstances or efforts to destroy. It is this that makes us more than conquerers.

Posted in studies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Making Connections – Passover X Cain and Abel

I love those moments when you make a sudden connection about something that you’ve pondered in the Bible. It’s like the spirit gives you a freebie. No work required.

That happened for me today as I was listening to some preaching on a podcast and the speaker was talking about the Jewish festival calendar. Most of what he was saying wasn’t that new to me because I have preached on subjects connected with it myself. But what came alive for me this time was a connection between the passover and the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain and Abel’s tale has been a focus of mine a few times, it is one of my favourite bible stories. probably in the top 600 or so. Again its one that I’ve preached about, so to make this connection so late makes it feel all the more like a little gift.

The eureka moment came as the guy on the Podcast was talking about the association between the festivals of Passover and first fruits (leviticus 23). To be honest first fruits sacrifices turn up throughout the year, as they are required for each different kind of crop. But the passover one (which is for barley by the way) is significant because it is the first of the year.

The idea of the first fruits offering immediately made me think of Cain and Abel – as their offerings are the very first recorded in biblical history and the story centres around a time of harvest ‘at the end of the season’. But I hadn’t ever put first fruits together with passover before. The passover festival remembers the angel of Death’s flyby passover of Egypt and how the Israelites were spared by marking their doorpost with the blood of a lamb.

In the story of Cain an Abel it isn’t a doorpost that is marked, but Cain’s brow. This mark also exists so that Cain might escape wrath and a premature death. Cain is worried about death coming by the hand of strangers rather than by any agent of God, and though there is no sacrificial lamb to provide any notion of atonement or as easy and direct a comparison with Jesus; we are still dealing with an act of God’s mercy.

The upshot of this connection will take more meditation, in and of itself its no great revelation but its another link in the chain: One that strengthens my conviction that the God of the Bible is consistent and amazing in his justice and his mercy.

Posted in notes / blessays | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

8-bit Bible featured on the church sofa

As regular readers may remember I’ve a project for 2013 that isn’t primarily taking place on this blog but on 8bitbible.wordpress.com

It’s a series of animations based on bible stories cropping up at a rate of about 1 per month. This last week saw a surge in interest in the project as one of the animations was featured on the front page of the church sofa website. Thanks to Andy Mackay for featuring it.

bible

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment