Knowing the Father who disciplines his children (Deut 8:1-5; Prov 3:11-12)

The book of Deuteronomy is Moses’ last chance to instruct and inform the Hebrew people before they enter the Promised Land. Moses will not be going there with them. So he explains to them as best he can who God is and what he has done for them, and what the relationship between God and his people ought to look like.

The Hebrew people have just spent forty years wandering around in the desert so that an unfaithful generation would pass away before they entered Canaan. The new generation that now waits on the side of the Jordan River has known nothing but this wilderness wandering, and they are about to enter a land of wealth, stability and comparative comfort. Everything, in other words, was about to change. Would they still remember God in this new land? Or would they be so enamoured with the Promised Land that they would forget the one who had promised it in the first place? Comfort and ease have a way of distracting us.

Moses, aware of this danger, places before their minds a picture of God who is not to be taken lightly, nor easily forgotten. God is the provider, God is the carrier, yes. But God is also the discipliner. The reason for the wilderness experience, lest we all forget, was to test the people of God, to deny them comfort, to allow them to endure hardship and privation so as to humble them. They needed to grow up and understand the reality of their situation, that they themselves were no great thing. It was God who had delivered them from slavery in Egypt, and it was God who would deal with any enemies. If they thought they could accomplish any of this in their own strength, they were very much mistaken.

And so, like a good Father who sets boundaries for his children, who tells them no, who allows them to fall down and to fail and experience the limits of their own abilities, God disciplined his children in the wilderness. The testing was to see if Israel really would follow the commandments of God even in the midst of hardship. He wanted to know their hearts, and he wanted them to know their own hearts. He also wanted to show his people that he was trustworthy, that even in the wilderness he would not fail to provide for his children. Food would come. Clothes would not wear out. Feet would not swell. The discipline was hard, but it was not impossible, and it was for a purpose. And though they grumbled and resisted, ultimately

This shows the degree to which the Father loves his children. Why else would he bother with them? He wants them to learn, to grow, to understand that which is best for them. And for that he needs to use limitations, strictness, rigour. No learning comes without these disciplines, these challenges. To use the new lingo, God created an “atmosphere of learning” for his children, and one that was not covered in bubble wrap.

If we want to learn and grow and experience more of the Father’s love for us, we also must submit to this discipline. We must come to know God as the Father who disciplines us, because he loves us. We must be open to his correction, to his limitation, to humility, to his saying “no” to us. How can we claim to be his children if we do not truly accept him as Father? There is a struggle inherent in the Christian life, a denial of self which is learned over and over again throughout a lifetime. There is a type of living that is counter-intuitive to the world, a rejection of certain comforts and privileges that would lead us away from obedience towards God. The life of faith is a dangerously risky thing, because it is meant to be lived in utter abandonment to God.

But we can trust him. God is not like a human parent, even the best of whom will fail, will be selfish, will sometimes act rashly or foolishly. God is in control of himself, and has proven that he loves his children so much that his discipline, though unpleasant at the time, will certainly produce the fruit of righteousness. What the Father has is good for us. It is never abusive, always life-affirming and life-giving. It will always lead us into greater knowledge of him, and greater dependence on him. And we can know that if God is disciplining us, we are his true children whom he loves.

So how do you suspect God wants to discipline you? How do you suspect God wants to discipline his people in this day and age?

(Much of the information used in this is taken from Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright and From Paradise to the Promised Land by T Desmond Alexander).

2022 Albums

Essential Albums List, 2022

Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan

Listened to the album, or part of the album, every day in January. I was most familiar with Like a Rolling Stone, of course, but really fell in love especially with Tombstone Blues, Ballad of a Thin Man, and Desolation Row. Dylan was an absolute genius lyrically, and I appreciate his unconventional voice as well as the sometimes circus-like instrumentation. He created an environment with his albums, and this one seems to point to the chaos, confusion and possibility of the 1960’s, both in terms of politics and social movements. 

Thelonius Monk

I started the month aiming to focus on just one of Monk’s albums, but in the end decided to listen to as many as possible, including a number of his live recordings. These are some of the albums I took in this month: Straight No Chaser, Brilliant Corners, Round Midnight, Monk’s Dream, Live in Paris, Underground, Live in Zurich.

What a brilliant musician and performer, surrounded of course with many other incredible jazz performers. I haven’t appreciated jazz before in quite the way I should. Listening to whole albums at a time, and especially the discography of such a supremely talented artist as Monk, really helps. You start to hear the themes he and the others develop, the way they play with and around the melody, the syncopated way the instruments come together (especially with a pianist like Monk, who had such a unique, percussive approach to the piano) and the beauty of the lengthy solos. The melodies are there, but sometimes they are more implied than played. This is music that asks you to do some work, and I like that. Jazz doesn’t spoon-feed you like pop does. You have to be attentive, to train your ears and heart to catch the movement, the switches, and as Monk liked to say, the notes that aren’t played. He was sometimes criticized for playing wrong notes (though he was incredibly skilled in multiple genres on the piano), but he never thought a note was “wrong”. Or if he did, he wanted to make sure he played the right wrong notes. 

Essential Hip Hop Albums: 

Illmatic, Nas (1994) - Quintessential East Coast NYC rap. Incredible lyricism, and really clear delivery and flow (unlike today’s mumble rap). Feels like a bridge album from 80’s hip hop to the more hard core rap of the 90’s. Really love Ruhrpott State of Mind and It Ain’t Hard to Tell.

3 Feet High and Rising, De La Soul (1989) - feels like a concept album, mostly chill rapping with lots of flowering instrumentals and relaxed beats in the background. There are a number of “skits” interwoven throughout the album and lots of humour and experiments throughout, but it also includes socially conscious and uplifting material. You can feel it veering towards the more awake sounds and ideas of the 90’s. Can hear the connection with the Canadian hip hop group, The Dream Warriors. 

Aquemini, Outkast (1998) - Atlanta-based rap that came in and changed the game when everything was focused on West Coast/East Coast. Speed-rapping from Big Boi and experimental instrumentation and flow from Andre 3000.

Supa Dupa Fly, Missy Elliott (1997) - Wow. Produced by Timbaland, featuring Lil Kim, Da Brat, Busta Rhymes, Aaliyah and more, this intro album by Missy is just ridiculous. The Rain is such an absurdly good song, so far ahead of its time in every respect, and it was her debut single. The combination of Timbaland’s epic beats and Missy’s rapping and singing is really unmatched, in my opinion, by most artists working today. 

The Score, The Fugees (1996) - This was one of my jams in the mid-90’s. Laid-back, groovy, funky, melodic, and with some killer rhymes and social conscience. Lots of powerful refugee and Haitian references, but also a couple of “skits” that didn’t really age well. MCs also love talking about how they are destroying all the other sucka MCs, which I believe comes from the culture of rap battles and diss circles. Feels like a pretty competitive world.

Midnight Marauders, A Tribe Called Quest (1993) - This album totally escaped my notice in the 90’s, not terribly surprising. Hip-hop heads - and I am not numbered amongst them, though I am growing in my appreciation - justly number this album in the top 5 all time. And it is truly remarkable. It feels very fresh, not dated (some of the references, such as the one to Mr. Belvedere, are bound in time, but the sound is still extremely current). The beats are complex and fascinating, as is the background instrumentation. Smooth rapping flow, and again very socially conscious lyrics: not every MC is about the negativity.” There are “skits” throughout, but they aren’t disruptive - they are brief and tend to carry the theme of the album forward, which is refreshing (one of them gives info about the growing rates of HIV infection in black and hispanic communities).

The Chronic, Dr. Dre (1992) - Obviously a classic, and a real achievement in composition, lyric, beat and instrumentation (the latter of which was influenced by A Tribe Called Quest). I am not really a fan of gangsta rap though. I fully accept that I don’t like it because it does not speak to my reality, and that the reality it does speak to is real. “The Day The N***** Took Over” about the LA riots is important. And this album also introduced Snoop Dogg to the world in a serious way.

The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, Lauryn Hill (1998) - One of my favourite albums of all time, with such gems as Zion, Doo Wop (That Thing), Forgive Them Father, Lost Ones, and more. Incredible rapping and singing, so smooth, so funky and groovy. 

Black on Both Sides, Mos Def (1999) - "Yo Mos, what's gettin ready to happen with Hip-Hop?" (Where do you think Hip-Hop is goin?) I tell em, "You know what's gonna happen with Hip-Hop? Whatever's happening with us…We are Hip-Hop, Me, you, everybody, we are Hip-Hop, So Hip-Hop is going where we going, So the next time you ask yourself where Hip-Hop is going, Ask yourself: where am I going? How am I doing?" This is from the opening song, Fear Not of Man. Apparently we all collectively decided to go to mumble-ville? Anyways, such an incredible song and album. 

It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, Public Enemy (1988) - Another of the most important, socially-conscious rap albums of all time. Public Enemy really were scary to people, but in a different way than NWA. They didn’t glorify gang life, drugs (Night of the Living Baseheads) or sex, used very little profanity, but still rapped lyrics that challenged the mainstream and the black community both. This album calls for Black America to step up in its dignity and potential, and calls for the tearing down of anything that stands in the way - especially the Media. Also, Flava Flav yells “Yeah Boi” a lot.

Ready to Die, The Notorious B.I.G (1994) - Biggie Smalls’ debut album. Biggie is considered by many to be one of, if not the, greatest rappers of all time. He has incredible flow, but it is difficult to listen to his violent and misogynistic lyrics after spending time with the public uplift and challenge of Public Enemy, Mos Def, Lauryn Hill, et al. Things Done Changed is a really powerful song, and One More Chance is so smooth, a massive banger from the summer of 94. 

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Wu-Tang Clan (1993) - Well, they definitely bring the mother-lovin’ ruckus. I tried to listen more to the beats, the sampling, and the wide variety of rapping styles amongst the many members of the Wu-Tang Clan, and less on the lyrics. They definitely lean into the “Wu-Tang fighting style” motif. 

Run D.M.C., Run D.M.C. (1984) - This is really one of the essential, foundational albums from some of the pioneers of modern hip-hop. Run D.M.C. and Jam Master Jay provided the soundtrack for any and every roller skating rink I ever attended. This was the crossover hip hop album, which really started mixing in not just beats but also rock riffs behind the rap. It’s Like That, Hollis Crew, Rock Box, Wake Up and more are absolute classics. 

good Kid m.A.A.d city, Kendrick Lamar (2012) - This is a later album obviously, a masterpiece that somehow lost the Grammy to Macklemore. Oh well. Kendrick is the real deal, telling true and powerful stories. I dig To Pimp a Butterfly maybe even more, but the lyrics and ideas and musicality is beyond compare. Kendrick’s flow when he gets going is entrancing. B**** Don’t Kill My Vibe is probably my favourite song on the album.

All Eyez On Me, Tupac, 1996 - Tupac’s fourth studio album, and the last to be released during his life (or is it?) All the misogyny and violence typical of the albums at the time, but lots of truth-telling throughout as well. And very chill beats and background music. Tupac’s rapping was very smooth and restrained, with a very unique sound. California Love, I Ain’t Mad At Cha, Only God Can Judge Me, and Ambitionz az a Ridah are amazing songs.

Silence? 1 Corinthians 14:26-40

The main point: The Spirit gifts every Christian to bless the Church in its gatherings. But this does not mean that chaos should rule in the Church. God is a God of peace, not confusion. Christians therefore should be self-controlled, out of love for one another and reverence for God. Under certain circumstances this will mean that some have to hold their tongues and remain silent during worship meetings, so as not to cause confusion or disorder. (On the issue of women being silent in the Church, see below.)

 

As with all the instructions given in 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul is speaking into the particular situation of the Church in Corinth, specifically about how they behave as they worship together. And it seems as if they had some pretty unruly worship services! Paul has already instructed the Corinthians on being one Body with many parts, all gifted by the Holy Spirit; on how the one true marker of the Christian life was not one of the spiritual gifts, but rather a love that endures forever and puts others ahead of oneself; and on how in the context of worship it is important that believers and non-believers alike be able to understand what is being said. And now he deals with disorder in worship

 

But who doesn’t like a little disorder? After all, the complaint of many people inside and outside the Church is that the meetings are too predictable, too boring, too orderly. But Paul is not advocating for quiet, boring services. He assumes, in fact, the occurrence of tongues, interpretations, prophecy, revelations, hymns, and more. He teaches that everyone who comes to the assembly has something to give, something that the Spirit has blessed them with so that they can bless and build up the rest of the Church. His instructions about orderly and peaceful worship, then, are not given in order to quench the Spirit, but in order to create an environment in which the Spirit can be heard through everyone.  Far from silencing anyone (which this passage is often used for), order in the Church ensures that everyone can use their gifts to bless the Church in an appropriate, edifying and God-honouring way. Without any order or restrictions, chaos will reign, and only the loudest voices or most influential people will be heard. The regulations given by Paul here allow for a truer freedom in worship. And it is left to the whole body, under the direction of the Word and the Holy Spirit, to ensure this order and freedom.

 

Because the issue of tongues was a big one in Corinth, Paul gives some specific regulations for their use. For the public assembly, they must be accompanied by interpretation. And even then the worship gathering must not be dominated by them. It seems that in Corinth many people were speaking in tongues all at once, making interpretation impossible. So only two or three people should speak in tongues, and one at a time, allowing for interpretation. Paul then applied the same kind of regulations to the gift of prophecy, adding that the prophecies should be judged and weighed by the rest of the assembly. Prophecy does not have its own independent authority. It must be judged by the Church, weighed against Scripture.

 

Paul asserts that it is the Holy Spirit who gives the gifts, but he also teaches that the speaker and prophet have control. They are not in an ecstatic trance, as was common in pagan worship. They can stop speaking, hold their tongues, wait their turn, and defer to one another. And they should exercise this self-control and peace, because that is what God is like. Pagan cultic worship was full of frenzy and disorder. But God is not like that, and Christian worship should reflect the character of God. The Corinthian worship, in its disorder and confusion, was not loving to one another and not reflective of God. Some people had to restrain themselves in order to stop contributing to the confusion. So there are times when it is God-honouring and appropriate for people to remain silent in the Church, if it builds up the Body and brings peace. This is a message for “all the Churches of the saints” (verse 33b). Many translations have linked that verse to the instructions about the silence of women. It makes more sense, though, to connect it to the ordering of tongues and prophecy which reflects the order and peace of God (verses 26-33a).

 

Now let’s look at verses 34-35, about women not speaking in the Church. Few Churches act out the simplest reading of these verses, which is that women should remain absolutely silent in Church. That doesn’t just mean preaching or teaching; that means praying, singing, doing children’s time, reading announcements, saying hello, etc…Even those who believe that women shouldn’t preach or teach have given up this most basic reading. So already we have some interpretation happening.

 

And we need interpretation, because it seems impossible that Paul is actually saying that women must remain totally silent in the Church. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Paul assumes that women will be praying and prophesying in the Church. In other letters Paul commends various women as prophets, deacons, even apostles (eg. Rom 16:1-12; Phil. 4:2-3). And in Acts 2:17-18 it is announced that sons and daughters, male and female servants will prophecy.  All believers who are filled with the Holy Spirit can prophesy, and the context for this prophecy is the building up of the Church. In fact, if women are not allowed to speak at all in the Church assembly, then it must mean that the rest of 1 Corinthians 12-14 – which instructs believers on how to build up the Church with their Spirit-given gifts - must apply only to the male members of the Body of Christ!  So it seems the verses in front of us cannot mean that all women should never talk in Church. What do we do with these verses, then?

 

One very respected theologian, Gordon Fee, believes that these two verses are not actually part of the canon of Scripture. This is because he finds them out of place in the passage, which is all about the regulation of the use of spiritual gifts and which flows more naturally if the two verses are omitted; because they contradict the rest of Paul’s message, which states that all are meant to prophesy or bring hymns or tongues etc…; and because some textual evidence supports the possibility that they were added by a later editor (see Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp.699-708.) This is a strong argument which should not be quickly dismissed, and which Fee is not alone in holding.

 

So there is a question about the authenticity of these verses. However, given that they are not actually missing from any known manuscript of Scripture, and that the Church has traditionally accepted them as part of sacred Scripture, the question still must be asked: what happens if we accept these verses as written by Paul? None of the “solutions” offered are free from difficulty. We simply don’t know, aside from educated guesses, what was going on in Corinth at this time that caused Paul to give the corrections he did.

 

Some have suggested that women were allowed to prophesy and pray, but not to teach, preach, or weigh the prophecies of others. But this passage is not about preaching and teaching at all, and Paul does not limit the gift of discernment (nor any other gift) to men alone. And prophecy was designed at least in part to teach everyone (1 Cor 14:31), so women who were prophesying were teaching. Others have suggested that Paul was quoting here from the letter the Corinthians had sent to him, so that it was the Corinthians, not Paul, who really wanted women to be silent. But there is no indication here that Paul is quoting anyone (whereas in other places it is clear), and there is no evidence elsewhere that the Corinthians held this kind of view.

 

One popular notion is that the men and women were split up into different rooms or sections for their Church meetings, and that the women were idly chatting too much and interfering with the worship of the men. But this probably wasn’t the way the home churches were set up, and verse 35 shows us that the women in the Church in Corinth weren’t idly chatting; they wanted to learn. This, Paul agrees, is a good thing, just as speaking in tongues is a good thing. But asking questions in the middle of the meeting, as it appears the women in Corinth were doing, was not a good thing. It caused disruption and confusion just as speaking in tongues in a disorderly and unintelligible way caused disorder and confusion.

 

But why were women told to not ask questions in this context, and not men? If the women in Corinth were asking questions during the time that Scripture was being taught, as seems likely, then they were probably causing offence by doing so. As Craig Keener points out, questions were normal in public lectures, but they were asked in an orderly way, and it was considered rude to ask irrelevant questions, or questions that could be answered on your own time through your own study. And women were far more likely to be uneducated or unfamiliar with public lectures at that time, so they were far more likely to be asking irrelevant or inappropriate questions while the Scripture was being taught. This was shameful and scandalous in the culture that the Corinthian Church wanted to reach with the gospel. Thus, the Corinthian women’s silence, in this particular case, would be loving and God-honouring to the rest of the Body. The women here were being asked to submit, as the Law required, to the needs of Church peace.

 

But Paul was still in favour of their learning more by asking questions. So he points out that there was another venue in which they could ask questions and learn what they wanted to know: asking their husbands at home, who were probably more educated than they were. This is the most progressive program for the education of women at the time! Far from belittling the women, it assumes that they can and should learn the things they are wanting to know, and addresses the inequality of Scriptural education between men and women. It asks husbands to take responsibility for ensuring that their wives receive the education they are looking for.  (A modern application of this principle could be ensuring that those who have not had the same educational opportunities as others, regardless of gender, have access to classes in which they can be taught Scriptural basics.)

 

The careful conclusion we come to is that, if these verses are authentic, they are a correction given to the Church in Corinth. There is a message here for us, but the letter is not written to us. We therefore believe that this passage does not prohibit women from speaking in the Church today. The passage does not address preaching or teaching, and the cultural situation that made it necessary for the women in Corinth to save their questions for their husbands at home no longer exists in much of the world. This interpretation does leave open the possibility that there may be cultures in the world today that are similar to that of Corinth, and in which women might still cause scandal by asking questions in the Church. But it insists, as Paul did, that Christian men in those cultures work towards resolving any inequalities in education the women face, so that they can participate more fully in Church gatherings. The Church must work to change those cultures from the inside out, and it must not simply be content to adopt the prevailing culture.

 

We also believe this passage does not prevent women from exercising any role or gift in the body, as we see women in these roles and using these gifts in other parts of Scripture, and as we receive Paul’s instruction from this passage that “all may prophesy…so that all may learn and all be encouraged.”  The case-specific instruction given here fleshes out the same principle that underlies all regulation of Christian worship: act in love towards one another, and do not cause confusion or disruption in worship, so that all within the Church can understand and be built up, and all outside the Church can hear the message of the Gospel. The Scriptural principle to which we are called here is order and peace in worship, not the silence of women.

 

This discussion on the issue of women in the Church is limited by time and space. Here are some of the resources that were used in researching this passage, if anyone wants to do more study. 

 

Blomberg, Craig, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary

Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, Lucy Peppiatt

Women and Worship at Corinth, Lucy Peppiatt

Unveiling Paul’s Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Lucy Peppiatt

Carson, D.A., Showing the Spirit

Cunningham, Loren and Hamilton, David, Why Not Women?

Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT

Grenz, Stanley and Kjesbo, Denise, Women in the Church

Keener, Craig, Paul, Women and Wives

Martin, Francis, The Feminist Question

Pierce, Ronald, and Groothuis, Rebecca, Discovering Biblical Equality

Webb, William, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals

I Want to be a Magician

I Want to be a Magician

I want to be a magician. Now, let's be clear about this: I do not mean that I want to be a necromancer, to commune with the dead or to play Dungeons and Dragons. I want to be a sleight of hand magician, like David Copperfield only a whole lot cooler.

Why, you may justifiably ask?

Because magicians have, in my estimation, the greatest job in the world. No, not because they get to cut people in half. Murderers get to cut people in half, and I am not suggesting that being a murderer is the best job in the world (it's not even in the top twenty!)

No, magicians have the greatest job in the world because their entire profession revolves around making you look and feel like and idiot, and you pay them for the privilege.

Consider the average magician's trick. They hold out a ball and show it to you. You look at it. They explain that it is a perfectly normal ball. You agree, because what do you know? They even hand it over to you and ask you to check and make sure that it is a normal ball, as if you have any special qualifications to make that assessment. So you take it, look at it, maybe bounce it, and discren that, yes, it is, according to your limited understanding of such arcane things, a perfectly normal ball. The magician takes the ball back, shows it to everyone again -  "Here's the ball, see the ball, can you see it? watch it carefully, watch the ball" - and you're all watching it with severe intensity like complete buffoons when bang! it's gone.

And the magician's like "Where's the ball? Where did it go? It was right here, but you don't know where it is now. I know where it is but you don't. I'm a magician, you're an idiot. Give me money."

And you DO. You give him money. Why do you give him money? Because you are desperate to know where that freakin ball is, that's why. And the magician won't telll you, because he wants to SHOW you, to reinforce the fact that it's nothing less than a sheer miracle that you actually managed to dress yourself on your own this morning.

"Hmmmm, where could that ball be?" the magician asks pompously as he strokes his ridiculous little beard. And you know, you just KNOW, that the stupid ball is going to be hidden somewhere about your person. Sure enough, this arrogant little magus points to you and says, "Hey, this is really just a wild guess, but perhaps you'd like to check and see if that ball is in your underwear." And so, relinquishing all dignity, modesty and any semblance of decorum you put your hand down your pants to discover that, yes, the magician has somehow managed to violate your personal space to such a degree that this blessed ball is impossibly located INSIDE YOUR OWN UNDERGARMENTS. You bring it out sheepishly, the magician instructs you to keep the now-soiled ball, everyone laughs at you, and you give the magician even more money for this final degradation.

This is why I want to be a magician. 

The Second Sign: Long-Distance Healing (John 4:46-54)

The main point: In his first sign, changing water into wine, Jesus was announcing the joy of the Kingdom that was coming through him. In this sign, he is announcing the new life of the Kingdom that was coming through him. 

In John 4:46 the connection between the wedding at Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine, and this sign of healing is made clear. Cana in Galilee is where Jesus performed the first sign, and it is also where he will perform the second sign. This then is the continuation of his Messianic work, and we should be on the lookout for what this sign tells us about the identity of Jesus and the nature of what he has come to do.

In Cana, Jesus encounters a nobleman or official whose son was sick. We don’t know who this man was, though he was probably not the centurion from the healing stories in Luke and Matthew. There is some speculation that he was one of Herod’s officials. The man had heard that Jesus could perform miracles, and he had an urgent request: his son was dying, and he needed the help of this proven wonder-worker. It may have been an act of desperation, but it was nevertheless an act of faith.

But Jesus does not answer this request with a miracle right away. Instead, he seems to give a rebuke, either to the man, or more generally to people who were asking miracles from him. If this official was a member of Herod’s court, it is possible that Jesus was referring to Herod and all his officials, who were after him to perform signs and wonders simply for the sake of signs and wonders, or to test him in some way. Jesus also may simply have been speaking about Israel in general, who wanted signs and wonders done just as Moses performed at the Exodus. Jesus had just encountered such a request for a sign in Jerusalem (John 2:18), and he responded by saying the sign would be the destruction of the Temple, and its being rebuilt in three days, (referring to his own death and resurrection). The one other time the phrase “signs and wonders” is used in the gospels is in Matthew 24:24, when Jesus is warning about false Christs and prophets who will deceive even the elect with their signs and wonders. Jesus’ signs are not being done to impress a sceptical crowd; they are identifying who he really is, and pointing towards the fulfillment of his Messianic task, his death on the cross.

The response of the official showed that he was not just testing Jesus, however. He was simply begging Jesus to help, or his child would die.  At this Jesus responds with his healing miracle. This miracle brings instant healing to the sick child, and relief to the desperate father. It also serves as a sign. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus’ sign of changing water into wine pointed to the fact that he had come to bring the overwhelming joy of the Kingdom, even though that joy would cost him his life. In this sign, Jesus shows that he is the one who has power to give life to those who are dying. This is in line with the expectations for the Messiah, who was meant to lift his people up from their grief, bring healing from all kinds of diseases, and translate mourning into rejoicing. These two signs have now identified Jesus as joy-bringer and life-giver.

But both of these signs were also accompanied by obedience. In the first sign, Mary instructs the servants to do whatever Jesus says, and they do. Perhaps not so big a deal, considering that it was their job to serve. More impressively, when Jesus here directs the man to return home because his child has already been healed, the official does so immediately, without questioning. Jesus is the only true source for the joy of the Kingdom of God, the only true source for the healing and life of the Kingdom of God. No human effort, no religious system, can bring about the joy and life that Jesus has brought. Obedience to the commands of Jesus allowed the people in these two stories to experience the miracles he brought about. And in both cases the miracles resulted in people putting their faith in Jesus.

Finally, these signs were performed in Cana, and not Judea, at least in part because Jesus had not been received in Judea. When he went to Jerusalem signs were demanded, and some had believed in his name when they saw his miracles, but Jesus did not commit himself to them, knowing that they had not understood or accepted what his signs were pointing to (John 2:23-25). Jerusalem, the very place where the Messiah should have felt at home, had not received him. Cana in Galilee, considered unimportant in the grand scheme of things, was prepared to welcome Jesus at this point.

Knowing the Father who carries his children (Deut 1:30-33, Isa 46:3-7)

The book of Deuteronomy is the account of Moses’ last instructions to the Hebrew people in the Moab Plains, just before they were to enter Canaan, the Promised Land. They had, of course, been in this position before. Forty years earlier the Twelve Tribes had waited at the banks of the Jordan River to hear the reports of the twelve spies they had sent into Canaan. What was the land like? Would they be able to take it, as God had told them to?

 

Now they stood again on the brink of promise, steeled by years of wilderness wandering, ready to enter the land. And Moses began by reminding them of what had happened forty years earlier. The people had listened to the reports of the spies, and had decided that what the Lord was asking them to do was too dangerous. They chose to believe that the Lord had brought them out of Egypt only to see them destroyed by the Amorites and those living in Canaan. In the end they got scared and would not trust and obey the Lord who had carried them up out of Egypt.

 

But this was madness. The Lord, Moses said, would have fought for them, just as he had in Egypt. The Lord had already proven himself as a trustworthy provider and caretaker. According to Exodus 19:4 the Lord had carried his people on eagles’ wings to himself. He had gone before them as a cloud by day and fire by night, securing good places for them to pitch their tents. The Lord their God, in fact, had carried them, as a man carries his son, all the way they went until they had come to this place. God, like a Father, had carried his people out of Egypt and through the wilderness until they came to the place he had promised for them. But they rebelled, and as a result they had to wander forty years in the wilderness until the unfaithful generation had passed away. None of them would see the Promised Land.

 

Moses brings this painful memory up as if to say, “Do not again forget who the Lord God is to you.” The Lord God is not a god who would bring his children out of slavery in Egypt only to see them killed by the Amorites. He is a Father who carries his tired, grumpy, disobedient children. He carries them away from danger, away from slavery, and into promise and rest. The God who carries his children like Father is a God who, above all, is one to be trusted. They are not to trust in their own military or financial or cultural might, nor to despair over the lack of it. They are to trust their Father.

 

But his people initially did not trust. And later on they came to put their trust in other things, things that were not remotely trustworthy. Isaiah 46 is a passage comparing the Lord to the silver and golden idols of Babylon. What were they? Constructed things, useless things, deaf things, immobile things. These “gods” needed to be carried around by their worshippers. They couldn’t even save themselves, let alone save those who cried out to them for help.

 

God is telling his people here not to set their hope and trust in the things of the world, the systems of power and wealth and religion that promise salvation and care but simply cannot provide these things. The temptation was not just the golden statue, but participation in the system of Babylon, the ruling power, the Empire with the mighty army and the cultural and financial influence.

 

God does not want his people to trust in this Empire, in this system of control wherein the priests place their gods wherever they want them to stay. This is a system that is a burden to the weary. This power relies upon the backs of the people to carry it around, and is oppressive. But the Lord God may not be controlled like that. The relationship he has with his people is the exact opposite. God will not be a burden to the weary. He will not force people to carry him on their backs. It is God who has carried his people since their conception and birth, and it is God who will carry them even into their old age. God the Father is the great sustainer, the rescuer, the maker, the saviour, the carrier. And he will still carry us today.

 

(Much of the information used in this and the other blog submissions about Knowing God was derived from studying Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright and From Paradise to the Promised Land by T Desmond Alexander).

Who do you think you are? - Luke 3:21-22, 4:1-13

The stories of Jesus’ baptism and of his temptation in the desert are separated in the book of Luke by a lengthy genealogy of Jesus, but they definitely should be read and understood together. This is made clear by 4:1, which says that Jesus, full of the Spirit following his baptism, returns from the Jordan where he was baptized and is led out by the Spirit into the wilderness.

 

The baptism of Jesus should be understood in the light of his self-understanding at the age of twelve in the Temple as God’s Son, and of the prophecy from Isaiah 42:1 which speaks of the chosen servant of God, in whom God delights, having the Spirit poured out on him so that he will bring forth justice to the nations. This is what is going on in the baptism of Jesus, which was a truly remarkable event. Here we see Jesus, already aware of his own relationship with the Father, having this relationship confirmed in him as the Spirit is poured out on him in fulfillment of prophecy. Here we see the Trinity in action: Father speaking love, Spirit descending, and Jesus receiving and being empowered for his mission. Jesus is not adopted as a Son here; he already is the Son of God. But his identity and vocation is affirmed, as is the constant presence of the Holy Spirit with him.

 

This Spirit then leads Jesus into the wilderness. The purpose was to fast and pray and to commune with his Father. But he is also tested and tempted by Satan who is trying to destroy this relationship between Son and Father. Jesus’ wilderness testing is reminiscent of Israel being lead into the wilderness following the Exodus and the giving of the Law, to be tested before they entered into the Promised Land. Israel was in the desert for 40 years; Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days. Israel failed its testing in the desert and consistently gave into temptation; Jesus overcame Satan and prevailed against the temptations, answering them by quoting the Word of God. The Scripture he quotes is from Deut 8:3, 6:13,16, which is significant because these were passages dealing with Israel’s time in the wilderness. Jesus is tempted here so as to stand in the place first of Israel and then of all humanity, facing sin and temptation and overcoming. It also foreshadows the trials and tests that are to come in Jesus’ life, as his life is a constant struggle against the kingdom of the devil. At the end of this passage it states that the devil goes away to wait for another opportune time to test Jesus. We later see him on the scene in Luke 22:3, starting the proceedings for Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion. In both the temptation and the crucifixion we see the devil intending to defeat Jesus through temptations and trials, but God uses both events to defeat the devil and bring glory to His name. And in both cases the devil seems to be initiating things, but in reality it is part of God’s plan; we see this in the wilderness as it is the Holy Spirit who leads Jesus there, not the devil.

 

One other Old Testament story that should be mentioned here is that of David from Samuel 17. Just after David is anointed (dedicated as the new King of Israel, though he was still young and Saul was still on the throne) we see him facing up against Goliath on the field of battle, representing all of Israel. David is victorious, and returns to a hugely popular welcome in Israel. Jesus also is victorious, and returns to Galilee, being glorified by all (Luke 4:14-15). Once again Jesus can be seen as standing in line with the story of King David.

 

The point of Jesus’ answers to Satan were not simply that he knew Scripture really well. Of course he knew Scripture really well; most Jews at that time would know Scripture incredibly well, and Jesus had the added advantage of being the Son of God! The test was not of Jesus’ knowledge of Scripture, but of whether or not Jesus would obey the words of Scripture and submit to the will of his Father. The main emphasis of the devil’s temptations is to drive a wedge between Jesus and his Father. The devil questions Jesus’ identity, and tries to get him to follow his own path, rather than following the path set out for him by the Father. The first temptation tests Jesus to make bread from stones, a temptation to use his power and authority for his own ends, and thus turn aside from his Messianic task and his relationship with his Father. Jesus responds from Scripture that obedience to his Father is more important and life-giving than even food. The devil then offers him all the kingdoms of the world and all the glory from them. This is not truly the devil’s to give, and the cost required is to give to the devil the worship that belongs solely to God. Again, the devil is trying to break the Father-Son relationship, and again Jesus answers with Scripture, saying that God alone is to be worshipped. Finally the devil takes Jesus to the top of the Temple in Jerusalem, and asks him to prove who he is through a miraculous sign. Jesus answers a final time from Scripture, saying that he will not put his Father to the test. He is secure in his knowledge of who God is and of who he is, and does not need to test it or prove it.

 

We may easily and often be tempted with material things, with striving for independence from God, with glory and power, with fame and being considered significant. But these are all distractions from the main thing, which is living out our relationship with God the Father, and being obedient to his will. This passage is not primarily a guide on how-to deal with temptation, but it almost certainly was used as an early model for Christian believers on how to overcome the tests that came with faith, and Jesus’ responses and model are still instructive to us now.