A compilation of some reflections from 2019

Phil 4:4-9 The whole package

At the root of our nation’s mental health crisis is anxiety. The irony is that never before has there less to be anxious about than now. We don’t have Hitler taking over Europe. We don’t have the constant threat of a nuclear strike. We have state benefits and food banks. We have the NHS, much maligned but a great improvement on before. We have drugs for almost every human complaint and very few killer diseases left that we can’t tackle if caught early. So why the anxiety?

My hunch is that it is a deeply spiritual issue. But spiritual issues defy psychology. Jung famously commented that a religious experience was way better than counselling (my paraphrase!). Paul’s advice here is part of a whole spiritual outlook and way of life. It isn’t really a therapy as such, a quick fix.

“Rejoice in the Lord always”. Let God be your source of joy. Whatever way you can find to enhance this, do it. It might be nature, worship, spending time with people, serving others, but allow your joy in God to well up. Be “gentle”. Actually, this is not easy to put on, as it is a product of some of the other things. But don’t be ashamed of it in an aggressive environment. As it happens, gentleness is a rather prevalent feature of our culture, but it’s applied selectively. Paul says “let it be evident to all”.

“The Lord is near”. This is part of our outlook, but one that I find all too easy to lose, especially amongst people, or when thinking. What Eastern religion calls “consciousness”. Or the current secular equivalent – mindfulness.

“In everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God”. This is a complete sharing of your life with God. It is the alternative to anxiety. “Do not be anxious about anything, but…”. It’s the sharing of a child with their father, or mother! But deeper than that, it comes from not being alone.

When you are first a Christian, people supply a lot of this. It is only in time that it becomes more internal. And in fact community can supply a lot of it, a good community. There’s a lot of overlap between this and God! “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding (ref Jung), will keep your hearts – guard even – and minds in Christ Jesus”. That’s the peace of God that transcends all understanding! It’s the peace that guards your heart and your mind. Whilst it does that, it allows you to be secure and open to people and to the truth.

How do you get to this place? 8-9 help – think on good stuff, observe people you admire – take care of your own soul! This is just good spiritual housekeeping.

1 Sam 17: 34-37 Childhood Resilience

One of the great paradoxes of childhood – and indeed life – is that adversity of all kinds is good as long as you are able to overcome them. The less adversity you face, the less resilient you are. However, if you cannot conquer your adversity, then instead it becomes a negative influence on your life, as you will try to avoid it in the future and when you encounter it, you will struggle.

It’s a paradox, as your parents, especially these days, do not want you to suffer any adversity and will step in to remove it. What’s more they will go out of their way to give you fun, not understanding that fun is something best created from within yourself and not provided for you.

David’s father Jesse sent him out alone as a boy to care for sheep. You might think it’s a very safe pastime and at one level it is – but not if you want to do a good job. “The good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep” says Jesus in John 10:11, and David fought lions and bears to rescue his sheep. Jesse was wise – he gave David the opportunity to take real risks and develop. Though I presume he didn’t insist he took the risk, but let David rise to the challenge.

Only the father (or mother) can do this – put their child in danger to develop them. A good father does it in stages, always being aware of the danger and judging whether the risk is worth taking. I was very conscious of doing this with my David. It is not for anyone else or any other organisation. It cannot be delegated.

Alternatively, an absent father (or mother), may simply not protect the child at all. Then they have just what their environment throws at them. This has the danger that the environment envelops them, and they become e.g. gang members. So, someone has to take this fatherly role in the kids life. Someone who loves them needs to prepare them for life.

Exactly the same applies to our spiritual lives and our heavenly father. “Consider it pure joy my brothers whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” James 1:2 – 4. “God is faithful: he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you attempt and he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

1 Corinthians 10:13 The puzzle of nature

My own Christian experience is intricately tied up with nature. Seeing it for what it is was the answer to my prayer for “Jesus to reveal himself” when I was 18. Running through nature has been a spiritual experience for me. I spend my quiet times in it, seeing, listening. I go walking in it when I want restoration. “He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul” writes David metaphorically in Psalm 23:2. Yet this experience, so deep and foundational to me, is never referred to in Scripture, which seems to be all about mankind. Yes I’m pretty sure it’s in Eastern religions and of course pagan and new age spirituality too. Almost every religion includes this, except Judaism, Christianity & Islam.

We constantly see the acknowledgement of Yahweh “who made heaven and earth”, and we even have the beautiful observations in Job 38 and 39 of animal life, but no mention of how the appreciation of this touches us. “Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them” (Psalm 111:2), quoted on the entrance of both the new and the old Cavendish Labs, is misused as it is not actually referring to creation, but to God’s acts regarding Israel.

This glaring omission is a puzzle – why is Scripture so man-centred? Of course, it omits other core components of life – creativity, engineering, business, communications, politics. Do these not matter either? Agricultural skills and knowledge, military, construction. None of these are mentioned either but these are not as intrinsically spiritual as the bonding with nature is.

I can think of two possibilities – one that it’s so pervasive that it is taken for granted. The other is that it is so much a part of every other religion – and maybe Baal worship in particular - that it is ignored in order to create distance from other religions. Maybe it is that other religion uses it to make nature, rather than its creator, the focus, and this danger makes it a no-no.

If this is so, then we are in trouble, because nature desperately needs our respect and awe if we are to preserve our beautiful earth. We can no longer afford to distance ourselves from it, but need to embrace it, and the spirituality that comes with it. We must do what the writers of the Bible did not do – we must integrate nature with its creator and sustainer. This is the need of our time.

Ecclesiastes 8

“no one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it”. So concludes chapter 8. Today we know so much more – how amazing is that? Today we understand through science, anthropology, mass media, as much as our little brains can take in – the knowledge is out there and we only have to watch our computer screen or even the right TV channel, to access it.

But what about meaning? “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless” starts the book. And Dawkins would say this too is the conclusion of science. But the reason for that is that meaning is a question science cannot address – in reality the phrase is not the conclusion of science, but the basis of the study of process that science is.

However this chapter (and book) focuses not on scientific knowledge but the success of wickedness. “Although a wicked man commits a hundred crimes and still lives a long time, I know that it will go better with God fearing men.” (v12). In other words, righteousness is not a recipe for personal success, just as faith is not an insurance policy, but overall, righteousness and faith will produce a better outcome than wickedness. But what is wickedness? “God made men upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes” (7:29) “wickedness will not release those who practice it” (8:8). “After desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” James 1:15. It starts off as a desire or scheme, but ends up an identity. It envelops until it is “who you are”.

I don’t agree with “the teacher” that the failure of the righteous or success of the wicked render everything meaningless. This has to be so – the book of Job explains this – else we would be righteous for purely selfish motives, and that would not be righteous! Personally, I have lived under the grace of God, but my Christian brother or sister, who is more righteous than I, may have suffered and be suffering. I need to share in it with them, and they need to share in my grace.

Habakkuk

whereas in yesterday’s passage Solomon was writing as the wise ruler of a country that was stable and at least attempted to maintain some justice, Habakkuk is writing from a different experience “the law is paralysed and justice never prevails” and “conflict abounds”. There seems no way out except God saves them in answer to Habakkuk’s (and others) cries for help.

Yahweh’s answer is not at all what Habakkuk had in mind as help. He is raising up the Babylonians, who are as proud and unrighteous as you can imagine, ruthless and “guilty men, whose own strength is their God”. The people of Judah are guilty, but the Babylonians many times more.

So Habakkuk then asks how can Yahweh tolerate this? The reply is that the Babylonians too will fall. “The revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false” (2:3). Habakkuk responds “I stand in awe of your deeds oh Lord… In wrath remember mercy”.

He then describes God in terms of a massive natural power, terrifying. “Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us” 3:16.

Actually, the whole book is terrifying – a bad, bad, situation is dealt with by a much worse one which is then finally dealt with too, but it takes a long time to happen. Habakkuk lives in anticipation of that final time, and is able to rejoice in God despite everything.

What to conclude? That there aren’t always or perhaps ever, quick fixes when things get very bad. The solution involves destruction, turmoil and time.

The Bible

is a collection of writings which communicate a spiritual view of mankind through the relating of history, stories of the distant past, expression of feeling, speaking into current situations and in the new Testament dwelling on the life, teaching and death of Jesus and the way it birthed the “followers of the Way”. It also gives in a few places visions of the future.

The source of that spiritual view is mostly not from internal reflection, but external experience and an understanding of what is behind that, that is a source of power above that of mankind. That higher power – God – is understood to be the creator, sustainer and director of the world.

Of course, “mankind” itself is a higher power than each individual person. Culture bears down heavily on each person, even if the state itself doesn’t (though it usually does). Culture comes from peers, from the family, community or in our case the whole Western world (thanks to mass media). I believe these larger cultures form what Paul refers to as “the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” in Ephesians 3:10. But herein lies the potential confusion: you have state and culture and you have a higher power still – God – but both are above us. You also have powers of evil and powers of good which seemed to be an emergent level above culture – since culture is from things people consciously and knowingly create but powers of good and evil are forces on us that are less conscious and more emergent - the result of culture but not an intended aim of it. How do we distinguish God from these powers? How does God have power over these powers?

We can learn here from the way an embryo develops into a baby. Simple changes at the embryo stage can lead to a very different body and brain in the baby. Jesus speaks of the mustard seed and yeast in Matthew 13:31 – 33; a small or bit of yeast has a massive effect. The Bible is a testimony to those key events acting like seeds/yeast, and their impact. If the whole of biological life works this way, we should not be surprised that God works this way too.

Michal

Michal is Saul’s daughter, wife of David. We remember her because she saw David dancing in a linen ephod, “disrobing like any vulgar fellow would” (1 Samuel 6:20), and despised him in her heart. He had brought the Ark back to Jerusalem and was uncontrollably exuberant. We assume Michal did not share his love of Yahweh and therefore his exuberance at the Ark returning. Her reward for this was that “she had no children to the day of her death” (1 Samuel 6:23).

But I don’t think this is it.

As a younger girl, Michal was in love with David (1 Samual 18:20). At this time Saul was trying to entice David into a place where he could get him killed – later on he would just try himself, but at this stage he was scheming and wanting to make David vulnerable. Clearly Michal had a certain quality – we don’t know what it was – that would make “a snare to him” in his battles against the Philistines – but let’s assume that this was her beauty and passion for David and nothing negative.

David was “pleased to become the king’s son-in-law”, but this may have been status because he probably didn’t know Michal at all. But they married and they were a couple living in their own house in Jerusalem.

Soul’s desire to kill David increased. In 1 Samuel 19:1 he tells Jonathan and his attendants to kill him (having failed to get the Philistines to do this), and in 19:9 an “evil spirit from the Lord” comes upon him whilst David is playing the harp – for the second time (see 18:10 – 11) – but this time the evil spirit stays and he sends men to David’s house to kill him as he leaves the next morning. Michal works out what is happening and warns her husband and helps him to escape. She puts an idol (what’s that doing in the house?) into his bed and holds off the men for long enough for David to get away.

Saul challenges his daughter – “why did you deceive me like this and send my enemy away so that he escaped?”. Michal should have stood up to her father, but he was not just father but King. So she lied and said David threatened to kill her.

From that moment on, David could never return to his house and Michal as long as Saul lived, and both Saul, Michal and he knew it. So the tragedy of Michal starts to unfurl – even though still married to David, she is given as wife to Paltriel. In time David marries again, first Ahinoam and then Nabal’s widow Abigail (1 Samuel 25:43 – 44).

However, after Saul’s death, David starts to gain power over the house of Saul, and bargains for Michal’s return. Now it is Paltiel’s turn to be heartbroken – clearly the marriage had been a good one, as he follows her on the journey weeping all the way. Who knows how Michal felt – torn in two I imagine, on the one hand being separated from her second love and on the other returning to her first love (2 Samuel 3:16).

But she does not return to her lover and love nest. He now has two more wives and once he is King he takes more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, bearing him sons and daughters (2 Samuel 5:13). Michal had been in his house a long time before the Ark incident and had had no children – it is not hard to understand why. She has become an “also-ran” having once been his one love – and not just his, but Paltiel’s too.

So we see that her comments over David’s dancing came from a sad and bitter heart, turned from love to maintaining status and respectability, a pawn in the power games played by two men whose love for her played second fiddle to their careers.

Samuel

I’ve spent an hour going through Samuel’s life! It was less memorable than I thought, in terms of outstanding incidents. It is more characterised by a consistent and faithful role as judge of Israel (1 Samuel 7:16). At the end of his life he asks Israel if anyone wants to accuse him of taking bribes, or using his power to gain anything. No one did (1 Samuel 12:4).

The same was not true of his sons, and it was actually this which provoked Israel’s elders to ask for a king (1 Samuel 8:5). Apart from this incident in chapter 7, the rest of the account of Samuel is related to anointing King Saul, pronouncing his failure and anointing David.

The final time we hear of him is when David goes to take refuge in Rama at the end of chapter 19. Saul send soldiers to capture him but they did not because once they arrive the spirit of God falls on them. After sending two more groups of men and the same thing is happening, he goes himself and it happens to him too. “Saul stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel’s presence” (1 Samuel 19:24) “he lay that way all day and night”.

The incident in chapter 7 serves to illustrate the remarkable fact that “throughout Samuel’s lifetime, the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines” (1 Samuel 7:13). All Israel respected Samuel and listened to him, and when he tells them to rid themselves of the Ashereths in response to their desire to return to Yahweh, he delivers a promise of deliverance if they do “commit themselves to the Lord and serve him only” (1 Samuel 7:3). Samuel offers a lamb and cries out to God, and God throws the Philistines into a panic with thunder.

So, Samuel’s knowledge of God is not demonstrated by remarkable miracles etc. so much as by the impact of his life. His simple and effective leadership, which cost Israel absolutely nothing, contrasts with Saul and David and their successors.

Is the “righteousness” in Romans real?

God “credits righteousness” and “justifies” are the phrases Paul uses in Romans, from which we derive the concept of righteousness as a status rather than a description.

In explaining this in 4:6–8 Paul quotes Psalm 32 which is about God forgiving sins and the man who sin the Lord will never count against him. So we see that this status is that our sin is not considered a part of us – “justified” really does mean “just as if I’d never sinned”, in terms of God’s view of us. But does that mean that we really are righteous? Yes, righteousness is indeed the absence of sin, and yes by faith in Christ it is as if we had not sinned, but as in fact we have & we do, the righteousness is purely imaginary. Both God and us are simply pretending.

One of the problems of sin is that it has consequences for us individually and the community we are part of. Paul points this out for people who exchange knowing God with uncontrolled sexual expression – it not only causes bodily issues but also deeply affects the character. But sin is way more than sexual – it is greed, selfishness, envy, malice – see the lists in various parts of Scripture (Mark 7:21 – 22) (Galatians 5:19 – 21). Does God’s grace undo the effects of this? I don’t think so.

So we have peace with God (5:1) and stand in the grace of God with hope (5:2), but is anything any better for it? “Shall we go on sinning, so the grace may increase” (6:1)?

This is where Paul pivots. For five chapters he speaks of the righteousness of God as a gift. Now he speaks of becoming “slaves to righteousness” (6:18) as something we have to bring about. “Do not let sin reign… Do not offer parts of your body to sin… Sin shall not be your master” (6:12 – 14). Paul describes what this can feel like in chapter 7! Huge conflict rages inside us as we struggle to bring about the righteousness God has declared we already have.

Enter the Holy Spirit in chapter 8 – or maybe just “the spirit”, since the chapter makes sense that way too. I guess it’s actually both, we live by our spirit, which God has infused with the Holy Spirit. But living by the spirit is something we have to bring about and allow to happen.

Paul then reflects in the context of the nation of Israel how the law never brought this about. The law at best facilitates it, a means to the end of living by the spirit. And in fact, so is the “righteousness from God”. The life described in chapter 8 is the purpose of both. The righteousness of Romans is real after all.

Paul in Ephesus Acts 19

In Acts 19:8 Paul speaks boldly and argues persuasively. This has the effect of dividing the synagogue – some become disciples and some refuse to believe and end up publicly maligning the way. So Paul moves out of the synagogue and has daily discussions elsewhere.

But Paul does not just present an intellectual argument – God does such extraordinary miracles through him that even handkerchiefs and aprons that have touched him were taken to the sick! This was enough both for illness and evil spirits.

But just like with Ananias and Siphira, the incident which really had an effect was when the seven sons of Sceva used Jesus’s name once too often and got beaten up by a deranged man who said “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”

What was the effect? “Those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds” (18). That’s when you know the kingdom of God is arriving. It is one thing to join a group you like, quite another to be honest to that group that you have a part of your life hidden. And quite voluntarily some brought their sorcery materials and burnt them

We can see that most of what happens in Ephesus is catalysed by Paul, only he does not do it. His openness and convictions together with the power of his message lay the ground for God to do the rest.

After a while, Paul decides to leave for Jerusalem, but ministering as he goes. Just before he does, we have an account of the Ephesus riots which demonstrates just how pervasive Paul’s message has been, for the silversmiths believe that their trade is under serious threat, as the demand for silver shrines of Artemis diminish. The problem is more serious than that, as Ephasus’s very identity is derived from “the temple of the great Artemis and her image” (verse 35). However, the proconsul is not worried, and his calm conviction that nothing is really under threat quietened everyone down. It turns out he was right – the church in Ephesus received the rebuke in Revelation 2:4 “you have forsaken your first love”, even though it remained faithful, helped along by Paul’s most excellent letter to the Ephesians, widening their perspective and deepening their spirituality, equipping them to withstand the spiritual battle and giving them some solid principles to live by.

I can’t help feeling that this is the kingdom of God – to live within another culture but not to engulf it – to be the alternative and not the status quo. Then it can remain radical and set its own principles – remain “the way” – rather than return to an imposed religion such as Israel ended up with under the Kings.

Hebrews 12 Holiness

“God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.” (10). “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy, without holiness no one will see the Lord” (14). “See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral or godless like Esau” (15, 16). Esau threw it all away because he could not control his desire for a meal when he was hungry.

Actually this is a massive command. “See to it that no one misses the grace of God”! The holiness which is our calling is not the experience of Israel at Sinai – of fear and overwhelming power – but of joy & the new covenant. We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken – the rock that turns into a mountain in Daniel 2. So we worship God with reverence and awe, for “our God is a consuming fire”.

John 6:25-71 Bread from heaven

“Bread of heaven, feed me now and evermore” we sing heartily in the choir – and supporters sing at Welsh rugby matches. It’s actually a simple concept at one level – “it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven” (32). But it gets deeper when Jesus speaks of his flesh being that bread: “here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die – I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (50 – 51).

Firstly, the incarnation – how does a person “come down from heaven”? It is true that Jesus’s conception was strange indeed, with the appearance of Mary being a surrogate. Nevertheless, Jesus, whatever his genes, grew as a normal baby and youngster does.

We have a clue in the current Trans identity debate, or indeed the whole politics of LGBT. Those who adopt this identity will say “I always knew I was…”. Once an identity is firmly in place, you have the sense that this is “you”, and always was. Jesus had this sense very powerfully, and that just as he had come from heaven, he would return to heaven.

But why does Jesus speak of his flesh as being the bread? And use the phrase “eats my flesh and drinks my blood”? The imagery is horrific, and no wonder his broader set of disciples had trouble with it.

Perhaps we can work backwards from the end result – “has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (54). The nature of our life is changed by it. In fact, our own identities are changed by it, “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (55). Real, because it affects our being rather than our bodies.

But the truth is we don’t understand this. We have communion to celebrate this, it is the place where we let this happen, but the desert fathers called this “the holy mysteries” which we partake of. It isn’t there to be analysed but to actually happen. /p>

Daniel 4 & 5

Although the events described in these chapters referred to very significant political upheavals, here we have an insight into the role that God plays in them. The God of these chapters comes with no theology, no law, no temple worship, no priesthood, no sacrifices – nothing like that. No religion, no name, no belief system. Yet King Belshazzar is reprimanded for not honouring the God “who holds in his hand your life and/or your ways”. Rather he praised the gods of money and technology, of power and riches, which are convenient gods rather than the “Most High” who serves no one but is served by all whether they acknowledge him or not (5:23).

In Nebuchadnezzar’s case, Daniel speaks to him as one who intercedes: “be pleased to accept my advice: renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed” (4:27). Nevertheless it was Nebuchadnezzar’s pride rather than anything else which triggered his humbling. “Pride comes before a fall” would be a good summary of both stories.

The whole feel of these chapters is reminiscent of the recovery movement’s “higher power”, which the alcoholic submits to in order to overcome their addiction. This is religion at its most basic; unsophisticated yet incredibly powerful.

Why was Daniel not more explicit regarding Yahweh? Why did he not urge the king to adopt the Jewish religion? Instead he stands back and is content for Nebuchadnezzar to “glorify the king of heaven, because everything he does and all his ways are just” (4:37). Because the Jewish religion was about the Jewish state. Is that all God cares about? Yes and no. Yes, it was the plan for the transformation of the world, which did not materialise, but gave birth to another kind of kingdom, not a human one. No, because “the whole earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (Psalm 24). Verses 3 to 5 of that Psalm present the simple and universal spiritual truths that underpin all religion.

Matt 10:7-8 “the kingdom of heaven is near”

“Do the impossible; restore everyone; as you have received freely, give freely” (my paraphrase).

Which is harder, the impossible restoration or the freely giving? In the kingdom of heaven, the two go together. “Imagine there’s no…” says John Lennon about the things that divide us as humanity, but he stopped short of “freely give”. Why was the story of the good Samaritan so shocking? The giving was not even within his own community, let alone his own “gene pool”. It was only compassion that triggered it.

Giving has an impact. But it costs – time and money. And these are things we have too little of. Because we are compartmentalised and alone, fending for ourselves.

The vision of the kingdom of heaven is indeed that “the world will live as one”. But it’s a vision only. The kingdom of heaven is near, but not here. In Matthew 13:24 – 30 we have a story about wheat and weeds, with an explanation in 13:36 – 43. They are the “sons of the kingdom” and the “sons of the evil one”. This is very dualistic. Which kingdom do you belong to?

Restore and give.

2 Tim 3:16

Paul says the Old Testament is God-breathed and is useful – even though Paul is emphatic that the law never made anyone righteous! “The law was added so the trespass might increase” (Romans 5:20). Besides teaching holiness, the law teaches a lot of hygiene and ways of determining justice that would not impress our legal system, but probably worked, in its own way, to keep crime under control, which is more than you can say everywhere today. Nevertheless, the statement is surprising as Paul did not seem to teach the law at all. “You foolish Galatians… Did you receive the spirit by observing the law or by believing what you heard?” (Galatians 3:2). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law…” (Galatians 3:13).

Of course, we have examples of Paul's use of scripture for teaching - see Romans 3:10-18 for example - though there he misquotes and glues verses together and gives verses meanings they don’t seem to have had originally, though not in any twisting way. I think maybe it was in his Pharisaic tradition to do this.

I think at best you can say he considered all Scripture is God-breathed and useful but only in the light of Christ’s redemption. I would have liked to have asked him about this considering how the verse has been used since! The verse before clarifies: “make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (15).

But what about these four elements?

Teaching – needs to be done with care, as we see above.

Rebuking – care too. Galatians 3:1 is about as strong a rebuke as you can get, but that is for observing the law!

Correcting – rebalancing is the way Paul did this. He quotes “there is no one righteous, not even one” (Psalm 14:3) to make the point that Jews and Gentiles alike are under sin. Of course, there are plenty of psalms which say the opposite: “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin” (Psalm 18:23). Scripture challenges and reveals, shows there is something deeper. The truth is that every scripture has an opposite, a balancing Scripture, which together speak to the human heart.

Training in righteousness – given the emphasis on the Spirit versus the law, and a righteousness from God rather than the law, this is the most surprising of all the four phases. Yet I would 100% agree with him. The training is indeed there if you are reflective and allow it to speak to you. The Psalms train you to deal with the ups and downs of life in an emotionally freeing way. Job teaches you to accept God’s ways even though you don’t understand them. Ecclesiastes warns against vain glory. The point is that the Old Testament does train you in the righteousness from God, not just the law.

Paul’s issue with the law was not that it didn’t have a place, but that first century Judaism had it in the wrong place. The right place is when the scriptures make you wise for salvation, to seek God for your holiness and righteousness, to acknowledge your “missing the mark” and to live in the grace of God.

Fear no evil

At the start of the year I had a word in a quiet moment at Ruardean Hill – I need to be able to distinguish between danger and calling. Both in the moment, and in strategic decisions.

The truth is that things that should work out well turn into danger and things that should spell danger work out well. So logic doesn’t give us anything but a probability!

On the one hand “when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and staff they comfort me” (Psalm 23:4). On the other hand “be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Although Peter writes of temptation here, it is a general principle. You are never safe, but neither should you fear evil. So many bad things happen to innocent people. Danger in truth is never far away.

“Calling” in that word at the start of the year is not a trumpet fanfare thing. It can be in really small things. To meet your grand calling when it comes you need to have stepped up many, many times, Iike David facing the lions and bears when he was a shepherd boy

So, living your calling is a way of life:

“Watch your thoughts, they become words

watch your words, they become actions

watch your actions, they become habits

watch your habits, they become character

watch your character, it becomes your destiny”

In fact “watch” was added later. The origin goes back to 1856 where the biblical word “sow” was used. Sow is a more positive action, and the whole sequence is about positive action.

The interesting step for me is the words. I need to verbalise more if my thoughts are to become actions.

Numbers 5

The three laws in this chapter are typical of three types of laws in the Torah.

The first, which keeps potentially infectious people outside the camp, associates infectiousness with ceremonial uncleanliness. The concept of “unclean” is quite broad and deep. Including a woman during her period, various kinds of meat, washing hands and utensils etc. It is conceived as “unsuitable to come before God”, but is actually a way of keeping public places free of bodily fluids and germs. But it is more than that – a man without testicles cannot join the assembly – just as a sacrificial animal could not be blemished. The focus was a hundred percent on the “purity” of the assembly and not the individual. However, I don’t believe any shame was associated with being unclean, but exclusion from the assembly and “the dwelling of Yahweh amongst them” (v3) must have had an impact.

The second is the law of restitution – 20% more than the wrong. Paid to the person, or if not possible, a close relative, or if not possible, the lucky priest. An amount that is not crippling - clearly the law is intended to be applied as often as possible.

The third is the test for an unfaithful wife. One of a number of essentially psychological/spiritual tests. The test depends on the person involved completely believing in the voracity of the test. Some are more Draconian than this one, if I’m not getting confused with mediaeval tests based on the same principles. Such tests are designed to provoke a confession from the guilty.

Are these laws perfect! Probably not. They aim to maintain a physical and spiritual purity amongst people who live very close to one another, and in so doing create a powerful culture focused on the health and well-being of the whole community. This may at times have a negative impact on some individuals in the community. Surely it is hard to create a strong community without this? Yet I believe this is exactly the vision of the kingdom of God – a community which maintains a powerful culture of purity yet is able to restore people to it, not by accepting impurity as part of the culture, but by containing it and being open about it.

Ezekiel 12

As the exile approaches, everyone is still in denial. This is human nature, to be optimistic and short term in outlook. “He prophesies about the distant future” (27). Besides, there are other prophets who are prophesying very differently, seeing visions of peace (13: 10, 16). Why are they in denial? They will not acknowledge their detestable practices (16): this in turn blocks any perception of the true reality of their situation (2). They’re too busy defending their way of life to consider the situation spiritually.

The final outcome of the disaster of exile will be “they will know that I am the Lord” (16). This is the sad part of the situation – they will in the end understand it, when it is all over and the land is lost. Part of this will be that it will be a new generation, one that can disassociate from the one that ignored the warnings, just like the wilderness experience after the Exodus.

Today the Tories will almost certainly vote in Boris Johnson – a Donald Trump of the UK whose hero is Churchill. Churchill was a prophet of his own day, not with a particularly godly source of understanding, but one born of experience and insight – and most of all he was not afraid to face up to the truth. Had he a deep spiritual understanding as well he might have directed the country differently.

However, surely we are in a different situation today, to the 1930s.

But given we are for sure leaving the EU with Boris at the helm, can we pray that good will come of it? All we can see ahead is division of the UK, both the constituent nations and the people themselves.

So are we getting what we deserve? Dare we pray that God would have mercy on our nation and raise up a leader – or prophet – with real insight? And a spiritual understanding too?

Isaiah 49

This is the least known of the Servant passages. The chapter falls into two – the servant of the Lord who is called before they are even born, but who “labours to no purpose”, or so it seems, yet “brings back those of Israel I have kept”, and is also “a light to the Gentiles” – and then the physical restoration of Israel, out of an apparently forgotten Zion, restored by Gentile kings – a moment for them to “know that I am the Lord”.

It would be all too easy to see in these two sections firstly Jesus and secondly the restoration of Israel in these recent decades. And the chapter does speak to both of these, but more than a prophecy far into the future from when written, it is a message of perspective. Firstly a perspective for all those called to be a restorer and a bringer of God’s salvation, that although it may seem that “I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing”, as a servant of God “my reward is with my God” and as a servant it is not up to you to judge your impact. Then secondly a perspective that in the ebb and flow of Israel’s fortunes, there will be a massive “flow” in due course which will not only restore the land, but prosper the population so the land is “too small for your people”.

With God, the end is never the end, it is an ebb from which hard lessons are to be learnt. There is always a nascent salvation and restoration in there, a tide waiting its moment to turn and restore.