Amos 1:11-2:3 — Amos Addresses Edom, Ammon and Moab

January 16, 2013

Amos continues his prophetic word against the sins of the nations in Amos 1:11-2:3. He first addressed Damascus, Gaza and Tyre (Amos 1:3-10) which lie to the north and southwest of Israel and Judah.  Now he addresses Edom, Ammon and Moab which lie to the east and southeast of Israel and Judah.

The pattern of his rhetoric remains the same for all six nations.

Address:  ”The Lord Says”

Proverb:  ”Because of the three transgressions of … and because of four, I will not cause (him/it) to return.”

Sin:  ”because…”

Consequence:  ”Therefore….”

Conclusion: “The Lord God has spoken” (not always present).

This rhetorical pattern stresses the sin and the consequence. Only one sin is identified even though many others are presumed (“three, even four…”). The identified crime becomes the central ethical condemnation (1:11, 13; 2:1). The identification of the sin becomes the key element of the oracle itself followed by its consequences.

The consequences, however, are essentially the same–fire will burn destroy the cities/citadels (1:12, 14; 2:2). These nations were ravaged by an invading force. Future Assyrian campaigns will do just that in the 740s-700s BCE.

What are the sins?

  1. “because [Edom] pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever” (1:11)
  2. “because they [Ammon] have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (1:13)
  3. “because they [Moab] burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom.” (2:1)

1.  Edom “pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity” (1:11). In earlier proverbs, Edom is identified as a nation which bought slaves from Tyre and Philistia (Gaza). Edom enslaved his own brothers–Israel and Judah (1:6, 9). Moreover, Edom opted for violent aggression against his brothers. This may refer to Edom’s plundering of Jerusalem and Judah in alliance with Philistia and Arabs in 2 Chronicles 21:16-17, but it may characterize the perpetual hostile relationship between Edom and Judah throughout the eighth and ninth centuries BCE.

The full statement by Amos is instructive as we note the parallelisms involved.

he pursued his brother with the sword

and cast off all pity

he maintained his anger perpetually,

and kept his wrath forever.

The description “cast off all pity” extends the accusation that Edom pursued violent aggression against Judah. The term “pity” comes from the root which means “womb.” This alludes to the brotherly relationship between Edom and Judah. Edom lost all natural brotherly affection for Judah. Edom pursued violence rather than peace. Moreover, Edom betrayed their fundamental kinship–it was “brother” against “brother.”

Even more, Edom pursued violence out of intense anger. The imagery is vivid.  Edom’s anger incessantly “tore” Judah like a lion tears its prey (cf. Psalm 7:2). Edom sought to devour and decimate Judah like a predator. Further, Edom did not seek resolution to its anger; it refused to let go of it. Instead, Edom “kept his wrath perpetually.”  The term “kept” is often used to describe a shepherd who watches over and keeps his flock. In other words, Edom nurtured and fed this anger against Judah. Edom needed some anger-management that would give an opening for peace.

Edom fueled their anger against Judah rather than seeking peace-making and resolving their anger. They pursued violence rather than peace. Amos highlights and condemns that sin.

2.  The Ammonites “ripped open pregnant women in Gilead” for territorial gain (1:13). The Ammonites descended from Lot’s youngest daughter and were thus related to Israel. In fact, Israel was told to respect their cousins. They were to respect Ammon’s territorial integrity (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19). However, Ammon was not satisfied with their gift from God. They coveted more territory and the economic gains that would accompany such an acquisition. Enlarging borders is about  power, economics and historic status.

Greed often generates violence and sometimes extreme heinous acts. The killing of pregnant women was not unusual in the ancient world (or sometimes even in the modern one; e.g., Nazi Germany or on the American frontier against Native Americans). Hazael of Syria (2 Kings 8:12) and the Israelite King Menahem (2 Kings 15:16) both utilized this tactic in the eighth century BCE. Apparently it was designed not only to promote fear but to eliminate potential descendants. Killing pregnant women not only terrorized others but it also, at least in part, secured the future of the territorial gain.

The image of ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is nauseating.  It is little wonder that it is singled out as a war crime worthy of punishment. It is the destruction of two lives; it interrupts a genealogical line. It destroys hope and instills terror.

3.  Moab “burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom” (2:1). This seems a rather odd atrocity to stress. It does not seem comparable to the sins of Edom and Ammon. This should alert us to think carefully about why this is significant.

Lime is a kind of plaster that is used in buildings and on floors. Many examples are known from the ancient world that predate Amos ranging from Egypt to Malta as well as other places in the world. Apparently, Moab dug up the bones of the kings of Edom, crushed them and mixed them with lime plaster. The ashes of Edom’s king were used as wall plaster or floor tiling.

This is not merely grave robbing (though that was probably part of it). Rather, it is the desecration of the bones of the dead. It is a hate crime. By disinterring and crushing these bones Moab disrespected the humanity of Edom’s king.

Moreover, the problem is not simply one of disrespect, but it is the ungodly use of human remains. Humans are created in the image of God. Their bodies are important. Their bodies deserve honor. Turning human remains into “lime” is similar to the Nazi use of Jewish hair and skin for their own comfort. Moab’s motive was probably nationalistic and is justly categorized as a hate crime. Moab hated Edom and thus used the bones of their king as lime. It is an ultimate disrespect.

Amos condemns malevolent violent aggression, territorial expansion, and the desecration of the human body. Edom, Ammon and Moab–three important nations bordering Israel and Judah–are called to account for their actions by a shepherd from Judah. It is not merely their actions against Judah and Israel, however. The ethic that Amos employs is applied to how they treat each other (e.g., Moab against Edom). Amos applies a universal ethic to the nations.
We do not have to look to far or long to see the same sins in the modern world. Hatred fuels violence in the Middle East by both Israelis and Arabs. The killing of regnant women is part of territorial and religious terror in parts of the world and present in the United States as part of domestic violence cases. Many remember the desecration of fallen soldiers in Somalia as well as the exploitation of dead bodies for political purposes in Iraq. Humanity’s sins continue. They have not abated.
Yahweh says, according to Amos, the he will not revoke the punishment such sins deserve.  Let the nations who have ears to hear, hear what the Spirit through Amos says to the nations.

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Amos 1:3-10 – Amos Addresses Damascus, Gaza and Tyre

January 9, 2013

International ethics are important to Amos.  He condemns violent aggression (perhaps even torture and wanton killing), enslavement of populations, and the slave trade.

The oracles against the nations are intricately structured. They each follow the same rhetorical pattern.

Address:  ”The Lord Says”

Proverb:  ”Because of the three transgressions of … and because of four,  I will not cause (him/it) to return.”

Sin:  ”because…”

Consequence:  ”Therefore….”

Conclusion: “The Lord God has spoken” (not always present).

This rhetorical pattern stresses the sin and the consequence. Only one sin is identified even though many others are presumed (“three, even four…”). The identified crime becomes the central ethical condemnation (1:3, 6, 9). The identification of the sin becomes the key element of the oracle itself with its subsequent consequence.

The consequences, however, are essentially the same–fire will burn destroy the cities/citadels (1:7, 10, 12). The cities will be razed to the ground by an invading force. Future Assyrian campaigns will do just that in the 740s-720s BCE.

What are the sins?

  1. “because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron” (1:3)
  2. “because they carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom” (1:6)
  3. “because they delivered up a whole people to Edom and did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.” (1:9)

1. Damascus (Syria, also called Aram) “threshed” Gilead. The region known as “Gilead,” the Transjordan area of Israel, was claimed by Damascus as well as Ammon. Damascus and Samaria (Israel) fought over this area for a hundred years or more.

The names Hazael and Ben-hadad, two kings of Aram, are also known from 2 Kings 8. There Elisha announces the coming death of Ben-hadad but weeps over the future that Hazael will bring to Israel. He wept because he knew “the evil that [Hazael] will do to the people of Israel.” In particular, Hazael will “set their fortresses on fire…kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12).

Some believe that the Syrians used threshing tools with iron teeth to torture or kill prisoners, pregnant women and children. Threshing-sledges with iron (or basalt) are large boards (7×3 feet usually) pulled by oxen to separate the grain from the chaff.  It is possible that Syrians ran over people–men, women, and children–with these boards. Such atrocities would not be unknown in the ancient world. C+B-Agriculture-Fig10-SyrianThreshingSledgeOthers believe the “threshing” is a metaphor for Israel’s defeat at the hands of Syria (cf. 2 Kings 13:7 for an example). Whichever is the case, Amos condemns Damascus for their violent aggression against Israel.

2.  Gaza sent whole communities into exile to Edom. Gaza represents the alliance of Philistine cities–Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron [Gath is not named here]–in southwestern Palestine. This is Judah’s traditional enemy on its southwest border.

Literally, the text says they “shut up” the “whole” into “captivity.” The Philistines assaulted surrounding communities. They enslaved their inhabitants and sold them to Edom. The community or people to which Amos refers is Judah. They enslaved local populations–probably those located in the lowlands or Shephelah of Judah among others. perhaps more (cf. 2 Chronicles 21:16-17)–and removed them to Edom (which is located southeast of Judah). This was apparently a common practice in that region (cf. 1 Samuel 27:8-12).

Philistia removed Judeans who lived in the lush farmland of the Judean foothills to the desert regions of Edom (cf. Joel 3:4-8). They sent them into “captivity” (or exile). Amos condemns raiding communities and capturing those populations in order to sell them in the international slave trade. He condemns forcibly removing populations from their homeland.

3.  Tyre also sent whole communities into slavery. The language about Tyre is almost exactly the same as how Amos describes Gaza. Tyre is condemned for the same sin as Gaza–the deportation and sale of whole communities (cf. Joel 3:4-8; Ezekiel 27:13). The difference is that Amos adds a further comment on the transgression:  they “did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.”

The “covenant of brothers” probably refers to a treaty between nations whether imposed (as upon a vassal) or negotiated. Kings who entered treaties with each other typically thought of themselves as “brothers” (cf. 1 Kings 9:13–the brotherhood between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon of Israel). Israel and Tyre had cooperated with each other from the time of David and Solomon, and that cooperation or treaty-relationship probably continued throughout the existence of the northern kingdom.  However, at some point, Tyre–like Philistia in the south–betrayed this treaty relationship and enslaved whole Israelite communities.

Tyre was an important commercial center in the Ancient Near East (cf. Isaiah 23:8). Their commercial interests included the slave trade, even selling Judeans to Greeks far from their homeland (Joel 3:6).

Amos condemns violent aggression (perhaps even torture and wanton killing), enslavement of populations, and the slave trade. Damascus, Gaza and Tyre–three important cities in the region of Israel and Judah–are called to account for their actions by a shepherd from Judah.

We need only look at the history of nations, including the United States, to know that these kinds of atrocities have happened over and over.  Humanity continues to witness these atrocities at the hands of those who rule the nations. If Amos’s preaching bears witness to his insistence that nations need to acknowledge their sin, should not our preaching do the same?

Yahweh says, according to Amos, the he will not revoke the punishment such sins deserve.  Let the nations who have ears to hear, hear what the Spirit through Amos says to the nations.

3 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Malachi 2:10-16 – “Faithlessness” Subverts “Oneness”

July 26, 2012

“Faithless” is the word that dominates this section of Malachi. It occurs five times in Malachi 2:10-16 (10, 11, 14, 15, 16) and only here in Malachi. “Faithless” comes from the root bagad that means to deal with another treacherously. This word characterizes Israel’s covenantal relations and thus epitomizes what is broken in the life of post-exilic Judah.

“One” (‘ehad) is another key word. It is used four times in this brief section–twice in 2:10 and twice in 2:15. The one God makes one community, one family, one marriage. This oneness, a unity in community, is rooted in the oneness of God. Israel, as God’s child, is to exhibit this fundamental unity.

But the intended oneness is marred and subverted by the faithlessness of God’s people.

This answers the question which Malachi’s prophetic word raised for the people.  Malachi (2:13) noted that Judah covers the altar of God with tears and sighs. They bring their sacrifices but there is no joy because God does not accept their offerings.  This allusion reminds us of the previous section in Malachi–two addresses to the priests–which describes how God has rejected the sacrifices of the people.

The people, however, ask, “Why does he not?” Malachi’s answer is two-fold:  (1) faithlessness in their relations with each other whereby they profaned the sanctuary (2:10-11a) and (2) faithlessness in their relations to their spouses (2:11b-12, 14-16). The latter receives the emphasis but it is set against the broad backdrop of the first.

The meaning of “faithless” (bagad) is related to the use of “garment” (beged). The verb is probably related to the noun such that the meaning of the verb has the sense of “garmenting” others or “covering up” others. To “cover up” another is to treat them in ways that reflect inequity; it is to dishonor another through fraud, cheating or swindling. It is a failure to act in good faith with another person. This has application both to the wider community and particularly to marriage. We see the fruit of this in Malachi 3:5 where such faithless acts are listed.

The unity of the community is assumed because Israel has “one Father” and “one God” who created or begat this community. This communal consciousness should be a barrier to treacherous activity toward another community member, but, alas, Malachi complains that “we are faithless to one another” (or, more literally, a man is faithless to his brother). This, in effect, “profanes the covenant of our fathers” and even “profanes the sanctuary” of Yahweh (2:10-11).

Malachi had used this word to describe how the priests had profaned or defiled the sacrifices by their words and actions (1:12). The faithlessness of Judah has dishonored the divine presence (sanctuary) and disrupted the covenant relationship with God. Covenant and sanctuary are at the heart of Israel’s way of life and faithlessness subverts both of them.

Malachi, in this section, focuses attention on a significant post-exilic problem. His attention is squarely set on the faithless act of marrying “the daughter of a foreign god.” Ezra and Nehemiah dealt decisively with this problem in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13:25-27. The language of Nehemiah parallels Malachi’s accusation. Nehemiah asked, “Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?” Marriage to a foreign wife was itself an act of faithlessness which violated the covenant between Yahweh and Israel as it opened the covenant community to potential, if not de facto, idolatry.

Malachi does not pass over this pervasive post-exilic problem with just a few words. He confronts Judah with the circumstances of their faithlessness (2:14-16).  In this Malachi makes several claims about marriage within Israel’s covenant community.

  • Yahweh was a witness (as in legal testimony) between “you and the wife of your youth.”
  • “Your wife” is your “companion” (connected!) by “covenant” (cf. Proverbs 2:17; Ezekiel 16:8).
  • Yahweh made them “one” (literally, “did-he-not-make-one?”).
  • Yahweh seeks “godly offspring” (or, literally, “seed”).

These function as four pillars for the meaning of the covenantal relationship between a husband and wife. God is a witness who actively joins the two for the purpose, at least in part, of “godly seed.” Husbands enter into this relationship by a covenantal commitment, and that covenant commitment mirrors God’s own covenantal relationship with Israel. Within the covenant of Israel, God joins men and women who covenant together as marriage partners.

The divine action and presence is highlighted in the text by the use of “one God” and the divine ruach (Spirit). God’s Spirit participates in the union of male and female. As a result, the husband is called upon to “guard” his own spirit (ruach) that he might not treat his wife in a treacherous manner. The text ends with the same admonition:  ”guard (or watch) yourselves in your spirit” (2:15, 16).

What is the faithless act? The context, initiated by 2:11, is the marriage of the “daughter of a foreign god.” The specific act in view, it seems to me, is one where a man divorces his wife and marries another woman who stands outside the covenant of Israel. This man is faithless as he has divorced one to marry another and he marries one whom the covenant denies him.

The commonly known translation “I hate divorce” is not a literal translation of the text as it appears in Hebrew. Translators only get that rendering by emending the standard Hebrew text. The Hebrew actually reads: “because he hates sending away.” The ESV renders this, “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her…”  The LXX reads similarly, “if you hate your wife and put her away…” This would follow the form of Deuteronomy 24:3. Grammatically, the one who hates is the one who sends away (or divorces). In other words, the “he hates” does not refer to God but to the a member of the covenant community who hates his wife and thus divorces her (sends her away). This translation is supported by others as well (cf. NEB, HCB, NIV [2010, 2011] as well as LXX and Luther’s 1545 Bible). The Vulgate renders it:  ”if you hate, divorce.” All the early English versions until the King James Bible followed the Hebrew text:  ”if thou hatest her, put her away” (Geneva Bible, 1560).

C. John Collins, in Presbyterion (1994, p. 40; and undated version is here), summaries the conclusion in this way (see also David Clyde Jones in JBL, 1990, 683-685):

He tells us what the Lord ¿links of the composite action on the part of some hypothetical member his covenant people, of disliking and consequently divorcing his wife: the resulting “covering the garment with wrongdoing” clearly conveys the Lord’s strong disapproval. He then applies it to all of us who claim a relationship with the Lord: “all of you carefully watch yourselves in your inner man, so that you will not deal treacherously in like manner.” He who is wise will watch for the first stirrings of resentment, which might turn into dislike, and repent of it immediately, lest he deal treacherously with her whom the Lord has given to be a blessing.

Luther himself commented (Minor Prophets, 406, as quoted by Collins):

After all, whoever divorces his wife because he hates her is revealed as a violator, a hurter, a promise-breaker, a violator of his pledge, a man who lacks honesty and honor, one who has not done what he should but what he should not. … This stain covers him like a cloak.

The point is that whoever hates their wife and divorces them covers themselves with “violence.” They have violated the covenant and mistreated the wife of their youth. Divorce is a violent act.

Consequently, twice in 2:14-16 men are called to watch (or guard) themselves in their spirit.  Husbands are to pay attention to the stirrings of their heart–whether it lust, resentment or greed.  Watching these stirrings husbands will hinder the kinds of feelings and emotions that lead to divorce, including hating their wives.

Malachi condemns the sort of divorce that arises from the inner stirrings of a man who seeks another wife and particularly seeks a non-Israelite wife. The problem is not merely social but also internal and syncretistic.

Fundamentally, God, according to Malachi, rejects Israel’s temple offerings because they have treated each other treacherously and because Israel’s sons are divorcing their wives to marry outside the covenant. This violates the oneness of the covenant and provides an opening for idolatry within the post-exilic Israelite community.

God does not receive a faithless community, that is, a community that mistreats each other while at the same time voicing their praise of God. God does not accept those sacrifices.

6 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

The Flood Story — What Might We Learn?

July 6, 2012

This is not a children’s story. The animals going into the ark two by two do make a classic VBS song and it certainly makes a great flannel graph. But this story is more like a horror movie than a Disney cartoon.

The story is important for our author. It takes up more space than the creation itself and is full of repetition. Why is this that important?

The flood narrative overlaps two sections of Genesis. It is at the end of the “generations of Adam” (5:1-6:8) which carries the human line from Adam through Seth to Noah. And it is the main event in the “generations of Noah” (6:9-9:29) which starts with the approaching flood and ends with the rainbow sullied by Noah and Ham. Both of these generational stories begin with great hope but they both end with disaster. The hope is found in Adam begetting Seth (5:1-5) which recalls creation itself and is found, in the next generation, in Noah’s walk with God (6:9).

Disaster, however, follows.  The line of Seth (“sons of God”) ultimately mixes with the line of Cain (“daughters of men”) and God’s good creation is filled with evil (6:1-7). Noah’s walk with God turns to drunkenness and shame (9:20-27). Both new beginnings have bad endings.

The flood story bridges these two sections in Genesis. The flood is a divine response to evil in the world, but also a new beginning. It is divine judgment but also divine renewal.

Why should the flood story figure so prominently in Genesis? Israel lived in an ancient culture that was saturated with stories about gods, creations and floods. There were multiple creation and flood stories in the surrounding cultures and many even predate Moses. Many of these flood stories are very similar to the one in Genesis. For example, the family of one human is saved, a large boat, a great flood, the release of a raven and dove, etc.  Israel shared a common “story” about a past great flood with its culture.

However, there was (at least) one significant difference. The ANE stories locate the reason for the flood in the capriciousness of the gods. They are fickle and easily annoyed. They send the flood upon the earth because humans are too noisy!

That is not Israel’s God. Israel reinterprets the flood story in order to say something about Yahweh (or Elohim). Their version is a counter-story which intends to subvert ANE culture itself.  The focus of the flood story is not on how many animals are in the ark or whether the dimensions are large enough for the animals. The focus of the flood story is the reason for the flood and what happened to the earth as a result.

God was not annoyed with humanity but was grieved by them (Genesis 6:6). God was so grieved that he changed his mind (regret) about how the earth would continue. Humanity interrupted God’s sabbath rest.

When God finished the sixth day of creating in Genesis 1, God “rested” (Genesis 2:1-3). This seventh day was not a twenty-four hour period of relaxation and recreation. Rather, God “rested” in the earth, communed with humanity and the rest of creation, and rejoiced over his works. The sabbath rest of God is the communion God has with the creation–it is God resting (dwelling) within the creation. The seventh day is the continued existence of creation itself.

But humanity (and “all flesh”) disrupted that rest by filling the earth with “violence.” This is an important term as its repetition highlights the rationale for God’s judgment.  God saw that the earth was full of “violence” (Genesis 6:11, 13). This is the opposite of God’s sabbath shalom. Just as “all flesh” contributed to the “violence” now pervasive upon the earth, so “all flesh” will suffer consequences (Genesis 6:13, 17, 19).

The judgment is the reversal of creation itself. The “waters” (7:6-7) arise from the “deep” and from the “windows of heaven” (7:11). This language comes from Genesis 1 where the waters are given boundaries so that dry land might appear. Now God releases the chaos of the waters. He sends the earth back to its original, uninhabitable state when the waters of the deep covered the earth (Genesis 1:2). The chaos out of which God shaped a habitable earth returns to destroy “all flesh.”

Israel tells the flood story as a polemic against violence rather than as the whims of fickle gods. God judges violence through the flood. Israel takes the flood story and uses it to subvert the culture of violence that dominated the ANE (especially an Israel living in Babylon who had recently suffered from that violence). The flood story tells us what God thinks about violence in his good creation.

At the same time, the flood story tells us about the patience, forbearance and grace of God. Yahweh does not “fly off the handle” in this story. Rather, he is patient with the creation. God strives with humanity for a 120 years (plus however long before that counting began). This is no flippant decision by a whimsical deity. On the contrary, it is a deliberate decision slowly made in the wake of God’s love for the creation.

That love is not only expressed in the grace God demonstrated to Noah, but it is also expressed in God’s gracious renewal of the creation itself. Genesis 8 begins with hope:  ”God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals.” This remembrance is God’s gracious orientation toward humanity and the rest of creation. It is God’s determination to renew what he has just destroyed or, to put it another way, “wiped clean.”

Genesis 8 follows the path of Genesis 1.  The wind (ruach) of God blows over the waters (just as in Genesis 1:2; 8:1). The waters separate–closing the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven–so that dry land might emerge (Genesis 1:6-10; 8:2). The dry land begins to yield trees and fruit (Genesis 1:11-12; 8:11). And then the animals and humanity walk upon the dry land again (Genesis 1:25, 29-30; 8:15-119).

And God rests once again. This is an important part of the story that most miss. It is easy to miss because the connections of the Hebrew language are lost in English translation. Noah comes out of the ark and worships by offering dedicatory offerings. It is an act of thanksgiving (Genesis 8:20). Significantly, the odor of these sacrifices are “pleasing” (nichocha) to God. This is the important word. It is derived from the same root that describes God’s rest (nuach) in Exodus 20:11. The od0r is restful to God. Just as God placed (yanach; rested) humanity in the Garden (Genesis 2:15), so God now rests within the creation once again.

God’s rest in his good creation–the seventh day rest is renewed and continues–is underscored by God’s commitment to the creation. God makes a covenant that renews Sabbath rest for the creation. God will never again destroy every living creature as he did this time even if humans do not change  their violent ways (Genesis 8:21-22). While chaos still exists within God’s creation (humans are there, for example!), the order of God’s creation will remain and the good creation will continue despite the chaos that surrounds it and lives within it. God will never again abandon the creation.

Israel tells this story, in contrast to the stories of the ANE, as both a judgment against violence and as a reminder of God’s commitment to the creation. God is not annoyed with humanity but rather loves them. People live within the grace of the creation even though they despoil it and often treat it violently just as they treat each other. Nevertheless, despite the violence, God will sustain the earth, graces it with his presence, and continue the seventh day through his redemptive graces.

God still grieves the sin and the violence.  He grieved over Israel (Isaiah 63:10), and God grieved in Jesus over Jerusalem. But–thanks to be to God!–the new creation has begun in Jesus Christ. Raised to the right hand of God, he is the firstborn of the new creation. One day, God will renew the creation as he strips the old things (like sin, violence and death) from the earth and makes everything new. On that day, there will be no more sea (no more “waters”) and no more night (“darkness”). God will reign upon the earth and dwell (rest) with humanity in the new creation (Revelation 21:1-5). Everything will be made new again as if refined by fire.

[This is a summary of my July 3 (2012) presentation at Lipscomb University's Summer Celebration as part of the Hazelip School of Theology series on Genesis 1-11.]

10 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Osama bin Laden

May 2, 2011

“Got him!” The headlines fill our papers, newsrooms and social media. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9-11 is dead.

What should I do? Dance? Party? Shout “U-S-A” over and over?

What should I feel? Pride? Joy? Satisfaction? Patriotic? Gratitude?

I have mixed feelings. “Justice has been done,” says our President. Maybe so. One function of government is to execute jusice. God uses governments for that purpose though not everything nations do is necessarily just.

On the other hand, the celebration, joy and partying that litters our television screens from around the nation disturb me. I could understand if peace had arrived, if the war was over. That would be something to celebrate. But that is not what happened.

In Ezekiel, God spoke into the evil of the world with justice, but yet also said “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (33:11).

Joy is not what I feel. I feel sad that the cycle of violence continues, and it will continue as violence breeds violence. I don’t feel like celebrating.

I feel like praying….

  • praying for all combatants in this conflict, this nation’s military as well as others.
  • praying for the victims of 9-11 as they re-live their loss today
  • praying for the enemies of this nation
  • praying for the family of Osama
  • praying for this nation
  • praying for peace
  • praying

49 Comments | Society | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 966 other followers

%d bloggers like this: