John Mark Hicks

David Lipscomb endorses a society–that is a rare event. In this case, he endorses the creation of the Humane Society in 1887 Nashville.

“Some of the best citizens of Nashville are engaged in a good work in the organization of the Humane Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.  The Lord has given the animal to us and we are his protectors.  We have no right to cruelly use them. Many a man will be punished for his inhumanity to the dumb brute. The genuine Christian will treat the animal humanely. It is a sad commentary on our people that there exists the necessity for the organization of such a society. Many people in our own beloved land need to become civilized” (Gospel Advocate, June 15, 1887, 379).

Lipscomb displays, on occasion, ecological concerns though we shold not expect that he would have the heightened sense that we have today. I think this is directly related to his understanding of the “new heaven and new earth” which is a renewed earth analogous to a return to Eden. Animals were present in Eden; indeed, they were named by Adam.

In the context of Genesis 1-2, animals were not created as food. They were created as companions though they were inadequate for the kind of intimacy God desired for humanity that would mirror the intimacy of God’s own life. Nevertheless, animals shared Eden with the original couple. They will share the eschaton with humanity as well where the lion and the lamb will lie down together and the child will play among them.

The new heaven and new earth will be like an eschatological petting-zoo. Except the animals will roam free rather than caged.

Animals are not throw-aways. They were created for the joy of the Creator–God has the biggest aquarium in the history!  In the new heaven and new earth, God will still enjoy the creation, including the creatures that fill the sea, walk the land and fly in the air. And these creatures will continue to praise God–“let everything that breathes praise the Lord” (Psalm 150:6).

So, yes, dogs do “go to heaven.”

Following the feeding of the 4,000 in the Decapolis on the eastern side of the Galilean Sea, Jesus and his disciples crossed over to the other side on the western shore, probably near Magdala. Jesus is now back among the Jewish villages of Galilee and immediately he faces opposition.

Some Pharisees continue their argument with him as they probed the origin of his authority in miracle-working and teaching. Earlier in Mark Jewish leaders had questioned his authority to forgive sin (Mark 2:6) and his breaking of the Sabbath (Mark 2:24). Jewish leaders fromJerusalem attributed his authority over demons to Satan (Mark 3:22).

In light of Jesus’ kingdom ministry of teaching and healing, Galilean Pharisees wanted proof. What is the “sign from heaven” that you have authority to do these things? It appears that they are not simply asking for a miracle. Jesus has done many of those and in their presence. They wanted something clear and unequivocal. Perhaps they wanted him to prove his case in some kind of legal preceding or disputation. More likely, the addition of “from heaven” is a demand that Jesus given proof through a clear demonstration such as the opening of the heavens. Perhaps they wanted God to speak and authenticate Jesus’ ministry. It appears that they will not accept anything less than that.

In Matthew (16:4) and Luke (11:29) Jesus suggests that they will receive such a sign when Jesus is raised from the dead but Mark does not include this response. Instead Jesus simply denies their request. If kingdom miracles are not sufficient, then there will be no opening of heaven to persuade those whose hearts are already hardened against the kingdom of God.

Jesus did not say this in anger although he has been previously angered by their hard hearts (Mark 3:5). Rather, “he sighed deeply in his spirit.” This term (anastenazas) is related to the word Mark used when Jesus prayed over the deaf-mute in Mark 7:34 but here it is intensified. It is a sigh located deep within his soul. Jesus grieves their stubbornness and their insistence on a sign. He grieves their brokenness.It is as if Jesus weeps over these Pharisees who are so obstinate, just as he will weep over Jerusalem itself.

Jesus is not interested in arguing with the Pharisees. He gets in a boat to cross the lake again and this time ends up in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22)—a city on the edge of the Decapolis but also the native lakeside village of Peter and Andrew. Jesus, seemingly, leaves Galilee in a hurry as the disciples even forget to bring bread.

During the trip across the latke Jesus, in effect, debriefs his disciples. We only get a brief snipet. It is the caution to be wary of the “yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.” As in Mark 3:6 where the Pharisees and Herodians conspire together to kill Jesus, the two are joined together in this warning. Whether it is religious leaders or political ones, their yeast has a way of leavening the whole lump. What is the yeast? What is the problem with the Pharisees and Herodians as pictured in the Gospel of Mark? Their power, greed and stubbornness subvert the virtues of the kingdom of God. Jesus warns his disciples to disengage from such power struggles and to steer clear of such agendas.

But the disciples are confused. They think Jesus is upset about the lack of bread. Their minds—perhaps even mutual blaming is involved—are on the lack of food. They have no provisions. They are worried about hunger while Jesus is warning them about power.

Their worry brings them to the same place as the Pharisees and Herodians. Their worries about bread lead them to the same stubbornness (hard hearts) that characterizes the religious and political leaders of Israel (Mark 3:5 with 8:17). Though they have been with Jesus for many months now, perhaps years at this point, their eyes are still blinded and their ears are still dull, just like many others (cf. Mark 4:12). It seems that the disciples have not made much progress. They are still in danger of the power and greed agendas that characterize their religious and political leaders. But the kingdom of God has a different agenda; a different yeast infects it.

Since they are so concerned about bread, Jesus reminds them that he fed  5,000 and 4,000 we a few loaves. What is Jesus’ point? The disciples know the events—they distinctly remember the abundance of provision that was left over from the feedings. Why is this an important point for Jesus?

The disciples apparently were consumed with worry about bread, about food. They feared hunger; perhaps they blamed each other. We might imagine that the argued over who forgot the bread. They were distracted from the kingdom agenda by their worries and arguments. So much so that they could not hear the warning of Jesus. In fact, that yeast had already infected them. They were consumed with earthly worry rather than the king’s business.

Jesus reminds them of the miracles as if to say, “If I fed 5,000 and then 4,000 with only a few loaves and fish, we need not worry about whether we have any bread or not in the boat. We have more important things to think about and do.”

Kingdom people don’t worry about bread, but they are alarmed by the “yeast of the Pharisee and the Herodians.” Though God feeds us we are always in danger of succumbing to the siren call of power and greed for more.

“Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. I think he is still asking and we are still worrying about bread when the dangers of power and greed in religious and political leadership are the real problem.

Jesus resumed his kingdom ministry when he returned to the sea of Galilee from the regions of Tyre and Sidon. After some time (“in those days”) Jesus was followed by a large crowd (4,000 people) into a remote place where food was not easily accessible. Mark describes this area as a “wilderness” (8:4) and uses a cognate of the term he has previously employed to describe Jesus’ time in the Judean desert (1:12-13), his moments of solitude (1:35, 45) and the previous feeding of the 5,000 (6:31-32, 35).Israel, following Jesus, once again finds themselves in the wilderness.

It is uncertain where this “wilderness” is. Jesus is probably ministering in the Decapolis on the eastern or northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Whatever the region, at the close of the story Jesus gets into a boat and crosses over to “Dalmanutha.” But this  place name is unknown in any other source. The parallel in Matthew (15:39) names it Magadan (which may be another name for Magdala located on the west side of the sea). Presumably, then, Jesus is still on the eastern/northeastern side of the lake in the Decapolis.

As with the feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6:30-44), the remote location creates a problem. No food is readily accessible for such a large crowd. Many had come from a “long distance” to be with Jesus and they had been there for “three days” without food. These notes may be purely situational in order to describe the desperate situation of the people, but they may also have theological significance about the Gentile mission (“far off”) and typify “three days” in the wilderness just as Jesus was three days in the tomb (cf. Mark 8:31; 14:58; 15:29).

Jesus shares his feelings about the situation with his disciples: “I have compassion on these people.” Loving people entails feeding people as well as teaching them. Compassion moved Jesus to postpone his rest in order to teach the 5,000 (Mark 6:34), but here it moves him to feed them. The missional nature of this event is evident: compassion is part of the motivation for kingdom ministry. We teach and feed people because we love them. To love our neighbor is not only to teach them but to feed them as well.

The disciples, however, are confused by Jesus’ statement. How are they going to feed 4,000 people? Well….duh. One would think that they might remember the previous occasion and trust Jesus. But the disciples can only look at their own resources—they are in the “wilderness.” Food is not available. They only have seven loaves and a “few fish.” But was that not enough previously? And it is enough this time.

The people are asked to “recline”—“sit down” does not give the full impact of this language. This is a festive meal that is characterized by reclining. It is celebratory, relaxed–a meal among friends. Jesus is hosting a banquet for hungry people in the wilderness. Like at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22), as well as the previous feeding of thousands (Mark 6:41), Jesus eucharistically breaks bread at the table with his disciples.

The abundance of the meal is signaled not only by the fact that everyone was satisfied (“filled”) but by the huge amount of leftovers. Seven basketfuls of food remained. But is that not less than in the previous feeding which had twelve basketfuls? Actually, it isn’t. The word for basket in Mark 6:43 refers to something like the size of a lunch box but the word in Mark 8:9 refers to a basket large enough to lift a person over a wall (cf. Acts 9:25). The leftovers could have fed hundreds more. God’s provision is overflowing.

The parallels between the feeding of the 4,000 and the 5,000 raise the question about why the different numbers: twelve “baskets” in Mark 6 and seven “baskets” in Mark 8. Why the difference? It may simply be a factual report, but even then why these “facts”? Are we to suppose the twelve in Mark 6 is a significant symbol for Israel but the number seven has no symbolic meaning? It may be that “seven” symbolizes “wholeness” and inclusiveness and thus symbolizing the Gentile inclusion in this meal.

Some have suggested that the 4,000 included both Jew and Gentile. This is partly based on the fact that this happened in the Decapolis (a Gentile region but where many Jews lived) and the statement many “came from far” may allude to Joshua 9:6, 9 and Isaiah 60:4. This was a typical way of referring to Gentiles (cf. Acts 2:39). Others also note that Mark substituted “giving thanks” (8:6) for “blessing” (6:41) which is more typical of Gentile audiences than Jewish, and that the number seven rather than twelve may represent an inclusive number in contrast with a typically Jewish numeral. Perhaps Mark intends to paint an inclusive picture here that prefigures the Gentile mission though one wonders if he might not been more explicit about it as he was with the Syro-Phoenician woman (7:26). Allusions to Gentile inclusion seem present and it is difficult to imagine that no Gentiles would be present among the 4,000 on the eastern or northeastern side of the lake.

If this is the case, the meal setting points us toward the inclusive nature of the Lord’s table. Jesus takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it and gives it, just as he does at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22). Mark’s first readers would not miss the literary and linguistic links as well as the theological linkage. After three days, Jesus rose from the dead to host his table in the kingdom of God. Those who are “afar off” are invited to this table as well as the people of Israel. In his compassion Jesus feeds those who have followed him into the wilderness, and he continues to feed disciples today through the Eucharist. Disciples still sit with Jesus at the table.

Parallels between Mark 6 and Mark 8*

*Based on William Lane’s NIC commentary on Mark, p. 271, n. 8.

After the aborted attempt to give his disciples some rest (Mark 6:30-34), Jesus now withdraws from the popularity and press of the crowds in Galilee to the regions of Tyre and Sidon on the Phoenician coast (modern Lebanon). This is not a far journey–only 30-50 miles or so—but Jesus takes his disciples into a Gentile region of northern Palestine. He had done this previously when he crossed the lake of Galilee into the Decapolis (Mark 5:1-20). He was not able to stay there long. This time Jesus goes in the opposite direction toward the Mediterranean Sea.

Importantly, Mark places this story next to the previous discussion of what is “unclean” (7:1-24). Jesus goes to what many would regard as an “unclean region.” The categories of clean/unclean are not boundary markers for Jesus. His entrance into a Gentile region of Palestine reflects his willingness to cross boundaries that restrained others.

Mark uses a formula which indicates that Jesus’ interests are privacy and rest: Jesus “left that place” (cf. 9:30-31) and found a house in which he could spend some private time with his disciples. Perhaps in the predominantly Gentile coastal region Jesus will find some rest and escape the crowds that relentlessly press him in Galilee. Tyre and Sidon are part of the Syrian province of Rome and thus Jesus has crossed political lines (moving from the region of the Herodians who want to kill him [3:6] to a region where, presumably, he would be relatively unknown to the political leaders). But Jesus was not unknown in this region. Mark has already noted that some had already travelled from “Tyre and Sidon” to Galilee for healing (Mark 3:8).

As a result, Jesus’ presence in the “vicinity of Tyre” does not go unnoticed. Desperate people can go to great lengths to find the help they need—especially a parent for a child. A Greek-speaking, Syro-Phonecian mother finds Jesus to beg for the healing of her daughter. Jesus encounters a Gentile mother who intercedes for her daughter.

What does Jesus do with this request? He responds that the children must first eat at the table before the scraps are tossed to the dogs. Does that seem a bit harsh? It is important to recognize the proverbial character of the language. The word “dog” here is not the common derogatory term that represents some kind of hostility. Rather, it is a diminutive, that is, “little dogs” like house dogs or domesticated pets (perhaps functionally equivalent to “puppy”). The proverb refers to the relations within a household; and it is not name calling. Allen Black in his College Press commentary on Mark (p. 137; n. 16) suggests it is like Joe asking Bill whether he should bring up an issue with his wife and Bill responds with the proverb, “Let sleeping dogs lie.” Bill is not calling Joe’s wife a “dog” but is answering the question with a proverb. Jesus does something similar here.

The woman has a quick, spunky, and clever reply which may reflect the Markan intent that we read this story in the light of Jesus’ interest in testing or probing the faith of this mother. The mother is persistent and pushes back for the sake of her daughter. Perhaps he responds with the proverb to see how she will respond. Will her faith persist in her request or will she turn away?

Her response assumes the world that Jesus has pictured. Indeed, she is a house (“little”) dog and does not presume to be one of the children. But even house dogs wander around table waiting for the crumbs that the children may drop. She is asking Jesus for the overflow—the crumbs from the disciple’s rest. Her response touches Jesus and her daughter is healed. Jesus exoricizes the demon from a distance but in response to the faith of this Gentile mother.

Who are the children and who are the dogs in this proverb? William Lane, in his commentary on Mark, suggests that the “children” are the disciples who need rest and the “dogs” are those to whom they minister. The children (disciples) need to eat, that is, they need their rest. There will be a time for others to receive what the need but that time is not now. This may be the primary referent in Mark.

However, most others see a Jewish-Gentile theme here. This is certainly how Matthew interprets this incident (cf. Matthew 15:21-28). Jesus is sent to the Jews first (the children), but ultimately the Gentiles (dogs) will be fed as well. This is not explicit in Mark but it fits a canonical reading of the Christian story as we see the followers of Jesus include the Gentiles in the coming years and Mark’s narrative does anticipate the inclusion of the Gentiles at several points, even prior to this incident. This is not a moment where Jesus decided to help Gentiles because he was awakened to a larger vision of the kingdom by this request. The Markan narrative, as we have seen in previous blogs, is clear about the inclusion of the Gentiles in both the present and eschatologically.

After a period of rest, Jesus returns to the sea of Galilee through the Decapolis, presumably on the eastern side of the lake. Jesus took a circuitous route back through Gentile lands to the lake in order to avoid the crowds in Galilee. Even in the Decapolis, however, the needy await him and his healing ministry resumes. Mark singles out the story of a deaf-mute (or possibly a deaf man who had a speech impediment).

Jesus takes him aside privately—separate from the crowds—to focus his attention on this man. Jesus, perhaps to communicate with this man, uses unique means for healing. He plugs his fingers into the man’s ears and puts his saliva on the man’s tongue. These are powerful symbolic gestures that communicate his intent to heal.

When Jesus prays, he “sighs” (from the verb stenazo) which means to groan in the sense of grieving. Paul uses both the verb and noun (stenagmos) for the painful groanings which the Spirit interprets but we ourselves find it difficult to utter (Romans 8:23, 26). Jesus grieves over the brokenness of the world as he prays for this deaf mute. Jesus feels the pain of the world in which he participates. He sighs with humanity.

Mark highlights this healing with the detail description, using the Aramaic word (ephphatha) for the healing command just as he did with the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Mark 5:41), and the resultant command to not tell anyone. This is the “Messianic secret” theme once again and it is pronounced here as the Markan text moves closer to the announcement that Jesus is the Christ (8:29). But the people cannot keep quiet. They are seeing what Isaiah anticipated (Isaiah 35:5-6). Mark expresses the amazement of the people—“he even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

The final saying is functionally a praise chorus with three lines. It is the joy of the redeemed and the wonder of those who bear witness.

He has done well,
he makes the deaf to hear,
he makes the mute to speak.

The healing of a ear and mouth was anticipated in Isaiah’s picture of redemption in Isaiah. Moreover, and most significantly, such healings bear witness to a coming time when there will be no more sorrow or sighing (stenagmos in the LXX; Isaiah 35:10). Symbolically—and theologically—the Markan narration has reached a threshold. Jesus’ miracles have mounted in number and scope. He has raised the dead, calmed the chaos of the sea, exercised authority over hostile powers (demons), and restored human dignity to a leper and now to a deaf-mute. He is dispelling the darkeness and renewing joy. He is recreating the world; he is “doing good.”

The miracles are not mere displays of power or simply expressions of compassion. They are divine acts of reversal. They reverse the brokenness of the world—the deaf can hear, the mute can speak, the dead live, chaos is conquered, and the demons are defanged. A new world—the kingdom of God, the reign of God—is emerging. Jesus is the presence of the reign of God in the world which brings healing, peace, justice and righteousness.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to participate in that mission, to participate in reign of God by healing the brokenness of the world and reversing the curse. Disciples of Jesus sigh over the brokenness, pray for the broken and act for their sake.

Zechariah sees a rider on a “red” (more like reddish-brown) horse among myrtle trees in a “glen.” Behind this rider is an indefinite number of horses with a range of colors which reflect the variety of horses within the Persian Empire. Scouting is the only function given these horses (and their unidentified riders)—they “patrol the earth.” Their patrol reports that the “the whole earth remains at peace.”

This is imperial language; it is the langue of the Persian Empire. Scouts range throughout the earth and report back to the king on the status of the empire. The empire is at peace. The Persians have defeated Babylon and quelled recent rebellions (specifically one in 520 BCE). In 519 BCE the empire is at “peace.”

But Zechariah is not looking at an earthly imperial court. On the contrary, he sees an angelic council. The rider on the “red” horse is the “angel of the Lord.” He receives the report from the other riders. They report “peace.” The word means “settled” or “at rest” and is often used negatively (see Isaiah 30:7; Ezekiel 16:49; Jeremiah 48:11). This is not shalom. This peace is the result of the sins of the empire, and this imperial peace was accomplished through injustice and inhumanity. This kind of peace Yahweh will “shake” as Haggai promised (Haggai 1:21). God will judge the nations (Zechariah 1:18-21). The “peace” of the nations is not the shalom of the reign of God.

The angel of the Lord does not think the situation is one of shalom. After receiving the report, the angel intercedes for Judah and Jerusalem with a lament. “How long, O Lord of hosts, will you withhold mercy” from your people? Israel’s lament has continued for 70 years (605-536 which dates from the first deportation to the first return of the exiles, or 587-516 which dates from the destruction of the temple to its rebuilding, or perhaps it is simply a symbolic number for divine anger against a sanctuary). Here the angel speaks for the people and voices their pain before Yahweh.

The lament assumes that Yahweh determines the shalom of Jerusalem and not the Persian Emperor. Yahweh reigns over the earth, not the Emperor. God is sovereign over situation and thus the angel of Yahweh appeals to the one who can act in mercy toward Jerusalem. It does not lie within Persia’s hands.

Yahweh responds with mercy and zeal. God is both zealous for Jerusalem and angry with the nations. God is jealous–passionate zeal; God is committed to Israel. He will show mercy. He remembers his covenant, faithful love toward Jerusalem. At the same time Yahweh is angry with the nations because though the administered his justice they did it with “evil” (ra’ah)—they acted with malice, cruelty, and inhumanity. Their injustice angered Yahweh. God will show mercy to Israel and judge the nations.

God will renew the prosperity of Jerusalem. In fact, it will be a veritable urban explosion. The cities of Judah will overflow with people, prosperity and divine presence. The temple will be rebuilt. God will choose Jerusalem again and return in mercy to Judah. Post-exilic Judah felt abandoned but now Zechariah reassures them that God has chosen them.

Zechariah actually sees a new exodus. Myrtle trees are associated with the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:44; Nehemiah 8:15)—one kind of wood used to make booths (tents) that represented Israel’s wilderness wandering. Moreover, the word for “glen” may refer to a pre-exilic garden in the Kidron valley (2 Kings 25:4; located between the two mountains mentioned later) but the word also has Exodus and Creation overtones. For example, it is the word for “depths” in Exodus 15:5 as well as the waters of Psalm 107:24. What God is about to do is not only a new exodus; it is also a new creation. God is going to do something so wondrous that the language of creation appropriately describes it.

But is the rebuilt temple of 516 the fulfillment of Zechariah’s vision? Certainly it is a provisional one that is immediate to Zechariah’s situation. However, reading Zechariah canonically, there is more. Second Temple Judaism thought they were still in exile as they lived under Roman oppression in the first century. The promises of the prophets, including Zechariah, had not yet been fully realized. Second Temple Judaism still waited for the reality that Zechariah sees here.

Some argue that the angel of Yahweh is a Christophany. Perhaps. It would not be in Zechariah’s mind, of course, but we do not expect the prophets to fully understand what they see. But more to the point is that the fulfillment is ultimately—thinking canonically—Christological.

God ultimately returns to the temple…in the flesh. God pours out the Spirit on the new temple of God…his people. Through incarnation and Spirit-outpouring God blesses the nations. God will come again to the earth to fully renew it and heal the nations in the new heaven and new earth, in the new Jerusalem.

But this is only the first of eight visions…..more to come.

I now tread where every human should fear to go. So, why go there? I tire of  absolutist statements concerning Tim Tebow, God, and football games. That is probably not a very good motivation, but hopefully something positive will arise–maybe even a good conversation. (Or, maybe I just want more traffic at my website? That is a sobering thought. 🙂 )

Does God care anything about football games?  Yes and No.

Yes….God delights in play. Play is part of God’s intent for humanity. All work and no play is workaholism. God’s creatures play–even the Leviathan, the great sea monster, plays in the ocean (Psalm 104:26). God delights in humanity’s play. Sport is part of the joy of life.

No…God, I imagine (though how could I ever really know), is not a fan, that is, God does not root for one side or another in the sense that God’s mood is affected by wins and loses. God is not a Pittsburgh fan that grieves their loss nor is he a Bronco fan that rejoices in the defeat of the Steelers.

Ultimately, it seems to me God is not interested in games but in people.  Interested in people, can not God gift some people with success on particular occasions?

This is not a gift based on some kind of prosperity gospel, that is, “Tim Tebow is a believer…therefore he will succeed.” Rather, it is a gift based on grace, and God gifts many people with success who do not have a Christian bone in their body. God gives wealth and empowers rulers.

When God gifts people with success–a gift that is cooperatively received by those so gifted–God holds them accountable.  What will they do with that success? God tests the wealthy.

What is seemingly impressive about Tim Tebow is that (1) he gives thanks for his success and recognizes it as a gift, (2) he does not blame God for his failures, and (3) he is committed to using that success for the growth of the kingdom of God.

Perhaps the gift of success that God has given Tebow–however long-lasting or short-lived it is (and it may be very short-lived, like, 1/2 a season)–is something that is possibly kingdom-affirming and kingdom-promoting. Perhaps God’s gift to Tebow will result in feeding the hungry, healing the sick and saving some children from death.

Rachel Held Evans tweeted: “So God’s busy altering the outcome of a football game when 30,000 children died from preventable disease today? Got it.”

I find that tweet significantly short-sighted. That God is too small. Why is one mutually exclusive of the other? Could it be that the gift of success is one of God’s means for healing some of these children–one means among many that God is now using or preparing. Perhaps God is even now preparing a person whose financial success will enable funding a cure for cancer, or drilling wells in Africa, or…..other kingdom work.

Paul does say “give thanks in everything”…..including our play as well as our work. God gives success, but also God gives failures (think about Job for a moment).  In both God is looking for witnesses to the reign of God in the world.

I don’t think Tebow wins because God is a Broncos fan or even that Tebow is one of God’s favorites. But perhaps Tebow’s success (and our own too) is something God enables for the sake of the kingdom of God. And there will be days when Tebow will not succeed and God will be good with that since even  Tebow’s failures (and ours as well) will be opportunities for bearing witness to the kingdom of God.

The danger for Tim Tebow (as it is in everyone’s success) is the potential for pride and the revelation that everyone has clay feet, even Tim Tebow (and certainly I do).

The kingdom of God, of course, does not depend on anyone. God will usher in his kingdom by whatever means God desires.

Can God use a football game for the sake of his kingdom?  Absolutely. To think otherwise is to remove God from the daily moments of our lives. That God is too small.

Is Tim Tebow God’s favorite and thus he will win the Super Bowl this year? There is no evidence that God’s favorites win the Super Bowl, and I don’t think Tim is any more one of God’s favorite than I am. We are both loved–as are all the dying children in the world–by God.

God loves play but God loves play because God loves people. God is not a football fan; God is a Tebow fan….and a John Mark Hicks fan…and your fan as well. God is especially fond of each of us.

“It is difficult to imagine any theological question asked in this generation on which the book of Chronicles is likely to shed any light.”  So wrote John McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden  City: Doubleday, 1974), p. 27. [Thanks to Keith Stanglin for pointing me to this quote.]

I only wish I had known that before I wrote a 500+ page theological commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles.

Uh…..I think McKenzie was off just a wee little bit.  🙂  But given that my commentary is a 2.5 million seller (that is, it is in the top 2.5 million best sellers!), he may be on to something.  🙂

Zechariah is the longest and, many think, the most difficult of the “minor” (smaller) prophets. It is also one of the most significant.

• Zechariah is important for understanding the good news of Jesus the Messiah. Zechariah 9-14 is the dominant prophetic resource for the authors of the Gospels for narrating the meaning of Jesus’ passion.  The Messianic expectations of Zechariah shape the hearing of the gospel in the first century.
• Zechariah is also one of the most important prophets for understanding the reign of God in the world and in the world to come. Other than Ezekiel, Zechariah is the most important resource for the Apocalypse (Revelation). The Apocalyptic expectations of the first century are understood, at least partly, through the lens of Zechariah. The coming Kingdom of God is one of the major themes of Zechariah 9-14.
• Zechariah interprets the meaning of the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish life in the land.  Zechariah 1-8 is significant for understanding not only the Messianic nature of Jesus but also for envisioning the nature of the Christian community as restored Israel.

Zechariah returned to Jerusalem with the exiles in 537 with his grandfather Iddo who headed the priestly clan (Nehemiah 12:16; Berekiah of Zech 1:1 is presumably his father who for whatever reason is not in the picture in Nehemiah). As he matured, he served alongside of the younger (perhaps) prophet Haggai (Ezra 5:1; 6:14); they were neighboring pastors.

Haggai began prophesying on August 29, 520 BCE. (Hag 1:1)—all four of his messages are dated in 520 BCE. Zechariah began prophesying in Oct/Nov 520 BCE (Zech 1:1). His eight visions are dated February 15, 519 BCE (Zech 1:7). His oracles on fasting are dated December 7, 518 BCE (Zech 7:1).

The first half of Zechariah (chapters 1-8), then, is dated to the period of 520-518. Cyrus the Great, the Persian Emperor (559-529 BCE), had authorized the rebuilding of the temple in 538 and the foundation of the temple was laid in 536. But the work had stopped and the temple remained uncompleted. Darius the Great, another Persian Emperor (522-486 BCE), authorized renewed building activity in 519 (Ezra 5:3-6:14) and the prophets encouraged those efforts. The temple was rededicated on March 12, 516 (Ezra 6:15-18).

Zechariah 1-8 is situated in the hopes of the people for a renewed temple and renewed life in Palestine. Zechariah’s visions (Zech 1:7-6:8) sustain that hope while his prophetic message also calls for ethical renewal among the people (Zechariah 7:1-8:23).

The second half of Zechariah (chapters 9-14) is more difficult to locate historically. Scholars have sometimes placed this material in the pre-exilic period, but most in recent decades have placed it in the late Persian or Greek period of Israel’s history. The argument continues as to whether Zechariah 9-14 demonstrates a sufficiently different style, context, message and language as to demand two different authors. Whatever the case may be, some still believe that we can locate the two oracles of Zechariah 9-14 in the 480s BCE when Zechariah was older and living in a different historical situation. But these oracles are undated and thus we cannot contextualize with any certainty.

The two sections of Zechariah 9-14 are clearly distinguished by the delineation of two different oracles (Zech 9:1; 12:1). The first oracle is the announcement of judgment against the nations (Zech 9-11) and the second is the announcement of promise and hope for Israel (Zech 12-14).

Judgment and hope are common themes among the prophets of Israel and this is certainly part of Zechariah’s own sense that he continues in the line of earlier prophets (1:6; 7:12). In Zechariah judgment and hope are connected with the present and coming reign of God in the world. This resonates with the gospel theme of “repent and believe the good news” of the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 1:14-15).

To read Zechariah is to hear the joy, judgment and Jubilee of the kingdom of God. It is to live in the present hope that the rebuilt temple and restored priesthood embody. It is to recognize the judgment of God against the nations and against Israel’s past (and potentially Israel’s future as well). It is to believe the message about the coming reign of God in which the whole earth will be inscribed “Holy to the Lord” (Zech 14:20).

The message of Zechariah is good news; it is the gospel of the Messiah who will come to reign over the earth in his eternal kingdom.

David Lipscomb favored the “working man” over the rich industrialists. He believed his opposition to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few was rooted in Israel’s economic practices.  Hear his voice (Gospel Advocate [7 June 1906] 355):

“The Bible furnishes protection against social evils. One of the clouds on our horizon is the tendency to the accumulation of extreme riches in the hands of a few and the extreme poverty of another element. The Bible, in its arrangements for the release of debts, the return of lands, and the general restitution of Sabbatical years and jubilee years, was a preventive of such evils, and teaches a lesson of wisdom the governments of this world have yet to learn.”

Immersed in the flow and life of Scripture, Lipscomb believed the economic ethics of Israel has something to say the capitalism of American democracy.  Me too!

In 1909 David Lipscomb received a note from Nankin, Ohio, describing how Allen county voted “wet” by 36 votes when 800 “dry” Mennonites refused to vote. The angry author laid the “responsibility of the result” at the feet of the Mennonites. The writer noted that since the “supreme power in our government is lodged with the people,” everyone must participate or else responsibility for negative results lies with them (the non-voters).

Lipscomb responded in a classic article entitled “Mennonites” (Gospel Advocate. February 18, 1909, pp. 204-205).  He defends Mennonite practice and says the idea of non-participation “did not originate with” Menno Simons.  When “Jesus refused [Satan’s]  offer” of the kingdoms of his world, he set an example for his disciples.

Others followed that example. Lipscomb cites Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen. He depends on Edward Gibbon, Johan Lorenz Mosheim and George Herbert Orchard for his history.  “Nothing in history is surer,” he writes, “than that the churches for the first three centuries held firmly to the doctrine that Christians should not take part in civil institutions. After the conversion of Constantine they were encouraged to engage in political affairs, and many fell from their steadfastness in the faith.” But not all, including the “Waldenses, the Wickliffites, and the Husstites” (quoting Mosheim).  And the Mennonites.

Lipscomb then offers his own theological comment on the practice of the Mennonites. He concludes his brief article with the following three paragraphs. They are a succinct statement of his convictions.

     These are only a few extracts showing the ancient and divine origin of the doctrine held on tis subject by the Mennonites. I believe this the teaching of the Bible, and the true end of the reign of God on earth will never be realized until the children of God work in God’s church. The kingdoms of this world are nowhere recognized as the kingdoms of God, but as the kingdoms of the evil one. They are to be borne and treated with as necessitated by the sinfulness of man, to be overruled by God for the punishment of evil doers, and essential to the well-being and government of the world until the rule of Christ is established. We are to pay our taxes and submit in all things that do not lead away from God into fellowship with these. We should always gratefully accept all favors and laws promoting morality and virtue. But we cannot take part in the human governments.

     I think no greater evil can befall the churches of Jesus Christ than for them to enter the field of politics, drink into the spirit of the civil powers, and look to them for help in enforcing morality and in carrying out the law and the righteousness of the Bible. The more widely the church and the State can be kept apart in their operations, the better for both. The reason of this is, they are diverse in  nature and character, and must be run on different and antagonistic principles. For a man, as a Christian, to enforce a principle of morality or righteousness on his fellow-man by civil law is persecution. The church of God is the embodiment of spiritual influences that conquer through love and self-sacrifice; the civil government is the embodiment of material influence and forces that conquer by physical power. The two cannot be moved by the same spirit or work harmoniously in the same hands. The civil ruler that would be moved by the spirit of Christ, that would die to save a victim from death, would not be a successful civil ruler. While the church and the civil government cannot work harmoniously in the same hands and in the same channel, and while some men are wicked and corrupt and all are weak and short-sighted, under the laws of God they may both be in the world, and yet his people be not of the world, and they may be helpful to each other. The church doing its duty must keep a moral sentiment alive that will help the world and afford a standard of right on which the civil government will rest, and the government can afford protection and help to the Christian. For this latter protection the Christian should pay his taxes and submit to all laws of the government not conflicting with the laws of God.

     I am always sorry to see Christians engage in politics.I am sorry to see them become interested in working to put others in office. I ams sorry to see them seek office; sorry to see them given office, for it demoralizes them and leads others wrong. I am glad to see Christians stand for God and his truth even when the opposite course seems to bring good. Much good of an earthly character, moral and temporal, is offered to lead away from God. Men must learn to stand like these Mennonites for the truth against temporal good.

“Thus, endeth the lesson. “