The Vicar's Bible blog 2004-2006

Last night one of the home groups I am part of went to see the Nativity Story. If you want to see a classical Christmas Card/Crib scene come to life, this is the movie for you. All the legends and stereotypes were there, a cave for a cattle shed (complete with sheep and cows), three wise men with the proper names arriving with the shepherds and forming a tableau around the crib/manger which was too small to be useful for animals, and a very ridiculous searchlight shining through the roof of the cave onto Mary and the baby from the star (three planets lining up). Mary’s blue shawl even turned up half way through the movie.

But the movie was well made, the miniatures were pretty convincing and the violence of Herod formed a good context for the difficulties of Mary and Joseph and their subsequent flight into Egypt (and the opportunity for some good shots of horses’ legs). Herod sometimes appeared like the Sheriff of Nottingham (and once or twice like the Sherriff of Rottingham), and his paranoia about the birth of a Messiah was an unnecessary interpolation into the history. However the setting of the story was best in the rural scenes and in the journey.

The journey to Bethlehem was very well done and gave a good sense of the difficulties involved. The scenery was spectacular and forbidding (filmed in Morocco I think). The highlight however was the portrayal of Mary and Joseph (apart from the modern western idea that she resented having her husband chosen for her). The two characters were cast well, as were the parents and other villagers and Elizabeth. The film is worth seeing just to get inside the enormous impact Mary’s pregnancy must have made on her and Joseph and her parents.

The humanity of the event and the great cost involved for Mary and Joseph was brilliantly portrayed. Without the wise men one could read the film as a comment about poor people living in an oppressive society and seeking a rescuer. (I think the poverty and oppression theme was a bit exaggerated – maybe to give the main story a context in which to make sense of it).

The wise men however had a running commentary on the meaning of the birth of Jesus which was pieced together from various parts of the Old Testament. It is plausible that they had access to such scriptures, but the Bible story does not say so nor does the Bible give them that role. In the movie they were like the chorus or narrator interpreting the birth in Nicene theological terms (although one of our observant members pointed out that the subtitles omitted the line “God becoming flesh”).

Apart from the Christmas Card scenes, the film helps us see the huge impact of God’s action on these few humans. And it forces us to explore more deeply just what was happening when God became flesh.

Last Wednesday our home group was discussing Genesis 3 and the forbidden fruit. Or more precisely why the fruit was eaten. In a group with such a fine gender balance as ours an interesting variety of speculations was raised, until we concentrated on what the text said.

The fruit (a mango? – some say a durian!) was eaten because it seemed to be good for food (there goes the durian argument), it was very good to look at (again) and it promised to make one wise or astute (durian wins on this one).

Someone in the group pointed out that the fruit was eaten in direct disobedience to what God said. The woman quoted accurately what God has said, and yet they went ahead and ate it – for the very good reason that it looked nice and tasty.

One perceptive comment on the night was that they ate the fruit just because of desire. As though the fact that they desired it cancelled out everything else. Wow! it was a very up to date insight. They acted no differently to us! Maybe that’s where we got it from. But their blatant behaviour is so stark. God had clearly said one thing and they went directly against him because they liked the thing.

It was not even a clever rationalisation. It was just a simple explanation of sin. They let what they could see, what they wanted to taste, and what promised to make them cleverer, ignore what God had said.

Why? Maybe their brains hadn’t developed. Maybe they had no experience of life, no higher education, no parents to advise them. But that is probably not the explanation, since none of that seems to have stopped modern people doing the same.

The explanation is very clear and simple. They ate the fruit because it stirred up physical desires, was attractive to look at, and flattered the ego (the pillars of modern advertising I suppose). Scary isn’t it, that the good word of a wonderful creator could be thrown over so easily.

Jesus was once faced with the opportunity to make a meal for himself out of desert rocks, to do a spectacular leap from the temple, and was flattered with the (genuine but poisoned) offer to become ruler of the world. Fortunately he rejected the temptation. Part of his explanation was that humans live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Adam and Eve knew the truth of this because when they rejected the word that came from God they lost the life that came with it. God said they would die and they did.

“With regard to the Da Vinci Code (allegedly based on fact) how can the church justify keeping Christians in ignorance of the missing gospels until this book was published?”

In 1945 a dozen or so ancient texts were found at Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt. They turned out to be a variety of Gnostic writings and included the Gospel of Thomas. In recent years another text which was known indirectly was discovered – the Gospel of Judas. It is estimated by some that by the end of the second century there were up to 20 writings calling themselves gospels (even a gospel of Adam). As was customary at the time these works were generally pseudonymous (ie they were named after a famous person, but no one thought that person had actually written it – although they may have thought it expressed the teaching of that person).

Many of these writings were known to us only because other writers referred to them. As more archaeological discoveries have happened, more of these texts have been discovered. However many of them have been available in English for a long time (the gospel of Thomas, for example, has been available in bookshops for decades). Nowadays most of them are available on the web.

What happened in the first few centuries was that great debates developed about the truth of Christianity. One of these debates was focussed on teachings which became known as Gnosticism. You can see the beginnings of this debate in the New Testament, especially in the letters of John. Gnosticism offered the possibility of special knowledge (hence its name). Put simply this knowledge had to do with the nature of reality as essentially spiritual. Many of the Gnostics taught that this teaching was so profound that only certain people could understand it and be admitted into its mysteries. However its popular form made a distinction between spirit and matter, the spirit being good and matter being unhelpful and not connected with the experience of the divine life.

At a common level this allowed some to say that because the body and matter were not able to participate in God’s nature or salvation, it did not matter what you did with it. So any kind of bodily or sexual sin was OK (quite a neat theological argument). At a more significant level the basic ideas of Gnosticism called into question the incarnation (could the divine Son really have become human? –see 1 John). And it was about the nature of Jesus that the real debate revolved.

The early Christian apologists (defenders of the faith) such as Irenaeus led the debate which finally resulted in the great ecumenical councils of Nicea (325) Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451) making statements about the nature of Christ and of God. The Gnostics were rightly excluded from the body of the orthodox because their teaching destroyed the centre of the Christian faith.

Is it a good thing to be known by God? “O Lord you have searched me and known me.”, said David. Lots of us think it is a good thing that God knows who we are, recognises us, knows our name as it were. But some are less sure about God knowing everything about us. Most of us prefer to keep some parts of our life (or our past) secret.

It is a foolish idea, as David recognises (Ps 139). Where can one go where God isn’t? What thoughts do we have that God does not know before we can put them into words? It is possible to read this Psalm from the point of view of one’s guilt and embarrassment, and so feel a bit apprehensive about what God knows.

But I think David has a different angle. He begins the psalm by reminding God that he has already searched and known David – from as long ago as the time he was in the womb. And he ends the psalm by asking God once again to search him and test his thoughts. Presumably David thinks God’s knowledge of him is a good thing, helpful even. Helpful at least to being led in the everlasting way. Helpful to get rid of wickedness.

But what is so important to David that he takes so long reminding God (or himself) of how wonderful God’s knowledge of him is? Perhaps David’s concern is the part of the psalm that we think is out of place. David appears to be surrounded by bloodthirsty people. People who are not just after David’s blood but who more importantly are really against God himself. Wicked people who hate God.

David has put himself in God’s place and sees these people for what they are really doing – speaking against, and opposing God. So he wants to be rid of them. Well, he wants God to get rid of them. He hates them from God’s point of view.

Many western Christians give a high cringe rating to this part of the psalm. In fact many feel the psalm would be much better without it. But only as a piece of pietist poetry. As it stands it is a piece of realist poetry. When you read it, do you think David is comfortable with his pure zeal against the wicked? Or is he unsure? When we feel like skipping this bit of the psalm, are we also comfortable with the deletion? Or if we affirm it, are we comfortable with our own attitude to those who wickedly oppose God?

I think that is why David calls on the person who knows him best to help him know what is really in his heart - is he thinking in the right way, or not? Who can he ask who can see into his heart and know both what he thinks and whether it is right?

Last night we had a discussion at home group about obeying the government (we were studying 1 Peter 2): should Christians obey all the laws of the land, and if not why not, or which not? What about when Peter and John told the Sanhedrin they had to obey God and not them?

During the week Robert and I have had a brief discussion on the All Saints Community Forums about God changing his mind.

It can be quite unsettling not to be sure which actions are the right ones, and which messages are really from God and which are not. This is true in our normal relations too. Last week Joy and I completed a survey as part of some research being conducted at our daughter’s university. Part of the survey involved us looking at pictures of eyes and describing what emotions were being expressed (just the eyes!).

Part of the survey involved answering a questionnaire which included the statement “I can easily tell what people are feeling by looking at their face.” (answer from 1 to 5).

And then there is tone of voice, not to mention the different ways people from different countries have of conveying meaning by tone of voice and body language. No wonder there are wars.

As for what God says in the Bible, it is obvious that there is a lot of room for casuistry. That’s what the Pharisees were so good at; splitting hairs, finding loopholes, accepting exceptions.

Others prefer plain black and white. But normal relations and the Bible do not work easily with black and white – not even greyscale.

Despair? Not yet. If God has caused the scriptures to be written, presumably he has a solution to these problems. He has! He has given us six things: a brain (even though half the problems come from there); a will (the other half); the scriptures; a fellowship of brothers and sister (OK some problems from here); teachers and pastors (and here); and his Spirit.

In the combination of these helpers he leads us to understanding and behaviour that is like his behaviour and thought. But the helpers have to be combined in the right way. The Spirit and the scriptures are over all, since they come directly from God. The other helpers ought not to be used in isolation from each other either.

Everyone knows what a doubting Thomas is. But where did the name come from and why was it applied to Thomas?

Most people will say it originated in the Bible. But the term did not appear in English bibles until the 20^th century. A renaissance painter such as Caravaggio who painted the scene used his Latin Bible as the source for the title. Although the English title for his painting is Doubting Thomas, the Italian is more like the Incredulity of Thomas. This painting may suggest that Thomas took some time to be convinced, since it depicts a close examination of the wound in Jesus’ side.

The English Bibles stayed much closer to John’s text until the NIV and NRSV followed fashion rather than text. Wycliffe in the 14^th century has Jesus say, do not “be unbelieveful but faithful”. Tyndale in the 16^th century has, “be not faithless but believing”. Tyndale’s translation was followed by the King James Version of 1611, the Revised Version of 1881 and the Revised Standard Version of 1952. The New American Standard, and the New King James have, “be not unbelieving but believing”.

It was the NIV the introduced, “Stop doubting and believe”. The NRSV has followed this with “Do not doubt but believe”. The annoying thing is that John had a perfectly good word to use of he meant to say doubt, which Matthew used in Matt 28.17.

One reason John didn’t use that word is that Thomas had already said to the other disciples that he would not believe, unless he could see the wounds in Jesus’ body. Thomas was more than a doubter. Calling him Doubting Thomas does not do justice to his clarity of mind.

Thomas disbelieved because he wanted empirical evidence. Many people nowadays disbelieve without any reference to evidence one way or the other. Believing or not believing has become unimportant because truth is unimportant. But the empiricism of Thomas is not put forward as the only or even the ideal way to believe. It is possible to believe without seeing Jesus in the flesh – just as well for those of us who were born too late.

John himself went to great lengths to write down for people like us all the information we need to believe in Jesus. Some of us say we doubt it. But it may be more to the point to say we don’t believe it. But it was written so that we would believe it. And in fact there is nothing else to base our belief on.

Not many choices there. Like Caravaggio’s Thomas it may repay closer examination.

PS I think the name Doubting Thomas goes back at least to Tertullian and Augustine

This must be one of the famous sayings of history. One of the few things Pilate is known for. But how did he say it? Those who have to read John 18 in church know the difficulty of choosing how to say it.

Often readers ask the question in a cynical unbelieving voice, to reflect the idea that Pilate did not believe truth could be discovered, at least not in political life, and perhaps not at a philosophical level either. Others read it in a way that suggests Pilate wanted to know the truth but despaired of being able to. Some think Pilate was a committed pragmatist and did not want to know anything about the truth. No doubt there are other choices as well.

Jesus was answering a question about his kingship, was it political (no) or other worldly (yes). So why was he there? To testify to the truth, he said. But not just to testify but also to reveal the people who were on the side of truth. He said you could tell those people by the fact that they listened to Jesus.

So probably Pilate wasn’t on that side. Although he did listen a bit, and was in two minds about what to do with Jesus. He wanted to free him because he thought he was innocent. But he listened to the political voices as well.

But what truth could Jesus tell Pilate? Presumably, something about another kind of kingdom, an out of this world kingdom. Or at least a kind of truth from outside. If he came into the world specifically to tell about the truth, then perhaps his truth was about things from outside the world.

Interesting idea! Lots of modern people want to know about ideas (even if not truth) from outside their experience of the world. The really useful thing about Jesus is that he tells you about the Creator God who is outside of creation. And he tells you about him from within the intrinsic relationship he and the Father have within God.

That is, he does not testify to the truth as an outside observer, but as the one who himself is one with the Father. So he reveals truth, not as a philosophical idea, or as some kind of empirical certitude, but rather as the very essence of reality itself.

The question, “What is truth?” has an unexpected answer if you listen to Jesus.

Is Job too good to be true? We are told that there was no one like him on the earth. Is this a hagiographer’s hyperbole? An exaggeration about a hero, such as Homer might have said about Agamemnon or Achilles?

It might be. But the testimony comes from the Lord, not the narrator as such. And it concerns not Job’s wealth and fame but rather the fact that he was “a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil”.

Job’s story describes how he continues to fear the Lord through the terrible loss of his family and property and through his own profound suffering. But was there no one else like him? Were there other people like Job in the history of the Bible?

Most of the great heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, David, or Solomon don’t stand up to comparison with Job. They cannot be described as blameless and upright, even though they were people of faith. In fact when you look at the kinds of people God used to do his work in the Old Testament (or the New for that matter), they are all flawed.

Habakkuk comes to mind as someone who was like Job in some respects. In the face of great disaster he held fast to his trust in God. He said,

Job is an example of Habakkuk’s righteous person – the one who lives by faith, and who shows that he is righteous by the fact that he lives by faith. “Though he slay me, I will hope in him.” (Job13.15)

But Job is remarkable not only for his patience, as James observes, but for the commendation that he receives from the Lord, as one who spoke rightly about God. As a result of his blameless behaviour in the face of his suffering, he is able to intercede for his friends and God accepts his prayer.

When we ask the question, what Job should do next time he suffered like that, we get an insight into what he learnt through his suffering. We can also see who else is like Job. Job and Adam share some things in common – they are both left in a world with a Satan - but Jesus has things in common with both. If the wilderness is where Jesus acted in Adam’s place, Gethsemane is where Jesus was like a second Job, or the one of whom Job was the shadow.

One of the questions raised by the book of Job is whether humans can be trusted to live in a world of both seduction and disaster. Why this should be important to God is connected with his plan to put humans in his world in the first place. It is also connected with God’s expectation that humans could live in this environment in a way that was consistent with them being God’s creation.

In other words God’s reputation as a planner and creator was at stake. Do humans have a design fault, or was the plan too grand for the poor creatures that he made? Job is one of the few humans who appear to vindicate God’s trust. Even so it is apparent that God still trusts humans to live in a way that fits his creation. The fact that he will call them to give an account of how they have lived shows this trust.

But from the humans’ point of view, we sometimes want to ask whether God can be trusted. After all he has left us in a pretty hostile place, beautiful though it is. He has also left us amongst others like us who often don’t like us. And he has allowed hostile spiritual powers to operate in the world we inhabit.

There are many bad and harmful things in our world, things which seem contrary to what God has revealed to us about himself. So is it OK to trust a God who allows these things to operate in his world? If we thought he did not have control over the bad, that they were more or less as powerful as him, then our trust would be undermined.

Or if we thought he was ambivalent about the bad, if he wasn’t really reliable in standing up for what was good, then we may not want to trust him. But of course for us humans, it is quite difficult to see into the heart of God, unless he chooses to make himself known.

That is one reason Job is such a helpful book. Job himself wants to talk to God, and he wants an answer. He recognises that his troubles originate with God and he wants God to stop them. He is not aware that God has pointed him out as a unique upright man, nor does he know a lot about what God is doing, but he wants God to explain.

And in the end God does – but not about what has happened to Job. God explains to Job that he is totally powerful, the creator of everything, including the most terrifying and harmful beasts. Whatever is happening to Job, God has it under control. And as soon as God opens himself to Job, Job falls silent and is satisfied. Job trusts God, not because of what he sees happening to himself but just because of who God is.

Basically all of us face the same simple choice. Will you trust God because he is God, or not? That is what made Job an upright man.

Was Job a real person? When you read the story, it sounds like a myth. Myths of course may be true in some sense, at least they may represent a truth. In Job’s case part of the question is whether the story is true.

The story part is quite brief, and no doubt had many parallels. It concerns a good wealthy man who is ruined by attacks from his enemies, natural disasters and then suffers chronic ill-health.

The bulk of the book of Job consists of speeches. Most of the speeches are by Job’s friends who offer him wise advice about how to get God to bring his sickness to an end and to restore his fortunes. Job frustrates them by denying their basic assumption – that he is guilty of sin and is suffering for his sin. Such conversations sound like real opinions held by typical Old Testament people.

One of the difficulties with Job, is how we are to understand the behind the scenes story. The patience of Job is set in a context in which God points Job out as an upright man who fears God, but whom Satan thinks is only good because of what he gets out of it. So in some ways the book is a study of Job’s uprightness. In what does his uprightness consist? Was it just the regular sacrifices he offered after his children’s parties?

According to the Satan’s test his uprightness should be proved by what he did after the disasters – but in the case of the disasters he proved himself loyal to God. What about his own personal sickness? In what ways did that show whether he was really an upright person who feared God?

In the end God vindicated Job. But was God vindicated? Was it OK for God to allow Job to experience such suffering? The answer to this has to start back in the garden of Eden, because it was there that God did something to humans similar to what he did to Job. He left them to take responsibility for living in the world he gave them.

And although we want to ask why God let them suffer, it may be better to ask why God trusted them to live on their own choices. The vindication of God is connected in part with whether it was a good idea to leave Adam and Eve in the same garden as the snake. Or whether it was a good idea to let Job live in a world with a Satan.

The book of Job has this ring of truth at least, that the discussion between God and Satan is about whether this man (as distinct from Adam perhaps) can be trusted to live rightly in the face, not of seduction, but of disaster.

I see in the paper today that we in Jakarta are threatened with big floods this month. There are apparently several reasons for this, one of which is that there are not enough trees and green areas in Jakarta to soak up all the rain.

Trees are good - although someone discovered this week that some forests give off green-house methane gas which is bad for the environment. So maybe some trees hang out in bad company.

Trees not only soak up the rain and pump oxygen into the air, they are used as symbols for strength, perseverance, and fruitfulness. The righteous grow like cedars of Lebanon, like palm trees that flourish, like fruit trees that always produce fruit.

But the trees have to be planted where they will grow. Beside the river is one good place – there is plenty of water for the tree and the tree helps with the flood problem. Another good location according to one author is in the house of the Lord. Presumably this is a symbolic tree, a tree that gets its nutrition from the presence of God.

Some trees are very old. There is a mango tree at Menteng that is very tall (I reckon about 20m) and looks very old. It still produces fruit. One assumes it has a very good root system, since it must soak up huge amounts of water every day.

People who are like old trees who have been planted in the house of the Lord for a long time, or alongside his river, produce fruit even old age. Perhaps one should say especially in old age. They, more than anyone, can advertise the fact that the Lord is good.

The righteous flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in the house of the LORD; they flourish in the courts of our God. In old age they still produce fruit; they are always green and full of sap, showing that the LORD is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Ps 92.12-15 (NRSV)

Was Job a real person, or is it just a folk tale? The book of Job reads like one of the great epics. To a modern reader it sounds boring in places, as long winded speakers keep repeating themselves.

But in an oral culture it probably made for a tension filled story as Job and his friends battle out their argument, perhaps night after night after the evening meal. One can imagine that as the story teller repeated the well-known story the audience got caught up in the argument, and probably tried to improve on it. It would have taken many nights to finish the story and as the debate unfolded the listeners would have been drawn in to support or deny one view or another.

Job experienced a series of ordinary human disasters. Ordinary in that many people have experienced the same things. Disasters in that much of his experience was of an extreme kind. The disasters were made worse because they came on top of each other. In that respect Job is an ordinary historical person.

What sets him apart is not his sufferings but his reputation. There was no one like him. He is described as a blameless and upright man who feared God and turned away from evil. His sufferings are a foil to show his fear of God, that is, his faithfulness to God. At the beginning and at the end of the story we are told that he spoke what was right about God.

Job’s story is very frustrating for some of us. He does not ask why he is suffering because he knows it is caused by God. He does ask God to leave him alone, and to stop the suffering. But most of all he wants to have a conversation with God. He keeps on claiming to be righteous and denies his friends’ accusations that he is suffering as a punishment. Neither he nor the book suggests his suffering is for his good, as though there was a hidden purpose in his suffering.

In fact the book is not focussed on suffering. It is focussed on the relationship between Job and God. The story begins with God pointing Job out with pride as a person unequalled in his godliness. It ends with Job and God working together for the benefit of Job’s friends.

It is a wonderful story of how the righteousness of Job is seen by the way he remains faithful to God. His faith is his righteousness. At the end of the story he does learn that he has had too much to say. He was too ignorant of God’s purposes. But what would he do next time?

I think he would still speak, because speaking was the way he maintained his relationship with God. Perhaps next time he would say “If it is possible let this cup pass from me, but not my will but yours be done.” When his suffering became very great he might say, “My God why have you abandoned me”, but he would never abandon his trust in God.

Why did God allow Job to go through all that suffering? Job’s friends said it was because Job deserved it. But Job said he did not deserve it. God also disagreed with the friends.

Job thought that God was somehow behind his suffering, and he wanted to have a face to face discussion with God about it. But he did not curse God, or speak badly about God.

Near the end of the story God answers Job. Once that happens Job stops complaining. He says that at last he has seen God. That is enough. Half way through the book Job looks forward to the time when he will see God with his own eyes. In the end when he does, he is satisfied.

All of which makes one think that this book is not primarily about suffering, or even about God’s role in suffering, but rather that it is about Job and God’s relationship.

The book has a beginning and an ending like an idealised folk tale. We could think that in these descriptions lay the chief blessings for Job. But the discussion between God and Satan is not about how successful or prosperous Job is, but how righteous he is. Job is a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil.

The appeals of Job are expressions of his relationship with God. They are strong and forceful and are directed at God himself. They express his righteousness. His friends think he is not righteous because he is suffering, and they mistake righteousness for sinlessness. But Job’s righteousness consists in his faith in God, his hope that God will be faithful to him, that God will once again watch over him.

The story of Job is not really about why God allows people to suffer. It is more about how the righteous person suffers. It is about how a person who fears God handles their difficulties. It describes a strong relationship between Job and God, and between God and Job. The story begins by describing God’s great confidence in Job. It continues by describing Job’s tenacious faith in God.

Perhaps it is a book which describes how the righteous person lives by faith, and which makes clear that the righteous person lives by faith, and that the righteous person is known by their faithful trust and hope in God.

If the new birth from above happens because the Spirit of God brings us to new birth, what does the Holy Spirit do after that? Is that the end of the story? Are we left to look after ourselves after we have been born again?

Giving us a new heart and a new spirit has some special purposes. Ezekiel put it like this:

And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ez 36:27 (ESV)

God gives his Spirit to us so that we can do what he wants us to do. This is one of the biggest problems we humans face. How can we do what God wants us to do? We know that what God wants us to do is the best thing. We know he has made us so that we can live in his way. We are designed to behave like God.

But when humans turned away from God they became corrupted so that the original design does not work properly. And try as we might we have never succeeded in completely overcoming this inability to behave like God all the time.

Behaving like God is the best way to have a relationship with him. That is why he has brought us to a new birth and a new life. That is why he lives in us - because that is what it means for God to put his Spirit within us. It means he comes to be in us.

God lives in us so that we can live like him. He is in us to help us behave like him because behaving like him is the way to know him.

The promise of Ezekiel is a promise that has come true with the giving of the Holy Spirit to all of God’s people; to all who put their trust in Jesus who died for them.

If God is in us because of the presence of his Spirit does that mean we do not need to do anything? Obviously not. We ought to be paying attention to him. We ought to be relying on him. We ought to expect that he will help us do what is right.

Paul called it walking by the Spirit, keeping in step with the Spirit. You can’t tell where people like that have come from. You can’t tell where they learnt to live like that.

“Don’t be afraid” the angel said to the terrified shepherds. Jesus said the same to his disciples when he came to them walking on the lake in the night. When John the writer of Revelation saw Jesus in a vision he fell down at his feet like a dead man, but Jesus said, “Don’t be afraid.” One could repeat similar reactions from Moses and others in the Old Testament.

It is an understandable reaction. When God acts and speaks he strikes tremendous awe into the hearts of those who witness it. We experience similar things sometimes when we see enormous power displayed, especially in nature. We are able to appreciate for a time how weak and powerless we are and how vast and powerful are the forces of nature. It is a feeling which affects the core of our being. We experience it in our marrow. We may say we are terrified, but there is something deep in this awesome fear, something that calls into question our own being and even our ability to exist.

Such fear is not necessarily caused because something is against us, but because it is so much greater than us. To say that it is an awe that inspires worship may be too simple. It is first an awe that challenges us and puts us in a different place than the one we have been occupying. It says to us that we are far from being the ones who know and control all that we see. Perhaps we can say such fear is like a threat to our ego - more than a threat, a demonstration that our egos are not able to measure up to such power.

So it is not surprising that John, the disciples, the shepherds, and Moses trembled or were terrified when they saw God or his angel or the magnificent King Jesus.

Nor is it surprising that one of the consistent ways of describing God’s faithful people is that they are those who fear the Lord. Not that they cringe before him. But that they recognise in their bones and in their heart that he is the one who is far beyond them in power and majesty and wisdom.

But those who fear the Lord are also invited to be with him. Each time we read about the disciples or the shepherds being afraid, they are told “Don’t be afraid”. In Revelation Jesus places his hand on John’s shoulder. The awesome, majestic Lord stoops down to assure us that we need have no dread of him. He who dwells in the heavens also dwells with those who have a humble and contrite heart.

Another bombing raises again some old feelings. Like the repetition of reports of evil, it amplifies the effect of previous experiences we have had, brings them back to the surface. For some of us that is another experience of pain. For others it is an opportunity to realise how much healing has taken place.

Some of us are from London or know London. We have friends there, we have travelled on those trains and buses and we sympathise with the folk who are suffering.

For all of us death stares us in the face again: the death of relatives or friends who might have died, or who did die, in these blasts; our own death as well. Once again we see that death can come unexpectedly and without warning.

With so many reminders we have plenty of incentives to prepare for our own death and the death of our relatives and friends. Christians say this preparation is primarily related to God. Are we at peace with God, do we know his forgiveness, do we trust Jesus’ death to cover our sins, are we looking forward to being with him? But equally Christians want to be at peace with their friends and family. That is one reason we share the peace in church – so that we can be at peace with each other. Being in a good relationship with our parents and children and friends is part of the Christian’s preparation for death.

But death is not the only thing that disturbs us about these bombings. It is evil: evil that occurs in the heart of people, of all kinds of people from all nations and tribes and cultures.

Christians sing psalms when they are in trouble. They call out to God. Because God is the only one who can deliver us from evil. But Christians also know that in this world God continues to act through ordinary people. People who do what is right and good, and who stand against evil, and corruption and dishonesty.

As we sympathise with our friends in London, we pray for those who have been traumatised and injured, for those who have lost friends and relatives, we pray also for those involved in the difficult task of rescue, counselling and healing.

“Do not go out into the field, or walk on the road; for the enemy has a sword, terror is on every side." (Jer 6.25NRSV).

my heart shall not fear; though war rise up against me, yet I will be confident. (Ps 27:1-3NRSV)

I read a book this week which listed all the people in Mark’s gospel who asked Jesus for help. There were13 of them; a leper, a man with an unclean spirit, a woman with a fever, a paralysed man, a man with a withered hand, another man with a legion of demons, an official of the synagogue whose daughter was dying and then died, a woman who had been bleeding for twelve years, a Greek woman troubled by a demon, a deaf man, a blind man, a man whose son was severely troubled by a spirit that tried to kill him, and another blind man.

They are a sample of the needs of the first century. They are not unlike people in many countries today. The kinds of needs may have changed and the ability of humans to help or cure some of the illnesses has changed. But Mark tells their stories to contrast them with Jesus’ opponents.

All of the gospels report that Jesus had vigorous conflicts with a number of groups. They were so disturbed by him that they even gave up some of their usual hostility to each other to plan his death.

The group of 13 are weak and needy people. They probably did not understand any more than the disciples the meaning of the great events that were happening in front of them. But they did draw one crucial conclusion. They understood that it was to Jesus that they must turn if they were to find help.

As we look back at these old stories we could think that they were just dealing with pre-scientific problems, and be tempted to dismiss them. But the group of 13 have another thing in common. They are all dealing with things that threaten their life, in some cases quite acutely. And while the details may be different it is the threat to life which places us in the same group.

In some ways we know about more threats to life than they did. We may even be more aware of how to avoid them. As I write this there is a man standing at my window putting sealant on a new window which the Church Council has installed in the hope that it will reduce my injuries if a bomb goes off nearby.

But the fear we share with those people is not primarily about bombs, or aids, or polio, but about death. This is how the group of 13 is of most help to us, because they turned to the one person who is able, not just to cure life threatening diseases but, to rescue us from death itself.

I have been thinking this week about Jesus welcoming and eating with tax collectors and sinners. In some parts of the world today tax collectors have a slightly higher reputation than they did in Jesus’ day, when many would have seen them as corrupt and profiteering. Sinners were another group again.

I remember sitting on the wall in front of the last church we were part of, talking to one of the street prostitutes. She worked the streets and was usually in a heroin daze. Every now and then she would emerge into reality long enough to seek help. One time her sister came to look for her in order to try to help her. She was part of a nice family but had been caught up in a terrible lifestyle. I remember once giving her a block of chocolate I had just bought, as I offered to put her in touch with one of our women ministers.

If she is not in gaol she may be dead by now I suppose. About the same time as this the citizens of that suburb mounted big protests to move the street prostitutes out of their area (no question of help – just Not In My BackYard). A big rally was held using our church hall with TV cameras and the works. The irony was that while the meeting was going on a few of the addicts were shooting up in the front yard of the vicarage.

Some in the church decided to begin a ministry to the street people. It was quite difficult, partly because of the cultural gap. But it was difficult also because of the criticism of the church’s involvement with the “sinners”. Some local businessmen objected strongly to the existence of our soup kitchen, for example.

Jesus must have had difficulties with the tax collectors and sinners. While they listened to him they did not all follow him or repent. But his difficulties were made worse by the opposition of those who ought to have been his allies. The Pharisees and teachers of the law (see Luke 15.1-2) had a good intention of upholding the moral law. But they appeared not to see past the law to the sinners who needed to be saved.

The stories Jesus tells suggest he was working very hard to welcome the sinners. They also contrast the mutterings of the law teachers with the rejoicing of the angels when even one of the sinners repents. The little set of stories in Luke 15 ends with a great celebration on the occasion of the return of the prodigal. It describes a deeply compassionate father who runs to welcome home his lost son. And who also goes out of the party to plead with the angry son to join in.

Dale

I am writing this looking out on a beautiful tropical garden that is the All Saints oasis in the centre of the world’s tenth largest city. I can see Monas quite clearly today because the rain has cleared the air, but usually it is shrouded in haze (pollution really).

The garden in Eden did not have a city surrounding it. Indeed when the land for All Saints was first bought there was no city around it either, although according to Andrew Lake’s excellent book (have you read it yet?) there were three Chinese communities nearby and lots of local Indonesians living all around it.

Gardens and cities seem to be in competition with each other. The life of a big city seems dangerous to gardens. We can easily imagine Eden as a place of pure air, clean water, and rich vegetation. Cities on the other hand tend to be dirty, polluted, and lacking in vegetation. I suppose that is why the pristine beaches and mountains of Asia are such a tourist attraction.

But we like cities. Nearly half the world’s population lives in cities. And tourists still visit the great old cities of Europe and Asia (even though they complain of the filth and dirt). There is something about a city that offers security and hope of wealth. Like Babel we gather together for our mutual protection and benefit.

In the Bible there is a tension between cities and gardens. Cities represent both safety and evil. Babel was a city built for security but the people were scattered by God because of the potential to aggregate evil. Jerusalem became a symbol of safety and salvation, but was itself corrupted and destroyed more than once. Fruit, trees, vines, water and rivers on the other hand are pictures of salvation.

At the very end of the Bible the garden of Eden turns up again, but now it is in the middle of a city – the new heavenly Jerusalem. The city and the garden are a picture that describes the wonderful safety and healing God gives his people. A river runs down the centre of the main street of the city and waters the trees of life. This city is the place where God’s people live together in the presence of the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

We may have thought that a return to Eden was preferable. Indeed many people feel a need to retreat to something like Eden. But God gathers people into a city with a garden, so that they can be together with him. They see his face in the city, in the gathering of the nations.
Dale

Back to Top

I knew a man once who constructed a sentence with five prepositions in a row (a newspaperman!). The annoying thing is that I cannot remember the sentence. What would I tell you that for? Because prepositions are connected with Easter. And people who like correct grammar (syntax I suppose) look out for them. It used to be bad to use a preposition to finish a sentence up with. But Mark ended his gospel with one (16.8 – but not in English).

It appears to break off suddenly. Did Mark write more? Did he intend to write more and was prevented? Or is this what he meant to leave us? The account of the resurrection ends with three frightened and bewildered women fleeing from the empty tomb. And not telling anyone about what they saw (and didn’t see). And with a hanging preposition. Is that any way to end the account of Jesus ministry?

Does it give us any confidence in their story? Does it provide any support for the idea that he really did rise from the dead. Mark’s account does not describe any appearance of Jesus to any one. Only a promise from the young man in the tomb that they would see him again in Galilee.

I suppose that by the time Mark wrote his gospel (30 years later), the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection was well known (although the other gospel writers seem concerned to record parts of it).

One thing Mark’s account might lead us to think is that he was not fabricating the story. If he was telling us a lie this would not be the way to convince us. In fact the story of the women fleeing in fear sounds like an account of a real life event. It is consistent with what we know of the lack of understanding of the other disciples. Luke makes much more of it in his account. There was no expectation of a resurrection, no instant recognition. The disciples were bewildered and astounded.

Realising this helps us appreciate just how stupendous this event was. It was completely outside the thought world of the disciples (although it ought not to have been). It was by far the most wonderful and frightening and awesome thing that had ever occurred in human history (and indeed still is). And Mark records the first reaction to the news: shock, fear and confusion.

There is an excitement in Mark’s account. A breath of truth from 30 years before. The reminder of a bewildering experience which by now made sense.

A wonderful way for a gospel to finish up.
Dale

“I believe in the resurrection of the body.” So says the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed says we “look for the resurrection of the dead”, which is a bit easier to understand, since one has to be dead in order to be raised back to life.

The problem with the Apostles Creed is the use of the word “body”, as one of the questions for the Men’s Breakfast pointed out. Which body, or whose body? And why the body and not the soul or spirit?

The creed follows the bible in its focus on the body. It refers to human bodies. Jesus’ body to start with. When he appeared to the disciples he made clear that he was not a ghost, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Lk 24.39). But it was a body with a difference. A body that could appear and disappear.

I think it was what Paul called a spiritual body. And I think it gives us a clue to what our resurrection life will be like. Paul answers the question about the kind of body people will have in the resurrection (1 Cor 15.35ff).

It will be a body appropriate for life in heaven. It will be a spiritual body. Such a body is analogous to a physical body, but it is spiritual not physical. Paul suggests that there is some continuity between the physical and spiritual bodies. The body that is buried as a physical body is raised as a spiritual body. But it will be imperishable, glorious, spiritual.

God likes bodies. Bodies embody who we are. They are not bad. They are not something which we want to get rid of. They are affected by sin and they do need to be changed. That is why the mortal physical body is changed into an immortal spiritual body – not into a ghost or a spirit. What God made in the first place was human bodies. And it is human bodies he will raise from the dead.

So we will recognise ourselves in heaven. We will recognise that the person we were is the person who has been raised. But we will be changed. Death will have destroyed the bad. The transformation of resurrection will complete the process of making us like Jesus. We will be most surprised at how different we are. But it will still be us. With perfect bodies suited to heaven, that will never wear out.
Dale

What should people, who don’t know about Jesus, do about God? Can people know God apart from Jesus? The Bible’s answer to this is not simple.

The Bible from beginning to end assumes that people know that God is there. They may not know everything about him, but they know he exists and that he has made everything. So what God expects is that people should honour him as God. They should give thanks to him, and treat him with the respect due to the one who has brought everything into being.

It is clear that God has made a wonderful creation – it is full of diversity, teeming with life, oversupplied with beautiful things. God has been extravagant in what he has made. There is a kind of wastefulness in the creation which we sometimes find hard to understand. But it comes from a generous God who obviously has enormous power to create such a wonderfully varied universe.

So it is surprising in a way to consider how the thoughts of humans have generally avoided the rich and heartfelt praise of this creator. Modern humans have become obsessed with their own creativity, but surprisingly despite the obvious self-centredness of most humans the objects of their worship seem to be more what they have made than they themselves who made them. I suppose for most of us we look for something outside ourselves for security and meaning.

Knowing that God is there and that he is a wonderful creator is one thing. Knowing God himself is another thing. But the wonderful creation is a pointer to a wonderful God. Those who can see what is there may want to know the one who made it.

And the Bible makes clear that those who seek after this God can find him because he reveals himself to them. Indeed what can be seen in the creation is already a revealing of God. In the Old Testament there are many instances of God making himself known to people who want to seek him further (Ruth for example).

God is kind and he regularly directs people to where they can find the truth about him. Jesus said to some of the religious leaders of his day that if they became his disciples they would know the truth and the truth would set them free.

God has made himself known through his Son. The one who has always been with God and is God has made him known. So if people really want to know God it is through Jesus that he can be known.
Dale

Pressure, stress, trouble, difficulty. People against us, circumstances that seem too difficult, hard times that seem to go on forever. It’s enough to make someone give up, or join the opposition.

Friends who encourage us are a great help in such circumstances. But sometimes people try to encourage us with words that don’t mean anything, or ideas that are nonsense. It is nice that they care, but the help is a bit thin and doesn’t actually sustain us in the troubles.

Sometimes a song cheers us up. Maybe because of the tune – like the blues. But good words might also help.

David wrote a really good song about this. You could call it a song of encouragement. Psalm 37 is a strange psalm in many ways. For one thing it is an acrostic – an alphabet psalm – in which each stanza begins with the next letter of the alphabet (the most famous is Ps119).

And it does not have any praise to God in it. In fact it is not even addressed to God. It sounds like something from the book of Proverbs. The Psalm has David’s name on it, who presumably composed it in one of those periods when he was thinking about how pressured he was by his enemies.

Some of it reads like a review of the life of bad people. David’s view is that they don’t last and they don’t prosper in the end. He says this so that he and his friends won’t be tricked into taking the short term advantage of joining them or acting like them.

David’s song (I wonder what kind of a tune it had?) is full of encouragement to believers. Don’t fret. Trust in the Lord and do good. Delight yourself in the Lord. Commit your way to the Lord and trust in him. Wait patiently for him. Don’t get angry.

David says that he has never seen the righteous forsaken by the Lord. Because the Lord is the one who will make sure they inherit the earth. He is our stronghold. He rescues us because we take refuge in him.

It is a simple choice, but for some the pressure is there every day to make the wrong choice. The Lord watches over those who trust in him. So keep trusting him.
Dale

I came across this sign on a Christian site recently. WWTD stands for What Would Thomas Doubt? A variation of the What Would Jesus Do? question.

I have not yet clicked the link to find out the answer. I think the question is too interesting to look up someone else’s answer straight away. Thomas is famous for his doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead. (Although in fact this reputation is based on a misunderstanding.)

If he doubted the resurrection, what else might he doubt? Walking on the water? Healing cripples? Casting out demons? Nowadays might he doubt that Jesus could tell him the true truth about God? That the gospels tell us what Jesus really said? That Jesus could make a difference to the way people live?

In fact poor old Thomas has been given a bad reputation. His story in John 20 is not about his doubt. He is much more strong minded than that. He comes straight out and says he will not believe it. Later when Jesus meets him the discussion is about believing (even though the NIV and NRSV translate the word “unbelieving” as “doubt”).

Some of us believe and doubt at the same time. This is not the same as believing and not believing. Unbelief is one thing. Doubt is another. It is true that sometimes we say we doubt when really we do not believe. Unbelief describes a mind made up. It reflects a decision we have made consciously or unconsciously. Doubt suggests a mind in process of deciding. Our doubt may be part of a journey from unbelief to belief, or from belief to unbelief. Because not everything we believe ought to be believed.

In fact doubt while it lasts can be very helpful. It is doubt that is the solvent that often sets us free from mind sets that are mistaken. Then we can progress to unbelief and thus to belief in something else. But we also fear doubt because it may undermine the belief we have in Jesus.

Doubt will dissolve belief if the belief is not based on a reliable foundation. Thomas changed from not believing to believing after he saw the risen Jesus. After that I think there was probably nothing he would not believe about what God could do.

For Thomas the foundation for his new belief was his encounter with Jesus himself. From then on Jesus was his Lord and his God. There was no doubt about it.

Our Wednesday group has come to the end of Isaiah. It has been a bit frustrating for some who would have liked us to go more slowly. But there has been plenty to get our heart and mind around.

One of the outstanding things in Isaiah is the impassioned prayers. Sometimes powerful and contrite confessions of sin; sometimes agonized complaints to God. Quite often wonderful songs of praise, many of which rise from their suffering.

Towards the end of the book there is a loud and passionate cry that God would tear apart the heavens and come down to rescue them as he did in the old days. But in the face of this long and deeply felt prayer God replies quietly that he has been down among them for quite a long time. And that he has been speaking to them and telling them how they can be rescued and kept safe.

The irony is that while God has been speaking to them they have not been paying attention. They have been seeking help elsewhere, and playing the fool with other powers they thought could help. “All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people…” God’s answer to their desperate cry is filled with sadness.

Is it possible that God might still be saying the same thing to us or to our friends? A long time after Isaiah, the apostle Paul thought this passage applied to his own people who were not listening to the message he brought. Paul’s message is our message and it is possible that at the same time as we call out to God for help in our lives he is saying to us that he has already told us where to get help.

The old problem for us humans is that we want help on our own terms. The difficulty with getting help from God is that the real help, the deep solution, only comes with God himself. His help is not detached from himself. To have his help you have to have him. And to have him you have to give up your own control over things.

To ask God for help puts us in the most vulnerable position. We have to give up control and trust him. The difficulty with needing help is that staying in control is what we want help for. But to get the help to control what is hostile to us, we must abandon our control in favour of God taking control. Maybe that is why God continues to hold out his hands to so many desperate and obstinate people.

Why did God use Cyrus the King of the Medes and Persians to rescue his people from slavery in Babylon? Why did he have such a long drawn out contest with Pharaoh when the people of Israel were rescued from Egypt?

In both stories there are puzzles. Why use a ruler like Cyrus who did not acknowledge the LORD as the God of all the earth and who worshipped his own gods? Why not use a great leader of Israel? Why take so long with Pharaoh? Why 10 plagues? Why harden Pharaoh’s heart? Why not let him release the people after the first plague?

The answer is easier to see in the case of Pharaoh. In the first place God chose as his spokesman a man who did not want the job and who could not speak in public. So the great leader Moses was not the type to be a national hero and lead the people out of slavery by force of personality or political cunning.

In the second place God could have chosen a nicer Pharaoh. Such as the one Joseph knew. Supposing that he had found a great statesman (like Joseph) and a nice Pharaoh the whole affair could have been resolved much more easily. So why didn’t it happen that way.

And in the case of the people of Israel who had been taken as captives to Babylon – why not raise up a great leader who could lead them out. A great leader like … Actually it is hard to find an example of a great leader in the Old Testament. David maybe? Gideon? Joshua? But when we look more closely at all of these “heroes” we see that they are weak and flawed. They owe their success to something outside themselves.

But why use Cyrus? For the same reason that God used Moses and Pharaoh, or David or Gideon. So that it would be clear that the salvation that was provided was entirely the work of God. Isaiah’s interpretation of the use of Cyrus

so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. Is 45.6

is pretty much the same as David’s own interpretation of the defeat of Goliath,

This very day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, …, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD's and he will give you into our hand." 2 Sam17.46

Every now and then God surprises us with some unexpected blessing. In a way all God’s blessings are unexpected since they come from his grace and kindness and not as payment for effort or goodness.

But when we say they are unexpected we sometimes mean we are surprised that God acts that way. Because some of us feel God is distant and unhelpful and possibly uncaring. We think we don’t often see answers to prayers and that the wonderful things God is alleged to have done are always done somewhere else or at some other time.

Our experience can sometimes cast a shadow over what we read in the bible and hear from other Christians. And yet it may be the shadow that is the problem. Deep in the darkest book of the bible a light shines out of the same kind of shadow. The writer describes the unrelenting suffering that comes as God’s judgment on his people. Although there are glimpses of hope the book ends with a plaintive appeal,

“Restore us to yourself, O Lord that we may return; renew our days as of old unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure.”

There is no answer given in the book to this “unless”. And yet part way through in the middle of describing the terrible affliction and suffering, the author says this,

“Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope: Because of the LORD’S great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. I say to myself, ‘The LORD is my portion; therefore I will wait for him.’”

Whenever we feel we are overshadowed by calamities, or worries, or fears of what might happen, or the shadow of circumstances that are out of our control, we too can choose to put our hope in the Lord God. Or choose to lose heart. Or choose alternative helpers.

Believing that he is compassionate and faithful is a choice. And we know that he is not just compassionate but generous. He has given us life and one blessing after another. The old song said count your blessings, name them one by one and it will surprise you what the Lord has done.

Those who count their blessings are the ones who pray confidently in their troubles. All Saints people have often faced troubles. As we face today’s troubles let us call out to God confidently and with thanksgiving and let us not be surprised by his amazing generosity and grace.

In the wonderful love story of Ruth and Naomi and Boaz there is a beautiful understatement. “As it turned out…” Ruth found herself working in a field owned by Boaz.

It suggests a completely random set of events that led to her working in this particular field. It implies that neither Ruth nor Boaz planned it this way.

But did it just “turn out”? Do things just happen? Puddleglum the Marshwiggle (I think it was) said to one of the children in CS Lewis’ The Silver Chair, “There are no accidents, our guide is Aslan.” Neither was it an accident that Ruth worked in Boaz’s field.

It turned out that way because the Lord the God of Israel intended it to turn out that way.

Things turn out God’s way for the benefit of the people who love him and whom he has called to fulfill his purposes. This little accident turned out to be a great blessing to Ruth and Boaz (and Naomi) – and to us.

Stories like this are everywhere in the Bible. And outside it. These kind of stories happen all the time, because they are stories of how God looks after his people, and how he carries out his purposes for them.

You are probably the hero or victim in countless stories like this. “As it turned out…” you found that God had had a hand in the things that were happening to you. And it is still going on. We are servants of the God who carries out all things according to the purpose of his own will.

Mostly we are not able to see the big picture. Often we don’t even see any light. Circumstances seem beyond our ability. But our trust and experience is that God sees. That he knows. That he is not the victim of forces outside his control or beyond his power. That he is not a passive God letting things run their course.

As things turn out they turn out to accomplish God’s good purposes. And even though we cannot always understand how this can be, we know that he is good. We know that in all things he works for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose.

An old song asks God to “disperse the gloomy clouds of night”. It must have been written in a country that had gloomy clouds and gloomy nights. Or perhaps it was written by a person who had experienced gloom and darkness in their own lives.

Sometimes there seems to be no light and our circumstances seem without hope. We feel that there is no point in going on. But to stop and die is a choice just as gloomy. There are different kinds of dying. People can die on the inside while their bodies are still healthy.

Sometimes it feels more difficult for those who believe in God because they think God could help them. Indeed that he should have helped them. This is made worse if we think that God is somehow responsible for our troubles and gloom.

The song is a prayer that God would come to be with his people. That he would bring a new day by his presence. Even if he is behind the trouble he is the one we must appeal to, he is the one we must flee to. It may sometimes feel as though we are running into the darkness itself.

But this God who has called us is a God who is utterly loyal to his promises and to his people. He is the one who will walk with us through the valley of the shadow of death.

He is the same one who showed kindness to Naomi who came back empty to her own land. She came back to this God and found that he had prepared for her such a blessing that the world is still talking about it.

And what he did for her is a small token of what he does for all those he loves. He does not leave them in a hard place but he comes to them; he rescues them; and at the end he tales them into his presence forever.

One of my relatives has drawn up a family tree of our family and researched some of our history. My great great grandfather migrated from England to Australia in the mid 19th century. They found work in the railways and each generation worked as fitters and turners or drivers until my father left the railways and joined the NSW public works department as an engineer.

Family trees are interesting to some people and dead boring to others. But they do give us a sense of connection with what has gone before. In the case of family histories they not only tell us where we came from but also tell us what happened to the descendants of those older people. As we end our lives we may wonder what will happen to our children and grandchildren. Will any of them be famous, will any make a major contribution to the world?

For people who have struggled to survive and to make a living there is a sense of pleasure in thinking that succeeding generations will benefit from their hard struggle. Often when people think about some ancestor they recognize that that person would find great encouragement if they knew about the achievement of someone in the present.

Jesus’ family trees are a bit like that. You can see where his family came from, but also how the family turned out with him as a member. Both Luke and Matthew have a family tree of Jesus. They put it at the beginning of his ministry. But in the story of Ruth the family tree comes at the end. And in her case it goes backwards and forwards. It shows where her families came from but also how it came about that she was the ancestor of David.

Ruth gets a mention in Matthew’s genealogy. She is one of only five mothers mentioned in that list. Another had to resort to prostitution to have a son; one was a foreigner and famous as a prostitute; another was an adulteress; and the last one was an unmarried mother. Ruth’s claim to be one of the odd mothers was that she was not only a foreigner but one of the banned Moabites. Why does Matthew single out only these mothers? How do these women reflect credit on Jesus? Of course the issue might be that Jesus brings glory to them. That his role to bless all the nations of the earth is already embodied in his family tree. They enhance his ministry because they help illustrate what his ministry is about.