Old Testament

Baffled by Leviticus? Struggle to see how it is a part of the Christian Scriptures?

David Field has posted a blogpost entitled Leviticus – an eight para intro which introduces, summarises and gives to us the book of Leviticus in just 8 paragraphs.

The last paragraph of David’s 8 shows us how the book points us to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and ends in praise to that God.

Enjoy David’s summary. So enjoy the book of Leviticus. So enjoy the God of whom it speaks.

That depends on which God you are talking about.

People who embrace a set of views known as “open theism” like to say that God does not know the future (either his own, or that of his world, or both – there are different versions).

I’m reading Isaiah 41-44 again, and am freshly struck by what is here. God sets out one test or characteristic that will distinguish him, the true God, from an idol or false God.

God can tell you what is going to happen; an idol cannot

Here is the test, for example, in 44:7

“Who is like me? Let him proclaim it.

The discerning sets his face toward wisdom, but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth. (Proverbs 17:24 )

— Jonah sent to Nineveh (1:1-2)
—— Jonah goes to sea – boards a ship (1:3)
——— Jonah in the belly of the ship; the sailors cry to their gods (1:4-6)
———— Jonah tells the sailors that he worships the one true God (1:7-10)
———— The sailors worship the one true God (1:11-16)
——— Jonah in the belly of the fish; Jonah cries to his God (1:17-2:9)
—— Jonah back on land (2:10)
— Jonah sent to Nineveh (3:1)

Corroborates my suspicion that Jonah’s ministry to the sailors is very important to these chapters

Job is one of those books of the Bible that I still feel I don’t really know what to do with. I’m not happy with treatments of it that read it as if the bulk of the book were a paranthesis. But I can’t do better. So I keep reading it, to see what I can learn.

I’m doing some work on Jonah 1 at the moment (again!), and it seems that we have another fine example of responsibility being passed between groups of people and representative individuals.

OK: I know this may be too general (macroscopic) to be useful, but does this work? If it does, broadly, work, I know for sure that my headings will need refining.

"Within the context of this vision 'the end' (19) need not be 'The End', the ultimate end of history. The earlier Hebrew prophets used the term 'the end' to indicate the end of a particular evil state of affairs or the final day of reckoning for a particular people (e.g. Amos 8:1-2). Sometimes what might seem to be 'end of the world' language is used of such events, though they clearly occur within history (e.g. Is. 13:9-22). These events within history are seen as foreshadowing the final day of reckoning, rather than being simply identified with it. This may be the case with the dreams and visions of Daniel, though at the end of the final vision there is a 'fusing' of the horizons of the end of Antiochus' career and the end of history."

E C Lucas, Daniel (AOTC), pages 94-95

"Five times in vv. 1-12 it is stated that the image was set up by Nebuchadnezzar. This emphasizes the way in which religion and the State get intertwined. Refusal to worship the image cannot be tolerated because it subverts the authority of the State. As Welch (1958:85) comments, 'The State has certain ends in view and want a certain type of citizen to fulfil them; it issues its orders by which it shall procure the best means to serve its ends. Some day it may demand an obedience which will make it impossible for certain men to save their souls alive. Then the opposite ends for life will come into open collision, and men will have to choose whom they mean to serve.' This is the choice that faced Diaspora Jews from time to time.

"Nebuchadnezzar's rage (13-15) may contain an element of annoyance at the ingratitude of these Jews. Powerful patrons can turn into dangerous enemies. However, he does not accept the accusation against them without giving them a chance to prove their loyalty and obedience. His primary concern is with their public conduct, rather than with their private beliefs. There is a parallel to this in modern secular society. Religion is acceptable as long as it is a matter of private belief and does not lead people to challenge the assumptions and values of their society by what they say or do."

A risky thing to claim – that we should expect to fight and lose.

Numbers 14: The people are judged for what? Deciding the enemies are too mighty to be beaten.

That was then. Since then the enemy has been beaten. Dare we risk angering the Lord in a similar way?