Jesus had invited me to spend an hour with Him.  I was a bit uptight about it, so for days I prepared by boning up on my seminary course in Christology and I reread the documents of Vatican II.  I glanced over my notes on Lonegran’s Method in Theology and breezed through another on liberation theology.  After all, I didn’t want to seem too far out of it.  I looked through the four Gospels, again, too.  Just in case He referred to something in His past recorded there.  And I cleaned up my room (as I faithfully do each year anyway), because He insisted on coming here instead of meeting in the chapel or on neutral grounds.

When he came I started to genuflect and kiss His hand, but He pulled me up and said:  “Can’t we just sit down together?”

I felt awkward and didn’t know how to start the conversation.  Reading my mind, He said:  “Relax!  I just like to be here with you and enjoy the scenery from your window.  The river and skyline look beautiful today.”

Well, I could hardly believe that.  If I’m busy and can’t afford that waste of time, He must be infinitely busier.  And there were so many important things to accomplish during that hour.  I really wanted to get the most out of it.  But He just sat there in silence with a hand on my shoulder.

“Lord,” I broke the silence.  “Where do you stand on the Christological controversy on how humanly conscious You were of Your divinity and future life before Your death and resurrection?”

“What’s that got to do with our enjoying this scenery together?”  He asked.

More silence.  I was uneasy.  I reached for the book on process theology and said:  “He really has something here on the development of conscious and the…”

“What difference does it make.”  He broke in, “to our time together here?  Do you like the way my Father has fashioned these clouds in process and the flowing river.”  More silence.

I opened the book on liberation theology.  “How can your gospel be authentically proclaimed, Lord, to people enslaved by oppressive economic and social structures?”

“You haven’t forgiven your brother down the hall yet, nor let me heal your anger and unkind judgments of him, have you?”  He countered.

“That doesn’t answer my question, Lord.”

“Your question does nothing to our precious time together except mess it up.”  More silence.

“Are you happy with Vatican II and the aftermath of it, Lord?”

“Are you?” He returned.

“Oh, yes – some of the new thinking and changes are really good, but I think some of the liberals have carried things too far and some of the far-right conservatives are obstructive and not thinking with the Church.”

“You’re impossible.”  He laughed.  “Aren’t you happy to spend a few friendly minutes with me without trying to get some new insights for your lousy – I mean brilliant – class lecture?”

“You’re confusing me, Lord.  I was taught how to meditate 34 years ago in the novitiate.  And I’ve studied ever since.  I’m not exactly new at this, you know.”

“No, not new – just a bit slow – and dumb.  But I love you anyway.”  That helped – but not much.

More silence.  I saw a shelf I forgot to dust and a letter that had to be answered and notes for the next class I needed to prepare.  I was getting more restless.  “Lord, would you like a glass of juice or something?  It would take only a minute to run down and get one.”

“And what would I do while you’re gone?  I prefer we just sit here together.”  Silence.

“Do you love Me?” He asked.

“Lord, you know everything.  You know that I love you.”

“I liked that when Peter said it.” He chided.  “But is it really you?”

“Honestly,” I protested.  “honestly – you’re not making this hour very easy for me.”

“You’re the one who’s making it hard.”  He replied.  “I just like to spend time with you, sharing My presence with you and assuring you of My love.  You don’t even have to entertain me when we are together.  Just be there, okay?”

More silence.  “Who do you say that I am?”  He asked, nudging my shoulder.

“Well, I’m with the best of our theologians, Lord, who say that You are – You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being; you are the incarnate word of God; you are our ultimate kerygma and the full revelation of the Trinitarian, Christological, soteriological, antithetic and ecclesial mysteries of our lives.”

There was a long pause before He said, “What?”

Then He exploded with laughter, rose and raised His arms straight up with His head back roaring.  He gave me a big bear hug.

“Yes, you’re impossible!  But I still love you.”

And He left, still laughing all the way down the hall.

I didn’t think that was very funny at all.

I stood gazing out the window for a few moments, still confused, before getting back to the important things on a desk full of work.

Then I really missed him.

Our Minister of Music, Billy Davis, and I are in Eureka Springs, AR, at a retreat hosted by the Little Portion Hermitage and being led by Michael Card.  The retreat is centered around the gospel of Matthew though it has begun with Card offering concluding comments on the gospel of Mark with which he dealt last year.

Tonight’s session was tremendous, as Card sang, led us in song and offered some fascinating comments on Mark.  I thought I might offer my notes from the session here.  They are raw and offered as I took them.  I hope, however, that they might communicate a bit of the content of Card’s teaching.  I will add my notes from tomorrow’s sessions sometime either tomorrow night or Sunday.

Michael Card – Matthew Conference

Little Portion Retreat Center

Eureka Springs, AR

2012

MARK RECAP

– the Fall has disintegrated us / affects us on a cellular level / affects relationships / affects the way we read the Bible (head or heart)

– Deuteronomy 6:5 – the Shema (the great creed of monotheism)

– the best way we can show God we love Him is to listen to Him

– the imagination integrates the heart and the mind

– the Bible is not didactic, it demands that you engage / we are not stamp collectors

– the incarnation, the Lord’s table: we must engage

– we take a fact and seek to integrate (what does that mean?)

– who is Mark?  Acts 12, when Peter busts out of prison by angel, goes to Mark’s house / they are praying for Peter’s release / Marks’s cousin is Barnabas / Mark bugs out on 1st missionary journey / Barnabas goes with Mark / eventually restored to Paul / Mark’s mother Mary is important / Mark’s house may be the locus of the ministry in Jerusalem / may have been led to the Lord by Peter

– July 19, 64 AD – fire in Rome / 1 Peter 4:11, end of one letter & 4:12 beginning of second (“fiery” trial, Babylon = Rome, lion = Nero)

– only in Mark: Jesus with wild beasts / Jesus’ family thought He was out of His mind (the experience of the Christians)

– fast movement in Mark / “only 22 minutes of face time with Jesus” / no interest in “the sayings of Jesus”

– Mark is the only gospel without an agenda (not a bad thing that the other gospels have an agenda)

– Mark gives us the emotional life of Jesus (Peter probably behind this) / 15 adjectives to describe emotion, more than other gospels

– in Mark, Jesus is consistently covered up by people / rarely if ever does He get irritated with the crowd

– Mark 1-8 & Mark 9-16, both end with confessions, Peter and the Roman Centurion

– Bartimaeus (bar = “son of”)

– the gospel of Mark is all about Bartimaeus

– He is the disciple that Jesus has been looking for for three long years

– believing before healing is a theme in Mark: Peter confesses before n / man whose daughter dies / “Come down from the cross so we may see then believe.”

– Bartimaeus is blind = perfect disciple

– Mark 10:46-52 [with bracketed comments throughout]

46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, [Mark and John translate but Matthew never does] was sitting by the roadside.

47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus [The only person in Mark who calls Him “Jesus”], Son of David, have mercy [hesed – 250 times in OT / translated in 14 different ways / KJV = “loving kindness” / Bruce Waltke – when the person from whom I have no right to expect anything gives me everything] on me!”

48 And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” [persistence]

49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.”

50 And throwing off his cloak [that’s all he owns], he sprang up and came to Jesus.

51 And Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi, let me recover my sight.”

52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.

Components of Bartimaeus’ story

1. Blind

2. Mercy

3. Persistent

4. “Jesus”

5. Leaves cloak

6. “go”

– Put yourself in this model. What would you ask of Him? You could be the disciple He has been looking for.

– distinction between primary and secondary: these details and nuances are secondary, but what the Bible clearly says are primary / bullet theology: those ideas you’d take a bullet for

MATTHEW

Saturday, June 26, 2012

– review of the Bartimaeus assignment – plugging yourself in the story (share time) / [It’s really moving hearing how others have plugged themselves into that story.  You can really hear the frustration and pain in some of these voices as they call out to Jesus, like Bartimaeus, for help.  I think we sometimes forget the power of testimony, or I do.]

– learning to listed to the voice of Matthew

– problem with Matthew:  Matthew’s voice is less-distinct / i.e., John has a developed voiced over a long period of time, Mark – friend of Peter, etc., Luke – medical doctor, historian, etc. / but with Matthew, not developed around his personality:  i.e., Matthew is the most Jewish gospel and it’s written by the worst Jew (tax collector for Rome, etc.)

– this is secondary, not bullet-worthy

– the most Old Testament:  36 references, more than all other gospels

– only one unique tax collector story, the Temple tax collector, but that wasn’t the kind of taxes he collected

– the voice you hear in Matthew is that of “a Christian scribe” (in the scribal tradition) / scribe was an expert in the Law / knows his O.T., integrated with Judaism, but a Christian

– earliest word on Matthew from Papias in 103 AD [sources:  (Eusebius – Church History, read carefully) / need to read the (Babylonian) Talmud (commentary on the Mishnah – 20 volumes) and the Mishnah / Suetonius –Lives of the Caesars / Tacitus – Annals / Pliny the Younger – Letters / Ginsburg – Antiquity of the Jews (4 volumes, free on Kindle)] / Papias says that Matthew collected a series of logia, a collection of sayings (in Matthew we have 5 blocks of sayings of Jesus)

– 22 minutes of face time with Jesus in Mark

– Block 1 – 5:1-7:27 / Block 2 – 10:5-42 / Block 3 – 13:1-52 / Block 4 – 18:1-35 / Block 5 – 23:1

– Point 1:  the gospel wasn’t written by Matthew, it contains sayings of Jesus that were put together by Christian scribes

– Point 2:  we connect with Matthew by understanding to whom the gospel was written

– Crisis in Galilee:  Matthew is the gospel of Galilee / the explanation for Jesus moving to Galilee is only in Matthew / Matthew likely written for a synagogue community in Galilee (a new idea / the old idea:  that Matthew was written in Antioch for Christians)

– Galilee:  old idea – rural, “kind of a hick place,” people made fun of it / in truth, Galilee was the most heavily populated area in the East / Josephus, the governor of Galilee, estimates the population at 3 million (modern scholars refuse to do that) / looked down upon, marginal Jews

– crisis: Judaism is divided / Talmud says that when Judah is divided into 24 sections, it will fall / that comment was made right before 70 AD

– the Gospel of Matthew was written to Christians who don’t know they’re Christians / question in Acts: do I have to become a Jew before I can become a Christian? / when Claudius kicks the Jews out of Rome, he kicks them all out, including Christians / Christianity, a sect of Judaism / look for the use of the word “synagogue” in Matthew

– 40 AD: Caligula orders statue of self put up in Temple, but dies before it happens

– 52 AD: Claudius kicks Jews out of Rome

– 66 AD: First Jewish revolt begins in Galilee

– 70 AD: the destruction of the Temple (read Josephus’ account – he was there and was begging the Jews to give up – was allowed to go in and save one of his friends who was hanging on a cross)

– what does it mean that the Temple was destroyed? / what it means is, “it’s over”:  no more priests, no more Sadduccees, Herodians are gone, Essenes are gone, Pharisees are all you have left / Pharisees allowed to go to a city called Jamnia (modern, Javneh) where they reform Judaism (where the Mishnah comes from) – how are we going to replace Temple sacrifice, answer:  Torah observance (studying the Bible in the synagogue – accepted which books in the O.T.) / Gamaliel II (grandson of Paul’s teacher)

– Matthew written right around 70 AD, maybe a little before, maybe a little after / we need to be careful not to superimpose post-70 AD Judaism on pre-70 AD Judaism, the two are not synonymous

– Pharisees are not one monolithic group, all opposed to Jesus / the Pharisees divided themselves into 7 groups / all of these groups are divided / Jesus not coming up against a monolithic movement

– the big crisis:  Jamnia, “the 18 Benedictions,” 18 prayers / benediction = barocha, blessings / Gamaliel II asked Samuel the Small, a rabbi, to compose a blessing (benediction #12) / For the apostates, let there be no hope…let the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed in a moment and blotted out of the book of life / this created a crisis with the Christians meeting in synagogue / Talmud says to watch closely who does and does not pronounce the 12^th benediction in synagogue / Christians being shown the door in Galilee (whether it’s happened yet in Matthew or not, it’s about to happen)

– the Gospel of Matthew is written to establish their new identity / faithful Jews in Galilee being kicked out of synagogue / shunned by families / ratted out by friends (i.e., “He did not pronounce benediction 12.”) / if you can’t recite that benediction, you’re bound / “Jews for Jesus” face this same phenomenon today / son of the orthodox rabbi in Nashville became a Christian and they put up a tombstone for him – “You’re dead to me.” / reading Matthew in this paradigm will make Matthew come alive for you / we do this kind of background work when we approach Paul’s letters but not so much when we come to the gospel

– major theme in Matthew:  kingdom / you’re part of a kingdom and Jesus is the King

– identity in Matthew’s gospel (working through “Identity in Matthew’s Gospel” handout)

– recommended McReynold’s Word Study New Testament

– Identity as an Organizing Principle for the Gospel of Matthew

– lepers are made clean:  has a new identity / you can do this all through Matthew

– Chapter 9 – Matthew given his name in the same way Jesus gave the other disciples new nicknames (Card’s own opinion)

– bleeding one, outcast, given a new identity

– the word “apostle” was recently applied to a ship – “something that is sent out”

– John the Baptist questions the identity of Jesus

– Lord of the Sabbath – probably one of the most shocking things the Jews ever heard / Card was once in Israel at a restaurant when they accidently served a Jewish woman non-kosher food.  She went crazy and tore the kitchen apart: breaking plates, dishes, windows, etc. / Lord of the Sabbath – Jesus is even Lord over the right things, like the Sabbath. / Jesus is Lord over your Catholicism, your Protestantism, your right interpretations, your theology, etc.

– (Bill Lane believe that Jesus became gradually aware of who He was.)

– Jesus and Beelzebub: confronting a false identity

– seed parables

– (Card says that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t work – this identity scheme, but he’s working on it) / all the uniquenesses about Matthew have to do with identity

– Transfiguration: an identity issue

– ch.19 – Rich Young Ruler – identity = you follow Me, but he can’t embrace his new identity

– (identity is not just a major theme, it is an organizing principle)

– all self-disclosure in the Bible is Christological / we are defined by Christ

– the workers in the vineyard: identity

– sons of Zebedee: need to think about whether or not you really want to embrace My identity

– Temple cleansing / Jesus’ prophetic identity / etc.

– Mary’s anointing in Matthew 26 – (a woman’s intuition is often better than a man’s wisdom)

– Gethsemane:  Jesus’ ultimate struggle with His identity

– Peter and Judas both betray Jesus:  Peter weeps and repents, Judas tries to fix it / people who try to fix things usually end up hanging from trees

– Card’s diagram on the “Carmen Christi” (Philippians 2) and the Lordship of Jesus

 

We were unable to stay for the remainder of the retreat and had to get home, but both of us agreed that Card’s handling of Mark and Matthew were profound, insightful and edifying.  I would highly recommend the IVP books he is currently publishing on the gospels.

I’m always trying as a pastor not to lose my soul, not to let the ministry morph into what it was not intended to be, not to take any dead-end exits off of the road to which pastors have been called as pilgrims and shepherds.  The congregational realities that seek to woo pastors to this or that alternative preocuppation (alternative to the gospel) are various and sundry, and they are oftentimes not unimportant and not unnecessary.  But they are not as important or as necessary as our primary calling:  the preaching of God’s Word and the care of God’s people.

These words from Eugene Peterson’s book, Working the Angles, have longed haunted me.  I just read them again and was struck once again by their poignant truthfulness:

“American pastors are abandoning their posts, left and right, and at an alarming rate. They are not leaving their churches and getting other jobs. Congregations still pay their salaries. Their names remain on the church stationery, and they continue to appear in pulpits on Sundays. But they are abandoning their posts, their calling. They have gone whoring after other gods. What they do with their time under the guise of pastoral ministry hasn’t the remotest connection with what the church’s pastors have done for most of twenty centuries.

A few of us are angry about it. We are angry because we have been deserted. Most of my colleagues who defined ministry for me, examined, ordained, and then installed me as a pastor in a congregation, a short while later walked off and left me, having, they said, more urgent things to do. The people I thought I would be working with disappeared when the work started. Being a pastor is difficult work; we want the companionship and counsel of allies. It is bitterly disappointing to enter a room full of people whom you have every reason to expect share the quest and commitments of pastoral work and find within ten minutes that they most definitely do not. They talk of images and statistics. They drop names. They discuss influence and status. Matters of God and the soul and Scripture are not grist for their mills.

The pastors of America have metamorphosed into a company of shopkeepers, and the shops they keep are churches. They are preoccupied with shopkeeper’s concerns – how to keep the customers happy, how to lure customers away from competitors down the street, how to package the goods so that the customers will lay out more money.

Some of them are very good shopkeepers. They attract a lot of customers, pull in great sums of money, develop splendid reputations. Yet it is still shopkeeping; religious shopkeeping, to be sure, but shopkeeping all the same. The marketing strategies of the fast-food franchise occupy the waking minds of these entrepreneurs; while asleep they dream of the kind of success that will get the attention of journalists. “A walloping great congregation is fine, and fun,” says Martin Thornton, “but what most communities really need is a couple of good saints.”

So here’s to being a pastor and keeping the primacy of example, proclamation, edification and mission at the heart of our calling.

Early Christian Opposition to Abortion

Early American Feminist Opposition to Abortion

Foundational Medical Statements Against Abortion

“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion.” (Hippocratic Oath, 1st c. BC)

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.” (The Declaration of Geneva, September 1948, adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Organization)

Secular Statements Against Abortion

“Whoever would have guessed that the incorrigible deconstructionist Stanley Fish thinks abortion is wrong? And not only does he think it wrong, he also thinks the logic of the pro–choice side is both flawed and flimsy. And all it took was a little prodding from Princeton’s Robert George for him to come out. George challenged Fish during a debate sponsored by the American Political Science Association over the pro–choice claim to have science on its side. Fish immediately conceded, “Professor George is right. And he is right to correct me,” to the astonishment of all present. “I should have known better,” Fish said later. “Pro–life arguments are now based on scientific evidence and the pro–choice arguments are not. That is a cultural, historical fact.” He recognizes the irony of the intellectual role reversal in the abortion debate: “Nowadays, it is pro–lifers who make the scientific question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one in the abortion controversy, while pro–choicers want to transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’ one by distinguishing between mere biological life and ‘moral life.’ . . . Until recently pro–choicers might have cast themselves as defenders of rational science against the forces of ignorance and superstition, but when scientific inquiry started pushing back the moment when significant life (in some sense) begins, they shifted tactics and went elsewhere in search of rhetorical weaponry.” Although Fish openly opposes so–called abortion rights, he’s still hesitant to call himself pro–life. One step at a time.” (First Things, 1999)

Sources

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson;1885-1887; repr. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

Rachel MacNair, Ed., Prolife Feminism. New York: Sulzburger & Graham Publishing, Ltd., 1995.

Pastor Ed Young and his wife are conducting a 24 hour “Sexperiment” by answering questions about marriage and sex live on streaming video…from a bed…on top of their church…for 24 hours…beginning tomorrow.

With this in mind, I have written an open letter to Ed Young:

Dear Ed,

Stop.

Just stop.

Please stop.

In the name of all that’s holy…STOP!

Sincerely,

Wyman Lewis Richardson

P.S. – STOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!

I suppose Dallas Willard’s book, The Divine Conspiracy, is one of the most significant works I’ve ever read.  While I first read it some years back when it first came out, I think of it and refer to it often.

Recently a friend and I have been working through it and recently we came across Willard’s paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer.  Being a paraphrase (not a translation) it necessarily bears the idiosyncracies of the author and the marks of the general discussion and context in which he has couched it.  But that’s the beauty and uniqueness of a paraphrase, and I think this one is done well.

Here it is.

Dear Father always near us,
may your name be treasured and loved,
may your rule be completed in us-
may your will be done here on earth in
just the way it is done in heaven.
Give us today the things we need today,
and forgive us our sins and impositions on you
as we are forgiving all who in any way offend us.
Please don’t put us through trials,
but deliver us from everything bad.
Because you are the one is charge,
and you have all the power, and the glory too is all yours-forever-
which is just the way we want it!

I drove down to Ouachita Baptist University for their one-day Pastor’s Conference. This year’s conference focus was on Ecclesiastes. As I did with my SBC notes, I thought I’d offer my jottings here. They’re raw and largely unproofed, but here you go.

“Ecclesiastes – The Pursuit: Chasing Answers to Life’s Questions “
2011 OBU Pastor’s Conference
Ouachita Baptist University
Arkadelphia, Arkansas
September 29, 2011

SESSIONS 1 and 2 – Dr. Doug Nykolaishen

Wisdom literature: Proverbs, SOS, Ecclesiastes, Job (disputed)

Why do we not preach wisdom literature often?
1. Don’t know how to interpret these easily
2. Not a lot of theologians and commentators have written on wisdom writings and those that have often conflict
3. Wisdom writings don’t seem to fit the rest of the Bible naturally
4. Not a lot of “Thus saith the Lord.” human thoughts, reflections
5. Not very feel-good.

Why should we?
We get to enter into the struggles of the people and it helps us understand people’s pain better. Easier to understand Job than Paul (who had struggles followed by triumphs)

1. Who is Qohelet?
Not exactly sure what it means.
“the convener, speaker or leader in an assembly”
Probably not a name
Perhaps like the way people use the word “pastor”

2. Is Qohelet the author of the book?
Was it Solomon?
Early Jews claimed it was
“Son of David, King of Jerusalem” (would seem to be Solomon)
Many clues in ch.2 point to Solomon

On the other hand…
Tremper Longman’s PhD, “Fictional Acadian Autobiographies”
Ecclesiastes has parallels with Acadian autobiographies that were clearly fictional and understood to be so by contemporaries. It was a literary form.
Eccles. 1:12 – an odd thing for Solomon to say
Eccles. 1:16 – how many kings before Solomon? 1
1:1-2, 3rd person
1:3-11 writer or Qohelet?
12:8-13 writer speaking of Qohelet in 3rd person
All the space in between – 1st person Qohelet speaking

Perhaps all the evidence suggests the writer used a familiar literary genre from the time and adopted the persona of Solomon.
Not pretending to be Solomon, just reminding the people of Solomon.
two reasons to write like this:
1. Causes the reader to think of the ideas of Qohelet as the ideas of a wise, experienced man
2. At the same time able to distance himself from some of Qohelet’s ideas

How you view authorship will affect how you interpret the book.

Does this challenge inerrancy? No, because the author is using a persona through a literary device, not actually claiming to be Solomon. “Genre is the critical issue.” “Genre is no challenge to inerrancy.”
Everything that the author is trying to communicate is true.

How much is the author trying to distance himself from Qohelet?
Longman: argues the writer rejects Qohelet’s grim view of life.
Peter Enns: The narrator acknowledges Q’s view is valid in many ways (ch.12) but the narrator argues for a wider perspective. Narrator agrees with what Q says about life “under the sun” but thinks Q’s thoughts should be put in a wider context. We have to bring God into the equation. Distances himself slightly: Q doesn’t have the final answer

Big idea?
“meaningless” – Hebrew “hevel”
Is he saying that everything is “hevel”?
Literal meaning- “breath” or “vapor”
Commonly used figuratively in OT:
1. transitory, fleeting
2. worthless, unsubstantial, futile
3. hard to understand, enigmatic
word occurs 38 times in 12 chapters (more than 3x per chapter)
words not always used in the same way in the Bible
this word uses all 3 of these meanings in the book

Everything he considers is “hevel” in one way or another (so you need not translate it the same way every time)

“hevel” in 1:2
Longman and NIV – meaningless
KJV – vanity
other – futility

When he says something is hevel, what does he compare that too?
Hebrew parallelism (parallel meaning)
Hevel most often paired with “a chasing after the wind.”. Next paired with “nothing was gained” (no profit).
***This would suggest most naturally the idea of “futility.”

Is everything futile? Literally everything?
Refers to “everything he’s going to discuss”
Does not refer to what God does.
v.3 helps us get the point

The author lets Qohelet talk for most of 12 chapters then comments on it briefly

“Is there anything good under the sun?” is a good question.
How can this help us?
1. Gives us a good dose of realism and perspective. So much of what we do has temporary significance.
2. Helps us in pre-evangelism. Shows the futility of life outside of something greater than us and this life.

CHAPTER 1
v.4
Humans are busy, but it’s like the earth itself: a lot is happening but nothing is really changing.

v.14
What people do is largely futile

16-18
Tried to understand what’s happening
But this only leads to more frustration “under the sun”
Talking about the best thinking that man can do on his own.

CHAPTER 2
Decides to try to find meaning in partying
Same result

v.4-11
Decides to play the acquisition game
Decides to build great things
He was successful at building these things
Not the thoughts of a loser
Probably more successful than anybody in Israel’s history
v.10 – he enjoyed it / not saying there is no reward at all
But, in v.11, the results were still temporary and the empty feelings after were worse than before

Begins to nuance his views
Wisdom is better than folly, but death is the great leveler that brings the wise and the foolish to the same place
He reacts strongly: “So I hated life…”

v.18-23
Tries to console himself with the thought that his creations would last after him
After death, though, it will pass to others and he will have no control

2:24-26, “a surprising section”
Some see this as a statement of resignation. “Since I have nothing better to do, I’m going to go ahead and do it.” (Longman’s view.)
But better to take this as a meaningful statement. “There’s nothing better.” = “It’s something good.”
Following verses show he views it as a gift from God.
He is lifting the veil for a second. God is there.
v.26 – contrasts two different kinds of people. Those who please God and those who do evil and end up working for the first group. Concludes that “this too is hevel” (referring to 2nd group).
A little different take on things.

***By the end of ch.2, acquainted with Qohelet’s big program:
“No matter who you are or what you’ve got, the enjoyment of life is God’s gracious gift.”

CHAPTER 3
v.1-8
Well known but often misunderstood
The point isn’t that we figure the time for things out, but that God has His own time and control.
v.9+ shows that we can’t grasp God’s time

v.11 – “eternity”
odd verse
The letters making up that word can also spell the word for “ignorance”
This fits the context better than “eternity”

v.12-15
What God does lasts

v.16-17
Paradox 1: justice and wickedness and righteousness
Since God is in control, things will happen on God’s timeline, not ours

v.18-21
Paradox 2: people dying like animals
all have the same breath
provocative thought – consider breath in Genesis

v.22
Conclusion
Enjoy the reward God gives and don’t strive for what’s beyond our grasp

SESSION 3 – Dr. Danny Hayes

The narrator is trying to say, “This is how Qohelet approaches life.”
But there are many problems with trying to live life through human wisdom.

Ecclesiastes resonates with modern America.
People are living like Qohelet.
Qohelet has no concept of the afterlife. He writes like this is all there is.
ch.12 – the fear of old age
In the middle section of the book, when Q is speaking, we need to be careful not to pull individual statements out as universal maxims, because the narrator shows some inconsistencies in Q’s thoughts.
With Q’s approach, you end up with nothing.

This is not the book of Romans.
Qohelet is not Paul and Ecclesiastes is not an epistle

CHAPTER 4
Long section on work
Major themes: can you find meaning through work? The problems with work. Death.
Hevel – fog or cloud
It looks like something’s there but it’s not
v.4-6, work is good but people just try to get ahead
v5-6, using proverbs – work hard but don’t overdo it / dialect
v.8, work hard all your life but nobody to leave it to at the end / work taken to an extreme is not good
v.9-12, the advantages of companionship
v.13-16, political power is also futile

CHAPTER 5
worship
Don’t be foolish
Better to listen than to go through empty rituals
v.1, ritualism
v.2-3, condemns empty, rambling prayers and empty, rash vows
v.8-9, wealth
Ecclesiastes and Job are qualifying the idea in Proverbs that hard work=prosperity (normative, but not a universal promise)
v.10, It’s never enough
v.11, as you get more your overhead goes up
v.12, wealthier people don’t sleep as well
v.13, wealth can be harmful to you
You can lose it easily
v.18, Q’s conclusion: enjoy what you have and view it as a gift from God (this is wise)
The joys of this life are a gift, but the blessings of this life are not enough.

CHAPTER 6
v.1-6, many wealth people don’t enjoy it and are not happy
v.1, “heavily” may mean “frequently”
v.3, in the ancient world the two blessings were (1) long life and (2) many children
This man should be happy.
But wealth doesn’t always equate with meaning.

v.10, a new section / shifts to the future
this is the exact middle of the book
v.12, skepticism

CHAPTER 7
v.1-14, problems and contrasts
This is from Q’s perspective
v.1, he sees death as an escape / sarcasm?
v.2, death is the destiny of everyone / narrator will respond to this in ch.12
v.17, don’t be stupid
v.16, Don’t get fanatical about wisdom and righteousness
v.23, these virtues are unattainable

v25-8:1, shocking section
Doesn’t have a high view of people, especially women
searching/finding formula through this section / in ch.12 the narrator will appeal to this formula
v.26, may be referring to ungodly women
v.29, theological assessment

CHAPTER 8
v.1, either wraps us previous unit or introduces a new one
Longman – sarcasm
Possibly adopting and repeating a common proverb, not arguing it himself
v.2, how to act with the King
v.10-15, questioning justice
v,14-15, the basic problem of Job
Contrast this with Paul who did not despair
v.16, he sees God behind this but he sees no consistency so he doesn’t understand

CHAPTER 9
v.1-2, everybody dies
We see no concept of or reflection on the afterlife.
Better to be alive than dead.
If you have no concept of an afterlife, despair is inevitable.
v.5-6, death may be better
v.7-10, if that’s our fate, might as well enjoy our futile lives as best we can / pessimism
v.9, imperatives
v.10, do these things because when you die it’s over

When I read John Stott’s The Cross of Christ in seminary, I knew that I had discovered an author who I would return to time and again.  It was not my first acquaintance with Stott.  I had seen his book, Basic Christianity, on my Dad’s shelf as a boy, and had already associated him with that strand of scholarly, congenial Evangelicalism within which I personally feel most comfortable.  (Note:  I do not mean by that that I consider myself a scholar!  I am not a scholar.  I simply say this because I think that title has to be earned by men of acute mind and perception, both of which I lack, personally.  I grow irritated when I hear preachers refer to themselves as “scholars” when they are not.  Instead, I am referring simply to the kinds of authors I like to read and the overall milieu within which I feel most at home in terms of focus, temperament, and theology.)

Later, I would read Stott’s wonderful little books, Evangelical Truth (with its suggestion of a triune ordering of Evangelical essentials), Why I Am A Christian, and The Radical Disciple.  His book, Baptism and Fullness, helped me immensely in sorting out my own thoughts on the whole issue of the alleged “second baptism in the Holy Spirit” that is part and parcel of much modern charismatic teaching.  I have also listened to what preaching of his I could find (Stott has preached at the Beeson Divinity School before, though I simply cannot remember if I heard him at a conference or simply heard the audio) with great interest and profit.

John Stott was an amazing scholar, a prolific author, a balanced and careful theologian, and a man of great humility.  He was appropriately irenic and winsome, though he did not lack strong convictions.

I am sorry to hear of his death, though I rejoice at his homegoing.