What not to say to a friend in pain

If only you would be altogether silent!
    For you, that would be wisdom.
Job 13:5

“I have heard many things like these;
    you are miserable comforters, all of you!
Job 16:2

I am studying through the book of Job this week. I am focusing my attention on Job's three friends. They meant well. But what they said to Job was not exactly helpful. Let me see if I can learn from this.

When Job’s three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, heard about all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from their homes and met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him. When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads. Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.
Job 2:11-13

So these friends did feel Job's pain. They had taken great trouble to come to comfort him (see the Wikipedia references on each of these friends below). They demonstrated compassion (see my previous blog "Meaning of healing" on this). But unfortunately when they tried to explain to Job what they understood as to the reason of Job's suffering, it backfired.

Eliphaz the Temanite started well by encouraging Job that he had done well and that his life had been a blessing to many.

Think how you have instructed many,
    how you have strengthened feeble hands.
Your words have supported those who stumbled;
    you have strengthened faltering knees.
But now trouble comes to you, and you are discouraged;
    it strikes you, and you are dismayed.
Should not your piety be your confidence
    and your blameless ways your hope?
Job 4:3-6

But he pointed out to Job that no man was perfect: "Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
    Can even a strong man be more pure than his Maker?"( Job 4:17) and that his suffering could only be explained by God's discipline which was meant to be for his own good:

“Blessed is the one whom God corrects;
    so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.
For he wounds, but he also binds up;
    he injures, but his hands also heal.
Job 5:17-18

There are equivalent New Testament verses for these same concepts:
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
"because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son" (Hebrews 12:6)

So Eliphaz was not exactly wrong. It was just that pointing it out to someone in the midst of his pain was not exactly helpful. It generated resentment and more pain! “If only my anguish could be weighed and all my misery be placed on the scales!" (Job 6:2)

Bildad obviously reacted to Job's ungrateful response to Eliphaz's well meaning and rather gentle admonition. He meant to console but he became an accuser.

“How long will you say such things?
    Your words are a blustering wind.
Does God pervert justice?
    Does the Almighty pervert what is right?
Job 8:2-3

He admonished Job that if only he would get right with God, God will bless him again.
“Surely God does not reject one who is blameless
    or strengthen the hands of evildoers.
He will yet fill your mouth with laughter
    and your lips with shouts of joy.
Your enemies will be clothed in shame,
    and the tents of the wicked will be no more.”
Job 8:20-22

Job was not unaware of these. He was just frustrated: “Indeed, I know that this is true.
    But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God?" (Job 9:2)

Although Zophar spoke only twice to Job, he was the most impetuous and dogmatic of the three. He was the first to accuse Job directly of wickedness: “Are all these words to go unanswered? Is this talker to be vindicated?" (Job 11:2). He even suggested that perhaps God's punishment was too good for him:  
Oh, how I wish that God would speak, 
    that he would open his lips against you
and disclose to you the secrets of wisdom,
    for true wisdom has two sides.
    Know this: God has even forgotten some of your sin.
Job 11:5-6

He rebuked Job's impious presumption in trying to find out the unsearchable secrets of God (Job 11:7 - 12); and yet, like the rest of the friends, promised peace and restoration on condition of penitence and putting away iniquity (Job 11:13 - 19).

That didn't go well with Job!!!

So what do I learn from all this:

• It is important to spend time with my friend in pain.
• Know that sometimes my friend in pain is not ignorant of the basic truth about God's righteousness and justice. It is not time for a sermon!
• Staying positive is good. When appropriate to speak, often when prompted by my friend's question about the meaning of suffering, acknowledge the limitation of our understanding of God's compassion and love but encourage to remain hopeful knowing that God really does love us.
• Remember some of the favorite verses of promise in the Bible. Romans 8 is definitely my favorite on this topic.
• But mostly, silence can be golden (and wisdom!) (Job 13:5)

Why did Ananias and Sapphira have to die?

The story is based on Acts 5:1-10. Ananias in Hebrew means "the Lord is gracious". Sapphira in Aramaic means "beautiful".

I have heard it explained before but nothing seems to stick. Each time I read this story I can't help but to think that the punishment is much too severe. This is maybe related to the fact that I can see a lot of imperfection and hypocrisy in my own devotion to God. If God was to deal with my dishonesty the same as he did with Ananias and Sapphira, I would be dead many times over. So I will try to find the answer to this question myself and maybe I can learn from it to change my ways in my approach to serving God, something that is based on scripture, and something I can live with.

So the question is why did God punish Ananias and Sapphira by death? What was their crime and was the punishment fitting for the crime? Was the event "special" because of the context of a very young church at the time? What can we apply to the church today? What can I apply to me today?

The BibleGateway commentary points to these basic scriptural principles:

• God acts to preserve the integrity of the community that the gospel produced in order that we can have increase confidence in the truthfulness of the message itself (Luke 1:4). What Ananias and his wife Sapphira did was lying to the Holy Spirit and embezzlement (not unlike the sin of Achan in the Old Testament). This is similar to Satan's direct attack on Christ's mission (Luke 4:1-13) or indirectly through his apostles Judas (Luke 22:3) and Peter (Luke 22:31). Ananias showed not simply a lack of honesty (in bringing only a part of the sale price), but also a lack of integrity (in bringing only a part while pretending to bring the whole). For Ananias it was the possibility of being praised for his generosity while keeping a secure nest egg for his wife (Hebrew ktubah, or dowry paid to a wife in the case of a unilateral divorce or at his death).
• God's discipline has its deterrent value. Some divine punishment can be very severe. For example, in the Old Testament the punishments for partaking of the priestly tithe while ritually unclean and the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons) are the closest parallels (Lev 10:1-7; 22:9). Another example is Uzzah (see my previous blog "Why did Uzzah have to die"). What happened to Ananias and Sapphira lead to great fear among the Jewish Christian bystanders (Acts 5:11; 19:17). For Christians today this is still a temptation: to so luxuriate in the love and grace of God that we do not take seriously the consequences of our deliberate sinning. But God will not be mocked (Gal 6:7-8).

So the commentary concludes: the message of this for Christian and non-Christian alike is self-evident. Christians must realize that the selfless, transparent fellowship of the church must never be violated by selfish hypocrisy. Further, it is proper to employ discipline to guard the church's integrity, unity and purity. For the non-Christian, this account is a warning: Think twice before joining this holy fellowship. Are you willing to pay the price--fully renouncing wicked ways and full-heartedly embracing Christ and other believers in his body, the church?

Rev. Mark Verbruggen of the Christian Reform Church in Sioux Center Iowa has a nice sermon on this story. He entitled it Ananias and Sapphira: A Lesson in Grace.

He too explained the severity of their sin: Hypocrisy is a destructive force within the community of God’s people.  If Satan cannot destroy the church from without, he will attempt to destroy it from within.  The theologian John Stott writes that Ananias and Sapphira were not so much misers as they were thieves.  “They wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity, without the inconvenience of it.  So, in order to gain a reputation to which they had no right, they told a brazen lie.  Their motive in giving was not to relieve the poor, but to fatten their own ego.”

He further pointed out that: If Luke writes the book of Acts in order to record for us the work of God the Holy Spirit among the community of believers, he also wants to inform us of a different spirit which is also at work in the world and in the church.  Our text serves as a warning for us today.  The first century Christian Church was not a perfect community and neither are we.  There has never been a time when God’s people were perfect.  We need to be on guard against the work of the unholy spirit.  F.F. Bruce writes, “The story of Ananias is to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua.  In both narratives an act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of God’s people.”

So why were they put to death for their actions?  Aren’t all of us at some time or another guilty of the same sin?  The answer is “Yes, we are”.  So why aren’t we punished with a death sentence?  The short answer is the grace of God.  Psalm 103:10 says that the Lord “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.”  That’s grace.  Grace is not something we can demand from the Lord.  It’s not something we can earn.  So why was this couple in our text denied grace and made to pay for their sin with capital punishment?  Ultimately the answer to this question is left to the Lord himself.

He did explained further the follow up of this story and how the young church was transformed. Maybe the story of Ananias and Sapphira was what was needed to make this happen.

We continue to hear of miracles in countries where the gospel was not allowed and how the persecuted church continues to suffer and yet the church continues to grow. We who live in free countries have many lessons to learn from our suffering brothers.

So this is what I take from the story of Ananias and Sapphira:

• I am more confident because God loves his church and will do what it takes to keep her pure
• I am more appreciative of the compassion and the grace of God (as in Psalms 103: 8-12)
• I should be more responsive to the Holy Spirit in the area of integrity, especially in my participation within his church

Is God a Racist?

Part of today's bible reading comes from Ezra chapters 9 and 10. The most striking theme in this Old Testament story is on the subject of Intermarriage. Or more specifically, I was puzzled by Ezra's reaction when he found out that “The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” (Ezra 9:3). Ezra tore his tunic and cloak, pulled hair from his head and beard, and went into a rather prolonged frenzy and tandrum (this was my gut reaction when I read all the emotional and physical outburst he threw himself into).  He then required all the "Jewish exiles" to assemble in Jerusalem in heavy rain within three days with the threat of confiscating their property. He then commanded them to "Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.” (Ezra 9:10). He was in essence telling those who had married foreign wives to send their wives and their children away. This just didn't sit well with me. God loves these foreign wives and the children too. What are we saying to the world that God only cares for the Jews (the holy race) and not any other race at all?

I picked a rather provocative title for this blog. It came from this commentary "Is God a Racist? Using Context to Untangling Ezra’s Prohibition of Intermarriage" from the site Hank Speaks Out. Hank advocated that "a text without a context is a pretext". He illustrated this with another example in scripture that speaks about intermarriage:

"“You shall not intermarry with them” (Deut. 7:3) is contextualized by the words, “they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods” (Deut. 7:4). In other words, the aim of God’s command was the obliteration of wickedness, never the obliteration of the wicked, or a racist motif. Not only so, God’s purposes were to use Israel as a light to the nations, and thus they were not to reflect the practices of the pagan nations around them. As such, those from the nations who embraced Yahweh were considered true Israel, and those who did not were those considered to be aliens or foreigners, but even there, God unequivocally commanded Israel to treat the aliens living among them with respect and equality (Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-37). Such concern for foreigners demonstrates that mercy was to be shown to those who repented of idolatry and were, therefore, grafted into true Israel. "

I also learned a few interesting perspectives from Jewish sources. In myjewishlearning.com I learned that in the Hebrew tradition, Ezra and Nehemiah are combined as one book entitled "Ezra" and Nehemiah is simply the second part of Ezra. Parts of Ezra are written in Aramaic, which was the common language of the Middle East at the time (the only other OT book not entirely written in Hebrew is the book of Daniel! Just another trivia:-). Being the only completely historical book in the third section of the Hebrew Bible, Ezra chronicled the return of the remnant of Jewish exiles from Mesopotamia to Zion. This occurred in 538BC when the Babylonia empire was replaced by the Persian empire. "One of the first rulers of the empire, Cyrus, sought to show tolerance to all of the communities in Mesopotamia. Cyrus issued a famous edict, narrated at the very beginning of the book of Ezra, allowing Jews who wished to return to "Jerusalem that is in Judah” and build a “House for the God of Heaven” to do so.". "The book of Ezra tells of the three distinct stages in the return, and of the challenges and practical difficulties that the returnees faced at each stage. Not all the Jews in Mesopotamia were interested in returning to Zion. Those who did were fired by the hope of building a society which would restore Israel's ancient glory."

The two central issues in building this society were:
1) The attempt to define the boundaries of the society's members. "Who was a (true) Israelite?" was an issue of great concern.
2) The attempt to turn the laws of the Torah into the laws of the society.

So with this perspective in mind: "Ezra's reaction is easy to understand: the returnees believed that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were destroyed because their inhabitants did not live up to God's laws, and Ezra was determined to avoid a similar fate for the new society they were building. (Intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land is forbidden, according to Deuteronomy 7:3).Therefore, the laws of the Torah had to become the blueprint for the new society. Ezra convinced the people to begin a process of separating from non-Israelite wives, but the process "was longer than one day or two days' work" (Ezra 9:13); and it is doubtful if the process was ever completed."


Bible.org also has a commentary concerning this. The focus on Ezra's reaction and seemingly drastic solution to the problem of Intermarriage was to preserve the holiness of God's elect.

"The theme of holiness emerges first in Ezra 2:58-63 . Two groups of Returnees, one lay and the other priestly, were unable “to declare the house of their fathers and their seed, if they were from Israel” (2:59 ). Although the text gives no indication of what action was taken with regard to the lay group, the fact that they are included in the list implies that they were among the returning exiles. On the other hand, the priests who were unable to prove their lineage were regarded as profane and unfit to participate in the priesthood or to eat from the “most holy things.” This restriction was, however, limited until a priest (presumably the high priest) could pronounce judgment on their legitimacy using the Urim and Thummim. Within the framework of the narrative, this brief scene serves as a reminder of God’s requirement for those who serve Him as priests: they must be from the tribe of Levi, the house of Aaron. If they were not from the lineage of those whom God had separated unto Himself and sanctified to the ministry of the priesthood (Num. 8:14-19), they were not acceptable. In this way, this passage links holiness to obedience to God’s word as well as highlighting the importance of holiness in the priesthood. Since the priests were at the center of the nation’s spiritual life, that they meet the divine requirements for service was paramount. The denial of their right to participate in the priesthood also establishes the principle that holiness is more important than one’s livelihood."

The final and most significant development of the holiness theme in the book takes place in chapters nine and ten where we read the account of Ezra's dealing with Intermarriage, particularly among the priests and the leaders of the returning people.

In the United Church commentary, I learned another perspective:

"While it is possible that some of the new arrivals could have been guilty, it seems unlikely that any of them would have entered into marriages with foreigners in just a few months' time. More likely, the guilty were only of those Jews who already lived in the land when Ezra arrived. In stating that the transgressors were "of those who had been carried away captive," Ezra must have meant they were the descendants of those who returned with Zerubbabel. Certainly those who already had children by these illegal marriages had to have been in these marriages prior to Ezra's arrival.

It is pointed out to Ezra that the leaders and rulers of the people led the way in this transgression (Ezra 9:2). Leaders always have an opportunity to serve as examples for others to emulate—whether for good or ill. When those in such responsible positions are corrupted, they often lead others astray.

Specific motivations behind what happened are not given. "Humanly speaking there may have been reasons for such intermarriages, such as a disparity between the number of returning men and available Jewish women" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on verses 1-2). Yet it would have been far better to remain single, even if it meant living alone with no perpetuation of one's family lineage, than to so flagrantly disobey God. The One who created marriage desires for people to experience its benefits, but only within the boundaries He has set. This is important for all of us to remember. Christians in the New Testament are instructed to not marry unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14; compare 1 Corinthians 7:39). This is for our own sake and that of any children we might produce—and that of the rest of the Church. Of course, many when they are first converted and become part of God's Church are already married to a spouse who is not yet called of God—and in this case the apostle Paul instructs that the marriage be maintained if the unbeliever is willing to continue the marriage in fidelity and peace (see verses 12-16).

Verses 10-12 of chapter 9, while stated as if a single quotation from the law regarding the present sin, actually draw from many passages (see Deuteronomy 7:3-4; 11:8-9; 23:6; Proverbs 10:27; 13:22; 20:7; Isaiah 1:19)."


So what do I take from all that. I still maintain that:

• God loves all peoples.
• If we are to marry, it is important to marry someone who shares the same faith - not just intellectual faith, but living faith. This is for our own good so that we can experience God's love and goodness more completely.
• That the message in Ezra speaks of God's intention to show his mercy through a people who had repeatedly violated his good intention for them, which included a close relationship with the merciful God, and which required separating themselves from the pagan practices around them (one of the really horrible practices included sacrificing their own children!).
• In Romans 12:2 we are exhorted to "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will."

No prophet is accepted in his home town

I am at the airport again waiting for my flight to take me to St. Martins, New Brunswick in about an hour and a half. I did my scripture reading this morning and didn't really come up with anything to write about. Here is an unfinished blog I meant to write a while ago. The title is interesting in light of the fact that here I am leaving town to give another talk. I have been invited as a speaker pretty much around the globe but rarely in my home town - Hamilton and McMaster University. There had been times when I had this nagging feeling that I was the prophet who was not accepted in my home town! I know this is simply not true. I have been able to make a name for myself within my faculty and have been well supported by many of my colleagues in my academic pursuit. Anyways, this scriptural gleaning is about Jesus being rejected by his siblings and his home town folk. What would be the reason for that?

Luke 4:22-30
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”
“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

In this fourth chapter of the gospel of Luke, Jesus had just been tempted by the devil in the wilderness and came through unscathed. He demonstrated that he was full of the Spirit of God (versus 1). He depended on God's word to sustain himself (verse 4). His purpose in life was to glorify God and not himself (versus 8). His total trust in God did not require putting God to the proof (verse 12).

He then returned to Galilee, his home town to teach the town folk on scripture. On one Sabbath day, following his reading of a passage in Isaiah 61:1-2, he made this remarkable claim: "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing!". He basically told them he was the person described in scripture who was God's anointed to proclaim good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom to those who were imprisoned, to give sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour. This is essentially proclaiming himself to be the Messiah because the listeners would have interpreted the scripture this way. (See this bible commentary).

Now here lies the problem of being someone known by these home town folk. Jesus grew up there and everyone knew that he was Joseph's (the carpenter's) son. As amazing as his teaching was, his claim to be the Messiah just simply wouldn't go with their preconceived idea of who he was. Jesus knew what they were thinking. In their head they were thinking of this proverb: "Physician, heal yourself!" which essentially asked for more proof - like reproducing the same amazing miracles that he performed in Capernaum. That's when Jesus replied: "no prophet is accepted in his hometown". Why is it so hard to believe when we already have preconceived idea of who God should be and how He should behave towards mankind?

Jesus further quoted two famous stories in the Old Testament: the story of the prophet Elijah helping a widow in Zarephath during a long famine (1 King 17) and the story of the prophet Elisha healing the leprous Naaman the Syrian (2 King 5). The point of these stories suggested that the Israelites were the unbelieving people even though they were God's chosen people. God used these miracles to demonstrate His power to stir up His own people to return to Him. The apostle Paul explained it this way (Romans 11:11): salvation has come to the gentles in order to cause God's people to become envious - so that they too will return to Him.

The story in the Luke's gospel didn't end that way. Instead of believing that Jesus was the messiah because of the miracles he did in Capernaum, they let their bias take over - to the point of wanting to murder Jesus!

May I always check my preconceived idea about God and Jesus. When I see Jesus at work in me or in the lives of others may it stir up my desire to honour him as my Saviour and Lord.