The problem with envy and jealousy...

... is that they take a dissatisfaction with God and the circumstances that he's placed you in and project them onto a (often innocent) third party.

They turn love to hate. (Genesis 4, 1 Sam 18:6-9)
They distract disciples from following. (John 21:18-22)

Cain's problem wasn't Abel, Saul's problem wasn't David and Peter's problem wasn't John. Their problem was with God, and simply focussed on someone else.

Nasty, nasty stuff that, by the above definition, crouches at the door just when you're most down.

Summary of the 3-part gospel cure:

1. When we're dissatisfied or in trouble, the gospel says come to God directly to lodge your complaint. Let God have it (in both senses), don't take it out on someone else.
2. The gospel teaches us that God owes us nothing, but has given us grace upon grace upon grace. He doesn't owe us, he owns us.
3. The gospel is the message of a pearl more valuable than anything you've ever known. A person you'd sell everything you own in order to know. In a heartbeat and with a smile on your face.
   
   If you know Jesus, you've got the pearl. Why be jealous of someone holding a bag of rubbish? (Philippians 3:7-8)

What's the difference?

Let's play a game of 'spot the difference'. Here's our two subjects: Saul and David.



Ok, perhaps we can have a slightly less wussy David:



Those 17th century painters sure have a lot to answer for.

Baroque art aside, why did God accept David and reject Saul as king of Israel? Such is the question for my current Old Testament essay.

Any thoughts from you godly, brainy droppers of grains of truth out there?

I'll post what's been jumping around in my head in a couple of days.

What happens when a society loses trust?

The poor get exploited.

Psalm 12 goes:

To the choirmaster: according to The Sheminith. A Psalm of David.

Save, O LORD, for the godly one is gone;
for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man.
Everyone utters lies to his neighbor;
with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.

May the LORD cut off all flattering lips,
the tongue that makes great boasts,
those who say, "With our tongue we will prevail,
our lips are with us; who is master over us?"

Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan,

"I will now arise", says the LORD; "I will place him in the safety for which he longs."
The words of the LORD are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.

You, O LORD, will keep them;
you will guard us from this generation forever.
On every side the wicked prowl,
as vileness is exalted among the children of man.

The Psalm seems to be saying that the end result of lies and deception in a culture is that the poor and the needy are exploited and oppressed. Particularly so, if you (as I do) see the Psalm chiastically (sp?), with v5a as a sort of interpretive key.

If the first casualty of war is the truth, the first casualties of the absence of truth are the vulnerable.

And yet, God's response isn't to cut off the lips of the wicked, as requested. They keep on. What he does do, is to speak into the situation himself. But his words are true. Truth that will guard his people for the duration, until the day when he will finally give David what he prayed for.

The righteous sufferer

In many of the psalms of lament or complaint the speaker uses the first person singular (‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) and frequently asserts innocence and/or faithfulness to YHWH. Who is the ‘righteous sufferer’? Why is the person suffering? Consider various answers.
This was my brief for my last assignment. There've been plenty of (some dodgy) answers given since the start of textual criticism. Mostly because they decided that most psalms were written post-exile. Here's the last paragraph of the essay. (Full essay available to masochists via email upon request)

How shall we then read?

The strength of the argument for a representative king shows us that not all parts of all psalms can be directly appropriated by Christians, but in the light of the Christ’s reign. The strength of the ‘everyman’ argument is not found in its power to explain the origin of the psalms, but to describe their function. The individual laments came to be collected and used centrally partly because of their empathetic value. That many of them came from David in no way lessens their value for the everyman. In fact, for those who hold David dearly, it increases it. Individual laments are not open windows into that great man’s life, but portraits and self-portraits of it that the everyman can gaze at. Depending on the portrait he might see Christ, himself or both, and be instructed.

Hmm.... perhaps posting excerpts from assignments isn't the best idea after all. That didn't really make sense, did it?

Who do YOU think the righteous sufferer is?