Population problems

As most of you know, I'm the father of six beautiful children. I like children. No, I love children! I've heard all of the crass jokes and seen all the bewildered looks. Little on this subject surprises me any more.

A year ago or so, I became aware of a paper done by some folks at Harvard wherein they examined the possible side-effects of a world-wide population implosion. That's right - I didn't say "population explosion".

For years, all we've heard is that the earth is rapidly approaching overpopulation. Smaller families will make for a more sustainable economy, they said. We're running out of open spaces, they said. We'll all starve for lack of arable land, they said.

Now look what "they" are saying...


Here are just three examples of the latest trend in population thinking.

1.) South Korea needs babies. The government of South Korea, which once paid for vasectomies and tubal ligations under their national health care system, is now paying for reverse vasectomies and tubal ligations! Please read the whole article, but this quote tells much:

"Successful family planning, coupled with changing mores, led the birthrate to drop below the ideal population replacement level of 2.1 in the 1980s and then more precipitously in the mid-1990s. Now on average a South Korean woman will have 1.19 children in her lifetime - a rate lower than Japan's birthrate of 1.28, comparable to Taiwan's 1.22, and higher than Hong Kong's 0.94."

This means that the populations of all these places is presently shrinking. Let that soak in for a second...

2.) Australia needs "breeders". There is an entire branch of the Australian Treasury Department dedicated to trying to raise the national birth rate. The article I linked to addresses some of the reasons the rate has gotten so low. Among the conclusions of one particular study, I found this particularly interesting:

"Marrying – women who had not been in a de facto relationship that did not lead to marriage were 2.6 times more likely to progress to a third child."

In other words, women that don't get involved in a "live in but not married" style relationship are 2.6 times more likely to have at least three children. So much for the "try before you buy" theory of relationships, eh?

3.) Russia actually has a pregnancy contest! They actually give out prizes to women who manage to give birth on their national holiday. They, like so many other nations, need babies. This quote from the article is interesting:


"The tradition of awarding prizes for giving birth dates back to Soviet times, when women could be named 'Hero Mothers' for having especially large families."

I'm thinking of all the things my wife has been called because we have a large family, but "hero" certainly isn't one of them.

---

Please understand, I'm not saying that anyone has to have a specific number of children, nor am I arguing that "more children = more spiritual". I'm just pointing out what will almost undoubtedly be coming to American shores soon (especially if the next batch of politicians close our southern border).

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!" Gen 1:28a

Hatushili

Read More......

More prayer for Dan - updated 9-7-07

My thanks to those that prayed for Dan and his family as they struggled with the death of his wife's mother last week. By all accounts, everyone is doing as well as can be expected in the wake of such an experience.

I just got a call from Dan ... it appears his step-father is about to die of lung cancer. They've given him but a few days. I understand that they're checking him out of the hospital soon and taking home ... to die.

Pray for Dan. This, more than the last death, is a spiritual war. And I can't even imagine the emotional toll of losing a mother-in-law and step-father in a span of two weeks.

LORD, thank you for your tender provision in Dan's life. Thank you for all the times in the past You've mercifully loved him, because we need times like those in our past to give us hope for the future. Guide him and direct him, LORD. When he should speak, move his very lips. When he should be silent, grip his very tongue. Most of all, may You be glorified in Dan and in this very painful situation. Amen.

Hatushili

read on for updates...



update: Here are the details directly from Dan:

"The tumultuous week continues. Today I got a call letting me know that my step father, who we recently found out was terminally ill and would pass away in 1-2 years, is going to die in the next few days. Please pray for our family as we both seek what to do and how to deal with the situation. My step father, to the best of my knowledge, is not a believer and has rejected God on several occasions. This is particularly hard for me as there are very strong memories of my mother passing away as a non-believer and all the events that surrounded it that will certainly be unearthed over the next week. I pray that I would have the fortitude of both character and emotion to respond as God would direct me and that I may have the opportunity once more to share His word with my step father. His name is Bill. He is the father to 5 children, 4 step children, and many grandchildren including our son. Thank you as always for your support."

---

update: 9-7-07 - As some of you have heard, Bill accepted Christ about a week ago! From a human perspective, it was 20 years of prayer and the witness of two sons. In reality, of course, it's a miracle of grace! Praise God!

On a more personal note, I've been asked to preside over his funeral. I spent a few hours with him and his wife a few days ago. It was a very tender time, to be honest. He's come to grips with his soon-to-be passing, but wants to get things in order, as it were. I'm honoured to be able to help in this time of need. Continue to pray for Dan, Bill, and for me.

Hatushili

Read More......

Random thoughts on Canonicity

In the comments of my last post, I was accused of not "recogniz[ing] the Canon of Scripture". That's a charge I can't say has ever been levelled against me before, and it got me to thinking... Perhaps we need to talk about the issues involved in canonicity. If you have no interest whatsoever in how we came to have the Bible we now have, you may safely skip this post. For the rest of you...

There are a lot of issues tied up in this. I'm not quite sure how to approach this subject - it's potentially vast and complicated - so I'll just "shot-gun" a few topics in broad strokes. If anything in particular interests you, feel free to comment or send me an email and I can get into more detail.

So on with the broad brush:

A) Textual issues: There are two major "text types" floating around with regard to the New Testament. [The OT is pretty much dominated by one text type, the Masoretic Text.] One (the Majority Text) is generally much more numerous but not (comparatively) as old; the other (the Eclectic/Alexandrian Text) is generally much less numerous but significantly older. Which is more likely true? It's honestly more a question of philosophy than theology.

B) Textual variants: Within an given text type, there are always variations of a particular verse, phrase, or word. If - for example - a particular variation only shows up in one or two places out of a possible 75, the variation is normally ignored and few people ever know otherwise. If, however, a variation has more claim to consideration, most study Bibles will make a footnote of it. This is why your Bible sometimes has a footnote that reads, "some manuscripts read _____".

Not all variants are created equal, as you can imagine. The two most debated/heated are a) the reading of 1 John 5:7-8, and b) the "longer ending" of Mark (Mark 16:9-20). With regard to the first, only the text upon which the KJV is based (the so-called Textus Receptus, a micro-sized version of the Majority Text) reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Every other text out there argues that some of these words are not in the originals, and thus have something like:

For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

If you're paying attention, you probably already guessed why this is such a hot button for some people - if the Textus Receptus (KJV) version could be trusted, this is undoubtedly the clearest text in all of the Bible supporting the Trinity. But that doesn't change the fact that the extra words in question have almost no support in the massive amount of Greek fragments of the NT we've dug up and uncovered. It's just hugely unlikely that John actually penned those words. The only folk that argue otherwise are the most radical of the KJV-only people.

The other biggie is the longer ending of Mark. I went into some detail about it in my previous post, so I'll not bore you with the details here. It's not nearly as plain a choice as the 1 John 5 issue - most translations of the Bible therefore include the words, but with a footnote explaining the controversy a bit.

C) The formation of the Canon: This one gets a bit tricky. One thing that must be observed is the difference between the official approval and the common acceptance of the NT canon. There are those that will argue that the NT wasn't even "decided upon" until ______: they often pick Athanasius' Easter Letter of AD 367, but other dates/events are common. This is nonsense. The early church had a pretty clear picture of what writings they considered to be inspired from a fairly early date. For example, by the early 4th century AD Eusebius gives us a list of NT books that is virtually identical to ours today - the only difference being that he did not consider Revelation to be Scripture unless it could be shown for certain that John wrote it.

In general, the early church seems to have used apostolicity (was it written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle), harmony (does it agree with the rest of Scripture), and geographic scope (have churches in other parts of the Empire regard it as Scripture) as the primary guides for deciding on Canonicity.

It's also important to note that the early church did not see itself as "deciding upon" or "selecting" the Canon. They viewed their role as discovery - looking for indications that God had authored a given text.

D) Autographa: Finally, let us note that the original manuscripts of the NT (the "autographa") - that is, the actual letters that, say, Paul wrote - no longer exist. Not a single autographa has ever been discovered. Frankly, I don't think they ever will be, since I find it likely that mankind would unduly venerate them (the same reason I find it unlikely the Ark of the Covenant will ever be found, though not why I doubt we'll ever find Noah's Ark). But the fact that we don't have the originals is of no real concern. We have over 3,000 copies of various sections of the NT, many of them dating back to within 400 years of the autographa (and some much closer than that). To put it in perspective, you can count on one hand the number of ancient manuscripts we have on hand of most ancient works. The recorded works of Homer, for example - only a copy or two dating back as far as the NT manuscript evidence. We don't even have all that many early copies of more common works - Shakespeare, for example. Yet no one doubts the accuracy of these other works. How much more so should we have confidence in our modern Bible?

E) Theological Issues: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that despite the various text types and textual variants there are no significant differences in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. Moreover, some 97% of the various text agree with one another in all but the most mundane of details. Even the remaining 3% (roughly) is made up of mostly inconsequential issues like word order and articular/anarthrous constructions. The only two issues hotly contested I spoke about above - 1 John 5:7-8 and the longer ending of Mark. And even those are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. Do we need the Textus Receptus version of 1 John 5:7-8 to show the Trinity from Scripture? Certainly not! If the longer ending of Mark turns out to be a later addition to the Bible and therefore not actually Canonical does it really effect our theology? Are we really that concerned about handling snakes and drinking poison (the only thematic elements not included in the other Gospels)? Hopefully not.

---

So, is all this now as clear as mud? Anything strike you as needing further analysis?

Hatushili

PS: I trust that you understand I have a very high view of Scripture, and that this discussion of some of the issues involved in the Canonicity debate does not change that fact. In fact, if I held a low view of Scripture, why would I even bother talking about this stuff?

Read More......

of Snakes and Poison

I found myself engaged in (yet another) hermeneutical debate the other day, over at Hearts for Family. [Very interesting blog; fascinating connections to the whole pomo Christian debate.] I was defending against Primitivism (the notion that we must mirror everything we see described in the Bible) and in so doing was talking about the distinction we must make between genres within the Bible. Narrative, for example, must be understood and interpreted differently than other genres. In the process of conversation, one particular lady took issue with my contention. We discussed back and forth for a bit. Eventually I got around to using an actual example from Bible - the longer ending of Mark...

In the interested of keeping the original post on topic [since I've already drug it far enough away!], I'd like to recreate the last little bit (edited as necessary) and continue the conversation here, inviting my original debate partner and any one else to comment further.

So ... back to the longer ending of Mark, here's what I wrote on the other blog:

Certainly it's true that we can learn many principles from the Biblical narratives. But we dare not draw doctrine from them alone. Narrative can support doctrine or creed, but cannot bear the weight of such a load on its own.

Let me give a concrete example. Take the longer ending of Mark - the bit about handling snakes and drinking poison. There are those that say this narrative is prescriptive for us, that Christians today should be able (with enough faith) to pick up vipers and drink poison without being harmed. This is bad hermeneutics. The text is narrative, and therefore not so directly applicable.

There are, on the other hand, those that point out the narrative was referring specifically to the Apostles (all of whom are, of course, now dead) and that the narrative is therefore directly applicable to them but not us. In principle the text still has value and meaning for the Christ-follower today: God's ultimate control of the normal/natural order of things, His perfect provision, etc... But to make the claim that Christians today should be snake-handlers based upon the (narrative) longer ending of Mark is hermeneutical folly.

I'm in that second camp of people - don't ignore narrative or treat it as of secondary importance; do interpret narrative genre properly.


After posting that thought, I thought we'd found common ground. But she contended:

As for Mark 16:18, it's not a command, it's a promise. I've claimed it and I've seen it in action on the mission field. I've dealt with vipers and scorpions, even had to sleep in rooms with them. I've had to share a cup with someone whom I knew had a communicable disease. The Lord was faithful to His Word, as always, and I was protected.

I probably am not able to convince you that the narrative is a promise. But, my position on it remains unchanged because I've seen it in action. I've held onto it and believed it as a lifeline.

As my dad always told me, "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with a theory."

---

So where do we go from here? What are the hermeneutical principles in question, and is any of this even all that important?

Obviously I think it is! There are a number of issues here I'd like to touch upon.

A) Source: I chose the longer ending of Mark for my example on purpose. Whether the text was even originally part of the Bible is highly debated. There is good internal evidence to suggest that Mark's Gospel actually ended at verse 8; that the remainder (the "longer ending") was added later. If that's the case (and it's at least 50% likely; by most estimates more), we have a serious hermeneutical problem. In fact, the only text in all of the Bible that is more doubted is 1 John 5:7 (you'll only find the debated words in the KJV). But we can't be sure one way or the other about the validity/originality of this text. At the very least we should tread cautiously upon it, right?

B) Context: Here are the relevant surrounding verses -

Then he [Jesus] appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

A few things to note:

1) The message was preached by Jesus directly to His apostles; whether this message is directly applicable to us today is a question that must be addressed.
2) Jesus gave them this message to rebuke them for their own failure to believe the story of His resurrection - it seems very specific to the Apostles.
3) The only part of the message that is recorded elsewhere in (less source-debated) texts is the "go and preach" command. Since the snakes and poison part is anomalous to the rest of Scripture, it warrants special consideration.
4) The historical reference to what evidence these converts will give might be limited to the period of the Apostles - it's impossible for us to say with certainty that Jesus wants us to understand that these signs will be for all generations.
5) The point of the signs is revealed in the last verse - it was to confirm the message that Jesus had just given them. Again, whether this confirmation process is applicable to us today is a subject of debate, not assumption.

C) History: Did you notice the comment above about the difference between experience and theory? It's applicable, only not in the way you might think. If this "snake and poison" text is in fact a promise to all generations of Christ-followers, we should expect to find church history peppered with references. But we don't. Search the halls of church history and you'll find that a) there are almost no references to Christians handling snakes or drinking poison for about 1,900 of the last 2,000 years, and b) those few references we do have (outside of the last 100 years or so) almost always come from the lips of heretics. For whatever reason, we had about 95 generations of Christians come and go with nary ever a whisper of this "snake and poison" stuff. Only in the last 5 generations or so has it shown up at all, and even then in severely limited numbers.

So in reality, my interpretation of this "snakes and poison" text fits with the experience of the historical church; to posit its direct application to us today is merely a theory.

D) Genre: What exactly are the Gospels, anyway? They aren't just history, nor just prophecy ... what are they? Scholars have long debated this question, but the best answer (I think) is to say that Gospel literature is a narrative account crafted and ordered to make a main spiritual point. John's Gospel is pretty clear on this: John appears to have taken the historical accounts of Jesus and pieced them together in such a way as to prove that Jesus is God. His Gospel doesn't follow along in chronological order, he re-orders events to serve this higher literary purpose. The other (Synoptic) Gospels seem to fit the same concept.

It is therefore difficult at best to take descriptions of things happening in the Gospels and make them directly applicable to us today unless something in the text warrants doing so. (Broad-audience imperatives fit this exception, for example.) But the Gospels were not written to describe the normal Christian experience. They were written to describe the most abnormal of all times in human history - the time when God literally walked among us!

---

So in trying to interpret this "snakes and poison" text we have the following bits of information at our disposal:

a) It may not have even been in the Bible originally, and
b) the context is the ministry of the Apostles, and
c) virtually no one in all of church history has seen it as a promise to us, and
d) it's contained in Gospel genre.

Therefore, by far the most compelling interpretation of this text must include the notion that it is not directly applicable to us today - it's not a universal promise.

Your thoughts?

Hatushili

PS: I guess I could've called this "Even More Thoughts on Hermeneutics" to go with this one and this one, eh?

Read More......

Postmodernity and the Music Industry

I just read an interesting article about an independent band I'm not at all familiar with. The band's not the point; this quote is:

I think indie bands ... are becoming popular for the same reason I bought my 1904 house, and the same reason that downtown neighborhoods are gentrifying. Growing up in the age of Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven - which was the landscape of my youth - I'm craving authenticity. I think everyone is. You know, there's something real out there you can buy [speaking of music CDs], but you just have to scratch the surface to find it. I think people are sick of fakeness.

These words are from the band's 36 year old lead singer/songwriter. Further proof (as if we needed it) that cultural postmodernity is everywhere.

Hatushili

Read More......

Freedom From Religion

Interestingly, I read an article about Tibet and the Chinese persecution of Buddhists the other day. It was an old article - a year old magazine at work. It talked about how the Chinese government hopes to break the spiritual hold that Buddhism has on Tibet by eventually selecting the next Dalai Lama (when the presently 72 year old Dalai Lama dies).

According to Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is reincarnated as a child shortly after he dies. The Buddhist community therefore spends the next few years or so identifying/finding this child. I believe this tradition goes back 600 years or so.

Anyway, in a move that should be frightening to anyone with an innate sense of religious freedom, China is about to enact a very strange law...

This MSNBC article points out that China is now regulating where a person can be reincarnated! Under the new law, you cannot be reincarnated within China (which technically includes Tibet) without government pre-approval. I know this sounds comic ... and sad. But on another level it's just the natural extension of a regime that wants its people to have freedom from religion.

If given the chance, don't you think the ACLU (and plenty of others) would do the same sort of thing here in America?

Anyway, pray for Tibet and China. Talk about a spiritually dark and blind country! Our church family supports missionaries in China (though not Tibet), and they've recently come home for a brief stay. They tell strong stories about the power of the Evil One over there. We must be diligent to pray that the love of Christ might grip hearts and the power of the Spirit might give needed grace that these people might become followers of Jesus. Nothing short of God's name/glory is at stake.

And on a human suffering level, this new law is potentially cataclysmic. When the current Dalai Lama dies, the Chinese government will undoubtedly set up their own puppet Dalai. But the traditional Buddhists will also undoubtedly select their own Dalai. This, in the opinion of many experts, may well lead to massive revolts and vast human suffering.

Who knows?, perhaps all of that is somehow in the LORD's plans for His glory, so certainly I pray that His will be done. But if there's any way to avert this potential catastrophe, we should all be praying for peace.

Hatushili

Read More......

Emerging Democrats

I don't know much about author Anne Rice. I know that she once wrote dark and violent books (most famously, Interview with the Vampire). I know that a while back she became a follower of Jesus and began writing fictional books about the boyhood of Christ. I know that she's (for these and other reasons) quite controversial.

Here's another log to add to the fire of controversy: she's voting for Hillary.

That fact is not the point of this post, though...

What I find most fascinating about this whole situation has to do with the statement about this on her website. It's worth reading, regardless of your feelings about her or Hillary.

This section in particular is worth pondering:

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies.

First, I find it very typical of the emerging movement to say that her Christian values are based upon the Gospel accounts, not the whole Bible. Please note, I have no idea if Anne Rice even knows about the emerging church or not, but this paragraph she wrote could easily have been penned by McLaren or McKnight or otherwise.

It comes down to the "living the life of Jesus" motif so common in emerging circles. A former professor of mine wrote about this over at his blog [you'll have to scroll down to the post entitled "Living the Life of Jesus..."]. While I'm sure that this goal (living as Christ lived) is noble, I'm not sure it's quite the right spin we need on our daily lives. He was, after all, God incarnate. I am not. Moreover, I'm not sure we should be neglecting the other 62 books of the Bible in preferential treatment for the four Gospels.

Also interesting in Anne's paragraph: she thinks the Democrat Party is better able to address the social justice concerns that she carries as a Christian. But let's back up a step or two. Do you believe that the best way to act upon these concerns is through the auspices of the federal government? Let me put it another (more loaded) way: As a follower of Christ, am I willing to let the church off the hook on social issues and say our main/only responsibility is to merely pay the appropriate tax? I guess I'm just not that trusting of bureaucracy...

So I guess this is another reason why I'll call myself emerging-friendly, but not emerging: I'm persuaded that Christ's followers must address the very real social justice issues facing our communities, but I'm not personally persuaded that the government is the best way to do so. Let's roll up our sleeves and get dirty, not just send off our tax check.

It's rather like missions, in a way. It's much easier for people to send money to overseas missions than it is for them to engage their own community with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For some (not all), I fear that sending money overseas is a way of relieving guilt. In perhaps the same way, it's much easier to get "outraged" about poverty (for example) and feel better about yourself by voting for the party that will try to tax the situation away than to actually (again, for example) volunteer at a soup kitchen or give money directly to the local food bank.

Anyway, Anne is to be commended for recognizing that politics and religion not only can, but must mix. I just disagree with her as to how.

Hatushili

Read More......

Another prayer request

A very good friend of mine (and daily reader here) is facing a very difficult situation and would covet our prayers. Here's the email I got from him last night [edited]:

Most of you know that Larissa's [Dan's wife] mother, Judy, has been very ill. She passed away sometime around 6:30 this evening [August 19]. She was a believer and while our pain is great with our loss, we are thankful that her suffering here on earth has ended.

It appears we will be going to East Jordan (by Traverse City) MI later this week for the funeral. We truly appreciate your thoughts and prayers.

Dan

Dan and Larissa have a four year old son who will be struggling through this time, too. Please pray for them all.

Hatushili

Read More......

An open invitation

You know, it's funny how the whole blogging scene works. I sometimes spend a great deal of time working on a particular post, thinking it will inspire some good discussion ... only to find not a soul commenting. Then, other times, I post something short and off-the-cuff ... and find you guys commenting and interacting extensively.

What's a blogger to do?

I'm issuing an open invitation for any one to let me know what they do and don't like about my blog, what topics you would like to see addressed more or addressed less, and any suggestions you might otherwise have.

You may (if you're so bold!) leave them on this post as a comment, or you are (as always) welcome to email me via the "Ask the Pastor" link in the top left corner.

I understand that some of you guys read me regularly and simply can't find the time to comment nearly as regularly. I'd just like to know if I'm providing information and conversation that's of use, and how I might improve. As I've said before, my blog is really more for me than anything - I'm basically talking to myself in print, which forces me to be as articulate and specific as I can. But at the same time, I want to be an encourager and a stimulator for your journey, too.

As I continue to post, please keep me posted.

Hatushili

Read More......

Good news from the pulpit

As many of you know, I'm a big proponent of the Westminster Confession of Faith's purpose statement for humanity.

Q: What is the chief end of man?

A: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

As such, I often find myself "battling" against those well-meaning folk that either explicitly or implicitly believe that the chief end of man is to spread the Gospel. While spreading the Gospel is certainly one way we glorify God, it must be set under the overall umbrella of God's glory.

Anyway, I bring all of this up again simply because my pastor preached a message this morning about precisely this point, and it was nice to be reminded.

Hatushili

Read More......

Notes on Nehemiah

I just recently read through the book of Nehemiah again. I'm not sure why the LORD compelled me to read that particular book, but He did - so I did.

My interest in the book has been renewed, and I'm likely to post more than once on the subject. I thought I'd start with a simple observation and open it into a discussion about human nature in general...

If you're not familiar with the story of Nehemiah, I'd highly recommend you read it before finishing this post. Read the whole thing straight through - it won't take you too long. If you don't have a Bible handy, here's a link to the NET Bible version. [If you're unfamiliar with the NET Bible, take some time to acquaint yourself here; it's a great resource.]

----

So did you read it? Good.

Did you notice the words of 4:6-7? "So we rebuilt the wall, and the entire wall was joined together up to half its height. The people were enthusiastic in their work."

A more word-for-word rendering of the Hebrew text would by something like: "the people had a heart/mind for work". [The same Hebrew word can be translated "heart" or "mind", depending on context and English idiom.] But how can that be? Aren't these the same people that were not a few chapters earlier living in and around a hollow shell of a city? Didn't these same people manage to accomplish nothing in terms of restoring the wall for years prior? Weren't there a dozen or more excuses to offer?

What explains the difference in mindset?

As I see it, you could reasonably offer a few different and/or inter-related explanations. I'll list them here, and then I'd like to know how you see it - does one of my suggestions resonate with you, or is there something I've not considered?

Possible explanations:

1. They were previously leaderless; now they've been given leadership.

2. The polarizing presence of Nehemiah dramatically increased their risk of attack; they worked out of necessity.

3. They were destitute and forgotten; now they've been given hope.

4. They were a fundamentally selfish lot; Nehemiah tapped that by having them work on the wall directly in front of their own home.


It's important in these discussions to remember that the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us why the people were enthusiastic about this work; there can be no single "correct" answer to this question. But the context of the passage can certainly help support a handful of conclusions with some degree of certainty.

What do you think?

Hatushili

Read More......