Other comments on this day's readings can be found here.
Reading 1 - Neh 11:1,2
"Now the leaders of the people settled in Jerusalem, and the
rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of every ten to live in Jerusalem,
the holy city, while the remaining nine were to stay in their own towns. The
people commended all the men who volunteered to live in Jerusalem" (Neh
11:1,2).
When the exiles returned to the Promised Land, living in
Jerusalem was not an attractive prospect because the city lay in ruins. However,
with the rebuilding of the temple and the walls, the capital became a more
desirable place to live. Nehemiah as governor saw the wisdom of populating
Jerusalem with pure-blooded Jews, and set about to encourage the people to live
within the city walls. Some citizens of Jerusalem were chosen by lot (v 1),
while others volunteered to move there (v 2).
After the resettlement, the population of the city itself
would have been between 5,000 and 10,000.
Reading 2 - Amos 3:3
"Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?" (Amos
3:3).
The verse is used to suggest the notion that only when there
is perfect agreement among brethren can they "walk together" in the bonds of
fellowship. In the first place such a blanket assertion is not true, and in the
second place such a usage of the verse is entirely beside the point.
It is certainly wrong to state as a matter of fact or
principle that two men cannot cooperate unless they are perfectly agreed in
every particular. In actual practice, nothing is further from the truth. Two men
or a group can work together quite well on a common project by agreeing
beforehand to submerge their differences in matters of secondary importance. If
in their minds there is the same major goal, then minor considerations are
modestly set aside so that their full energies may be directed toward its
achievement. Such a policy is wise, and Scriptural! Peter's "Be ye subject one
to another" (1Pe 5:5) surely expresses such a spirit of "compromise" in the best
sense, as does Paul's exhortation to the strife-prone Corinthians: "There should
be no schism in the body... the members should have the same care one for
another" (1Co 12:25).
What then is the point of Amos 3:3? Perhaps the RSV rendering
here would be helpful: "Do two walk together, unless they have made an
appointment?" Or, as the Hebrew: 'unless they have met together?' This sounds
very much like the thoughts expressed above: Two men can and do walk together IF
they have agreed beforehand to walk together; it is as simple as that.
However, a consideration of the prophet's message in the
broader sense indicates that the two who must agree in order to walk together
are God and man. God knew Israel in the sense that to Israel He had committed
His laws (v 2; Psa 147:19,20). This knowledge placed upon Israel the burden of
responsibility to obey God, to agree to walk with Him; else Israel would be
punished above all the nations for her transgressions. But, responsibilities
aside, there are also great privileges in such a close association with the
Almighty: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).
Man must walk in communion and harmony of heart and purpose
with God. In doing so his blessings will be many, but if he deserts such a
partnership then he may expect fiery judgment. God is saying, 'Can you think to
ignore My advice and still claim to be My friend?'
The very first thing God asks us to agree with Him about is
that we are sinners, not that we are as perfect as He is. An awareness of our
weaknesses before God should make us considerably more sympathetic toward the
weaknesses of our brethren. The goal of all is that we learn day by day to walk
more and more in conformity with God's will. In the awesome shadow cast by our
Father, we are all no better than toddlers, and our petty quarrels with His
other babes are just so much futility, and are due to our limited horizons. The
Lord of all creation has condescended to grasp each of us by the hand; like a
natural father, He has shortened His pace so that we may be helped and guided in
our first faltering steps upward toward manhood. Let us set our attentions upon
His standard and strive to conform to it; let us walk with God (Gen 5:22; 6:9;
17:1), and not be so concerned to scrutinize the faltering steps of our
brothers.
One final thought: Today divorce has become a widespread
practice in the world around us, so much so that many young people enter
marriages fully intending to terminate them at the first sign of trouble, on
such flimsy grounds as "incompatibility". It is as if they are saying, 'We can
no longer walk together, because we do not agree on such-and-such.' There are
few in the brotherhood who would not deplore such a childish disregard for the
marriage bond. And yet how often do brethren put forward this same excuse for
"divorcing" themselves from a bond just as sacred -- the tie that binds (or
should bind) all Christ's brethren together! They thus put asunder in the
spiritual realm what they would never think of dissolving on the domestic level;
and this means a debris of broken homes and lingering recriminations. And all
because they will not apply the same restraint and reasonableness and patience
and understanding in the ecclesial family that every husband and wife knows is
essential in the natural family.
Reading 3 - 1Ti 6:7
"For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take
nothing out of it" (1Ti 6:7).
"The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away: blessed be the
name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). Compare the parable of Luke 12:20,21. Compare also
Psa 49:17 and Ecc 5:15 ("As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he
return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may
carry away in his hand." This picture runs throughout the book of the Preacher.
The grave is the ash heap of mankind -- in it there is no hope.)
Paul's line of reasoning is obvious. If we could, at death,
take our possessions with us into a future state, then there would be at once an
end to the "contentment" (v 6) with whatever position we occupy now. This is
because the possessions of the future would then in some way be dependent upon
this present existence, and what we might eke out of the earth by the sweat of
our brow.
Ignorant and superstitious men have believed this fallacy from
primitive times. Nearly all ancient cultures bury their dead with the best
provisions possible for their trip into the unknown. But those who know the
Truth realize man's state in all its stark reality -- of poverty and blindness
and weakness. What God gives him now is only a provision for his journey through
this life, to be dispensed with (just like a used bus ticket) when the
"destination" of death is reached. We are even more helpless at death than we
were when we came into the world. Without the hope of resurrection to life man
is no better than the animals. Thank God we have hope!