vs 1
I recently got into a... discussion with an older woman at Bible college. She was saying that it was ok for us young people to be idealistic, but when you get older and you've got more experience, then you realise what the world is really like. She just had such a fatalistic attitude, that God will do what he will do, and we just get caught up along in the ride. An elder from St Ives used to say to me "If you're not a socialist when you're young, you've got no heart. If you're not a capitalist when you're older, you've got no brain".
I say monkeyfarts. John knows that we are going to sin. He's not stupid. He's done his fair share of sinning. But does that stop him writing a letter with the purpose of trying to stop us from sinning? Sinless perfection is our goal! Yes, we may never meet it in this world. In fact, theologically we know it's not possible. But to just give up and admit defeat in a fatalistic manner is incredibly wrong. Instead, God gives us hope by giving us his Son as our defence lawyer.
vs 2
Our sins have already been forgiven. Enough so that the whole world's sins have been dealt with (at least in a potential sense).
vs 3
Part of what John is writing this letter for is to teach, and the other is to assure. Here, he is giving an assurance through a lesson - we can know our spiritual and eternal assurance if we are obeying Jesus. So what should we be doing?
vs 4
John is brilliantly frank. People who know Jesus do what he says. He's the Son of God, after all. If you know that, you do what he says, right?! Yes, Jesus is my friend and my brother, and he's the Lamb of God yadda yadda. If Thessalonians taught you anything, he's also a guy with a whole army of angels who can nuke the earth at any minute. He's also going to send a lot of people to hell. He's God, he's King. Obey.
vs 5-6
And through obedience is completeness in Christ gained. Which makes obvious sense. You've got to walk the walk if you talk the talk. I don't know if fatalism is stronger here in Australia than elsewhere (it is certainly strong - "She'll be right"), but it's completely un-Christian to be fatalist. Reliance on God isn't fatalism. It's active.
vs 7-8
Sometimes we need to remember the words of Ecclesiastes, that "nothing is new under the sun". This way of worshipping God isn't new. It's the only way. It's the way since the beginning. Active obedience. You know we can't know everything about God's will. We just have to obey what we do know of it.
What makes this command new is the fact of Jesus' coming, and the fact of his return. For thousands of years, people lived without the knowledge of exactly how the Messiah's arrival on earth was going to be. We've got that info. Funny how we can still bitch and moan that we don't know something. Hell, we already know we're going to win!
vs 9
For all John's bluntness, he's also repetitious. But there's purpose in it. Like a lot of the older letters, John is forced to deal with the problem of false teachers. And it turns out a great way to spot a false teacher is by seeing if they walk the walk of Christianity. But it's also a great way of making sure we are in the light, that we are following the truth.
vs 10-11
Our love for each other is so vital to John, that it's a major part of almost everything he writes. There's a tradition that when he was really really old, and the Christians used to have to carry him to the church, he would always give the same message, "Little children, love one another". When someone finally said "Teacher, do you not have anything else to say?" he replied "There is nothing that is more important that our Lord Jesus said than for us to love one another". Love for other Christians is key to the Christian faith.
vs 12-14
This little poem tells us so much about what is in John's mind and the audience to whom he is writing. The message of this poem is essentially that these who know the father have overcome the evil one. The message of the rest of the book is basically "As you have overcome the evil one, so keep overcoming". But if he said that, he'd sound too much like Paul.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
1 John Chapter 1
It's a bit of a cop out to do 1 John, since I wrote a fair bit on it in my first year of college, but I want to do 2 and 3 John, so it would be silly not to start here.
vs 1
John doesn't bandy about with the normal niceties of letter writing. He jumps straight in. He's writing about the Word of life. He's seen it, he's heard it, he's touched it.
vs 2
You can see just how much John ties Jesus up in our eternal life. He is life. When Jesus manifested, that was our eternal life manifested. Without Jesus, there is no eternal life. And he's seen it and testifies to it.
vs 3
And once again he proclaims that he's seen it. See a pattern here? Perhaps John was getting doddery, but also remember there's no CAPS, underlining or italics in John's time, so if you want to highlight an idea, you just repeat it over and over.
John also says that he wants the readers to have fellowship with him, and this his fellowship includes God and Jesus Christ.
vs 4
You'd think a small verse like this would be simple. He probably means that in their fulfilment of this letter, their faith will be complete, and so his joy at seeing that will be too. Or perhaps that in reading it, the reader's joy will be complete.
vs 5
It always seems that John was listening to Jesus when no-one else was. Compare the synoptic gospels to John's gospel and you'll know what I mean. This statement is so profound, and yet so simple. You can almost imagine Jesus saying it to the disciples, and them staring blankly back saying "Wha?"
Why is God depicted as light? Because of it's purity? Because of it's power over darkness? Because light brings life? Because you can see the truth in the light? Because you can find your way by light? Is God actually shining in light? In some sense probably all of these are true. But as we turn the pages of 1 John, we will come to see that he is focused particularly on light and darkness as defining our moral character.
vs 6
You cannot be in fellowship with God and yet still be in darkness. After all - God is light. "do not live by the truth" literally means "you are not doing the truth". Do we often think of truth as an action? That's the sort of truth God is and Jesus is.
vs 7
Fellowship with John is fellowship with Christ. We tend to think of fellowship physically - spending time together. But fellowship is more like banding together as one - and you can do that without actually being together physically, but by standing up for each other. If we walk in the light of Jesus, we are in fellowship in Christ - our common bond. Not only that, but his blood purifies us from all sin - another thing we can share.
vs 8
This verse is vital to understanding this book. Every time you read about sin in this book, come back to 1:8. John is nuts about being against sin, and without this firm foothold, and the understanding of 1:7 about being purified from sin, it is impossible to accurately understand 1 John.
No one is without sin. The idea itself we all know because we've all got Romans 3:10-12 memorised. But anyone who claims a victory over sin is foolish, and they don't have the truth of Christ. They are only fooling themselves.
vs 9
This is the answer for John, and for everyone. Yes, we have sin. But if we ask forgiveness, God will forgive them because of his faithfulness, and his righteousness (it says justice, but the greek is righteous). Now what's that? We would normally want to read "grace" or "mercy" there. But God is always in the right. He cannot make a promise to forgive us our sins and then not keep it. He is able to cleanse us from our sins. Different from stripping sinfulness from us (which he is also able to do, but that doesn't come yet).
vs 10
Because if we try and foist onto God that we don't sin, we are making him out to be liar. He didn't send Jesus to die on the off chance we might sin. If you're ever calling God a liar, then something tells me that Christianity is not for you. It's just not who God is.
vs 1
John doesn't bandy about with the normal niceties of letter writing. He jumps straight in. He's writing about the Word of life. He's seen it, he's heard it, he's touched it.
vs 2
You can see just how much John ties Jesus up in our eternal life. He is life. When Jesus manifested, that was our eternal life manifested. Without Jesus, there is no eternal life. And he's seen it and testifies to it.
vs 3
And once again he proclaims that he's seen it. See a pattern here? Perhaps John was getting doddery, but also remember there's no CAPS, underlining or italics in John's time, so if you want to highlight an idea, you just repeat it over and over.
John also says that he wants the readers to have fellowship with him, and this his fellowship includes God and Jesus Christ.
vs 4
You'd think a small verse like this would be simple. He probably means that in their fulfilment of this letter, their faith will be complete, and so his joy at seeing that will be too. Or perhaps that in reading it, the reader's joy will be complete.
vs 5
It always seems that John was listening to Jesus when no-one else was. Compare the synoptic gospels to John's gospel and you'll know what I mean. This statement is so profound, and yet so simple. You can almost imagine Jesus saying it to the disciples, and them staring blankly back saying "Wha?"
Why is God depicted as light? Because of it's purity? Because of it's power over darkness? Because light brings life? Because you can see the truth in the light? Because you can find your way by light? Is God actually shining in light? In some sense probably all of these are true. But as we turn the pages of 1 John, we will come to see that he is focused particularly on light and darkness as defining our moral character.
vs 6
You cannot be in fellowship with God and yet still be in darkness. After all - God is light. "do not live by the truth" literally means "you are not doing the truth". Do we often think of truth as an action? That's the sort of truth God is and Jesus is.
vs 7
Fellowship with John is fellowship with Christ. We tend to think of fellowship physically - spending time together. But fellowship is more like banding together as one - and you can do that without actually being together physically, but by standing up for each other. If we walk in the light of Jesus, we are in fellowship in Christ - our common bond. Not only that, but his blood purifies us from all sin - another thing we can share.
vs 8
This verse is vital to understanding this book. Every time you read about sin in this book, come back to 1:8. John is nuts about being against sin, and without this firm foothold, and the understanding of 1:7 about being purified from sin, it is impossible to accurately understand 1 John.
No one is without sin. The idea itself we all know because we've all got Romans 3:10-12 memorised. But anyone who claims a victory over sin is foolish, and they don't have the truth of Christ. They are only fooling themselves.
vs 9
This is the answer for John, and for everyone. Yes, we have sin. But if we ask forgiveness, God will forgive them because of his faithfulness, and his righteousness (it says justice, but the greek is righteous). Now what's that? We would normally want to read "grace" or "mercy" there. But God is always in the right. He cannot make a promise to forgive us our sins and then not keep it. He is able to cleanse us from our sins. Different from stripping sinfulness from us (which he is also able to do, but that doesn't come yet).
vs 10
Because if we try and foist onto God that we don't sin, we are making him out to be liar. He didn't send Jesus to die on the off chance we might sin. If you're ever calling God a liar, then something tells me that Christianity is not for you. It's just not who God is.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Jude
vs 14-15
Ahh yes, that magical book of 1 Enoch... how often it has warmed my heart when I've read it. It's funny - Enoch is the sort of person you want to write a book, you know? Like, of all the gospel writers, the only one you really want to have written one is John (and Peter, if you believe the tradition about Mark). But instead you get these stories from these backwater nobodies. Matthew who? Luke who? Mark who? Where's my gospel of Judas? Where's my gospel of doubting Thomas? Where's my gospel of Jesus, dammit?
This is basically one more proof to me that Matt, Mark and Luke are all the real deal. I mean, if you were going to fake a gospel, you'd make it from someone who was a bit more in the spotlight. To me Enoch is the same. You really want him to have written a book, so someone does, puts his name on it, and it becomes a superhit whynot! Same as the books supposedly written by Solomon which are about magic, and there's probably some pretending to be Abraham and Noah too. I'm surprised 1 Adam hasn't been published.
So why does Jude use it? Well, it makes his point I guess. Had he read 2 Thessalonians, he probably would have quoted 2 Thess 7b-10. Try memorising a bit of that and using it in 2 Ways To Live instead of Hebrews 9:27!
Anyway, although I wouldn't really base any in depth theology on this portion of 1 Enoch, there's nothing really wrong with it. Jesus is coming with thousands of Angels (2 Thess 7b) to judge everyone (2 Tim 4:1), convict the ungodly of their acts (Rom 13:2), their motives (Rom 2:16), and harsh words spoken (Matt 5:22).
vs 16
We should all know that church isn't perfect. And we should all know that Christians aren't perfect, whether in theology or practice. And we should all know that we're all included in that. It's ok to admonish one another and correct one another. But faultfinding without loving correction and admonishment is nihilistic, and grumbling just serves to cause tension and unnecessary conflict. They themselves were probably hella hypocritical, because they would have been trying to fit their scummy lifestyles in with church doctrine - it's little wonder false teaching is so screwed up. And then they try and put themselves out as mega-cool so you want to follow them, and they flatter you (literally 'admire faces' - so shallow) to get their way.
vs 17
So it would seem that those reading this letter would have heard what the Apostles said.
vs 18
And that is what they said. You won't find that verse anywhere else though - because Jude isn't quoting from a NT source, not one we have anyway. There are plenty of verses that give us that idea - but most are gospel resources and spoken by Jesus. The Apostles would have said similar things fairly early on, but all too soon the false teachers turn up and need to be dealt with. The dating of Jude regarding these verses and it's general content is quite interesting, but not really all that important, so I won't bother discussing it.
vs 19
Just in case you didn't know what I was polemicising about, it's those guys I've been hacking against the whole letter.
vs 20
You can see that Jude really values the faith here. Your faith in Christ and your life of prayer - these to Jude are to be the defining pillars of the Christian life to set you apart from those who are ridiculed and spoken against in this letter.
vs 21
This book is very much focused on the parousia. I guess because we are so used to reading those verses and thinking "yeah yeah, he's coming, but probably not for another 1000 years" it's easy to miss the focus. But for a small letter, Jesus returning features large.
vs 22
"Those who are wavering" the greek says. So we shouldn't take the smackdown to those who are struggling in the faith. We should be merciful on them. Pity them. This is very relevant in our church, where we have lots of new Christians. After you've been a Christian a while, you sort of get a sixth sense about what is crap. Spong? Crap. Quasi-Christian song lyrics? Crap. But when you're a new Christian, you just want everything to be Christian. You start wondering if everyone isn't Christian! You have a problem - you search on the internet, and you find some Christian talking about it - "How can he be any different to those from my church?"you think. But really, it's just that the problem of living in a post-Christian society. The movie Constantine, for example. Or Da Vinci Code. These things actually cause new Christians to stumble. No wonder they need our mercy.
vs 23
Some people are right there ready to throw themselves in the fire - they need saving! Yet others are a mixed bag - they're the ones who are saying "I know I'm a Christian, but I really need to go and score one more hit". Mercy mixed with fear (of God, obviously) is the solution Jude gives - so hate their clothing. Umm, what? Stained is literally spillo, spotted. And the term spot in greek can denote a moral blemish. So the idea is kind of metaphorical I guess - the clothes they wear have been spotted by the sins they commit - almost like the sin splashes on their clothing. Whether there was some sort of clothing that these people wore, or whether Christians wore something else particularly, I'm not sure.
vs 24-25
This is arguably one of the most incredible things Jude gave us - this awesome doxology. And you probably know the song that's written from it. I only want to say two things about it. Firstly, that God's got to be pretty awesome to stop humans from falling. It's like we are falling machines, but he can not only keep us from it, he can present us before himself without fault.
Secondly: glory, majesty, power and authority all go to God - but because of (through) Jesus Christ. And not just because of what he did, but before all ages do these things come through Christ. And they will forever. That's the Jesus I worship.
Ahh yes, that magical book of 1 Enoch... how often it has warmed my heart when I've read it. It's funny - Enoch is the sort of person you want to write a book, you know? Like, of all the gospel writers, the only one you really want to have written one is John (and Peter, if you believe the tradition about Mark). But instead you get these stories from these backwater nobodies. Matthew who? Luke who? Mark who? Where's my gospel of Judas? Where's my gospel of doubting Thomas? Where's my gospel of Jesus, dammit?
This is basically one more proof to me that Matt, Mark and Luke are all the real deal. I mean, if you were going to fake a gospel, you'd make it from someone who was a bit more in the spotlight. To me Enoch is the same. You really want him to have written a book, so someone does, puts his name on it, and it becomes a superhit whynot! Same as the books supposedly written by Solomon which are about magic, and there's probably some pretending to be Abraham and Noah too. I'm surprised 1 Adam hasn't been published.
So why does Jude use it? Well, it makes his point I guess. Had he read 2 Thessalonians, he probably would have quoted 2 Thess 7b-10. Try memorising a bit of that and using it in 2 Ways To Live instead of Hebrews 9:27!
Anyway, although I wouldn't really base any in depth theology on this portion of 1 Enoch, there's nothing really wrong with it. Jesus is coming with thousands of Angels (2 Thess 7b) to judge everyone (2 Tim 4:1), convict the ungodly of their acts (Rom 13:2), their motives (Rom 2:16), and harsh words spoken (Matt 5:22).
vs 16
We should all know that church isn't perfect. And we should all know that Christians aren't perfect, whether in theology or practice. And we should all know that we're all included in that. It's ok to admonish one another and correct one another. But faultfinding without loving correction and admonishment is nihilistic, and grumbling just serves to cause tension and unnecessary conflict. They themselves were probably hella hypocritical, because they would have been trying to fit their scummy lifestyles in with church doctrine - it's little wonder false teaching is so screwed up. And then they try and put themselves out as mega-cool so you want to follow them, and they flatter you (literally 'admire faces' - so shallow) to get their way.
vs 17
So it would seem that those reading this letter would have heard what the Apostles said.
vs 18
And that is what they said. You won't find that verse anywhere else though - because Jude isn't quoting from a NT source, not one we have anyway. There are plenty of verses that give us that idea - but most are gospel resources and spoken by Jesus. The Apostles would have said similar things fairly early on, but all too soon the false teachers turn up and need to be dealt with. The dating of Jude regarding these verses and it's general content is quite interesting, but not really all that important, so I won't bother discussing it.
vs 19
Just in case you didn't know what I was polemicising about, it's those guys I've been hacking against the whole letter.
vs 20
You can see that Jude really values the faith here. Your faith in Christ and your life of prayer - these to Jude are to be the defining pillars of the Christian life to set you apart from those who are ridiculed and spoken against in this letter.
vs 21
This book is very much focused on the parousia. I guess because we are so used to reading those verses and thinking "yeah yeah, he's coming, but probably not for another 1000 years" it's easy to miss the focus. But for a small letter, Jesus returning features large.
vs 22
"Those who are wavering" the greek says. So we shouldn't take the smackdown to those who are struggling in the faith. We should be merciful on them. Pity them. This is very relevant in our church, where we have lots of new Christians. After you've been a Christian a while, you sort of get a sixth sense about what is crap. Spong? Crap. Quasi-Christian song lyrics? Crap. But when you're a new Christian, you just want everything to be Christian. You start wondering if everyone isn't Christian! You have a problem - you search on the internet, and you find some Christian talking about it - "How can he be any different to those from my church?"you think. But really, it's just that the problem of living in a post-Christian society. The movie Constantine, for example. Or Da Vinci Code. These things actually cause new Christians to stumble. No wonder they need our mercy.
vs 23
Some people are right there ready to throw themselves in the fire - they need saving! Yet others are a mixed bag - they're the ones who are saying "I know I'm a Christian, but I really need to go and score one more hit". Mercy mixed with fear (of God, obviously) is the solution Jude gives - so hate their clothing. Umm, what? Stained is literally spillo, spotted. And the term spot in greek can denote a moral blemish. So the idea is kind of metaphorical I guess - the clothes they wear have been spotted by the sins they commit - almost like the sin splashes on their clothing. Whether there was some sort of clothing that these people wore, or whether Christians wore something else particularly, I'm not sure.
vs 24-25
This is arguably one of the most incredible things Jude gave us - this awesome doxology. And you probably know the song that's written from it. I only want to say two things about it. Firstly, that God's got to be pretty awesome to stop humans from falling. It's like we are falling machines, but he can not only keep us from it, he can present us before himself without fault.
Secondly: glory, majesty, power and authority all go to God - but because of (through) Jesus Christ. And not just because of what he did, but before all ages do these things come through Christ. And they will forever. That's the Jesus I worship.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Jude
vs 1
We start off with a question - who is this Jude character? He tells us he's a servant of Jesus, and the brother of James. Jesus had a brother called James. But there was also the apostle James. Is it really possible that Joseph named his sons Jesus, James and Jude? Easy to remember I guess. Otherwise, Jude is the forgotten brother of James and John, sons of Zebedee.
And it's to Christians. Those who have been called is a bit like Peter's opening of 1 Peter.
In greek, you can also spell his name Judas, and you can pronounce it Ieyoda (hehehe).
vs 2
The letter also has that typical abundant blessing message.
vs 3
Jude was keen to write possibly a more friendly letter about the joy of salvtion, but heresy and church division seem to have necessitated this letter instead. He doesn't talk about being moved by the Spirit or anything so holy - he just saw the need, and put quill to papyrus it seems. Of course that doesn't stop it being inspired - basically every NT letter is occasional. Working your way through Jude, though, you really do find yourself wondering about the canon.
vs 4
Marked or written about, these guys obviously deserve condemnation. I don't know how literally to take the idea of secretly sneaking in - when you read the whole letter, a lot of it is very metaphorical. I guess Jude is trying to give the idea of them going unnoticed and being accepted. But they're certainly not Christian - they mix the flaw of freedom from Corinth with the denial of Christ as Lord of the Judaisers. They're holding beliefs and attitudes and doing actions that are going to seriously mess up the church.
vs 5
The way he says "I know you know it, but I wanted to bring it up" makes it sound like Jude wasn't very confident. Paul and Peter bring up well known stories of the OT all the time - Abraham is in most letters I reckon. But they just wade in with it - Jude uses this little precursor.
His point being of course that not all who are saved are really saved, if you know what I mean. All the Israelites were saved from Egypt, but not all were saved from God.
vs 6
Same point, but using angels this time. And you know, try as you might, you will never find an OT reference as clear as Jude is about the falling of angels. They are stuck in the middle of obscure prophecies, and are intepreted that way. Here we play an interesting game with Jude. He uses many non-Biblical sources. Because he quotes them, does that make them true? The whole things, or just the bits he quotes? If they are true, why aren't the recorded in the OT?
This verse is one of the less problematic, because the building of an angelology in Judaism is probably what Jude is building on, and that is - we hope - mostly built on the OT.
vs 7
Same result again, with Sodom and Gomorrah as examples. It's interesting to think of Sodom and Gomorrah as the example of God's final wrath being brought to the world with fire. It's especially appropriate against the background of the world's initial judgement by water.
vs 8
Oh, that word "dreaming" gets used all the time in the NT... well, twice. The other time it's used is to translate Joel 2 regarding old men dreaming dreams. This suggests to me a meaning of visions type dreaming. But the word also supposedly means to be beguiled by sensual images. The second makes more sense in this context, but it's entirely possibly that these guys were either having dreamlike prophesies that were leading them astray, or they were making such things up to back up their crappy attitudes.
vs 9
You'll never find this in the Bible - it's apocryphal. Jude's point is that the archangel Michael won't even slander Satan, because the slander of celestial beings is wrong. But because Jude uses the story (possibly from 'The Assumption of Moses'), does that mean we should believe it? Most scholars say no, and to treat this in the same way as Paul quoting pagan poets. It is impossible to vouch for their spiritual authority or even their historical accuracy. But the story certainly makes the point.
vs 10
Instincts about what God wants aren't always correct. These guys hated anything they couldn't grasp (Jesus' Lordship and deity seems an easy example) and instinctively followed what they thought was right (freedom beyond God's boundaries). And that's the cause of their destruction.
vs 11
Get your OT skills polished for these. Cain, who rebelled against God and walked away from him. Balaam, who slandered his donkey even after it spoke to him (so he's there for slandering spiritual things - the profit thing is tied to the false teachers, not Balaam). Korah, who? One of the three Levites who led the rebellion of Levites against Moses, and got eaten by the earth for their trouble. So these false teachers have rebelled against God, possibly by trying to promote their stupid views.
vs 12-13
See what I mean by colourful metaphorical langauge? Shepherds could suggest that some of them had positions of authority in the church, or just that they are being mockingly called shepherds because of their lack of pastoral care. Because this reference is tied up with the love feast though, it does make you wonder a little about their tradition for doing that. Was everyone to bring enough food for more than one (to help the poor)? The link seems to obvious to be only metaphorical.
See how useless they are - a cloud without rain, a tree without fruit. I'm not too sure about the wave analogy, except that I guess it means their shame is visible and they stir it up. But the star analogy is clear - they shoot across the sky, then disappear, and blackest darkness is reserved. That's cold.
We start off with a question - who is this Jude character? He tells us he's a servant of Jesus, and the brother of James. Jesus had a brother called James. But there was also the apostle James. Is it really possible that Joseph named his sons Jesus, James and Jude? Easy to remember I guess. Otherwise, Jude is the forgotten brother of James and John, sons of Zebedee.
And it's to Christians. Those who have been called is a bit like Peter's opening of 1 Peter.
In greek, you can also spell his name Judas, and you can pronounce it Ieyoda (hehehe).
vs 2
The letter also has that typical abundant blessing message.
vs 3
Jude was keen to write possibly a more friendly letter about the joy of salvtion, but heresy and church division seem to have necessitated this letter instead. He doesn't talk about being moved by the Spirit or anything so holy - he just saw the need, and put quill to papyrus it seems. Of course that doesn't stop it being inspired - basically every NT letter is occasional. Working your way through Jude, though, you really do find yourself wondering about the canon.
vs 4
Marked or written about, these guys obviously deserve condemnation. I don't know how literally to take the idea of secretly sneaking in - when you read the whole letter, a lot of it is very metaphorical. I guess Jude is trying to give the idea of them going unnoticed and being accepted. But they're certainly not Christian - they mix the flaw of freedom from Corinth with the denial of Christ as Lord of the Judaisers. They're holding beliefs and attitudes and doing actions that are going to seriously mess up the church.
vs 5
The way he says "I know you know it, but I wanted to bring it up" makes it sound like Jude wasn't very confident. Paul and Peter bring up well known stories of the OT all the time - Abraham is in most letters I reckon. But they just wade in with it - Jude uses this little precursor.
His point being of course that not all who are saved are really saved, if you know what I mean. All the Israelites were saved from Egypt, but not all were saved from God.
vs 6
Same point, but using angels this time. And you know, try as you might, you will never find an OT reference as clear as Jude is about the falling of angels. They are stuck in the middle of obscure prophecies, and are intepreted that way. Here we play an interesting game with Jude. He uses many non-Biblical sources. Because he quotes them, does that make them true? The whole things, or just the bits he quotes? If they are true, why aren't the recorded in the OT?
This verse is one of the less problematic, because the building of an angelology in Judaism is probably what Jude is building on, and that is - we hope - mostly built on the OT.
vs 7
Same result again, with Sodom and Gomorrah as examples. It's interesting to think of Sodom and Gomorrah as the example of God's final wrath being brought to the world with fire. It's especially appropriate against the background of the world's initial judgement by water.
vs 8
Oh, that word "dreaming" gets used all the time in the NT... well, twice. The other time it's used is to translate Joel 2 regarding old men dreaming dreams. This suggests to me a meaning of visions type dreaming. But the word also supposedly means to be beguiled by sensual images. The second makes more sense in this context, but it's entirely possibly that these guys were either having dreamlike prophesies that were leading them astray, or they were making such things up to back up their crappy attitudes.
vs 9
You'll never find this in the Bible - it's apocryphal. Jude's point is that the archangel Michael won't even slander Satan, because the slander of celestial beings is wrong. But because Jude uses the story (possibly from 'The Assumption of Moses'), does that mean we should believe it? Most scholars say no, and to treat this in the same way as Paul quoting pagan poets. It is impossible to vouch for their spiritual authority or even their historical accuracy. But the story certainly makes the point.
vs 10
Instincts about what God wants aren't always correct. These guys hated anything they couldn't grasp (Jesus' Lordship and deity seems an easy example) and instinctively followed what they thought was right (freedom beyond God's boundaries). And that's the cause of their destruction.
vs 11
Get your OT skills polished for these. Cain, who rebelled against God and walked away from him. Balaam, who slandered his donkey even after it spoke to him (so he's there for slandering spiritual things - the profit thing is tied to the false teachers, not Balaam). Korah, who? One of the three Levites who led the rebellion of Levites against Moses, and got eaten by the earth for their trouble. So these false teachers have rebelled against God, possibly by trying to promote their stupid views.
vs 12-13
See what I mean by colourful metaphorical langauge? Shepherds could suggest that some of them had positions of authority in the church, or just that they are being mockingly called shepherds because of their lack of pastoral care. Because this reference is tied up with the love feast though, it does make you wonder a little about their tradition for doing that. Was everyone to bring enough food for more than one (to help the poor)? The link seems to obvious to be only metaphorical.
See how useless they are - a cloud without rain, a tree without fruit. I'm not too sure about the wave analogy, except that I guess it means their shame is visible and they stir it up. But the star analogy is clear - they shoot across the sky, then disappear, and blackest darkness is reserved. That's cold.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
2 Thessalonians 3
vs 10
Ok, obviously I'm going to pick on this verse after what I said earlier. But the actual translation itself , well it's not about taking it to bits because I don't like it. It's because I'm trying to see what they've done. I am sure, for example, that the NIV is picking on people who are out of work, because the KJV and NASB are much gentler (although both have this verse pretty much the same - I'm talking about verses on this subject more generally).
The verse is actually pretty solid in its translation. It's not a rule, it's a command (paragello) like the other commands in the book. So it's strongly given. It says if a man doesn't want to work, neither let him eat. But remember the context of a church which was unsure about the parousia - Jesus' second coming. It's entirely possible that some were giving up their jobs because they thought that Jesus' return was imminent.
vs 11
This verse does point us to some sort of report - and this one not quite as positive as the last. Some are not working, or are not presenting a good example.
Interestingly, the translation of this word 'busybodies' (the only time it's used in the NT) is on an apparent useage - that of someone being inquisitive about the affairs of others. It literally means "busying one's self with useless matters". Which is as bad as doing nothing, I guess. But judging useless is subjective - so be ware, because one man's useless activity is another man's hobby, or work, or even ministry.
vs 12
This verse could well be talking about people going out and preaching in the streets (it did happen, despite persecution) instead of earning a crust - because only good speakers get money. It's a very economic way of looking at things - if people won't pay you to do it, it's not worth doing. But I think PS&T aren't going quite down the laisse faire path here. They are just wanting people to get back into a cycle of work and normal life, which should not be any dissapointment to Jesus when he returns.
vs 13
No matter how long it takes for us to die or for Jesus to return, we should always be doing the right thing.
vs 14
This is just a perfect example of a contextual cultural thing - if we stopped associating with someone from church, they'd think we didn't want them to come anymore. It just wouldn't give the same message it did back then. Much better to look at the guiding principle of the next verse...
vs 15
because guiding principles are the key to good hermenutics. Warning them as a brother is the key. They are a Christian sibling first - a Christian sibling not following the letter second. I don't really know what the answer is for this situation in our social and cultural setting. I would prefer a church of greater disciplinary action, but it just doesn't fit with what people expect.
vs 16
Peace through and through. And may the Lord be with all of us.
vs 17
Here Paul shows that he wrote it (or at least was involved in its drafting), probably with the idea of marking this true one against the false ones that had been going around.
vs 18
And the letter ends in a similar way to his other.
Ok, obviously I'm going to pick on this verse after what I said earlier. But the actual translation itself , well it's not about taking it to bits because I don't like it. It's because I'm trying to see what they've done. I am sure, for example, that the NIV is picking on people who are out of work, because the KJV and NASB are much gentler (although both have this verse pretty much the same - I'm talking about verses on this subject more generally).
The verse is actually pretty solid in its translation. It's not a rule, it's a command (paragello) like the other commands in the book. So it's strongly given. It says if a man doesn't want to work, neither let him eat. But remember the context of a church which was unsure about the parousia - Jesus' second coming. It's entirely possible that some were giving up their jobs because they thought that Jesus' return was imminent.
vs 11
This verse does point us to some sort of report - and this one not quite as positive as the last. Some are not working, or are not presenting a good example.
Interestingly, the translation of this word 'busybodies' (the only time it's used in the NT) is on an apparent useage - that of someone being inquisitive about the affairs of others. It literally means "busying one's self with useless matters". Which is as bad as doing nothing, I guess. But judging useless is subjective - so be ware, because one man's useless activity is another man's hobby, or work, or even ministry.
vs 12
This verse could well be talking about people going out and preaching in the streets (it did happen, despite persecution) instead of earning a crust - because only good speakers get money. It's a very economic way of looking at things - if people won't pay you to do it, it's not worth doing. But I think PS&T aren't going quite down the laisse faire path here. They are just wanting people to get back into a cycle of work and normal life, which should not be any dissapointment to Jesus when he returns.
vs 13
No matter how long it takes for us to die or for Jesus to return, we should always be doing the right thing.
vs 14
This is just a perfect example of a contextual cultural thing - if we stopped associating with someone from church, they'd think we didn't want them to come anymore. It just wouldn't give the same message it did back then. Much better to look at the guiding principle of the next verse...
vs 15
because guiding principles are the key to good hermenutics. Warning them as a brother is the key. They are a Christian sibling first - a Christian sibling not following the letter second. I don't really know what the answer is for this situation in our social and cultural setting. I would prefer a church of greater disciplinary action, but it just doesn't fit with what people expect.
vs 16
Peace through and through. And may the Lord be with all of us.
vs 17
Here Paul shows that he wrote it (or at least was involved in its drafting), probably with the idea of marking this true one against the false ones that had been going around.
vs 18
And the letter ends in a similar way to his other.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
2 Thessalonians 3
vs 1
So they're obviously a good example, if PS&T want the message to be taken in the same way the church at Thessalonica did.
vs 2
Something PS&T, and the Thessalonians, knew all too well.
vs 3
Again, this is one of those promises you say "Oooh, but he didn't!", or "He doesn't!"Which only goes to show our ignorance regarding how protected we are, even when bad things are happening.
vs 4
So it would seem that this letter isn't written after a report from someone like Timothy - it could even be written in response to a letter. In any case, rather than citing a report, PS&T just say they have confidence.
vs 5
I'm trying to think what it means to persevere with your heart. I guess it means you don't give up on the thing you have to do, no matter what. Someone more emotional could probably shed light on that. I tend to be a bit brain focused, and so most things start for me in the brain. Perhaps that's why PS&T put it this way - for us, we have to start things with our brain before our hearts are affected - but God can direct our hearts directly.
vs 6
Literalism would have us dig the grave of the Christian church right here in these verses. Firstly, let me point out that the NASB reads this as "keep away from every brother that keeps an unruly life". The word, ataktos, is used twice in the NT - both in 2 Thessalonians - and means "disorderly, out of ranks (like about a soldier), deviating from the prescribed order". A derivative word is used once, in 1 Thessalonians. The root word means "to put in order, to arrange". There's a note for the word used in 1 Thessalonians saying it was used in Greek society to describe those who didn't go to work.
Let me say, though, that I am not trying to say that the Bible doesn't want lazy people admonished. What I am saying is that the literalist interpretation of this verse, without a social context and without taking our own context into account, is vital. Our attitudes have to be shaped by the whole gospel of God, not just some bits.
I mean, if you want to be really literalistic, you should only stay clear (stello: to cause to cease, to remove one's self) of them if they both are idle and don't live according to the teaching of PS&T. But if you want the literal meaning, undisciplined or unruly is really better than idle. The ataktos are doing something - just not what you think they should be doing.
In applying this verse, remember first that life for them was very different. There was no government welfare. So any sponging they did, they did off the church. But there were also very few (if any) disabled people - they simply didn't survive. Children worked from a fairly young age. But even then, what about orphans, or widows, who had no means of support? They weren't even allowed to work in many cases! Remember also that a pretend Christian in the NT church was a real liability - they could get people tortured or killed.
So, in our situation, should be we keeping a 2 metre exclusion zone between us and the unemployed, or between us and the undisciplined? What about those people who drain the church emotionally or temporally rather than economically? Emotions and time are real commodities to us today, as valuable as money. Or is it possible that there is an eternal principle we can apply to our church today with a little bit of good hermenutics?
vs 7
PS&T tell us that they were not idle (or undisciplined, depending on translation). They certainly weren't.
vs 8
And now we see the fruits of their example. They had a purpose in their labours - they wanted to be an example to the Thessalonians. Because in fact, if you take them literally (highly bloody unlikely, by the way), it would mean that every time someone invited them to dinner, they would have said "Well, that was a great meal. Here, take this money, because we don't think you're a family to us, you're more like some sort of restaurant". Yes, it would be as rude then as it is now (a lot ruder actually - the cultural faux-pas it would have caused then would be like using their wicker chair as a toilet in front of their children). So hey, if you want to follow PS&T's example, then don't ever take a free meal off anyone, even your church friends or family.
vs 9
Note that PS&T had the right to ask for money, to be supported. And yet are PS&T saying "Follow our example, you leaders of the church - though you can ask for money, don't you dare!"? Why, then, did Paul tell Timothy in his letters to him that "A worker deserves his wages"? Something tells me that PS&T are trying to make a specific point to a specific church's problems here... That's usually what it means when they are saying something else to someone else.
So they're obviously a good example, if PS&T want the message to be taken in the same way the church at Thessalonica did.
vs 2
Something PS&T, and the Thessalonians, knew all too well.
vs 3
Again, this is one of those promises you say "Oooh, but he didn't!", or "He doesn't!"Which only goes to show our ignorance regarding how protected we are, even when bad things are happening.
vs 4
So it would seem that this letter isn't written after a report from someone like Timothy - it could even be written in response to a letter. In any case, rather than citing a report, PS&T just say they have confidence.
vs 5
I'm trying to think what it means to persevere with your heart. I guess it means you don't give up on the thing you have to do, no matter what. Someone more emotional could probably shed light on that. I tend to be a bit brain focused, and so most things start for me in the brain. Perhaps that's why PS&T put it this way - for us, we have to start things with our brain before our hearts are affected - but God can direct our hearts directly.
vs 6
Literalism would have us dig the grave of the Christian church right here in these verses. Firstly, let me point out that the NASB reads this as "keep away from every brother that keeps an unruly life". The word, ataktos, is used twice in the NT - both in 2 Thessalonians - and means "disorderly, out of ranks (like about a soldier), deviating from the prescribed order". A derivative word is used once, in 1 Thessalonians. The root word means "to put in order, to arrange". There's a note for the word used in 1 Thessalonians saying it was used in Greek society to describe those who didn't go to work.
Let me say, though, that I am not trying to say that the Bible doesn't want lazy people admonished. What I am saying is that the literalist interpretation of this verse, without a social context and without taking our own context into account, is vital. Our attitudes have to be shaped by the whole gospel of God, not just some bits.
I mean, if you want to be really literalistic, you should only stay clear (stello: to cause to cease, to remove one's self) of them if they both are idle and don't live according to the teaching of PS&T. But if you want the literal meaning, undisciplined or unruly is really better than idle. The ataktos are doing something - just not what you think they should be doing.
In applying this verse, remember first that life for them was very different. There was no government welfare. So any sponging they did, they did off the church. But there were also very few (if any) disabled people - they simply didn't survive. Children worked from a fairly young age. But even then, what about orphans, or widows, who had no means of support? They weren't even allowed to work in many cases! Remember also that a pretend Christian in the NT church was a real liability - they could get people tortured or killed.
So, in our situation, should be we keeping a 2 metre exclusion zone between us and the unemployed, or between us and the undisciplined? What about those people who drain the church emotionally or temporally rather than economically? Emotions and time are real commodities to us today, as valuable as money. Or is it possible that there is an eternal principle we can apply to our church today with a little bit of good hermenutics?
vs 7
PS&T tell us that they were not idle (or undisciplined, depending on translation). They certainly weren't.
vs 8
And now we see the fruits of their example. They had a purpose in their labours - they wanted to be an example to the Thessalonians. Because in fact, if you take them literally (highly bloody unlikely, by the way), it would mean that every time someone invited them to dinner, they would have said "Well, that was a great meal. Here, take this money, because we don't think you're a family to us, you're more like some sort of restaurant". Yes, it would be as rude then as it is now (a lot ruder actually - the cultural faux-pas it would have caused then would be like using their wicker chair as a toilet in front of their children). So hey, if you want to follow PS&T's example, then don't ever take a free meal off anyone, even your church friends or family.
vs 9
Note that PS&T had the right to ask for money, to be supported. And yet are PS&T saying "Follow our example, you leaders of the church - though you can ask for money, don't you dare!"? Why, then, did Paul tell Timothy in his letters to him that "A worker deserves his wages"? Something tells me that PS&T are trying to make a specific point to a specific church's problems here... That's usually what it means when they are saying something else to someone else.
Friday, August 25, 2006
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2
vs 8
It's nice to think that even when this lawless one is revealed, Jesus is going to come and kick his ass. Now note that this verse doesn't say he'll do it immediately, but he will do it eventually. And all he's got to do is turn up. Nice.
vs 9
What does that mean, in accordance with the work of Satan? It means what you think it means - that the lawless one will work in the same way Satan works. But isn't the lawless one Satan himself? I believe we are now allowed to be confused.
In any case, while the miracles, signs and wonders might be counterfeit, they are still impressive. And that's why we aren't meant to put our faith in miracles and signs, but in the knowledge of Christ and his resurrection.
vs 10
The whole purpose of this lawless one (in accordance with Satan) is to deceive people into not being saved. But notice! They do not perish because they were deceived (although that is something we say so often in churches and mission conferences) - they perish because of their attitude towards the truth. Satan might be a great deceiver, but God won't let him stop someone from being saved. Only we can do that ourselves (bring it on, Calvin).
vs 11-12
This has got to be one of the few NT references to a very biblical, especially OT idea - that God will send delusion, or do something negative to people for their condemnation. It's hard for us to understand I guess, but we know God does it. He sent evil spirits to plague Saul, he hardened Pharoah's heart. But note that he doesn't do these things until they've already denied the truth. Basically, it's like a judgement of God on those who deny him.
So what's the difference between Satan's deceit (apate) and God's delusion (plane)? Well, the truth is there isn't much, but if you want to get technical... apate refers to a concealing of distortion of the truth - so Satan tries to hide the truth from you. Plane comes from the root of wandering and straying (the idea being that you've taken the wrong road) - so God gives you a wrong road to go down, and you go down it. Satan tries to hide the truth; God just gives you the option to ignore it. I don't know how 100% correct that is, but that seems to be the lexical reading to me.
vs 13
Again, God has chosen the Thessalonians. He has chosen them to be saved, but by a certain way - to be saved the the Spirit and through truth. There are plenty of books on predestination, election, and even God's sovereignty more generally if you're dead keen to get even more confused on this issue. But the one good thing I have gotten from books like those is that it is not necessary for God's eminent all-powerful decision-making to be incompatible with our own ability to make decisions.
vs 14
God's chosen instrument to bring about this salvation was PS&T's gospel. Again, notice the personal attachment.
vs 15
And so because God chose that method of transmission, the Thessalonians should hold to it. Teaching or traditions? With the word paradosis, I don't really think it matters. It is the act of giving up or giving over - the same word is used when you surrender a city. So whether you think of them as traditions or teachings, it's the same in the greek. After all, how do you learn traditions except by someone's teaching?
vs 16-17
Because God has given us eternal encouragement and hope, we can have faith that he can give us temporal encouragement. Because he has the power to do these things, we can have faith that he can give us strength in this world. Interesting to think that our faith for God to do something in this world is proportional to the amount of faith we have for God to do something eternal. Not that I'm saying that God needs our faith to do the work - just that if we believe God can do eternal things, we certainly believe he can do the temporal things, or at least that's how our faith should work. I personally don't have a problem with that (it's come out in a lot of my sermons) but I think it might be cold comfort to some people. Anyway, I'm not sure that PS&T are drawing up a rule of faith. I think they are more using an example for the Thessalonians who do have faith in God's eternal power, and so are encouraged to believe in his temporal power also.
It's nice to think that even when this lawless one is revealed, Jesus is going to come and kick his ass. Now note that this verse doesn't say he'll do it immediately, but he will do it eventually. And all he's got to do is turn up. Nice.
vs 9
What does that mean, in accordance with the work of Satan? It means what you think it means - that the lawless one will work in the same way Satan works. But isn't the lawless one Satan himself? I believe we are now allowed to be confused.
In any case, while the miracles, signs and wonders might be counterfeit, they are still impressive. And that's why we aren't meant to put our faith in miracles and signs, but in the knowledge of Christ and his resurrection.
vs 10
The whole purpose of this lawless one (in accordance with Satan) is to deceive people into not being saved. But notice! They do not perish because they were deceived (although that is something we say so often in churches and mission conferences) - they perish because of their attitude towards the truth. Satan might be a great deceiver, but God won't let him stop someone from being saved. Only we can do that ourselves (bring it on, Calvin).
vs 11-12
This has got to be one of the few NT references to a very biblical, especially OT idea - that God will send delusion, or do something negative to people for their condemnation. It's hard for us to understand I guess, but we know God does it. He sent evil spirits to plague Saul, he hardened Pharoah's heart. But note that he doesn't do these things until they've already denied the truth. Basically, it's like a judgement of God on those who deny him.
So what's the difference between Satan's deceit (apate) and God's delusion (plane)? Well, the truth is there isn't much, but if you want to get technical... apate refers to a concealing of distortion of the truth - so Satan tries to hide the truth from you. Plane comes from the root of wandering and straying (the idea being that you've taken the wrong road) - so God gives you a wrong road to go down, and you go down it. Satan tries to hide the truth; God just gives you the option to ignore it. I don't know how 100% correct that is, but that seems to be the lexical reading to me.
vs 13
Again, God has chosen the Thessalonians. He has chosen them to be saved, but by a certain way - to be saved the the Spirit and through truth. There are plenty of books on predestination, election, and even God's sovereignty more generally if you're dead keen to get even more confused on this issue. But the one good thing I have gotten from books like those is that it is not necessary for God's eminent all-powerful decision-making to be incompatible with our own ability to make decisions.
vs 14
God's chosen instrument to bring about this salvation was PS&T's gospel. Again, notice the personal attachment.
vs 15
And so because God chose that method of transmission, the Thessalonians should hold to it. Teaching or traditions? With the word paradosis, I don't really think it matters. It is the act of giving up or giving over - the same word is used when you surrender a city. So whether you think of them as traditions or teachings, it's the same in the greek. After all, how do you learn traditions except by someone's teaching?
vs 16-17
Because God has given us eternal encouragement and hope, we can have faith that he can give us temporal encouragement. Because he has the power to do these things, we can have faith that he can give us strength in this world. Interesting to think that our faith for God to do something in this world is proportional to the amount of faith we have for God to do something eternal. Not that I'm saying that God needs our faith to do the work - just that if we believe God can do eternal things, we certainly believe he can do the temporal things, or at least that's how our faith should work. I personally don't have a problem with that (it's come out in a lot of my sermons) but I think it might be cold comfort to some people. Anyway, I'm not sure that PS&T are drawing up a rule of faith. I think they are more using an example for the Thessalonians who do have faith in God's eternal power, and so are encouraged to believe in his temporal power also.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2
vs 1
Well, this outlines fairly well what the next section will be about.
vs 2
Forgeries of PS&T were running around, it seems. This is very important to us, because if there were people trying to forge letters of Paul, then how do we know which ones we've got are really his?
vs 3
The rebellion is literally the apostasy (apostasia) in greek. Now, this man of lawlessness...
It is fair to say that some early manuscripts say "man of sin". But anomia is also fair ie lawlessness. While you could draw a bow and say PS&T are talking about a political figure here (say, like a caesar), the term lawless (being without law through ignorance or violation) doesn't seem to strike a cord with me as a way Paul especially would describe an earthly ruler.
"Doomed to destruction" is an interesting term - better translated "son of destruction". So whether that means he is born of destruction and so will be destroyed, or that he will go around destroying stuff... not sure.
vs 4
How literally do you take this? The temple is about to be destroyed, within years of this letter being written. Is the temple really of any importance to European Christians like those in Thessalonica? The word doesn't help - in greek, it can mean the Holy of Holies in the temple (but not the temple itself as a whole, interestingly), any pagam temple, or even the metaphorical temple of the fellowship of believers.
The "everything that is called God or worshipped" is a pretty inclusive term - anything that people were wanting to worship.
So far, we're looking for an age of apostasy, and someone who calls themself God. I can see people saying this is any number of Popes, political figures, and periods in history. Personally, I think we'll know it once we've seen it.
vs 5
I (Paul?) used to tell them about this stuff while he was teaching and discipling them. It's interesting how important an understanding of the second coming and the things of the last days are to Paul's teaching.
vs 6
He wants to come, but is being held back. We know this already, apparently.
vs 7
Ok, so lawlessness has some secret, mysterious power that is already being worked. But someone is holding him back. Who is it? Well, whoever it is, according to NIV, KJV and NASB, they are going to be taken out of the way. Literally, though, this is "until it comes out of the midst". Ginomai is translated as so many different words... but the vast majority of the time it means "become", "became", or some derivative. So you can see the link of "become" to "comes out of". Mesos means "middle, among, in the midst of". This is the same word that PS&T used in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, when they said "we were gentle among you". So you might see why I don't necessarily feel that "taken out of the way" is particularly adequate. In any case, if we were to be reticent to think that God was the one holding this man of lawlessness back (because who's going to take God out of the way?), I think this more literal wording shows us that this isn't such a big deal. It could still be an angel (it could be a big door for all I know), but it may very well be God himself.
Sometimes I despair that the NIV translators just took a KJV, updated some words, and changed some meanings they didn't like. But then, what's new?
Well, this outlines fairly well what the next section will be about.
vs 2
Forgeries of PS&T were running around, it seems. This is very important to us, because if there were people trying to forge letters of Paul, then how do we know which ones we've got are really his?
vs 3
The rebellion is literally the apostasy (apostasia) in greek. Now, this man of lawlessness...
It is fair to say that some early manuscripts say "man of sin". But anomia is also fair ie lawlessness. While you could draw a bow and say PS&T are talking about a political figure here (say, like a caesar), the term lawless (being without law through ignorance or violation) doesn't seem to strike a cord with me as a way Paul especially would describe an earthly ruler.
"Doomed to destruction" is an interesting term - better translated "son of destruction". So whether that means he is born of destruction and so will be destroyed, or that he will go around destroying stuff... not sure.
vs 4
How literally do you take this? The temple is about to be destroyed, within years of this letter being written. Is the temple really of any importance to European Christians like those in Thessalonica? The word doesn't help - in greek, it can mean the Holy of Holies in the temple (but not the temple itself as a whole, interestingly), any pagam temple, or even the metaphorical temple of the fellowship of believers.
The "everything that is called God or worshipped" is a pretty inclusive term - anything that people were wanting to worship.
So far, we're looking for an age of apostasy, and someone who calls themself God. I can see people saying this is any number of Popes, political figures, and periods in history. Personally, I think we'll know it once we've seen it.
vs 5
I (Paul?) used to tell them about this stuff while he was teaching and discipling them. It's interesting how important an understanding of the second coming and the things of the last days are to Paul's teaching.
vs 6
He wants to come, but is being held back. We know this already, apparently.
vs 7
Ok, so lawlessness has some secret, mysterious power that is already being worked. But someone is holding him back. Who is it? Well, whoever it is, according to NIV, KJV and NASB, they are going to be taken out of the way. Literally, though, this is "until it comes out of the midst". Ginomai is translated as so many different words... but the vast majority of the time it means "become", "became", or some derivative. So you can see the link of "become" to "comes out of". Mesos means "middle, among, in the midst of". This is the same word that PS&T used in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, when they said "we were gentle among you". So you might see why I don't necessarily feel that "taken out of the way" is particularly adequate. In any case, if we were to be reticent to think that God was the one holding this man of lawlessness back (because who's going to take God out of the way?), I think this more literal wording shows us that this isn't such a big deal. It could still be an angel (it could be a big door for all I know), but it may very well be God himself.
Sometimes I despair that the NIV translators just took a KJV, updated some words, and changed some meanings they didn't like. But then, what's new?
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
2 Thessalonians
Chapter 1
vs 1
Hey, look, another letter by our good friends PS&T!
vs 2
This is familiar.
vs 3
It sounds like they read the last letter. Good for them!
vs 4
It also sounds like PS&T continue to see Thessalonica as the church worth boasting about.
vs 5
Something worth noticing about these verses in the first chapter is their focus on God. It is God's work that is making these things happen in Thessalonica, it is God's judgement that shows them to be worthy of entering the Kingdom.
vs 6-7
We are not to pay back wrong for wrong if you remember 1 Thess. But God can, and he will. Haha, persecuting suckers!
But not only that, God will give relief to those who are suffering without being able (or willing) to return fire. But notice when he will do it! It's not now. We pray for God's relief and it doesn't come. We pray for God to give trouble to those who trouble us, and he doesn't. Why? Because his promise is conditional on a time period - Jesus, blazing fire, powerful angels.
That of course doesn't mean that God won't trouble people and relieve people - it just means that he sometimes won't, but that doesn't cancel his promise - his promise is to do it with angels and Jesus and blazing fire - and you can't really summon the angel army every time someome spits on you.
vs 8
It's coming. And perhaps around now you're thinking "Yeah, bring it on, those bastards".
vs 9
Ouch. Ok, God, I was sort of thinking you'd ruff them up a bit, give them a good dose of leprosy or something. For some reason, my stomach suddenly turns when I think that those people, however bastardly, are going to suffer eternal destruction and a shut-out from God. It's not fun anymore. Now it's just sad.
vs 10
But that's not his reason for coming - it just happens that way. His reason for coming is to be glorified. To be marvelled at. And this isn't all about God either - by his grace it is also about us being allowed to be involved in the glorification, and in the marvelling.
Notice also PS&T's personal comment here - it wasn't because they believed in Christ (which of course they do) but because they believed the testimony of PS&T. We tend to say "I am nothing, Christ is everything, abase, shame, etc". Not PS&T. It's their ministry as much as it is God's ministry. They feel an ownership (perhaps a stewardship) - and with responsibility and accountability also comes reward. There's nothing wrong with them saying this.
vs 11
Ok... so are PS&T worried about the Thessalonians losing their salvation? Haven't they made it clear that the Thessalonians are going to be in God's kingdom, that they are included in the glorification and marvelling? Why then pray that God may count them worthy of his calling? I mean, the other half of the prayer is great - praying basically that everything good they do goes well and is based on faith. But why that first part?
I think we have to look at the bigger picture of this letter. You can obviously tell from these early verses that the Thessalonians are struggling under persecution and trials. They are enduring, but perhaps flagging. PS&T are obviously trying to encourage them to keep to the faith, and to keep doing these outward acts of faith. I think that's where this comes from. God's calling is more than just salvation - it's a calling to living a godly life, and it's a calling to suffering. And the Thessalonians have shown they are worthy of that calling by enduring. So I think the prayer is one for their continued endurance. What does that say about us? We don't suffer - perhaps we are not worthy of it?
vs 12
See, the purpose of their prayer was for the glorification of Christ and of the Thessalonians. Not for their salvation per se, but that Christ might be glorified through their lives.
Chapter 1
vs 1
Hey, look, another letter by our good friends PS&T!
vs 2
This is familiar.
vs 3
It sounds like they read the last letter. Good for them!
vs 4
It also sounds like PS&T continue to see Thessalonica as the church worth boasting about.
vs 5
Something worth noticing about these verses in the first chapter is their focus on God. It is God's work that is making these things happen in Thessalonica, it is God's judgement that shows them to be worthy of entering the Kingdom.
vs 6-7
We are not to pay back wrong for wrong if you remember 1 Thess. But God can, and he will. Haha, persecuting suckers!
But not only that, God will give relief to those who are suffering without being able (or willing) to return fire. But notice when he will do it! It's not now. We pray for God's relief and it doesn't come. We pray for God to give trouble to those who trouble us, and he doesn't. Why? Because his promise is conditional on a time period - Jesus, blazing fire, powerful angels.
That of course doesn't mean that God won't trouble people and relieve people - it just means that he sometimes won't, but that doesn't cancel his promise - his promise is to do it with angels and Jesus and blazing fire - and you can't really summon the angel army every time someome spits on you.
vs 8
It's coming. And perhaps around now you're thinking "Yeah, bring it on, those bastards".
vs 9
Ouch. Ok, God, I was sort of thinking you'd ruff them up a bit, give them a good dose of leprosy or something. For some reason, my stomach suddenly turns when I think that those people, however bastardly, are going to suffer eternal destruction and a shut-out from God. It's not fun anymore. Now it's just sad.
vs 10
But that's not his reason for coming - it just happens that way. His reason for coming is to be glorified. To be marvelled at. And this isn't all about God either - by his grace it is also about us being allowed to be involved in the glorification, and in the marvelling.
Notice also PS&T's personal comment here - it wasn't because they believed in Christ (which of course they do) but because they believed the testimony of PS&T. We tend to say "I am nothing, Christ is everything, abase, shame, etc". Not PS&T. It's their ministry as much as it is God's ministry. They feel an ownership (perhaps a stewardship) - and with responsibility and accountability also comes reward. There's nothing wrong with them saying this.
vs 11
Ok... so are PS&T worried about the Thessalonians losing their salvation? Haven't they made it clear that the Thessalonians are going to be in God's kingdom, that they are included in the glorification and marvelling? Why then pray that God may count them worthy of his calling? I mean, the other half of the prayer is great - praying basically that everything good they do goes well and is based on faith. But why that first part?
I think we have to look at the bigger picture of this letter. You can obviously tell from these early verses that the Thessalonians are struggling under persecution and trials. They are enduring, but perhaps flagging. PS&T are obviously trying to encourage them to keep to the faith, and to keep doing these outward acts of faith. I think that's where this comes from. God's calling is more than just salvation - it's a calling to living a godly life, and it's a calling to suffering. And the Thessalonians have shown they are worthy of that calling by enduring. So I think the prayer is one for their continued endurance. What does that say about us? We don't suffer - perhaps we are not worthy of it?
vs 12
See, the purpose of their prayer was for the glorification of Christ and of the Thessalonians. Not for their salvation per se, but that Christ might be glorified through their lives.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 5
vs 15
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's such a cliche, but can we keep ourselves from wanting to do it?
Being kind to "each other and everyone else" is a very good verse to illustrate the distinct separation made in the New Testament between Christians and non-Christians. Every time you read a verse referring to "one another", or "your brothers" or "each other" - that is referring to Christians! The letters the Bible contains are all to Christian churches. "Love your brother" does not mean "love all mankind". There are other verses that tell you to do that. But love for other Christians has so much primacy, both in the gospels and in the letters. It should radically change how we see the outworking of our faith, and perhaps to some extent Christian ministry.
vs 16-18
Here's some rapid machine-gun verses. Note the focus on how often you should do them. God's will for us in Christ is for all these things to be done all the time.
vs 19
Ok, I hate the song, but the verse is good. How often do we really think that it's us who is stifling the Spirit's work within us?
vs 20
Hot diggity daffodils. Imagine quoting this one to one of our more conservative siblings eh? This reminds me - a couple of weeks ago in Church History we were studying John Wesley and the revival in which he took part across England. Wht you often don't hear is that documented within that revival are signs of every pentecostal type thing happening, except glossolalia (tongues), although our lecturer thinks they just didn't know what to say about it. But one of his terms made me laugh, "floor time". It makes it sound like a prerequisite for involvement in a pentecostal movement, and for some churches it might be, but I just think it sounds funny. "Oh, he's clocked up several minutes of floor time". We can laugh, but then they can respond "Well, 1 Thess 5:20 mate". Then we either get into an argument about the meaning of the word prophesy or we shut the hell up. Doubtless the Thessalonians knew what PS&T meant.
It could mean, by the way, the writings of the OT prophets - Peter uses the same word in 2 Peter to talk about the OT prophets. But just about every time Paul uses it, it refers to the gift of.
vs 21
Plus, of course, PS&T refer here to testing everything - which is an obvious parallel to 1 John's "test the spirits". But they broaden it out to everything. Now this is not the Biblical equivalent of "try everything once except incest and folk dancing". Here's a lesson that the post-modern world could stand to learn - you don't need to try something to know there's something wrong with it!
Next time, when someone says "Just try it, how can you judge it without trying it first?" This is the national anthem of Hell. It's on Satan's flag. Would you eat some berries without knowing if they were poisonous or not? Dumb. Next time someone says that to you, reply "Hey, I hear having sex with corpses is a ball - oh, don't knock it till you've tried it bud". You don't need to practice necrophilia to know it's wrong. Thankfully, God brings into his kingdom people from all walks of life who have done all these bad things, so that we can point to them and say"He did it, and told me it's dumb and horrible and ruins your life". But that's not necessary for a logical decision.
This also means that you don't need to read the whole Koran to know that Mohammed is not a prophet from God. What you do need to know is how to judge what he says according to what you believe - that's what you need to know, the tenets of your own belief.
This argument poses a bit of a problem for Christians, because non-Christians can (and have, and do regularly) say that they don't want to be Christian, and our rather sneaky response is "How can you know you don't want to be a Christian if you haven't tried it?" or "if you don't really know what it means?" This sort of attitude is leaning heavily toward Arminianism, and that is a heresy boys and girls. Now I'm no hyper-Calvinist, but Arminianism has a hell of a lot more problems than Calvinism does. People who want to be Christians will be attracted to it - they will read the Bible, they will ask Christians why their lives are so different. They will make comments like "Oh, I want that thing that you've got. I don't know what it is, but I envy your life so much!" Ok, this doesn't mean that these people are walking around as undercover Christians just waiting to be saved. That's a Muslim argument. No, these people are walking around in depravity, but some want out. Sometimes it will take a challenge. Sometimes it will take explaining the gospel to them. But some people will say "Oh, I don't need to hear that right now". It's the wrong response, but we've got to respect it, and be ready for if they change their minds.
Hello Mr Tangent. You're taking me back to the point? How nice of you.
What this verse means, though, is that we as Christians should judge things by our faith, not by doing them first, and hold on to the things that are good.
vs 22
And consequently, avoid the evil.
vs 23-24
These actions are not based on us. God will sanctify. We will be kept blameless. God is faithful, he will do it. It's his job, not ours. It's a comforting thought to know that all the important stuff is taken care of.
vs 25
Don't take this literally - PS&T don't need your prayers anymore. Instead, why not pray for those who brought you to Christ, or who seek to encourage you, disciple you, mentor you? They might not be asking for it.
vs 26
Another verse with no need for literal interpretation. Please read this verse through the eyes of good hermenutics. My beard is itchy.
vs 27
Once again, just because you've read 1 Thessalonians doesn't mean you must now go and read it out in front of the church. Although it does give me a good idea for a sermon...
vs 28
And with you too.
Chapter 5
vs 15
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's such a cliche, but can we keep ourselves from wanting to do it?
Being kind to "each other and everyone else" is a very good verse to illustrate the distinct separation made in the New Testament between Christians and non-Christians. Every time you read a verse referring to "one another", or "your brothers" or "each other" - that is referring to Christians! The letters the Bible contains are all to Christian churches. "Love your brother" does not mean "love all mankind". There are other verses that tell you to do that. But love for other Christians has so much primacy, both in the gospels and in the letters. It should radically change how we see the outworking of our faith, and perhaps to some extent Christian ministry.
vs 16-18
Here's some rapid machine-gun verses. Note the focus on how often you should do them. God's will for us in Christ is for all these things to be done all the time.
vs 19
Ok, I hate the song, but the verse is good. How often do we really think that it's us who is stifling the Spirit's work within us?
vs 20
Hot diggity daffodils. Imagine quoting this one to one of our more conservative siblings eh? This reminds me - a couple of weeks ago in Church History we were studying John Wesley and the revival in which he took part across England. Wht you often don't hear is that documented within that revival are signs of every pentecostal type thing happening, except glossolalia (tongues), although our lecturer thinks they just didn't know what to say about it. But one of his terms made me laugh, "floor time". It makes it sound like a prerequisite for involvement in a pentecostal movement, and for some churches it might be, but I just think it sounds funny. "Oh, he's clocked up several minutes of floor time". We can laugh, but then they can respond "Well, 1 Thess 5:20 mate". Then we either get into an argument about the meaning of the word prophesy or we shut the hell up. Doubtless the Thessalonians knew what PS&T meant.
It could mean, by the way, the writings of the OT prophets - Peter uses the same word in 2 Peter to talk about the OT prophets. But just about every time Paul uses it, it refers to the gift of.
vs 21
Plus, of course, PS&T refer here to testing everything - which is an obvious parallel to 1 John's "test the spirits". But they broaden it out to everything. Now this is not the Biblical equivalent of "try everything once except incest and folk dancing". Here's a lesson that the post-modern world could stand to learn - you don't need to try something to know there's something wrong with it!
Next time, when someone says "Just try it, how can you judge it without trying it first?" This is the national anthem of Hell. It's on Satan's flag. Would you eat some berries without knowing if they were poisonous or not? Dumb. Next time someone says that to you, reply "Hey, I hear having sex with corpses is a ball - oh, don't knock it till you've tried it bud". You don't need to practice necrophilia to know it's wrong. Thankfully, God brings into his kingdom people from all walks of life who have done all these bad things, so that we can point to them and say"He did it, and told me it's dumb and horrible and ruins your life". But that's not necessary for a logical decision.
This also means that you don't need to read the whole Koran to know that Mohammed is not a prophet from God. What you do need to know is how to judge what he says according to what you believe - that's what you need to know, the tenets of your own belief.
This argument poses a bit of a problem for Christians, because non-Christians can (and have, and do regularly) say that they don't want to be Christian, and our rather sneaky response is "How can you know you don't want to be a Christian if you haven't tried it?" or "if you don't really know what it means?" This sort of attitude is leaning heavily toward Arminianism, and that is a heresy boys and girls. Now I'm no hyper-Calvinist, but Arminianism has a hell of a lot more problems than Calvinism does. People who want to be Christians will be attracted to it - they will read the Bible, they will ask Christians why their lives are so different. They will make comments like "Oh, I want that thing that you've got. I don't know what it is, but I envy your life so much!" Ok, this doesn't mean that these people are walking around as undercover Christians just waiting to be saved. That's a Muslim argument. No, these people are walking around in depravity, but some want out. Sometimes it will take a challenge. Sometimes it will take explaining the gospel to them. But some people will say "Oh, I don't need to hear that right now". It's the wrong response, but we've got to respect it, and be ready for if they change their minds.
Hello Mr Tangent. You're taking me back to the point? How nice of you.
What this verse means, though, is that we as Christians should judge things by our faith, not by doing them first, and hold on to the things that are good.
vs 22
And consequently, avoid the evil.
vs 23-24
These actions are not based on us. God will sanctify. We will be kept blameless. God is faithful, he will do it. It's his job, not ours. It's a comforting thought to know that all the important stuff is taken care of.
vs 25
Don't take this literally - PS&T don't need your prayers anymore. Instead, why not pray for those who brought you to Christ, or who seek to encourage you, disciple you, mentor you? They might not be asking for it.
vs 26
Another verse with no need for literal interpretation. Please read this verse through the eyes of good hermenutics. My beard is itchy.
vs 27
Once again, just because you've read 1 Thessalonians doesn't mean you must now go and read it out in front of the church. Although it does give me a good idea for a sermon...
vs 28
And with you too.
Monday, August 21, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 5
vs 1
...but we will anyway.
vs 2
ie sneakily, without warning, and in ways you wouldn't expect.
vs 3
Labour pains is a good analogy. I mean, you know you're pregnant, but you never know exactly when the labour's going to start. Then again, anyone who stands around saying "Peace and safety" deserves what they get.
vs 4
In broad daylight, when you see the guy in black with the mask and the big bag with "SWAG" on the side, you should get the hint.
vs 5
One of the many biblical references to light being good and darkness being bad. I guess we have to remember that in pre-electricity societies, when the sun goes down, it suddenly gets really dark. And if you're out really late at night, then you are probably scum trying to hide something. See, at night there's not enough light to work by - and most people had to work all day to get by - but there's enough light to drink by, or to steal by, or to do other things by.
vs 6
Not asleep as in the earlier term, meaning dead. PS&T really mean asleep here, althuogh it's metaphorical - Christians are allowed to sleep. But it's a good verse for anyone who interprets the Bible literalistically.
In the same way, then, our alertness is metaphorical, and that's why it's there with self-control. It's not like we don't get into heaven if we don't recognise Jesus the moment he comes back. We have to be alert to the fact of his return by how we live our lives. We don't need to have a 24 hour roving patrol of the sky - the archangel and trumpet and stuff should be enough to let us know he's back.
vs 7
This is what I was saying before. If you're on a picket duty, you can't be asleep or drunk. If you're asleep, the enemy'll sneak past you and you'll miss them. If you are drunk, you won't be able to shoot straight and might end up hurting your own guys. But if you're alert, you'll be ready for them, and if you're self-controlled, you can kneecap them, capture them, and torture out of them the location of their allies and who sent them. Woohoo!
vs 8
So we're meant to be the good sentry watch guy. Except we don't kneecap people with guns, it seems. We use faith, love, and the hope of salvation. Which might not seem like effective protection until you realise who your enemies are.
vs 9
We've got an appointment with the salvation doctor. It's the interesting classic paradox of Christianity that God has done something (appointed us not for wrath but salvation) so therefore we should do something (faith, love, hope).
vs 10
Now we're back to alive and dead. The purpose of Jesus' death was so that we can live together with him. It's always interesting to take verses like that and compare them to all the other verses that say "The reason Jesus died was..."
vs 11
Remember that all this stuff was written to the Thessalonians. And, in fact, they were already doing it. So PS&T are just giving them a joyful reminder to keep up the good work. Probably the worst thing about being a thriving, good church was getting only short letters from Paul. That and the persecution of course.
vs 12
These are all the same people. It's not creating a caste system or anything. He's talking about church leaders. The job is that much harder without respect, I can assure you.
vs 13
Being on the leadership of a church is the spiritual equivalent of being on the leadership of some large multinational corporation, or of being a high-ranking officer in the military (perhaps an enclosed system like a ship is the best example). But it's even harder to shepherd a flock of Christians than it is to get a bunch of workers to make you money. The modern church is in a double-bind: it's losing respect because of the lowest-common-denominator effect of post-modern relativist thinking, and its losing the ability to engage in church discipline because of a lack of fidelity to church institutions. It's like accountability without authority, and that basically equals scapegoat.
And live in peace with one another. Harder than it sounds, and what a pity for the church.
vs 14
I want you to read this list backwards. Be patient with everyone. Help the weak. Encourage the timid. Warn the idle. Then do them in that order. To me it looks like PS&T put them in order from easiest to hardest. Of course, we should be doing all of them all the time. But it's easy to focus on the easy ones. We have to be ready for the idle to also be the weak or the timid.
Chapter 5
vs 1
...but we will anyway.
vs 2
ie sneakily, without warning, and in ways you wouldn't expect.
vs 3
Labour pains is a good analogy. I mean, you know you're pregnant, but you never know exactly when the labour's going to start. Then again, anyone who stands around saying "Peace and safety" deserves what they get.
vs 4
In broad daylight, when you see the guy in black with the mask and the big bag with "SWAG" on the side, you should get the hint.
vs 5
One of the many biblical references to light being good and darkness being bad. I guess we have to remember that in pre-electricity societies, when the sun goes down, it suddenly gets really dark. And if you're out really late at night, then you are probably scum trying to hide something. See, at night there's not enough light to work by - and most people had to work all day to get by - but there's enough light to drink by, or to steal by, or to do other things by.
vs 6
Not asleep as in the earlier term, meaning dead. PS&T really mean asleep here, althuogh it's metaphorical - Christians are allowed to sleep. But it's a good verse for anyone who interprets the Bible literalistically.
In the same way, then, our alertness is metaphorical, and that's why it's there with self-control. It's not like we don't get into heaven if we don't recognise Jesus the moment he comes back. We have to be alert to the fact of his return by how we live our lives. We don't need to have a 24 hour roving patrol of the sky - the archangel and trumpet and stuff should be enough to let us know he's back.
vs 7
This is what I was saying before. If you're on a picket duty, you can't be asleep or drunk. If you're asleep, the enemy'll sneak past you and you'll miss them. If you are drunk, you won't be able to shoot straight and might end up hurting your own guys. But if you're alert, you'll be ready for them, and if you're self-controlled, you can kneecap them, capture them, and torture out of them the location of their allies and who sent them. Woohoo!
vs 8
So we're meant to be the good sentry watch guy. Except we don't kneecap people with guns, it seems. We use faith, love, and the hope of salvation. Which might not seem like effective protection until you realise who your enemies are.
vs 9
We've got an appointment with the salvation doctor. It's the interesting classic paradox of Christianity that God has done something (appointed us not for wrath but salvation) so therefore we should do something (faith, love, hope).
vs 10
Now we're back to alive and dead. The purpose of Jesus' death was so that we can live together with him. It's always interesting to take verses like that and compare them to all the other verses that say "The reason Jesus died was..."
vs 11
Remember that all this stuff was written to the Thessalonians. And, in fact, they were already doing it. So PS&T are just giving them a joyful reminder to keep up the good work. Probably the worst thing about being a thriving, good church was getting only short letters from Paul. That and the persecution of course.
vs 12
These are all the same people. It's not creating a caste system or anything. He's talking about church leaders. The job is that much harder without respect, I can assure you.
vs 13
Being on the leadership of a church is the spiritual equivalent of being on the leadership of some large multinational corporation, or of being a high-ranking officer in the military (perhaps an enclosed system like a ship is the best example). But it's even harder to shepherd a flock of Christians than it is to get a bunch of workers to make you money. The modern church is in a double-bind: it's losing respect because of the lowest-common-denominator effect of post-modern relativist thinking, and its losing the ability to engage in church discipline because of a lack of fidelity to church institutions. It's like accountability without authority, and that basically equals scapegoat.
And live in peace with one another. Harder than it sounds, and what a pity for the church.
vs 14
I want you to read this list backwards. Be patient with everyone. Help the weak. Encourage the timid. Warn the idle. Then do them in that order. To me it looks like PS&T put them in order from easiest to hardest. Of course, we should be doing all of them all the time. But it's easy to focus on the easy ones. We have to be ready for the idle to also be the weak or the timid.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 4
vs 11
Man, this verse has frustrated me to know end. As far as I can tell, the translation of the word "business" is completely confused. Of course, 'business' is one of these words that can mean eleven different things according to the dictionary. So what do PS&T mean here when they say "mind your own business"? Do they mean "work to ensure the future of your business enterprise" or "continue in your specific occupation" or "watch the amount of commercial trade"? Do they mean the more colloquial "mind your own personal matters" (as in "It's none of my business")?
What I can tell you is that nowhere in the greek does any form of any word that means or is ever translated "business" exist. What does the greek say? "Practise your own things". Ok, so they were vague. You've got to assume that the term "mind your own business" is the colloquial - that is, don't stick your nose in where it's not wanted.
What does "to be quiet" mean? Perhaps they were talking to the women? (Dont' get me started on that one). It actually means "to rest from labour" or to "not run around like a headless chook".
"Work with your..." - at least that's accurate. This is the same word PS&T use to describe their work day and night to not be a burden to the Thessalonians, so I think you're safe in thinking it's about working to sustain your life.
"...own hands." Ok, to give you an idea what the term "hand" means here - this term is almost exclusively used in talking about the "Hand (or Hands) of God". This greek word (its root is cheir) does not mean hands. Not even remotely. Even its root word doesn't have anything to do with hands (it means to pour - the term for winter storm in greek comes from the same root "pouring rain").
So the next person who tells me that PS&T in 1 Thessalonians is advocating physical labour type work with "your hands" is going to be in for a shock - PS&T are basically saying here "work with whatever it is you have that you can work with". IT'S OK TO USE YOUR BRAIN TO SERVE GOD! Far out, as if God is going to say something so specific like "you must serve me with your hands - if you can't do something dexterous, you're out of the kingdom". I'm glad God has more foresight than translators.
So, when you read this verse, you should read something like "Strive eagerly not run around like a headless chook, but to keep your cool. Do that thing that you do (or keep your nose out of people's affairs) and support yourself for living by whatever means God has given you, just like we told you". Of course, a lot of those words aren't in the greek - but then, neither is "business" or "hands".
vs 12
The reason you do these things (once you finally understand what you're meant to do - thankfully the people who got the letter first wouldn't have had this problem) is so that your life is attractive to those who don't have it. "Quiet" in the last verse didn't mean "don't attract attention" it meant "don't work yourself to death". People will notice, and want, the life you have when you just calmly go through difficult situations, instead running from side to side, bumping into things and screaming alot as if the USS Enterprise just got hit by Klingons.
"Not be dependent on anybody" is a crappy translation. Methinks the translators had something against dole bludgers. The KJV "that you may have lack of nothing" is far more literal. It's the need of nothing that is key, not the dependence. After all, what about the widows and orphans the church is meant to look after?
vs 13
Ok, now we get onto what the Thessalonian letters are known for - eschatology. So PS&T's concern here is that the people of Thessalonica don't grieve for those who have died as if they were pagans who had no hope.
vs 14
Our hope in this regard is based on Jesus being brought back from the dead by God. If God has done it for Jesus, then he can do it for Christians too. Now look at this, because it's interesting - the Thessalonians, who PS&T have praised so much, and love so dearly, don't even have a good understanding of the end times! They may very well have thought that if you died before Christ returned, it was too late for you, and you weren't going to heaven! But PS&T don't berate them for it - they just correct them.
vs 15
Those who have died are actually before we who are still alive, or who will still be alive when the Lord returns. Not in an ancestor worship kind of way (or a saints praying to sort of way). You can trust this, because Jesus said it himself.
vs 16
PS&T obviously know something we don't (well, we do now because we've read it). I'm not sure why an archangel has to be there, but it would seem it is to announce him (with voice and perhaps trumpet).
vs 17
Only after that will those still alive be taken up. I'm not going to start on a whole pre-, post-, non-millenial argument here. Sufficed to say that the Bible says what it says here. The dead will be raised, there will be some still alive, and those together will end up meeting in the air somehow. And then they'll be with the Lord forever.
vs 18
This verse is very important!!!! Look how many exclaimation marks I used and beware. So often at funerals and so on we say "Oh, he's with the Lord now" or "She's been called home to be with Christ". Now, whether those things are true or not in some way I'm not going to argue about. No, instead, I want to point to the clear advice of PS&T - encourage each other with the fact that one day, we will all be caught up together and live with the Lord forever. The bodily ressurection is of so much vital importance to Christianity. This whole "our souls go to heaven" stuff is bordering on gnostic heresy. What happens to our souls in between dying and Christ's return? 1 Thessalonians doesn't make it clear. But it does make clear that our hope is based on the return of Christ, and our bodily ressurection - so keep that in mind.
Chapter 4
vs 11
Man, this verse has frustrated me to know end. As far as I can tell, the translation of the word "business" is completely confused. Of course, 'business' is one of these words that can mean eleven different things according to the dictionary. So what do PS&T mean here when they say "mind your own business"? Do they mean "work to ensure the future of your business enterprise" or "continue in your specific occupation" or "watch the amount of commercial trade"? Do they mean the more colloquial "mind your own personal matters" (as in "It's none of my business")?
What I can tell you is that nowhere in the greek does any form of any word that means or is ever translated "business" exist. What does the greek say? "Practise your own things". Ok, so they were vague. You've got to assume that the term "mind your own business" is the colloquial - that is, don't stick your nose in where it's not wanted.
What does "to be quiet" mean? Perhaps they were talking to the women? (Dont' get me started on that one). It actually means "to rest from labour" or to "not run around like a headless chook".
"Work with your..." - at least that's accurate. This is the same word PS&T use to describe their work day and night to not be a burden to the Thessalonians, so I think you're safe in thinking it's about working to sustain your life.
"...own hands." Ok, to give you an idea what the term "hand" means here - this term is almost exclusively used in talking about the "Hand (or Hands) of God". This greek word (its root is cheir) does not mean hands. Not even remotely. Even its root word doesn't have anything to do with hands (it means to pour - the term for winter storm in greek comes from the same root "pouring rain").
So the next person who tells me that PS&T in 1 Thessalonians is advocating physical labour type work with "your hands" is going to be in for a shock - PS&T are basically saying here "work with whatever it is you have that you can work with". IT'S OK TO USE YOUR BRAIN TO SERVE GOD! Far out, as if God is going to say something so specific like "you must serve me with your hands - if you can't do something dexterous, you're out of the kingdom". I'm glad God has more foresight than translators.
So, when you read this verse, you should read something like "Strive eagerly not run around like a headless chook, but to keep your cool. Do that thing that you do (or keep your nose out of people's affairs) and support yourself for living by whatever means God has given you, just like we told you". Of course, a lot of those words aren't in the greek - but then, neither is "business" or "hands".
vs 12
The reason you do these things (once you finally understand what you're meant to do - thankfully the people who got the letter first wouldn't have had this problem) is so that your life is attractive to those who don't have it. "Quiet" in the last verse didn't mean "don't attract attention" it meant "don't work yourself to death". People will notice, and want, the life you have when you just calmly go through difficult situations, instead running from side to side, bumping into things and screaming alot as if the USS Enterprise just got hit by Klingons.
"Not be dependent on anybody" is a crappy translation. Methinks the translators had something against dole bludgers. The KJV "that you may have lack of nothing" is far more literal. It's the need of nothing that is key, not the dependence. After all, what about the widows and orphans the church is meant to look after?
vs 13
Ok, now we get onto what the Thessalonian letters are known for - eschatology. So PS&T's concern here is that the people of Thessalonica don't grieve for those who have died as if they were pagans who had no hope.
vs 14
Our hope in this regard is based on Jesus being brought back from the dead by God. If God has done it for Jesus, then he can do it for Christians too. Now look at this, because it's interesting - the Thessalonians, who PS&T have praised so much, and love so dearly, don't even have a good understanding of the end times! They may very well have thought that if you died before Christ returned, it was too late for you, and you weren't going to heaven! But PS&T don't berate them for it - they just correct them.
vs 15
Those who have died are actually before we who are still alive, or who will still be alive when the Lord returns. Not in an ancestor worship kind of way (or a saints praying to sort of way). You can trust this, because Jesus said it himself.
vs 16
PS&T obviously know something we don't (well, we do now because we've read it). I'm not sure why an archangel has to be there, but it would seem it is to announce him (with voice and perhaps trumpet).
vs 17
Only after that will those still alive be taken up. I'm not going to start on a whole pre-, post-, non-millenial argument here. Sufficed to say that the Bible says what it says here. The dead will be raised, there will be some still alive, and those together will end up meeting in the air somehow. And then they'll be with the Lord forever.
vs 18
This verse is very important!!!! Look how many exclaimation marks I used and beware. So often at funerals and so on we say "Oh, he's with the Lord now" or "She's been called home to be with Christ". Now, whether those things are true or not in some way I'm not going to argue about. No, instead, I want to point to the clear advice of PS&T - encourage each other with the fact that one day, we will all be caught up together and live with the Lord forever. The bodily ressurection is of so much vital importance to Christianity. This whole "our souls go to heaven" stuff is bordering on gnostic heresy. What happens to our souls in between dying and Christ's return? 1 Thessalonians doesn't make it clear. But it does make clear that our hope is based on the return of Christ, and our bodily ressurection - so keep that in mind.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 4
vs 1
I personally find it annoying when you're doing something as best you can, and someone tells you "That's great - now do it better, and do it more". But that's the message here. And when you're living to please God, there is always room for improvement I guess.
vs 2
You know what instructions we gave you - and here they are again!
vs 3
Ok, I'm not going to pretend to be a greek scholar here, but in trying to work out if this whole section (3-8) is about sex or not, I've been looking at the wording, and this is what it looks like it says to me, "For God's will is your sanctification, to obstain you from sexual immorality". Which puts it far more in God's court than ours. This doesn't change the message of the verse, as the next verse is explicit in our responsibility to control our own body, and the verses before are explicit in our responsibility to live a life pleasing to God.
I guess you can err on the side of caution and say "verse about responsibility on the left, verse on the right, the one in the middle is about your actions too". But I like the mix of responsibilities between us and God. And it is Biblical, just whether it is expressed here or not I'm not 100% sure. Certainly the NIV translation doesn't make it crystal clear. But perhaps it's got something to do with how we read the term "God's will". I mean, is this verse saying (as surely some people read it) "God wants you to be sanctified, so pretty please avoid sexual immorality" (God's will becoming what he would like), or is it saying "God has decreed by his will that you will be sanctified, that you will avoid sexual immorality. Oh yes, you will" (which makes it far more explicit that God isn't just wishing it would happen, but that he's going to make it happen).
Hmm, God's will - it's not just for ignoring anymore.
vs 4
If it makes you feel better, the word for "control" isn't in the greek - it literally says "that each one of you know (that is, be able) to possess the vessel of himself in sanctification and honour". So it's not telling you in the footnote to control your wife, but it is espousing self-control, so it's a good translation. Instead, it's saying you should own your wife in a God-honouring way :D
vs 5
So now we're trying to work out if PS&T are talking about general passion and lust, or specific passion and lust regarding other people's wives. I mean, we're talking about a society that had orgies. Orgies, people! If that's not treating your wife with a lack of respect and honour, I don't know what is. In any case, take it both ways, and don't put yourself or your spouse in such positions. You're one flesh anyway.
vs 6
And you certainly shouldn't be dragging your siblings in Christ into this whole mess. Because if you trick them or take advantage of them, God ("God The Avenger" in the greek) will be after you. Obviously PS&T did a little fire&brimstone preaching when they were in Thessalonica, because they told them this already.
vs 7
God's call to us is for a holy life. And as we read above, that is also his will. So an impure life is actually an uphill battle. I mean, you think sometimes that it's sooo hard to live a holy life, because of peer pressure and advertising and your selfish nature etc. Well, an impure life is going directly against God's will - who's going to make your life more miserable? Which one's harder to push?
vs 8
Why do PS&T mention God's giving of the Holy Spirit here? Is it to again highlight that God's will is being done in your life through this Spirit, which you will have trouble fighting? Or is he referring to the fact that God gave you his Holy Spirit, and if you're rejecting these instructions, you're rejective the Holy Spirit - the unpardonable sin?
vs 9-10
I've been trying to use the word "siblings" instead of "brothers" or "brothers and sisters" or "sons and daughters" of God. But the translation doesn't help. It's really stupid, because the word is 'philadelphia' - that is literally love for the womb. So it means love for those who come out of the same womb (although it does actually refer to people who have the same father but different mothers too - having the same ancestor). So why did the buggers translate it "brotherly love"? I'll tell you why - it's the maleocentric maleocracy! It should really mean "sibling love" or, because that sounds stupid, "family love"! Hell, it could even say "patriotic love" (meaning love for your own people) because it also has that sense of "countrymen" (countrypersons?). It's when you see things like this that you are forced to go out and buy a TNIV.
Anyway, the Thessalonians had no problem with this concept - they knew what it meant, and spread it out not just among themselves, but all over Macedonia. And PS&T still want them to do it more. There's always more loving to be done.
Chapter 4
vs 1
I personally find it annoying when you're doing something as best you can, and someone tells you "That's great - now do it better, and do it more". But that's the message here. And when you're living to please God, there is always room for improvement I guess.
vs 2
You know what instructions we gave you - and here they are again!
vs 3
Ok, I'm not going to pretend to be a greek scholar here, but in trying to work out if this whole section (3-8) is about sex or not, I've been looking at the wording, and this is what it looks like it says to me, "For God's will is your sanctification, to obstain you from sexual immorality". Which puts it far more in God's court than ours. This doesn't change the message of the verse, as the next verse is explicit in our responsibility to control our own body, and the verses before are explicit in our responsibility to live a life pleasing to God.
I guess you can err on the side of caution and say "verse about responsibility on the left, verse on the right, the one in the middle is about your actions too". But I like the mix of responsibilities between us and God. And it is Biblical, just whether it is expressed here or not I'm not 100% sure. Certainly the NIV translation doesn't make it crystal clear. But perhaps it's got something to do with how we read the term "God's will". I mean, is this verse saying (as surely some people read it) "God wants you to be sanctified, so pretty please avoid sexual immorality" (God's will becoming what he would like), or is it saying "God has decreed by his will that you will be sanctified, that you will avoid sexual immorality. Oh yes, you will" (which makes it far more explicit that God isn't just wishing it would happen, but that he's going to make it happen).
Hmm, God's will - it's not just for ignoring anymore.
vs 4
If it makes you feel better, the word for "control" isn't in the greek - it literally says "that each one of you know (that is, be able) to possess the vessel of himself in sanctification and honour". So it's not telling you in the footnote to control your wife, but it is espousing self-control, so it's a good translation. Instead, it's saying you should own your wife in a God-honouring way :D
vs 5
So now we're trying to work out if PS&T are talking about general passion and lust, or specific passion and lust regarding other people's wives. I mean, we're talking about a society that had orgies. Orgies, people! If that's not treating your wife with a lack of respect and honour, I don't know what is. In any case, take it both ways, and don't put yourself or your spouse in such positions. You're one flesh anyway.
vs 6
And you certainly shouldn't be dragging your siblings in Christ into this whole mess. Because if you trick them or take advantage of them, God ("God The Avenger" in the greek) will be after you. Obviously PS&T did a little fire&brimstone preaching when they were in Thessalonica, because they told them this already.
vs 7
God's call to us is for a holy life. And as we read above, that is also his will. So an impure life is actually an uphill battle. I mean, you think sometimes that it's sooo hard to live a holy life, because of peer pressure and advertising and your selfish nature etc. Well, an impure life is going directly against God's will - who's going to make your life more miserable? Which one's harder to push?
vs 8
Why do PS&T mention God's giving of the Holy Spirit here? Is it to again highlight that God's will is being done in your life through this Spirit, which you will have trouble fighting? Or is he referring to the fact that God gave you his Holy Spirit, and if you're rejecting these instructions, you're rejective the Holy Spirit - the unpardonable sin?
vs 9-10
I've been trying to use the word "siblings" instead of "brothers" or "brothers and sisters" or "sons and daughters" of God. But the translation doesn't help. It's really stupid, because the word is 'philadelphia' - that is literally love for the womb. So it means love for those who come out of the same womb (although it does actually refer to people who have the same father but different mothers too - having the same ancestor). So why did the buggers translate it "brotherly love"? I'll tell you why - it's the maleocentric maleocracy! It should really mean "sibling love" or, because that sounds stupid, "family love"! Hell, it could even say "patriotic love" (meaning love for your own people) because it also has that sense of "countrymen" (countrypersons?). It's when you see things like this that you are forced to go out and buy a TNIV.
Anyway, the Thessalonians had no problem with this concept - they knew what it meant, and spread it out not just among themselves, but all over Macedonia. And PS&T still want them to do it more. There's always more loving to be done.
Friday, August 18, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 3
vs 1
Ok, I'm going to have to do a little scholarly work here to find out what time period we're talking about. But as I suspected, this one is quite easy. If you read Acts 17-18, you will see that Paul is separated from Silas and Timothy at Berea, and sent to Athens alone. He then goes to Corinth while Silas and Timothy go to Macedonia. At some point around this time, Timothy goes to Thessalonica too. That's what these verses are about, and so give us a good date of when the letter was written - most probably while Paul was in Corinth on his second missionary journey.
The continued use of 'we' is confusing here, because supposedly Silas and Timothy are not with Paul in Athens. It could be possible some of the brothers of Berea stayed with him - who knows.
vs 2
In Acts we are told that Paul sent messages to Silas and Timothy to get back to him as soon as possible - they could have said "as soon as possible, after you've visited the Thessalonians again" for all we know.
They had not had PS&T with them long, and so Paul obviously felt that they needed some further encouragement. This letter, written after Timothy's report, must then be full of the glowing reports that Timothy brought back with him.
vs 3
PS&T were worried that the trials they were suffering might upset the Thessalonians! And yet, these persecutions were meant to happen, and this was shared with Thessalonian church.
vs 4
The kind of prophecy you don't want to make, and don't want to become true. But PS&T had been around - they knew what their work would bring.
vs 5
So Timothy wasn't merely sent for their encouragement - he was also sent because of worry that the church had closed and the believers had lapsed.
vs 6
But the news is good! Notice that it's not just church news (about faith and love) but it's also news about relationships (pleasant memories, longings to see each other). PS&T were obviously more than itinerant preachers to these people - they were close friends.
vs 7
So PS&T can be joyful because of the encouragement that the church at Thessalonica is to them, despite the sufferings they go through.
vs 8
"We live if you stand" is how the greek reads (not that the NIV translation isn't good - I think it is). That's a great picture of partnership, and of the relationship that exists.
vs 9
This news makes PS&T so joyful that they not only recognise God's work in it, but specifically God's work for their own encouragement and joy! That's a lot of joy methinks.
vs 10
Throughout all this, though, PS&T still seek to return, because Thessalonica is a young church, and is still lacking. They haven't had a year of teaching like Corinth had (and yet they are still such an encouragement! Compare that to Corinth!).
vs 11
Here is their prayer that they can go back to Thessalonica.
vs 12
PS&T never said that they were a loveless people - this is not a corrective. If you've ever thought "What can I pray for someone who's a great, encouraging Christian?" pray this.
vs 13
And this too.
Chapter 3
vs 1
Ok, I'm going to have to do a little scholarly work here to find out what time period we're talking about. But as I suspected, this one is quite easy. If you read Acts 17-18, you will see that Paul is separated from Silas and Timothy at Berea, and sent to Athens alone. He then goes to Corinth while Silas and Timothy go to Macedonia. At some point around this time, Timothy goes to Thessalonica too. That's what these verses are about, and so give us a good date of when the letter was written - most probably while Paul was in Corinth on his second missionary journey.
The continued use of 'we' is confusing here, because supposedly Silas and Timothy are not with Paul in Athens. It could be possible some of the brothers of Berea stayed with him - who knows.
vs 2
In Acts we are told that Paul sent messages to Silas and Timothy to get back to him as soon as possible - they could have said "as soon as possible, after you've visited the Thessalonians again" for all we know.
They had not had PS&T with them long, and so Paul obviously felt that they needed some further encouragement. This letter, written after Timothy's report, must then be full of the glowing reports that Timothy brought back with him.
vs 3
PS&T were worried that the trials they were suffering might upset the Thessalonians! And yet, these persecutions were meant to happen, and this was shared with Thessalonian church.
vs 4
The kind of prophecy you don't want to make, and don't want to become true. But PS&T had been around - they knew what their work would bring.
vs 5
So Timothy wasn't merely sent for their encouragement - he was also sent because of worry that the church had closed and the believers had lapsed.
vs 6
But the news is good! Notice that it's not just church news (about faith and love) but it's also news about relationships (pleasant memories, longings to see each other). PS&T were obviously more than itinerant preachers to these people - they were close friends.
vs 7
So PS&T can be joyful because of the encouragement that the church at Thessalonica is to them, despite the sufferings they go through.
vs 8
"We live if you stand" is how the greek reads (not that the NIV translation isn't good - I think it is). That's a great picture of partnership, and of the relationship that exists.
vs 9
This news makes PS&T so joyful that they not only recognise God's work in it, but specifically God's work for their own encouragement and joy! That's a lot of joy methinks.
vs 10
Throughout all this, though, PS&T still seek to return, because Thessalonica is a young church, and is still lacking. They haven't had a year of teaching like Corinth had (and yet they are still such an encouragement! Compare that to Corinth!).
vs 11
Here is their prayer that they can go back to Thessalonica.
vs 12
PS&T never said that they were a loveless people - this is not a corrective. If you've ever thought "What can I pray for someone who's a great, encouraging Christian?" pray this.
vs 13
And this too.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 2
vs 11-12
So PS&T have been both mother and father to the Thessalonians - mothers are gentle and caring, while fathers are encouraging, comforting and urging. I wonder if that is how we treat our children, and moreso, if that is how we treat the world we are trying to reach with the gospel?
vs 13
This is worth praising God for. It wouldn't be the first time, at least for Paul, that people had thought he was a god, and that's no good for your ministry. It's very interesting at seeing what has happened to make the work so fruitful in Thessalonica. The people (some at least) were prepared to believe the word was the Word of God, they were prepared to ditch their idols, they were accepting of those who came with the message. Basically, they were open to the message.
It doesn't always happen like that, of course. We don't have "Paul's letter to the Athenians" for example.
vs 14
Note that PS&T are not saying, at least in my reading, that the Thessalonian church imitated the Judean church in its traditions and activities. They imitated it by their suffering. Oh golly gosh - you mean the Thessalonian church isn't doing things the way it's done in Acts 2:42, but it's still a New Testament church that receives praises from Paul! Shock horror!
vs 15
Yes, PS&T would get dragged into court for saying this these days. I wonder what would happen if I went and read it out aloud in the city square, or had it published on a shirt?
vs 16
Killing Jesus for selfish purposes, hostility so as to prevent gentiles from hearing the gospel - they pile it on like ice cream. The greek for that last bit is in the past tense - perhaps Paul is saying that their denial, and indeed violent opposition, to the gospel is the show of the wrath of God because they are Jews (ie the ones who are supposed to be trying to follow God). So it would seem that sometimes, being such a stickler for tradition and your own church paradigm that you violently oppose a movement that is of God (*coughpentecostalismcough*) is wrath of God in itself - after all, you've put yourself in opposition to a movement of God, and you sit there saying "Hah, I sure showed them".
vs 17
I think the opposition that PS&T present here with the use of the word 'but', is an opposition of action primarily. So they say "The Jews were eager to stop us preaching to you, but we are eager when away from you to come back to you". It could also be "The Jews were keen to stop you hearing us, but didn't really care to tell you any truth - they didn't care about you, just about us preaching to you. Whereas we are eager to come to you because of who you are!" I guess this verse could be seen as a subtle jibe against any Judaising influence, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in the book so far.
vs 18
Here Paul makes his own self and actions known. It's funny how often Paul tries to go somewhere but just gets stopped. Corinthians is another example.
vs 19-20
"Crown in which we will glory" literally means "crown of boasting" - but I guess the translators didn't want to use a negative word. Wouldn't it be nice to be the joy of someone's ministry. "Oh, I have reached a hundred people, but it's that group of people there that are going to be my crowning joy in heaven".
Of course, as I have said before, a crown might sound really cool, but it almost explicitly states here that the only thing they want it for is to put it at the feet of Jesus. As much as having crowns and glory and joy is nice, these guys have been doing this for Jesus, and so that's their primary joy - that this church is a glory to Christ.
Chapter 2
vs 11-12
So PS&T have been both mother and father to the Thessalonians - mothers are gentle and caring, while fathers are encouraging, comforting and urging. I wonder if that is how we treat our children, and moreso, if that is how we treat the world we are trying to reach with the gospel?
vs 13
This is worth praising God for. It wouldn't be the first time, at least for Paul, that people had thought he was a god, and that's no good for your ministry. It's very interesting at seeing what has happened to make the work so fruitful in Thessalonica. The people (some at least) were prepared to believe the word was the Word of God, they were prepared to ditch their idols, they were accepting of those who came with the message. Basically, they were open to the message.
It doesn't always happen like that, of course. We don't have "Paul's letter to the Athenians" for example.
vs 14
Note that PS&T are not saying, at least in my reading, that the Thessalonian church imitated the Judean church in its traditions and activities. They imitated it by their suffering. Oh golly gosh - you mean the Thessalonian church isn't doing things the way it's done in Acts 2:42, but it's still a New Testament church that receives praises from Paul! Shock horror!
vs 15
Yes, PS&T would get dragged into court for saying this these days. I wonder what would happen if I went and read it out aloud in the city square, or had it published on a shirt?
vs 16
Killing Jesus for selfish purposes, hostility so as to prevent gentiles from hearing the gospel - they pile it on like ice cream. The greek for that last bit is in the past tense - perhaps Paul is saying that their denial, and indeed violent opposition, to the gospel is the show of the wrath of God because they are Jews (ie the ones who are supposed to be trying to follow God). So it would seem that sometimes, being such a stickler for tradition and your own church paradigm that you violently oppose a movement that is of God (*coughpentecostalismcough*) is wrath of God in itself - after all, you've put yourself in opposition to a movement of God, and you sit there saying "Hah, I sure showed them".
vs 17
I think the opposition that PS&T present here with the use of the word 'but', is an opposition of action primarily. So they say "The Jews were eager to stop us preaching to you, but we are eager when away from you to come back to you". It could also be "The Jews were keen to stop you hearing us, but didn't really care to tell you any truth - they didn't care about you, just about us preaching to you. Whereas we are eager to come to you because of who you are!" I guess this verse could be seen as a subtle jibe against any Judaising influence, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in the book so far.
vs 18
Here Paul makes his own self and actions known. It's funny how often Paul tries to go somewhere but just gets stopped. Corinthians is another example.
vs 19-20
"Crown in which we will glory" literally means "crown of boasting" - but I guess the translators didn't want to use a negative word. Wouldn't it be nice to be the joy of someone's ministry. "Oh, I have reached a hundred people, but it's that group of people there that are going to be my crowning joy in heaven".
Of course, as I have said before, a crown might sound really cool, but it almost explicitly states here that the only thing they want it for is to put it at the feet of Jesus. As much as having crowns and glory and joy is nice, these guys have been doing this for Jesus, and so that's their primary joy - that this church is a glory to Christ.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 2
vs 1
A good recap of the last chapter - the Thessalonian ministry was a success.
vs 2
PS&T could have given up in Philippi, but instead they pushed on, with daring, to the next area. Lucky they didn't give up on Philippi either - because they are another of those churches that receives a nice letter (although it still as a lot of correctives, but doesn't seem as harsh as I Corinthians or Galatians).
And yet even in Thessalonica PS&T suffered opposition. Now look at them!
vs 3
I'm not quite sure why this verse is in the present tense in the NIV, but I wouldn't make too much of it. PS&T could be talking about how this is the norm for their ministry. The KJV saw no need to put this in present tense though.
I think it's at this point that we begin to see the purpose behind this next section - it's a defense of PS&T's ministry. What we often forget is that the NT letters are occasional letters (yes yes, very funny, they are letters the rest of the time too). So we must ask what occasioned them. It is probably fair to say that PS&T are replying to some controversy or criticism of their ministry, either by letter or by report from the church.
While that might have been a strain on PS&T, it's great for us, because it forces them to outline the principles behind their ministry! Which is great for us. So this first section (3-6a) is about their motives, which were pure.
vs 4
This links to their authority, which doesn't get a section on its own, but pops up throughout the chapter. But it also shows they were not driven by a desire for praise or to create for themselves a following or to gain flattery. That their motive was to please God.
vs 5
I don't know why the translators used the word 'mask' here - the KJV people used 'cloke' (ie cloak) which is just as bad - when the word pretext or pretence would have been just as good. PS&T didn't use a fancy word picture, they just said prophasis - pretext or pretence. Now I know that mask (and cloak) have the less literal meanings as verbs, and that is why they are used by the translators. But sufficed to say, don't be confused and think that PS&T literally wore masks or were being charged with doing so.
Verse 5 is talking more about actions (the lack of flattery or masking of greed) but I think their pledge that God is their witness shows that they are really talking about the motives behind such actions - they did not use flattery to try and woo people, nor did they come for a greedy purpose which needed hiding.
vs 6
They weren't seeking praise from Thessalonica (for bringing the gospel), or from Jerusalem or from Antioch (for taking it).
Now PS&T move on from talk about their motives to their actions proper. Don't think I'm trying to segregate these things - their motives, actions and behaviour interchange throughout the whole thing. It's just an easy way to remember.
So as apostles, they could have asked for support. Which shows us two things - one, that apostles were by rights of their position able to claim physical support (important for our churches to learn anyway); and two, that Paul here, along with Silas and Timothy, are claiming the title of apostle. If you think Paul is referring only to himself, then I ask why he doesn't break from the plural language until verse 18. Perhaps because he doesn't mind Silas and Timothy being designated as apostles too...
It's a much bigger issue than it seems, what with apostolic succession and all that it means (or all that we invest in the term?) to be an apostle . But that argument is perhaps better left for 2 Timothy.
vs 7
PS&T were not keen on taking what was rightfully theirs - they were prepared to lay down their rights for the furtherance of the gospel. This is a lesson the church has only had to learn a billion times or so. You would think Jesus Christ would be a good example...
vs 8
This is so much the story of missionaries. They go to some people group somewhere, learn their language and their culture, translate the Bible for them, help their sick people, educate them, give them better tools etc. There is so much of their lives invested in these people, is it little wonder that, even after retirement, they will continue there, sometimes even dying with their boots on? Street preaching has its place, I guess, but ministries that lack this love, this dearness, I think lack a vital component of mission.
vs 9
PS&T, or at the very least Paul, did not have any problem with taking money from the churches he had helped create (and he passed on this sage wisdom to Timothy too). So I think we have to conclude that there was something about the Thessalonian situation that made this inappropriate. Perhaps it is always inappropriate when reaching out to unreached people. But you can't tell from this one situation.
vs 10
This is the start of what I call their defense of their behaviour. As opposed to their actions (what they did) I'm talking about how they did it. And that was in a righteous way. They were holy and blameless. Why the caveat "among those who believed" I wonder? Perhaps PS&T were ruthless bastards with unconverted people... more likely it's just because that's they are writing to. Shame, really.
Chapter 2
vs 1
A good recap of the last chapter - the Thessalonian ministry was a success.
vs 2
PS&T could have given up in Philippi, but instead they pushed on, with daring, to the next area. Lucky they didn't give up on Philippi either - because they are another of those churches that receives a nice letter (although it still as a lot of correctives, but doesn't seem as harsh as I Corinthians or Galatians).
And yet even in Thessalonica PS&T suffered opposition. Now look at them!
vs 3
I'm not quite sure why this verse is in the present tense in the NIV, but I wouldn't make too much of it. PS&T could be talking about how this is the norm for their ministry. The KJV saw no need to put this in present tense though.
I think it's at this point that we begin to see the purpose behind this next section - it's a defense of PS&T's ministry. What we often forget is that the NT letters are occasional letters (yes yes, very funny, they are letters the rest of the time too). So we must ask what occasioned them. It is probably fair to say that PS&T are replying to some controversy or criticism of their ministry, either by letter or by report from the church.
While that might have been a strain on PS&T, it's great for us, because it forces them to outline the principles behind their ministry! Which is great for us. So this first section (3-6a) is about their motives, which were pure.
vs 4
This links to their authority, which doesn't get a section on its own, but pops up throughout the chapter. But it also shows they were not driven by a desire for praise or to create for themselves a following or to gain flattery. That their motive was to please God.
vs 5
I don't know why the translators used the word 'mask' here - the KJV people used 'cloke' (ie cloak) which is just as bad - when the word pretext or pretence would have been just as good. PS&T didn't use a fancy word picture, they just said prophasis - pretext or pretence. Now I know that mask (and cloak) have the less literal meanings as verbs, and that is why they are used by the translators. But sufficed to say, don't be confused and think that PS&T literally wore masks or were being charged with doing so.
Verse 5 is talking more about actions (the lack of flattery or masking of greed) but I think their pledge that God is their witness shows that they are really talking about the motives behind such actions - they did not use flattery to try and woo people, nor did they come for a greedy purpose which needed hiding.
vs 6
They weren't seeking praise from Thessalonica (for bringing the gospel), or from Jerusalem or from Antioch (for taking it).
Now PS&T move on from talk about their motives to their actions proper. Don't think I'm trying to segregate these things - their motives, actions and behaviour interchange throughout the whole thing. It's just an easy way to remember.
So as apostles, they could have asked for support. Which shows us two things - one, that apostles were by rights of their position able to claim physical support (important for our churches to learn anyway); and two, that Paul here, along with Silas and Timothy, are claiming the title of apostle. If you think Paul is referring only to himself, then I ask why he doesn't break from the plural language until verse 18. Perhaps because he doesn't mind Silas and Timothy being designated as apostles too...
It's a much bigger issue than it seems, what with apostolic succession and all that it means (or all that we invest in the term?) to be an apostle . But that argument is perhaps better left for 2 Timothy.
vs 7
PS&T were not keen on taking what was rightfully theirs - they were prepared to lay down their rights for the furtherance of the gospel. This is a lesson the church has only had to learn a billion times or so. You would think Jesus Christ would be a good example...
vs 8
This is so much the story of missionaries. They go to some people group somewhere, learn their language and their culture, translate the Bible for them, help their sick people, educate them, give them better tools etc. There is so much of their lives invested in these people, is it little wonder that, even after retirement, they will continue there, sometimes even dying with their boots on? Street preaching has its place, I guess, but ministries that lack this love, this dearness, I think lack a vital component of mission.
vs 9
PS&T, or at the very least Paul, did not have any problem with taking money from the churches he had helped create (and he passed on this sage wisdom to Timothy too). So I think we have to conclude that there was something about the Thessalonian situation that made this inappropriate. Perhaps it is always inappropriate when reaching out to unreached people. But you can't tell from this one situation.
vs 10
This is the start of what I call their defense of their behaviour. As opposed to their actions (what they did) I'm talking about how they did it. And that was in a righteous way. They were holy and blameless. Why the caveat "among those who believed" I wonder? Perhaps PS&T were ruthless bastards with unconverted people... more likely it's just because that's they are writing to. Shame, really.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
1 Thessalonians
Chapter 1
vs 1
We so often think of these as the letters of Paul - I wonder how much of Timothy and Silas there is in them? Anyway, Thanks to them we know who wrote it and who it was written to.
vs 2
Corinth, Phillipi, Galatia, Colosse, Crete, and Thessaolonica - all these places Paul has visited and shared the word (not to mention all the other places he visits as we're told in Acts, or places he hadn't even visited yet, like pre-Romans Rome) and Paul probably prays for them all. And I'll be you he didn't pray like we do. He probably prayed according to normal Jewish custom. Perhaps that is why he was able to do it so faithfully. But perhaps also he believed in it, had faith in the power of prayer, and also cared enough about all these people that he was keen to uphold them in prayer.
vs 3
It's interesting to see the threefold mention of faith, hope and love which is so typical of Paul, but here they are mentioned in terms of what they grow - faith creating work, love producing labour, and hope inspiring endurance . So what's the difference between work and labour?
Well, in the KJV, nothing! They're the same word - ergon - which means industrious, productive work. However, in the NIV greek text, that word is only used for what faith creates. Love produces kopov, which is a wearying, bodily toil.
So why the difference? To me love is the more easily understood one - out of your love for God and for others, you will work yourself to the bone, stretch to any distance, and take on burdens and weariness. Faith perhaps is the spark, the firestarter, which creates in you the industrious spirit, without which you would otherwise sit around on the couch drinking beer in your underpants.
Hope inspires endurance, then, because you can stick it out when you know that, compared with eternity, these temporary workings and toilings are just that - temporary.
vs 4
Paul is (or should I say Paul, Silas and Timothy are) talking about the conviction they have of the truthful conversion and maturing in Christ of the Thessolonian church. They do so for the rest of this chapter, and that gives us a good precursor into what the book is about. This whole chapter is about why they can know this to be true.
vs 5
So the gospel came to them with words, power, the Holy Spirit and conviction. That's one proof. PS&T lived among them sharing the gospel in these ways.
vs 6
The actions of the Thessalonians changed too. And they were prepared to endure suffering for Christ. They also were welcoming of the message, and it gave them great joy.
vs 7-8
And they also shared their faith, even as far as going to neighbouring peoples to do so. Ok, so they sound like they were going on pretty well. Certainly PS&T don't even need to expand on that. Which is a shame, because imagine what else we could have learned if they did.
It is also possible that the churches at Macedonia and Achaia were there first and not planted by Thessalonia, but Thessalonia's maturity was such that it was a model for the surrounding churches.
The word for the the message "ringing out" actually means to emit or resound, so I'm going for the first one. But the other is also a possibility.
vs 9-10
When they say "They tell", do they mean the Macedonians and Achaians literally sent a report to them, or more that their own faith speaks volumes figuratively to PS&T? The word is apaggello and can mean both. Interestingly, the word "tell" as is found in the NIV (telling about the turning from idols) is not reflected in the greek - the one word apaggello seems to be used to infer the meaning twice, but is only printed once. So this could be a situation where the NIV translators are trying to push us toward the understanding of a literal report. I don't have a problem with that really. But the KJV ("they themselves shew of us") perhaps leaves it more open.
Anyway, the point is that because of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, PS&T know the truthfulness with which the Thessalonians turned from their idols and put their faith and hope in Christ.
Chapter 1
vs 1
We so often think of these as the letters of Paul - I wonder how much of Timothy and Silas there is in them? Anyway, Thanks to them we know who wrote it and who it was written to.
vs 2
Corinth, Phillipi, Galatia, Colosse, Crete, and Thessaolonica - all these places Paul has visited and shared the word (not to mention all the other places he visits as we're told in Acts, or places he hadn't even visited yet, like pre-Romans Rome) and Paul probably prays for them all. And I'll be you he didn't pray like we do. He probably prayed according to normal Jewish custom. Perhaps that is why he was able to do it so faithfully. But perhaps also he believed in it, had faith in the power of prayer, and also cared enough about all these people that he was keen to uphold them in prayer.
vs 3
It's interesting to see the threefold mention of faith, hope and love which is so typical of Paul, but here they are mentioned in terms of what they grow - faith creating work, love producing labour, and hope inspiring endurance . So what's the difference between work and labour?
Well, in the KJV, nothing! They're the same word - ergon - which means industrious, productive work. However, in the NIV greek text, that word is only used for what faith creates. Love produces kopov, which is a wearying, bodily toil.
So why the difference? To me love is the more easily understood one - out of your love for God and for others, you will work yourself to the bone, stretch to any distance, and take on burdens and weariness. Faith perhaps is the spark, the firestarter, which creates in you the industrious spirit, without which you would otherwise sit around on the couch drinking beer in your underpants.
Hope inspires endurance, then, because you can stick it out when you know that, compared with eternity, these temporary workings and toilings are just that - temporary.
vs 4
Paul is (or should I say Paul, Silas and Timothy are) talking about the conviction they have of the truthful conversion and maturing in Christ of the Thessolonian church. They do so for the rest of this chapter, and that gives us a good precursor into what the book is about. This whole chapter is about why they can know this to be true.
vs 5
So the gospel came to them with words, power, the Holy Spirit and conviction. That's one proof. PS&T lived among them sharing the gospel in these ways.
vs 6
The actions of the Thessalonians changed too. And they were prepared to endure suffering for Christ. They also were welcoming of the message, and it gave them great joy.
vs 7-8
And they also shared their faith, even as far as going to neighbouring peoples to do so. Ok, so they sound like they were going on pretty well. Certainly PS&T don't even need to expand on that. Which is a shame, because imagine what else we could have learned if they did.
It is also possible that the churches at Macedonia and Achaia were there first and not planted by Thessalonia, but Thessalonia's maturity was such that it was a model for the surrounding churches.
The word for the the message "ringing out" actually means to emit or resound, so I'm going for the first one. But the other is also a possibility.
vs 9-10
When they say "They tell", do they mean the Macedonians and Achaians literally sent a report to them, or more that their own faith speaks volumes figuratively to PS&T? The word is apaggello and can mean both. Interestingly, the word "tell" as is found in the NIV (telling about the turning from idols) is not reflected in the greek - the one word apaggello seems to be used to infer the meaning twice, but is only printed once. So this could be a situation where the NIV translators are trying to push us toward the understanding of a literal report. I don't have a problem with that really. But the KJV ("they themselves shew of us") perhaps leaves it more open.
Anyway, the point is that because of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, PS&T know the truthfulness with which the Thessalonians turned from their idols and put their faith and hope in Christ.
Monday, August 14, 2006
2 Peter
Chapter 3
vs 10
Because thieves come sneakily. The roar of the heavens rushing away is literally "with rushing sound", almost like a tsunami washing the heavens away. "Elements" refers to first principles - probably it's first principles of the material world, because I'm not sure about the biblical integrity of any other definition (like the existance of Platonic forms in heaven).
"Laid bare" is an interesting one. It literally means "will be discovered", but some early manuscripts have "will be burned up" (and that's what the KJV says too). I'm all for the burned up one - but the other one seems to be reminiscent of another wiping of the slate clean - like another flood, but this time with fire, so that the bare earth is "rediscovered" under the rubble of the old creation, or something.
vs 11
Our lives should be lived according to this truth - that everything will be destroyed. That's very challenging. I mean, you know when people ask "What would you do if you knew the end of the world was going to happen in two days" or something similar - you generally get the idea that looting, sex in the streets, and general carnage would result (and be very embarassing were the end to be postponed). But the Christian's way is the opposite - assuming the heavens come crashing down on us at any time, we should be prepared with a holy and godly life.
vs 12
Not only do we look forward to this mass destruction, but we speed its coming. Not by the wanton destruction of the world - I don't think Peter is saying Christians should secure nuclear weapons and fire then wildly into the centre of the earth or something. It's probably more in line with Jesus' statement that the gospel will reach all peoples, and then the end will come (Matt 24:14).
Another way of translating this is "eagerly await", so I wouldn't base too much on this verse in that direction.
vs 13
This is the much more important idea - that we don't wait eagerly for the sake of the world's destruction - we await the fulfillment of the promise of a new heaven and earth. It will be the home of righteousness. Interesting, I think, that God makes a new earth - if we're all going to be up there with him in heaven, why is there a new earth too? Ahhh, methinks there's more to the kingdom of God than meets the eye.
vs 14
We should already be able to see that we're not meant to try and be spotless and blameless because it's going to make a difference about our entering of heaven (although it could have an impact with your welcoming party and your house). I think the main point here is that a life geared towards the expectation of the coming of the Lord and a new creation will by its definition be found spotless, blameless and at peace with god.
vs 15
Ok, here we are, what some people consider the most important type verses in the New Testament. Let's forget for a moment about the fact that Peter is talking about Paul and affirming his letters as Scripture - let's instead look at what Peter is saying.
Firstly, the Lord's patience means salvation. In the greek, it is "patience with us", so Peter's saying that God's patience with us means our salvation. He made this point earlier but focused on others - now he's focused on us too. And to back up this point, he references Paul's letters, attesting that the wisdom in them comes from God.
vs 16
Paul's letters are all on message - that is, they are all speaking of the same thing. They are also (some of them at least) in circulation enough that Peter is prepared to reference them for his readers as authoritative.
Paul's letters weren't easy to understand back then (thanks Peter, I'll remember that when I'm trying to work out about the imprisoned spirits at the time of Noah). And Peter warns that those who are ignorant and unstable (or "unlearned and unsteady") enough to twist them are in for some good old fashioned destruction, just like if they twisted the other Scriptures.
So here, Peter is putting Paul's letters on par with other Scriptures. But his main point is actually about people's willingness to twist them, and their subsequent destruction (the people, not the Scriptures).
vs 17
Since you know what kind of people twist the Scriptures, and what's going to happen to them, don't get caught up by them and their crazy teachings.
vs 18
Instead, grow in the good knowledge - the stuff about Jesus as Lord and Savior. Hooray!
I get the feeling that Peter was writing on a short piece of parchment here, because the letter suddenly comes to a stop. But God controls how long pieces of parchment are, so I guess this was all he needed to write.
What book do I go on to now?
Chapter 3
vs 10
Because thieves come sneakily. The roar of the heavens rushing away is literally "with rushing sound", almost like a tsunami washing the heavens away. "Elements" refers to first principles - probably it's first principles of the material world, because I'm not sure about the biblical integrity of any other definition (like the existance of Platonic forms in heaven).
"Laid bare" is an interesting one. It literally means "will be discovered", but some early manuscripts have "will be burned up" (and that's what the KJV says too). I'm all for the burned up one - but the other one seems to be reminiscent of another wiping of the slate clean - like another flood, but this time with fire, so that the bare earth is "rediscovered" under the rubble of the old creation, or something.
vs 11
Our lives should be lived according to this truth - that everything will be destroyed. That's very challenging. I mean, you know when people ask "What would you do if you knew the end of the world was going to happen in two days" or something similar - you generally get the idea that looting, sex in the streets, and general carnage would result (and be very embarassing were the end to be postponed). But the Christian's way is the opposite - assuming the heavens come crashing down on us at any time, we should be prepared with a holy and godly life.
vs 12
Not only do we look forward to this mass destruction, but we speed its coming. Not by the wanton destruction of the world - I don't think Peter is saying Christians should secure nuclear weapons and fire then wildly into the centre of the earth or something. It's probably more in line with Jesus' statement that the gospel will reach all peoples, and then the end will come (Matt 24:14).
Another way of translating this is "eagerly await", so I wouldn't base too much on this verse in that direction.
vs 13
This is the much more important idea - that we don't wait eagerly for the sake of the world's destruction - we await the fulfillment of the promise of a new heaven and earth. It will be the home of righteousness. Interesting, I think, that God makes a new earth - if we're all going to be up there with him in heaven, why is there a new earth too? Ahhh, methinks there's more to the kingdom of God than meets the eye.
vs 14
We should already be able to see that we're not meant to try and be spotless and blameless because it's going to make a difference about our entering of heaven (although it could have an impact with your welcoming party and your house). I think the main point here is that a life geared towards the expectation of the coming of the Lord and a new creation will by its definition be found spotless, blameless and at peace with god.
vs 15
Ok, here we are, what some people consider the most important type verses in the New Testament. Let's forget for a moment about the fact that Peter is talking about Paul and affirming his letters as Scripture - let's instead look at what Peter is saying.
Firstly, the Lord's patience means salvation. In the greek, it is "patience with us", so Peter's saying that God's patience with us means our salvation. He made this point earlier but focused on others - now he's focused on us too. And to back up this point, he references Paul's letters, attesting that the wisdom in them comes from God.
vs 16
Paul's letters are all on message - that is, they are all speaking of the same thing. They are also (some of them at least) in circulation enough that Peter is prepared to reference them for his readers as authoritative.
Paul's letters weren't easy to understand back then (thanks Peter, I'll remember that when I'm trying to work out about the imprisoned spirits at the time of Noah). And Peter warns that those who are ignorant and unstable (or "unlearned and unsteady") enough to twist them are in for some good old fashioned destruction, just like if they twisted the other Scriptures.
So here, Peter is putting Paul's letters on par with other Scriptures. But his main point is actually about people's willingness to twist them, and their subsequent destruction (the people, not the Scriptures).
vs 17
Since you know what kind of people twist the Scriptures, and what's going to happen to them, don't get caught up by them and their crazy teachings.
vs 18
Instead, grow in the good knowledge - the stuff about Jesus as Lord and Savior. Hooray!
I get the feeling that Peter was writing on a short piece of parchment here, because the letter suddenly comes to a stop. But God controls how long pieces of parchment are, so I guess this was all he needed to write.
What book do I go on to now?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
2 Peter
Chapter 3
vs 1
Its nice when biblical authors flat out state why they are writing, to whom and how often. It stops us from having to guess.
vs 2
So by wholesome thinking, it seems he means about God's Word.
vs 3
Is Peter now talking about scoffers as opposed to false teachers? I think that's entirely possible. Although it could also be that the false teachers were scoffing at the orthodox teaching to make it look weaker.
vs 4
Wow, talk about contemporary comments! People saying that Jesus hasn't come yet and hence will never come. People saying that nothing has changed. Both ignore key facts, and Peter now explains them in his own Apostly way.
vs 5-6
You really need to read these verses together. I don't think there's anything super special in Peter's saying the world was created of and by water, unless you read it with its first destruction by water. This goes to show you just how different life has been since the beginning of creation.
vs 7
And now things will be different again, and I think Peter is saying that because of the reservation by God of a different judgement (fire), it will be just as surprising when it comes.
vs 8
How many times do we use this verse, and yet it's stuck in the poky end of a poky littly book. There's nothing really super special to say about it - no greek will make us understand it better - I think it speaks for itself.
vs 9
From these verses we gain our understanding not only of how God's presence works in time, but also why God takes his time (well, our time, because he's atemporal). It's not because he's a huge hulking colossus that takes years to lift a finger, it's because he's a big patient being that seeks to see his will be done as fruitfully as possible.
As people going to heaven, we should understand this - because our futures are secured, we should be prepared to suffer on earth as long as necessary. Instead, I think sometime we have the attitude that we want it to all be over and to just be with God. Nothing wrong with this attitude necessarily (Paul had it after all) but since it's all bound up in God's will, our joy is bound up in him, whether we get to die sooner or not.
When Peter wrote this verse, I wonder if he really thought Jesus might be another few thousand years... just show's God's providence for us in stating it that way.
Chapter 3
vs 1
Its nice when biblical authors flat out state why they are writing, to whom and how often. It stops us from having to guess.
vs 2
So by wholesome thinking, it seems he means about God's Word.
vs 3
Is Peter now talking about scoffers as opposed to false teachers? I think that's entirely possible. Although it could also be that the false teachers were scoffing at the orthodox teaching to make it look weaker.
vs 4
Wow, talk about contemporary comments! People saying that Jesus hasn't come yet and hence will never come. People saying that nothing has changed. Both ignore key facts, and Peter now explains them in his own Apostly way.
vs 5-6
You really need to read these verses together. I don't think there's anything super special in Peter's saying the world was created of and by water, unless you read it with its first destruction by water. This goes to show you just how different life has been since the beginning of creation.
vs 7
And now things will be different again, and I think Peter is saying that because of the reservation by God of a different judgement (fire), it will be just as surprising when it comes.
vs 8
How many times do we use this verse, and yet it's stuck in the poky end of a poky littly book. There's nothing really super special to say about it - no greek will make us understand it better - I think it speaks for itself.
vs 9
From these verses we gain our understanding not only of how God's presence works in time, but also why God takes his time (well, our time, because he's atemporal). It's not because he's a huge hulking colossus that takes years to lift a finger, it's because he's a big patient being that seeks to see his will be done as fruitfully as possible.
As people going to heaven, we should understand this - because our futures are secured, we should be prepared to suffer on earth as long as necessary. Instead, I think sometime we have the attitude that we want it to all be over and to just be with God. Nothing wrong with this attitude necessarily (Paul had it after all) but since it's all bound up in God's will, our joy is bound up in him, whether we get to die sooner or not.
When Peter wrote this verse, I wonder if he really thought Jesus might be another few thousand years... just show's God's providence for us in stating it that way.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
2 Peter
Chapter 2
vs 12
You kind of get the feeling, not just in Peter but in lots of the letters of the NT, that heretics are not smiled upon. Now, remember Peter is the same guy who told Simon the Sorcerer "I hope you and your money both burn in hell" to put it simply. So he's got a history in this department. He has some special words here to talk about such people. The message is more than "don't slander angels" - it's the deceiving of the church of God that gets his hackles up.
vs 13
These people are the ones that are still in fellowship (feasting with you), and that's probably the worst thing about them - they are a blot and blemish on the name of your church.
Now this highlights a historical change in the church that took place with Constantine. Remember that before then, it was only those who openly professed Christianity that were allowed into churches - persecution prevented openness - and so the idea that someone can be a blot on your church is probably something we think "oh, you've got to live with that". But at the time, it was a lot more dangerous, and such people could be kicked out of the church, as much for punishment of the person as for saving the church.
vs 14
How can you spot them? Apart from their crazy talk, they're adulterous and greedy.
vs 15
Balaam was some sort of seer or sorcerer, remember.
vs 16
The idea being I guess that at least Balaam was corrected, whereas these heretics just keep going off the track.
vs 17
The word 'polemic' springs to mind about now. I'm not quite sure about the "mist driven by the storm" metaphor, but the other one is clear: pub with no beer style.
vs 18
So not only are they empty, but so are their words - because at least when people preach the gospel with wrong motives, the gospel is still being preached. But these people entice new converts into their evil ways.
I really feel for a new convert to Christianity these days. There are so many people who call themselves "Christian", and even a good number of fruit-loops in the churches too. It is really hard to sift truth from error, or in the case of disputable matters, reasonable interpretation from all-out psycho-foolery.
vs 19
So while these people call themselves "Christian", they are actually seeking depravity first. And the argument they seem to use is that of freedom in Christ Jesus, probably espousing "true freedom" - but that doesn't exist (except for God I guess). Gospel freedom is relative freedom - relative to the freedom you had as a non-Christian. Paul describes us as slaves no matter what - we just get the choice whether we are a slave of God or not, whereas we never had the choice whether to be a slave of sin or not. Sin's slavery works you to death, but God's slavery is light. He's a good master, who gives us freedom - some freedom, more freedom than we had before.
vs 20
One of those verses that suggests that if you've been a Christian and then fallen away you're in a worse position than when you started. It could be talking about the ability to lose your salvation (I don't mean lose it like you lose your keys, I mean it's like throwing your keys in the river for some hobbit to find). It could just be saying that people who have been living the victorious Christian life and have then turned away from it find it even harder to come back to. I'd have to find out more as to whether that mirrors people's experience or not before I said anymore on that.
vs 21-22
I wonder if Peter made up that proverb about the washed sow. Anyway, the proverb examples that Peter gives certainly show that he's talking about people who have become Christian but have now gone back to their old life.
But it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness at all says Peter. Does that mean that apostates are burned in a more firey hell? Does it mean that once you've been in and then out, you're out for good (so not being in is better, because at least you've got the chance of getting in)? Or is he talking about the increased difficulty of getting back to Christianity after a lapse? The greek isn't of much help (to me anyway), and you might be surprised to hear that 2 Peter receives little in the way of modern scholarly attention.
Chapter 2
vs 12
You kind of get the feeling, not just in Peter but in lots of the letters of the NT, that heretics are not smiled upon. Now, remember Peter is the same guy who told Simon the Sorcerer "I hope you and your money both burn in hell" to put it simply. So he's got a history in this department. He has some special words here to talk about such people. The message is more than "don't slander angels" - it's the deceiving of the church of God that gets his hackles up.
vs 13
These people are the ones that are still in fellowship (feasting with you), and that's probably the worst thing about them - they are a blot and blemish on the name of your church.
Now this highlights a historical change in the church that took place with Constantine. Remember that before then, it was only those who openly professed Christianity that were allowed into churches - persecution prevented openness - and so the idea that someone can be a blot on your church is probably something we think "oh, you've got to live with that". But at the time, it was a lot more dangerous, and such people could be kicked out of the church, as much for punishment of the person as for saving the church.
vs 14
How can you spot them? Apart from their crazy talk, they're adulterous and greedy.
vs 15
Balaam was some sort of seer or sorcerer, remember.
vs 16
The idea being I guess that at least Balaam was corrected, whereas these heretics just keep going off the track.
vs 17
The word 'polemic' springs to mind about now. I'm not quite sure about the "mist driven by the storm" metaphor, but the other one is clear: pub with no beer style.
vs 18
So not only are they empty, but so are their words - because at least when people preach the gospel with wrong motives, the gospel is still being preached. But these people entice new converts into their evil ways.
I really feel for a new convert to Christianity these days. There are so many people who call themselves "Christian", and even a good number of fruit-loops in the churches too. It is really hard to sift truth from error, or in the case of disputable matters, reasonable interpretation from all-out psycho-foolery.
vs 19
So while these people call themselves "Christian", they are actually seeking depravity first. And the argument they seem to use is that of freedom in Christ Jesus, probably espousing "true freedom" - but that doesn't exist (except for God I guess). Gospel freedom is relative freedom - relative to the freedom you had as a non-Christian. Paul describes us as slaves no matter what - we just get the choice whether we are a slave of God or not, whereas we never had the choice whether to be a slave of sin or not. Sin's slavery works you to death, but God's slavery is light. He's a good master, who gives us freedom - some freedom, more freedom than we had before.
vs 20
One of those verses that suggests that if you've been a Christian and then fallen away you're in a worse position than when you started. It could be talking about the ability to lose your salvation (I don't mean lose it like you lose your keys, I mean it's like throwing your keys in the river for some hobbit to find). It could just be saying that people who have been living the victorious Christian life and have then turned away from it find it even harder to come back to. I'd have to find out more as to whether that mirrors people's experience or not before I said anymore on that.
vs 21-22
I wonder if Peter made up that proverb about the washed sow. Anyway, the proverb examples that Peter gives certainly show that he's talking about people who have become Christian but have now gone back to their old life.
But it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness at all says Peter. Does that mean that apostates are burned in a more firey hell? Does it mean that once you've been in and then out, you're out for good (so not being in is better, because at least you've got the chance of getting in)? Or is he talking about the increased difficulty of getting back to Christianity after a lapse? The greek isn't of much help (to me anyway), and you might be surprised to hear that 2 Peter receives little in the way of modern scholarly attention.
Friday, August 11, 2006
2 Peter
Chapter 2
vs 1
Peter wasn't prophesying this - it's so common that he just used his commonsense. I also don't think he's suggesting there aren't any - there probably already was. No matter how swift their destruction though, it's not swift enough to undo damage. Thankfully, God can use that damage to grow the church.
vs 2
And what happens to those people? Are they still saved? Were they ever saved at all? Many who, Peter, many who?! Sufficed to say that heretics make us look bad.
vs 3
So this is what to look for - they make stuff up, and they exploit you. They are greedy. But we are assured that their destruction isn't sleeping. Almost like God gives them cancer when they start preaching heresy or something - but we know that's not true.
vs 4
Poor angels - this one verse casts a long shadow over the rest of the Bible, because it shows just how little we know about the spiritual world. When did this casting down occur? Does it still occur? When was the "fall of angels"? Questions that, although lots of people enjoy speculating on, the Bible doesn't tell us about.
vs 5
That was, lets face it, a lot of people to wipe out.
vs 6
Sodom and Gomorrah were an example of what was going to happen. Now you might understand where fire & brimstone preaching comes from - people are just using the example that God used.
vs 7-8
Peter is telling us something that isn't in the Genesis account regarding Lot's distress and torment, but we'll believe him. I think it's a fair assumption to make.
vs 9
So these are all just examples of why we can trust God to look after us and expect him to condemn heretics and punish them in the meantime. Of course, I'm still waiting for Spong to have a tragic accident...
That being said, Peter is merely saying that God knows how to do it - not that he must do it as a rule.
vs 10-11
The despising of authority I think is what Peter is going on about with the slandering angels thing. He says they are more powerful than us, so I'm assuming he's putting them over us authority-wise. So if these guys are willing to slander them, surely they would slander church leaders, apostles (sore point for Peter?) and quite possibly even stir up trouble for Christians amongst the Roman leadership.
Chapter 2
vs 1
Peter wasn't prophesying this - it's so common that he just used his commonsense. I also don't think he's suggesting there aren't any - there probably already was. No matter how swift their destruction though, it's not swift enough to undo damage. Thankfully, God can use that damage to grow the church.
vs 2
And what happens to those people? Are they still saved? Were they ever saved at all? Many who, Peter, many who?! Sufficed to say that heretics make us look bad.
vs 3
So this is what to look for - they make stuff up, and they exploit you. They are greedy. But we are assured that their destruction isn't sleeping. Almost like God gives them cancer when they start preaching heresy or something - but we know that's not true.
vs 4
Poor angels - this one verse casts a long shadow over the rest of the Bible, because it shows just how little we know about the spiritual world. When did this casting down occur? Does it still occur? When was the "fall of angels"? Questions that, although lots of people enjoy speculating on, the Bible doesn't tell us about.
vs 5
That was, lets face it, a lot of people to wipe out.
vs 6
Sodom and Gomorrah were an example of what was going to happen. Now you might understand where fire & brimstone preaching comes from - people are just using the example that God used.
vs 7-8
Peter is telling us something that isn't in the Genesis account regarding Lot's distress and torment, but we'll believe him. I think it's a fair assumption to make.
vs 9
So these are all just examples of why we can trust God to look after us and expect him to condemn heretics and punish them in the meantime. Of course, I'm still waiting for Spong to have a tragic accident...
That being said, Peter is merely saying that God knows how to do it - not that he must do it as a rule.
vs 10-11
The despising of authority I think is what Peter is going on about with the slandering angels thing. He says they are more powerful than us, so I'm assuming he's putting them over us authority-wise. So if these guys are willing to slander them, surely they would slander church leaders, apostles (sore point for Peter?) and quite possibly even stir up trouble for Christians amongst the Roman leadership.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
2 Peter
Chapter 1
vs 12
So don't feel bad if someone is always on about the same thing. Preaching's a hell of a lot harder now that it ever has been. In fact, expectations in our culture are higher than perhaps ever before. Even though John Wesley travelled over 250,000 miles in his preaching career, and preached over 40,000 sermons, he only had 44 different ones or so. And in the Methodist church in the beginning, the lay preachers would just re-preach his sermons.
So if all someone does is preach on the same thing, assuming it's an important thing, it's not all bad. Remember the tradition of John who, in his old age had to be carried to the church to participate, and would always tell the congregation "Love one another". And when they eventually grew weary of it and asked him why he said it so often, he replied "This is the most important commandment. If you will fulfil it, then you wil fulfil all of Christ's commandment."
vs 13
When you think of this life like living in a tent, you've got a different perspective.
vs 14
Whether this is through the general revelation of Christ, or some specific words of Jesus to Peter about himself isn't 100% clear - but the personal "to me" makes me think they were words of Christ which Peter particularly treasured.
vs 15
Is Peter talking about flying around as a disembodied spirit doing miracles on behalf of God, so that if we pray to Peter he can come and help us?
Nah. He's saying that he's trying to set things up so that they'll be remembered after he's gone. It's a good idea. He's not doing it so that he will be remembered (thanks to the RC church, there's no fear of Peter being forgotten) but so that Christ and his words will be remembered.
vs 16
This is another statement about Peter's authority as an eyewitness. He's using it in contrast to "cleverly invented stories" which were very likely coming from some of the heretical movements within the church. The gnostics, for example, would make stuff up about Jesus to fulfil their beliefs about him.
vs 17-18
Peter was the one who spoke about building a shelter for the Jesus, Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration. Surely this moment in history changed his life. This reminds us just how precious letters from Peter are - he is one of the inner 3 who saw this take place.
These verses also show us how Peter saw the transfiguration (in giving Jesus honor and glory) and that, in his words, they heard the voice of God on that mountain. That's a big deal.
vs 19
Jesus' recogniton and fulfillment of the OT is of great value to us. I can't wait to do more OT study (hopefully next year) because I am sure that it unlocks great parts of the NT for further study and understanding.
Jesus is the bright morning star, by the way. Some people think it's satan, but some people don't know how to read in context.
vs 20
Here Peter is giving us some foundational lessons in how we read all inspired scripture. There is precious little of such comments about the relationship between God, the authors, and the finished product. Peter's argument here is leaning towards God, but probably has to be understood in context. I think Peter may be defending the scriptures against the firstfruits of the gnostic heresy, which discounted the OT because it's God was a brutish nasty God. And instead they, well, basically made stuff up - just like people do today. "Oh, I think the world works this way, so that must be how Jesus did things, because I think he did!" Go eat your own face, fool! Cognitive relativism is for losers!
Oh, anyway, I think Peter is saying here that, unlike the gnostic hippies, the OT prophets didn't make up what they said or what it meant.
vs 21
So while the origin is not from man (so God starts it off), men do speak. Although some people might use this for the argument of the holy typewriter (that the person doing the speaking/writing was God's pen, as it were) it can also be said that the men did speak - they were guided by the Holy Spirit, not consumed. When you see the personality of Peter in his letters, surely God didn't strike his pen with lightning (or worse yet, his amanuensis!) and make the letters write themselves.
Chapter 1
vs 12
So don't feel bad if someone is always on about the same thing. Preaching's a hell of a lot harder now that it ever has been. In fact, expectations in our culture are higher than perhaps ever before. Even though John Wesley travelled over 250,000 miles in his preaching career, and preached over 40,000 sermons, he only had 44 different ones or so. And in the Methodist church in the beginning, the lay preachers would just re-preach his sermons.
So if all someone does is preach on the same thing, assuming it's an important thing, it's not all bad. Remember the tradition of John who, in his old age had to be carried to the church to participate, and would always tell the congregation "Love one another". And when they eventually grew weary of it and asked him why he said it so often, he replied "This is the most important commandment. If you will fulfil it, then you wil fulfil all of Christ's commandment."
vs 13
When you think of this life like living in a tent, you've got a different perspective.
vs 14
Whether this is through the general revelation of Christ, or some specific words of Jesus to Peter about himself isn't 100% clear - but the personal "to me" makes me think they were words of Christ which Peter particularly treasured.
vs 15
Is Peter talking about flying around as a disembodied spirit doing miracles on behalf of God, so that if we pray to Peter he can come and help us?
Nah. He's saying that he's trying to set things up so that they'll be remembered after he's gone. It's a good idea. He's not doing it so that he will be remembered (thanks to the RC church, there's no fear of Peter being forgotten) but so that Christ and his words will be remembered.
vs 16
This is another statement about Peter's authority as an eyewitness. He's using it in contrast to "cleverly invented stories" which were very likely coming from some of the heretical movements within the church. The gnostics, for example, would make stuff up about Jesus to fulfil their beliefs about him.
vs 17-18
Peter was the one who spoke about building a shelter for the Jesus, Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration. Surely this moment in history changed his life. This reminds us just how precious letters from Peter are - he is one of the inner 3 who saw this take place.
These verses also show us how Peter saw the transfiguration (in giving Jesus honor and glory) and that, in his words, they heard the voice of God on that mountain. That's a big deal.
vs 19
Jesus' recogniton and fulfillment of the OT is of great value to us. I can't wait to do more OT study (hopefully next year) because I am sure that it unlocks great parts of the NT for further study and understanding.
Jesus is the bright morning star, by the way. Some people think it's satan, but some people don't know how to read in context.
vs 20
Here Peter is giving us some foundational lessons in how we read all inspired scripture. There is precious little of such comments about the relationship between God, the authors, and the finished product. Peter's argument here is leaning towards God, but probably has to be understood in context. I think Peter may be defending the scriptures against the firstfruits of the gnostic heresy, which discounted the OT because it's God was a brutish nasty God. And instead they, well, basically made stuff up - just like people do today. "Oh, I think the world works this way, so that must be how Jesus did things, because I think he did!" Go eat your own face, fool! Cognitive relativism is for losers!
Oh, anyway, I think Peter is saying here that, unlike the gnostic hippies, the OT prophets didn't make up what they said or what it meant.
vs 21
So while the origin is not from man (so God starts it off), men do speak. Although some people might use this for the argument of the holy typewriter (that the person doing the speaking/writing was God's pen, as it were) it can also be said that the men did speak - they were guided by the Holy Spirit, not consumed. When you see the personality of Peter in his letters, surely God didn't strike his pen with lightning (or worse yet, his amanuensis!) and make the letters write themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)