vs 13
There wasn't really much in the way of welfare back in the old days, but this verse shows us that wherever there is welfare, there are welfare cheats. Dole bludgers I've heard many Christians call them. Of course, remember that this system of mercy to those who cannot support themselves through an income is entirely a matter of graciousness from God.
This verse tells us that the amount that the widows were supported by the church was enough to support them completely. They had the time to be idle and busybodies, which means they were supported to a liveable standard. I'm not saying that standard was high. But they didn't starve.
vs 14
You might think it's harsh that Paul is telling someone to remarry after becoming a widow, and that if they don't they might not get any help from the church. But their culture wasn't like ours. Getting remarried would be a lot like getting married - you are pretty limited in who you marry. Most likely your parents or some other person will choose someone for you. Some in this position did choose not to remarry (a lot of people think Paul was a widow), but for the majority of people, marriage was a way of life rather than finding your perfect partner.
vs 15
Whether this means they have fallen into de facto relationships with someone, or just that they've become the busybodies that Paul said they would, it's not clear.
vs 16
This is the same principle as verse 8, but with a different purpose - along with looking after family for the sake of your faith, you should also do this because it means they will be less imposition on the church. Remember that churches weren't big cathedrals demanding tithes or anything at this point. They were just small houses of people who gave what they could to help people out.
vs 17
The idea of being deserving of "double honour" is an interesting one. I've heard it said that this is a verse which supports the payment of those who lead the church, the argument being that "double honour" refers to the honour of being in the position and the honour of being paid. From the words as they stand it doesn't jump out at you, but I suppose there could be some sort of greek colloquial meaning to the term.
But note that it's not all elders - it's only those who do their job well, especially those who preach and teach. So those who don't do their job so well are probably worthy of honour because of the position they hold, but the others are worth double, because they do it well.
vs 18
This is the part that suggests they should be paid. I mean, these quotes from Scripture are obviously about getting paid your fair share. Now you could try and argue that this only stands for the church that Timothy was with, but Paul is quoting Scripture to back it up, so that's a hard argument to back.
What is very interesting about this verse is that it quotes as Scripture Deuteronomy 25:4, but it also quotes New Testament and calls it Scripture (Luke 10:7)! Probably far more important theologically, and Paul wasn't even wanting to make the point - he's talking about elders getting paid.
vs 19
Any position of authority requires a certain level of respectability and protection from slander. This verse provides that for elders. We don't really employ the whole "two or three witnesses" thing in the church much (but it's in the Bible all the time) but I reckon we'd probably still do this if an elder were being charged with something.
vs 20
Notice that the punishment for an elder being found out doing something wrong is rebuking publicly. It's not kicking them out of the office of eldership. This sort of grace and mercy has been lost to the church for many, many years. Our faith in God to be able to rehabilitate one of our congregation is completely gone. The thing is, you should really only stop someone from being an elder if they don't qualify for it. Just because they commit a sin (like everyone else in the whole world will, remember) does not exclude them from eldership, or else we'd have none.
vs 21
The elect angels eh? Well, now I'll do it. Wierd.
Christians constantly show favourtism which is good - favouring our families, favouring our church family, deferring to an elder. But you can't punish one elder for doing something and then not punish the next one for doing the same thing. You can't not put one young woman on the widow's list because she should get married if you put another young woman on because she's your daughter.
vs 22
As far as we know regarding the laying on of hands, it was used far more often as a transmission of authority or blessing from the church (to achieve something) rather than for healing people or passing around the Holy Spirit (sorry Pentes). In this context, it seems obvious to me that Paul is saying not to be hasty in the appointment of people to positions, but to find the right person. Otherwise, it may be possible that you will share in the sins of their disobedience in office, because you were the one who appointed them.
vs 23
Well, good luck applying this one.
vs 24
It's an interesting truth that even though some people will be preceeded by their reputation for doing things wrong, quite often their sins "drag behind them" and even though they rock up to your church and seem like a good, possibly new Christian, you've got to be on your toes - they might have been to half a dozen other churches who have already fallen prey to their activities. This is why patience is valuable - because even though their sins trail behind them, eventually they'll catch up.
vs 25
Good deeds are also sometimes obvious, but again even hidden good deeds will come out eventually. Sometimes they don't come to the fore for years. But eventually people will realise that something really good was done. Certainly God will see it.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 5
vs 1
Even though Timothy is not to allow others to despise him for his age, he is not supposed to lord himself over them. Instead, within the church he is to maintain respectful relationships akin to a family. Note that even if Timothy is treating an older man as a father, he is allowed to exhort him! So even parents are not untouchable by children. Respect does not mean prostrate unthinking obedience.
vs 2
Everyone in the church is treated as part of the family. My reading of the greek actually carries the command to exhort to all of these relationships as well. So everyone ought be encouraged by you, in whatever relationship is proper.
vs 3-4
It's a different community and a different culture that we come across in these verses. There were no retirement villages and there were no pensions. There was hereditary religion. The principle of blood looking after blood first is sort of still around in our society, but notice Paul's caveat - that they should practice their religion. So if a widow's children have abandoned her because she is Christian, then the church is the only family she's got. We can't expect someone's non-Christian family to look after them.
This doesn't mean that as Christians today we are immune from having to look after our blood families. In fact, blood families will always be a powerful thing in any culture, and so looking after them even in a society where that isn't highly valued will be a good witness to Christ.
vs 5
Really helpless people, whether they are widows or whatever, will look somewhere for help. And if the church is seen as a place where help can be found, then people will look there. Is your church a place where people think help can be found?
vs 6
I think what Paul is saying is that rich widows won't have a reason to come to church - they will be happy spending their cash and living it up.
vs 7
I think this verse points to the verse coming after it. That's counter intuitive to an english reading, but I think it makes more sense.
vs 8
There is a lot of cultural baggage in this statement, but to the extent that family is well regarded in any culture, it is necessary. But that's not the only reason. Christianity is a family-based religion. The unit of measure in Christianity is not the individual (like in our society). It is the family. Whether that is your immediate family, or whether it is your larger church family, these are the units in which Paul and Jesus and God want us to think in. That is why this whole passage cannot be ignored by our individualistic culture.
vs 9-10
It's surprising that Paul puts these limitations on who the church will help. It won't help adulterers, bad mothers, and selfish and self-absorbed women (or young women). Now the question really needs to be asked here - does this help only represent help the church gives to families within the church, or does this help (and these limitations) extend beyond the church's walls to those unchurched people the church is trying to reach for Christ? We so desparately want it to be the former. But the latter fits in surprisingly well with Paul's idea of church culture at the time. I don't know what the answer is to that. The idea of a "list of widows" sounds like an internal church thing, like that expressed in early Acts.
vs 11
So the reason young women are not put on is not because they are bad people, but just for a practical reason. They've been married once, and they may well want to marry again.
vs 12
The idea here is that in their lust they put aside matters of the faith (like the widow who is in need in verse 5) and as such they will be judged on their lustful feelings instead of their devotion to Christ. Not necessarily an eternal judgement - it may very well be just your regular kind of judgement that people make when they look at other people.
vs 13
There's also a practical reason for it - because they become used to living on support (and for young people, isn't it what we've always wanted?) instead of getting some work done, whether it be for themselves or for a husband. The necessity for a husband is very much a cultural one, but the principle is still there.
Even though Timothy is not to allow others to despise him for his age, he is not supposed to lord himself over them. Instead, within the church he is to maintain respectful relationships akin to a family. Note that even if Timothy is treating an older man as a father, he is allowed to exhort him! So even parents are not untouchable by children. Respect does not mean prostrate unthinking obedience.
vs 2
Everyone in the church is treated as part of the family. My reading of the greek actually carries the command to exhort to all of these relationships as well. So everyone ought be encouraged by you, in whatever relationship is proper.
vs 3-4
It's a different community and a different culture that we come across in these verses. There were no retirement villages and there were no pensions. There was hereditary religion. The principle of blood looking after blood first is sort of still around in our society, but notice Paul's caveat - that they should practice their religion. So if a widow's children have abandoned her because she is Christian, then the church is the only family she's got. We can't expect someone's non-Christian family to look after them.
This doesn't mean that as Christians today we are immune from having to look after our blood families. In fact, blood families will always be a powerful thing in any culture, and so looking after them even in a society where that isn't highly valued will be a good witness to Christ.
vs 5
Really helpless people, whether they are widows or whatever, will look somewhere for help. And if the church is seen as a place where help can be found, then people will look there. Is your church a place where people think help can be found?
vs 6
I think what Paul is saying is that rich widows won't have a reason to come to church - they will be happy spending their cash and living it up.
vs 7
I think this verse points to the verse coming after it. That's counter intuitive to an english reading, but I think it makes more sense.
vs 8
There is a lot of cultural baggage in this statement, but to the extent that family is well regarded in any culture, it is necessary. But that's not the only reason. Christianity is a family-based religion. The unit of measure in Christianity is not the individual (like in our society). It is the family. Whether that is your immediate family, or whether it is your larger church family, these are the units in which Paul and Jesus and God want us to think in. That is why this whole passage cannot be ignored by our individualistic culture.
vs 9-10
It's surprising that Paul puts these limitations on who the church will help. It won't help adulterers, bad mothers, and selfish and self-absorbed women (or young women). Now the question really needs to be asked here - does this help only represent help the church gives to families within the church, or does this help (and these limitations) extend beyond the church's walls to those unchurched people the church is trying to reach for Christ? We so desparately want it to be the former. But the latter fits in surprisingly well with Paul's idea of church culture at the time. I don't know what the answer is to that. The idea of a "list of widows" sounds like an internal church thing, like that expressed in early Acts.
vs 11
So the reason young women are not put on is not because they are bad people, but just for a practical reason. They've been married once, and they may well want to marry again.
vs 12
The idea here is that in their lust they put aside matters of the faith (like the widow who is in need in verse 5) and as such they will be judged on their lustful feelings instead of their devotion to Christ. Not necessarily an eternal judgement - it may very well be just your regular kind of judgement that people make when they look at other people.
vs 13
There's also a practical reason for it - because they become used to living on support (and for young people, isn't it what we've always wanted?) instead of getting some work done, whether it be for themselves or for a husband. The necessity for a husband is very much a cultural one, but the principle is still there.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
1 Timothy Chapter 4
vs 9-10
Verse 9 is basically a redundant verse on it's own theologically, but it does cause a problem, as do many statements like it - we don't know for sure whether the trustworthy saying is what Paul just said, or what he's about to say. The statement is a common enough one in greek, and yet it doesn't have a formal standardised useage. The translators of the NIV obviously think it links foward to vs 10. But in vs 10, try swapping the word "that" for the word "because" (the greek 'hoti' is translated 'because' 212 times in the NASB) and then see how it reads.
It makes me think that vs 9 actually refers to vs 8 and the value of godliness. And that is what Paul labours and strives towards, because he has faith in Christ who saves. If he didn't have faith in a savior, then perhaps physical training would be more valuable.
But that is absolutely nothing compared to this statement by Paul that Jesus is the saviour of all men, especially believers. Pantone (a declension of pas) is used to mean 'all' and declensions of pas are used well over a thousand times in the Bible. This is worth knowing, because the word means (when used collectively) 'some of all types'. So if you're talking about men (people), then God is the saviour of 'some of all types of people' - whether it be racial types, social class types, employment types, gender types, age types. It is to show that the salvation of Christ is not restricted. So Paul is basically saying that all types of people are saved by Christ - the thing they have in common is that they are all believers.
vs 11
The verse guy went nuts here, making every few syllables a verse it seems.
vs 12
How young was he? No idea. But young enough that people would make something of it. But as many of us know - young in years does not necessarily make young in Christian maturity. History has shown us that God takes some people by the hand and leads them in baby steps through their faith. Others he catapults forward in flaming balls of explosive maturity. Guess which ones tend to survive longer? In this world, those who mature in leaps and bounds usually tend to accomplish an enormous amount through God's grace and power, and then end up dying at a ripe young age of 35 or so. It's those people who take seriously Jesus' command to sow their lives as a seed, because whoever loses their life for the gospel will save it.
Paul's telling Timothy to set an example, and people might well have not taken him seriously for his "youthful" enthusiasm as much as his youth. But people who are on fire for God are still enthusiastic, even when old. People who talk about it wistfully as being in their youth but "now I'm old, and I've got some perspective" have really lost something.
vs 13
Public reading of Scripture is something that was going on well into the early 20th century. Somehow we lost it - around the same time people only wanted to come to church for an hour.
This command is fairly specific to Timothy - we can't all be dedicated to reading the Scriptures publically, preaching and teaching. Some just don't have the gifts. But that was what Timothy was there for, so that's what he was to be devoted to.
vs 14
And we shouldn't lose sight of the things God has given us to do. We might not have been given our gift through a prophetic message. Our elders may not have laid hands on us. But God gave him his giftings, and he gives us giftings. We should not neglect their use.
vs 15
And the more we do them, the more we will progress in them. Whether that means accomplishing more, or being able to do the job better, it will it will be an encouragement to others to see it happening.
vs 16
The NASB translates this as "ensure salvation" - but it's not like that in the greek. No, Paul said it in the confusing and problematic way. Of course he did. Not much I can say here really - that is what it says. We all know what it means, of course.
One thing is that it is both your life and your doctrine that will save (or proclaim the saving message of God). Not just doctrine. Knowing all the right stuff, and saying all the right stuff, isn't enough. People have to see it work, and you've got to put it into practice in your life. 1 John makes this painfully clear, and it is a biblical truth - that those who don't put their faith into practice must be questioned as to whether they really have faith at all.
Verse 9 is basically a redundant verse on it's own theologically, but it does cause a problem, as do many statements like it - we don't know for sure whether the trustworthy saying is what Paul just said, or what he's about to say. The statement is a common enough one in greek, and yet it doesn't have a formal standardised useage. The translators of the NIV obviously think it links foward to vs 10. But in vs 10, try swapping the word "that" for the word "because" (the greek 'hoti' is translated 'because' 212 times in the NASB) and then see how it reads.
It makes me think that vs 9 actually refers to vs 8 and the value of godliness. And that is what Paul labours and strives towards, because he has faith in Christ who saves. If he didn't have faith in a savior, then perhaps physical training would be more valuable.
But that is absolutely nothing compared to this statement by Paul that Jesus is the saviour of all men, especially believers. Pantone (a declension of pas) is used to mean 'all' and declensions of pas are used well over a thousand times in the Bible. This is worth knowing, because the word means (when used collectively) 'some of all types'. So if you're talking about men (people), then God is the saviour of 'some of all types of people' - whether it be racial types, social class types, employment types, gender types, age types. It is to show that the salvation of Christ is not restricted. So Paul is basically saying that all types of people are saved by Christ - the thing they have in common is that they are all believers.
vs 11
The verse guy went nuts here, making every few syllables a verse it seems.
vs 12
How young was he? No idea. But young enough that people would make something of it. But as many of us know - young in years does not necessarily make young in Christian maturity. History has shown us that God takes some people by the hand and leads them in baby steps through their faith. Others he catapults forward in flaming balls of explosive maturity. Guess which ones tend to survive longer? In this world, those who mature in leaps and bounds usually tend to accomplish an enormous amount through God's grace and power, and then end up dying at a ripe young age of 35 or so. It's those people who take seriously Jesus' command to sow their lives as a seed, because whoever loses their life for the gospel will save it.
Paul's telling Timothy to set an example, and people might well have not taken him seriously for his "youthful" enthusiasm as much as his youth. But people who are on fire for God are still enthusiastic, even when old. People who talk about it wistfully as being in their youth but "now I'm old, and I've got some perspective" have really lost something.
vs 13
Public reading of Scripture is something that was going on well into the early 20th century. Somehow we lost it - around the same time people only wanted to come to church for an hour.
This command is fairly specific to Timothy - we can't all be dedicated to reading the Scriptures publically, preaching and teaching. Some just don't have the gifts. But that was what Timothy was there for, so that's what he was to be devoted to.
vs 14
And we shouldn't lose sight of the things God has given us to do. We might not have been given our gift through a prophetic message. Our elders may not have laid hands on us. But God gave him his giftings, and he gives us giftings. We should not neglect their use.
vs 15
And the more we do them, the more we will progress in them. Whether that means accomplishing more, or being able to do the job better, it will it will be an encouragement to others to see it happening.
vs 16
The NASB translates this as "ensure salvation" - but it's not like that in the greek. No, Paul said it in the confusing and problematic way. Of course he did. Not much I can say here really - that is what it says. We all know what it means, of course.
One thing is that it is both your life and your doctrine that will save (or proclaim the saving message of God). Not just doctrine. Knowing all the right stuff, and saying all the right stuff, isn't enough. People have to see it work, and you've got to put it into practice in your life. 1 John makes this painfully clear, and it is a biblical truth - that those who don't put their faith into practice must be questioned as to whether they really have faith at all.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 4
vs 1
Paul obviously didn't end his letter in chapter 3, even though it sounded like he was going to. Paul has finished his section on the worthiness of good teaching and good leadership, and now he goes onto a section about the dangers of false teaching and bad leaders. He starts with what sounds like a fairly pragmatic statement "people are always going to leave the faith" - and yet to him it isn't simply pragmatism, because the Spirit (and most probably the OT too) have clearly stated that some will abandon God to follow demons.
vs 2
The way they do this is through false teaching. Just think of Israel in the wilderness, and Aaron building Mooby the golden calf. Or the countless times they turn from the teachings of God to listen to the peoples aroun them. That is how people fall away. People start listening to the society around them, which now doesn't tell them to worship Balaak, it tells them to worship money or reason or status or prestige or security. If we saw them as false gods, would we respect them so much?
I'm not 100% sure whether your conscience being seared with a hot iron means that you've had it burned away, or that it's now so sensitive that you pick up lots of little things. The things Paul names them as doing are not necessarily bad things - Paul might have called the disputable matters in Romans 14 - but the teaching of these things as God's word is what Paul is against. Perhaps that is why they are hypocritical, because in most cases these people with sensitive consciences are usually overly sensitive about one thing, but not nearly as sensitive about another, perhaps more important issue. It's a lot easier to be fervent about a small issue, like "We should only use the KJV because all other Bibles are Satan!" than to keep up fanaticism for "My whole life is there to serve Jesus", because one has a very small perview, and the other is very wide ranging.
vs 3
Does the creation here refer both to the marriage and the foods, in that both are created for us to receive with thanksgiving? I think so. Its an interesting idea that they are created for the enjoyment of those who believe and know the truth. So everyone else who gets to enjoy them is just one more little injustice? No, I think more likely that those who know the truth can enjoy them, while those who are hypocritical liars cannot enjoy them because of their stupid teachings. There is also a question on how much you can really enjoy something if you don't give thanks to God for it, because those who don't put these things in their proper place (especially marriage, but things like food too) can then elevate the things to a false value, instead of accepting them for what they are (gifts from God for our enjoyment) and valuing them as such.
vs 4
The word ktisma means "created thing". So this verse does not just refer to food. Anything that God has created (including animals and plants that we eat) is good. And if you can receive it with thanksgiving, then you don't need to reject it. That doesn't mean we need to eat poisoned berries or enjoy having spiders in the house. But it does mean that there are very few things that are by nature "evil". There are some things that are evil (against God's will) and Paul gives a great guidance on how to tell them apart straight away!
vs 5
However, notice that Paul is not giving us a carte-blanche to go nuts and fulfil any mad desires we might have. You can't just go out and have sex with everything that moves. It's got to have been sanctified by a word of God and with prayer. Now when it comes to me eating cereal, I don't feel the need to open my Bible and see what it says. But when I became a Christian and I started wondering about whether I should keep roleplaying, then I did need to take a good strong look at that. Sex is fine, but only in the ways defined by God - in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman.
vs 6
It is a worthy service to the people of God to teach them about these things. Minister is literally deaconos, so I wonder if Timothy was a deacon? If Timothy, as a deacon, is meant to be teaching these things to people, then have we got our roles of eldership and deaconhood a little too defined? Probably not - when you use a function word like "minister" or "servant" as a title, you're going to get into these situations where you have to use them to denote fuction and people might get confused and think you're talking about a title. Such is life.
But all this stuff that Paul is saying Timothy should already know, because it is a heritage of the faith he has and the teaching in that faith he has received. But knowing it isn't enough - he's also got to be serving the church by teaching it.
vs 7
There are so many godless myths and old wives' tales we know, and even if we don't follow them, we let them infiltrate our langauge and that means that eventually they will infiltrate our thinking, even if only subconsciously. This is a problem in the church, especially in a society where we value culture and heritage, and people get very defensive about these things that their grandmothers may have said.
vs 8
Yes, lifting weights and going for long runs is of some value, but Paul's comparison to godliness shows just how limited it's value is. Your physical fitness will only be of value in this world, and will be of no value to you or anyone else for eternity.
Paul obviously didn't end his letter in chapter 3, even though it sounded like he was going to. Paul has finished his section on the worthiness of good teaching and good leadership, and now he goes onto a section about the dangers of false teaching and bad leaders. He starts with what sounds like a fairly pragmatic statement "people are always going to leave the faith" - and yet to him it isn't simply pragmatism, because the Spirit (and most probably the OT too) have clearly stated that some will abandon God to follow demons.
vs 2
The way they do this is through false teaching. Just think of Israel in the wilderness, and Aaron building Mooby the golden calf. Or the countless times they turn from the teachings of God to listen to the peoples aroun them. That is how people fall away. People start listening to the society around them, which now doesn't tell them to worship Balaak, it tells them to worship money or reason or status or prestige or security. If we saw them as false gods, would we respect them so much?
I'm not 100% sure whether your conscience being seared with a hot iron means that you've had it burned away, or that it's now so sensitive that you pick up lots of little things. The things Paul names them as doing are not necessarily bad things - Paul might have called the disputable matters in Romans 14 - but the teaching of these things as God's word is what Paul is against. Perhaps that is why they are hypocritical, because in most cases these people with sensitive consciences are usually overly sensitive about one thing, but not nearly as sensitive about another, perhaps more important issue. It's a lot easier to be fervent about a small issue, like "We should only use the KJV because all other Bibles are Satan!" than to keep up fanaticism for "My whole life is there to serve Jesus", because one has a very small perview, and the other is very wide ranging.
vs 3
Does the creation here refer both to the marriage and the foods, in that both are created for us to receive with thanksgiving? I think so. Its an interesting idea that they are created for the enjoyment of those who believe and know the truth. So everyone else who gets to enjoy them is just one more little injustice? No, I think more likely that those who know the truth can enjoy them, while those who are hypocritical liars cannot enjoy them because of their stupid teachings. There is also a question on how much you can really enjoy something if you don't give thanks to God for it, because those who don't put these things in their proper place (especially marriage, but things like food too) can then elevate the things to a false value, instead of accepting them for what they are (gifts from God for our enjoyment) and valuing them as such.
vs 4
The word ktisma means "created thing". So this verse does not just refer to food. Anything that God has created (including animals and plants that we eat) is good. And if you can receive it with thanksgiving, then you don't need to reject it. That doesn't mean we need to eat poisoned berries or enjoy having spiders in the house. But it does mean that there are very few things that are by nature "evil". There are some things that are evil (against God's will) and Paul gives a great guidance on how to tell them apart straight away!
vs 5
However, notice that Paul is not giving us a carte-blanche to go nuts and fulfil any mad desires we might have. You can't just go out and have sex with everything that moves. It's got to have been sanctified by a word of God and with prayer. Now when it comes to me eating cereal, I don't feel the need to open my Bible and see what it says. But when I became a Christian and I started wondering about whether I should keep roleplaying, then I did need to take a good strong look at that. Sex is fine, but only in the ways defined by God - in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman.
vs 6
It is a worthy service to the people of God to teach them about these things. Minister is literally deaconos, so I wonder if Timothy was a deacon? If Timothy, as a deacon, is meant to be teaching these things to people, then have we got our roles of eldership and deaconhood a little too defined? Probably not - when you use a function word like "minister" or "servant" as a title, you're going to get into these situations where you have to use them to denote fuction and people might get confused and think you're talking about a title. Such is life.
But all this stuff that Paul is saying Timothy should already know, because it is a heritage of the faith he has and the teaching in that faith he has received. But knowing it isn't enough - he's also got to be serving the church by teaching it.
vs 7
There are so many godless myths and old wives' tales we know, and even if we don't follow them, we let them infiltrate our langauge and that means that eventually they will infiltrate our thinking, even if only subconsciously. This is a problem in the church, especially in a society where we value culture and heritage, and people get very defensive about these things that their grandmothers may have said.
vs 8
Yes, lifting weights and going for long runs is of some value, but Paul's comparison to godliness shows just how limited it's value is. Your physical fitness will only be of value in this world, and will be of no value to you or anyone else for eternity.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
1 Timothy Chapter 3
vs 9
This is a far more practical role, and yet deacons are expected to hold to the truth of the gospel in a way that does not compromise their actions.
My question is, why do deacons have to hold on to the deep truths (lit. mysteries) of the faith, and yet this is not a requirement for a presbyteros? Let me tell you what I think, even though it's just what I think. The role of an overseer is peculiarly to oversee the spiritual health and welfare of the church. Therefore, there are some things about the role which "go without saying" - and keeping hold of the Christian truth is probably one of them. It's like when you advertise for a job position - if you advertise for an accountant, you assume you don't need to put "needs a good grasp of numbers".
However, one thing you will notice is that "ready access to the Scriptures" or "strong familiarity with the Scriptures" is not there. And we might say that this is also an assumed necessity. But of course not everyone could read! And I don't think that would necessarily have kept people from being an elder - at least in the beginning. After a generation or two, especially with the New Testament starting to make its rounds and the invention of the codex, people probably started appointing elders who could read as a matter of course.
vs 10
There is also a test for deacons (which is not listed here, nor anywhere else in the Bible I can think of). So there is a test for deacons, but not for elders?
One of the frustrating things about both these passages is that they assume we know what exactly the job of an elder and a deacon are. But because we don't, we are left to guess from verses in Acts and by looking at who was appointed and how.
vs 11
The word is either wives or women. It can mean either, depending on context. Of course, the context is difficult to ascertain here. We know some churches had deaconesses. But Paul goes on in the next verse to talk about deacons again, so he could be talking about their wives. That then gives us the same problem as above - why aren't elder's wives spoken about?
You might think that "in the same way" makes it refer to deacons and deaconesses, but it could also simply refer to the same actions. Again, no easy answer here. The repetition in the NIV is redundant (wives... women) and not reflected in the greek.
vs 12
Basically in the same way that an elder must.
vs 13
This is a noteable acclaim, because we are talking about people who serve the church in the manner of a servant - waiting tables, going and giving alms to the poor and looking after widows. I can certainly imagine this sort of work assuring you in your faith, which is a reward in itself - whereas it could be argued that elders were paid.
vs 14-15
Paul is hoping at this stage to return to Ephesus. But if he can't, he wants Timothy to start building the church up in its leadership, and to help people know how to conduct themselves. See, these rules for living do not pertain only to elders and deacons. Although there can only be so many people in those positions (especially elders if they are paid), everyone should aspire to them, so these rules of conduct are far broader than for the members of leadership.
Paul also makes the point that the ecclesia is the pillar and foundation of truth. It's an important statement, for how true can God's promises be if there exists no church for him to bless and keep? The proof of God's work in this world is in the church. People shouldn't need to wait for miracles and signs and wonders, if they have a church that they can see.
vs 16
I don't know where "beyond all question" comes from. The NASB renders it "By common confession" which is closer to the translation in my opinion. That is the great confession of the church of truth - of the one true and living God. This little song is one of the more complete understandings of the truth of the miraculous Christ event. It talks about his incarnation, his vindication, his spiritual authority (or possibly his death), his message being spread and believed in (as miraculous as any of the other things he did!), his ascension into glory. Often we think of the spreading of the church in the Colossian manner - what Christ did not achieve in his own sufferings is up to Paul and those like him. But this is not a true reading, not even of what Paul said - he is constantly aware that it is not him that makes the gospel of God spread, but Christ in him.
This is a far more practical role, and yet deacons are expected to hold to the truth of the gospel in a way that does not compromise their actions.
My question is, why do deacons have to hold on to the deep truths (lit. mysteries) of the faith, and yet this is not a requirement for a presbyteros? Let me tell you what I think, even though it's just what I think. The role of an overseer is peculiarly to oversee the spiritual health and welfare of the church. Therefore, there are some things about the role which "go without saying" - and keeping hold of the Christian truth is probably one of them. It's like when you advertise for a job position - if you advertise for an accountant, you assume you don't need to put "needs a good grasp of numbers".
However, one thing you will notice is that "ready access to the Scriptures" or "strong familiarity with the Scriptures" is not there. And we might say that this is also an assumed necessity. But of course not everyone could read! And I don't think that would necessarily have kept people from being an elder - at least in the beginning. After a generation or two, especially with the New Testament starting to make its rounds and the invention of the codex, people probably started appointing elders who could read as a matter of course.
vs 10
There is also a test for deacons (which is not listed here, nor anywhere else in the Bible I can think of). So there is a test for deacons, but not for elders?
One of the frustrating things about both these passages is that they assume we know what exactly the job of an elder and a deacon are. But because we don't, we are left to guess from verses in Acts and by looking at who was appointed and how.
vs 11
The word is either wives or women. It can mean either, depending on context. Of course, the context is difficult to ascertain here. We know some churches had deaconesses. But Paul goes on in the next verse to talk about deacons again, so he could be talking about their wives. That then gives us the same problem as above - why aren't elder's wives spoken about?
You might think that "in the same way" makes it refer to deacons and deaconesses, but it could also simply refer to the same actions. Again, no easy answer here. The repetition in the NIV is redundant (wives... women) and not reflected in the greek.
vs 12
Basically in the same way that an elder must.
vs 13
This is a noteable acclaim, because we are talking about people who serve the church in the manner of a servant - waiting tables, going and giving alms to the poor and looking after widows. I can certainly imagine this sort of work assuring you in your faith, which is a reward in itself - whereas it could be argued that elders were paid.
vs 14-15
Paul is hoping at this stage to return to Ephesus. But if he can't, he wants Timothy to start building the church up in its leadership, and to help people know how to conduct themselves. See, these rules for living do not pertain only to elders and deacons. Although there can only be so many people in those positions (especially elders if they are paid), everyone should aspire to them, so these rules of conduct are far broader than for the members of leadership.
Paul also makes the point that the ecclesia is the pillar and foundation of truth. It's an important statement, for how true can God's promises be if there exists no church for him to bless and keep? The proof of God's work in this world is in the church. People shouldn't need to wait for miracles and signs and wonders, if they have a church that they can see.
vs 16
I don't know where "beyond all question" comes from. The NASB renders it "By common confession" which is closer to the translation in my opinion. That is the great confession of the church of truth - of the one true and living God. This little song is one of the more complete understandings of the truth of the miraculous Christ event. It talks about his incarnation, his vindication, his spiritual authority (or possibly his death), his message being spread and believed in (as miraculous as any of the other things he did!), his ascension into glory. Often we think of the spreading of the church in the Colossian manner - what Christ did not achieve in his own sufferings is up to Paul and those like him. But this is not a true reading, not even of what Paul said - he is constantly aware that it is not him that makes the gospel of God spread, but Christ in him.
Monday, September 25, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 3
vs 1
Why does Paul use the word presbyteros (translated 'elder') in Titus, but uses episcopis (translated 'overseer' or 'bishop') here? Most of us would say it doesn't matter, and that they mean the same thing. The Catholics (and the Anglicans too) see a big difference - to them, a bishop is the person who has control over a number of churches, whereas an elder is a position over a single church. Their method of episcopal church governance is based on this distinction - made partly from the Bible and partly from church history.
Of course, in Titus Paul uses the terms interchangeably from one sentence to another...
Whatever Paul means, his idea is that the offices of church governance are a good work for people to aspire to.
vs 2
This list is very similar to the one in Titus. Some scholars think Titus is just a shortened form of 1 Timothy. Others probably think 1 Timothy is an expanded version of Titus. Whatever.
There are some interesting things in this list. Able to teach is one I think is interesting. We have a leadership committee at our church, and of the three people on it when I arrived, only one regularly gives sermons. Do the others not teach? Well, they can - but it doesn't necessarily mean giving sermons. Indeed, in their pastoral duties, being hospitable and respectable (and even beyond reproach to a degree) is far more important in many ways.
The next question is - should they be married? It says the husband of "but one wife" so they obviously shouldn't be a polygamist, but can they be unmarried? Well, in the society Paul is writing to and living in, being unmarried really isn't an option. Very few people remained unmarried.
vs 3
Many of these qualities are good and worthwhile simply because they mean you are less likely to harm relationships. We often have difficulty understanding the value of relationships in such a society, and the social faux pas it is to do something which harms them. Not quarrelsome is a hard one for me.
vs 4-5
Here Paul gives a nice little commentary on why their family should be well managed - because if they can't control rowdy kids, then they can't control a church. Having children who didn't respect you would have been a mighty blow to your respectability. I mean, today people can have kids screaming all over the place, and while someone might say "if those were my kids, 'POW!'", generally people don't have that same attitude anymore. Only two kinds of people do in our society I am told - those with children who are perfect, and those who don't have children. Maybe Paul writing this comment shows he didn't have children? Who knows.
vs 6
Of course you don't put new converts in charge of a whole church. These are all common sense really. To us they seem like grand commandments from God. To Paul, they are probably just a list of common sense necessities for good leaders so that he knows what to look for. To us some of them may seem excessive, or we might think it's impossible for a person to be all of these things. And you know what? It probably is! I don't think Paul would have knocked back anyone from this position because they didn't fulfil one of these criteria. These are things to aspire to as much as to fulfil.
Remember also that some of these churches might only be less than two years old - so how new is a new convert?
vs 7
This is a hard one. The need for someone who has a good reputation with outsiders is a breath of fresh air - it means that the position of eldership is not the position for someone locked inside a church building. People outside the church should know him as someone who is of good reputation. An extra-church role is seen for elders here.
But how does having a bad reputation make you disgraceful and fall into a devil's snare? Firstly, I think we've got to separate the disgrace from the snare. I think Paul's talking about two separate things that will happen.
Well, reputation is literally "witness". So an elder must have a good testimony to outsiders. If they don't, it seems, firstly they will be an object of scorn or contempt, or people will find fault with them and they will be blameworthy.
They will also, it seems, be ripe to fall into activities with outsiders that will harm their testimony. A bishop who goes around sleeping with people's wives is the most obvious example (and may well have been what Paul was insinuating with the trap metaphor). But an elder who rips people off in business would be the same - his weak testimony to outsiders would make him a disgrace, and bring disgrace on the church by him being its representative.
vs 8
Deacons (deaconos - servant, minister) have very similar expectations of them. But we'll get on to them more tomorrow.
Why does Paul use the word presbyteros (translated 'elder') in Titus, but uses episcopis (translated 'overseer' or 'bishop') here? Most of us would say it doesn't matter, and that they mean the same thing. The Catholics (and the Anglicans too) see a big difference - to them, a bishop is the person who has control over a number of churches, whereas an elder is a position over a single church. Their method of episcopal church governance is based on this distinction - made partly from the Bible and partly from church history.
Of course, in Titus Paul uses the terms interchangeably from one sentence to another...
Whatever Paul means, his idea is that the offices of church governance are a good work for people to aspire to.
vs 2
This list is very similar to the one in Titus. Some scholars think Titus is just a shortened form of 1 Timothy. Others probably think 1 Timothy is an expanded version of Titus. Whatever.
There are some interesting things in this list. Able to teach is one I think is interesting. We have a leadership committee at our church, and of the three people on it when I arrived, only one regularly gives sermons. Do the others not teach? Well, they can - but it doesn't necessarily mean giving sermons. Indeed, in their pastoral duties, being hospitable and respectable (and even beyond reproach to a degree) is far more important in many ways.
The next question is - should they be married? It says the husband of "but one wife" so they obviously shouldn't be a polygamist, but can they be unmarried? Well, in the society Paul is writing to and living in, being unmarried really isn't an option. Very few people remained unmarried.
vs 3
Many of these qualities are good and worthwhile simply because they mean you are less likely to harm relationships. We often have difficulty understanding the value of relationships in such a society, and the social faux pas it is to do something which harms them. Not quarrelsome is a hard one for me.
vs 4-5
Here Paul gives a nice little commentary on why their family should be well managed - because if they can't control rowdy kids, then they can't control a church. Having children who didn't respect you would have been a mighty blow to your respectability. I mean, today people can have kids screaming all over the place, and while someone might say "if those were my kids, 'POW!'", generally people don't have that same attitude anymore. Only two kinds of people do in our society I am told - those with children who are perfect, and those who don't have children. Maybe Paul writing this comment shows he didn't have children? Who knows.
vs 6
Of course you don't put new converts in charge of a whole church. These are all common sense really. To us they seem like grand commandments from God. To Paul, they are probably just a list of common sense necessities for good leaders so that he knows what to look for. To us some of them may seem excessive, or we might think it's impossible for a person to be all of these things. And you know what? It probably is! I don't think Paul would have knocked back anyone from this position because they didn't fulfil one of these criteria. These are things to aspire to as much as to fulfil.
Remember also that some of these churches might only be less than two years old - so how new is a new convert?
vs 7
This is a hard one. The need for someone who has a good reputation with outsiders is a breath of fresh air - it means that the position of eldership is not the position for someone locked inside a church building. People outside the church should know him as someone who is of good reputation. An extra-church role is seen for elders here.
But how does having a bad reputation make you disgraceful and fall into a devil's snare? Firstly, I think we've got to separate the disgrace from the snare. I think Paul's talking about two separate things that will happen.
Well, reputation is literally "witness". So an elder must have a good testimony to outsiders. If they don't, it seems, firstly they will be an object of scorn or contempt, or people will find fault with them and they will be blameworthy.
They will also, it seems, be ripe to fall into activities with outsiders that will harm their testimony. A bishop who goes around sleeping with people's wives is the most obvious example (and may well have been what Paul was insinuating with the trap metaphor). But an elder who rips people off in business would be the same - his weak testimony to outsiders would make him a disgrace, and bring disgrace on the church by him being its representative.
vs 8
Deacons (deaconos - servant, minister) have very similar expectations of them. But we'll get on to them more tomorrow.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
1 Timothy Chapter 2
vs 8
This is one of the classic verses which doesn't get followed because it is not "culturally appropriate" to lift your hands up in prayer. Although I can't be 100% sure about when this practice stopped, I can be sure that such a thing would have been frowned upon and derised in the Latitudinarian period, when "religious enthusiasm" was stamped out of a large portion of the Western Church.
And I personally don't have a problem with us not doing it. Sure, the Bible says we should, but it's just an action. We don't kneel, and we don't prostrate ourselves, even though the Bible says to do those too. The operative terms in this verse are that we should pray together, without anger or disputing. This command is probably just to men (because there's a command just to women after it) - not because men only should pray, but more likely because men are the ones who need to pray without anger or disputing.
vs 9
In the same way, men shouldn't dress without modesty - it's just that, as men are more likely to have disputes with each other, women are more likely to want to dress more attractively (and men are more likely to stumble over that, and women may even be more likely to get into disputes about each other's dress habits).
vs 10
The point of verses 9 and 10 isn't even about clothes! Paul certainly isn't saying that Christian women should dress themselves with good deeds instead of clothes! The idea is that wearing attractive stuff isn't what makes Christian women attractive - it is their good and appropriate deeds that should make them attractive. You could almost read these verses "If the only thing attractive about you is your pearls and hair, then you don't really have much attractive about you as a Christian woman".
vs 11
I would personally say that any person who is learning should do so in this way. People who are loud, obnoxious, distracted or uncooperative are very difficult to teach. In fact, although we lump this verse in with the next one (which is peculiarly about women) we don't need to - it's just as bad for a man to be unteachable as it is for women to pray together in anger.
vs 12
Paul means what he says here. It's not just a personal matter for him. When he says "I do not permit" he is not making a suggestion to how Timothy should run his church. Paul is the leader of this church - he just deputised Timothy to do the work for him. This is a command to Timothy on how the church should be run.
Had this issue already come up in Ephesus? Or was Paul pre-empting it because he'd come up against it elsewhere? Hard to say from the letter.
vs 13
This and verse 14 are really the contentious verses of this passage. Verse 12 is just a command - like lifting holy hands in prayer, it could be ignored because it could simply be a cultural imperative. But the reason Paul gives for that command (that it is enshrined in God's creation) is not a cultural phenomenon. It's a biblical principle. Even if you don't believe in a literal 6-day creation, you can still believe that God put those early verses in Genesis there to teach us something about the created order. And Paul is telling us that this is what God is teaching there.
vs 14
The second argument Paul uses is that Eve was the one who was deceived, and Adam fell when he listened to her. Hence, women shouldn't teach because they can be easily deceived and then men will listen to them.
We hit a conundrum here. I can easily argue, and from the Bible, that men are just as easily deceived as women, and that men can teach falsehoods to each other, and probably teach them to women too. And although that argument might be correct, what Paul has written is still scripture.
This isn't an easy passage. Of all the arguments about women's role in church, the one about teaching (and leadership) is the most volatile, and its verses are also the least forgiving. We can't discount the cultural element here - but neither can we discount the biblical precepts given.
One argument I've heard is that Paul is using a Rabbinical form of argument. Why that means we can ignore it I'm not sure. But if you think you're out of the wilderness of difficult-to-understand, wait till the next verse...
vs 15
This verse simply can't mean what it says it means when you read it at face value (the 'simple' or 'straight' reading if you like). This verse demands interpretation, because you cannot be saved through childbearing any more than you can be saved through any other activity.
The footnotes of the NIV have "she" as a replacement for "women", and the greek version I have only has "she" because the whole greek word is sotheseisa, which means "she will be saved". This only confuses the verse more, because later on it still says "they". So the childbearing could refer to Eve, but the faith, love, holiness and propriety could refer to women of the church. Of course, she could be plural - it wouldn't have the translation footnote if it were easy ;)
This is one of the classic verses which doesn't get followed because it is not "culturally appropriate" to lift your hands up in prayer. Although I can't be 100% sure about when this practice stopped, I can be sure that such a thing would have been frowned upon and derised in the Latitudinarian period, when "religious enthusiasm" was stamped out of a large portion of the Western Church.
And I personally don't have a problem with us not doing it. Sure, the Bible says we should, but it's just an action. We don't kneel, and we don't prostrate ourselves, even though the Bible says to do those too. The operative terms in this verse are that we should pray together, without anger or disputing. This command is probably just to men (because there's a command just to women after it) - not because men only should pray, but more likely because men are the ones who need to pray without anger or disputing.
vs 9
In the same way, men shouldn't dress without modesty - it's just that, as men are more likely to have disputes with each other, women are more likely to want to dress more attractively (and men are more likely to stumble over that, and women may even be more likely to get into disputes about each other's dress habits).
vs 10
The point of verses 9 and 10 isn't even about clothes! Paul certainly isn't saying that Christian women should dress themselves with good deeds instead of clothes! The idea is that wearing attractive stuff isn't what makes Christian women attractive - it is their good and appropriate deeds that should make them attractive. You could almost read these verses "If the only thing attractive about you is your pearls and hair, then you don't really have much attractive about you as a Christian woman".
vs 11
I would personally say that any person who is learning should do so in this way. People who are loud, obnoxious, distracted or uncooperative are very difficult to teach. In fact, although we lump this verse in with the next one (which is peculiarly about women) we don't need to - it's just as bad for a man to be unteachable as it is for women to pray together in anger.
vs 12
Paul means what he says here. It's not just a personal matter for him. When he says "I do not permit" he is not making a suggestion to how Timothy should run his church. Paul is the leader of this church - he just deputised Timothy to do the work for him. This is a command to Timothy on how the church should be run.
Had this issue already come up in Ephesus? Or was Paul pre-empting it because he'd come up against it elsewhere? Hard to say from the letter.
vs 13
This and verse 14 are really the contentious verses of this passage. Verse 12 is just a command - like lifting holy hands in prayer, it could be ignored because it could simply be a cultural imperative. But the reason Paul gives for that command (that it is enshrined in God's creation) is not a cultural phenomenon. It's a biblical principle. Even if you don't believe in a literal 6-day creation, you can still believe that God put those early verses in Genesis there to teach us something about the created order. And Paul is telling us that this is what God is teaching there.
vs 14
The second argument Paul uses is that Eve was the one who was deceived, and Adam fell when he listened to her. Hence, women shouldn't teach because they can be easily deceived and then men will listen to them.
We hit a conundrum here. I can easily argue, and from the Bible, that men are just as easily deceived as women, and that men can teach falsehoods to each other, and probably teach them to women too. And although that argument might be correct, what Paul has written is still scripture.
This isn't an easy passage. Of all the arguments about women's role in church, the one about teaching (and leadership) is the most volatile, and its verses are also the least forgiving. We can't discount the cultural element here - but neither can we discount the biblical precepts given.
One argument I've heard is that Paul is using a Rabbinical form of argument. Why that means we can ignore it I'm not sure. But if you think you're out of the wilderness of difficult-to-understand, wait till the next verse...
vs 15
This verse simply can't mean what it says it means when you read it at face value (the 'simple' or 'straight' reading if you like). This verse demands interpretation, because you cannot be saved through childbearing any more than you can be saved through any other activity.
The footnotes of the NIV have "she" as a replacement for "women", and the greek version I have only has "she" because the whole greek word is sotheseisa, which means "she will be saved". This only confuses the verse more, because later on it still says "they". So the childbearing could refer to Eve, but the faith, love, holiness and propriety could refer to women of the church. Of course, she could be plural - it wouldn't have the translation footnote if it were easy ;)
Saturday, September 23, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 2
vs 1
This sounds like the full gamut of the prayer arsenal! Here Paul says he wants this for everyone, but in the next verse he says he wants it for kings and people in authority. The better translation would say "on behalf of all men" - and you could almost argue that this means that all men should be praying for kings and authorities if it didn't then go on to say "on behalf of kings..." with the exact same words.
So assuming Paul isn't writing here to a church made up of kings and authorities, I think we've got to assume that Paul is writing about prayer for all people, but then his focus narrows to the others. The point possibly being that all humanity can and must be prayed for. This isn't just a last resort "oh, we can't do anything else, let's pray". This his his first urging, and should be our first response. Harder than it sounds.
vs 2
The church is being persecuted by those in authority. Paul gives the reason for praying for those in the high up positions as the ability of the church to live a peaceful, quiet, godly and holy life. We've actually got that here in Australia - how much do we send up prayers of thanks for it?
vs 3
I'm not sure whether Paul is saying that the ability to live that quiet life is good, or whether praying for kings is good. The peaceful life is the most immediate. I am sure that both are good and pleasing to God, and so Paul might be referring to the situation generally.
vs 4
Now notice here the attribute of God which Paul mentions in relation to God being pleased in this regard - it is his love and desire for all people to be saved. Does this refer to praying for kings and those in authority, so that they might be saved and their example will be powerful and effective on others? Or does it refer to the ability for Christians to live a peaceful and quiet life so that their holiness and godliness shines forth and they are able to witness more effectively than if they were being persecuted?
Christians really should be able to live holy and godly lives no matter what the circumstances. Now peaceful and quiet lives, these are more difficult to find under persecution. And such persecution or oppression does prevent people from coming to know God. Paul was probably seeing that.
The salvation of kings does cause major social reform. Look at the conversion of Constantine. Christianity changed almost immediately, and the transformation was immense. But it wasn't all rosy either. The beginning of the Christian Empire is also the beginning of nominalism.
The problem we face is that because the New Testament was written entirely under a system of persecution, we have the documents of a persecuted church. But the Western church hasn't been actively persecuted for 1700 years. Sure, it lost a lot of its cultural relevance in the last couple hundred years, but that's not the same thing. People ignoring the church and people destroying the church are two different things. This is just one more reason why a literalistic reading of the NT will only be very vaguely applicable to our current church situation. Now, when you go to China or the Middle East, it's a hell of a lot more applicable in a simple straightforward way. But we've got to work harder to understand its modern relevance. It's relevant - no doubt about it - but we've got to be sensitive in understanding how and why.
vs 5-6
Before there were church councils, before there were books on systematic theology, all you had was a knowledge that God was there, and that Jesus was his Son, and that his death somehow paid for our sins. Makes it easy to get mixed up about how things actually go together, and so Paul's statement, while fairly obvious to us, would have helped to clear up some inconsistencies in people's beliefs.
And Paul points out that there is something perfect about the timing in which this living testimony was given. Considering his next verse, he might well be thinking about the perfect timing of Christ with regards to the cultural mix between Judaism and Greek (Roman), and the existence of synagogues all over the empire.
vs 7
Because Paul's job is to teach this truth to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. If Jesus had turned up during the Macabbean revolution, then he might have won Israel to his cause, but it would have been a lot harder to win over a ruling society with which you were at war.
Paul also sees the need to defend his position as an apostle. He does this frequently. I mean, he didn't see Jesus like all the normal apostles did. So it's only fair for people to doubt his Damascus road experience. But to him and to us it is vital, because it gives him an authority he would otherwise simply not have.
This sounds like the full gamut of the prayer arsenal! Here Paul says he wants this for everyone, but in the next verse he says he wants it for kings and people in authority. The better translation would say "on behalf of all men" - and you could almost argue that this means that all men should be praying for kings and authorities if it didn't then go on to say "on behalf of kings..." with the exact same words.
So assuming Paul isn't writing here to a church made up of kings and authorities, I think we've got to assume that Paul is writing about prayer for all people, but then his focus narrows to the others. The point possibly being that all humanity can and must be prayed for. This isn't just a last resort "oh, we can't do anything else, let's pray". This his his first urging, and should be our first response. Harder than it sounds.
vs 2
The church is being persecuted by those in authority. Paul gives the reason for praying for those in the high up positions as the ability of the church to live a peaceful, quiet, godly and holy life. We've actually got that here in Australia - how much do we send up prayers of thanks for it?
vs 3
I'm not sure whether Paul is saying that the ability to live that quiet life is good, or whether praying for kings is good. The peaceful life is the most immediate. I am sure that both are good and pleasing to God, and so Paul might be referring to the situation generally.
vs 4
Now notice here the attribute of God which Paul mentions in relation to God being pleased in this regard - it is his love and desire for all people to be saved. Does this refer to praying for kings and those in authority, so that they might be saved and their example will be powerful and effective on others? Or does it refer to the ability for Christians to live a peaceful and quiet life so that their holiness and godliness shines forth and they are able to witness more effectively than if they were being persecuted?
Christians really should be able to live holy and godly lives no matter what the circumstances. Now peaceful and quiet lives, these are more difficult to find under persecution. And such persecution or oppression does prevent people from coming to know God. Paul was probably seeing that.
The salvation of kings does cause major social reform. Look at the conversion of Constantine. Christianity changed almost immediately, and the transformation was immense. But it wasn't all rosy either. The beginning of the Christian Empire is also the beginning of nominalism.
The problem we face is that because the New Testament was written entirely under a system of persecution, we have the documents of a persecuted church. But the Western church hasn't been actively persecuted for 1700 years. Sure, it lost a lot of its cultural relevance in the last couple hundred years, but that's not the same thing. People ignoring the church and people destroying the church are two different things. This is just one more reason why a literalistic reading of the NT will only be very vaguely applicable to our current church situation. Now, when you go to China or the Middle East, it's a hell of a lot more applicable in a simple straightforward way. But we've got to work harder to understand its modern relevance. It's relevant - no doubt about it - but we've got to be sensitive in understanding how and why.
vs 5-6
Before there were church councils, before there were books on systematic theology, all you had was a knowledge that God was there, and that Jesus was his Son, and that his death somehow paid for our sins. Makes it easy to get mixed up about how things actually go together, and so Paul's statement, while fairly obvious to us, would have helped to clear up some inconsistencies in people's beliefs.
And Paul points out that there is something perfect about the timing in which this living testimony was given. Considering his next verse, he might well be thinking about the perfect timing of Christ with regards to the cultural mix between Judaism and Greek (Roman), and the existence of synagogues all over the empire.
vs 7
Because Paul's job is to teach this truth to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. If Jesus had turned up during the Macabbean revolution, then he might have won Israel to his cause, but it would have been a lot harder to win over a ruling society with which you were at war.
Paul also sees the need to defend his position as an apostle. He does this frequently. I mean, he didn't see Jesus like all the normal apostles did. So it's only fair for people to doubt his Damascus road experience. But to him and to us it is vital, because it gives him an authority he would otherwise simply not have.
Friday, September 22, 2006
1 Timothy Chapter 1
vs 12
Paul often uses himself as an object lesson. Here he talks about how thankful that he has been given the message that he has just been talking about. He is thankful for his ability to render service to God. And he is thankful for Jesus giving him strength.
vs 13
Perhaps he is talking about these things because he was once like the people he is reprimanding - and indeed much worse than them. It's interesting that he notes that he was shown mercy because of ignorance and unbelief. It could be possible that Paul is separating his attitude from his actions - even though his actions were completely sinful, Paul may have wanted to serve and obey God. What does that mean for pre-conversion Paul? Not much really - he was still a flagrant sinner, and still needed God's mercy and grace.
vs 14
Mercy, grace, faith and love... I'm waiting for him to finish off his typical cycle with hope. But it doesn't come yet.
vs 15
For all the things Jesus accomplished while he was here, his purpose was the salvation of sinners. And Paul's glad for that, because he was plenty sinful.
vs 16
But Paul' very salvation is an object lesson to us all. No matter how crappy our lives are, not many of us can see we actively sought to kill Christians and destroy the church. That's something special. It probably weighed on Paul constantly, and Jewish people he met would no doubt constantly remind him.
vs 17
Obviously the immensity of this fact isn't lost on Paul, and so he feels the need to add a little doxology here.
vs 18
There were some prophecies made about Timothy. They were obviously something to do with him being in leadership and doing the stuff that Paul is talking about in this letter. How did they work? We just don't know.
vs 19-20
He compares Timothy, who is standing firm to fight the good fight and holding to his faith and a good conscience, to others who have not done so. He describes their faith as literally shipwrecked. Paul describes two people who are in this position, which is great for Timothy, because it means he knows exactly what Paul's talking about. For us, we have to wonder a bit. Then we also have this wonderful term "handed over to Satan". Some people think it means "booted out of the church". It could also mean Paul's given up on them for the time being, or stopped meeting with them. But even Paul knows that anything Satan has God can take away from him.
Paul often uses himself as an object lesson. Here he talks about how thankful that he has been given the message that he has just been talking about. He is thankful for his ability to render service to God. And he is thankful for Jesus giving him strength.
vs 13
Perhaps he is talking about these things because he was once like the people he is reprimanding - and indeed much worse than them. It's interesting that he notes that he was shown mercy because of ignorance and unbelief. It could be possible that Paul is separating his attitude from his actions - even though his actions were completely sinful, Paul may have wanted to serve and obey God. What does that mean for pre-conversion Paul? Not much really - he was still a flagrant sinner, and still needed God's mercy and grace.
vs 14
Mercy, grace, faith and love... I'm waiting for him to finish off his typical cycle with hope. But it doesn't come yet.
vs 15
For all the things Jesus accomplished while he was here, his purpose was the salvation of sinners. And Paul's glad for that, because he was plenty sinful.
vs 16
But Paul' very salvation is an object lesson to us all. No matter how crappy our lives are, not many of us can see we actively sought to kill Christians and destroy the church. That's something special. It probably weighed on Paul constantly, and Jewish people he met would no doubt constantly remind him.
vs 17
Obviously the immensity of this fact isn't lost on Paul, and so he feels the need to add a little doxology here.
vs 18
There were some prophecies made about Timothy. They were obviously something to do with him being in leadership and doing the stuff that Paul is talking about in this letter. How did they work? We just don't know.
vs 19-20
He compares Timothy, who is standing firm to fight the good fight and holding to his faith and a good conscience, to others who have not done so. He describes their faith as literally shipwrecked. Paul describes two people who are in this position, which is great for Timothy, because it means he knows exactly what Paul's talking about. For us, we have to wonder a bit. Then we also have this wonderful term "handed over to Satan". Some people think it means "booted out of the church". It could also mean Paul's given up on them for the time being, or stopped meeting with them. But even Paul knows that anything Satan has God can take away from him.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
1 Timothy chapter 1
vs 1
Paul is the author of this letter. And although you might think "why does he need to justify himself to Timothy - he must know Paul is an apostle" remember that the church Timothy is with (Ephesus) probably needs a reminder that Paul is a king-bean.
vs 2
Timothy is getting the letter. You can see how deeply Paul appreciates Timothy's partnership and his work.
The crazy old verse-guy decided to put the to whom line and the cordial greeting line in the same verse here, but not in other letters. Just goes to show that the verse numbers aren't inspired ;)
vs 3
If you look at Acts, you might notice that everything Paul says in 1 Timothy and Titus don't add up strictly with his movements in Acts. Acts, of course, is not exhaustive, and it is thought that the stuff that Paul is talking about happened either outside of Acts (so after his first imprisonment in Rome) or simply isn't mentioned in Acts (Luke glossed it over).
So, at some point in time, Paul has left Ephesus to go to Macedonia, and told Timothy to stay in Ephesus, specifically to stop certain people from teaching some kinds of false doctrine.
vs 4
Devotion to myths and genealogies are aalso spoken against, and something Timothy is to keep a lid on. The reason Paul gives is because these false teachings and stupid topics are ripe for controversy, and people should focus less on controversy and more on God's work. Faith is the key here.
When Paul says "which is by faith" does he mean God's work happens by faith, or does he mean we by faith can concentrate on God's work, or something else? Well, the Greek doesn't really say God's work. The Greek is more like "charge those certain people not to teach differently or to pay attention to tales or unending genealogies, which provide questionings rather than a stewardship of God - in faith". To me, that reads more like "false teachings and stupid questionings don't lead to faith" - the stewardship or administration of God being the faith you have received. But I'm open to interpretation there.
vs 5
Paul's goal in setting down these rules, and in leaving Timothy to overrule on them, is love. And love can only be in existence when these three things exist.
vs 6
Some people have missed the mark, and so instead they are just jibber-jabbering. This is what happens when people aren't doing what you should be doing to maintain your pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith.
vs 7
The people Paul is warning about are, in the Ephesian case, seeking to become teachers. So they obviously like talking. The problem is that they don't really understand the stuff that they are teaching (and probably its implications), let alone the stuff that a true teacher of the law would be teaching!
So, is Paul charging these people as wanting to become teachers in the church, or is he charging them with the possibly more heinous crime of wanting to become "teachers of the law"? Well, the Greek term is specifically about either those interpreters of the Law among the Jews, or the Christians who do the same job - interpreting the Mosaic Law. So it's probably a bit of both. His discussion about the Law immediately after is probably a testimony to the fact that these guys really don't know how to read the Law.
vs 8
So the OT Law does have its role in the Christian Church, but in order for its role to be fully seen, we need to understand its proper use.
vs 9-10
First of all, we've got to understand that the Law isn't for perfect prissy princesses. It's for scum. Paul goes to great lengths here to show you how scummy he means. One interesting addition to this list is slave traders. I don't think this exists anywhere else in the whole NT. The word is literally andrapodistes, and can mean either one who unjustly forces men into slavery, or one who steals another person's slaves and sells them.
The word translated 'pervert' in the NIV ('homosexual' in the NASB, 'them that defile themselves with mankind' in the longwinded KJV) is literally arsenokoites. It comes from arrhen (meaning 'male') and koite (meaning 'bed', but also 'sexual intercourse'). So well done to the NIV translators, who managed to somehow translate that 'pervert' when the word is a simple compound word meaning "mansex".
vs 11
I went over 1 verse today, because I got up early (6:20am - sigh) but also because this verse is vital to the understanding of this concept Paul's going on about, and because I didn't want to wait till tomorrow.
The second thing we have to understand about the Law is that it must conform to the gospel! Remember that the gospel is more than just John 3:16. The "good news" is basically the entire salvation history of humanity, which includes God's working among the Israelites. So what I think Paul is saying is this: "When you read the Law, remember two things, Firstly, it's written for scum. It's written for a people who are constantly straying from God and need constant boundaries set in place to keep them near to God. Secondly, remember that the Law is not the be-all and end-all of the salvation story! It is just one part of the whole redemption of humanity, which has culminated in Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement. That's what God has given me to go around teaching, and I don't want you guys to just focus on one part by itself. That's stupid." (Ok, so I added that last part in, but Paul's with me I'm sure.)
Paul is the author of this letter. And although you might think "why does he need to justify himself to Timothy - he must know Paul is an apostle" remember that the church Timothy is with (Ephesus) probably needs a reminder that Paul is a king-bean.
vs 2
Timothy is getting the letter. You can see how deeply Paul appreciates Timothy's partnership and his work.
The crazy old verse-guy decided to put the to whom line and the cordial greeting line in the same verse here, but not in other letters. Just goes to show that the verse numbers aren't inspired ;)
vs 3
If you look at Acts, you might notice that everything Paul says in 1 Timothy and Titus don't add up strictly with his movements in Acts. Acts, of course, is not exhaustive, and it is thought that the stuff that Paul is talking about happened either outside of Acts (so after his first imprisonment in Rome) or simply isn't mentioned in Acts (Luke glossed it over).
So, at some point in time, Paul has left Ephesus to go to Macedonia, and told Timothy to stay in Ephesus, specifically to stop certain people from teaching some kinds of false doctrine.
vs 4
Devotion to myths and genealogies are aalso spoken against, and something Timothy is to keep a lid on. The reason Paul gives is because these false teachings and stupid topics are ripe for controversy, and people should focus less on controversy and more on God's work. Faith is the key here.
When Paul says "which is by faith" does he mean God's work happens by faith, or does he mean we by faith can concentrate on God's work, or something else? Well, the Greek doesn't really say God's work. The Greek is more like "charge those certain people not to teach differently or to pay attention to tales or unending genealogies, which provide questionings rather than a stewardship of God - in faith". To me, that reads more like "false teachings and stupid questionings don't lead to faith" - the stewardship or administration of God being the faith you have received. But I'm open to interpretation there.
vs 5
Paul's goal in setting down these rules, and in leaving Timothy to overrule on them, is love. And love can only be in existence when these three things exist.
vs 6
Some people have missed the mark, and so instead they are just jibber-jabbering. This is what happens when people aren't doing what you should be doing to maintain your pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith.
vs 7
The people Paul is warning about are, in the Ephesian case, seeking to become teachers. So they obviously like talking. The problem is that they don't really understand the stuff that they are teaching (and probably its implications), let alone the stuff that a true teacher of the law would be teaching!
So, is Paul charging these people as wanting to become teachers in the church, or is he charging them with the possibly more heinous crime of wanting to become "teachers of the law"? Well, the Greek term is specifically about either those interpreters of the Law among the Jews, or the Christians who do the same job - interpreting the Mosaic Law. So it's probably a bit of both. His discussion about the Law immediately after is probably a testimony to the fact that these guys really don't know how to read the Law.
vs 8
So the OT Law does have its role in the Christian Church, but in order for its role to be fully seen, we need to understand its proper use.
vs 9-10
First of all, we've got to understand that the Law isn't for perfect prissy princesses. It's for scum. Paul goes to great lengths here to show you how scummy he means. One interesting addition to this list is slave traders. I don't think this exists anywhere else in the whole NT. The word is literally andrapodistes, and can mean either one who unjustly forces men into slavery, or one who steals another person's slaves and sells them.
The word translated 'pervert' in the NIV ('homosexual' in the NASB, 'them that defile themselves with mankind' in the longwinded KJV) is literally arsenokoites. It comes from arrhen (meaning 'male') and koite (meaning 'bed', but also 'sexual intercourse'). So well done to the NIV translators, who managed to somehow translate that 'pervert' when the word is a simple compound word meaning "mansex".
vs 11
I went over 1 verse today, because I got up early (6:20am - sigh) but also because this verse is vital to the understanding of this concept Paul's going on about, and because I didn't want to wait till tomorrow.
The second thing we have to understand about the Law is that it must conform to the gospel! Remember that the gospel is more than just John 3:16. The "good news" is basically the entire salvation history of humanity, which includes God's working among the Israelites. So what I think Paul is saying is this: "When you read the Law, remember two things, Firstly, it's written for scum. It's written for a people who are constantly straying from God and need constant boundaries set in place to keep them near to God. Secondly, remember that the Law is not the be-all and end-all of the salvation story! It is just one part of the whole redemption of humanity, which has culminated in Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement. That's what God has given me to go around teaching, and I don't want you guys to just focus on one part by itself. That's stupid." (Ok, so I added that last part in, but Paul's with me I'm sure.)
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Philemon
vs 13
Even Paul is not above playing mind games. He's toying with this idea of Christian authority. But he's also playing with fire. A slave is more than just a person - it is a piece of property. And although Paul is strong in calling Onesimus his son and his heart, he knows that Philemon probably still thinks of him as a big walking spoon.
And yet, he makes the point that Philemon should be helping Paul in his ministry, especially while he's in chains. Obviously he hadn't been, and so Paul's using that as leverage. It's not really what you'd expect - but Paul is putting a hard word on Philemon. He might call it "using a human argument".
vs 14
You've got to wonder how tongue-in-cheek this is. Paul has said "I really want to keep Onesimus, and you really do owe me, and I really could order you to give him to me, but I'd rather you "spontaneously" give him to me out of your own good will." It's almost entrapment. But it isn't, because Paul is just showing his authority. He shows his real hope in verse 15-16. This doesn't mean that he didn't want Onesimus to stay with him - just that he also desires reconciliation between Philemon and his slave.
vs 15-16
Paul is suggesting that the Lord has been working, but he doesn't use such strong God-y language. Note that Paul says Onesimus will be worth double to Philemon - both as a fellow brother in the Lord, and also as a man (literally "in the flesh"). As many scholars and most slave-owners have pointed out many times, Paul never gives Philemon an order to release Onesimus, or any slaves. And Paul has just said that Onesimus has a double value to Philemon here. He's still a slave - just a slave you should treat like a brother. I imagine there may have been times when a man had gone into debt and been forced into slavery, only to be brought by his brother. It sounds pretty callous though.
vs 17
And Onesimus has a further value - he is valued by Paul as dearly loved. I'm sure it would have been difficult for Philemon to accept this slave back at all, but to welcome him back as if he were Paul, that's a real challenge. Real prodigal son material.
vs 18
Paul starts another of his mind games here, promising to pay back any wrongdoing.
vs 19
But what Paul is really pointing out, apart from the fact he is writing this bit himself, is that Philemon owes Paul his very spiritual life. If someone said that to us, what would we say? "Oh, it wasn't you, it was Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You can't claim that sort of work!" But Paul does. Of course, Paul could be referencing a different situation where he saved Philemon's life or something. But there are several verses in Paul's letters where he takes 'ownership' of his ministry. We can see that he does this even to the point of taking 'ownership' of his disciples' conversions! Sometimes I think we get far too spiritually up ourselves.
vs 20
Paul has earlier praised Philemon for refreshing the hearts of the saints. Now he asks (almost tells) Philemon to refresh his own heart. It is almost a payment for Paul's ministry to Philemon, the way he puts it. This letter looks more and more like blackmail the longer you read it! And yet, Paul is not asking for anything more than what he is given authority to ask for as a fellow Christian, as an Apostle, and as the one who brought Philemon to faith.
vs 21
Paul doesn't doubt that Philemon will do this stuff. They must have had at least a fairly good relationship, becuase you don't make such bold statements and requests from someone you don't know well.
vs 22
Paul's making an assumption here that Philemon has been praying for his release. But he probably had been. pre-modern gaols were a pretty horrid affair. That Paul survived for several years in custody around the Roman Empire suggests to us that there were many who were visiting, bringing food and other things, and also that many were praying for him.
This is one of the classic verses that I use to show people that no one takes the Bible as 100% literally to be applied. I've never met a Christian who keeps a guest room ready for when Paul comes back. And yet ALL the NT letters are occasional - they are just as specific to a situation as Paul's letter to Philemon. Does that make them valueless? Of course not! But it does mean we have to understand the situation to which they are addressed before we can apply them. Otherwise, every Christian has to make a pilgrimage to Troas to pick up Paul's cloak and scrolls (especially the parchments) and deliver them to him!
vs 23-25
The typical wrapup verses for a Pauline letter, even this short. Epaphras also seems to have been imprisoned. Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are probably among those who have kept Paul alive and sane during his capture. Some names we recognise here. Don't forget Timothy of course, who was at the top of the letter. He was supposed to co-author, but the letter isn't written in 'we' like the Thessalonian letters.
Even Paul is not above playing mind games. He's toying with this idea of Christian authority. But he's also playing with fire. A slave is more than just a person - it is a piece of property. And although Paul is strong in calling Onesimus his son and his heart, he knows that Philemon probably still thinks of him as a big walking spoon.
And yet, he makes the point that Philemon should be helping Paul in his ministry, especially while he's in chains. Obviously he hadn't been, and so Paul's using that as leverage. It's not really what you'd expect - but Paul is putting a hard word on Philemon. He might call it "using a human argument".
vs 14
You've got to wonder how tongue-in-cheek this is. Paul has said "I really want to keep Onesimus, and you really do owe me, and I really could order you to give him to me, but I'd rather you "spontaneously" give him to me out of your own good will." It's almost entrapment. But it isn't, because Paul is just showing his authority. He shows his real hope in verse 15-16. This doesn't mean that he didn't want Onesimus to stay with him - just that he also desires reconciliation between Philemon and his slave.
vs 15-16
Paul is suggesting that the Lord has been working, but he doesn't use such strong God-y language. Note that Paul says Onesimus will be worth double to Philemon - both as a fellow brother in the Lord, and also as a man (literally "in the flesh"). As many scholars and most slave-owners have pointed out many times, Paul never gives Philemon an order to release Onesimus, or any slaves. And Paul has just said that Onesimus has a double value to Philemon here. He's still a slave - just a slave you should treat like a brother. I imagine there may have been times when a man had gone into debt and been forced into slavery, only to be brought by his brother. It sounds pretty callous though.
vs 17
And Onesimus has a further value - he is valued by Paul as dearly loved. I'm sure it would have been difficult for Philemon to accept this slave back at all, but to welcome him back as if he were Paul, that's a real challenge. Real prodigal son material.
vs 18
Paul starts another of his mind games here, promising to pay back any wrongdoing.
vs 19
But what Paul is really pointing out, apart from the fact he is writing this bit himself, is that Philemon owes Paul his very spiritual life. If someone said that to us, what would we say? "Oh, it wasn't you, it was Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You can't claim that sort of work!" But Paul does. Of course, Paul could be referencing a different situation where he saved Philemon's life or something. But there are several verses in Paul's letters where he takes 'ownership' of his ministry. We can see that he does this even to the point of taking 'ownership' of his disciples' conversions! Sometimes I think we get far too spiritually up ourselves.
vs 20
Paul has earlier praised Philemon for refreshing the hearts of the saints. Now he asks (almost tells) Philemon to refresh his own heart. It is almost a payment for Paul's ministry to Philemon, the way he puts it. This letter looks more and more like blackmail the longer you read it! And yet, Paul is not asking for anything more than what he is given authority to ask for as a fellow Christian, as an Apostle, and as the one who brought Philemon to faith.
vs 21
Paul doesn't doubt that Philemon will do this stuff. They must have had at least a fairly good relationship, becuase you don't make such bold statements and requests from someone you don't know well.
vs 22
Paul's making an assumption here that Philemon has been praying for his release. But he probably had been. pre-modern gaols were a pretty horrid affair. That Paul survived for several years in custody around the Roman Empire suggests to us that there were many who were visiting, bringing food and other things, and also that many were praying for him.
This is one of the classic verses that I use to show people that no one takes the Bible as 100% literally to be applied. I've never met a Christian who keeps a guest room ready for when Paul comes back. And yet ALL the NT letters are occasional - they are just as specific to a situation as Paul's letter to Philemon. Does that make them valueless? Of course not! But it does mean we have to understand the situation to which they are addressed before we can apply them. Otherwise, every Christian has to make a pilgrimage to Troas to pick up Paul's cloak and scrolls (especially the parchments) and deliver them to him!
vs 23-25
The typical wrapup verses for a Pauline letter, even this short. Epaphras also seems to have been imprisoned. Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are probably among those who have kept Paul alive and sane during his capture. Some names we recognise here. Don't forget Timothy of course, who was at the top of the letter. He was supposed to co-author, but the letter isn't written in 'we' like the Thessalonian letters.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Philemon
vs 1-2
Another letter from Paul, and with Timothy as an offsider. It takes its name from the frist guy it is addressed to - Philemon.
It's also written to Apphia and Archippus. The titles these three are given could mean something special. Look at Paul's title - he is a prisoner of Christ. So it is possible that Archippus, for example, is a soldier, but also a convert. Apphia is obviously a woman. Philemon might hold a position of responsibility in the church as a fellow worker. He might also be just a worker, although in the greek, "fellow worker" is one word. So he is literally a companion worker, which makes me think he's in a similar business to Paul. I'm not sure if the church meets in the home of Philemon or of Archippus. the grammatical reading would suggest Archippus, but considering the address of the letter to Philemon first, it is possible that it meets in his house - this would give more explaination as to why Philemon is a fellow-worker with Paul too.
vs 3
Typical greeting.
vs 4
Once you start reading lots of Paul's letters in a row, you almost feel like you could write one yourself. There's no reason to start a letter like this though - it's not some holy formula - it's just how people wrote letters back then, and Paul Christianised it. We'd do better to Christianise the way we write letters.
vs 5
At least Paul has heard some good things about the church he's writing to here.
vs 6
There are surprisingly few references to sharing your faith in terms of an encouragement to or a command to that aren't easily attributable to a particular group outside of our experience. The Apostles probably receive the most commands, straight from Jesus, and those are the ones we know. But there is an argument (false to me, but people still use it) that those commands (like Matt 28:18-20 or Acts 1:8) were make only to the Apostles, and they are not relevant to us. Well, if you listen to anything written to churches by Paul, you'll see here that he encourages his churches to share their faith. Makes Philemon an important little book in my opinion.
But that doesn't cancel the fact that there is still far more in the Bible about helping fellow Christians. That's my take on a raw-numbers weigh up of the situation. But you should know my attitude on raw-numbers arguments by now.
Notice why Paul wants the church to be involved in evangelism and discipleship - because sharing your faith gives you a fuller understanding of all the good things we've got in Christ! It is this quality, along with the life of dependence on God, that makes missionaries so mature.
vs 7
Hehehe, Philemon refreshed their bowels. Although the word is used to mean intestines (I'm sure you can guess where), it usually refers to the seat of kinder affections (if used in a Hebrew sense). The more important word here is probably 'refreshed', suggesting more of what Philemon has actually been doing. He has been giving rest to their hearts. A very nice thought, although too vague for my liking. Possibly it means he has been allowing them to collect or regain the strength of their hearts, that is, to strengthen their love for one another. Can't really say.
vs 8
Oooh, Paul is not pulling rank, although he is claytons pulling rank (that is, the rank you're pulling when you're not pulling rank). Which does show us that there is a hierarchy in Christ, but that Paul doesn't use it. At least not here anyway.
vs 9
Instead, love is what motivates Paul and is also his motivating big stick to hit Philemon with. He also throws in that he's an old man, and a prisoner of Christ. Gee Paul, ham it up why don't you?
vs 10
It's lucky that Philemon knew who Onesimus was immediately, because we don't learn what his relationship to Philemon was until verse 16. Imagine having to wait 6 more verses to find out that Onesimus was a slave! Now obviously Paul didn't adopt him, so by "became my son" we've got to assume that he became Christian, and probably has also been of great help and support to Paul.
Paul makes a word-play here - Onesimus means 'useful', but as we see in the next verse, he has become useful even though he was useless.
vs 11
He became useless probably because he ran away. Now in my opinion, slaves don't just run away for no reason. Philemon might have been treating him like a jerk. But it could also be that Onesimus was a war-prisoner slave, or just didn't like being a slave and so ran away. Now remember that Onesimus is a dead-man-walking - the penalty for leaving your master was death. So he must have had a fairly good reason to leave.
How did he end up with Paul? Does he run to Paul because of his involvement in the church, almost to dob on Philemon? Or does he just run, and ends up somehow meeting Paul because of how awesome God is that he can orchestrate such things? Who knows. The interesting thing about this letter is that Paul doesn't slam Philemon for treating his slave like garbage, which either means that Philemon didn't do that, or that he did but Paul accepts it as part of slave-culture and that he is looking at the bigger issue of Onesimus being Christian now.
vs 12
And so we see that Paul is going to send Onesimus back to Philemon. Was this letter with Onesimus when he arrived? Was it going ahead of him so that he wouldn't be beaten or killed on his arrival? Who can say. What this does show is us just how occasional this letter is! It's about a specific guy in a specific church with a specific slave!
Paul obviously sees a need to explain just how much he loves Onesimus, probably because he doesn't want bad things to happen to him when he returns.
Another letter from Paul, and with Timothy as an offsider. It takes its name from the frist guy it is addressed to - Philemon.
It's also written to Apphia and Archippus. The titles these three are given could mean something special. Look at Paul's title - he is a prisoner of Christ. So it is possible that Archippus, for example, is a soldier, but also a convert. Apphia is obviously a woman. Philemon might hold a position of responsibility in the church as a fellow worker. He might also be just a worker, although in the greek, "fellow worker" is one word. So he is literally a companion worker, which makes me think he's in a similar business to Paul. I'm not sure if the church meets in the home of Philemon or of Archippus. the grammatical reading would suggest Archippus, but considering the address of the letter to Philemon first, it is possible that it meets in his house - this would give more explaination as to why Philemon is a fellow-worker with Paul too.
vs 3
Typical greeting.
vs 4
Once you start reading lots of Paul's letters in a row, you almost feel like you could write one yourself. There's no reason to start a letter like this though - it's not some holy formula - it's just how people wrote letters back then, and Paul Christianised it. We'd do better to Christianise the way we write letters.
vs 5
At least Paul has heard some good things about the church he's writing to here.
vs 6
There are surprisingly few references to sharing your faith in terms of an encouragement to or a command to that aren't easily attributable to a particular group outside of our experience. The Apostles probably receive the most commands, straight from Jesus, and those are the ones we know. But there is an argument (false to me, but people still use it) that those commands (like Matt 28:18-20 or Acts 1:8) were make only to the Apostles, and they are not relevant to us. Well, if you listen to anything written to churches by Paul, you'll see here that he encourages his churches to share their faith. Makes Philemon an important little book in my opinion.
But that doesn't cancel the fact that there is still far more in the Bible about helping fellow Christians. That's my take on a raw-numbers weigh up of the situation. But you should know my attitude on raw-numbers arguments by now.
Notice why Paul wants the church to be involved in evangelism and discipleship - because sharing your faith gives you a fuller understanding of all the good things we've got in Christ! It is this quality, along with the life of dependence on God, that makes missionaries so mature.
vs 7
Hehehe, Philemon refreshed their bowels. Although the word is used to mean intestines (I'm sure you can guess where), it usually refers to the seat of kinder affections (if used in a Hebrew sense). The more important word here is probably 'refreshed', suggesting more of what Philemon has actually been doing. He has been giving rest to their hearts. A very nice thought, although too vague for my liking. Possibly it means he has been allowing them to collect or regain the strength of their hearts, that is, to strengthen their love for one another. Can't really say.
vs 8
Oooh, Paul is not pulling rank, although he is claytons pulling rank (that is, the rank you're pulling when you're not pulling rank). Which does show us that there is a hierarchy in Christ, but that Paul doesn't use it. At least not here anyway.
vs 9
Instead, love is what motivates Paul and is also his motivating big stick to hit Philemon with. He also throws in that he's an old man, and a prisoner of Christ. Gee Paul, ham it up why don't you?
vs 10
It's lucky that Philemon knew who Onesimus was immediately, because we don't learn what his relationship to Philemon was until verse 16. Imagine having to wait 6 more verses to find out that Onesimus was a slave! Now obviously Paul didn't adopt him, so by "became my son" we've got to assume that he became Christian, and probably has also been of great help and support to Paul.
Paul makes a word-play here - Onesimus means 'useful', but as we see in the next verse, he has become useful even though he was useless.
vs 11
He became useless probably because he ran away. Now in my opinion, slaves don't just run away for no reason. Philemon might have been treating him like a jerk. But it could also be that Onesimus was a war-prisoner slave, or just didn't like being a slave and so ran away. Now remember that Onesimus is a dead-man-walking - the penalty for leaving your master was death. So he must have had a fairly good reason to leave.
How did he end up with Paul? Does he run to Paul because of his involvement in the church, almost to dob on Philemon? Or does he just run, and ends up somehow meeting Paul because of how awesome God is that he can orchestrate such things? Who knows. The interesting thing about this letter is that Paul doesn't slam Philemon for treating his slave like garbage, which either means that Philemon didn't do that, or that he did but Paul accepts it as part of slave-culture and that he is looking at the bigger issue of Onesimus being Christian now.
vs 12
And so we see that Paul is going to send Onesimus back to Philemon. Was this letter with Onesimus when he arrived? Was it going ahead of him so that he wouldn't be beaten or killed on his arrival? Who can say. What this does show is us just how occasional this letter is! It's about a specific guy in a specific church with a specific slave!
Paul obviously sees a need to explain just how much he loves Onesimus, probably because he doesn't want bad things to happen to him when he returns.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Titus Chapter 3
vs 9
Paul has talked about what is profitable, now he talks about what to avoid. Some interesting translating going on here. Genealogies is fair enough (although who wants to argue over them? Does this perhaps suggest that Gentiles were doing the same thing as modern people do, with comments like "Hey, these genealogies don't add up - how are we supposed to know how long ago the earth was made?" There's no evidence for that, although very early on there were questionings about how literal Genesis 1-3 could be). Arguments is literally 'strife'. The greek word for strife can be translated as quarrels, but then the NIV used quarrels to talk about the next term, so obviously they didn't want to repeat themselves. I wouldn't have used the word argument, because it is a more technical term, and in that way doesn't really bring for the heat and passion that is contained in the word strife.
Now the word they have translated "controversies" could have as easily been translated "debate". The word denotes an enquiry or a seeking, so Paul seems to have known well that people who are looking for the truth often ask stupid questions. Perhaps they don't know they are stupid when they ask them, but we know they aren't worth wasting time on. Of course, some of them will know that they are a waste of time, and are just asking these questions because theyt think these are the hard ones! Foolish is a good translation.
Finally, "quarrels about the law". "Quarrel" is fine - the word more means fight, but what is a quarrel other than a verbal fight? "The law" (or "the Law" as it's put in the NASB) can mean either legal stuff, or the OT Law, or so I am told. So what does Paul mean when he talks about fighting about the law? Just a few scant verses from now, this word is going to be used again, to describe "Zenas the lawyer". Does this actually mean that Zenas is a teacher of the Law? It may well do. I think from the context we have to assume that Christians were having fights over the OT, rather than over common law. I certainly hope so. What did they fight about? Who can say.
vs 10
Whatever they were doing, division in the church was not to be tolerated. If someone was asking questions and seeking, that was probably ok. But if they kept trying to be divisive, then they are warned twice, then basically excommunicated. It sounds harsh, but culturally that was a norm. Not only that, but the church is at a very tenuous stage of its development, and Paul would not brook the warping of theology by idiots and schemers. Remember, this was all before Christianity had any state privileges. This isn't big Roman Catholic church excommunicating via Pope, and stopping people from being able to buy food and trade. No, this is just "avoid that person". There's a story that John once went to a bathhouse, and a known heretic was there. Instead of going into the bathhouse, he left, saying to his friend "Quick, we should leave before the roof caves in on that heretic". It doesn't sound friendly, but protecting the theology of the church was more important to Paul.
So how do we do this now? I mean, I'm sure we all know Christians who like to waste their time on these foolish and stupid arguments. Hell, I'm guilty of that sometimes because I like to argue! If we simply warn them or stop spending time with them, they would no doubt go to a church that agrees more with their theology. Or perhaps stop going to church all together. Church changed so much with the influence of Constantine! This would never have been a question before the state got involved. Before Constantine, the church was a place for believers only. After, it was opened up to half-believers and non-believers to actively take part. Nowadays, we worry about what happens to someone when they leave our church. Back then, they either joined the church and took the membership seriously, or they left. Personally, I think people should go to churches that match their theology. I'm sure they would be more comfortable and friendly and useful there. But you'll never find a church where everyone agrees with everything you say and do. I guess we should strive to go to churches that match our theological understanding, and deal with those things we disagree with in a Christ-like manner. For those who don't deal with them in that way... I don't know. Perhaps it's a case-by-case thing.
vs 11
Paul's not finished yet. He says we can be sure such a person is warped and sinful! But our churches just aren't like that anymore! We don't kick sinful people out! I guess we can just look at these people who make these arguments, and keep them out of positions of authority? Treat them a little more like a seeker than a convert? But then do we want to have a class system in our churches? Modern times are complicated, and we don't want to import 1st century principles into our church - we want to import Christian principles. Ours isn't a 1st century church, nor can it be. Heaps too much is different. But Paul does tell us that those who argue and cause trouble in the way he has described are warped and sinful, and we should treat them accordingly.
vs 12
Paul doesn't even know who he is sending. But he wants to see Titus face to face.
vs 13
Ahh, our old friend Zenas the lawyer...
Let me tell you, from my own travelling around the place, that it is really wonderful when you get to a church and they look after everything you need - accomodation, food, drive you places - it's really great.
vs 14
In this statement, doing good (or works of good) accomplishes two things - one, it feeds you, and the other, it keeps your life productive, or fruitful. I think one is physical, and one is spiritual. I don't think Paul is talking about being financially fruitful - it just doesn't gel with providing for "daily necessities". I think he's saying "work so you can live, and live so you can serve God".
vs 15
We greet you. And send greetings. Greet others. And grace be with them.
Paul has talked about what is profitable, now he talks about what to avoid. Some interesting translating going on here. Genealogies is fair enough (although who wants to argue over them? Does this perhaps suggest that Gentiles were doing the same thing as modern people do, with comments like "Hey, these genealogies don't add up - how are we supposed to know how long ago the earth was made?" There's no evidence for that, although very early on there were questionings about how literal Genesis 1-3 could be). Arguments is literally 'strife'. The greek word for strife can be translated as quarrels, but then the NIV used quarrels to talk about the next term, so obviously they didn't want to repeat themselves. I wouldn't have used the word argument, because it is a more technical term, and in that way doesn't really bring for the heat and passion that is contained in the word strife.
Now the word they have translated "controversies" could have as easily been translated "debate". The word denotes an enquiry or a seeking, so Paul seems to have known well that people who are looking for the truth often ask stupid questions. Perhaps they don't know they are stupid when they ask them, but we know they aren't worth wasting time on. Of course, some of them will know that they are a waste of time, and are just asking these questions because theyt think these are the hard ones! Foolish is a good translation.
Finally, "quarrels about the law". "Quarrel" is fine - the word more means fight, but what is a quarrel other than a verbal fight? "The law" (or "the Law" as it's put in the NASB) can mean either legal stuff, or the OT Law, or so I am told. So what does Paul mean when he talks about fighting about the law? Just a few scant verses from now, this word is going to be used again, to describe "Zenas the lawyer". Does this actually mean that Zenas is a teacher of the Law? It may well do. I think from the context we have to assume that Christians were having fights over the OT, rather than over common law. I certainly hope so. What did they fight about? Who can say.
vs 10
Whatever they were doing, division in the church was not to be tolerated. If someone was asking questions and seeking, that was probably ok. But if they kept trying to be divisive, then they are warned twice, then basically excommunicated. It sounds harsh, but culturally that was a norm. Not only that, but the church is at a very tenuous stage of its development, and Paul would not brook the warping of theology by idiots and schemers. Remember, this was all before Christianity had any state privileges. This isn't big Roman Catholic church excommunicating via Pope, and stopping people from being able to buy food and trade. No, this is just "avoid that person". There's a story that John once went to a bathhouse, and a known heretic was there. Instead of going into the bathhouse, he left, saying to his friend "Quick, we should leave before the roof caves in on that heretic". It doesn't sound friendly, but protecting the theology of the church was more important to Paul.
So how do we do this now? I mean, I'm sure we all know Christians who like to waste their time on these foolish and stupid arguments. Hell, I'm guilty of that sometimes because I like to argue! If we simply warn them or stop spending time with them, they would no doubt go to a church that agrees more with their theology. Or perhaps stop going to church all together. Church changed so much with the influence of Constantine! This would never have been a question before the state got involved. Before Constantine, the church was a place for believers only. After, it was opened up to half-believers and non-believers to actively take part. Nowadays, we worry about what happens to someone when they leave our church. Back then, they either joined the church and took the membership seriously, or they left. Personally, I think people should go to churches that match their theology. I'm sure they would be more comfortable and friendly and useful there. But you'll never find a church where everyone agrees with everything you say and do. I guess we should strive to go to churches that match our theological understanding, and deal with those things we disagree with in a Christ-like manner. For those who don't deal with them in that way... I don't know. Perhaps it's a case-by-case thing.
vs 11
Paul's not finished yet. He says we can be sure such a person is warped and sinful! But our churches just aren't like that anymore! We don't kick sinful people out! I guess we can just look at these people who make these arguments, and keep them out of positions of authority? Treat them a little more like a seeker than a convert? But then do we want to have a class system in our churches? Modern times are complicated, and we don't want to import 1st century principles into our church - we want to import Christian principles. Ours isn't a 1st century church, nor can it be. Heaps too much is different. But Paul does tell us that those who argue and cause trouble in the way he has described are warped and sinful, and we should treat them accordingly.
vs 12
Paul doesn't even know who he is sending. But he wants to see Titus face to face.
vs 13
Ahh, our old friend Zenas the lawyer...
Let me tell you, from my own travelling around the place, that it is really wonderful when you get to a church and they look after everything you need - accomodation, food, drive you places - it's really great.
vs 14
In this statement, doing good (or works of good) accomplishes two things - one, it feeds you, and the other, it keeps your life productive, or fruitful. I think one is physical, and one is spiritual. I don't think Paul is talking about being financially fruitful - it just doesn't gel with providing for "daily necessities". I think he's saying "work so you can live, and live so you can serve God".
vs 15
We greet you. And send greetings. Greet others. And grace be with them.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Titus chapter 3
vs 1
Paul doesn't always mean some sort of demonic force when he's talking about authorities and rulers (as some people think). The context here makes it fairly obvious he's talking about your regular garden-variety kind of human political and legal rulers. The call to obedience is separate from that, so we could assume that it is more to do with obedience to God. It's probably more in line with the idea of not causing trouble and making people think ill of Christians.
More pro-actively, we must be ready to do what is good when the opportunity arises. Ready in this sense probably also includes a willingness as much as a physical preparedness or alertness.
vs 2
It very much sounds like Christians should be model citizens. They shouldn't be causing strife, and the entire Christian community should be a peaceable one and humble. It's not always easy to be humble in our society, especially since we don't really respect those who allow others to walk over them. I think we could stand to have a better understanding of humility than the simple definition we usually give it. Studies on Jesus' humility would be very worthwhile.
vs 3
It's just not a good way to live. You read those verses, and you think "Did I really live like that?" Some of us still do in parts, but can look at the work the Spirit has done and how far he has brought us, and that is greatly comforting.
vs 4
Do the physical descriptions of God's qualities revealing themselves always refer to Christ? I'm not sure, but I would say that this is what the incarnation is all about. Paul's description of it this way makes that point all the more powerful.
vs 5
Do we focus on God's grace more than his mercy? I wonder. The Holy Spirit is vitally involved in our salvation as well as our transformation. It gives rebirth and renewal. Worth remembering.
vs 6
And of course our access to the Holy Spirit is only through Jesus Christ. I don't know if that means the Holy Spirit never works on people who don't have Christ. That would require a more systematic theological approach. But for the purposes outlined here, that seems to be what it says.
vs 7
The purpose of our justification and of God's grace is that we might be heirs of eternal life and hope. These two things can't really be separated - our hope only exists because of our inheritance.
vs 8
If we are to focus on these things, then it should make us careful to devote ourselves to doing good. Paul cannot praise these ideas enough, they are excellent and profitable. The orthopraxical link between understanding God's grace and mercy to us through Christ and the Holy Spirit, along with our attitude towards government and authority and society are all worthwhile pursuits for discussion, contemplation, and teaching.
Paul doesn't always mean some sort of demonic force when he's talking about authorities and rulers (as some people think). The context here makes it fairly obvious he's talking about your regular garden-variety kind of human political and legal rulers. The call to obedience is separate from that, so we could assume that it is more to do with obedience to God. It's probably more in line with the idea of not causing trouble and making people think ill of Christians.
More pro-actively, we must be ready to do what is good when the opportunity arises. Ready in this sense probably also includes a willingness as much as a physical preparedness or alertness.
vs 2
It very much sounds like Christians should be model citizens. They shouldn't be causing strife, and the entire Christian community should be a peaceable one and humble. It's not always easy to be humble in our society, especially since we don't really respect those who allow others to walk over them. I think we could stand to have a better understanding of humility than the simple definition we usually give it. Studies on Jesus' humility would be very worthwhile.
vs 3
It's just not a good way to live. You read those verses, and you think "Did I really live like that?" Some of us still do in parts, but can look at the work the Spirit has done and how far he has brought us, and that is greatly comforting.
vs 4
Do the physical descriptions of God's qualities revealing themselves always refer to Christ? I'm not sure, but I would say that this is what the incarnation is all about. Paul's description of it this way makes that point all the more powerful.
vs 5
Do we focus on God's grace more than his mercy? I wonder. The Holy Spirit is vitally involved in our salvation as well as our transformation. It gives rebirth and renewal. Worth remembering.
vs 6
And of course our access to the Holy Spirit is only through Jesus Christ. I don't know if that means the Holy Spirit never works on people who don't have Christ. That would require a more systematic theological approach. But for the purposes outlined here, that seems to be what it says.
vs 7
The purpose of our justification and of God's grace is that we might be heirs of eternal life and hope. These two things can't really be separated - our hope only exists because of our inheritance.
vs 8
If we are to focus on these things, then it should make us careful to devote ourselves to doing good. Paul cannot praise these ideas enough, they are excellent and profitable. The orthopraxical link between understanding God's grace and mercy to us through Christ and the Holy Spirit, along with our attitude towards government and authority and society are all worthwhile pursuits for discussion, contemplation, and teaching.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Titus Chapter 2
vs 9
Slaves are slaves. Not workers, not lower class, not modern at all. The only person any of us are slaves to is God. So treat God like that. Try to please him. Don't talk back to him. For those of you who work for The Man, the basic lesson is that you should do what they expect of you. Slave masters expect their slaves to obey them in everything. Employers expect you to do what they pay you for.
vs 10
Sometimes people think it's ok to steal from their business, or their employer, or their master. Usually because they feel they are being mistreated, or underpaid, or there's something unfair. Sometimes it's just because people aren't honest. A Christian shouldn't do any of these things. We should be fully trustworthy, just like Joseph (the OT Joseph that is).
The purpose of this attitude is so that the teaching about Jesus will be attractive. A by-product that Paul doesn't mention (but we all know happens) is that people walk over you and use you. Slaves didn't really have a choice about their masters. We do have choices about our employers. We can't always leave (if there's a depression or skills surplus or something), but if we do it's perfectly ok. But we have to trust in God that doing what he says will make his promises happen.
vs 11
Do we take this literally, in some theological context, and try and say something about God revealing himself through his creation to all people? No, that would be a lie. Of the qualities of God that are revealed in his creation, his grace that brings salvation is not one of them. Nor did Jesus fly around to America, China, India, Australia, or anywhere else and tell everyone about himself. Paul's making a facetious comment based on the fact that the civilised world has been evangelised, mostly by him. And what it looks pretty clear by the description in the next few verses that it's the Holy Spirit, I am actually wondering whether God's act of grace itself is a teacher to us.
vs 12
The purpose of this grace is to teach us to be godly in this present age. It's interesting that it teaches us to say "No" (the greek is more boring, just saying that it teaches us to deny impiety and worldly lusts). The idea being that without God's grace, we wouldn't know how to say no to these things. We wouldn't know how to live godly lives. Don't get me wrong - we might know what these things look like (we might have even seen Christians doing them!) but we can't get it to work ourselves. That's one of the secrets of Christianity - that people shouldn't be able to emulate our lives without God's grace.
vs 13
As the song doesn't go; Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' return. If he doesn't come back, we really are hopeless. For all the good stuff we get out of being a Christian, nothing compares to the glory of his return - for him and for us.
vs 14
Jesus wants a people that are eager to do good. He doesn't just want people. He's got his purpose for us here on earth.
vs 15
Paul has given Titus authority. People should listen to him. Will they? Who knows. But he has the teaching and he must give it with authority. Notice that it's not just the teaching that has authority - the teacher has it too. I'm not exactly sure how you go about not letting people despise you. But I think Paul is saying that people can't despise you for teaching these teachings, as they are the truth, and if anyone does despise you, make sure it's for their own wrong reasons, not because you did something despicable.
Slaves are slaves. Not workers, not lower class, not modern at all. The only person any of us are slaves to is God. So treat God like that. Try to please him. Don't talk back to him. For those of you who work for The Man, the basic lesson is that you should do what they expect of you. Slave masters expect their slaves to obey them in everything. Employers expect you to do what they pay you for.
vs 10
Sometimes people think it's ok to steal from their business, or their employer, or their master. Usually because they feel they are being mistreated, or underpaid, or there's something unfair. Sometimes it's just because people aren't honest. A Christian shouldn't do any of these things. We should be fully trustworthy, just like Joseph (the OT Joseph that is).
The purpose of this attitude is so that the teaching about Jesus will be attractive. A by-product that Paul doesn't mention (but we all know happens) is that people walk over you and use you. Slaves didn't really have a choice about their masters. We do have choices about our employers. We can't always leave (if there's a depression or skills surplus or something), but if we do it's perfectly ok. But we have to trust in God that doing what he says will make his promises happen.
vs 11
Do we take this literally, in some theological context, and try and say something about God revealing himself through his creation to all people? No, that would be a lie. Of the qualities of God that are revealed in his creation, his grace that brings salvation is not one of them. Nor did Jesus fly around to America, China, India, Australia, or anywhere else and tell everyone about himself. Paul's making a facetious comment based on the fact that the civilised world has been evangelised, mostly by him. And what it looks pretty clear by the description in the next few verses that it's the Holy Spirit, I am actually wondering whether God's act of grace itself is a teacher to us.
vs 12
The purpose of this grace is to teach us to be godly in this present age. It's interesting that it teaches us to say "No" (the greek is more boring, just saying that it teaches us to deny impiety and worldly lusts). The idea being that without God's grace, we wouldn't know how to say no to these things. We wouldn't know how to live godly lives. Don't get me wrong - we might know what these things look like (we might have even seen Christians doing them!) but we can't get it to work ourselves. That's one of the secrets of Christianity - that people shouldn't be able to emulate our lives without God's grace.
vs 13
As the song doesn't go; Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' return. If he doesn't come back, we really are hopeless. For all the good stuff we get out of being a Christian, nothing compares to the glory of his return - for him and for us.
vs 14
Jesus wants a people that are eager to do good. He doesn't just want people. He's got his purpose for us here on earth.
vs 15
Paul has given Titus authority. People should listen to him. Will they? Who knows. But he has the teaching and he must give it with authority. Notice that it's not just the teaching that has authority - the teacher has it too. I'm not exactly sure how you go about not letting people despise you. But I think Paul is saying that people can't despise you for teaching these teachings, as they are the truth, and if anyone does despise you, make sure it's for their own wrong reasons, not because you did something despicable.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Titus chapter 2
vs 1
So this is what Titus is to teach - not the crazy garbage that the Judaisers are teaching, but sound doctrine, that is, what Paul said.
vs 2
Interesting to see what that means. Look at the following verses and see what "sound doctrine" looks like! It's all down-to-earth, practical attitudes and actions! How the Christian should live is of vital importance to most, if not all, the NT authors.
Now I don't know exactly how older men acted in these times, but to some extent we have to expect that they acted somewhat as they do now, and that people would have had the same expectations from them. Tell me what Paul is describing isn't exactly what you want the old Christian men in your church to act like! These things do not simply come with age though, they are products of a Christian life which is built on healthy teaching. Sound is just literally healthy again - the NIV translators obviously liked to spice it up a little with different words (actually, they use sound because it goes back to the KJV). So old men are to be healthy in the faith, healthy in their love, and healthy in endurance.
vs 3
It's not that older women should be taught in the same way - it is that they should be similar in demeanour. Note the mention of wine addiction (literally enslavement in the greek) - which is mentioned in 1 Timothy as a requirement of elders! And notice the purpose, which is for teaching.
vs 4-5
Culturally, there is a really important reason for this - because it would be entirely culturally inappropriate for the male leaders (most likely not old people - the term elder had long before lost its meaning as "old man") to be hanging around with the younger women. So it was up to the older women (who the young men are probably less likely to carouse with) to learn from the elders, and then to teach the young women. Much of the talk of love and subjection to husbands is against mostly cultural - not because Christian culture demands it, but because the surrounding culture demanded it, and Paul doesn't want the word of God maligned simply because these women want to exercise their freedom. And while I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman being subject to her husband in today's times, I do wonder if the amount of repression of women in churches (in comparison with the world outside) might not cause people to malign the word of God.
But it only just occured to me today that some people may well be afraid of the slippery slope of liberalism - you let women pray out loud one week (TOTALLY backed up by Scripture, by the way), then they'll be preaching (scripturally iffy, but still entirely defensible), and then suddenly we'll have homosexual pastors. Now I've always known that people are afraid of the slippery slope of liberalism - but it's only today that I've thought specifically of the fear of homosexual leadership. I won't get into it here, because it's off-topic. Stay tuned.
vs 6
I've heard women say before "you can only give the young men one command, because it's all they'll hear". As I said earlier, it's far more likely that the young men were the leaders, although I'd be interested to know how quickly old men took over the church. Probably not all that quickly - many of the famous church fathers we know started young, so even if they were hella old when they died (I think Polycarp was like 85 or something) they most usually passed on to young people again.
vs 7
In any case, the punctuation between verse 6 and 7 is questionable, because it could be easily read that they should have self control in all things. And of course Titus has to show the young men a pattern of what is good too. So it's not just one thing for them. In fact, Titus is to show a bunch of things in his teaching, as much for the sake of the young men as anybody.
vs 8
And again one of the main reasons that Paul wants Titus to do these things is so that people won't oppose him, and so that Paul and him (and probably other Christian teachers too) have no reason to be slandered. That's the problem with proteges of course - when they do bad things, the mud sticks to you!
So this is what Titus is to teach - not the crazy garbage that the Judaisers are teaching, but sound doctrine, that is, what Paul said.
vs 2
Interesting to see what that means. Look at the following verses and see what "sound doctrine" looks like! It's all down-to-earth, practical attitudes and actions! How the Christian should live is of vital importance to most, if not all, the NT authors.
Now I don't know exactly how older men acted in these times, but to some extent we have to expect that they acted somewhat as they do now, and that people would have had the same expectations from them. Tell me what Paul is describing isn't exactly what you want the old Christian men in your church to act like! These things do not simply come with age though, they are products of a Christian life which is built on healthy teaching. Sound is just literally healthy again - the NIV translators obviously liked to spice it up a little with different words (actually, they use sound because it goes back to the KJV). So old men are to be healthy in the faith, healthy in their love, and healthy in endurance.
vs 3
It's not that older women should be taught in the same way - it is that they should be similar in demeanour. Note the mention of wine addiction (literally enslavement in the greek) - which is mentioned in 1 Timothy as a requirement of elders! And notice the purpose, which is for teaching.
vs 4-5
Culturally, there is a really important reason for this - because it would be entirely culturally inappropriate for the male leaders (most likely not old people - the term elder had long before lost its meaning as "old man") to be hanging around with the younger women. So it was up to the older women (who the young men are probably less likely to carouse with) to learn from the elders, and then to teach the young women. Much of the talk of love and subjection to husbands is against mostly cultural - not because Christian culture demands it, but because the surrounding culture demanded it, and Paul doesn't want the word of God maligned simply because these women want to exercise their freedom. And while I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman being subject to her husband in today's times, I do wonder if the amount of repression of women in churches (in comparison with the world outside) might not cause people to malign the word of God.
But it only just occured to me today that some people may well be afraid of the slippery slope of liberalism - you let women pray out loud one week (TOTALLY backed up by Scripture, by the way), then they'll be preaching (scripturally iffy, but still entirely defensible), and then suddenly we'll have homosexual pastors. Now I've always known that people are afraid of the slippery slope of liberalism - but it's only today that I've thought specifically of the fear of homosexual leadership. I won't get into it here, because it's off-topic. Stay tuned.
vs 6
I've heard women say before "you can only give the young men one command, because it's all they'll hear". As I said earlier, it's far more likely that the young men were the leaders, although I'd be interested to know how quickly old men took over the church. Probably not all that quickly - many of the famous church fathers we know started young, so even if they were hella old when they died (I think Polycarp was like 85 or something) they most usually passed on to young people again.
vs 7
In any case, the punctuation between verse 6 and 7 is questionable, because it could be easily read that they should have self control in all things. And of course Titus has to show the young men a pattern of what is good too. So it's not just one thing for them. In fact, Titus is to show a bunch of things in his teaching, as much for the sake of the young men as anybody.
vs 8
And again one of the main reasons that Paul wants Titus to do these things is so that people won't oppose him, and so that Paul and him (and probably other Christian teachers too) have no reason to be slandered. That's the problem with proteges of course - when they do bad things, the mud sticks to you!
Monday, September 11, 2006
Titus chapter 1
vs 9
You'd sort of wonder if this verse wasn't here - of course leaders of churches need to be firm in the word of God. But notice the strong emphasis on following the word "as it was taught" - remember that these churches were lucky to have the OT, the gospels haven't been written yet (possibly Mark), and they have this letter of Paul. So how do the leaders remain faithful to the message of the gospel? By remaining faithful to what they were taught, probably by Paul when he was there. This reliance on tradition might seem a little wierd to us, but that's just how it was done. And that reliance on tradition lasted for about 1500 years until a guy called Martin came along and accidently blew it all out of the water.
The reason Paul gives for the necessity of biblical faithfulness is so the person can encourage people with sound doctrine (literally "healthy teaching") and to elegco those who oppose (contradict) it. The NIV and NASB uses refute, and it's not that the word is wrong, but I have this feeling that it has undertones of proving someone wrong without necessarily then providing the correct healthy teaching. I would have translated it "convince" - the idea being that you begin by refuting their contradicting teaching, but then you teach them the good stuff too.
vs 10
Well, the circumcision group (we assume Jews and possibly God-fearers or proselytes who still think Christians should act like Jews: see Acts 15 for more info) are the direct immediate reason that Paul wants the new church in Crete to have strong leaders in every town. Obviously that's not the reason we have them specifically - we're lucky enough to live in a stage of history where we've got heresy coming out our ears! But if you were wanting to read this letter literally, then you might think that the only reason we have strong leaders filled with good healthy teaching is because of Jews.
vs 11
I hate people like this. I know several Christians who fit this mould. They have entire households under their sway, usually weaker people new in the faith. They teach utter crap, and it spreads like wildfire, as crappy teaching often does. You've really got to jump on it quickly, because once people get set in their ways, they're lost. And you can try to correct these problems at the source, but they are so often stubborn, many (in more conservative circles anyway) having an attitude that they are "the remnant" and those who don't believe in a literal 6-day creation, or who don't believe in an immediate rapture, or who don't believe in a Roman Catholic conspiracy suddenly become less-than-Christians. It was this "special teaching" idea that lead to Gnosticism.
At least I don't know many people who do it for dishonest gain.
vs 12-13
I don't know if Cretans are still like that, but at the time it was true. These false teachers needed to be rebuked sharply. It's amazing how basic and standardised the reply is to false teachers by all the NT authors. I mean, some are harsher than others with messages like "kick them out, and don't be worried if you leave a sandal print on their arse", but the condemnation of false teaching is always powerfully given.
By the way, cretin does not come from the root of Cretan. So when you call someone a cretin, you're not saying that they are from Crete and hence a lying evil lazy glutton-brute. In fact, what you are calling them is a Christian! The word cretin comes from the provincial French creitin, crestin which comes from the vulgar latin christianus! The idea being that someone of mental deficiency and defect is still a Christian (still human despite their deficiencies). And a sidenote completely off topic, American hackers prefer the english pronunciation, most probably because of the popularity of Monty Phython.
Anyway, these heretics (the circumcisors, not the hackers) need to be strongly corrected, with the purpose of returning them to a healthy faith.
vs 14
How important! You've got to note that what these Judaisers were teaching is not OT theological truths - they were clinging to Jewish myths and commands. Paul is probably talking about the rabbinical writings which were (and still are) so powerful and respected by Jews. The NIV says they rejected the truth, but the greek is much more powerful, saying they perverted it.
vs 15
Strong language from Paul here. "All things" shouldn't be taken literally I don't think. Don't go drinking sewage because you think you're pure. Paul says nothing is pure for these defiled ones, and in fact, their minds and consciences aren't pure, so that to me would suggest that "all things" and "nothing" really refers to both their mind and conscience. What's the difference between the two I hear you ask? Well, Paul is talking about their nous and their suneidesis, which I only really put here because I think it's cool that the mind was referred to as 'nous'. sunedesis is basically what we would refer to as conscience - it's the faculty that prompts you to do what is good, and to not to what is bad. It's important to understand that, because it helps to narrow down what nous means in this context. Because of the next verse, I would tend towards saying that their 'minds' are their faculty for understanding in the fairly general and wide sense of the term. The reason I differentiate is because the same word can be used to mean the same thing that suneidesis means, and so either Paul is repeating himself to make it clear that when he says "nothing is pure" of them he just means their consciences, or more likely in my opinion he is saying that their very mental faculties are clouded along with their consciences.
vs 16
Paul claims to know here that they don't know God - and how does he do it? By applying the methodology of John! Their actions show that their claim is false. In fact, their actions are pretty terrible - so bad, that they are unfit to do good things! Their own impurity would probably spoil anything good they did anyway.
You'd sort of wonder if this verse wasn't here - of course leaders of churches need to be firm in the word of God. But notice the strong emphasis on following the word "as it was taught" - remember that these churches were lucky to have the OT, the gospels haven't been written yet (possibly Mark), and they have this letter of Paul. So how do the leaders remain faithful to the message of the gospel? By remaining faithful to what they were taught, probably by Paul when he was there. This reliance on tradition might seem a little wierd to us, but that's just how it was done. And that reliance on tradition lasted for about 1500 years until a guy called Martin came along and accidently blew it all out of the water.
The reason Paul gives for the necessity of biblical faithfulness is so the person can encourage people with sound doctrine (literally "healthy teaching") and to elegco those who oppose (contradict) it. The NIV and NASB uses refute, and it's not that the word is wrong, but I have this feeling that it has undertones of proving someone wrong without necessarily then providing the correct healthy teaching. I would have translated it "convince" - the idea being that you begin by refuting their contradicting teaching, but then you teach them the good stuff too.
vs 10
Well, the circumcision group (we assume Jews and possibly God-fearers or proselytes who still think Christians should act like Jews: see Acts 15 for more info) are the direct immediate reason that Paul wants the new church in Crete to have strong leaders in every town. Obviously that's not the reason we have them specifically - we're lucky enough to live in a stage of history where we've got heresy coming out our ears! But if you were wanting to read this letter literally, then you might think that the only reason we have strong leaders filled with good healthy teaching is because of Jews.
vs 11
I hate people like this. I know several Christians who fit this mould. They have entire households under their sway, usually weaker people new in the faith. They teach utter crap, and it spreads like wildfire, as crappy teaching often does. You've really got to jump on it quickly, because once people get set in their ways, they're lost. And you can try to correct these problems at the source, but they are so often stubborn, many (in more conservative circles anyway) having an attitude that they are "the remnant" and those who don't believe in a literal 6-day creation, or who don't believe in an immediate rapture, or who don't believe in a Roman Catholic conspiracy suddenly become less-than-Christians. It was this "special teaching" idea that lead to Gnosticism.
At least I don't know many people who do it for dishonest gain.
vs 12-13
I don't know if Cretans are still like that, but at the time it was true. These false teachers needed to be rebuked sharply. It's amazing how basic and standardised the reply is to false teachers by all the NT authors. I mean, some are harsher than others with messages like "kick them out, and don't be worried if you leave a sandal print on their arse", but the condemnation of false teaching is always powerfully given.
By the way, cretin does not come from the root of Cretan. So when you call someone a cretin, you're not saying that they are from Crete and hence a lying evil lazy glutton-brute. In fact, what you are calling them is a Christian! The word cretin comes from the provincial French creitin, crestin which comes from the vulgar latin christianus! The idea being that someone of mental deficiency and defect is still a Christian (still human despite their deficiencies). And a sidenote completely off topic, American hackers prefer the english pronunciation, most probably because of the popularity of Monty Phython.
Anyway, these heretics (the circumcisors, not the hackers) need to be strongly corrected, with the purpose of returning them to a healthy faith.
vs 14
How important! You've got to note that what these Judaisers were teaching is not OT theological truths - they were clinging to Jewish myths and commands. Paul is probably talking about the rabbinical writings which were (and still are) so powerful and respected by Jews. The NIV says they rejected the truth, but the greek is much more powerful, saying they perverted it.
vs 15
Strong language from Paul here. "All things" shouldn't be taken literally I don't think. Don't go drinking sewage because you think you're pure. Paul says nothing is pure for these defiled ones, and in fact, their minds and consciences aren't pure, so that to me would suggest that "all things" and "nothing" really refers to both their mind and conscience. What's the difference between the two I hear you ask? Well, Paul is talking about their nous and their suneidesis, which I only really put here because I think it's cool that the mind was referred to as 'nous'. sunedesis is basically what we would refer to as conscience - it's the faculty that prompts you to do what is good, and to not to what is bad. It's important to understand that, because it helps to narrow down what nous means in this context. Because of the next verse, I would tend towards saying that their 'minds' are their faculty for understanding in the fairly general and wide sense of the term. The reason I differentiate is because the same word can be used to mean the same thing that suneidesis means, and so either Paul is repeating himself to make it clear that when he says "nothing is pure" of them he just means their consciences, or more likely in my opinion he is saying that their very mental faculties are clouded along with their consciences.
vs 16
Paul claims to know here that they don't know God - and how does he do it? By applying the methodology of John! Their actions show that their claim is false. In fact, their actions are pretty terrible - so bad, that they are unfit to do good things! Their own impurity would probably spoil anything good they did anyway.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Titus Chapter 1
vs 1
This letter was written by Paul the verbose - who takes three verses to introduce himself before even getting to who it's written to!
It's interesting that Paul here introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus. It's such an important title, doubly so for Paul, whom can only say he saw Jesus in a vision. He says his apostleship and service to God is for the sake of our faith, and the knowledge that leads to godliness.
vs 2
As I've said before, while it is ok for people to say "Even if God didn't save me from death, he's still worth worshipping", our faith is actually built on God's promise of eternal life. And of course, we can trust God's promise, because he doesn't lie.
vs 3
Gee, you're not talking to Gentiles are you Paul? While Paul does sound a little full of himself and his preaching mission, I guess he was called specifically to be the light to the Gentiles.
vs 4
Oh, wait, this letter is to someone? Titus, obviously a close disciple of Paul's and referred to very lovingly.
vs 5
Every town! Wow, did Crete see some sort of massive revival or something? Probably not - but there was probably enough towns that they each had a small group of believers, and every group, no matter how small, needs leaders.
But does this directive suggest that Titus is to take some sort of role as a bishop over the whole island of Crete, with smaller leaders over towns? We'll wait and see for the moment.
vs 6
The NIV repeats the word elders here, but it isn't repeated in the greek. The greek word is presbuteros, by the way, which is a comparative of presbus, meaning elderly. So elder and presbyter really mean the same thing. Bishop, well, we'll see.
It's actually a little funny how this is written. Although I wouldn't suggest this is the only way of reading it, in the greek you could possibly read it "appoint elders, as I directed you - if you can actually find people who are husbands of one wife with children who are believers and not unruly" - as if these might be a hard thing to find in Crete!
Damn these rules make it hard to be an elder - doubly so if you have children!
vs 7
The word here is episkopos, that is, bishop. Are they used interchangably, or do they mean different things? To me, the reading seems fairly obvious that they overlap, and are talking about the same thing.
Any mention of sexual deviancy or adultery there? No, in fact what are the warnings that Paul gives about people who could be in leadership? They are all things that (with the exception of drunkenness) we would more or less accept in people as things which everybody does. *bzzzzzz!* Sorry! Paul says no! No overbearing leaders. No quick-tempered or violent leaders. No leaders ripping people off (either in their leadership or in their business practices methinks).
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that being a homosexual or adulterer is a good thing for a leader to do, or that we should ignore those things because Paul doesn't specifically rate them. What I am saying is almost the opposite - the person we're looking for for leadership should be weighed up on a much higher scale! Adultery and so on don't even make the first cut, but if we say "Ok, he's not an adulterer and not a homosexual" we are actually selling ourselves short! They should fill all these conditions.
vs 8
A leader is meant to offer hospitality, love good, and be self controlled and disciplined. He's meant to be holy. Like I said, these are not easy rules to follow! No wonder Paul might have been saying "I'll be surprised if you can find the likes of these in Crete". I'd be surprised if we could find the likes of these in half of our churches!
I have heard many people say that all Christians should seek to live this way, because leadership is something to be looked up to and strived towards. I agree. But we've also got to pragmatically choose the people who actually act like this! They do exist, although even though we don't live in Crete I often wonder how many there are around...
This letter was written by Paul the verbose - who takes three verses to introduce himself before even getting to who it's written to!
It's interesting that Paul here introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus. It's such an important title, doubly so for Paul, whom can only say he saw Jesus in a vision. He says his apostleship and service to God is for the sake of our faith, and the knowledge that leads to godliness.
vs 2
As I've said before, while it is ok for people to say "Even if God didn't save me from death, he's still worth worshipping", our faith is actually built on God's promise of eternal life. And of course, we can trust God's promise, because he doesn't lie.
vs 3
Gee, you're not talking to Gentiles are you Paul? While Paul does sound a little full of himself and his preaching mission, I guess he was called specifically to be the light to the Gentiles.
vs 4
Oh, wait, this letter is to someone? Titus, obviously a close disciple of Paul's and referred to very lovingly.
vs 5
Every town! Wow, did Crete see some sort of massive revival or something? Probably not - but there was probably enough towns that they each had a small group of believers, and every group, no matter how small, needs leaders.
But does this directive suggest that Titus is to take some sort of role as a bishop over the whole island of Crete, with smaller leaders over towns? We'll wait and see for the moment.
vs 6
The NIV repeats the word elders here, but it isn't repeated in the greek. The greek word is presbuteros, by the way, which is a comparative of presbus, meaning elderly. So elder and presbyter really mean the same thing. Bishop, well, we'll see.
It's actually a little funny how this is written. Although I wouldn't suggest this is the only way of reading it, in the greek you could possibly read it "appoint elders, as I directed you - if you can actually find people who are husbands of one wife with children who are believers and not unruly" - as if these might be a hard thing to find in Crete!
Damn these rules make it hard to be an elder - doubly so if you have children!
vs 7
The word here is episkopos, that is, bishop. Are they used interchangably, or do they mean different things? To me, the reading seems fairly obvious that they overlap, and are talking about the same thing.
Any mention of sexual deviancy or adultery there? No, in fact what are the warnings that Paul gives about people who could be in leadership? They are all things that (with the exception of drunkenness) we would more or less accept in people as things which everybody does. *bzzzzzz!* Sorry! Paul says no! No overbearing leaders. No quick-tempered or violent leaders. No leaders ripping people off (either in their leadership or in their business practices methinks).
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that being a homosexual or adulterer is a good thing for a leader to do, or that we should ignore those things because Paul doesn't specifically rate them. What I am saying is almost the opposite - the person we're looking for for leadership should be weighed up on a much higher scale! Adultery and so on don't even make the first cut, but if we say "Ok, he's not an adulterer and not a homosexual" we are actually selling ourselves short! They should fill all these conditions.
vs 8
A leader is meant to offer hospitality, love good, and be self controlled and disciplined. He's meant to be holy. Like I said, these are not easy rules to follow! No wonder Paul might have been saying "I'll be surprised if you can find the likes of these in Crete". I'd be surprised if we could find the likes of these in half of our churches!
I have heard many people say that all Christians should seek to live this way, because leadership is something to be looked up to and strived towards. I agree. But we've also got to pragmatically choose the people who actually act like this! They do exist, although even though we don't live in Crete I often wonder how many there are around...
Saturday, September 09, 2006
3 John
vs 1
Who's Gaius? No idea. But this letter is different to the other two, being to a person. Of course, it would probably have been a public letter, but this identifier does mean that it could have been to a different group.
vs 2
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sounds almost like something I'd write to somebody. The only things of theological importance are that 1) John had friends 2) he cared about their soul as much as their health.
vs 3
So just like Paul, John gets great joy out of the faithfulness of his friend.
vs 4
Friend and children don't really go together, but it is possible that Gaius was John's son. More likely, though, he is a spiritual child of John (after all, he refers to everyone in his letters as children at some stage). Now here's an interesting idea for you - is Gaius the result of John's friendship evangelism? It's interesting that I've never heard anyone use a biblical analogy for relational evangelism, and it is a fairly recent development in the church's history. But here it is, at least possibly, in the Bible.
vs 5
Makes it sound like Gaius might be a leader or evangelist or something, certainly something that causes him to travel. But it's actually the opposite - you get it from the next verse that he is showing hospitality to those that are travelling through. In any case, he is serving a church even though he doesn't know the people.
vs 6
And so John now encourages him to send them on their way in the same manner he has looked after them.
vs 7
The Name. I like it, sounds secretive. And of course these travelling Christians received no help from the pagans. Like I said earlier, you don't offer hospitality to those who are going to do something you don't agree with. This was ingrained in the culture. So that would generally mean that you'd hope Christians or at least some God-fearers would be in the town so you had somewhere to stay.
vs 8
And showing these men hospitality is working together with them. Serving the needs of those who serve the Lord is like serving the Lord himself. Jesus knew that well - seems John was listening too.
vs 9
A bit of juicy gossip, if you are 1900 years old. You can imagine that there would be some people who accept the truth of the gospel, but then wonder why these people, these Apostles, should be shown any preferential treatment. Not much different to our situation where church leaders are not shown enough respect for the job they do - they are treated as just another member of the church, but really they are set apart.
vs 10
Ok, sounds like Doitrephes is on a serious power trip! This almost sounds like an exclusive Brethren took over the church. Not that they gossip any more than other churches... But this whole idea of putting people out of the church for being in contact with those you don't like... not good.
vs 11
The classic lesson from both 1 and 2 John - this simple test proves faithful almost every time. John swore by it obviously.
vs 12
Not only does John speak well of him, and everyone speak well of him, but the truth speaks well of him! Of course truth doesn't speak, so John here is showing how his doctrine of people's works showing the proof of their salvation is true in Demetrius.
vs 13
Sounds like John alright. Interestingly, 2 and 3 John were less criticised in the early church than 1 John at some points. You can see why in a way, because 1 John has far less of a letter structure to it.
vs 14
"The friends" when you get down to it here, is obviously a synonym for the church. So when John calls Gaius "friend", he might also mean "brother in Christ". Of course, they were still friends I'm sure.
Just a bit of interest, the greek for "face to face" is actually "mouth to mouth". I found it interesting anyway.
Wow, two books in two days, I'm on fire! What to do next?
Who's Gaius? No idea. But this letter is different to the other two, being to a person. Of course, it would probably have been a public letter, but this identifier does mean that it could have been to a different group.
vs 2
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sounds almost like something I'd write to somebody. The only things of theological importance are that 1) John had friends 2) he cared about their soul as much as their health.
vs 3
So just like Paul, John gets great joy out of the faithfulness of his friend.
vs 4
Friend and children don't really go together, but it is possible that Gaius was John's son. More likely, though, he is a spiritual child of John (after all, he refers to everyone in his letters as children at some stage). Now here's an interesting idea for you - is Gaius the result of John's friendship evangelism? It's interesting that I've never heard anyone use a biblical analogy for relational evangelism, and it is a fairly recent development in the church's history. But here it is, at least possibly, in the Bible.
vs 5
Makes it sound like Gaius might be a leader or evangelist or something, certainly something that causes him to travel. But it's actually the opposite - you get it from the next verse that he is showing hospitality to those that are travelling through. In any case, he is serving a church even though he doesn't know the people.
vs 6
And so John now encourages him to send them on their way in the same manner he has looked after them.
vs 7
The Name. I like it, sounds secretive. And of course these travelling Christians received no help from the pagans. Like I said earlier, you don't offer hospitality to those who are going to do something you don't agree with. This was ingrained in the culture. So that would generally mean that you'd hope Christians or at least some God-fearers would be in the town so you had somewhere to stay.
vs 8
And showing these men hospitality is working together with them. Serving the needs of those who serve the Lord is like serving the Lord himself. Jesus knew that well - seems John was listening too.
vs 9
A bit of juicy gossip, if you are 1900 years old. You can imagine that there would be some people who accept the truth of the gospel, but then wonder why these people, these Apostles, should be shown any preferential treatment. Not much different to our situation where church leaders are not shown enough respect for the job they do - they are treated as just another member of the church, but really they are set apart.
vs 10
Ok, sounds like Doitrephes is on a serious power trip! This almost sounds like an exclusive Brethren took over the church. Not that they gossip any more than other churches... But this whole idea of putting people out of the church for being in contact with those you don't like... not good.
vs 11
The classic lesson from both 1 and 2 John - this simple test proves faithful almost every time. John swore by it obviously.
vs 12
Not only does John speak well of him, and everyone speak well of him, but the truth speaks well of him! Of course truth doesn't speak, so John here is showing how his doctrine of people's works showing the proof of their salvation is true in Demetrius.
vs 13
Sounds like John alright. Interestingly, 2 and 3 John were less criticised in the early church than 1 John at some points. You can see why in a way, because 1 John has far less of a letter structure to it.
vs 14
"The friends" when you get down to it here, is obviously a synonym for the church. So when John calls Gaius "friend", he might also mean "brother in Christ". Of course, they were still friends I'm sure.
Just a bit of interest, the greek for "face to face" is actually "mouth to mouth". I found it interesting anyway.
Wow, two books in two days, I'm on fire! What to do next?
Friday, September 08, 2006
2 John
vs 1
Why is John being vague? Some people have said that this is a result of persecution - he is forced to hide the identities of people who both wrote the letter and who received it. It could also be that this is just how John wrote the letter, perhaps because of a special relationship he had with that church. Certainly he didn't feel the need to write Revelation in such a guarded manner (although Jesus himself was dictating, and at times like that you tend to just write what you're told).
The lady could either be a church or a woman who had a church in her house. John has already referred to his audience as "little children" and "dear children" in 1 John (assuming it's to the same people).
vs 2
He's writing because of the truth, and the way he describes it as living in us and being with us forever, you've got to assume it's Jesus. And because his letter is going to be about truth, you've also got to assume that false teaching will be involved.
vs 3
John actually uses a typical introductory paragraph like in Paul's letters here. He gives an extended one though, with extra focus on Jesus.
vs 4
Does this clear up at all who it is? Are only some of the church walking in the truth? Or is he actually writing to a woman and her children, only some of which are Christian? Perhaps that could explain the guardedness of his language.
vs 5
Who could possibly be writing this? A focus on loving one another... it's got to be John.
vs 6
Love is obedience to God's commands. And his commands are to walk in love.
vs 7
The beginnings of the Gnostic heresy. If you're wanting to take John literally, then he's saying that anyone who doesn't agree that Jesus came in the flesh is Satan (the deceiver is a title of Satan's) and also the antichrist. I think he might just be being dramatic - he means they work for Satan, that Satan is involved.
vs 8
There's nothing wrong with this - we know there's plenty of statements in Scripture that support a heavenly reward for our labours on earth.
vs 9
It's interesting the language that John uses here. Running ahead is the word proago. It has several meanings, mostly which mean to lead forth or to go before, to precede. But John is using it here in what seems a more negative colloquial sense, to "go too far" (the NASB says that). I mean, you don't want people to think that getting ahead in a good way is bad, or that Gnostic teaching is somehow a step ahead of Christianity.
vs 10
Now we've got to be careful here. We read this and think "Oh no! What about that cup of coffee I gave to a Mormon one time when he visited the door!" But what John is saying is far more than inviting them to step off the porch and take a seat. If we can't have non-Christians in our home, how will we ever build relationships with them?
I think this is really talking about those teachers who travel around and rely on other people to put them up and feed them while they do their teaching. Christian teachers did this all the time. So it would make sense that Gnostic teachers would do the same. So having non-Christian friends stay over should be fine. But if you are supporting them in their job by doing so (say by letting them stay at your place while they preach at the local Buddhist temple or something) then I would seriously think about what you're doing.
vs 11
And this is why - because if you're helping someone do wicked work, then... well, that's what you're doing. And that's bad.
vs 12
Damn you John! If you don't write it in paper and ink, we don't get to see it! Selfish whatnot.
vs 13
This is a typical closing greeting. The sister is, obviously, a sister church or a sister of the woman, or even another sister in Christ.
Why is John being vague? Some people have said that this is a result of persecution - he is forced to hide the identities of people who both wrote the letter and who received it. It could also be that this is just how John wrote the letter, perhaps because of a special relationship he had with that church. Certainly he didn't feel the need to write Revelation in such a guarded manner (although Jesus himself was dictating, and at times like that you tend to just write what you're told).
The lady could either be a church or a woman who had a church in her house. John has already referred to his audience as "little children" and "dear children" in 1 John (assuming it's to the same people).
vs 2
He's writing because of the truth, and the way he describes it as living in us and being with us forever, you've got to assume it's Jesus. And because his letter is going to be about truth, you've also got to assume that false teaching will be involved.
vs 3
John actually uses a typical introductory paragraph like in Paul's letters here. He gives an extended one though, with extra focus on Jesus.
vs 4
Does this clear up at all who it is? Are only some of the church walking in the truth? Or is he actually writing to a woman and her children, only some of which are Christian? Perhaps that could explain the guardedness of his language.
vs 5
Who could possibly be writing this? A focus on loving one another... it's got to be John.
vs 6
Love is obedience to God's commands. And his commands are to walk in love.
vs 7
The beginnings of the Gnostic heresy. If you're wanting to take John literally, then he's saying that anyone who doesn't agree that Jesus came in the flesh is Satan (the deceiver is a title of Satan's) and also the antichrist. I think he might just be being dramatic - he means they work for Satan, that Satan is involved.
vs 8
There's nothing wrong with this - we know there's plenty of statements in Scripture that support a heavenly reward for our labours on earth.
vs 9
It's interesting the language that John uses here. Running ahead is the word proago. It has several meanings, mostly which mean to lead forth or to go before, to precede. But John is using it here in what seems a more negative colloquial sense, to "go too far" (the NASB says that). I mean, you don't want people to think that getting ahead in a good way is bad, or that Gnostic teaching is somehow a step ahead of Christianity.
vs 10
Now we've got to be careful here. We read this and think "Oh no! What about that cup of coffee I gave to a Mormon one time when he visited the door!" But what John is saying is far more than inviting them to step off the porch and take a seat. If we can't have non-Christians in our home, how will we ever build relationships with them?
I think this is really talking about those teachers who travel around and rely on other people to put them up and feed them while they do their teaching. Christian teachers did this all the time. So it would make sense that Gnostic teachers would do the same. So having non-Christian friends stay over should be fine. But if you are supporting them in their job by doing so (say by letting them stay at your place while they preach at the local Buddhist temple or something) then I would seriously think about what you're doing.
vs 11
And this is why - because if you're helping someone do wicked work, then... well, that's what you're doing. And that's bad.
vs 12
Damn you John! If you don't write it in paper and ink, we don't get to see it! Selfish whatnot.
vs 13
This is a typical closing greeting. The sister is, obviously, a sister church or a sister of the woman, or even another sister in Christ.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
1 John Chapter 5
vs 11
The testimony God gives about his Son is that only through him can eternal life be got. It's not just a "this is my Son, with whom I am well pleased" or "listen to him". God tells us so much more about Jesus if we are prepared to open our eyes to the Old Testament.
vs 12
I wonder what John's answer would be to the age old question "What about all those tribal people who've never heard of Jesus? What happens to them?" Most probably it would have been "Who? We've already reached the whole world, more or less.
vs 13
There were obviously still some problems with the church understanding just how their eternal life was wrapped up, and how they could get their hands on it. The thing being, of course, that they already had it!
vs 14
Very much a gospel idea. This is one of the lessons Jesus teaches at the withering of the fig tree. But Jesus left out (or perhaps the gospel authors left out) these important, vital words - "according to his will"! So there, if you ever want a verse for why God doesn't rain down money on people or kill their enemies, give them 1 John 5:14.
vs 15
I think this is particularly in reference to the prayer of salvation, as this whole little section is about how we can know we have eternal life. If we ask God to save us through Christ, that is his will, so he will give it to us. You don't have to worry about him not hearing us (possibly a greater worry for people with a greek pagan background) or about him not giving it to you.
vs 16
Ahh yes, the good old "sin that leads to death". We all know what that is, right? Does John simply mean sins like murder? Is this a reference to the sin against the Holy Spirit? The word John is using is pros, which is translated "leads to", but which probably literally means in this case "in regards to". John has already said that murderers don't enter the kingdom of God. So it could just be another reference to that. But if he is talking about spiritual death, we assume that he means sinning against the Holy Spirit. Another suggestion has been he is referring to the similar verses in Hebrews about apostates, and the fact that once you've turned your back on Jesus, there ain't no more salvation for you. That seems to fit with the arguments he has against false teachers.
Why can't you pray for these brothers - either murders, slanderers of the Holy Spirit or apostates? I have no idea.
But aside from getting sidetracked by that, let's look at the actual principle here. If you see a Christian who is sinning, John's first recourse for you is to pray for them. Would our first recourse be to challenge them about it? Or would it even be to slander them behind their backs, or dob them into the church leadership?
vs 17
Whatever you believe he's talking about, this is an obvious truth. This verse is what tends me towards the idea of apostates or HS slanderers - because otherwise, it's pretty damn obvious that there are sins that don't kill people. But perhaps that did need to be made clear to these Christians - that there's more to sin than murder and death. Certainly all cultures (and churches) have their own pet sins, which narrow their view.
vs 18
The logic of this verse is flawless - Jesus protects us from Satan, so why would we sin anymore? And yet somehow we still manage to open ourselves to Satan's attacks. I'm becoming more and more convinced that we do ourselves great injury by inviting Satan to come and attack us, and that if we were more firm in trying to resist him, our protection through Christ would be assured.
vs 19
We certainly know that. No arguments there. Remember that the world is the fullness of man's created hell of civilisation. I mean, sure, we try to make it nice. But I don't think it's too much to say that we or Satan are responsible for a lot of the crappy bits, and God is responsible for the good bits. And because God created it, it still has good bits. We just have to be prepared for its ruler to flex his muscles every once in a while.
vs 20
So while we know that the world is being run by Satan, but we also know something far greater. We can know what is true - Satan cannot hide it from us. Jesus Christ is the true God, and he is eternal life for us. And the world and our knowledge of its crappiness should fade in comparison to that knowledge.
vs 21
John obviously doesn't write letters. The beginning and end of this letter don't sound like a letter at all. It could have been written in a different context. We probably won't find out for sure.
Anyway, he finishes with this poignant point. I've heard some people say "He saved the best till last", but that's just crap. I mean, did you actually read the letter? This letter is full of pure gold! This last verse is an afterthought. It's a reminder. It's an afterdinner mint. But as verses go, at least it's direct, simple and obvious.
The testimony God gives about his Son is that only through him can eternal life be got. It's not just a "this is my Son, with whom I am well pleased" or "listen to him". God tells us so much more about Jesus if we are prepared to open our eyes to the Old Testament.
vs 12
I wonder what John's answer would be to the age old question "What about all those tribal people who've never heard of Jesus? What happens to them?" Most probably it would have been "Who? We've already reached the whole world, more or less.
vs 13
There were obviously still some problems with the church understanding just how their eternal life was wrapped up, and how they could get their hands on it. The thing being, of course, that they already had it!
vs 14
Very much a gospel idea. This is one of the lessons Jesus teaches at the withering of the fig tree. But Jesus left out (or perhaps the gospel authors left out) these important, vital words - "according to his will"! So there, if you ever want a verse for why God doesn't rain down money on people or kill their enemies, give them 1 John 5:14.
vs 15
I think this is particularly in reference to the prayer of salvation, as this whole little section is about how we can know we have eternal life. If we ask God to save us through Christ, that is his will, so he will give it to us. You don't have to worry about him not hearing us (possibly a greater worry for people with a greek pagan background) or about him not giving it to you.
vs 16
Ahh yes, the good old "sin that leads to death". We all know what that is, right? Does John simply mean sins like murder? Is this a reference to the sin against the Holy Spirit? The word John is using is pros, which is translated "leads to", but which probably literally means in this case "in regards to". John has already said that murderers don't enter the kingdom of God. So it could just be another reference to that. But if he is talking about spiritual death, we assume that he means sinning against the Holy Spirit. Another suggestion has been he is referring to the similar verses in Hebrews about apostates, and the fact that once you've turned your back on Jesus, there ain't no more salvation for you. That seems to fit with the arguments he has against false teachers.
Why can't you pray for these brothers - either murders, slanderers of the Holy Spirit or apostates? I have no idea.
But aside from getting sidetracked by that, let's look at the actual principle here. If you see a Christian who is sinning, John's first recourse for you is to pray for them. Would our first recourse be to challenge them about it? Or would it even be to slander them behind their backs, or dob them into the church leadership?
vs 17
Whatever you believe he's talking about, this is an obvious truth. This verse is what tends me towards the idea of apostates or HS slanderers - because otherwise, it's pretty damn obvious that there are sins that don't kill people. But perhaps that did need to be made clear to these Christians - that there's more to sin than murder and death. Certainly all cultures (and churches) have their own pet sins, which narrow their view.
vs 18
The logic of this verse is flawless - Jesus protects us from Satan, so why would we sin anymore? And yet somehow we still manage to open ourselves to Satan's attacks. I'm becoming more and more convinced that we do ourselves great injury by inviting Satan to come and attack us, and that if we were more firm in trying to resist him, our protection through Christ would be assured.
vs 19
We certainly know that. No arguments there. Remember that the world is the fullness of man's created hell of civilisation. I mean, sure, we try to make it nice. But I don't think it's too much to say that we or Satan are responsible for a lot of the crappy bits, and God is responsible for the good bits. And because God created it, it still has good bits. We just have to be prepared for its ruler to flex his muscles every once in a while.
vs 20
So while we know that the world is being run by Satan, but we also know something far greater. We can know what is true - Satan cannot hide it from us. Jesus Christ is the true God, and he is eternal life for us. And the world and our knowledge of its crappiness should fade in comparison to that knowledge.
vs 21
John obviously doesn't write letters. The beginning and end of this letter don't sound like a letter at all. It could have been written in a different context. We probably won't find out for sure.
Anyway, he finishes with this poignant point. I've heard some people say "He saved the best till last", but that's just crap. I mean, did you actually read the letter? This letter is full of pure gold! This last verse is an afterthought. It's a reminder. It's an afterdinner mint. But as verses go, at least it's direct, simple and obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)