vs 13
Something that people regularly comment on is that in the other gospels, Jesus goes to Jerusalem only once or twice. But in John's gospel, he visits there regularly. Which makes sense, really - if his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years, you'd think he went there anywhere up to four times for passover if nothing else.
vs 14
Selling sacrificial things, and exchanging money for the proper kind of money to be donated. They would do this in the court of the Gentiles.
vs 15
One man being able to do this either tells us that there wasn't really that many people selling (and not all that much livestock being sold)or he was hardcore and people didn't want to tangle with him. I mean, if I saw someone coming at me with a whip and it was my business he was trying to ruin, I think I'd defend it. Regardless, Jesus seems successful at the time.
vs 16
So it seems Jesus took umbrage at the idea of the Temple being used as a market. Odd, considering Jesus came to replace the Temple. Perhaps that's why he was so upset - he is the new temple, and knows he will be treated likewise, in a metaphorical sense anyway.
Why didn't he whip the dove sellers? Perhaps Jesus was an ornithologist.
vs 17
Which shows that his disciples were not biblically illiterate. When your culture forces you to learn the Bible, you learn it. When you're not forced by anyone but yourself, it's a lot more difficult.
vs 18
I'm sure they said it just like that, without any swearing or demanding money for their damaged livestock and tables :P But they are perhaps willing to accept that yes, the temple is holy, and yes, perhaps selling stuff in it is wrong - but they want to know he's got authority to tell them what they already know.
vs 19
This is really very early on in Jesus' ministry, and he's already talking about his resurrection, albeit in mysterious terms.
vs 20
And no one was going to understand him of course - he was standing in the temple at the time, so referring to himself as a temple would have easily been lost on them at that point.
vs 21
We're not left to assume what he meant, though. John tells us straight up. What a great gospel, that John explains stuff like this straight to us!
vs 22
Note what the disciples believed after the resurrection - the words Jesus said, and Scripture. Because Scripture has told us these truths all along, it's just we suck at getting them. This is the guys that saw Jesus whipping people in the temple and related it to Psalm 69, and they still couldn't see what was going to happen. We'd have no chance.
vs 23
So Jesus is doing miracles, but John doesn't think that's very important, so he just mentions that Jesus did a bunch of them, and people believe in him, or better yet, believe in the authority by which he does them (his name).
vs 24
This is another reason I like John. He tells us things that we couldn't know simply from looking at Jesus' life. Jesus probably said something about how he wasn't going to entrust himself to these men, and John has recalled it and put it here so we can get an insight into the real Jesus. Not that we can't get to know Jesus from the other gospels - but here we are really seeing the man, and the God, that is Jesus.
Jesus knows what people are like - he knows that these people who are believing him now are going to bugger off later. So he stays a little aloof from them.
vs 25
Jesus created people, and had seen them all through the ages not measure up. He wasn't surprised at the fact that people were pretty unfaithful, and so he made sure he was separate. Still had his little group of special disciples though - because he was mentoring them into leadership positions.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
John Chapter 2
vs 1
Third day of what? I have no idea. But Jesus' mother was there at this wedding. It's easy for us to think "Oh, wedding, right" and think about what we think of as a wedding. But their weddings are pretty different. Thankfully, most of what goes on at the wedding isn't all that necessary to the story.
vs 2
Jesus and his disciples were there too. Now this shows us something interesting about weddings back then. If you were having a wedding, and you invited some sort of teacher, would you invite all his students too? Sure, this is early times yet, but the fact that they were still invited means either that they were all Galileans already, or that Jesus having disciples was accepted and approved by this invite.
vs 3
This statement to Jesus by his mum seems fairly innocuous to me. It's just a statement about the wine levels.
vs 4
But Jesus doesn't see it that way. Jesus sees it as a request to do something about it. Assuming he is right in reading the situation that way, why would his mum ask him to do this? I guess it's possible that the wedding was of people who were related to Mary, and so the idea of the party running out of wine was a shaming thing in the culture. Or that Mary simply thought it was time for Jesus to get his Messiah thing happening (although only the servants end up knowing what he did).
It's a bit of a mystery, but whyever she asks him, Jesus' initial reaction is to say that he doesn't think he should be involved. His reason is that it's not the right time, we assume to start doing miracles.
vs 5
His mum ignores him though, and tells the servants just to do what he says, and wait for the magic to happen.
vs 6
If you think about it, these are big pots. The NIV tells me it's something like 75-115 litres. That's a hell of a lot of wine. But I get ahead of myself.
vs 7
Jesus tells the servants to fill them with water. And the servants do it, fair enough. They are ceremonial washing pots after all - if a religious talker who's got a few students with him wants you to do something religiousy, then you do it. Perhaps he's going to wash the people who started the wedding, to make up for the sin of running out of wine? But remember, they didn't just go to the tap to fill these bad boys - they probably would have had to go and draw water from somewhere, and 100 litres of water is no mean feat. So they took on a bit of work to do something they didn't know would pay off.
This might tell us something about Mary's role at this wedding. That they would listen to her and do what she said (listen to Jesus), she may well have been a person of importance at the wedding. Then again, they are servants.
vs 8
The NASB ends this verse as a sentence. Usually the NIV doesn't do this as much, but they must have decided that the translation required a comma there. Oh well.
Anyway, now he tells them to draw some of the water out, and give it to the "Master of the banquet" (greek Architriklinos, which literally means 'master of tables'). And they do. Now the servants must be wondering what is going on here.
vs 9
When the guy drinks it, he finds out that it is wine. It's not a big deal to him, because he has no idea that it was water a few minutes ago. But he does feel the need to go the bridegroom and have a chat. In the NIV, it sounds like he pulls him to a side to speak - in the NASB, it sounds like he just calls out to him. That's the way I'd always imagined it, but either works. If the table master did just take him aside, it provides even a more muted response to Jesus' miracle.
The servants did know, though, and so for them it would have been something special.
vs 10
The guy tells the bridegroom that the wine is really good. He also tells us that breaking out the cheap stuff later in the festivities was the norm in that culture. At least some things never change. Don't be fooled into thinking this is non-alcoholic wine, either - the word in this verse, methuo, literally means "to be drunken" (not to be mistaken with the past tense of "to drink" - it is not "to be drunk", it is "to be drunken", and was metaphorically used to describe killing people) so they were certainly on the turps, and Jesus' wine was no exception.
vs 11
Here we are with John himself calling this the first miracle. I might point out, though, that I think you could build an argument for this being read as the first miraculous sign that was performed in Galilee. But that doesn't really matter. John thinks it's worthy of some extra description as something special. John also tells us why Jesus did this miracle - it wasn't for the sake of a good wedding bash, and it wasn't to attract servants from the wedding to be his disciples. Both of those things may have happened, but John says that this miracle had the result of Jesus revealing his glory (his identity as God) and that this caused the disciples to put their faith in him. That makes it a pretty important miracle. And yet John's the only one to record it.
vs 12
I would say that the fact that his mother and brothers are there with him afterwards, as well as his disciples, means that the wedding may have been some sort of family affair. In any case, Capernaum seems to be where his family was staying, perhaps not permanently, but for a few days at least.
Third day of what? I have no idea. But Jesus' mother was there at this wedding. It's easy for us to think "Oh, wedding, right" and think about what we think of as a wedding. But their weddings are pretty different. Thankfully, most of what goes on at the wedding isn't all that necessary to the story.
vs 2
Jesus and his disciples were there too. Now this shows us something interesting about weddings back then. If you were having a wedding, and you invited some sort of teacher, would you invite all his students too? Sure, this is early times yet, but the fact that they were still invited means either that they were all Galileans already, or that Jesus having disciples was accepted and approved by this invite.
vs 3
This statement to Jesus by his mum seems fairly innocuous to me. It's just a statement about the wine levels.
vs 4
But Jesus doesn't see it that way. Jesus sees it as a request to do something about it. Assuming he is right in reading the situation that way, why would his mum ask him to do this? I guess it's possible that the wedding was of people who were related to Mary, and so the idea of the party running out of wine was a shaming thing in the culture. Or that Mary simply thought it was time for Jesus to get his Messiah thing happening (although only the servants end up knowing what he did).
It's a bit of a mystery, but whyever she asks him, Jesus' initial reaction is to say that he doesn't think he should be involved. His reason is that it's not the right time, we assume to start doing miracles.
vs 5
His mum ignores him though, and tells the servants just to do what he says, and wait for the magic to happen.
vs 6
If you think about it, these are big pots. The NIV tells me it's something like 75-115 litres. That's a hell of a lot of wine. But I get ahead of myself.
vs 7
Jesus tells the servants to fill them with water. And the servants do it, fair enough. They are ceremonial washing pots after all - if a religious talker who's got a few students with him wants you to do something religiousy, then you do it. Perhaps he's going to wash the people who started the wedding, to make up for the sin of running out of wine? But remember, they didn't just go to the tap to fill these bad boys - they probably would have had to go and draw water from somewhere, and 100 litres of water is no mean feat. So they took on a bit of work to do something they didn't know would pay off.
This might tell us something about Mary's role at this wedding. That they would listen to her and do what she said (listen to Jesus), she may well have been a person of importance at the wedding. Then again, they are servants.
vs 8
The NASB ends this verse as a sentence. Usually the NIV doesn't do this as much, but they must have decided that the translation required a comma there. Oh well.
Anyway, now he tells them to draw some of the water out, and give it to the "Master of the banquet" (greek Architriklinos, which literally means 'master of tables'). And they do. Now the servants must be wondering what is going on here.
vs 9
When the guy drinks it, he finds out that it is wine. It's not a big deal to him, because he has no idea that it was water a few minutes ago. But he does feel the need to go the bridegroom and have a chat. In the NIV, it sounds like he pulls him to a side to speak - in the NASB, it sounds like he just calls out to him. That's the way I'd always imagined it, but either works. If the table master did just take him aside, it provides even a more muted response to Jesus' miracle.
The servants did know, though, and so for them it would have been something special.
vs 10
The guy tells the bridegroom that the wine is really good. He also tells us that breaking out the cheap stuff later in the festivities was the norm in that culture. At least some things never change. Don't be fooled into thinking this is non-alcoholic wine, either - the word in this verse, methuo, literally means "to be drunken" (not to be mistaken with the past tense of "to drink" - it is not "to be drunk", it is "to be drunken", and was metaphorically used to describe killing people) so they were certainly on the turps, and Jesus' wine was no exception.
vs 11
Here we are with John himself calling this the first miracle. I might point out, though, that I think you could build an argument for this being read as the first miraculous sign that was performed in Galilee. But that doesn't really matter. John thinks it's worthy of some extra description as something special. John also tells us why Jesus did this miracle - it wasn't for the sake of a good wedding bash, and it wasn't to attract servants from the wedding to be his disciples. Both of those things may have happened, but John says that this miracle had the result of Jesus revealing his glory (his identity as God) and that this caused the disciples to put their faith in him. That makes it a pretty important miracle. And yet John's the only one to record it.
vs 12
I would say that the fact that his mother and brothers are there with him afterwards, as well as his disciples, means that the wedding may have been some sort of family affair. In any case, Capernaum seems to be where his family was staying, perhaps not permanently, but for a few days at least.
Friday, December 29, 2006
John Chapter 1
vs 41
Obviously some Jews were looking for their Messiah, because Andrew thought he'd found him, and thought it was worth telling his brother about him. Christ is just the greek of the Hebrew Messiah. What does it really mean? It gets revealed as we read the gospels.
vs 42
Simon is obviously special, right from the start. Jesus certainly knows who he is (of course, Andrew might have told him), but he's still special, because Jesus gives him a special name. None of the others had special names. He gives him an Aramaic name, Cephas, Peter in Greek, which means rock. Why? John doesn't feel the need to explain it.
vs 43
Jesus then seeks out another person, once he has decided he's going somewhere. This is Philip. It's worth just looking at how little time John spends on this early part of Jesus' life. And yet, he is prepared to tell us the names of the people he first met, and some odd little snippets of information about them...
vs 44
like that they are from Bethsaida. So these guys are all sort of kinfolk. They probably would have known each other. So, who is Philip? Is he the second one (with Andrew) who first started following Jesus? If so, then why did Jesus need to tell him to follow? But if not, then who was the second follower? It possibly could be the author. But that is of course speculation.
vs 45
The word of mouth spreads, and Philip goes to tell his brother/friend/cousin Nathanael about Jesus too. They have found something worth following, and they have found something that people were obviously seeking, the Messiah. It's a very specific person from a specific place.
vs 46
Nazareth is obviously fairly well known to these guys. Nathanael even makes a joke about it. But he still is curious enough to go and see.
vs 47
It's an interesting statement to make. I'm sure Jesus isn't meaning to slur his company, but Nathanael, about whom we know basically nothing, is being complimented. The special thing about this, of course, is that Jesus has never met him.
vs 48
Nathanael calls Jesus on this fact, and Jesus gives a little bit of extra information about Nathanael - the position he was sitting in before Philip came and told him that they'd found the Messiah. It doesn't seem like much, but it is a miracle. Many breakdowns of the book of John list the 6,7 or 8 miracles of Jesus described in John. This is never one of them - they always start with the water to wine. But I like this one, because it is actually convincing Nathanael of Jesus' lordship, and it just has a more familiar, friendly air to it.
vs 49
This one thing is enough for Nathanael to declare Jesus the Son of God. I don't know about you, but it seems to me he didn't take much convincing. Jesus has done the miraculous equivalent of a card trick, and Nathanael is stoked at it. This should give us a fairly good picture of how willing people were to look for (and find) the Messiah. But we will find out later that lots of people see even bigger miracles, but few hang around. It isn't Jesus' miracles which end up convincing people. But for now, Nathanael has made an early stab at Jesus' identity.
This also shows us that, unlike the other gospels, where Jesus' identity either comes late, or comes early but from the mouths of demons, John is happy for us to know that Jesus is the Son of God. That's a given. It was what the first bit of chapter 1 was all about.
vs 50
Jesus shows how simple a thing it was - the vision of a fig tree is nothing, compared to what these guys are going to see.
vs 51
But there is something else - heaven will open, and angels will come to the aid of the Son of Man. When we hear about angels coming down to help Jesus at various stages of various gospels, I often wonder if they are visible or invisible. Jesus seems to be indicating that they will see them. But I think Jesus is using this example to offset the simple miracle of the fig tree vision.
But Jesus does something else - he sets out who he says he is. He refers to himself, not as Rabbi, or Messiah or Christ, or as Son of God or King of Israel. He doesn't dispute those titles either, mind you. But his own title for himself is Son of Man. One comment I heard about this was that all those other titles are pregnant with meaning already, and alot of that meaning might be misrepresented. For example, Jesus is King of Israel, sure. But most of the Jews were expecting God to send a King who would raise an army and have a military victory over the Romans.
Son of Man, however, whilst being a biblical title, doesn't have the same amount of injected meaning into it. It's more nebulous, which means Jesus can give it his own meaning - the proper meaning.
Obviously some Jews were looking for their Messiah, because Andrew thought he'd found him, and thought it was worth telling his brother about him. Christ is just the greek of the Hebrew Messiah. What does it really mean? It gets revealed as we read the gospels.
vs 42
Simon is obviously special, right from the start. Jesus certainly knows who he is (of course, Andrew might have told him), but he's still special, because Jesus gives him a special name. None of the others had special names. He gives him an Aramaic name, Cephas, Peter in Greek, which means rock. Why? John doesn't feel the need to explain it.
vs 43
Jesus then seeks out another person, once he has decided he's going somewhere. This is Philip. It's worth just looking at how little time John spends on this early part of Jesus' life. And yet, he is prepared to tell us the names of the people he first met, and some odd little snippets of information about them...
vs 44
like that they are from Bethsaida. So these guys are all sort of kinfolk. They probably would have known each other. So, who is Philip? Is he the second one (with Andrew) who first started following Jesus? If so, then why did Jesus need to tell him to follow? But if not, then who was the second follower? It possibly could be the author. But that is of course speculation.
vs 45
The word of mouth spreads, and Philip goes to tell his brother/friend/cousin Nathanael about Jesus too. They have found something worth following, and they have found something that people were obviously seeking, the Messiah. It's a very specific person from a specific place.
vs 46
Nazareth is obviously fairly well known to these guys. Nathanael even makes a joke about it. But he still is curious enough to go and see.
vs 47
It's an interesting statement to make. I'm sure Jesus isn't meaning to slur his company, but Nathanael, about whom we know basically nothing, is being complimented. The special thing about this, of course, is that Jesus has never met him.
vs 48
Nathanael calls Jesus on this fact, and Jesus gives a little bit of extra information about Nathanael - the position he was sitting in before Philip came and told him that they'd found the Messiah. It doesn't seem like much, but it is a miracle. Many breakdowns of the book of John list the 6,7 or 8 miracles of Jesus described in John. This is never one of them - they always start with the water to wine. But I like this one, because it is actually convincing Nathanael of Jesus' lordship, and it just has a more familiar, friendly air to it.
vs 49
This one thing is enough for Nathanael to declare Jesus the Son of God. I don't know about you, but it seems to me he didn't take much convincing. Jesus has done the miraculous equivalent of a card trick, and Nathanael is stoked at it. This should give us a fairly good picture of how willing people were to look for (and find) the Messiah. But we will find out later that lots of people see even bigger miracles, but few hang around. It isn't Jesus' miracles which end up convincing people. But for now, Nathanael has made an early stab at Jesus' identity.
This also shows us that, unlike the other gospels, where Jesus' identity either comes late, or comes early but from the mouths of demons, John is happy for us to know that Jesus is the Son of God. That's a given. It was what the first bit of chapter 1 was all about.
vs 50
Jesus shows how simple a thing it was - the vision of a fig tree is nothing, compared to what these guys are going to see.
vs 51
But there is something else - heaven will open, and angels will come to the aid of the Son of Man. When we hear about angels coming down to help Jesus at various stages of various gospels, I often wonder if they are visible or invisible. Jesus seems to be indicating that they will see them. But I think Jesus is using this example to offset the simple miracle of the fig tree vision.
But Jesus does something else - he sets out who he says he is. He refers to himself, not as Rabbi, or Messiah or Christ, or as Son of God or King of Israel. He doesn't dispute those titles either, mind you. But his own title for himself is Son of Man. One comment I heard about this was that all those other titles are pregnant with meaning already, and alot of that meaning might be misrepresented. For example, Jesus is King of Israel, sure. But most of the Jews were expecting God to send a King who would raise an army and have a military victory over the Romans.
Son of Man, however, whilst being a biblical title, doesn't have the same amount of injected meaning into it. It's more nebulous, which means Jesus can give it his own meaning - the proper meaning.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
John chapter 1
For some reason, the underlining shortcut stopped working, so now I have to code it by hand. Stupid new blogger.
vs 30
Obviously John TB had said something earlier about someone coming after him. And that person, it turned out, was Jesus. Again we see this theme of Jesus sharing that attribute of God of being before time.
vs 31
When John TB says he didn't know Jesus, I don't think he meant that he didn't know Jesus at all. They were related, so Luke tells us, and so surely they knew each other, even just a little bit. But John TB is probably saying that he didn't know that Jesus was this person until it was revealed to him by doing the whole baptism thing. Even then, that would mean he was someone kept in the dark by his parents, because his own mother, upon meeting Mary, knew there was something special about her baby. In any case, we can safely say that all this stuff about Jesus was confirmed by John TB's prophetic baptismal ministry, and not by him being related distantly to Jesus.
vs 32
John TB saw the Spirit of God rest on Jesus and remain, like some sort of dove. The most literal understanding of this is a literal dove, I guess, but then that would involve Jesus walking around with a dove on his shoulder like some sort of peace-pirate.
vs 33
So God had told John TB how to recognise the one he was looking for. And again, even if he knew Jesus, he didn't know that he was going to be the one to be filled with the Spirit of God. Which makes us wonder just who did know before John's baptism. Did Jesus himself know?
vs 34
Seeing that was enough for John TB to know that Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't need to see miracles, he didn't need to quiz Jesus on theology. God had told him "The one who gets my Spirit, that's the one" and that was good enough for John TB.
vs 35
Jesus wasn't the only one with disciples. Some people had seen John and heard his words, and thought "Yeah, this guy's worth following".
vs 36
John couldn't help saying to his students "Look at that, there's the Lamb of God!" Considering he felt that his whole ministry had led up to this point, this would have been something of prime importance to point out to your disciples.
vs 37
Of course, it cost John a couple of disciples, but he was probably expecting that. Elsewhere, he says that he must decrease, while Christ increases". I mean, if you're following the person who is waiting for the Messiah, surely when the Messiah comes, you'll start following the better person instead.
vs 38
Note that they didn't start following him as disciples though. They didn't even come up and talk to him, they just started following behind. Just like those people in kung fu movies who follow around a master until he accepts them as students. Jesus has to turn around and say "Are you guys stalking me?"
They want to know where he's staying, probably so they can stay there too. Notice that John the author spells out what Rabbi means, which means that his audience can't have been entirely Jewish. Those sorts of little hints are worth looking out for.
vs 39
He invites them to follow him and see where he lives. They spent the day with him, and you have to assume they talked about a bunch of stuff.
vs 40
Now we learn the names of one of those two - his name was Andrew, and he is the brother of the soon-to-be-famous Simon Peter.
vs 30
Obviously John TB had said something earlier about someone coming after him. And that person, it turned out, was Jesus. Again we see this theme of Jesus sharing that attribute of God of being before time.
vs 31
When John TB says he didn't know Jesus, I don't think he meant that he didn't know Jesus at all. They were related, so Luke tells us, and so surely they knew each other, even just a little bit. But John TB is probably saying that he didn't know that Jesus was this person until it was revealed to him by doing the whole baptism thing. Even then, that would mean he was someone kept in the dark by his parents, because his own mother, upon meeting Mary, knew there was something special about her baby. In any case, we can safely say that all this stuff about Jesus was confirmed by John TB's prophetic baptismal ministry, and not by him being related distantly to Jesus.
vs 32
John TB saw the Spirit of God rest on Jesus and remain, like some sort of dove. The most literal understanding of this is a literal dove, I guess, but then that would involve Jesus walking around with a dove on his shoulder like some sort of peace-pirate.
vs 33
So God had told John TB how to recognise the one he was looking for. And again, even if he knew Jesus, he didn't know that he was going to be the one to be filled with the Spirit of God. Which makes us wonder just who did know before John's baptism. Did Jesus himself know?
vs 34
Seeing that was enough for John TB to know that Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't need to see miracles, he didn't need to quiz Jesus on theology. God had told him "The one who gets my Spirit, that's the one" and that was good enough for John TB.
vs 35
Jesus wasn't the only one with disciples. Some people had seen John and heard his words, and thought "Yeah, this guy's worth following".
vs 36
John couldn't help saying to his students "Look at that, there's the Lamb of God!" Considering he felt that his whole ministry had led up to this point, this would have been something of prime importance to point out to your disciples.
vs 37
Of course, it cost John a couple of disciples, but he was probably expecting that. Elsewhere, he says that he must decrease, while Christ increases". I mean, if you're following the person who is waiting for the Messiah, surely when the Messiah comes, you'll start following the better person instead.
vs 38
Note that they didn't start following him as disciples though. They didn't even come up and talk to him, they just started following behind. Just like those people in kung fu movies who follow around a master until he accepts them as students. Jesus has to turn around and say "Are you guys stalking me?"
They want to know where he's staying, probably so they can stay there too. Notice that John the author spells out what Rabbi means, which means that his audience can't have been entirely Jewish. Those sorts of little hints are worth looking out for.
vs 39
He invites them to follow him and see where he lives. They spent the day with him, and you have to assume they talked about a bunch of stuff.
vs 40
Now we learn the names of one of those two - his name was Andrew, and he is the brother of the soon-to-be-famous Simon Peter.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
John chapter 1
vs 21
If he wasn't the Christ, then he must be someone special.They drilled him with their significant knowhow, but couldn't work out who he was. Now we might think "Shame on them, if they had been reading their OT they would have known he was the one from Isaiah 40:3". The thing is, they probably did know the OT prophecy that spoke of John TB, in the same way that when Herod asks them "Where will the Christ be born?" They answer correctly. They have the head knowledge - they just don't want to apply it. And fair enough in a way - you don't want to think a scripture has been fulfilled just because you see one thing.
Who is "The Prophet"? I don't know, to be honest. It obviously wasn't a description of John TB's role, or else you'd assume he would say yes.
It is possible that they are talking about Christ again. Remember, the Jews only had a scattered picture of what was going to happen when the Christ appeared. Some thought there were going to be multiple saviors coming - a military one, a royal one, a spiritual one, a suffering one etc. In fact, the only thing almost no-one saw coming was Jesus.
vs 22
Finally they ask him who he is, rather than trying to pin it on him.
vs 23
So when they ask who he is, he tells them that he is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. This also helps us to understand who he is.
vs 24-25
Stupid VITMOAI man. Anyway, the Pharisees seem to think you can only baptise people if you are Christ, Elijah or this mysterious The Prophet. Which is interesting, because of course Christ never baptised anyone!
vs 26-27
John TB knew what was coming. He knew that Christ was on the horizon, and that he would be the one to reveal him. It's a pretty important position. He seems to have dealt with it humbly enough. Now if only all the other religious leaders had been humble enough to step aside when they knew they'd been beat!
vs 28
John the author seems to leave it a little late to set the scene, but we'll forgive him because movies hadn't been invented yet.
vs 29
John TB says something very similar to a demon when he sees Jesus. Lucky Jesus wasn't the confused sort, or he might have accidently zapped John TB ;)
This is a foretaste of the classic language that John uses in his gospel. We really have to ask how much of these actual words were expressed in the way they were in John. Of course, we all know that the words as they are expressed are probably not exhaustive - they are just summary statements of what was said at any specific moment (the talks that Paul gives in Acts are a good example of this idea). Nevertheless, using terms like "Lamb of God" either makes John TB a peculiarly perceptive student of the Bible and of God's actions in the world (which there is no denying he probably was, what with how everyone thinks he's a prophet) or that this has been just a little hammed.
vs 30
This is a reference to Jesus' Godhood, in that he has existed before John TB. Since people had been asking who John was and his answer had been in reference to the appearance of another, this is a very important statement, and a very important chap who has appeared on the scene here.
If he wasn't the Christ, then he must be someone special.They drilled him with their significant knowhow, but couldn't work out who he was. Now we might think "Shame on them, if they had been reading their OT they would have known he was the one from Isaiah 40:3". The thing is, they probably did know the OT prophecy that spoke of John TB, in the same way that when Herod asks them "Where will the Christ be born?" They answer correctly. They have the head knowledge - they just don't want to apply it. And fair enough in a way - you don't want to think a scripture has been fulfilled just because you see one thing.
Who is "The Prophet"? I don't know, to be honest. It obviously wasn't a description of John TB's role, or else you'd assume he would say yes.
It is possible that they are talking about Christ again. Remember, the Jews only had a scattered picture of what was going to happen when the Christ appeared. Some thought there were going to be multiple saviors coming - a military one, a royal one, a spiritual one, a suffering one etc. In fact, the only thing almost no-one saw coming was Jesus.
vs 22
Finally they ask him who he is, rather than trying to pin it on him.
vs 23
So when they ask who he is, he tells them that he is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. This also helps us to understand who he is.
vs 24-25
Stupid VITMOAI man. Anyway, the Pharisees seem to think you can only baptise people if you are Christ, Elijah or this mysterious The Prophet. Which is interesting, because of course Christ never baptised anyone!
vs 26-27
John TB knew what was coming. He knew that Christ was on the horizon, and that he would be the one to reveal him. It's a pretty important position. He seems to have dealt with it humbly enough. Now if only all the other religious leaders had been humble enough to step aside when they knew they'd been beat!
vs 28
John the author seems to leave it a little late to set the scene, but we'll forgive him because movies hadn't been invented yet.
vs 29
John TB says something very similar to a demon when he sees Jesus. Lucky Jesus wasn't the confused sort, or he might have accidently zapped John TB ;)
This is a foretaste of the classic language that John uses in his gospel. We really have to ask how much of these actual words were expressed in the way they were in John. Of course, we all know that the words as they are expressed are probably not exhaustive - they are just summary statements of what was said at any specific moment (the talks that Paul gives in Acts are a good example of this idea). Nevertheless, using terms like "Lamb of God" either makes John TB a peculiarly perceptive student of the Bible and of God's actions in the world (which there is no denying he probably was, what with how everyone thinks he's a prophet) or that this has been just a little hammed.
vs 30
This is a reference to Jesus' Godhood, in that he has existed before John TB. Since people had been asking who John was and his answer had been in reference to the appearance of another, this is a very important statement, and a very important chap who has appeared on the scene here.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
John chapter 1
vs 11
Jesus considers us his own, and when you think about that, it is a huge blessing to be considered so valuable by God. But, ignorant and evil people that we are, we did not receive him. Like a king travelling through his kingdom and not being offered any hospitality or gifts, or recognition as king.
vs 12
But not everyone ignored him, or else we wouldn't know about him I guess. Some people did receive him the way a king should be received. "Believing in {someone's} name" sounds weird to us today, and it's hard to get an exact comparison of an idiom which we use that fits. Obviously the name (noun) in itself is not super special. There are heaps of people called Jesus, especially in Spanish and Latin countries where they don't have the odd social reserve about naming their kids after him.
I guess the closest thing we have is when someone does something "in the name of {someone} or more usually {something}". When you do something in the name of peace, you're not just doing it because peace sounds good, and you can't think of a name for the thing you're doing yourself. You're doing it for the sake of peace, to further peace. When you do something "in the name of Her Majesty Queen of the Commonwealth" you're doing it on her behalf, and so to some extent you have the authority and power that her name brings. When we read about the name of the Lord, or the name of God, or the name of Jesus, it's not talking just about the noun by which we address them. Tied up in that idea are the concepts of the authority that name holds, the position which it gives, the title and domain it rules and so on.
So "believing in the name of Jesus" is not a simple act of assenting to his existance, or acknowledging his coming to earth. It is a trust in the claims of authority that he made. You believe that Jesus has the power to do the things he claims he can do, and that he will do them and do them for you. In this case, he has the right to make us children of God. Wow.
vs 13
In once sense I guess we are all born of God. When you look at those three examples John gives, they all are woefully inadequate to explain where we are originally born from. Natural descent? That's fine, I know I have parents. But where did their parents come from? I can ask that question until I get back to God. Human decision? Ok, people can decide to commit the sexual act in the hope of having a child, but they have no control over whether it works or not. A husband's will? Laughable, really, isn't it? As if a husband can close his eyes and wish really hard, and that makes a baby? All of these things are involved, but even they point to our creation in God, albeit less directly.
This time, though, we are given the right to become children of God, born directly from him. A complicated concept, again one which John will flesh out later on.
vs 14
We now know that the Word of God, this part of God, God himself, became flesh and lived among his people. John here claims that he was one of the people who saw the glory of this Word of God. And he can testify that he did indeed come from God, and as God's Word, was full of grace and truth.
vs 15
John TB was obviously fairly well known, because he is named here without any qualifiers, merely as the one who would testify concerning Christ's coming. We are all aware of his words to the effect of what John records here. Remember, of course, that this book wasn't written primarily as an evangelical outreach piece - it is written mostly for Christians, and probably a specific group of Christians under John's care. So he is allowed to assume a bit of knowledge of his audience (thankfully we've got the other gospels to tell us some more).
vs 16
That claim is obviously about God and God's Word, not John the Baptist.
vs 17
This is the first time John names Jesus. And it is such a great comparison. Moses, great servant of God and pillar of Judaism, all he did was bring the Law down a mountain. Jesus, the Christ, brought grace and truth. Now this is not implying that the Law wasn't true - it was in the sense of its accuracy and correctness. But it was not complete. When you looked at the Law, you did not see God. When you look at Jesus, you do see God. You see the truth. And you receive grace, apart the law especially.
vs 18
It is through Christ that God has been really made known. Even God's expressions of himself through pillars of fire and cloud and through miracles and disasters and speaking straight to people, those are nothing compared to his direct revelation of himself through Christ. There really is nothing like this event in the rest of history. It really is a special thing. This verse also shows the relationship between God the father and Jesus. Jesus is at God's right hand, but his title is also God the One and Only. John knows there is a complex idea here, but doesn't really explain it for us - he is happy for it to sit the way it is.
vs 19
The Jews were keen to know about John TB. As far as we know, he didn't do any miracles or anything - it was merely the words he preached, and the authority which was in them, that made it clear that something special was going on. He was preaching about God, so who do you send? You send people who are meant to know about God - priests and such.
vs 20
He was very open about his not being the Christ. This tells us two things - one that John TB was really something special. He wasn't just any old preacher. He had some authority to him.
But secondly, it becomes obvious to us here that the Jews were actively looking for their Christ, their Messiah to come and save them. They were keen. They were searching. And yet, when he comes, damn them, they don't get it. So don't feel sorry for the Jews not accepting Jesus, as if they weren't expecting him and he was sprung on them. They were sending priests out looking for him.
Jesus considers us his own, and when you think about that, it is a huge blessing to be considered so valuable by God. But, ignorant and evil people that we are, we did not receive him. Like a king travelling through his kingdom and not being offered any hospitality or gifts, or recognition as king.
vs 12
But not everyone ignored him, or else we wouldn't know about him I guess. Some people did receive him the way a king should be received. "Believing in {someone's} name" sounds weird to us today, and it's hard to get an exact comparison of an idiom which we use that fits. Obviously the name (noun) in itself is not super special. There are heaps of people called Jesus, especially in Spanish and Latin countries where they don't have the odd social reserve about naming their kids after him.
I guess the closest thing we have is when someone does something "in the name of {someone} or more usually {something}". When you do something in the name of peace, you're not just doing it because peace sounds good, and you can't think of a name for the thing you're doing yourself. You're doing it for the sake of peace, to further peace. When you do something "in the name of Her Majesty Queen of the Commonwealth" you're doing it on her behalf, and so to some extent you have the authority and power that her name brings. When we read about the name of the Lord, or the name of God, or the name of Jesus, it's not talking just about the noun by which we address them. Tied up in that idea are the concepts of the authority that name holds, the position which it gives, the title and domain it rules and so on.
So "believing in the name of Jesus" is not a simple act of assenting to his existance, or acknowledging his coming to earth. It is a trust in the claims of authority that he made. You believe that Jesus has the power to do the things he claims he can do, and that he will do them and do them for you. In this case, he has the right to make us children of God. Wow.
vs 13
In once sense I guess we are all born of God. When you look at those three examples John gives, they all are woefully inadequate to explain where we are originally born from. Natural descent? That's fine, I know I have parents. But where did their parents come from? I can ask that question until I get back to God. Human decision? Ok, people can decide to commit the sexual act in the hope of having a child, but they have no control over whether it works or not. A husband's will? Laughable, really, isn't it? As if a husband can close his eyes and wish really hard, and that makes a baby? All of these things are involved, but even they point to our creation in God, albeit less directly.
This time, though, we are given the right to become children of God, born directly from him. A complicated concept, again one which John will flesh out later on.
vs 14
We now know that the Word of God, this part of God, God himself, became flesh and lived among his people. John here claims that he was one of the people who saw the glory of this Word of God. And he can testify that he did indeed come from God, and as God's Word, was full of grace and truth.
vs 15
John TB was obviously fairly well known, because he is named here without any qualifiers, merely as the one who would testify concerning Christ's coming. We are all aware of his words to the effect of what John records here. Remember, of course, that this book wasn't written primarily as an evangelical outreach piece - it is written mostly for Christians, and probably a specific group of Christians under John's care. So he is allowed to assume a bit of knowledge of his audience (thankfully we've got the other gospels to tell us some more).
vs 16
That claim is obviously about God and God's Word, not John the Baptist.
vs 17
This is the first time John names Jesus. And it is such a great comparison. Moses, great servant of God and pillar of Judaism, all he did was bring the Law down a mountain. Jesus, the Christ, brought grace and truth. Now this is not implying that the Law wasn't true - it was in the sense of its accuracy and correctness. But it was not complete. When you looked at the Law, you did not see God. When you look at Jesus, you do see God. You see the truth. And you receive grace, apart the law especially.
vs 18
It is through Christ that God has been really made known. Even God's expressions of himself through pillars of fire and cloud and through miracles and disasters and speaking straight to people, those are nothing compared to his direct revelation of himself through Christ. There really is nothing like this event in the rest of history. It really is a special thing. This verse also shows the relationship between God the father and Jesus. Jesus is at God's right hand, but his title is also God the One and Only. John knows there is a complex idea here, but doesn't really explain it for us - he is happy for it to sit the way it is.
vs 19
The Jews were keen to know about John TB. As far as we know, he didn't do any miracles or anything - it was merely the words he preached, and the authority which was in them, that made it clear that something special was going on. He was preaching about God, so who do you send? You send people who are meant to know about God - priests and such.
vs 20
He was very open about his not being the Christ. This tells us two things - one that John TB was really something special. He wasn't just any old preacher. He had some authority to him.
But secondly, it becomes obvious to us here that the Jews were actively looking for their Christ, their Messiah to come and save them. They were keen. They were searching. And yet, when he comes, damn them, they don't get it. So don't feel sorry for the Jews not accepting Jesus, as if they weren't expecting him and he was sprung on them. They were sending priests out looking for him.
Friday, December 22, 2006
John Chapter 1
vs 1
Some people like stories about babies and stars and shepherds and wise men, mangers and cows and goats and no room at the inn. Give me John Chapter 1 any time.
John 1 consciously echoes the words of Genesis 1. But this time, in the beginning was Logos. It was with God. It was God.
How much can you pack into a few short words?The ideas here are incredible. Of course, we know from Genesis 1 that God created everything by his Word. So already we have made that link. But John is giving so much more body to this Word. It was with God, which makes it its own separate entity. But it was God - it is the same entity! While we don't have the trinity here first off, we're pretty darn close - the two beings being one and yet being distinct.
vs 2
"He" tells us more about the Word. The Word of God is a title now, referring to a person, or at least a personified being. I'm not sure if there is a bit of poetry to this beginning, with the repetition of "in the beginning" at the beginning and end. But even if there isn't, we know that repetition is used to drum in a point.
The NASB actually reads "He was in the beginning with God", which I like, because it sort of gives the Word the status of "in the beginning" - the status of immortal infinity of God.
vs 3
This personified being was intimately involved in all of creation. Of course it was - if it is the Word of God, it is the instrument through which God created all things, we are told that in Genesis. John makes it painfully clear though - nothing was made without the Word.
vs 4
All this stuff has been written in the past tense, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also true now. All it means is that historically it happened previous to the writing of the book. Think of the word "was" as indicating a time in time, rather than something which no longer "is".
"Life" here of course could mean the life that was first imparted to all things, including mankind. But it's more than just a simple giving of life, isn't it, because the life given is also a light. Light used metaphorically in the Bible and regarding God is most usually referring to purity or moral and spiritual truth. Because it is the light of men, and not of God, then I would be edging towards the second one - the Word is the light by which men see the true nature of eternity, and hence it is also their life.
vs 5
This light of moral and spiritual truth shines (presently) in the darkness, which we must assume is moral and spiritual ignorance which continues to exist today of course. Now, translators are at odds here (although I'm sure they don't get into fisticuffs in the local over it) about whether the darkness has failed to understand the Light, or failed to overcome or overpower the Light.
The overcoming and overpowering which the darkness is failing to do could be a reference to the death of Christ, or just to the general stifling spread of spiritual ignorance across the world which, although mighty, has not extinguished the truth from being revealed.
The failure to understand it would refer more to the general inability of so many people to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a fairly important theme of John's gospel overall.
vs 6
Not this John, another John. We usually call him John the Baptist, but John the evangelist never calls him that. I guess he knows which John he's referring to - the John that isn't him. John (the author) freely admits that John (the baptist) came as sent from God. His authority as a prophet we should accept.
vs 7
The "him" of course is referring to the light (which in my NIV is not capitalised, but in the NASB is capitalised). John TB of course was just a witness to this whole amazing thing, and his prophetic gift and authority means that we should listen to his statements about the Word (Light). So the Light is someone upon whom you can believe. That's a complex idea, which we can rest assured will be more complicated before we finish John.
vs 8
John TB was often confused as being some sort of Messiah, and had to deny it regularly. He prophesied that one greater than him was coming. The Word was coming. Of course, he didn't have John chapter 1 to tell him just how awesome it was going to be that the Word of God was coming to earth. But he knew something great was happening.
vs 9
Translators are still sorting this one out too. Notice how little these things actually matter to the sense of the passages they are in though.
Assuming the normal translation, the Light which John TB was saying was coming is such a great light that it imparts its light to every man. That's a fairly major event.
Assuming the other translation, the true light which is coming gives light to every man as they come into the world.
Whoever is coming at the time, the important thing is that man is getting the light from this great godly Light.
vs 10
What a painful verse this is. Talk to anyone who knows the pain of having a loved one not recognise them, like the spouse of a dementia patient or someone with amnesia. You carefully craft a relationship for decades, and then your spouse, maybe overnight, maybe over years, eventually forgets who you even are.
Now imagine you created a whole world crawling with living things, and they don't recognise who you are.
Some people like stories about babies and stars and shepherds and wise men, mangers and cows and goats and no room at the inn. Give me John Chapter 1 any time.
John 1 consciously echoes the words of Genesis 1. But this time, in the beginning was Logos. It was with God. It was God.
How much can you pack into a few short words?The ideas here are incredible. Of course, we know from Genesis 1 that God created everything by his Word. So already we have made that link. But John is giving so much more body to this Word. It was with God, which makes it its own separate entity. But it was God - it is the same entity! While we don't have the trinity here first off, we're pretty darn close - the two beings being one and yet being distinct.
vs 2
"He" tells us more about the Word. The Word of God is a title now, referring to a person, or at least a personified being. I'm not sure if there is a bit of poetry to this beginning, with the repetition of "in the beginning" at the beginning and end. But even if there isn't, we know that repetition is used to drum in a point.
The NASB actually reads "He was in the beginning with God", which I like, because it sort of gives the Word the status of "in the beginning" - the status of immortal infinity of God.
vs 3
This personified being was intimately involved in all of creation. Of course it was - if it is the Word of God, it is the instrument through which God created all things, we are told that in Genesis. John makes it painfully clear though - nothing was made without the Word.
vs 4
All this stuff has been written in the past tense, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also true now. All it means is that historically it happened previous to the writing of the book. Think of the word "was" as indicating a time in time, rather than something which no longer "is".
"Life" here of course could mean the life that was first imparted to all things, including mankind. But it's more than just a simple giving of life, isn't it, because the life given is also a light. Light used metaphorically in the Bible and regarding God is most usually referring to purity or moral and spiritual truth. Because it is the light of men, and not of God, then I would be edging towards the second one - the Word is the light by which men see the true nature of eternity, and hence it is also their life.
vs 5
This light of moral and spiritual truth shines (presently) in the darkness, which we must assume is moral and spiritual ignorance which continues to exist today of course. Now, translators are at odds here (although I'm sure they don't get into fisticuffs in the local over it) about whether the darkness has failed to understand the Light, or failed to overcome or overpower the Light.
The overcoming and overpowering which the darkness is failing to do could be a reference to the death of Christ, or just to the general stifling spread of spiritual ignorance across the world which, although mighty, has not extinguished the truth from being revealed.
The failure to understand it would refer more to the general inability of so many people to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a fairly important theme of John's gospel overall.
vs 6
Not this John, another John. We usually call him John the Baptist, but John the evangelist never calls him that. I guess he knows which John he's referring to - the John that isn't him. John (the author) freely admits that John (the baptist) came as sent from God. His authority as a prophet we should accept.
vs 7
The "him" of course is referring to the light (which in my NIV is not capitalised, but in the NASB is capitalised). John TB of course was just a witness to this whole amazing thing, and his prophetic gift and authority means that we should listen to his statements about the Word (Light). So the Light is someone upon whom you can believe. That's a complex idea, which we can rest assured will be more complicated before we finish John.
vs 8
John TB was often confused as being some sort of Messiah, and had to deny it regularly. He prophesied that one greater than him was coming. The Word was coming. Of course, he didn't have John chapter 1 to tell him just how awesome it was going to be that the Word of God was coming to earth. But he knew something great was happening.
vs 9
Translators are still sorting this one out too. Notice how little these things actually matter to the sense of the passages they are in though.
Assuming the normal translation, the Light which John TB was saying was coming is such a great light that it imparts its light to every man. That's a fairly major event.
Assuming the other translation, the true light which is coming gives light to every man as they come into the world.
Whoever is coming at the time, the important thing is that man is getting the light from this great godly Light.
vs 10
What a painful verse this is. Talk to anyone who knows the pain of having a loved one not recognise them, like the spouse of a dementia patient or someone with amnesia. You carefully craft a relationship for decades, and then your spouse, maybe overnight, maybe over years, eventually forgets who you even are.
Now imagine you created a whole world crawling with living things, and they don't recognise who you are.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 16
vs 13
Sounds like the sort of thing you would say to a bunch of young men about to go to war. The Christian life isn't as easy as we sometimes make it out to be, is it? Courage, strength, and sticktoitiveness, they are important to the Christian life.
vs 14
But so is love. That is something you wouldn't hear being barked on the battlefield. And it's that false dichotomy that we struggle with - that we must stand firm in strength and courage, and love. They seem so opposed, the language seems all wrong, but that's what we are to do.
vs 15-16
VITMOI man strikes again with the verse numbering.
This is a strong command from Paul here. He is talking about the first converts to Christianity in the region, and tells the Corinthians how this household devoted their lives to serving God through serving the church (it's worth pointing out how much the Corinthian church lacks this). But Paul's command is not to emulate them, or help them out - it is to subjugate themselves to such people! I don't think we'd take too kindly to someone telling us to subject ourselves to someone else because they are doing better work in the Lord than us, but that's what Paul says - to anyone who joins the work and labours in it, you should be a subject.
vs 17
Reading this verse, though, it is hard to say if this is a once-for-all command, or specific to the Corinthians. After all, the men from Achaia are specifically filling a gap that the Corinthian church has. Not that I think we should submit to people who fill lacks in the church, but such a major one, like the serving of the church, is what church leadership is all about, and so such people should be respected.
vs 18
They have been a refreshment to Paul and to the church at Corinth, and hence they should have recognition. And the suggested recognition by Paul seems to be that of a leadership position.
vs 19
Priscilla and Aquilla sure do get around. The rest of the greetings are pretty vague here - the churches in Asia.
vs 20
Obviously, the church knew where Paul was writing from, because he doesn't have to say - only that the brothers where they are send greetings.
It seems odd to put the command to greet one another with a holy kiss at the end of the book like this, but Paul does it more than once.
vs 21
Of course you do. Typical Paul. And typical of a person using an amenuensis.
vs 22
This little curse here has sparked a lot of interesting ideas about why it is written where it is and how it is. Most likely I think is the explanation which says that because there is a bit of tension between the church and Paul during this time, Paul is making it clear to those in the church that if they don't believe and love God, they're in trouble, and that those who do shouldn't follow their lead.
Come O Lord is written Maranatha in some Bibles, which means in Aramaic "Come O Lord". What is interesting is that Paul writes this to a greek church. Obviously it had some currency in Christian circles.
vs 23-24
A lovely way to end a letter - with a blessing of Christ, and a greeting of love.
Sounds like the sort of thing you would say to a bunch of young men about to go to war. The Christian life isn't as easy as we sometimes make it out to be, is it? Courage, strength, and sticktoitiveness, they are important to the Christian life.
vs 14
But so is love. That is something you wouldn't hear being barked on the battlefield. And it's that false dichotomy that we struggle with - that we must stand firm in strength and courage, and love. They seem so opposed, the language seems all wrong, but that's what we are to do.
vs 15-16
VITMOI man strikes again with the verse numbering.
This is a strong command from Paul here. He is talking about the first converts to Christianity in the region, and tells the Corinthians how this household devoted their lives to serving God through serving the church (it's worth pointing out how much the Corinthian church lacks this). But Paul's command is not to emulate them, or help them out - it is to subjugate themselves to such people! I don't think we'd take too kindly to someone telling us to subject ourselves to someone else because they are doing better work in the Lord than us, but that's what Paul says - to anyone who joins the work and labours in it, you should be a subject.
vs 17
Reading this verse, though, it is hard to say if this is a once-for-all command, or specific to the Corinthians. After all, the men from Achaia are specifically filling a gap that the Corinthian church has. Not that I think we should submit to people who fill lacks in the church, but such a major one, like the serving of the church, is what church leadership is all about, and so such people should be respected.
vs 18
They have been a refreshment to Paul and to the church at Corinth, and hence they should have recognition. And the suggested recognition by Paul seems to be that of a leadership position.
vs 19
Priscilla and Aquilla sure do get around. The rest of the greetings are pretty vague here - the churches in Asia.
vs 20
Obviously, the church knew where Paul was writing from, because he doesn't have to say - only that the brothers where they are send greetings.
It seems odd to put the command to greet one another with a holy kiss at the end of the book like this, but Paul does it more than once.
vs 21
Of course you do. Typical Paul. And typical of a person using an amenuensis.
vs 22
This little curse here has sparked a lot of interesting ideas about why it is written where it is and how it is. Most likely I think is the explanation which says that because there is a bit of tension between the church and Paul during this time, Paul is making it clear to those in the church that if they don't believe and love God, they're in trouble, and that those who do shouldn't follow their lead.
Come O Lord is written Maranatha in some Bibles, which means in Aramaic "Come O Lord". What is interesting is that Paul writes this to a greek church. Obviously it had some currency in Christian circles.
vs 23-24
A lovely way to end a letter - with a blessing of Christ, and a greeting of love.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
1 Corinthians 16
vs 1
Does this verse suggest that the Corinthian churches knew what Paul had told the Galatian churches? Or is he just saying that, so that they know that they're not the only ones doing it?
In any case, there is a gift being collected from all the greek churches for Jerusalem. It's a bit of a different culture though - whereas we are asked if we will give, they are told that they will give, and told how to collect it. You might be surprised - all I can say is visit a Singaporean Christian church some time!
vs 2
Of course, bank deposits and credit card payments weren't acceptable back then. Paul is simply telling them to do the work in advance, to be prepared. Very practical.
vs 3
Ahhhh, letters of introduction. If you've ever wanted to know how to be a kooky wierdo idiotic Christian cult, take one verse from the Bible which no one really remembers, like this one. Then blow it all out of proportion, and apply it to any situation you possibly can. Then be so legalistic about it that if it is not followed to your stringent standards, you can safely call the person unchristian.
I mean, we're talking about a church existing under pain of death here! You couldn't just walk through the front doors! They didn't have big buildings around with huge crosses on top! Repeat after me, tighties - "Pre-Constantine, pre-Constantine!"
Look, I don't know if the Constantinian idea of imperial religion was a good thing for Christianity. I'm even less sure about the statewide imposition of Christendom on Europe for over 1000 years. But God either made them happen or allowed them to happen, and they are a fact. And Brethren more than anyone should remember their roots and understand the meaninglessness or letters of introduction.
Anyway... even if the Corinthian church gave their own men letters of introduction, they would be worthless! Paul needs to give them. Why? Because the Jerusalem church knows the name of Paul - the names of the leaders of backwards hickville church in Corinth would scarcely be recogniesd.
vs 4
Paul might go to, but of course he's got a full schedule on his missionary trips.
vs 5
You really wonder how much Paul knew about his own directions. Sometimes you look at his trips, and they seem a little higglty-pigglty. But he did want to visit the Corinthians. You can see, though, from his words, that they aren't as warm as his letters to other churches. This is more of a "beware ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh" sort of letter.
vs 6
Although he sounds like he is weighing up, he certainly isn't giving them any choice in the matter. And well he wouldn't - Christians must show each other hospitality. Imagine calling someone on it sometime! Doesn't fit into our culture, does it?
vs 7
Paul wants to sort some of this stuff out face to face with them, so he wants to visit them for their sake, not just for picking up money and food and moving on.
vs 8-9
You might say "Already Pentecost is being followed by Christians - look how soon they have holidays of their own!" except that Pentecost is of course a Jewish celebration already ;)
You could read verse 9 in two ways - one is that there is a great opportunity for work in Ephesus, and many also oppose him there, so he will need to stay until Pentecost to get the work done. The other is that there is a great opportunity for him in Ephesus, and many oppose him in Corinth, so he will stay in Ephesus until things cool down. Both would be historically accurate.
vs 10
Interesting that Paul even needs to tell the Corinthians to look after Timothy. He doesn't tell them what he would tell other churches, to look after him and give him all he needs. This time, he tells the Corinthians "don't give him anything to fear". Doesn't sound promising.
vs 11
People might even refuse to accept him. You might think "Oh, it's because he's young, like Paul says in the letter to Timothy. Probably more likely because he will be seen as being in the "Paul camp" and so people won't like him. Doesn't sound like a great place to go for your itinerant ministry at present.
vs 12
Not even Apollos wanted to go there! But it seems Paul talked him into going when he has the time and opportunity.
Does this verse suggest that the Corinthian churches knew what Paul had told the Galatian churches? Or is he just saying that, so that they know that they're not the only ones doing it?
In any case, there is a gift being collected from all the greek churches for Jerusalem. It's a bit of a different culture though - whereas we are asked if we will give, they are told that they will give, and told how to collect it. You might be surprised - all I can say is visit a Singaporean Christian church some time!
vs 2
Of course, bank deposits and credit card payments weren't acceptable back then. Paul is simply telling them to do the work in advance, to be prepared. Very practical.
vs 3
Ahhhh, letters of introduction. If you've ever wanted to know how to be a kooky wierdo idiotic Christian cult, take one verse from the Bible which no one really remembers, like this one. Then blow it all out of proportion, and apply it to any situation you possibly can. Then be so legalistic about it that if it is not followed to your stringent standards, you can safely call the person unchristian.
I mean, we're talking about a church existing under pain of death here! You couldn't just walk through the front doors! They didn't have big buildings around with huge crosses on top! Repeat after me, tighties - "Pre-Constantine, pre-Constantine!"
Look, I don't know if the Constantinian idea of imperial religion was a good thing for Christianity. I'm even less sure about the statewide imposition of Christendom on Europe for over 1000 years. But God either made them happen or allowed them to happen, and they are a fact. And Brethren more than anyone should remember their roots and understand the meaninglessness or letters of introduction.
Anyway... even if the Corinthian church gave their own men letters of introduction, they would be worthless! Paul needs to give them. Why? Because the Jerusalem church knows the name of Paul - the names of the leaders of backwards hickville church in Corinth would scarcely be recogniesd.
vs 4
Paul might go to, but of course he's got a full schedule on his missionary trips.
vs 5
You really wonder how much Paul knew about his own directions. Sometimes you look at his trips, and they seem a little higglty-pigglty. But he did want to visit the Corinthians. You can see, though, from his words, that they aren't as warm as his letters to other churches. This is more of a "beware ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh" sort of letter.
vs 6
Although he sounds like he is weighing up, he certainly isn't giving them any choice in the matter. And well he wouldn't - Christians must show each other hospitality. Imagine calling someone on it sometime! Doesn't fit into our culture, does it?
vs 7
Paul wants to sort some of this stuff out face to face with them, so he wants to visit them for their sake, not just for picking up money and food and moving on.
vs 8-9
You might say "Already Pentecost is being followed by Christians - look how soon they have holidays of their own!" except that Pentecost is of course a Jewish celebration already ;)
You could read verse 9 in two ways - one is that there is a great opportunity for work in Ephesus, and many also oppose him there, so he will need to stay until Pentecost to get the work done. The other is that there is a great opportunity for him in Ephesus, and many oppose him in Corinth, so he will stay in Ephesus until things cool down. Both would be historically accurate.
vs 10
Interesting that Paul even needs to tell the Corinthians to look after Timothy. He doesn't tell them what he would tell other churches, to look after him and give him all he needs. This time, he tells the Corinthians "don't give him anything to fear". Doesn't sound promising.
vs 11
People might even refuse to accept him. You might think "Oh, it's because he's young, like Paul says in the letter to Timothy. Probably more likely because he will be seen as being in the "Paul camp" and so people won't like him. Doesn't sound like a great place to go for your itinerant ministry at present.
vs 12
Not even Apollos wanted to go there! But it seems Paul talked him into going when he has the time and opportunity.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 15
I am not well
vs 49
It's written in such an obscure way because of the illustration Paul is using, but it's an incredible truth that, just as we are sinful dregs of humanity now, as depressing and inescapable as that is, we are going to be so newly created that we will become the sons of God and co-heirs with Christ in eternal glory and imperishable bodies.
vs 50
There is, then, a necessity for our resurrection, because our perishable bodies cannot inherit the fruits of God's eternal kingdom.
vs 51
Yes, this is a great mystery. So great that even now we still don't really understand it! Scholarship regarding eschatology and particularly rapture-type stuff is very exciting but also very changeable. It is very hard from what the Bible tells us to know exactly what to expect.
What we can tell, from this verse, is that we will all be changed, and that there will be some to whom it happens without first dying.
vs 52
We must assume Paul is talking as if it is going to happen right then, but for the sake of understanding what will happen when it does happen. At the last trumpet, (something to do with the end of days) not only will there be a resurrection of the dead, but those alive and in Christ will be transformed.
vs 53
If we haven't died at the time, then we can't be resurrected, so God has a plan, which is to clothe us in our immortality, as quick as a flash according to Paul. Of course, everyone who is being resurrected will be clothed in the same way too.
vs 54
The final resurrection is necessary for the victory over death. Remember, death is an enemy of God. So its defeat is great news in the Kingdom.
vs 55
Thanks to God and his work in Christ, death is only a temporary state for us, a sleeping. It has no final power over us. There are some arguments about what kind of death Paul is talking about here, and some say that death is a part of God's creation, but that the second death of separation from him is not. I'll let someone who understands that belief describe it better.
vs 56
It seems an odd place for the Law to come in, but here it is. That which kills us, the sting of death, is sin. Sin is deadly. It needs a warning label. And sin is so powerful because of the Law. God's law inevitably means transgressions against that law, and so we get punished, or stung.
vs 57
But because of Christ, that's not the end of it. We have a victory over the enemy of death. We may very well succumb to it during this life, but we are still on the winning team.
vs 58
It's the one labour that isn't in vain, eventually. Our victory in God and in Christ should mean that we can stand firm against temptation, against evil that is done against us, and against doubt. Sometimes I wonder if we understand our victory enough.
vs 49
It's written in such an obscure way because of the illustration Paul is using, but it's an incredible truth that, just as we are sinful dregs of humanity now, as depressing and inescapable as that is, we are going to be so newly created that we will become the sons of God and co-heirs with Christ in eternal glory and imperishable bodies.
vs 50
There is, then, a necessity for our resurrection, because our perishable bodies cannot inherit the fruits of God's eternal kingdom.
vs 51
Yes, this is a great mystery. So great that even now we still don't really understand it! Scholarship regarding eschatology and particularly rapture-type stuff is very exciting but also very changeable. It is very hard from what the Bible tells us to know exactly what to expect.
What we can tell, from this verse, is that we will all be changed, and that there will be some to whom it happens without first dying.
vs 52
We must assume Paul is talking as if it is going to happen right then, but for the sake of understanding what will happen when it does happen. At the last trumpet, (something to do with the end of days) not only will there be a resurrection of the dead, but those alive and in Christ will be transformed.
vs 53
If we haven't died at the time, then we can't be resurrected, so God has a plan, which is to clothe us in our immortality, as quick as a flash according to Paul. Of course, everyone who is being resurrected will be clothed in the same way too.
vs 54
The final resurrection is necessary for the victory over death. Remember, death is an enemy of God. So its defeat is great news in the Kingdom.
vs 55
Thanks to God and his work in Christ, death is only a temporary state for us, a sleeping. It has no final power over us. There are some arguments about what kind of death Paul is talking about here, and some say that death is a part of God's creation, but that the second death of separation from him is not. I'll let someone who understands that belief describe it better.
vs 56
It seems an odd place for the Law to come in, but here it is. That which kills us, the sting of death, is sin. Sin is deadly. It needs a warning label. And sin is so powerful because of the Law. God's law inevitably means transgressions against that law, and so we get punished, or stung.
vs 57
But because of Christ, that's not the end of it. We have a victory over the enemy of death. We may very well succumb to it during this life, but we are still on the winning team.
vs 58
It's the one labour that isn't in vain, eventually. Our victory in God and in Christ should mean that we can stand firm against temptation, against evil that is done against us, and against doubt. Sometimes I wonder if we understand our victory enough.
Monday, December 18, 2006
1 Corinthians Chapter 15
vs 37
So you don't plant what you're going to get - if you want mustard, you don't plant a jar of mustard, or even bury a mustard tree in the ground. You plant a seed, which looks nothing like the tree (or like mustard, unless it is seeded mustard).
vs 38
God is in control of what comes out of a seed - there's nothing much we can do about that. Genetic engineering changes this a little, but my understanding is that it's still pretty quick and dirty, so you still have a gamble at what you will get.
vs 39
Although people supposedly taste like bacon, we are different in "flesh", that is, in body. But flesh can mean more than just crude matter, it takes in the whole nature, and we have a very different nature to birds and other animals.
vs 40
And so now Paul draws the distinction between people and angels, or perhaps between our earthly and heavenly bodies. The difference is so stark that we won't be able to tell one from just looking at the other.
vs 41
Paul even seems to be a bit of an astronomer. Good for him. So all created things are different and have a different splendor. Anyone can look at the sun and tell it's different from the moon.
vs 42
We all know how perishable our current bodies are. They get sick, they get old, they die. They fall to bits, they take lots of care, and even then don't always work well. But our new resurrection bodies will be imperishable. I can't wait to find out what they're like. In some ways they will be similar - we know Christ had an imperishable body when he was raised, and he still looked like a person. But in other ways it will be different, like a mustard seed from its tree.
vs 43
Glory and power will be with us when we are raised. Power isn't one we think about so much, but we will be powerful when we are raised. Interesting thought.
vs 44
Don't think of this as a dichotomy of physical as against spiritual. I think it's far more like imperfect as opposed to perfect. Paul is talking about a bodily resurrection - not just some sort of spiritual floatiness.
vs 45
Spirit still has life. I guess natural is part of natural process involving life and death (even in Eden, there was death in potentia). Spiritual does not involve life and death, only life.
vs 46
The order they come in is like the order of the seed and the crop - seeds come first. You can argue the whole chicken and egg thing if you like, but Paul isn't talking about a creative order specifically, more simply a farming order - you plant before you reap. It's not a scientific description, it's a colloquial description - just like when we talk about the sun rising and setting (of course it does neither).
vs 47
Not only is spiritual different from natural, it is better. Heaven is better than earth, so better to come from heaven than from earth.
vs 48
The amazing thing is that we, who are from earth in that we have our genesis in the earthly creation can become "from heaven" because of Christ. It's almost like we are a new creation or something ;)
So you don't plant what you're going to get - if you want mustard, you don't plant a jar of mustard, or even bury a mustard tree in the ground. You plant a seed, which looks nothing like the tree (or like mustard, unless it is seeded mustard).
vs 38
God is in control of what comes out of a seed - there's nothing much we can do about that. Genetic engineering changes this a little, but my understanding is that it's still pretty quick and dirty, so you still have a gamble at what you will get.
vs 39
Although people supposedly taste like bacon, we are different in "flesh", that is, in body. But flesh can mean more than just crude matter, it takes in the whole nature, and we have a very different nature to birds and other animals.
vs 40
And so now Paul draws the distinction between people and angels, or perhaps between our earthly and heavenly bodies. The difference is so stark that we won't be able to tell one from just looking at the other.
vs 41
Paul even seems to be a bit of an astronomer. Good for him. So all created things are different and have a different splendor. Anyone can look at the sun and tell it's different from the moon.
vs 42
We all know how perishable our current bodies are. They get sick, they get old, they die. They fall to bits, they take lots of care, and even then don't always work well. But our new resurrection bodies will be imperishable. I can't wait to find out what they're like. In some ways they will be similar - we know Christ had an imperishable body when he was raised, and he still looked like a person. But in other ways it will be different, like a mustard seed from its tree.
vs 43
Glory and power will be with us when we are raised. Power isn't one we think about so much, but we will be powerful when we are raised. Interesting thought.
vs 44
Don't think of this as a dichotomy of physical as against spiritual. I think it's far more like imperfect as opposed to perfect. Paul is talking about a bodily resurrection - not just some sort of spiritual floatiness.
vs 45
Spirit still has life. I guess natural is part of natural process involving life and death (even in Eden, there was death in potentia). Spiritual does not involve life and death, only life.
vs 46
The order they come in is like the order of the seed and the crop - seeds come first. You can argue the whole chicken and egg thing if you like, but Paul isn't talking about a creative order specifically, more simply a farming order - you plant before you reap. It's not a scientific description, it's a colloquial description - just like when we talk about the sun rising and setting (of course it does neither).
vs 47
Not only is spiritual different from natural, it is better. Heaven is better than earth, so better to come from heaven than from earth.
vs 48
The amazing thing is that we, who are from earth in that we have our genesis in the earthly creation can become "from heaven" because of Christ. It's almost like we are a new creation or something ;)
Sunday, December 17, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 15
vs 25
Ok, you can feel free to disagree, but to fill in the "he"s, here is my understanding - Jesus must reign until God has put all God's enemies under Jesus' feet.
This means that Jesus currently reigns, which is easy for us to accept as he is risen in glorious splendour, and is in heaven, so we assume it's not hard to reign from there.
vs 26
Now death wasn't destroyed by Jesus' resurrection. Well, it sort of was. People still die, though, so we know it wasn't. But it was a sign that the defeat will come. So we can assume this victory over death will come in the end times with Jesus' return.
vs 27
This is clearly God putting everything under Jesus' feet. Except himself, as Paul makes clear. Jesus was humble before God on earth, and probably still is now. This does not mean that Jesus is not equal with God. But just because they are equals does not mean that one cannot treat the other with deference.
vs 28
Again, this subjection is not out of one's inferiority to the other - it is a deference which we assume is a part of the relational structure of the Godhead.
vs 29
Ok, we really have no idea here. Historical picture of this practice is sketchy at best. This verse is not necessarily endorsing the practice, but it is also not being explicitly denied either. It is never prescribed in Scripture, though, so I think we can safely say it's not necessary. The point Paul is making is that ther's no point to people doing it if there is no resurrection.
vs 30
Paul's own risk-taking life is another example of proof that he believes in the resurrection, that his hope is on more than just this life which he treats as temporary.
vs 31
He means it, but not literally. What does he actually mean? I'm not sure. That he puts his life at risk for the gospel every day? Perhaps. That he dies more to the sinful nature? Possibly, but it's out of context. There could be other meanings, but I think that first one is most in keeping with the context. Paul is really serious about this too.
vs 32
He does not do the things he does for human or temporal gain, because he knows that things done for such purposes are worthless in the end, and he has gained nothing. If he didn't believe in a resurrection or an eternity after death, then why do anything but enjoy yourself in the short term, right?
vs 33
This sort of jumps in from nowhere. I am assuming he's talking about those in the church who are talking about this lack of resurrection, or he might be talking about the company of philosophers who came to correct Paul's view on things like the resurrection, whom the Corinthians supposedly had a great respect for.
vs 34
Paul shames them because there are some among them who are ignorant of God. Could it be that these philosophers are talking the Christians into believing their philosophies, and so there are people in the church who are ignorant of God, but know about these philosophies? In any case, the church isn't doing its job.
vs 35
People still ask this question, even Christians. Paul's answer is quite potent, which makes us think that the way in which the Corinthians asked it was more of a scoffing than a plea for understanding.
vs 36
This is the start of a new metaphor - the idea of planting something and it dying before it comes to a new life.
Ok, you can feel free to disagree, but to fill in the "he"s, here is my understanding - Jesus must reign until God has put all God's enemies under Jesus' feet.
This means that Jesus currently reigns, which is easy for us to accept as he is risen in glorious splendour, and is in heaven, so we assume it's not hard to reign from there.
vs 26
Now death wasn't destroyed by Jesus' resurrection. Well, it sort of was. People still die, though, so we know it wasn't. But it was a sign that the defeat will come. So we can assume this victory over death will come in the end times with Jesus' return.
vs 27
This is clearly God putting everything under Jesus' feet. Except himself, as Paul makes clear. Jesus was humble before God on earth, and probably still is now. This does not mean that Jesus is not equal with God. But just because they are equals does not mean that one cannot treat the other with deference.
vs 28
Again, this subjection is not out of one's inferiority to the other - it is a deference which we assume is a part of the relational structure of the Godhead.
vs 29
Ok, we really have no idea here. Historical picture of this practice is sketchy at best. This verse is not necessarily endorsing the practice, but it is also not being explicitly denied either. It is never prescribed in Scripture, though, so I think we can safely say it's not necessary. The point Paul is making is that ther's no point to people doing it if there is no resurrection.
vs 30
Paul's own risk-taking life is another example of proof that he believes in the resurrection, that his hope is on more than just this life which he treats as temporary.
vs 31
He means it, but not literally. What does he actually mean? I'm not sure. That he puts his life at risk for the gospel every day? Perhaps. That he dies more to the sinful nature? Possibly, but it's out of context. There could be other meanings, but I think that first one is most in keeping with the context. Paul is really serious about this too.
vs 32
He does not do the things he does for human or temporal gain, because he knows that things done for such purposes are worthless in the end, and he has gained nothing. If he didn't believe in a resurrection or an eternity after death, then why do anything but enjoy yourself in the short term, right?
vs 33
This sort of jumps in from nowhere. I am assuming he's talking about those in the church who are talking about this lack of resurrection, or he might be talking about the company of philosophers who came to correct Paul's view on things like the resurrection, whom the Corinthians supposedly had a great respect for.
vs 34
Paul shames them because there are some among them who are ignorant of God. Could it be that these philosophers are talking the Christians into believing their philosophies, and so there are people in the church who are ignorant of God, but know about these philosophies? In any case, the church isn't doing its job.
vs 35
People still ask this question, even Christians. Paul's answer is quite potent, which makes us think that the way in which the Corinthians asked it was more of a scoffing than a plea for understanding.
vs 36
This is the start of a new metaphor - the idea of planting something and it dying before it comes to a new life.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 15
vs 13
And this is what they were claiming - the impossibility, or implausibility, of Christ being raised from the dead, and of the promise that we too would be raised.
vs 14
Christianity requires resurrection. Without it, it just doesn't work. But Paul will go so much deeper into it.
vs 15
Paul continues to lay out the consequences of this belief - because Paul himself testifies to Christ being raised from the dead by God, if it is not true, then he is a false witness, and what he has preached is probably false. And if God is not a God of resurrection, then no one will be raised, not even Christ.
vs 16
Paul says that it is a one-in-all-in thing - either God raised Christ, and so can and will raise everyone, or he raises no one, not even Christ. It sounds like a childish argument, but what he is doing is dispelling the argument that God could have raised Christ, because he is special, but that we will not be raised. Because the arguments against resurrection were mostly moral (the flesh being seen as evil) it makes no sense for God to do it even once if they are correct.
vs 17
Again, Christianity is futile if resurrection is non-existant, becauase it means we are still in our sins. Resurrection is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins.
vs 18
This is the tragedy of a resurrection-free Christianity. Without God's proof of power over sin and death in the resurrection of Christ, then once we die, that's it. If God has no power over death, then death is it for us.
vs 19
That there is a further life to have hope in is an easily accepted part of NT doctrine. It's not quite as easy to find in the OT (although I haven't studied that personally, but it's what I've been told). Our lives would be pitiful if we were only saved for this life, especially if we were saved later in life. Remember, the first generation of the saved were probably mostly adults.
vs 20
But never fear, because whoever is saying there is no resurrection is some sort of fruitcake. And fruitcakes are not known for their sterling theology.
vs 21
There is this incredible link between Adam and Christ, between creation and new creation, which should alert us to the incredible nature of our salvation. Creation was such a powerful moment that, through one person, we all sinned. The coming of the Christ was such a powerful event that, through one person, all can be saved.
vs 22
Now you might think I'm going to go on about hyper-calvinism, or universalism, but I'm not. All Paul has said here is that all people will be raised through the power of Christ at the end times. And there will be a mass resurrection of people at the end times. And then they will be judged. So not everyone who gets resurrected will be happy about it.
vs 23
But there is a hint that those who are in Christ will be resurrected differently, perhaps first. It has been said that judgement begins with the people of God (1 Peter, but he may well be quoting an OT reference). Of course, our hope is in resurrection, so we've got nothing to fear except a hell of a lot of embarassment.
vs 24
Dominion, power, and authority on their own aren't bad things. They tend to be in this world, though, because they tend to try and raise themselves above God. Whether it's a spiritual power like Satan, or even just a governmental power. These terms are most likely spiritual in this verse, but could easily also relate to governmental powers of the time (which of course weren't greatly friendly to Christianity).
And this is what they were claiming - the impossibility, or implausibility, of Christ being raised from the dead, and of the promise that we too would be raised.
vs 14
Christianity requires resurrection. Without it, it just doesn't work. But Paul will go so much deeper into it.
vs 15
Paul continues to lay out the consequences of this belief - because Paul himself testifies to Christ being raised from the dead by God, if it is not true, then he is a false witness, and what he has preached is probably false. And if God is not a God of resurrection, then no one will be raised, not even Christ.
vs 16
Paul says that it is a one-in-all-in thing - either God raised Christ, and so can and will raise everyone, or he raises no one, not even Christ. It sounds like a childish argument, but what he is doing is dispelling the argument that God could have raised Christ, because he is special, but that we will not be raised. Because the arguments against resurrection were mostly moral (the flesh being seen as evil) it makes no sense for God to do it even once if they are correct.
vs 17
Again, Christianity is futile if resurrection is non-existant, becauase it means we are still in our sins. Resurrection is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins.
vs 18
This is the tragedy of a resurrection-free Christianity. Without God's proof of power over sin and death in the resurrection of Christ, then once we die, that's it. If God has no power over death, then death is it for us.
vs 19
That there is a further life to have hope in is an easily accepted part of NT doctrine. It's not quite as easy to find in the OT (although I haven't studied that personally, but it's what I've been told). Our lives would be pitiful if we were only saved for this life, especially if we were saved later in life. Remember, the first generation of the saved were probably mostly adults.
vs 20
But never fear, because whoever is saying there is no resurrection is some sort of fruitcake. And fruitcakes are not known for their sterling theology.
vs 21
There is this incredible link between Adam and Christ, between creation and new creation, which should alert us to the incredible nature of our salvation. Creation was such a powerful moment that, through one person, we all sinned. The coming of the Christ was such a powerful event that, through one person, all can be saved.
vs 22
Now you might think I'm going to go on about hyper-calvinism, or universalism, but I'm not. All Paul has said here is that all people will be raised through the power of Christ at the end times. And there will be a mass resurrection of people at the end times. And then they will be judged. So not everyone who gets resurrected will be happy about it.
vs 23
But there is a hint that those who are in Christ will be resurrected differently, perhaps first. It has been said that judgement begins with the people of God (1 Peter, but he may well be quoting an OT reference). Of course, our hope is in resurrection, so we've got nothing to fear except a hell of a lot of embarassment.
vs 24
Dominion, power, and authority on their own aren't bad things. They tend to be in this world, though, because they tend to try and raise themselves above God. Whether it's a spiritual power like Satan, or even just a governmental power. These terms are most likely spiritual in this verse, but could easily also relate to governmental powers of the time (which of course weren't greatly friendly to Christianity).
Friday, December 15, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 15
New runner for longest chapter done!
vs 1
After 14 chapters of letter, now Paul wants to talk about the gospel. Perhaps at the end of the book because it is of most importance, perhaps because even though the Corinthians were messed up around the edges, they still knew the gospel. Perhaps because they were in a less favourable relationship with Paul, and he's wanting to make sure that doesn't prevent them from standing firm in the gospel just because he taught it to them.
vs 2
It has to be the gospel that Paul gave them - not another gospel by some other person. I'm sure Apollos' gospel and Peter's gospel were fine. Paul is instead warning them against people whose gospel is fairly different, and therefore incorrect.
vs 3
This section is one of the most valuable of all the NT - it is one of the most succinct recitations of the gospel that we have from the first century. Christ's death as an atonement for our sins is important, but so is the fact that it is in accordance with Scripture. You can't separate the Old Testament out of the gospel - it is vital.
vs 4
His burial is important. I don't know how much we think about his burial, but it shows that he was dead for 3 days - not just a few hours and then resuscitated. He really was buried in a tomb as a dead person.
His resurrection from the dead is of course vital, but it is also important that, again, it is in accordance with Scripture. How vital is Christ's fulfilment of Scripture, that it is in the list twice?
vs 5
He then appeared to Peter and the twelve (obviously his appearance to the women is not a gospel concern). So this isn't just a spiritual act or some sort of philosophical idea - he actually appeared to people you could go and talk to at the time. Hey, some of the Corinthians said they even followed Peter.
vs 6
Over 500 Christians saw him while he was back. That's a heap of witnesses. And most of them are still alive (Paul himself probably watched some die in his former life). So it's not as if you can't trust their vision or something.
vs 7
Now here is a really, really odd passage. Earlier we read that he appeared to the twelve (you've got to assume that's the new twelve, because Judas topped himself, so include Matthias). So this James probably isn't son of Zebedee, it is his own brother. His brother saw him almost last.
The other interesting thing is that there are now some apostles who see him. Is this a second visit from Jesus to the Twelve? Or are there more apostles than we know of or usually recognise? I'm going for the second one, which would mean that, although Paul is interesting in that he is a late apostle, he is probably not unique as an apostle outside the twelve.
vs 8
So now Paul, as one abnormally born. He is presumably unique in that he didn't see Christ pre-conversion.
vs 9
So Paul considers himself the least of apostles, but interestingly not because of how he became one. Only because of his persecution of the church is he so low in his own eyes. His vision of Christ was as real and true as any vision by anyone else of the resurrected Jesus.
vs 10
But apart from that, he accepts his apostleship, and not only that, thinks that he's the hardest working of them all. Which, considering how much of the non-Jewish world heard the gospel because of him, and how much of the NT is about him or by him, is probably fair. But Paul doesn't take the glory for himself - he knows full well that it was God's grace that allowed it, and God's work that accomplished it.
vs 11
So now Paul clarifies that, if it comes from an apostle, then it is God's good word, and you can accept it. And the Corinthians did accept it.
vs 12
Oh, but deary me. One of those important tenets of the gospel, that of Jesus' resurrection (in accordance with Scripture) is being questioned. Some of the Corinthians seem to think that resurrection is a bit much to believe. Not at all uncommon among greek-thinking people. Because of the greek mind/body dualism, and the spirit/body dichotomy, the idea of a resurrection of what is essentially to them evil flesh is unheard of and doesn't make sense. You could almost say it is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles.
vs 1
After 14 chapters of letter, now Paul wants to talk about the gospel. Perhaps at the end of the book because it is of most importance, perhaps because even though the Corinthians were messed up around the edges, they still knew the gospel. Perhaps because they were in a less favourable relationship with Paul, and he's wanting to make sure that doesn't prevent them from standing firm in the gospel just because he taught it to them.
vs 2
It has to be the gospel that Paul gave them - not another gospel by some other person. I'm sure Apollos' gospel and Peter's gospel were fine. Paul is instead warning them against people whose gospel is fairly different, and therefore incorrect.
vs 3
This section is one of the most valuable of all the NT - it is one of the most succinct recitations of the gospel that we have from the first century. Christ's death as an atonement for our sins is important, but so is the fact that it is in accordance with Scripture. You can't separate the Old Testament out of the gospel - it is vital.
vs 4
His burial is important. I don't know how much we think about his burial, but it shows that he was dead for 3 days - not just a few hours and then resuscitated. He really was buried in a tomb as a dead person.
His resurrection from the dead is of course vital, but it is also important that, again, it is in accordance with Scripture. How vital is Christ's fulfilment of Scripture, that it is in the list twice?
vs 5
He then appeared to Peter and the twelve (obviously his appearance to the women is not a gospel concern
vs 6
Over 500 Christians saw him while he was back. That's a heap of witnesses. And most of them are still alive (Paul himself probably watched some die in his former life). So it's not as if you can't trust their vision or something.
vs 7
Now here is a really, really odd passage. Earlier we read that he appeared to the twelve (you've got to assume that's the new twelve, because Judas topped himself, so include Matthias). So this James probably isn't son of Zebedee, it is his own brother. His brother saw him almost last.
The other interesting thing is that there are now some apostles who see him. Is this a second visit from Jesus to the Twelve? Or are there more apostles than we know of or usually recognise? I'm going for the second one, which would mean that, although Paul is interesting in that he is a late apostle, he is probably not unique as an apostle outside the twelve.
vs 8
So now Paul, as one abnormally born. He is presumably unique in that he didn't see Christ pre-conversion.
vs 9
So Paul considers himself the least of apostles, but interestingly not because of how he became one. Only because of his persecution of the church is he so low in his own eyes. His vision of Christ was as real and true as any vision by anyone else of the resurrected Jesus.
vs 10
But apart from that, he accepts his apostleship, and not only that, thinks that he's the hardest working of them all. Which, considering how much of the non-Jewish world heard the gospel because of him, and how much of the NT is about him or by him, is probably fair. But Paul doesn't take the glory for himself - he knows full well that it was God's grace that allowed it, and God's work that accomplished it.
vs 11
So now Paul clarifies that, if it comes from an apostle, then it is God's good word, and you can accept it. And the Corinthians did accept it.
vs 12
Oh, but deary me. One of those important tenets of the gospel, that of Jesus' resurrection (in accordance with Scripture) is being questioned. Some of the Corinthians seem to think that resurrection is a bit much to believe. Not at all uncommon among greek-thinking people. Because of the greek mind/body dualism, and the spirit/body dichotomy, the idea of a resurrection of what is essentially to them evil flesh is unheard of and doesn't make sense. You could almost say it is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
1 Corinthians Chapter 14
vs 31
The previous verse might have also been about people going on for too long, hence allowing one person to get up if he has something to say and the first has been droning for a while. Hard to say. But this verse reminds us of the principle behind Paul's idea - that all may be instructed and encouraged.
vs 32
A prophet can control what he says - so if he goes on and on, it's him doing it and not necessarily the spirit of prophecy in him. So the whole idea of giving a preacher as much time as he needs so that he can get his message across is not a spiritual idea - it's just a pragmatic idea. It's certainly not wrong to do so, but it is also not wrong to expect a bit of an orderly service where people can know what time to expect the sermon to end.
vs 33
Here, the NIV and the NASB part ways. The NIV things there are two distinct sentences, and that vs 34 is half a sentence. The NASB, meanwhile, things that verse 33 is a sentence on its own.
What this verse certainly is saying is that God does not exist to confound and confuse us, and to bring disorder. He created an ordered creation. Confusion (like at the tower of Babel) is a curse, not a gift. So we should have ordered worship, not confused worship.
The NIV says that's that, and moves on. But the NASB says that God is a God of peace in all the churches.
vs 34
So now we come to verse 34, and we must decide. Are all women silent in all the churches? Or are women meant to be silent in the Corinthian church? Obviously translators differ on the matter. Paul appeals to the law, saying that if they speak it goes against them being "in submission" as the Law tells them to be.
vs 35
This verse seems to indicate that Paul is particularly talking about women enquiring about knowledge or asking questions in the meeting. His response is they should ask their husbands, rather then get up and ask in the middle of someone speaking.
Now, I have had people (women, I might add) do this, and it is bloody annoying. People (women) who constantly interject in your sermon can be extremely disturbing to the whole thing.
See, the fact of the matter is that Paul cannot be absolutely commanding complete silence from women in the church, because three chapters ago he was talking about what women need to do (cover their head) in order to participate in prayer and prophecy.
What is indeed more likely (in my understanding of what the scholars say) is that men and women most usually sat separated, as they did in synagoges at the time. And women, as they do, titter and make noise and are generally disruptive. Now you might say "You sexist biatch, you know men are as bad as women" and I do. But culturally, you've got to remember that women were not nearly as involved in public social meetings as men were in a greek society. And as such, they wouldn't have been as used to the rules of greek speaking tours, where one man talks and the rest shut up and listen.
vs 36
Paul is summing up his whole discussion of the orderly nature of worship here, not just the bit about women. We just get hung up about that bit.
So he's asking if the Corinthians think they can do things any way they want, as if they were the only Christians. I think Paul is suggesting that there is a Christian way of doing things, undergirded by Christian and godly principles, rather than a stock standard way of doing church.
vs 37
It seems those with the gift of prophecy or other spiritual gifts can recognise God's word, and in this case recognise that Paul's word is God's word.
vs 38
And Paul obviously thinks what he is saying is important, because if you ignore it, God will ignore you is the idea. And after all, if it's God's command, then that is only fair.
vs 39
So Paul now goes back to the whole thing about desiring spiritual gifts. The thing about women in the middle was more of an interjection, less of the meat of the passage (but still important).
vs 40
This is Paul's point. Order is the order of the day.Our churches should do things in an orderly fashion.
The previous verse might have also been about people going on for too long, hence allowing one person to get up if he has something to say and the first has been droning for a while. Hard to say. But this verse reminds us of the principle behind Paul's idea - that all may be instructed and encouraged.
vs 32
A prophet can control what he says - so if he goes on and on, it's him doing it and not necessarily the spirit of prophecy in him. So the whole idea of giving a preacher as much time as he needs so that he can get his message across is not a spiritual idea - it's just a pragmatic idea. It's certainly not wrong to do so, but it is also not wrong to expect a bit of an orderly service where people can know what time to expect the sermon to end.
vs 33
Here, the NIV and the NASB part ways. The NIV things there are two distinct sentences, and that vs 34 is half a sentence. The NASB, meanwhile, things that verse 33 is a sentence on its own.
What this verse certainly is saying is that God does not exist to confound and confuse us, and to bring disorder. He created an ordered creation. Confusion (like at the tower of Babel) is a curse, not a gift. So we should have ordered worship, not confused worship.
The NIV says that's that, and moves on. But the NASB says that God is a God of peace in all the churches.
vs 34
So now we come to verse 34, and we must decide. Are all women silent in all the churches? Or are women meant to be silent in the Corinthian church? Obviously translators differ on the matter. Paul appeals to the law, saying that if they speak it goes against them being "in submission" as the Law tells them to be.
vs 35
This verse seems to indicate that Paul is particularly talking about women enquiring about knowledge or asking questions in the meeting. His response is they should ask their husbands, rather then get up and ask in the middle of someone speaking.
Now, I have had people (women, I might add) do this, and it is bloody annoying. People (women) who constantly interject in your sermon can be extremely disturbing to the whole thing.
See, the fact of the matter is that Paul cannot be absolutely commanding complete silence from women in the church, because three chapters ago he was talking about what women need to do (cover their head) in order to participate in prayer and prophecy.
What is indeed more likely (in my understanding of what the scholars say) is that men and women most usually sat separated, as they did in synagoges at the time. And women, as they do, titter and make noise and are generally disruptive. Now you might say "You sexist biatch, you know men are as bad as women" and I do. But culturally, you've got to remember that women were not nearly as involved in public social meetings as men were in a greek society. And as such, they wouldn't have been as used to the rules of greek speaking tours, where one man talks and the rest shut up and listen.
vs 36
Paul is summing up his whole discussion of the orderly nature of worship here, not just the bit about women. We just get hung up about that bit.
So he's asking if the Corinthians think they can do things any way they want, as if they were the only Christians. I think Paul is suggesting that there is a Christian way of doing things, undergirded by Christian and godly principles, rather than a stock standard way of doing church.
vs 37
It seems those with the gift of prophecy or other spiritual gifts can recognise God's word, and in this case recognise that Paul's word is God's word.
vs 38
And Paul obviously thinks what he is saying is important, because if you ignore it, God will ignore you is the idea. And after all, if it's God's command, then that is only fair.
vs 39
So Paul now goes back to the whole thing about desiring spiritual gifts. The thing about women in the middle was more of an interjection, less of the meat of the passage (but still important).
vs 40
This is Paul's point. Order is the order of the day.Our churches should do things in an orderly fashion.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 14
vs 21
A quote from Isaiah. So far we're so good.
vs 22
Yes, Paul, you're making perfect sense... um, what?
There are a few things I can think of. It is possible (though I think unlikely) that Paul is quoting the Corinthian letter here, and they are using that verse from Isaiah to say that tongues is for unbelievers, and prophecy for believers. Or, Paul could be saying (another stretch) that tongues is for making unbelievers, whereas prophecy makes believers. The NASB doesn't hold that up, because it uses 'to' instead of 'for', and just doesn't sound right.
Paul could be being sarcastic. Wouldn't be the first time in the letter. It could be a mistake. But translators have not had many qualms about fixing mistakes (although this would be a pretty huge one to "fix").
When you read vs 23-25, you understand what Paul means. This verse on its own, or even in context with them, is very confusing.
vs 23
Having been in such a situation, I can happily and heartily agree with Paul here, and that was when I was a Christian! When I was a non-Christian, and I went to a church where someone was just talking about speaking tongues, that was enough to freak me out.
vs 24
Prophecy is, at least, done in regular language. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is telling the future - telling the truths of God should be enough to elicit this response.
vs 25
Laid bare in the prophecies, I am assuming, rather than him just coughing up stuff because he's in the presence of people who are speaking. It's not a response I have ever seen (the whole falling down in worship thing) but then, I've also never seen a whole church prophesy.
vs 26
I don't know if Paul means all of these must be done every time you meet together, or if all of these must be done only if people come with them. The point is that all these things are beneficial for the church, and so there's got to be an orderly way or fitting them into your regular times of fellowship.
vs 27
Because we are talking about edification of the church, interpretation of tongues is absolutely necessary to Paul. And the limitation of tonges-speakers is necessary too - not because tongues are bad, because there needs to be some order discipline in the service. Heavily needed by the Corinthians, it would seem. Perhaps not so necessary for us, as we're pretty uptight already.
vs 28
If you can't interpret, and there isn't someone else gifted, keep your mouth shut. Pray instead, to yourself, in tongues if you wish.
vs 29
Now these next two verses are absolutely out there. You have two or three prophets talking, one after the other. You're meant to sit and discern what they are saying, to judge it and weigh it carefully. Sounds important to me.
vs 30
But if someone comes up with a revelation during the meeting, they can just stand up and give it, and the person currently with the floor must take a seat and listen. Does this make a revelation different from a prophecy? Possibly it does. The word simply means "something is revealed", so it does sound like a more immediate thing than someone giving a prophecy (which if we look at the OT, their pattern seems to be longer, more drawn out sermon type things). Of course, when we think of a revelation, we think of Revelation - someone interrupting your sermon to speak out 22 chapters of stuff might be somewhat annoying. But it seems that is what Paul is saying (probably most revelations weren't or aren't quite so long).
A quote from Isaiah. So far we're so good.
vs 22
Yes, Paul, you're making perfect sense... um, what?
There are a few things I can think of. It is possible (though I think unlikely) that Paul is quoting the Corinthian letter here, and they are using that verse from Isaiah to say that tongues is for unbelievers, and prophecy for believers. Or, Paul could be saying (another stretch) that tongues is for making unbelievers, whereas prophecy makes believers. The NASB doesn't hold that up, because it uses 'to' instead of 'for', and just doesn't sound right.
Paul could be being sarcastic. Wouldn't be the first time in the letter. It could be a mistake. But translators have not had many qualms about fixing mistakes (although this would be a pretty huge one to "fix").
When you read vs 23-25, you understand what Paul means. This verse on its own, or even in context with them, is very confusing.
vs 23
Having been in such a situation, I can happily and heartily agree with Paul here, and that was when I was a Christian! When I was a non-Christian, and I went to a church where someone was just talking about speaking tongues, that was enough to freak me out.
vs 24
Prophecy is, at least, done in regular language. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is telling the future - telling the truths of God should be enough to elicit this response.
vs 25
Laid bare in the prophecies, I am assuming, rather than him just coughing up stuff because he's in the presence of people who are speaking. It's not a response I have ever seen (the whole falling down in worship thing) but then, I've also never seen a whole church prophesy.
vs 26
I don't know if Paul means all of these must be done every time you meet together, or if all of these must be done only if people come with them. The point is that all these things are beneficial for the church, and so there's got to be an orderly way or fitting them into your regular times of fellowship.
vs 27
Because we are talking about edification of the church, interpretation of tongues is absolutely necessary to Paul. And the limitation of tonges-speakers is necessary too - not because tongues are bad, because there needs to be some order discipline in the service. Heavily needed by the Corinthians, it would seem. Perhaps not so necessary for us, as we're pretty uptight already.
vs 28
If you can't interpret, and there isn't someone else gifted, keep your mouth shut. Pray instead, to yourself, in tongues if you wish.
vs 29
Now these next two verses are absolutely out there. You have two or three prophets talking, one after the other. You're meant to sit and discern what they are saying, to judge it and weigh it carefully. Sounds important to me.
vs 30
But if someone comes up with a revelation during the meeting, they can just stand up and give it, and the person currently with the floor must take a seat and listen. Does this make a revelation different from a prophecy? Possibly it does. The word simply means "something is revealed", so it does sound like a more immediate thing than someone giving a prophecy (which if we look at the OT, their pattern seems to be longer, more drawn out sermon type things). Of course, when we think of a revelation, we think of Revelation - someone interrupting your sermon to speak out 22 chapters of stuff might be somewhat annoying. But it seems that is what Paul is saying (probably most revelations weren't or aren't quite so long).
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
1 Corinthians Chapter 14
vs 11
Because langauges have meaning, if you don't interpret what you say to someone, then you are treating them like a foreigner - excluded and out of place.
vs 12
Because the Corinthians are so keen to build up spiritual gifts, Paul suggests to them that they seek gifts that are for the good of the church (especially since it is having division issues) rather than those which are personally edifying.
vs 13
Here again we find Paul talking about the one who speaks in tongues also asking for the gift of interpretation.
vs 14
This is a really interesting statement, which obviously does not relate to speaking a foriegn language (unless if, when you use the gift of tongues to speak another language, you don't understand what you're saying - which would make it less useful in my opinion). For if your mind is not being used in the speaking of tongues, then it might seem all the more to be just spouted gibberish. But there is a distinction - it does mean something (for it can be interpreted), and it is a gift of God (so it can't be bad or useless). And it is still a prayer to God.
vs 15
So what is the solution? Paul thinks it is to pray in the spirit, but to also use your brain, both to pray and to sing. I'm assuming that means doing more the sort of thing that we do when we publicly pray.
vs 16
Here we get to a problem which can be found in either form of glossa - when you pray in church and other people can't understand you, how can they say "amen" to it and condone it, and mix their prayers up with it? The simple answer is that they can't. I've been in this position before, where someone has been praying in a language other than english. I've also been in a situation where a church has broken out into tongues (at the request of the song leader). I prefered the prayer in another language, but I couldn't really say "Amen!" to it, because I have no idea what was said.
vs 17
And here's the rub - it's not a matter of whether what you said was competent, or good, or truly noteworthy and excellent. If it's not comprehensible, then it is not edifying to anyone else. It all comes down to whether you are prepared to put the needs of someone else first. If you are, then you're going to do what is good for them.
vs 18
Paul spoke the ass off his tongue, apparently. It's interesting how God chooses some people to get every gift imaginable, and they become these real powerhouses. Still happens today. God will raise up another one.
vs 19
But Paul's preference is for instruction and useful words that will exalt his brothers and sisters in Christ. He could speak all day in a tongue, and what could people do except say "Oooh".
vs 20
We should be as experienced in evil as children - innocent and unthinking about it. But in our considerations and our thoughts, we should be more mature than that. Here is a great backup for Nina's words about maturity being measured in your responsibility to other people.
I think there's more to it than that, but responsibility is in there. Sacrifice and selflessness are also there. Basically, Christ-likeness is maturity. That's easy to see when you're a Christian, but probably less likely an answer to be accepted by a non-Christian.
Because langauges have meaning, if you don't interpret what you say to someone, then you are treating them like a foreigner - excluded and out of place.
vs 12
Because the Corinthians are so keen to build up spiritual gifts, Paul suggests to them that they seek gifts that are for the good of the church (especially since it is having division issues) rather than those which are personally edifying.
vs 13
Here again we find Paul talking about the one who speaks in tongues also asking for the gift of interpretation.
vs 14
This is a really interesting statement, which obviously does not relate to speaking a foriegn language (unless if, when you use the gift of tongues to speak another language, you don't understand what you're saying - which would make it less useful in my opinion). For if your mind is not being used in the speaking of tongues, then it might seem all the more to be just spouted gibberish. But there is a distinction - it does mean something (for it can be interpreted), and it is a gift of God (so it can't be bad or useless). And it is still a prayer to God.
vs 15
So what is the solution? Paul thinks it is to pray in the spirit, but to also use your brain, both to pray and to sing. I'm assuming that means doing more the sort of thing that we do when we publicly pray.
vs 16
Here we get to a problem which can be found in either form of glossa - when you pray in church and other people can't understand you, how can they say "amen" to it and condone it, and mix their prayers up with it? The simple answer is that they can't. I've been in this position before, where someone has been praying in a language other than english. I've also been in a situation where a church has broken out into tongues (at the request of the song leader). I prefered the prayer in another language, but I couldn't really say "Amen!" to it, because I have no idea what was said.
vs 17
And here's the rub - it's not a matter of whether what you said was competent, or good, or truly noteworthy and excellent. If it's not comprehensible, then it is not edifying to anyone else. It all comes down to whether you are prepared to put the needs of someone else first. If you are, then you're going to do what is good for them.
vs 18
Paul spoke the ass off his tongue, apparently. It's interesting how God chooses some people to get every gift imaginable, and they become these real powerhouses. Still happens today. God will raise up another one.
vs 19
But Paul's preference is for instruction and useful words that will exalt his brothers and sisters in Christ. He could speak all day in a tongue, and what could people do except say "Oooh".
vs 20
We should be as experienced in evil as children - innocent and unthinking about it. But in our considerations and our thoughts, we should be more mature than that. Here is a great backup for Nina's words about maturity being measured in your responsibility to other people.
I think there's more to it than that, but responsibility is in there. Sacrifice and selflessness are also there. Basically, Christ-likeness is maturity. That's easy to see when you're a Christian, but probably less likely an answer to be accepted by a non-Christian.
Monday, December 11, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 14
longest chapter yet
vs 1
Remember that chapter 13 was in the context of talking about church unity and diversity, and the use of diverse spiritual gifts. So now Paul is getting back to such use, in the most excellent way of love.
His favoured gift seems to be prophecy. We must wonder whether this is favoured once for all time, or because Corinth had lots of glossa-ers and not many prophets.
vs 2
This verse does its share to confirm the spiritual nature of the gift of glossolaia - it is a speaking between men and God, and is not necessarily understandable - muttering mysteries. I would have said muttering gibberish, but you can see that Paul approaches these things with love ;)
vs 3
ie in a language they can understand. Note this verse - it is quite possibly one of the best (but least used) definitions of prophecy anywhere, if you like definitions that rely on function. Prophecy strengthens, comforts and encourages the church. I'd like to think I'm a little bit of a prophet in that way.
vs 4
Again, we see one is for personal edification (and if you've ever been to a happy-clappy church, you will most surely have noticed that this is exactly what they use it for - it certainly doesn't encourage anyone else) and the other is for the benefit of the church.
vs 5
Paul makes known his preference for prophecy over tongues, but he does not put tongues down. He still wishes everyone could do it - but the preference is for prophecy. If those who speak in tongues do so with interpretation (interestingly, Paul says that the person speaking should interpret, whereas elsewhere he gives interpreting tongues as a separate gift) then they can edify the church with their words - otherwise, prophecy is better.
vs 6
Paul is again underlining the lack of use tongues is to the church - sure, it edifies Paul when he does it, but what good is that for the Corinthians? A bit of knowledge or a prophecy would be more useful for them. Paul is not talking spiritually here - just pragmatically.
vs 7
Another pointer that glossa wasn't always a recognisable language, I guess. It would be the difference between playing a tune in a flute (which people can understand and then rock to) or playing gibberish into a flute.
vs 8
Another example of not understanding.
vs 9
He has not banned tongues, nor has he said it is useless. But its use is limited.
vs 10
Interestingly, the word used in this verse for language isn't glossa, it is phone which is far closer in meaning to sounds than to languages. I wonder, if tongues is just a bunch of sounds like Paul is sort of describing it, why it was called glossa and not phone. But then, I'm not greek, so I won't bother answering that - just a rhetorical question. What it does mean is that the more literal translation of this verse is "There are so many different sounds in the world, and not one is voiceless". I think the NIV is a fair translation of the passage (it's probably somewhat idiomatic).
Anyway, the main point Paul is getting at I think is that we use lanuage to communicate ideas, and so every language that exists exists with the purpose of conveying meaning. No one speaks a language of gibberish. And since we are talking about such spiritual gifts in the context of love, a gift useful for others is better than a gift useful for yourself.
vs 1
Remember that chapter 13 was in the context of talking about church unity and diversity, and the use of diverse spiritual gifts. So now Paul is getting back to such use, in the most excellent way of love.
His favoured gift seems to be prophecy. We must wonder whether this is favoured once for all time, or because Corinth had lots of glossa-ers and not many prophets.
vs 2
This verse does its share to confirm the spiritual nature of the gift of glossolaia - it is a speaking between men and God, and is not necessarily understandable - muttering mysteries. I would have said muttering gibberish, but you can see that Paul approaches these things with love ;)
vs 3
ie in a language they can understand. Note this verse - it is quite possibly one of the best (but least used) definitions of prophecy anywhere, if you like definitions that rely on function. Prophecy strengthens, comforts and encourages the church. I'd like to think I'm a little bit of a prophet in that way.
vs 4
Again, we see one is for personal edification (and if you've ever been to a happy-clappy church, you will most surely have noticed that this is exactly what they use it for - it certainly doesn't encourage anyone else) and the other is for the benefit of the church.
vs 5
Paul makes known his preference for prophecy over tongues, but he does not put tongues down. He still wishes everyone could do it - but the preference is for prophecy. If those who speak in tongues do so with interpretation (interestingly, Paul says that the person speaking should interpret, whereas elsewhere he gives interpreting tongues as a separate gift) then they can edify the church with their words - otherwise, prophecy is better.
vs 6
Paul is again underlining the lack of use tongues is to the church - sure, it edifies Paul when he does it, but what good is that for the Corinthians? A bit of knowledge or a prophecy would be more useful for them. Paul is not talking spiritually here - just pragmatically.
vs 7
Another pointer that glossa wasn't always a recognisable language, I guess. It would be the difference between playing a tune in a flute (which people can understand and then rock to) or playing gibberish into a flute.
vs 8
Another example of not understanding.
vs 9
He has not banned tongues, nor has he said it is useless. But its use is limited.
vs 10
Interestingly, the word used in this verse for language isn't glossa, it is phone which is far closer in meaning to sounds than to languages. I wonder, if tongues is just a bunch of sounds like Paul is sort of describing it, why it was called glossa and not phone. But then, I'm not greek, so I won't bother answering that - just a rhetorical question. What it does mean is that the more literal translation of this verse is "There are so many different sounds in the world, and not one is voiceless". I think the NIV is a fair translation of the passage (it's probably somewhat idiomatic).
Anyway, the main point Paul is getting at I think is that we use lanuage to communicate ideas, and so every language that exists exists with the purpose of conveying meaning. No one speaks a language of gibberish. And since we are talking about such spiritual gifts in the context of love, a gift useful for others is better than a gift useful for yourself.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 13
vs 1
You will notice here that Paul talks of the 'tongues of men and angels', but of course uses the same word glossa as when talking about the gfits of the spirit. Everyone knows what the tongues of men are - but what are these tongues of angels? Is this what glossolalia is? Who knows. I would say the more happy-clappy among us would say yes, or perhaps theologically would claim that this was a good description even if it isn't for speaking to angels per se.
The point being, of course, that to exercise this gift without love means you just make a lot of noise. I've certainly known a lot of people who do that.
vs 2
Even the gifts of prophecy and enormous faith are nothing without love. This doesn't mean that you don't have these things - but it makes them worthless as far as the Christian life is concerned.
vs 3
And such sacrifices that we might think were worthy of great honour are worthless if they are not made out of love. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to give up everything he had, if he didn't do it out of love, then was he not getting the message? Hard to say, as I think Jesus is making a different point. But I think the two could go together.
vs 4
Now we start on the famous "Love is..." part of 1 Corinthians. While these might be great definitions of love, remember the context - Paul is talking about the members of the body of a church serving one another. I don't think there's a problem with applying this stuff about love to any relationship you have, but Paul uses it about the relationships in the church, and so obviously that is one place where it is needed most.
Most of the words Paul uses to describe love are pretty self explanitory. I'll pick up a couple though.
vs 5
It keeps no record of wrongs - in a perfect world and in the perfect church, if someone did something that should rightly disqualify them from some service (say they stole money, and they were the treasurer) you would not keep a record of that wrong against them - instead, you would expect them to take the Christian initiative of disqualifying themselves. Of course, being supportive of that person making the right spiritual decision is a course of love, I think.
vs 6
Another stab at those who are preaching false doctrine. Love in this case is a constant pursuit after the truth, for the benefit of your other churchmates.
vs 7
Always trusts uses the word pisteuo, which most usually designates faith in God by the believer. I don't think it is loving to treat everyone without any suspicion, especially if they have a 'record of wrongs' (see above). If someone is going to hurt themselves or others because of something you give them in trust, it's not a loving thing to give it to them. Instead, I would say that perfect love always trusts God. I think that is what Paul means in this verse.
vs 8
In the end, our love will always fail, because we are not perfect. But God is perfect, and God is love, and God never fails.
Now as for the rest of this passage, don't make the critically erroneous mistake of thinking this verse is talking somehow about the appearance of the Bible. This idea only came up about 100 or so years ago - and it was a branch of theology that was specifically against the charismatic church movement. When they saw this verse, they decided to interpret it to mean that prophecies and tongues stopped when the Bible appeared - as if Paul is prophesying the appearance of the Bible.
It's a completely wrong and stupid interpretation, as you will see when you look at the rest of the passage. It's obviously talking about the second coming and us being in heaven.
vs 9-10
Is the Bible perfection? Come on, I mean yes it's God's word, and I will happily argue for its infallibility, but Paul is talking about the final perfection, surely. Yes, I agree that prophecy is only partly useful, when you compare it to knowing God personally in heaven for all eternity. But remember that a good percentage of the Bible is made up of prophecy ;)
vs 11
This verse is talking about the passing away of the imperfect (the childish understanding) and the ascension of the perfect (the mature understanding). We will never be more than children here on earth, when you compare it to the maturity of eternal life and perfection.
vs 12
This verse is the killer against the argument made in verse 8. Do we see face to face now? No, we have a reflection in a mirror even through the Bible. Do we know everything in full? If so, then please explain a few things to me. Is Paul saying that upon writing this letter he is partly ignorant, but upon the completion of the canon of Scripture he suddenly became all knowing? Give me a break.
vs 13
I think the greatest of these is love not because it accomplishes more, but because it is the one we share with God. He doesn't need hope or faith - he's God. But he is love. That's just my opinion, even though it doesn't really bear out in this verse. I certainly don't think Paul is saying that you can dispense with faith and hope, as both are needed for your Christian walk. Perhaps if you've got all three, you only need the other two in sparse amounts, but you'll need a whole bunch of love to deal with other church members :D
You will notice here that Paul talks of the 'tongues of men and angels', but of course uses the same word glossa as when talking about the gfits of the spirit. Everyone knows what the tongues of men are - but what are these tongues of angels? Is this what glossolalia is? Who knows. I would say the more happy-clappy among us would say yes, or perhaps theologically would claim that this was a good description even if it isn't for speaking to angels per se.
The point being, of course, that to exercise this gift without love means you just make a lot of noise. I've certainly known a lot of people who do that.
vs 2
Even the gifts of prophecy and enormous faith are nothing without love. This doesn't mean that you don't have these things - but it makes them worthless as far as the Christian life is concerned.
vs 3
And such sacrifices that we might think were worthy of great honour are worthless if they are not made out of love. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to give up everything he had, if he didn't do it out of love, then was he not getting the message? Hard to say, as I think Jesus is making a different point. But I think the two could go together.
vs 4
Now we start on the famous "Love is..." part of 1 Corinthians. While these might be great definitions of love, remember the context - Paul is talking about the members of the body of a church serving one another. I don't think there's a problem with applying this stuff about love to any relationship you have, but Paul uses it about the relationships in the church, and so obviously that is one place where it is needed most.
Most of the words Paul uses to describe love are pretty self explanitory. I'll pick up a couple though.
vs 5
It keeps no record of wrongs - in a perfect world and in the perfect church, if someone did something that should rightly disqualify them from some service (say they stole money, and they were the treasurer) you would not keep a record of that wrong against them - instead, you would expect them to take the Christian initiative of disqualifying themselves. Of course, being supportive of that person making the right spiritual decision is a course of love, I think.
vs 6
Another stab at those who are preaching false doctrine. Love in this case is a constant pursuit after the truth, for the benefit of your other churchmates.
vs 7
Always trusts uses the word pisteuo, which most usually designates faith in God by the believer. I don't think it is loving to treat everyone without any suspicion, especially if they have a 'record of wrongs' (see above). If someone is going to hurt themselves or others because of something you give them in trust, it's not a loving thing to give it to them. Instead, I would say that perfect love always trusts God. I think that is what Paul means in this verse.
vs 8
In the end, our love will always fail, because we are not perfect. But God is perfect, and God is love, and God never fails.
Now as for the rest of this passage, don't make the critically erroneous mistake of thinking this verse is talking somehow about the appearance of the Bible. This idea only came up about 100 or so years ago - and it was a branch of theology that was specifically against the charismatic church movement. When they saw this verse, they decided to interpret it to mean that prophecies and tongues stopped when the Bible appeared - as if Paul is prophesying the appearance of the Bible.
It's a completely wrong and stupid interpretation, as you will see when you look at the rest of the passage. It's obviously talking about the second coming and us being in heaven.
vs 9-10
Is the Bible perfection? Come on, I mean yes it's God's word, and I will happily argue for its infallibility, but Paul is talking about the final perfection, surely. Yes, I agree that prophecy is only partly useful, when you compare it to knowing God personally in heaven for all eternity. But remember that a good percentage of the Bible is made up of prophecy ;)
vs 11
This verse is talking about the passing away of the imperfect (the childish understanding) and the ascension of the perfect (the mature understanding). We will never be more than children here on earth, when you compare it to the maturity of eternal life and perfection.
vs 12
This verse is the killer against the argument made in verse 8. Do we see face to face now? No, we have a reflection in a mirror even through the Bible. Do we know everything in full? If so, then please explain a few things to me. Is Paul saying that upon writing this letter he is partly ignorant, but upon the completion of the canon of Scripture he suddenly became all knowing? Give me a break.
vs 13
I think the greatest of these is love not because it accomplishes more, but because it is the one we share with God. He doesn't need hope or faith - he's God. But he is love. That's just my opinion, even though it doesn't really bear out in this verse. I certainly don't think Paul is saying that you can dispense with faith and hope, as both are needed for your Christian walk. Perhaps if you've got all three, you only need the other two in sparse amounts, but you'll need a whole bunch of love to deal with other church members :D
Friday, December 08, 2006
1 Corinthians Chapter 12
vs 21
You might say "Yes, I think we've been here, Paul", but now Paul is taking a different tac. Rather than one body part deciding it is not a part of the body, now other body parts are slagging off each other. This works equally badly in the church. There are no fifth wheels in a church. So if God gives our church a person who is gifted in speaking in tongues, then (assuming he also gives us someone gifted in interpreting tongues) we can't say we don't need them.
vs 22
Indispensable? Inconceivable! But true. When you are involved in church leadership, you see so many things that you just don't notice as a pew sitter, that you suddenly realise what people are up to, and how valuable they are to the church.
vs 23
When you read the NIV translation, you think that Paul is talking about our regular bodies as an example (in which case you wonder how we treat the dishonourable bits with special honour, but then cover the unshowable bits with special modesty). But the NASB and the greek don't carry that understanding, at least in my reading. They say something more like "to those parts of the body we think are less honourable, we give more honour, and those members that are less presentable become much more presentable", which to me gives the idea that our estimations of parts of the body are somewhat incorrect in comparison to what Paul is talking about.
What I think is going on here is that vs 21 is a bit more abstract from this whole idea - it starts off the thinking that all parts of the body are necessary. But then we move from the necessity of all body parts (vs 22) to the way we treat our body (which ends at the start of vs 24).
vs 24
Presentable parts need no special treatment (except perhaps a hair cut per chapter 11).
Now Paul says "But God", which to me indicates a swapover of ideas, but for the life of me I just can't get my head around it. Is Paul saying "The body can't say to one part "I don't need you", and we treat our body differently dependant on the bit, but God has brought the whole body together"? I think that's it. God gives honour to the dishonourable bits, (possibly rather than us doing it).
vs 25
The purpose of God's work is so that the body might have an equal concern for all its parts, rather than ranking some above the other. When you think about that, then it seems to make a bit more sense. We spend all our time on the bits that are problematic (too little honour, so we try and make them more honourable, or not presentable, so we try to make them presentable). But God wants all the body to be treated with a more equal concern. This is good pastoral theology, methinks.
vs 26
Then, when they body is being thought of as a whole (rather than individualistically like we tend to in our culture), it has a more general concern for the whole, and can share the joys together (which makes them more fun) and frustrations and pains as a whole (which should make them easier to bear).
vs 27
Look at that, you can apply this stuff to the church (I've been doing this already).
vs 28
When I read this, I usually read it as a ranking system, with apostles at the top. I'm now wondering if it is chronological - is this just the order God gave these gifts out? Not sure. It seems odd to have a ranking of 3 gifts, and then mush all the others together under it. However, later on Paul talks about the "greater gifts" which does suggest a sort of ranking.
vs 29-30
The fact is that not everyone has every gift, although sometimes you think Paul has them all. Paul is asking the questions "Do all have..." to make the point that these gifts are spread around the church, in linking with the body idea above that all are necessary.
vs 31
But he does tell them that they should desires the greater gifts, because as we find out later that the Corinthians have a bit of a thing for tongues. And we'll see how Paul ranks gifts later on in the book.
And now, he's going to go into that oft-misquoted-at-weddings-especially but generally misunderstood chapter. Next week.
You might say "Yes, I think we've been here, Paul", but now Paul is taking a different tac. Rather than one body part deciding it is not a part of the body, now other body parts are slagging off each other. This works equally badly in the church. There are no fifth wheels in a church. So if God gives our church a person who is gifted in speaking in tongues, then (assuming he also gives us someone gifted in interpreting tongues) we can't say we don't need them.
vs 22
Indispensable? Inconceivable! But true. When you are involved in church leadership, you see so many things that you just don't notice as a pew sitter, that you suddenly realise what people are up to, and how valuable they are to the church.
vs 23
When you read the NIV translation, you think that Paul is talking about our regular bodies as an example (in which case you wonder how we treat the dishonourable bits with special honour, but then cover the unshowable bits with special modesty). But the NASB and the greek don't carry that understanding, at least in my reading. They say something more like "to those parts of the body we think are less honourable, we give more honour, and those members that are less presentable become much more presentable", which to me gives the idea that our estimations of parts of the body are somewhat incorrect in comparison to what Paul is talking about.
What I think is going on here is that vs 21 is a bit more abstract from this whole idea - it starts off the thinking that all parts of the body are necessary. But then we move from the necessity of all body parts (vs 22) to the way we treat our body (which ends at the start of vs 24).
vs 24
Presentable parts need no special treatment (except perhaps a hair cut per chapter 11).
Now Paul says "But God", which to me indicates a swapover of ideas, but for the life of me I just can't get my head around it. Is Paul saying "The body can't say to one part "I don't need you", and we treat our body differently dependant on the bit, but God has brought the whole body together"? I think that's it. God gives honour to the dishonourable bits, (possibly rather than us doing it).
vs 25
The purpose of God's work is so that the body might have an equal concern for all its parts, rather than ranking some above the other. When you think about that, then it seems to make a bit more sense. We spend all our time on the bits that are problematic (too little honour, so we try and make them more honourable, or not presentable, so we try to make them presentable). But God wants all the body to be treated with a more equal concern. This is good pastoral theology, methinks.
vs 26
Then, when they body is being thought of as a whole (rather than individualistically like we tend to in our culture), it has a more general concern for the whole, and can share the joys together (which makes them more fun) and frustrations and pains as a whole (which should make them easier to bear).
vs 27
Look at that, you can apply this stuff to the church (I've been doing this already).
vs 28
When I read this, I usually read it as a ranking system, with apostles at the top. I'm now wondering if it is chronological - is this just the order God gave these gifts out? Not sure. It seems odd to have a ranking of 3 gifts, and then mush all the others together under it. However, later on Paul talks about the "greater gifts" which does suggest a sort of ranking.
vs 29-30
The fact is that not everyone has every gift, although sometimes you think Paul has them all. Paul is asking the questions "Do all have..." to make the point that these gifts are spread around the church, in linking with the body idea above that all are necessary.
vs 31
But he does tell them that they should desires the greater gifts, because as we find out later that the Corinthians have a bit of a thing for tongues. And we'll see how Paul ranks gifts later on in the book.
And now, he's going to go into that oft-misquoted-at-weddings-especially but generally misunderstood chapter. Next week.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 12
vs 11
Paul wraps up his idea by repeating again that all these different gifts are the work of the same Holy Spirit, and it is God who determines who gets the gifts, not us.
vs 12
Once again, Paul is focussing on unity. Unity and division are such massive parts of this book - it flows through the whole thing. A body is made up of parts, and without those parts, it just isn't a body.
vs 13
That's why there is no difference between Christians - because the Spirit into which we have been baptised is the same spirit. Why we drink the Spirit, I honestly don't know. I mean, the word Spirit in greek is linked to wind, not water - you'd think we would breathe the Spirit. But I guess it's just a turn of phrase.
vs 14
I'm pretty sure you just said that, Paul.
vs 15
A body is not defined as such because of a specific part - a person with no hands is still a person. So in such a way, a part of the body cannot define itself as not a part of the body just because it doesn't serve some function.
vs 16
Swap body parts, same argument.
vs 17
Each part has its own role, and that is why different people are needed in the church and different gifts are given to the church. This argument is vital to understanding why the charismatic movement cannot demand that every member of the body of Christ speak in tongues - if we were all a tongue, who would the interpreter be?
But the happy clappys aren't the only ones who make this mistake. We brethos created a system that heavily rewarded the preacher/teacher type gifting, and made that above and beyond all other gifts. Our open worship system still does this, so we've got to be careful to specifically look out for and encourage other gifts too.
vs 18
Because God is creator, he designs things perfectly, and that includes the body of Christ, the church. So all the gifts a church has, God has given them for a reason. This doesn't mean that a church without people doing miracles or speaking in tongues is not a church, in the same way that a person without a tongue is still a person.
vs 19
But a church made up of all prophets would not be a church - that would be a prophecy convention. Now I am not saying this verse is Paul saying that people shouldn't create churches based on specific gifting (there is no way that there was enough Christians in the early church that they had a choice of churches to go to in Corinth in the first place). But what he is telling the Corinthians is not to focus on one gift to the detriment of the others.
vs 20
Because many gifts make up one spiritual body of a church.
Paul wraps up his idea by repeating again that all these different gifts are the work of the same Holy Spirit, and it is God who determines who gets the gifts, not us.
vs 12
Once again, Paul is focussing on unity. Unity and division are such massive parts of this book - it flows through the whole thing. A body is made up of parts, and without those parts, it just isn't a body.
vs 13
That's why there is no difference between Christians - because the Spirit into which we have been baptised is the same spirit. Why we drink the Spirit, I honestly don't know. I mean, the word Spirit in greek is linked to wind, not water - you'd think we would breathe the Spirit. But I guess it's just a turn of phrase.
vs 14
I'm pretty sure you just said that, Paul.
vs 15
A body is not defined as such because of a specific part - a person with no hands is still a person. So in such a way, a part of the body cannot define itself as not a part of the body just because it doesn't serve some function.
vs 16
Swap body parts, same argument.
vs 17
Each part has its own role, and that is why different people are needed in the church and different gifts are given to the church. This argument is vital to understanding why the charismatic movement cannot demand that every member of the body of Christ speak in tongues - if we were all a tongue, who would the interpreter be?
But the happy clappys aren't the only ones who make this mistake. We brethos created a system that heavily rewarded the preacher/teacher type gifting, and made that above and beyond all other gifts. Our open worship system still does this, so we've got to be careful to specifically look out for and encourage other gifts too.
vs 18
Because God is creator, he designs things perfectly, and that includes the body of Christ, the church. So all the gifts a church has, God has given them for a reason. This doesn't mean that a church without people doing miracles or speaking in tongues is not a church, in the same way that a person without a tongue is still a person.
vs 19
But a church made up of all prophets would not be a church - that would be a prophecy convention. Now I am not saying this verse is Paul saying that people shouldn't create churches based on specific gifting (there is no way that there was enough Christians in the early church that they had a choice of churches to go to in Corinth in the first place). But what he is telling the Corinthians is not to focus on one gift to the detriment of the others.
vs 20
Because many gifts make up one spiritual body of a church.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 12
vs 1
Well then, we've really screwed up, haven't we? I mean, who is more ignorant of spiritual gifts than the Western church, and who more in that church than probably the most conservative churches? We're all afraid of pentecostalism, but we fail to look at the proof of the pudding - they have the gifts, and they have growing churches. That doesn't by any means mean that they are the only way of doing church - it just means we can't afford to be exclusive about them like we have been for so long.
vs 2
I was talking to someone about free market economics last night, and I can happily say that mute idols are alive and well. The problem is that there are many Christians who are led astray by these new mute idols, not just when they were pagans.
vs 3
So now, for a generation that was led astray by idols who can't speak, of course they are more likely to be led astray by false teachers who make lots and lots of noise.
It's the same way of testing the spirits which John gives us. It all comes back to Jesus - if he is Lord, then listen. If he is anything but Lord, turn away.
vs 4
We live in this great world where God directly interacts with us to give us spiritual gifts. They are called spiritual gifts not necessarily because they are effecting the spiritual realm, but because his Holy Spirit gives them to us. We don't need an angel to touch us for them or any other stupid ideas - all God's gifts come from God's Spirit. Direct line from God to us.
vs 5
And so we can use those gifts in different ways, but we are serving the same Lord. Just because some group of Christians are doing something different, does not mean that they are wrong or off the rails! I heard yesterday about a Christian biker club, where to be a fully-patched member you need to have the right kind of bike - the kind that the outlaw biker gangs will respect. And these guys will ride out to the outlaw gang events, and set up a first aid tent. Now I would never do that, but it doesn't mean they aren't serving God just because they've got big beards and leather jackets.
vs 6
And in the same way, God doesn't need to work in the same way in any given situation. Sometimes God will do something one way, and sometimes in his infinite wisdom he will do it a completely different, and perhaps even opposite way. That means that in one place he might raise up great leaders of men, and in another place not a single man will have any gifting of leadership, but there will be heaps of women showing those abilities. Missionaries see God's amazing and paradoxical work on the field all the time. We've got to be prepared for it too, because we don't serve a cookie-cutter God.
vs 7
So the Spirit manifests itself in every Christian, and in different ways, but for the common good. Not just for the good of the person, but for the good of the whole church. Remember that when you're using your spiritual gifting - that it's a tool (or tools) God gave you for helping the church.
vs 8
These two terms, sophia and gnosis, can mean so many different things, that in a verse as vague as this one, it's hard to pick definitions that fit adequately. All we know is that they are messages, and that they are given for the benefit of the church. With those in mind, I am going to go for these definitions: message of knowledge (gnosis) as "knowledge signified in general understanding of the Christian religion", and so message of wisdom (sophia) as "a broad and full intelligence in the discovery of truths through mysterious vision or interpretation of dreams".
That second one probably isn't what we would normally think when we read this verse, but to me it seems the best definition of the word for the situation it is used in, especially in conjunction with knowledge. It is probably worth reading something like "The Expositor's Greek Testament", and learning greek, to get a better handle on this.
vs 9
The Spirit of God also gives faith. Now everyone has faith, but I think this use of faith should remind us that our faith is a gift, and so when we are worried about not having any spiritual gifts, faith is one that we do have. The suggestion here, though, of faith being given to one, is more than likely a highlighting of one who has been given an especially rock-hard faith, for the benefit of the church as a whole, remember.
God also gives people healing powers. I've never seen a "faith healing". I know of people who claim to have been healed. I don't know them that well. But I have seen some incredible things accomplished through prayer, and I know I worship a God who is awesomely powerful. So I've got no problem with gifts of healing. I'm sure people can give all sorts of reasons as to their rarity - I say I don't care, because I'd rank it as a lesser gift than those of faith and wisdom.
vs 10
Now we've got a crapload of gifts here. Miraculous powers, again, is one we don't see much of. But who knows what tomorrow will bring. Prophecy is a curly one - so many people see it as "telling the future", but here's the definition of the word propheteia - "a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events" - so foretelling the future is only a third of prophecy.
Now Paul just told us how to distinguish between spirits, but obviously some people are better at it than others - those people have a gift from God. Thank God for the gift of being able to spot heresy!
But none will be argued over more than the speaking or interpretation of tongues, sometimes known as glossolalia. Glossa means "the fleshy thing in your mouth called a tongue", and also means "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations (as in your native tongue)". It's interesting to note that at the beginning of the charismatic revolution was a bunch of methodists who wanted the gift of tongues because they thought it would help them in the missionary endeavour (that is, speaking other languages without having to learn them first would be faster). What surprised them was they were given it. So the idea that the "gift of tongues" was given as a means of speaking other real langauges came before the idea of speaking wierd meaningless gibberish.
So what's with the weird meaningless gibberish? I have no idea. If wierd meaningless gibberish is glossolalia, then all I can safely tell you is that I don't have the gift of interpreting it.
Well then, we've really screwed up, haven't we? I mean, who is more ignorant of spiritual gifts than the Western church, and who more in that church than probably the most conservative churches? We're all afraid of pentecostalism, but we fail to look at the proof of the pudding - they have the gifts, and they have growing churches. That doesn't by any means mean that they are the only way of doing church - it just means we can't afford to be exclusive about them like we have been for so long.
vs 2
I was talking to someone about free market economics last night, and I can happily say that mute idols are alive and well. The problem is that there are many Christians who are led astray by these new mute idols, not just when they were pagans.
vs 3
So now, for a generation that was led astray by idols who can't speak, of course they are more likely to be led astray by false teachers who make lots and lots of noise.
It's the same way of testing the spirits which John gives us. It all comes back to Jesus - if he is Lord, then listen. If he is anything but Lord, turn away.
vs 4
We live in this great world where God directly interacts with us to give us spiritual gifts. They are called spiritual gifts not necessarily because they are effecting the spiritual realm, but because his Holy Spirit gives them to us. We don't need an angel to touch us for them or any other stupid ideas - all God's gifts come from God's Spirit. Direct line from God to us.
vs 5
And so we can use those gifts in different ways, but we are serving the same Lord. Just because some group of Christians are doing something different, does not mean that they are wrong or off the rails! I heard yesterday about a Christian biker club, where to be a fully-patched member you need to have the right kind of bike - the kind that the outlaw biker gangs will respect. And these guys will ride out to the outlaw gang events, and set up a first aid tent. Now I would never do that, but it doesn't mean they aren't serving God just because they've got big beards and leather jackets.
vs 6
And in the same way, God doesn't need to work in the same way in any given situation. Sometimes God will do something one way, and sometimes in his infinite wisdom he will do it a completely different, and perhaps even opposite way. That means that in one place he might raise up great leaders of men, and in another place not a single man will have any gifting of leadership, but there will be heaps of women showing those abilities. Missionaries see God's amazing and paradoxical work on the field all the time. We've got to be prepared for it too, because we don't serve a cookie-cutter God.
vs 7
So the Spirit manifests itself in every Christian, and in different ways, but for the common good. Not just for the good of the person, but for the good of the whole church. Remember that when you're using your spiritual gifting - that it's a tool (or tools) God gave you for helping the church.
vs 8
These two terms, sophia and gnosis, can mean so many different things, that in a verse as vague as this one, it's hard to pick definitions that fit adequately. All we know is that they are messages, and that they are given for the benefit of the church. With those in mind, I am going to go for these definitions: message of knowledge (gnosis) as "knowledge signified in general understanding of the Christian religion", and so message of wisdom (sophia) as "a broad and full intelligence in the discovery of truths through mysterious vision or interpretation of dreams".
That second one probably isn't what we would normally think when we read this verse, but to me it seems the best definition of the word for the situation it is used in, especially in conjunction with knowledge. It is probably worth reading something like "The Expositor's Greek Testament", and learning greek, to get a better handle on this.
vs 9
The Spirit of God also gives faith. Now everyone has faith, but I think this use of faith should remind us that our faith is a gift, and so when we are worried about not having any spiritual gifts, faith is one that we do have. The suggestion here, though, of faith being given to one, is more than likely a highlighting of one who has been given an especially rock-hard faith, for the benefit of the church as a whole, remember.
God also gives people healing powers. I've never seen a "faith healing". I know of people who claim to have been healed. I don't know them that well. But I have seen some incredible things accomplished through prayer, and I know I worship a God who is awesomely powerful. So I've got no problem with gifts of healing. I'm sure people can give all sorts of reasons as to their rarity - I say I don't care, because I'd rank it as a lesser gift than those of faith and wisdom.
vs 10
Now we've got a crapload of gifts here. Miraculous powers, again, is one we don't see much of. But who knows what tomorrow will bring. Prophecy is a curly one - so many people see it as "telling the future", but here's the definition of the word propheteia - "a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events" - so foretelling the future is only a third of prophecy.
Now Paul just told us how to distinguish between spirits, but obviously some people are better at it than others - those people have a gift from God. Thank God for the gift of being able to spot heresy!
But none will be argued over more than the speaking or interpretation of tongues, sometimes known as glossolalia. Glossa means "the fleshy thing in your mouth called a tongue", and also means "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations (as in your native tongue)". It's interesting to note that at the beginning of the charismatic revolution was a bunch of methodists who wanted the gift of tongues because they thought it would help them in the missionary endeavour (that is, speaking other languages without having to learn them first would be faster). What surprised them was they were given it. So the idea that the "gift of tongues" was given as a means of speaking other real langauges came before the idea of speaking wierd meaningless gibberish.
So what's with the weird meaningless gibberish? I have no idea. If wierd meaningless gibberish is glossolalia, then all I can safely tell you is that I don't have the gift of interpreting it.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
1 Corinthians chapter 11
vs 23
So Paul passed onto the Corinthians the method of celebrating the Lord's Supper which God had revealed to him, but it seems they have turned it into a farce.
vs 24-25
Although not directly reflected in any of the gospels, this most closely resembles Luke's report of the last supper. Which is not surprising of course, because Luke was one of those which hung out with Paul. The focus here is obviously on remembrance (ie rather than eating).
vs 26
There is also a sense that, as well as remembering the Lord (it is more than his death - it is who he is, and why he died, and why him dying is so important), we are proclaiming him by taking the emblems. Now my understanding is that they didn't do this out in public, so it wasn't that sort of proclaimation. Communion isn't an evangelistic tool, per se.
I guess that even the act of constant remembrance is a proclaimation in itself, because it is this one enduring symbol, this Christian religious rite, that is what Christians are known for more than anything. If you are celebrating something in a certain way, and regularly, then it is going to be what people know about you.
vs 27
It's been said before, but I'll say it again - this verse is not written to unbelievers, but to believers. It is up to us to judge before we take the emblems what state we are in, not to judge other people (although that comes later, I'm pre-empting it). And it seems to refer far more directly to the Corinthians' inability to wait for others before beginning their feast.
vs 28
Paul wants the Corinthian believers to think about what they are doing when they are enjoying their love feast together. It's not just a matter of fellowship, it is a matter of remembrance. This doesn't mean I agree with the solemn nature of our current communions, but it is fairly clear that Corinth had swung too much the other way.
vs 29
It would be easy to see why this could apply to non-believers, because they do not "recognise the body of the Lord". But that's not who it's for. "Recognise" in this case doesn't mean "to identify a thing as what it is as opposed to another thing". It is more in keeping with the jive meaning, "reco-nize" (with appropriate hand gesture) - that is, to make disctinction, to elevate in estimation of value. So it is those who do not give these symbols of Jesus' body and blood proper value and recognition that are drinking judgement on themselves.
vs 30
This makes it sound like, if you don't drink the cup correctly, you're going to die or get sick or weak. And it sort of makes Christianity sound like a backwater hickville religion ("Yer sickyness comes from you all not takin' communion rahghtly"). But it doesn't have to be read like that. Paul is observing that God passes his judgement through regular occurences in this life. After the first plague in Egypt, people were probably thinking it was a typical disaster. When the 9th one came along, surely they knew there was something more to it. Same here - when one person dies, you write it off as a fact of life. When everyone in church is getting sick, feeling weak, or dying, you assume God's at work (or there is legionnare's disease in the air conditioning - but like many churches today, the 1st century churches of Corinth were not air conditioned).
vs 31
So basically, if we take the initiative and judge our response toward the emblems before we take them, we short-circuit God's temporal judgement on us for doing it badly.
vs 32
When we are judged by God (in the form of temporal badness like sickness and so on) it is a discipline which sets us apart from the rest of the world, who are always out and out condemning his body and sacrifice. They'll get theirs when the final judgement comes - we get ours beforehand so that we aren't part of the non-Christian rabble. Puts another spin on the people of God getting judged first.
vs 33
Easy to do in a church of 20 or so - harder even with 50 people. So setting a time and letting people know when you will start is probably a fair thing to do in our society, because most of us live so spread out these days, that it would be hard for us to even know who's coming from week to week.
vs 34
And so died the love feast, because Paul said that you shouldn't take communion if you're hungry. Of course, it was really a corrective to the Corinthians who were doing it stupidly, but we see it as a "for all time" command, and therefore we don't get to celebrate communion in a fellowshippy wonderful way, we celebrate it in a staid, reverential, religious way.
Paul will tell them more about this later, when he visits. We don't get to hear that stuff.
So Paul passed onto the Corinthians the method of celebrating the Lord's Supper which God had revealed to him, but it seems they have turned it into a farce.
vs 24-25
Although not directly reflected in any of the gospels, this most closely resembles Luke's report of the last supper. Which is not surprising of course, because Luke was one of those which hung out with Paul. The focus here is obviously on remembrance (ie rather than eating).
vs 26
There is also a sense that, as well as remembering the Lord (it is more than his death - it is who he is, and why he died, and why him dying is so important), we are proclaiming him by taking the emblems. Now my understanding is that they didn't do this out in public, so it wasn't that sort of proclaimation. Communion isn't an evangelistic tool, per se.
I guess that even the act of constant remembrance is a proclaimation in itself, because it is this one enduring symbol, this Christian religious rite, that is what Christians are known for more than anything. If you are celebrating something in a certain way, and regularly, then it is going to be what people know about you.
vs 27
It's been said before, but I'll say it again - this verse is not written to unbelievers, but to believers. It is up to us to judge before we take the emblems what state we are in, not to judge other people (although that comes later, I'm pre-empting it). And it seems to refer far more directly to the Corinthians' inability to wait for others before beginning their feast.
vs 28
Paul wants the Corinthian believers to think about what they are doing when they are enjoying their love feast together. It's not just a matter of fellowship, it is a matter of remembrance. This doesn't mean I agree with the solemn nature of our current communions, but it is fairly clear that Corinth had swung too much the other way.
vs 29
It would be easy to see why this could apply to non-believers, because they do not "recognise the body of the Lord". But that's not who it's for. "Recognise" in this case doesn't mean "to identify a thing as what it is as opposed to another thing". It is more in keeping with the jive meaning, "reco-nize" (with appropriate hand gesture) - that is, to make disctinction, to elevate in estimation of value. So it is those who do not give these symbols of Jesus' body and blood proper value and recognition that are drinking judgement on themselves.
vs 30
This makes it sound like, if you don't drink the cup correctly, you're going to die or get sick or weak. And it sort of makes Christianity sound like a backwater hickville religion ("Yer sickyness comes from you all not takin' communion rahghtly"). But it doesn't have to be read like that. Paul is observing that God passes his judgement through regular occurences in this life. After the first plague in Egypt, people were probably thinking it was a typical disaster. When the 9th one came along, surely they knew there was something more to it. Same here - when one person dies, you write it off as a fact of life. When everyone in church is getting sick, feeling weak, or dying, you assume God's at work (or there is legionnare's disease in the air conditioning - but like many churches today, the 1st century churches of Corinth were not air conditioned).
vs 31
So basically, if we take the initiative and judge our response toward the emblems before we take them, we short-circuit God's temporal judgement on us for doing it badly.
vs 32
When we are judged by God (in the form of temporal badness like sickness and so on) it is a discipline which sets us apart from the rest of the world, who are always out and out condemning his body and sacrifice. They'll get theirs when the final judgement comes - we get ours beforehand so that we aren't part of the non-Christian rabble. Puts another spin on the people of God getting judged first.
vs 33
Easy to do in a church of 20 or so - harder even with 50 people. So setting a time and letting people know when you will start is probably a fair thing to do in our society, because most of us live so spread out these days, that it would be hard for us to even know who's coming from week to week.
vs 34
And so died the love feast, because Paul said that you shouldn't take communion if you're hungry. Of course, it was really a corrective to the Corinthians who were doing it stupidly, but we see it as a "for all time" command, and therefore we don't get to celebrate communion in a fellowshippy wonderful way, we celebrate it in a staid, reverential, religious way.
Paul will tell them more about this later, when he visits. We don't get to hear that stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)