vs 1
After all, it sounds like Paul has just rubbished Judaism, as if it is pointless.
vs 2
That is, the Old Testament. Now, this is a great and valuable and honorable thing. But the truth is, the church has now been entrusted with the OT and the NT. So the Jews have been entrusted with the words of God in a historical context.
vs 3
This is a key part of the gospel. The truth is that all representatives of God are imperfect. They will reflect badly on God at some time or another. Some of them reflect badly on God a lot. The Jews just happen to be an awfully good example of this. But the gospel tells us that God is faithful. This is a key promise that we cannot escape (thankfully), and that should be of prime importance to anyone explaining the gospel to someone who says "But the church is divided, or hypocritical, or crappy". You know what - they're right! But the gospel isn't about churches or Jews. It's about God and Christ. And they are always reliable.
vs 4
The psalm Paul is quoting is David talking to God, so it is God that is proved right, and who prevails as a judge. God's total truth, correctness and ability to judge is all the more clear when you compare it to humanity's inability in same.
vs 5
This brings up the logical argument contained in this verse - if we by our unrighteousness serve to further highlight God's righteousness, how can we be punished for our unrighteousness? Interesting, Paul calls this a 'human argument'. Not really sure what he means by that. If it is an argument that is created by humanity, then isn't his reply equally human? Perhaps it is a human argument because it takes away from the supremacy of God - it tries to redefine what justice is.
vs 6
Many people would say "Well, he couldn't". But remember that Paul isn't necessarily arguing against non-believers here. Paul's letter is addressed to a church. It might be a church he's never been to. It might be a church that's totally on the wrong track. But it's a church, so you can at least assume that they believe in God (although in our modern times you sometimes wonder). So when Paul makes the statement "How could God judge if this were the case?" he is assuming that his readers agree, I think, that God can and will judge.
vs 7
It sounds like a reasonable argument, in a way. And in fact, those out there who are so tulipy that they have denounced free will must be stumped by this argument. How can God judge those whose actions bring him glory, or in fact whose actions are not their own, but have been predetermined (you would assume by God)? Thankfully this isn't many people.
vs 8
Paul thinks this argument is so silly, that you may as well say "Doing evil has a possibility that good may result". The truth is that God can make good result from evil. Because he's God. But we can't. God might choose to work through our evil to make good things happen. But we're still doing evil things, and therefore deserve condemnation. Any system which would disallow God to judge the evildoer makes God unjust, and that is logically untenable.
vs 9
So while Paul agrees that Jews have the advantage of being the stewards of the words of God (which lets face it, with every passing day from the writing of this letter became less so), when it comes to escaping the condemnation of sin, Jews and gentiles are alike equally powerless.
I'l leave the next bit for tomorrow, since it is all one section.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Romans chapter 2
vs 21
And there it is! Paul is accusing the Jews of being hypocrites. As if just by having the law you, and being able to teach the law, you are somehow better than someone who doesn't know it. He starts off with stealing - a crime that can be legally charged in society. Those are easy ones to think you don't do. If you haven't been caught, or if you didn't steal something that is considered valuable, then is it theft?
Now, I don't stand by the "have you stolen phone calls or paperclips from your work" sort of theft. To me, if you have a situation in place where you are allowed to make reasonable use of office supplies, then that's not stealing. I took a rubber band from work to wrap around my Hebrew vocab. Am I a thief? No. I think if my office was anal about such things, that it would be a sucky place to work. "You there - are you scribbling with an office pen? That's office ink you're wasting!" Of course, stealing a box of rubber bands (either all at once or one a day or whatever) is actually stealing. There's no hard and fast rule - just use common sense.
Probably what happens more often in people's work lives is that they steal time from their bosses, by doing home things on work time. But again, "work time" is subjective - if you are paid a salary to do a job, and the understanding is you are paid for the job, not the time, then what is "work time"? If you work from home, what is "work time"?
And you know, we probably steal time off each other just by wasting each other's time. Now that's an interesting premise. The other interesting idea is that we steal time off God. I think we're all guilty there. But don't think I'm talking about having fun = stealing God's time. I mean more along the lines that wasting opportunities = wasting God's time.
Ok, I can't spend all morning philosophising on what is stealing. The point I'm making is that sometimes the obvious side of a sin (stealing a car, stealing a baby, shooting a policeman) covers up the less obvious side, for which it is easier to explain away, but that we are still involved in.
vs 22
I'd like to say that I would think the Jews weren't committing adultery and robbing temples, but, you know, it's entirely plausible. I don't know about the robbing temples (although not giving what you really should to God in offering is like robbing him, because of greed, and greed is idolatry). But the adultery, for sure it happened. How do I know? Because it happens now. People in positions of power sometimes abuse them, or sometimes get tempted and can't withstand the temptation. It happens in churches, why would it not happen in synagogues?
vs 23
Obviously they do.
vs 24
This is a harsh verse. Paul's going to town on the Jewish people. Just remember that he is one, so it's PC.
Also remember that this verse is totally true, and it is God that draws people to himself.
vs 25
Circumcision is a sign of a covenant. The actual covenant requires obedience. Having a contract, and breaking that contract, puts you in a position as if you never had the contract.
But because this is a covenant with God, people suddenly think "Well, I've got the covenant, God will take care of the rest". Sounds a little antinomian.
vs 26
Now of course this is not quite the same as a contract. However, I think Paul's point is that if there is a contract, and one person signs it and breaks it, and another person doesn't sign it but keeps it, then the person who will get the benefit of the contract will be the latter. So say you have a contract for a house, but you refuse to put down the deposit. Someone else comes along and puts down the deposit - I think they're more likely to get the house than you. Or if you have a contract for a job, but you refuse to work. Someone else comes along, and does your work. They are more likely to get paid.
vs 27
Circumcision is the covenantal version of a piece of paper. It's valueless - it's the actual content of the covenant that is valuable. Paul is mainly seeking to break down that Jew/gentile wall, rather than call Jews valueless. Of course, someone who has circumcision and obeys the law is great.
vs 28
Now we get to brass tacks. We're not talking about who's your mother, or what tribe you're from, or whether you're missing a little flap of skin. We're talking about something deeper. Not a merely physical thing.
vs 29
Real Judaism comes from the heart, and from God's Spirit, says Paul. It's not the written code that makes you a Jew - it's God giving you the ability to live by it through his Spirit. Circumcision does not make you able to follow the law - God's Spirit enabling you is what empowers the symbol of your circumcision. Therefore it becomes the circumcision.
It's interesting that Paul includes this bit about praise. The idea being that if your eye is on God and obeying him, then you won't care what people think. Obviously the 1st century Jews were not without their problems, even if they were in churches.
And there it is! Paul is accusing the Jews of being hypocrites. As if just by having the law you, and being able to teach the law, you are somehow better than someone who doesn't know it. He starts off with stealing - a crime that can be legally charged in society. Those are easy ones to think you don't do. If you haven't been caught, or if you didn't steal something that is considered valuable, then is it theft?
Now, I don't stand by the "have you stolen phone calls or paperclips from your work" sort of theft. To me, if you have a situation in place where you are allowed to make reasonable use of office supplies, then that's not stealing. I took a rubber band from work to wrap around my Hebrew vocab. Am I a thief? No. I think if my office was anal about such things, that it would be a sucky place to work. "You there - are you scribbling with an office pen? That's office ink you're wasting!" Of course, stealing a box of rubber bands (either all at once or one a day or whatever) is actually stealing. There's no hard and fast rule - just use common sense.
Probably what happens more often in people's work lives is that they steal time from their bosses, by doing home things on work time. But again, "work time" is subjective - if you are paid a salary to do a job, and the understanding is you are paid for the job, not the time, then what is "work time"? If you work from home, what is "work time"?
And you know, we probably steal time off each other just by wasting each other's time. Now that's an interesting premise. The other interesting idea is that we steal time off God. I think we're all guilty there. But don't think I'm talking about having fun = stealing God's time. I mean more along the lines that wasting opportunities = wasting God's time.
Ok, I can't spend all morning philosophising on what is stealing. The point I'm making is that sometimes the obvious side of a sin (stealing a car, stealing a baby, shooting a policeman) covers up the less obvious side, for which it is easier to explain away, but that we are still involved in.
vs 22
I'd like to say that I would think the Jews weren't committing adultery and robbing temples, but, you know, it's entirely plausible. I don't know about the robbing temples (although not giving what you really should to God in offering is like robbing him, because of greed, and greed is idolatry). But the adultery, for sure it happened. How do I know? Because it happens now. People in positions of power sometimes abuse them, or sometimes get tempted and can't withstand the temptation. It happens in churches, why would it not happen in synagogues?
vs 23
Obviously they do.
vs 24
This is a harsh verse. Paul's going to town on the Jewish people. Just remember that he is one, so it's PC.
Also remember that this verse is totally true, and it is God that draws people to himself.
vs 25
Circumcision is a sign of a covenant. The actual covenant requires obedience. Having a contract, and breaking that contract, puts you in a position as if you never had the contract.
But because this is a covenant with God, people suddenly think "Well, I've got the covenant, God will take care of the rest". Sounds a little antinomian.
vs 26
Now of course this is not quite the same as a contract. However, I think Paul's point is that if there is a contract, and one person signs it and breaks it, and another person doesn't sign it but keeps it, then the person who will get the benefit of the contract will be the latter. So say you have a contract for a house, but you refuse to put down the deposit. Someone else comes along and puts down the deposit - I think they're more likely to get the house than you. Or if you have a contract for a job, but you refuse to work. Someone else comes along, and does your work. They are more likely to get paid.
vs 27
Circumcision is the covenantal version of a piece of paper. It's valueless - it's the actual content of the covenant that is valuable. Paul is mainly seeking to break down that Jew/gentile wall, rather than call Jews valueless. Of course, someone who has circumcision and obeys the law is great.
vs 28
Now we get to brass tacks. We're not talking about who's your mother, or what tribe you're from, or whether you're missing a little flap of skin. We're talking about something deeper. Not a merely physical thing.
vs 29
Real Judaism comes from the heart, and from God's Spirit, says Paul. It's not the written code that makes you a Jew - it's God giving you the ability to live by it through his Spirit. Circumcision does not make you able to follow the law - God's Spirit enabling you is what empowers the symbol of your circumcision. Therefore it becomes the circumcision.
It's interesting that Paul includes this bit about praise. The idea being that if your eye is on God and obeying him, then you won't care what people think. Obviously the 1st century Jews were not without their problems, even if they were in churches.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Romans chapter 2
vs 11
Ok, so this verse really caps off yesterday's idea of Jews and gentiles being able to receive mercy or wrath from God. Favourtism is not shown in respect to grace and judgement. I think some may make the argument that Israel is still a favoured people. I would need more convincing, considering this verse.
vs 12
Now we move onto a new idea - the idea of the law. Up until now, we have had the idea of a general revelation being enough to call people to account, we have had the idea that people who recognise some sort of moral code are still to be judged. Now we are talking about the Old Testament Law (this comes out in vs 14), even though it's not capitalised as Law anywhere except the NASB). And it seems that whether you are under the law (Jew) or apart from the law (gentile) you are still going to be judged. Are you seeing a pattern here, coming to the point that all people are alike in their position under God?
vs 13
It's a sad state when people think that because they are listening to a mesage, they are fine, rather than actually realising you have to act on that message to be in the clear. Everyday life would tell you that knowing laws is not the same as following laws.
vs 14
(It's the NIV translations that put in the brackets - there's no punctuation in Greek.) Paul indeed points out here that it is possible to not know the law, but to obey it! And he considers this to be more righteous than knowing it and not obeying it.
vs 15
The reason Paul gives for gentiles being able to obey the law without knowing it is that he considers it an OT truth that God's law is written on people's hearts, and that people's conscience bears witness to that. This is all fine and dandy up to a point - but it's pointless trying to create a universal morality based on the shared conscience of humanity. The fact is that human conscience and human hearts are both broken by sin - and therefore neither are able to adequately reflect the true absolute morality that was created by God.
Paul says that it is this conscience that accuses and defends them. I think he means that in accusing them when they do wrong, their conscience is defending their ability to follow the law by showing that it knows the law. Unfortunately, we need more defence than that.
vs 16
Whose gospel? We would normally never say something like this. But in not doing so, we lose something. Paul takes ownership of the gospel. He makes it his own. Not by changing it - it is still the gospel of God from the Old Testament and the truth about Christ. But It also belongs to Paul. He works for it. He therefore takes ownership and responsibility for it. He defends it, he proclaims it.
"This" refers back to God's declaration about who is righteous. Apparently, Paul believes a day is coming when there will be one big declaration which happens at the same time as one big judgement. And that judgement is part of his gospel. God's gospel.
vs 17
Tlaking to Jews now.
vs 18
Jews value the Law.
vs 19
Jews believe that they are custodians of the Law, and can therefore lead people to God. This might be specifically written to Jewish Christians, who believed that they were more well equipped to interpret the Old Testament for the sake of gentiles. Probably some truth in that too.
vs 20
Paul feels strongly about the responsibility that those who would be teachers and instructors have, beyond the norm. James seems to agree (James 3:1).
You get the feeling, right, that Paul's building up to something?
Ok, so this verse really caps off yesterday's idea of Jews and gentiles being able to receive mercy or wrath from God. Favourtism is not shown in respect to grace and judgement. I think some may make the argument that Israel is still a favoured people. I would need more convincing, considering this verse.
vs 12
Now we move onto a new idea - the idea of the law. Up until now, we have had the idea of a general revelation being enough to call people to account, we have had the idea that people who recognise some sort of moral code are still to be judged. Now we are talking about the Old Testament Law (this comes out in vs 14), even though it's not capitalised as Law anywhere except the NASB). And it seems that whether you are under the law (Jew) or apart from the law (gentile) you are still going to be judged. Are you seeing a pattern here, coming to the point that all people are alike in their position under God?
vs 13
It's a sad state when people think that because they are listening to a mesage, they are fine, rather than actually realising you have to act on that message to be in the clear. Everyday life would tell you that knowing laws is not the same as following laws.
vs 14
(It's the NIV translations that put in the brackets - there's no punctuation in Greek.) Paul indeed points out here that it is possible to not know the law, but to obey it! And he considers this to be more righteous than knowing it and not obeying it.
vs 15
The reason Paul gives for gentiles being able to obey the law without knowing it is that he considers it an OT truth that God's law is written on people's hearts, and that people's conscience bears witness to that. This is all fine and dandy up to a point - but it's pointless trying to create a universal morality based on the shared conscience of humanity. The fact is that human conscience and human hearts are both broken by sin - and therefore neither are able to adequately reflect the true absolute morality that was created by God.
Paul says that it is this conscience that accuses and defends them. I think he means that in accusing them when they do wrong, their conscience is defending their ability to follow the law by showing that it knows the law. Unfortunately, we need more defence than that.
vs 16
Whose gospel? We would normally never say something like this. But in not doing so, we lose something. Paul takes ownership of the gospel. He makes it his own. Not by changing it - it is still the gospel of God from the Old Testament and the truth about Christ. But It also belongs to Paul. He works for it. He therefore takes ownership and responsibility for it. He defends it, he proclaims it.
"This" refers back to God's declaration about who is righteous. Apparently, Paul believes a day is coming when there will be one big declaration which happens at the same time as one big judgement. And that judgement is part of his gospel. God's gospel.
vs 17
Tlaking to Jews now.
vs 18
Jews value the Law.
vs 19
Jews believe that they are custodians of the Law, and can therefore lead people to God. This might be specifically written to Jewish Christians, who believed that they were more well equipped to interpret the Old Testament for the sake of gentiles. Probably some truth in that too.
vs 20
Paul feels strongly about the responsibility that those who would be teachers and instructors have, beyond the norm. James seems to agree (James 3:1).
You get the feeling, right, that Paul's building up to something?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Romans chapter 2
vs 1
Ie we're all in the same boat.
vs 2
That is, God doesn't judge people because he doesn't like them - he judges them because he knows everything, and knows therefore your imperfections. Such things is sins I believe, not judging, as could be read.
vs 3
If you haven't cottoned on yet, it should be clear that Paul addressed humanity from one aspect - that of sexually deviant idolators who have ignored God and his ways - first. Now, he is looking at those people who sit back in judgement on the pagan lifestyle. He wants to remind them that they too are judged and found wanting.
vs 4
This is an interesting verse. There may be those people who recognise God's righteous requirements, but Paul is saying that their ability to recognise them was not given them to judge others, but as a gracious step to allow them to repent of their own failings. However, the person Paul is talking to now does not accept grace and forgiveness - they think themselves above it.
vs 5
This person doesn't believe that they need grace, and they seem to think that they are in the winning position when it comes to God and righteousness. Big mistake - "storing up wrath" is quite a good term. It would be like finding landmines in your back yard, and every day you do you aren't sure what to do with them, so you put them in your attic.
vs 6
Scary thought, because so far it would seem that everyone is going to get punished.
vs 7
Note that this verse does not say "those who continually do good without fail", but rather "those who try and do good with persistance" - that is, you don't give up even if you do fail.
vs 8
And that is the problem with people who think they don't need forgiveness or repentance - they are deluding themselves, but also denying the truth.
vs 9
This Jew then gentile formula is a strong one in Romans. What does it tell us? That Jews and gentiles are in the same boat when it comes to God. Revolutionary teaching - even now there are people who which to separate the two. I will point out that Paul does separate them too - Jews first, then gentiles. I guess some of us are more interested in outcomes.
Trouble and distress is for everyone who does evil. That is, it's for everyone, right?
vs 10
Jew first again.
Now who does good? In the same way that it is impossible to imagine someone who never does anything wrong, it's also kinda impossible to imagine someone who never does anything right. The real problem with these verses for us is that, if we read them as being conditional verses, then we get this idea that the effect is causal - that someone who does more evil than good will have more trouble and distress, and someone who does more good than evil will have more glory, honour and peace.
Of course, when we look around at reality, we realise that this is not so. Ecclesiastes teaches us that well. Job teaches us that well.
If we then decide that we're going to read it eternally and consider this a statement about punishment, then we are stuck with a different conundrum - that everyone is evil, so we're all headed for trouble and distress. No one is good, so their rewards are redundant.
Or is it possible... is it just possible... that Paul is actually linking in an active attitude rather than a functional setting? Like I said with vs 7 - perhaps it's not about your actions, but about your attitude towards the truth, which informs your actions.
Ie we're all in the same boat.
vs 2
That is, God doesn't judge people because he doesn't like them - he judges them because he knows everything, and knows therefore your imperfections. Such things is sins I believe, not judging, as could be read.
vs 3
If you haven't cottoned on yet, it should be clear that Paul addressed humanity from one aspect - that of sexually deviant idolators who have ignored God and his ways - first. Now, he is looking at those people who sit back in judgement on the pagan lifestyle. He wants to remind them that they too are judged and found wanting.
vs 4
This is an interesting verse. There may be those people who recognise God's righteous requirements, but Paul is saying that their ability to recognise them was not given them to judge others, but as a gracious step to allow them to repent of their own failings. However, the person Paul is talking to now does not accept grace and forgiveness - they think themselves above it.
vs 5
This person doesn't believe that they need grace, and they seem to think that they are in the winning position when it comes to God and righteousness. Big mistake - "storing up wrath" is quite a good term. It would be like finding landmines in your back yard, and every day you do you aren't sure what to do with them, so you put them in your attic.
vs 6
Scary thought, because so far it would seem that everyone is going to get punished.
vs 7
Note that this verse does not say "those who continually do good without fail", but rather "those who try and do good with persistance" - that is, you don't give up even if you do fail.
vs 8
And that is the problem with people who think they don't need forgiveness or repentance - they are deluding themselves, but also denying the truth.
vs 9
This Jew then gentile formula is a strong one in Romans. What does it tell us? That Jews and gentiles are in the same boat when it comes to God. Revolutionary teaching - even now there are people who which to separate the two. I will point out that Paul does separate them too - Jews first, then gentiles. I guess some of us are more interested in outcomes.
Trouble and distress is for everyone who does evil. That is, it's for everyone, right?
vs 10
Jew first again.
Now who does good? In the same way that it is impossible to imagine someone who never does anything wrong, it's also kinda impossible to imagine someone who never does anything right. The real problem with these verses for us is that, if we read them as being conditional verses, then we get this idea that the effect is causal - that someone who does more evil than good will have more trouble and distress, and someone who does more good than evil will have more glory, honour and peace.
Of course, when we look around at reality, we realise that this is not so. Ecclesiastes teaches us that well. Job teaches us that well.
If we then decide that we're going to read it eternally and consider this a statement about punishment, then we are stuck with a different conundrum - that everyone is evil, so we're all headed for trouble and distress. No one is good, so their rewards are redundant.
Or is it possible... is it just possible... that Paul is actually linking in an active attitude rather than a functional setting? Like I said with vs 7 - perhaps it's not about your actions, but about your attitude towards the truth, which informs your actions.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Romans chapter 1
vs 21
According to Paul, humanity knew God in this general way, enough at least to give thanks to him or glorify him for his work. But we did neither. Which I personally find unsurprising. We certainly still don't on the whole.
The interesting thing, then, is the consequence of this improper attitude towards God. It changes your thinking and your heart, making your thinking futile (in the true nature of things anyway - you might think you're totally smart within your own logical paradigm, but of course if there is an absolute truth and you're not in line with it, then your thinking is no longer relevant) and 'darkening' your now foolish heart. What exactly does this mean? I'm guessing a foolish heart is one which yearns after the wrong thing. Darkening could be linked to the idea of making a path dark or light, the idea being that once your heart becomes foolish and darkened, you're stuck with foolishness.
Just think about what this means practically for the world. There is a consequence for turning away from God - futile thinking and foolish yearnings, which become impossible to escape from. It's really terrible.
vs 22
That's the thing about linguistic and communication theory - that if you change the name of something, you can make it look better. So call foolishness "wisdom" and people go "Oooooooh".
Having said that, of course, the skeptic or the anti-christ can say "reverse your argument, and those that call wisdom "foolishness" trick people into going "Ahhhhhh". And he's right. It comes down to who has the absolute behind them.
vs 23
Any exchange of God for other is a bad trade.I wonder if there's a time you can mark where societies went "the glory of the immortal God is too much for us - it makes us feel bad, or small, or irrelevant, or pressured, or something. We want to trade it for this stick - the stick does not judge us".
I mean, when you look at the steady trade-in that western society has made over the last few centuries, what is it that really caused it? I think we like to say "Oh, science popped up, then the church reacted negatively, and people went "You can't tell us what to think anymore, church!" and left. Or the Catholics had been in power so long and were so corrupt that science was like the French revolution and everyone hopped on board the logic train.
Romans tells us that this isn't so - or at least that if it is so, don't feel bad, because the truth is that people always jump ship on God. I don't know if this makes us feel that much better.
vs 24
Why is it that sexual impurity comes up first... as if the first thing that humans do when they turn their backs on God is become rampant sex-beasts. I wish I could say it wasn't true, but it really is. While I'm not sure about every culture, simple idol-based religions seem to revolve around sex, temple or shrine prostitutes etc. All the cults that people start up seem to be about sex (Waco, Moonies etc). The only other religions are those that say 'sex is bad' and then try and put a bunch of rules around opressing women and preventing inappropriate behaviour. And as for western non-Christianity? Look at our advertising, movies, and dating culture and tell me sex isn't just springing free from a lack of God.
vs 25
This seems fairly repetitious. It's already a long letter, Paul, let's not get into the repetition thing.
The word 'served' is really foul though. I mean, it's one thing to bow down to a wooden statue of a duck. It's another thing to let it make decisions for your life. This is how a lot of modern non-Christians see us though - as if we're letting some book rule our lives, rather than... whatever it is they think they have. At least their heart is in the right place. Although you will notice that while Christians generally go out and try to woo people to believing our thing to stop them from worshipping sex, they generally just tend to call us names and say we're stupid. Funny how that doesn't woo us away from our beliefs so much.
Perhaps the church could learn a bit about evangelism by looking at how not to do it.
vs 26
"Even" their women... as if men are more likely to go that way first. Hey, if you were living in greco-Roman times, I'm sure that might have been the way it seemed.
vs 27
Paul doesn't go into what the due penalty is. But he is certainly saying that homosexuality is a perversion - although the TNIV calls it an 'error'. Perhaps less nasty a word, but being in error when it comes to God is still bad.
vs 28
Note the link here - you've got knowledge = mind = action. No dualism here. In this verse the mind is the fulcrum between knowledge (of God that they denied) and action (of depravity thanks to their now depraved mind).
Just because their mind is depraved doesn't mean they are no longer thinking. Just that they now substitute "good things" for "depraved things" in the "hey that sounds great let's do that" part of their mind.
vs 29-31
Top marks to the guy who put the verse markers into these 3 verses *sigh*.
Anyway, this list is totally vile. Tell me that 'disobey their parents' doesn't totally stand out. I've got to say that I think the NIV's "senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" is one of the best translations ever. None of the others hold up to that. I'm surprised the TNIV changed it. It was a winning formula to me.
If by the end of these verses, you haven't gotten the point that humanity's depravity-prevention chip has been completely fried, then you need to consider getting a new white coat.
vs 32
Now here is an interesting idea. After saying that the depravity-chip has been toasted, Paul now says that these people know God's righteous decree. As if there is 5% operational capacity, and it's saying "no, don't do that %$bar-squiggle#*". It's these sorts of insights into the heart that really make us wonder... do they really know they're doing wrong? I remember someone saying that serial killers overall know that killing is wrong, but they don't see punishment and wrongdoing as linked - that punishment for them is always arbitrary, and therefore who cares if you do wrong, because you're not going to 'get caught' as it were.
I wonder if humanity has that sort of serial-killer mindset because God doesn't hit us with lightning every time we don't do something wrong? Almost as if it's God's grace that turns us into depraved nutters. Of course, it's that same grace that saves us. So really, if you're taking advantage of the grace, you're all good. It's when you turn your back on God's grace that suddenly you're a serial killer waiting to happen.
According to Paul, humanity knew God in this general way, enough at least to give thanks to him or glorify him for his work. But we did neither. Which I personally find unsurprising. We certainly still don't on the whole.
The interesting thing, then, is the consequence of this improper attitude towards God. It changes your thinking and your heart, making your thinking futile (in the true nature of things anyway - you might think you're totally smart within your own logical paradigm, but of course if there is an absolute truth and you're not in line with it, then your thinking is no longer relevant) and 'darkening' your now foolish heart. What exactly does this mean? I'm guessing a foolish heart is one which yearns after the wrong thing. Darkening could be linked to the idea of making a path dark or light, the idea being that once your heart becomes foolish and darkened, you're stuck with foolishness.
Just think about what this means practically for the world. There is a consequence for turning away from God - futile thinking and foolish yearnings, which become impossible to escape from. It's really terrible.
vs 22
That's the thing about linguistic and communication theory - that if you change the name of something, you can make it look better. So call foolishness "wisdom" and people go "Oooooooh".
Having said that, of course, the skeptic or the anti-christ can say "reverse your argument, and those that call wisdom "foolishness" trick people into going "Ahhhhhh". And he's right. It comes down to who has the absolute behind them.
vs 23
Any exchange of God for other is a bad trade.I wonder if there's a time you can mark where societies went "the glory of the immortal God is too much for us - it makes us feel bad, or small, or irrelevant, or pressured, or something. We want to trade it for this stick - the stick does not judge us".
I mean, when you look at the steady trade-in that western society has made over the last few centuries, what is it that really caused it? I think we like to say "Oh, science popped up, then the church reacted negatively, and people went "You can't tell us what to think anymore, church!" and left. Or the Catholics had been in power so long and were so corrupt that science was like the French revolution and everyone hopped on board the logic train.
Romans tells us that this isn't so - or at least that if it is so, don't feel bad, because the truth is that people always jump ship on God. I don't know if this makes us feel that much better.
vs 24
Why is it that sexual impurity comes up first... as if the first thing that humans do when they turn their backs on God is become rampant sex-beasts. I wish I could say it wasn't true, but it really is. While I'm not sure about every culture, simple idol-based religions seem to revolve around sex, temple or shrine prostitutes etc. All the cults that people start up seem to be about sex (Waco, Moonies etc). The only other religions are those that say 'sex is bad' and then try and put a bunch of rules around opressing women and preventing inappropriate behaviour. And as for western non-Christianity? Look at our advertising, movies, and dating culture and tell me sex isn't just springing free from a lack of God.
vs 25
This seems fairly repetitious. It's already a long letter, Paul, let's not get into the repetition thing.
The word 'served' is really foul though. I mean, it's one thing to bow down to a wooden statue of a duck. It's another thing to let it make decisions for your life. This is how a lot of modern non-Christians see us though - as if we're letting some book rule our lives, rather than... whatever it is they think they have. At least their heart is in the right place. Although you will notice that while Christians generally go out and try to woo people to believing our thing to stop them from worshipping sex, they generally just tend to call us names and say we're stupid. Funny how that doesn't woo us away from our beliefs so much.
Perhaps the church could learn a bit about evangelism by looking at how not to do it.
vs 26
"Even" their women... as if men are more likely to go that way first. Hey, if you were living in greco-Roman times, I'm sure that might have been the way it seemed.
vs 27
Paul doesn't go into what the due penalty is. But he is certainly saying that homosexuality is a perversion - although the TNIV calls it an 'error'. Perhaps less nasty a word, but being in error when it comes to God is still bad.
vs 28
Note the link here - you've got knowledge = mind = action. No dualism here. In this verse the mind is the fulcrum between knowledge (of God that they denied) and action (of depravity thanks to their now depraved mind).
Just because their mind is depraved doesn't mean they are no longer thinking. Just that they now substitute "good things" for "depraved things" in the "hey that sounds great let's do that" part of their mind.
vs 29-31
Top marks to the guy who put the verse markers into these 3 verses *sigh*.
Anyway, this list is totally vile. Tell me that 'disobey their parents' doesn't totally stand out. I've got to say that I think the NIV's "senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" is one of the best translations ever. None of the others hold up to that. I'm surprised the TNIV changed it. It was a winning formula to me.
If by the end of these verses, you haven't gotten the point that humanity's depravity-prevention chip has been completely fried, then you need to consider getting a new white coat.
vs 32
Now here is an interesting idea. After saying that the depravity-chip has been toasted, Paul now says that these people know God's righteous decree. As if there is 5% operational capacity, and it's saying "no, don't do that %$bar-squiggle#*". It's these sorts of insights into the heart that really make us wonder... do they really know they're doing wrong? I remember someone saying that serial killers overall know that killing is wrong, but they don't see punishment and wrongdoing as linked - that punishment for them is always arbitrary, and therefore who cares if you do wrong, because you're not going to 'get caught' as it were.
I wonder if humanity has that sort of serial-killer mindset because God doesn't hit us with lightning every time we don't do something wrong? Almost as if it's God's grace that turns us into depraved nutters. Of course, it's that same grace that saves us. So really, if you're taking advantage of the grace, you're all good. It's when you turn your back on God's grace that suddenly you're a serial killer waiting to happen.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Romans chapter 1
vs 11
Ummmm... que? Impart spiritual gift? I mean, my first obvious thought is that Paul wants to go and teach them tongues or something. But how exactly does one impart a spiritual gifting? It's not the sort of thing that we expect in my churches. Does Paul feel that the Romans are inadequately spiritually gifted?
vs 12
Ok, so now he thinks that the Roman church may actually have something to offer him back. Mutual encouragement. Perhaps he's thinking they could give him some cash, and he could load them up with some spiritual gifts.
vs 13
Of course Paul would have had Rome on his agenda as a key place to do ministry. Looks like someone else got there first (which is unsurprising really - surely Christians went through Rome as regularly as anyone). Paul may think that he can reap yet more of a harvest among the Romans and add to the church there.
vs 14
Non-Greeks, I assume, includes the Romans, who were actually Roman. Wise and foolish probably include them too. Paul had spent a lot of time in and around Greece, so it might have been that people thought he was "Apostle to the Greeks", but he is saying that God wants him to go further afield than even that.
vs 15
"Preach the gospel" - these last few verses have sounded very evangelistically thrusted, and yet the letter is being written to a church. Is it perhaps that Paul thinks that he can firm up the foundations of the church at Rome, because he isn't sure that they are really firm in a solid understanding of the gospel?
vs 16
I know this is a great and famous verse among the protestant tradition. But does it seem to you to just pop up out of nowhere? Does Paul think the Romans are ashamed of the gospel? Where did shame come into it all of a sudden?
Thinking about the book as a whole, Paul obviously knows something about the Roman church. He addresses some pretty specific issues to them. Perhaps they are ashamed of the gospel, because it involves a crucified God and total grace. Perhaps they are struggling under a burden of false teaching.
Whatever the reason, Paul isn't ashamed. It is interesting to think that it is not Christ, or the Cross, that are the power of God for salvation. It is the gospel - the message of Christ and the Cross. Well, actually the TNIV makes it a little different. It says that the gospel is the power of God that brings salvation. Slight difference, but I think it's important. They TNIV people are suggesting, I think, that while the cross might produce salvation, it is the gospel that brings it to people so that they can believe.
vs 17
Paul is going to build on this idea a whole lot in the next few chapters. The goal is righteousness. The vehicle is faith. I think we often think of the gospel as salvation - that is that it saves us. And it does - vs 16 makes it clear. But the gospel is also what gives us faith, which is what makes us righteous.
The first of many Old Testament quotes here. His liberal use of the OT should tell us that Paul is either writing to a group with a number of Jews in it, or a group that is pretty well grounded in the OT. He mentioned it earlier in the letter too.
vs 18
Ok, this sentence comes out of the blue too.
Well, not completely. I mean, wickedness is pretty much the opposite of righteousness. So Paul is saying that by suppressing the truth about righteousness by being unrighteous, people are just pulling God's wrath down on them from heaven. They don't even need a block and tackle.
vs 19
And God's not just angry because they are doing it in an ignorant way, with nothing to point them to God. God has made himself plain to them, but they still bandy about being wicked.
vs 20
Paul here makes an argument from natural theology - perhaps the strongest one in the NT. The idea that God is creator means therefore that some of God's qualities - namely his power and divinity - are obviously visible through his creation.
This general revelation to all humanity is of course universally recogniseable. But it seems only enough to cause wrath. It doesn't seem that the gospel is apparent in general revelation.
Ummmm... que? Impart spiritual gift? I mean, my first obvious thought is that Paul wants to go and teach them tongues or something. But how exactly does one impart a spiritual gifting? It's not the sort of thing that we expect in my churches. Does Paul feel that the Romans are inadequately spiritually gifted?
vs 12
Ok, so now he thinks that the Roman church may actually have something to offer him back. Mutual encouragement. Perhaps he's thinking they could give him some cash, and he could load them up with some spiritual gifts.
vs 13
Of course Paul would have had Rome on his agenda as a key place to do ministry. Looks like someone else got there first (which is unsurprising really - surely Christians went through Rome as regularly as anyone). Paul may think that he can reap yet more of a harvest among the Romans and add to the church there.
vs 14
Non-Greeks, I assume, includes the Romans, who were actually Roman. Wise and foolish probably include them too. Paul had spent a lot of time in and around Greece, so it might have been that people thought he was "Apostle to the Greeks", but he is saying that God wants him to go further afield than even that.
vs 15
"Preach the gospel" - these last few verses have sounded very evangelistically thrusted, and yet the letter is being written to a church. Is it perhaps that Paul thinks that he can firm up the foundations of the church at Rome, because he isn't sure that they are really firm in a solid understanding of the gospel?
vs 16
I know this is a great and famous verse among the protestant tradition. But does it seem to you to just pop up out of nowhere? Does Paul think the Romans are ashamed of the gospel? Where did shame come into it all of a sudden?
Thinking about the book as a whole, Paul obviously knows something about the Roman church. He addresses some pretty specific issues to them. Perhaps they are ashamed of the gospel, because it involves a crucified God and total grace. Perhaps they are struggling under a burden of false teaching.
Whatever the reason, Paul isn't ashamed. It is interesting to think that it is not Christ, or the Cross, that are the power of God for salvation. It is the gospel - the message of Christ and the Cross. Well, actually the TNIV makes it a little different. It says that the gospel is the power of God that brings salvation. Slight difference, but I think it's important. They TNIV people are suggesting, I think, that while the cross might produce salvation, it is the gospel that brings it to people so that they can believe.
vs 17
Paul is going to build on this idea a whole lot in the next few chapters. The goal is righteousness. The vehicle is faith. I think we often think of the gospel as salvation - that is that it saves us. And it does - vs 16 makes it clear. But the gospel is also what gives us faith, which is what makes us righteous.
The first of many Old Testament quotes here. His liberal use of the OT should tell us that Paul is either writing to a group with a number of Jews in it, or a group that is pretty well grounded in the OT. He mentioned it earlier in the letter too.
vs 18
Ok, this sentence comes out of the blue too.
Well, not completely. I mean, wickedness is pretty much the opposite of righteousness. So Paul is saying that by suppressing the truth about righteousness by being unrighteous, people are just pulling God's wrath down on them from heaven. They don't even need a block and tackle.
vs 19
And God's not just angry because they are doing it in an ignorant way, with nothing to point them to God. God has made himself plain to them, but they still bandy about being wicked.
vs 20
Paul here makes an argument from natural theology - perhaps the strongest one in the NT. The idea that God is creator means therefore that some of God's qualities - namely his power and divinity - are obviously visible through his creation.
This general revelation to all humanity is of course universally recogniseable. But it seems only enough to cause wrath. It doesn't seem that the gospel is apparent in general revelation.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Romans chapter 1
I feel totally underqualified for this one - all the big Christian players of the modern times have done Romans.
vs 1
Always the same, always a little different. Another letter by Paul. This time, his calling from God to be an apostle is key, and also his specific setting apart for the sake of spreading the gospel. This is of first importance in the book, but doesn't really show its head again until chapter 10 or so.
vs 2
This is still part of his introduction. Which gospel is it? It's the one promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament).
vs 3
It's the gospel that is about the Son of God, who followed in the line of king David.
vs 4
It's the gospel about the guy who, through the Holy Spirit, was appointed as Son of God because he was resurrected. His name is Jesus, and his position is Christ.
Tell me you don't find the word 'appointed' here kind of strange. It's a TNIV word - all the other of my translations translate that word 'declared', which makes perfect sense. The word is horizo, and it means "to define; to mark out boundaries; to ordain, determine, appoint; that which has been determined (acc. to appointment, decree)".
This word is only translated as "declare" once in the NT - and it's in Romans. It's only used 8 times, but it's translated mostly as determined (3) or appointed (2).
See, 'declare'ing Jesus as Son of God makes sense - it means he always was, but now it's just being shouted out by the resurrection. But to say that Jesus is 'appointed' God's Son sounds weird. Perhaps it is the "in power" that pulls us over the line here. Now, was the declaration (appointment) with power, or is it Son of God in power? I could probably tell you if I knew greek. However, I asked my local language scholar, and she is of the opinion that it is "Son of God in power" (NASB) rather than "declared with power the Son of God" (NIV).
The resurrection is a powerful declaration, so it's not like that is an untenable translation. Is it an appointment though? I guess you could argue that, but it feels uncomfortable. But the idea of the Son of God being 'in power', declaritively or appointedly, because of the resurrection is also quite legitimate.
vs 5
Paul's apostleship comes directly through this Christ. It is an apostleship not just to be a messenger, but to the gentiles specifically. This is still his introduction - so he is explaining more fully which gospel he's talking about, and what his calling for it is exactly.
vs 6
Paul wants the Romans to know that this includes them. That doesn't mean that Paul did preach to them - it means instead that they are included in the group "gentiles who should belong to Christ". This doesn't mean as much as it could mean. After all, Paul was called to call all gentiles to faith - so being a gentile makes you "among those gentiles".
I hate the term gentile.
vs 7
Ok, this is a little confusing. If we take "called" in the same sense as verse 5, then this letter is to every gentile in Rome - pretty much everybody. But it isn't - it's to the church in Rome. Paul is fairly obviously using the term 'called' here in two different ways. If he was in fact using the same word at all, which he was not. In fact, the greek is really sparse in verse 5 - it basically says "for obedience of faith" - so "to bring about" (NASB) is just as much an insert as "called" (NIV, TNIV).
So it would seem that when Paul uses the word 'called' (kletos), he means it in a specific sense. His personal calling, now the direct calling of the gentiles who are in the church in Rome.
Which is why the word 'called' shouldn't be used in verse 5 - it makes it sound like a call can be general and specific. But Paul doesn't say that.
So, letter is from Paul, and is to the church at Rome. Took us 7 verses to get there - I think that may be a record. Typical pleasantries follow.
vs 8
So many things to say! Paul thanks God for the Romans. Why? Because their faith is being reported all over the world. They are in Rome, after all, and it is a bit of a centre, so news from there travels fast no doubt. This may also be a slight wink at them to let them know that the world's eyes are on them, so they need to represent Christ fully.
But also notice that Paul thanks God 'through Christ' for the Roman church. You could dismiss this as idiomatic, but I think we'll see later in Romans that there's something to this - that Paul builds up an internally consistent theology of prayer. Point one - thanking God. Second- doing it through Jesus. Why? Not sure. Yet.
vs 9
Wow, Paul is being wordy and verbose. This is going to be a long letter. He reiterates here his service for God, and how it is service via the gospel of his Son. He's actually talking about how he prays for the Romans.
vs 10
Paul's never been to Rome, apparently - at least not to visit the Roman church. He wants to though. So this letter is to a church Paul has never visited. It's an interesting idea. I mean, that is in fact every modern church.
vs 1
Always the same, always a little different. Another letter by Paul. This time, his calling from God to be an apostle is key, and also his specific setting apart for the sake of spreading the gospel. This is of first importance in the book, but doesn't really show its head again until chapter 10 or so.
vs 2
This is still part of his introduction. Which gospel is it? It's the one promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament).
vs 3
It's the gospel that is about the Son of God, who followed in the line of king David.
vs 4
It's the gospel about the guy who, through the Holy Spirit, was appointed as Son of God because he was resurrected. His name is Jesus, and his position is Christ.
Tell me you don't find the word 'appointed' here kind of strange. It's a TNIV word - all the other of my translations translate that word 'declared', which makes perfect sense. The word is horizo, and it means "to define; to mark out boundaries; to ordain, determine, appoint; that which has been determined (acc. to appointment, decree)".
This word is only translated as "declare" once in the NT - and it's in Romans. It's only used 8 times, but it's translated mostly as determined (3) or appointed (2).
See, 'declare'ing Jesus as Son of God makes sense - it means he always was, but now it's just being shouted out by the resurrection. But to say that Jesus is 'appointed' God's Son sounds weird. Perhaps it is the "in power" that pulls us over the line here. Now, was the declaration (appointment) with power, or is it Son of God in power? I could probably tell you if I knew greek. However, I asked my local language scholar, and she is of the opinion that it is "Son of God in power" (NASB) rather than "declared with power the Son of God" (NIV).
The resurrection is a powerful declaration, so it's not like that is an untenable translation. Is it an appointment though? I guess you could argue that, but it feels uncomfortable. But the idea of the Son of God being 'in power', declaritively or appointedly, because of the resurrection is also quite legitimate.
vs 5
Paul's apostleship comes directly through this Christ. It is an apostleship not just to be a messenger, but to the gentiles specifically. This is still his introduction - so he is explaining more fully which gospel he's talking about, and what his calling for it is exactly.
vs 6
Paul wants the Romans to know that this includes them. That doesn't mean that Paul did preach to them - it means instead that they are included in the group "gentiles who should belong to Christ". This doesn't mean as much as it could mean. After all, Paul was called to call all gentiles to faith - so being a gentile makes you "among those gentiles".
I hate the term gentile.
vs 7
Ok, this is a little confusing. If we take "called" in the same sense as verse 5, then this letter is to every gentile in Rome - pretty much everybody. But it isn't - it's to the church in Rome. Paul is fairly obviously using the term 'called' here in two different ways. If he was in fact using the same word at all, which he was not. In fact, the greek is really sparse in verse 5 - it basically says "for obedience of faith" - so "to bring about" (NASB) is just as much an insert as "called" (NIV, TNIV).
So it would seem that when Paul uses the word 'called' (kletos), he means it in a specific sense. His personal calling, now the direct calling of the gentiles who are in the church in Rome.
Which is why the word 'called' shouldn't be used in verse 5 - it makes it sound like a call can be general and specific. But Paul doesn't say that.
So, letter is from Paul, and is to the church at Rome. Took us 7 verses to get there - I think that may be a record. Typical pleasantries follow.
vs 8
So many things to say! Paul thanks God for the Romans. Why? Because their faith is being reported all over the world. They are in Rome, after all, and it is a bit of a centre, so news from there travels fast no doubt. This may also be a slight wink at them to let them know that the world's eyes are on them, so they need to represent Christ fully.
But also notice that Paul thanks God 'through Christ' for the Roman church. You could dismiss this as idiomatic, but I think we'll see later in Romans that there's something to this - that Paul builds up an internally consistent theology of prayer. Point one - thanking God. Second- doing it through Jesus. Why? Not sure. Yet.
vs 9
Wow, Paul is being wordy and verbose. This is going to be a long letter. He reiterates here his service for God, and how it is service via the gospel of his Son. He's actually talking about how he prays for the Romans.
vs 10
Paul's never been to Rome, apparently - at least not to visit the Roman church. He wants to though. So this letter is to a church Paul has never visited. It's an interesting idea. I mean, that is in fact every modern church.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The story so far...
Remember: sometimes books or topics can be interrupted with psalms or ramblings. I've gone back to everywhere this has happened so far and put a little link in to take you to the next post of its kind.
If you're a fellow preacher and you come by this and use it, by all means go for it, although I'd suggest you at least mention you got it "from the Internet" if not the site specifically. I mean, I'm not going to stop you if you pawn one of my sermons and use it completely verbatim. But if you do that, I pity you.
Genesis ----------------> Matthew
Exodus ----------------> Mark
Leviticus ----------------> Luke
Numbers ----------------> John
Deuteronomy ----------------> Acts
Joshua ----------------> Romans
Judges ----------------> 1 Corinthians
Ruth ----------------> 2 Corinthians
1 Samuel ----------------> Galatians
2 Samuel ----------------> Ephesians
1 Kings ----------------> Philippians
2 Kings ----------------> Colossians
1 Chronicles ----------------> 1 Thessalonians
2 Chronicles ----------------> 2 Thessalonians
Ezra ----------------> 1 Timothy
Nehemiah ----------------> 2 Timothy
Job ----------------> Titus
Psalms ----------------> Philemon
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31)
Proverbs ----------------> Hebrews
Ecclesiastes ----------------> James
Song of Songs ----------------> 1 Peter
Isaiah ----------------> 2 Peter
Jeremiah ----------------> 1 John
Lamentations ----------------> 2 John
Ezekiel ----------------> 3 John
Daniel ----------------> Jude
Hosea ----------------> Revelation
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Topics:
Work
Sermons:
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 15:12-34
1 Corinthians 15:35-58
Priscilla and Aquila
If you're a fellow preacher and you come by this and use it, by all means go for it, although I'd suggest you at least mention you got it "from the Internet" if not the site specifically. I mean, I'm not going to stop you if you pawn one of my sermons and use it completely verbatim. But if you do that, I pity you.
Genesis ----------------> Matthew
Exodus ----------------> Mark
Leviticus ----------------> Luke
Numbers ----------------> John
Deuteronomy ----------------> Acts
Joshua ----------------> Romans
Judges ----------------> 1 Corinthians
Ruth ----------------> 2 Corinthians
1 Samuel ----------------> Galatians
2 Samuel ----------------> Ephesians
1 Kings ----------------> Philippians
2 Kings ----------------> Colossians
1 Chronicles ----------------> 1 Thessalonians
2 Chronicles ----------------> 2 Thessalonians
Ezra ----------------> 1 Timothy
Nehemiah ----------------> 2 Timothy
Job ----------------> Titus
Psalms ----------------> Philemon
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31)
Proverbs ----------------> Hebrews
Ecclesiastes ----------------> James
Song of Songs ----------------> 1 Peter
Isaiah ----------------> 2 Peter
Jeremiah ----------------> 1 John
Lamentations ----------------> 2 John
Ezekiel ----------------> 3 John
Daniel ----------------> Jude
Hosea ----------------> Revelation
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Topics:
Work
Sermons:
1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 15:12-34
1 Corinthians 15:35-58
Priscilla and Aquila
One Hand With Tranquility (sermon on work)
Oasis Evangelistic Talk - The Ultimate Relationship
The Rich Man and Lazarus
The Rich Fool
Revelation: The People of God
The Lost Sons
More To Life than ATAR
Jesus' Position
Suffering Church Sunday talk
1 Peter
Adoptification
Luke 19: 28-48 - Triumphal Entry and Temple Cleansing
Sermon - Psalms of complaint (Psalm 22)
Cursing Psalms (Psalm 109)
Mark 14:43-72 (Betrayal, Trial, Denial)
Revelation overview talk (1 of 2)
Ecclesiastes 9:1-11:6
Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:14
Suffering Church Sunday 2010
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Grace of Incarnation
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Motion of Incarnation
St Ives 15 minute Christmas talk
Mark 4:1-20 - Parable of the sower
John 3 - How we don't know better than God
Oasis Evangelistic Talk - The Ultimate Relationship
The Rich Man and Lazarus
The Rich Fool
Revelation: The People of God
The Lost Sons
More To Life than ATAR
Jesus' Position
Suffering Church Sunday talk
1 Peter
Adoptification
Luke 19: 28-48 - Triumphal Entry and Temple Cleansing
Sermon - Psalms of complaint (Psalm 22)
Cursing Psalms (Psalm 109)
Mark 14:43-72 (Betrayal, Trial, Denial)
Revelation overview talk (1 of 2)
Ecclesiastes 9:1-11:6
Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:14
Suffering Church Sunday 2010
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Grace of Incarnation
Spiritually Preparing for Christmas: Motion of Incarnation
St Ives 15 minute Christmas talk
Mark 4:1-20 - Parable of the sower
John 3 - How we don't know better than God
Prayers:
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Psalm 19
Lazy day
vs 8
Now that we've transferred from natural relevation to special revelation, David wants to make the most of it. God's commands not only are right and radiant (how exactly are laws radiant?), but David also wants to tell us what effects these laws have on us. The joy to the heart thing is fairly self explanitory. Is it linked to the laws' rightness? I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I also wouldn't have a problem with radiance being linked to the 'giving light to the eyes' - they seem aptly paired metaphors. But what do they mean? I know some people say that "light to the eyes" is an idiom for 'providing light so you can see your way'. I can't authenticate the veracity of that. I can tell you that eyes apparently had something to do with good health back then, so it is possible that light in the eyes means that you're healthy. But then, what does radiant word mean?
I mean, in its most basic meaning you'd say it provides light. So what is light a metaphor for? Is it the path guiding thing? That is certainly a reasonable thing to say about God's word. In the end I can't say for sure. Look up a commentary.
vs 9
Whoever translated that, and made it able to rhyme, is probably very proud of themselves.
The idea of fear being pure I think makes us think of pure terror. But actually, I think if we took out the selfish concern for personal welfare, then pure fear might actually look a lot more like a deep respect and awe for the thing that is mighty, powerful and worthy of fear.
As for God's word, it gets an excellent rap in this psalm. Sure, meaning trustworthy, and righteous, meaning there's nothing wrong about them at all. They are always in the right. Note, I wouldn't use God's word being 'righteous' to say that it's completely factually correct. Only that it is never morally wrong. Of course, I'm also not saying that I necessarily think God's word isn't factually correct - only that I wouldn't use this verse to defend it.
vs 10
We do well to value God's commands as precious. I mean, they are words directly from God to us - they should be precious. The sweetness thing can sometimes let us down though. I mean, preciousness and value are subjective in a way, but also objective in a way. Sweetness may be the same, but I think we can easily value it subjectively more, and that means that sometimes, like a honeycomb, it can be bitter and full of wax. But I think that bitterness comes from us and not from the Bible. Still, since we're reading it, we need to pray to God that he'll remove our bitterness so we can taste his sweetness.
vs 11
So they provide both warning and reward. That's a great verse. This is a really good psalm to keep in mind I think. And short.
vs 12
It's a novel idea - that we know ourselves better than anyone else. It's completely not true - you just ask a married person. There are things about yourself that you just never notice. So we can rely on God to forgive even our 'hidden faults' - the ones that we don't even see we have.
vs 13
Wow. I never knew a verse like this existed. Combined with the previous verse, we basically have a theology of hidden error (sins hidden from ourselves), and wilful sins (sins we know we do but do anyway). Potent stuff. This is fast becoming my favourite psalm.
David wants to be forgiven not just from his hidden sins, but also kept from wilfully sinning. Even though it's wilful, he acknowledges that he doesn't have the power to stop himself from doing it. He asks God to prevent him, because it is the wilful sins, not the hidden sins, that can rule over us. I totally agree with this. And it's a terrible truth.
But David sees it positively - he sees God's keeping of him as a key to him being innocent and blameless before God - which is of great worth to him. And to us all.
vs 14
I'm sure they were, David. You did well on this one.
vs 8
Now that we've transferred from natural relevation to special revelation, David wants to make the most of it. God's commands not only are right and radiant (how exactly are laws radiant?), but David also wants to tell us what effects these laws have on us. The joy to the heart thing is fairly self explanitory. Is it linked to the laws' rightness? I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I also wouldn't have a problem with radiance being linked to the 'giving light to the eyes' - they seem aptly paired metaphors. But what do they mean? I know some people say that "light to the eyes" is an idiom for 'providing light so you can see your way'. I can't authenticate the veracity of that. I can tell you that eyes apparently had something to do with good health back then, so it is possible that light in the eyes means that you're healthy. But then, what does radiant word mean?
I mean, in its most basic meaning you'd say it provides light. So what is light a metaphor for? Is it the path guiding thing? That is certainly a reasonable thing to say about God's word. In the end I can't say for sure. Look up a commentary.
vs 9
Whoever translated that, and made it able to rhyme, is probably very proud of themselves.
The idea of fear being pure I think makes us think of pure terror. But actually, I think if we took out the selfish concern for personal welfare, then pure fear might actually look a lot more like a deep respect and awe for the thing that is mighty, powerful and worthy of fear.
As for God's word, it gets an excellent rap in this psalm. Sure, meaning trustworthy, and righteous, meaning there's nothing wrong about them at all. They are always in the right. Note, I wouldn't use God's word being 'righteous' to say that it's completely factually correct. Only that it is never morally wrong. Of course, I'm also not saying that I necessarily think God's word isn't factually correct - only that I wouldn't use this verse to defend it.
vs 10
We do well to value God's commands as precious. I mean, they are words directly from God to us - they should be precious. The sweetness thing can sometimes let us down though. I mean, preciousness and value are subjective in a way, but also objective in a way. Sweetness may be the same, but I think we can easily value it subjectively more, and that means that sometimes, like a honeycomb, it can be bitter and full of wax. But I think that bitterness comes from us and not from the Bible. Still, since we're reading it, we need to pray to God that he'll remove our bitterness so we can taste his sweetness.
vs 11
So they provide both warning and reward. That's a great verse. This is a really good psalm to keep in mind I think. And short.
vs 12
It's a novel idea - that we know ourselves better than anyone else. It's completely not true - you just ask a married person. There are things about yourself that you just never notice. So we can rely on God to forgive even our 'hidden faults' - the ones that we don't even see we have.
vs 13
Wow. I never knew a verse like this existed. Combined with the previous verse, we basically have a theology of hidden error (sins hidden from ourselves), and wilful sins (sins we know we do but do anyway). Potent stuff. This is fast becoming my favourite psalm.
David wants to be forgiven not just from his hidden sins, but also kept from wilfully sinning. Even though it's wilful, he acknowledges that he doesn't have the power to stop himself from doing it. He asks God to prevent him, because it is the wilful sins, not the hidden sins, that can rule over us. I totally agree with this. And it's a terrible truth.
But David sees it positively - he sees God's keeping of him as a key to him being innocent and blameless before God - which is of great worth to him. And to us all.
vs 14
I'm sure they were, David. You did well on this one.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Psalm 19
vs 1
It's an interesting thought to think that if you look up, you will see a thing that shows the marks of its creator, and just how glorious that creator is. I think people have always had a fascination with clouds, and stars, and lightning storms, and sunsets and the like. David sees past that stuff, which is already so awesome and grand that many cultures worshipped it, and sees chisel marks on it, showing to him that it's been created.
I'll admit I don't look that hard. I find the concept more interesting than its practicality.
vs 2
This is one of those psalms that some people use to back up their idea that you can really tell the future with stars, that God has placed in them a mystical message , even the gospel message, up in the sky for everyone to see.
Personally, I think if you read these verses as saying any more than verse 1, then you're going to have problems. It's poetic repetition of an idea. Vs 1 says "declare the glory" and "proclaim the work", vs 2 says "pour forth speech" and "display knowledge". We're still on the same topic.
vs 3
Lest anyone think David is talking about actual words, this verse should sort them out.
vs 4
This is the whole point about a natural theology - that it is equally available to everyone. The message that David is attributing to the sky and heaven is one that everyone looking at sky and heaven should see and understand.
Now David wants to get a little more specific and poetic - the sun, as mighty and uncontrollable by man as anything, is given a place to sleep by God.
vs 5
I'm not quite sure what a bridgegroom and a champion have in common - eagerness to go out? So the sun is eager to come out every day?
vs 6
Doubly so in the Middle East.
vs 7
Ok, what now? I mean, we've made a pretty startling jump from natural theology to the statues and law of God. Now they're not written on the sky.
But David perhaps is relating the glory of natural theology to the perfection and refreshment of God's specific revelation through his Law. As much as you can trust the sun to tell you about God, you can trust the Law to do the same.
It's an interesting thought to think that if you look up, you will see a thing that shows the marks of its creator, and just how glorious that creator is. I think people have always had a fascination with clouds, and stars, and lightning storms, and sunsets and the like. David sees past that stuff, which is already so awesome and grand that many cultures worshipped it, and sees chisel marks on it, showing to him that it's been created.
I'll admit I don't look that hard. I find the concept more interesting than its practicality.
vs 2
This is one of those psalms that some people use to back up their idea that you can really tell the future with stars, that God has placed in them a mystical message , even the gospel message, up in the sky for everyone to see.
Personally, I think if you read these verses as saying any more than verse 1, then you're going to have problems. It's poetic repetition of an idea. Vs 1 says "declare the glory" and "proclaim the work", vs 2 says "pour forth speech" and "display knowledge". We're still on the same topic.
vs 3
Lest anyone think David is talking about actual words, this verse should sort them out.
vs 4
This is the whole point about a natural theology - that it is equally available to everyone. The message that David is attributing to the sky and heaven is one that everyone looking at sky and heaven should see and understand.
Now David wants to get a little more specific and poetic - the sun, as mighty and uncontrollable by man as anything, is given a place to sleep by God.
vs 5
I'm not quite sure what a bridgegroom and a champion have in common - eagerness to go out? So the sun is eager to come out every day?
vs 6
Doubly so in the Middle East.
vs 7
Ok, what now? I mean, we've made a pretty startling jump from natural theology to the statues and law of God. Now they're not written on the sky.
But David perhaps is relating the glory of natural theology to the perfection and refreshment of God's specific revelation through his Law. As much as you can trust the sun to tell you about God, you can trust the Law to do the same.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 41
The first half of this verse makes you assume that they were turning to false foreign gods, and so hence they received no help.
It's the second half that of course is more striking. They called out to God, but he didn't answer them either. Should we be surprised? They had set themselves against God's people, and then suddenly think they can summon him?
vs 42
Not exactly a charming image, but remember that the image is not to show how much defeat his enemies found, but more how much God was on David's side.
vs 43-44
David did have quite a few dealings with nations that weren't right up close. The ones up close were the ones he trampled and devoured. The ones far away seem to not just make peace, but out and out give up early so that he doesn't trounce them too.
vs 45
From their perspective, Israel has a king who is a great military genius, and a God that seems to smash all opposition - better to come cap in hand early and see if you can buy freedom cheaper than the lives of thousands of soldiers.
vs 46
God was a living God well before Jesus was incarnated. The idea of God being alive is that for one, he's not trapped in a little golden statue. And also, he is working and active. This thought that an active God can be relied upon, and will save his people, is something of great joy to David.
vs 47
I'm not quite sure what David had to avenge - perhaps the defeat and death of Saul, or even just the spankery that Israel had received for a long while.
vs 48
His foes were violent foes. They were out to kill him. But God didn't let that happen. So he is therefore awesome.
vs 49
The therefore probably refers to the whole psalm, not just the last bit. God is worthy of praise for all that he has done for David. Mostly in the defeat of his enemies and the success of David militarily. Those would be some pretty stressful issues though, so I assume they are worth writing 50 verses about.
vs 50
That's a good summary of this psalm.
The first half of this verse makes you assume that they were turning to false foreign gods, and so hence they received no help.
It's the second half that of course is more striking. They called out to God, but he didn't answer them either. Should we be surprised? They had set themselves against God's people, and then suddenly think they can summon him?
vs 42
Not exactly a charming image, but remember that the image is not to show how much defeat his enemies found, but more how much God was on David's side.
vs 43-44
David did have quite a few dealings with nations that weren't right up close. The ones up close were the ones he trampled and devoured. The ones far away seem to not just make peace, but out and out give up early so that he doesn't trounce them too.
vs 45
From their perspective, Israel has a king who is a great military genius, and a God that seems to smash all opposition - better to come cap in hand early and see if you can buy freedom cheaper than the lives of thousands of soldiers.
vs 46
God was a living God well before Jesus was incarnated. The idea of God being alive is that for one, he's not trapped in a little golden statue. And also, he is working and active. This thought that an active God can be relied upon, and will save his people, is something of great joy to David.
vs 47
I'm not quite sure what David had to avenge - perhaps the defeat and death of Saul, or even just the spankery that Israel had received for a long while.
vs 48
His foes were violent foes. They were out to kill him. But God didn't let that happen. So he is therefore awesome.
vs 49
The therefore probably refers to the whole psalm, not just the last bit. God is worthy of praise for all that he has done for David. Mostly in the defeat of his enemies and the success of David militarily. Those would be some pretty stressful issues though, so I assume they are worth writing 50 verses about.
vs 50
That's a good summary of this psalm.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 31
All jokes about pro-wrestlers turned moviestars aside, remember that these people lived in a situation where they were surrounded by foreign gods. But David's point is, if you look at his life, and his circumstances, and his deliverance, then you'll see that YHWH is God.
vs 32
David now builds on this, by showing things that God has done for him - like arming him. Not the one I'd start with, I guess... but weapons are important in times of war. I bet if I were in a trench I'd be praying that prayer.
vs 33
I assume deer's feet are fast. The standing on heights thing might be about his ability to climb? Or it might be that God gives him high ground? Or that God enables him to get into positions with good vantage points so he can see more?
vs 34
God gives not just strength, but skill.
vs 35
No doubt that David was great - just read about some of his exploits in Samuel. But he makes it clear that without God, he would have not been protected or sustained.
vs 36
I think the idea is just that you don't slip and twist your ankle. I guess that's important in battle, or even in marching towards battle. It's funny what you prioritise when you are involved in something particular. Like, praying for a carpark is not a big deal when you're going shopping - but it would be far more poignant if you were going to the hospital with a dying child or something.
vs 37
Now you might think "Hang on just a sec, why is he speaking about this to God so proudly?" But remember, the reason Saul screwed up as king was that he didn't follow God's commands to totally crush kill destroy his enemies and leave none standing. So David is affirming his obedience in this verse.
vs 38
Not only is he affirming his obedience, but the strength that God gave him to be obedient. Now in this case it was strength to allow David to kill bunches of people. Which we might not think is super cool. But what is cool is that when God calls us to be obedient to him, he also gives us the strength to fulfil his purposes.
Which becomes very complicated when we fail in things as Christians. How are we meant to tell whether we have not been relying on God's strength, and have failed, or we have been relying on God's strength, and it was his will that we fail anyway? This verse doesn't give us any guidance in that.
Oh, and before you tell me that God never wants us to fail in what we do - read Jeremiah.
vs 39
A bit of a reiteration of previous statements - pointing out again God's strengthening of David, but this time also God's weakening of his enemies. God tips the scales from both ends.
vs 40
When you start running away in old-school combat, you're toast. Morale is of such massive importance in combat - with God on their side giving them victory, it's little wonder David is so chirpy in his psalm.
All jokes about pro-wrestlers turned moviestars aside, remember that these people lived in a situation where they were surrounded by foreign gods. But David's point is, if you look at his life, and his circumstances, and his deliverance, then you'll see that YHWH is God.
vs 32
David now builds on this, by showing things that God has done for him - like arming him. Not the one I'd start with, I guess... but weapons are important in times of war. I bet if I were in a trench I'd be praying that prayer.
vs 33
I assume deer's feet are fast. The standing on heights thing might be about his ability to climb? Or it might be that God gives him high ground? Or that God enables him to get into positions with good vantage points so he can see more?
vs 34
God gives not just strength, but skill.
vs 35
No doubt that David was great - just read about some of his exploits in Samuel. But he makes it clear that without God, he would have not been protected or sustained.
vs 36
I think the idea is just that you don't slip and twist your ankle. I guess that's important in battle, or even in marching towards battle. It's funny what you prioritise when you are involved in something particular. Like, praying for a carpark is not a big deal when you're going shopping - but it would be far more poignant if you were going to the hospital with a dying child or something.
vs 37
Now you might think "Hang on just a sec, why is he speaking about this to God so proudly?" But remember, the reason Saul screwed up as king was that he didn't follow God's commands to totally crush kill destroy his enemies and leave none standing. So David is affirming his obedience in this verse.
vs 38
Not only is he affirming his obedience, but the strength that God gave him to be obedient. Now in this case it was strength to allow David to kill bunches of people. Which we might not think is super cool. But what is cool is that when God calls us to be obedient to him, he also gives us the strength to fulfil his purposes.
Which becomes very complicated when we fail in things as Christians. How are we meant to tell whether we have not been relying on God's strength, and have failed, or we have been relying on God's strength, and it was his will that we fail anyway? This verse doesn't give us any guidance in that.
Oh, and before you tell me that God never wants us to fail in what we do - read Jeremiah.
vs 39
A bit of a reiteration of previous statements - pointing out again God's strengthening of David, but this time also God's weakening of his enemies. God tips the scales from both ends.
vs 40
When you start running away in old-school combat, you're toast. Morale is of such massive importance in combat - with God on their side giving them victory, it's little wonder David is so chirpy in his psalm.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 21
More or less I guess this is true. One statement is different from the other. David probably hasn't turned away from God as such. I wouldn't say he's been perfect at keeping all of God's ways though. But that's not his point. He has asked for deliverance, and God has judged David according to righteousness, which as we know in the New Testament is accredited to him because of his faith.
vs 22
Of course, they don't use NT language in the OT, otherwise it would be... weird. This is the language that they use. Talking about the law poetically might seem a little weird to us, but that is how they knew God - through the Law he had given them that made them his people.
So when someone wants to talk about their relationship with God, they're going to talk about it through these Laws.
vs 23
Has he kept himself perfect? Well, obviously not. But he has lived a godly life. There is a difference. I think we think too much of "keeping free of sin" like "keeping free of chocolate cake". People who diet just give up on cake cold turkey, and they are seen as a 'good dieter'. And so people with that level of self control say "well, you should be able to just keep yourself from sin".
But keeping yourself from sin is much more like "keeping yourself from making mistakes". If a human being keeps writing something, either as a copy of a copy or copying someone's words, they will eventually make a mistake. In fact, history has shown us that they will continue to make mistakes. But if you are trying really hard not to make mistakes, you will make a lot fewer mistakes. You will keep yourself from making mistakes, as it were.
vs 24
And God has upheld his righteous ways by delivering him when he asked. So while we might not like it, or it might not fit into our beliefs, it's what happened. Not only was David delivered, but he then wrote a psalm about it, describing his deliverance this way, and it was then published in Psalms!
vs 25-26
It's an interesting thing to think that God responds to people dependent on how they respond to him. Of course, we also know that even in the face of human faithlessness God remains faithful, and that regardless of human frailty and sin God remains blameless, and that God remains pure regardless of human depravity. But these verses aren't about what God is, they are about how God shows himself to you. You will understand and experience the faithfulness of God if you yourself are faithful. If you are a devious bugger, then you're going to find that God shows something else to you - a shrewd side which we all know belongs to God, but we don't like talking about at parties.
vs 27
God is the ultimate Aussie. He doesn't like tall poppies. Not that God doesn't like success - he just doesn't like people who boast, regardless of their success.
vs 28
Have we forgotten our fear of darkness as a people, thanks to our cities being lit up 24/7? I don't think so. I think people still think that bad things go on mostly at night. Even with all of our modern ways of fighting the darkness, it is still something to be feared. Only God is light enough to take away that fear, and to take away all the nasties that really do lurk in the dark.
vs 29
You read this, and you think "So what? People do this stuff all the time - sounds like typical Marine training". But then when you actually read what David means when he talks about "advancing against troops" he means taking an army of 30 guys and killing hundreds and hundreds of Philistines, chopping off bits of their willies and bringing them back to Saul. He is acknowledging that he has done some pretty awesome stuff when it comes to killing armies and invading fortresses, but all of his accomplishments come back to God.
vs 30
While David may have described himself as blameless, and keeping away from sin, he reserves the word "perfect" for God. Flawless. In fact, God is so perfect and his words are so flawless that you can take refuge behind him like a shield, and know it will never break. David isn't saying that about himself - this constant, everlasting reliability belongs only to God.
More or less I guess this is true. One statement is different from the other. David probably hasn't turned away from God as such. I wouldn't say he's been perfect at keeping all of God's ways though. But that's not his point. He has asked for deliverance, and God has judged David according to righteousness, which as we know in the New Testament is accredited to him because of his faith.
vs 22
Of course, they don't use NT language in the OT, otherwise it would be... weird. This is the language that they use. Talking about the law poetically might seem a little weird to us, but that is how they knew God - through the Law he had given them that made them his people.
So when someone wants to talk about their relationship with God, they're going to talk about it through these Laws.
vs 23
Has he kept himself perfect? Well, obviously not. But he has lived a godly life. There is a difference. I think we think too much of "keeping free of sin" like "keeping free of chocolate cake". People who diet just give up on cake cold turkey, and they are seen as a 'good dieter'. And so people with that level of self control say "well, you should be able to just keep yourself from sin".
But keeping yourself from sin is much more like "keeping yourself from making mistakes". If a human being keeps writing something, either as a copy of a copy or copying someone's words, they will eventually make a mistake. In fact, history has shown us that they will continue to make mistakes. But if you are trying really hard not to make mistakes, you will make a lot fewer mistakes. You will keep yourself from making mistakes, as it were.
vs 24
And God has upheld his righteous ways by delivering him when he asked. So while we might not like it, or it might not fit into our beliefs, it's what happened. Not only was David delivered, but he then wrote a psalm about it, describing his deliverance this way, and it was then published in Psalms!
vs 25-26
It's an interesting thing to think that God responds to people dependent on how they respond to him. Of course, we also know that even in the face of human faithlessness God remains faithful, and that regardless of human frailty and sin God remains blameless, and that God remains pure regardless of human depravity. But these verses aren't about what God is, they are about how God shows himself to you. You will understand and experience the faithfulness of God if you yourself are faithful. If you are a devious bugger, then you're going to find that God shows something else to you - a shrewd side which we all know belongs to God, but we don't like talking about at parties.
vs 27
God is the ultimate Aussie. He doesn't like tall poppies. Not that God doesn't like success - he just doesn't like people who boast, regardless of their success.
vs 28
Have we forgotten our fear of darkness as a people, thanks to our cities being lit up 24/7? I don't think so. I think people still think that bad things go on mostly at night. Even with all of our modern ways of fighting the darkness, it is still something to be feared. Only God is light enough to take away that fear, and to take away all the nasties that really do lurk in the dark.
vs 29
You read this, and you think "So what? People do this stuff all the time - sounds like typical Marine training". But then when you actually read what David means when he talks about "advancing against troops" he means taking an army of 30 guys and killing hundreds and hundreds of Philistines, chopping off bits of their willies and bringing them back to Saul. He is acknowledging that he has done some pretty awesome stuff when it comes to killing armies and invading fortresses, but all of his accomplishments come back to God.
vs 30
While David may have described himself as blameless, and keeping away from sin, he reserves the word "perfect" for God. Flawless. In fact, God is so perfect and his words are so flawless that you can take refuge behind him like a shield, and know it will never break. David isn't saying that about himself - this constant, everlasting reliability belongs only to God.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Psalm 18
vs 11-13
This picture does not sound like happy God. It sounds like vengeful God. It actually sounds like God is manifesting in an enormous, angry storm. Perhaps this is where the "God is thunder and lightning" comes from?
vs 14
God smiting people with bolts of lightning? There it is, it really is in the Bible.
vs 15
I am guessing this is a poetic way of saying that nothing was hidden from God - if anyone or anything is going to be rebuked by God, then it can't hide.
vs 16
Wait, David was drowning? Well, metaphorically, he may well have felt that way - overcome by sorrow and overcome by his enemies.
vs 17
There you go.
vs 18
David's language skips from ultra-flowery to much more clarity right now. It's a nice change.
vs 19
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of a spacious place is - perhaps because his enemies were crowded all around him, the space shows God pulling him out of his crowded 'drowning' situation. Also, it might be a reference to God's giving the land to Israel - the idea that God is generous and gives lots (slight pun).
But the second sentence here is just as interesting - God rescued David because God delighted in David. It's almost like God was so happy with David's work on earth that he couldn't bare not getting to watch the King David show for a few more years.
vs 20
Ok, so the TV show thing was a bit off the mark, but this is far more revealing - David was God's delight because he was righteous and clean. Yes, we all know David wasn't perfect, but God delighted in him all the same.
This picture does not sound like happy God. It sounds like vengeful God. It actually sounds like God is manifesting in an enormous, angry storm. Perhaps this is where the "God is thunder and lightning" comes from?
vs 14
God smiting people with bolts of lightning? There it is, it really is in the Bible.
vs 15
I am guessing this is a poetic way of saying that nothing was hidden from God - if anyone or anything is going to be rebuked by God, then it can't hide.
vs 16
Wait, David was drowning? Well, metaphorically, he may well have felt that way - overcome by sorrow and overcome by his enemies.
vs 17
There you go.
vs 18
David's language skips from ultra-flowery to much more clarity right now. It's a nice change.
vs 19
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of a spacious place is - perhaps because his enemies were crowded all around him, the space shows God pulling him out of his crowded 'drowning' situation. Also, it might be a reference to God's giving the land to Israel - the idea that God is generous and gives lots (slight pun).
But the second sentence here is just as interesting - God rescued David because God delighted in David. It's almost like God was so happy with David's work on earth that he couldn't bare not getting to watch the King David show for a few more years.
vs 20
Ok, so the TV show thing was a bit off the mark, but this is far more revealing - David was God's delight because he was righteous and clean. Yes, we all know David wasn't perfect, but God delighted in him all the same.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Philosophy
I've been reading a book on the theology of work the past couple of days, because I have to return it to the library. But I've also been dialoguing with a friend of mine in Queensland about his philosophy course, so I've been quite philosophied up recently.
I just thought I'd share a little tidbit that came to me this morning.
A friend of mine who is my age, is married, has a mortgage and is also incubating a small human. She made the comment that she couldn't believe she was doing all these 'grown up' things. I've got to admit that I often wonder how 'grown up' I am too, even though I've lived out of home for ages and have been happily married for 5 years now (no babies or mortgages on the horizon).
For those of us pushing 30, we are probably reflecting back on what our parents and those of their generation were like at this age. That is why we equate marrige, mortgages, babies and full-time work with grown-ups. I think if I do my sums properly, when my mum was my age, she had a 4 year old daughter, and was about to have a son in a year or so.
The thing is, of course, that generational change (as well as other social changes) has made people our age have different values to those of our parents. Our generation are having kids later in life, if at all (although I think the "not having kids" thing may have turned a corner in the western world, what with every 2-bit celebrity pumping out a litter). Our generation seeks work-life balance, and doesn't go for every promotion, but instead looks for a job that allows us to enjoy more of our life, or to multi-task (work + study, salary + business on the side, work + family etc).
Apparently 60-70% of people in my generation don't think they will ever be able to afford to buy a home.
I guess a lot of that compiles into one point- that we have associated 'growing up' with 'doing the things our parents did', but because we have different values, we aren't doing them quite the same, or we're doing them later, or they're not as easily available to us. That means, through no fault of the preceding generation, that we are hindering our own understanding of maturity, because we tied it to a generation we do not easily resemble.
But let's not forget a second point, which seems to crop up in my mind every now and again - that our parent's generation did not make it easy for us to step up and assume leadership and responsibility, the other markers of 'growing up'. In a lot of ways, our generation ditched that of our parents when they clung rigidly to their positions of power and influence, and we went and made our own society. It exists where our parents won't go - anywhere from the internet to outside on the streets at night. I wonder if the charismatic movement doesn't correspond in some way with the breakdown of church succession between the boomers and Gen X. I don't know enough about the history to know that. I wonder if the emerging church isn't more of the same.
I just thought I'd share a little tidbit that came to me this morning.
A friend of mine who is my age, is married, has a mortgage and is also incubating a small human. She made the comment that she couldn't believe she was doing all these 'grown up' things. I've got to admit that I often wonder how 'grown up' I am too, even though I've lived out of home for ages and have been happily married for 5 years now (no babies or mortgages on the horizon).
For those of us pushing 30, we are probably reflecting back on what our parents and those of their generation were like at this age. That is why we equate marrige, mortgages, babies and full-time work with grown-ups. I think if I do my sums properly, when my mum was my age, she had a 4 year old daughter, and was about to have a son in a year or so.
The thing is, of course, that generational change (as well as other social changes) has made people our age have different values to those of our parents. Our generation are having kids later in life, if at all (although I think the "not having kids" thing may have turned a corner in the western world, what with every 2-bit celebrity pumping out a litter). Our generation seeks work-life balance, and doesn't go for every promotion, but instead looks for a job that allows us to enjoy more of our life, or to multi-task (work + study, salary + business on the side, work + family etc).
Apparently 60-70% of people in my generation don't think they will ever be able to afford to buy a home.
I guess a lot of that compiles into one point- that we have associated 'growing up' with 'doing the things our parents did', but because we have different values, we aren't doing them quite the same, or we're doing them later, or they're not as easily available to us. That means, through no fault of the preceding generation, that we are hindering our own understanding of maturity, because we tied it to a generation we do not easily resemble.
But let's not forget a second point, which seems to crop up in my mind every now and again - that our parent's generation did not make it easy for us to step up and assume leadership and responsibility, the other markers of 'growing up'. In a lot of ways, our generation ditched that of our parents when they clung rigidly to their positions of power and influence, and we went and made our own society. It exists where our parents won't go - anywhere from the internet to outside on the streets at night. I wonder if the charismatic movement doesn't correspond in some way with the breakdown of church succession between the boomers and Gen X. I don't know enough about the history to know that. I wonder if the emerging church isn't more of the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)